Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Kristol: "It won't kill the country" if millionaires get their taxes raised (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It will kill the poor (3+ / 5-)

    When the Grand Bargain cuts Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

      •  Again see the Woodward document linked below (3+ / 5-)

        Raises Medicare age.  Cuts Social Security COLA.  Does no good to hide from the truth.  Sheesh, you'd think this was Red State.  Such fear of facts!!!  It's not just a game.  These cuts that will impact very real, very vulnerable people.  You may never see them.  Or maybe you will.  It might be a very old aunt with dementia whose Social Security has shrunken to a pittance over time as the COLA cut eviscerates the benefit.  Perhaps it will be a cousin hard hit with chronic health concerns and without Medicare at 65.  It is coming.  

        •  HR'd for more C/T (4+ / 0-)

          Just as have all your other comments been about what you call the "BScrats" who you didn't vote for this year, you yourself said, instead casting a protest vote for a non-Democrat, you yourself said.

          And despite this, you are still here, and you are spamming this site with endless c/t about something you heard from Ed Rendell, you said in another comment, despite his not being a WH surrogate, which was explained to you, talking about old people being President Obama's "grand bargain," which is, of course, a RW talking point.

          You seem to be trolling here.

        •  Are you not aware that there was a Federal (9+ / 0-)

          Election last Tuesday?  Are you not aware of who won?

          Please explain how a document outlining a deal to avert a credit crisis last year is still relevant after Tuesday?

          Why are Democrats in the same position now that they were then?

          You said the same Democrats that did not cut those programs last year will cut Social Security and Medicare next year.

          Again, where is your evidence of said claim?

        •  That Link Provides the Offer from a Year Ago. (7+ / 0-)

          It was rejected. Nowhere does it mention cuts in benefits, only cuts in spending. Plus, entitlement programs are mostly spared spending cuts.

          I miss Speaker Pelosi :^(

          by howarddream on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:37:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, it was released this morning. (0+ / 0-)

            Woodward discussed it on Meet the Press and released it today.  He says it was a White House offer, and shows what the White House was willing to do to get a "Grand Bargain."  

            As for entitlement cuts, look at the White House's proposed sequester on Medicare and Medicaid.  Also look at the bottom of page 2 for the White House proposal on further deficit reduction.

            Remember, this is a White House proposal, not a Republican proposal

            Woodward used it to show what the White House was willing to do last year in order to get a deal.  He suggested that it provides a possible outline for what the White House is willing to do now.  It's certainly not a definitive statement of what the White House is willing to do now.  But given the President's position of a "balanced" approach (the same language he was using in 2011) it's not unreasonable to believe that this is a possible outline of what the President is willing to do.

        •  Can't believe you were HR'd for this (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Don midwest, splintersawry, VClib

          What happened is that, this morning on Meet the Press, Woodward discussed a document showing what the White House offered in conjunction with the negotiations over the "Grand Bargain."  

          The document was posted online.

          Woodward said it showed what the White House was willing to do to get a deal.  And yes, it contains those cuts you mentioned.

          Uprated because the H/R was inappropriate.  

          •  It was a document from last year (3+ / 0-)

            The conversation is about this year.

            This poster has been reciting this for weeks in multiple diaries. On top of that, they have openly stated that they don't support the Democratic Party AND voted for someone else.

            Do you see why they're getting some pushback then?

            You'll note that YOUR post was not HR'd, for example.

            •  I didn't think that prior posts (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Don midwest, splintersawry, VClib

              should be the basis for H/R'ing this post.  But if I'm wrong about that, show me the site rule.  

              Just FYI, it wasn't just "a document from last year."  It was an offer from the White House showing how far the White House was willing to go to get a deal with Speaker Boehner.  It showed what the White House meant by "a balanced approach to deficit reduction" last year.  That is significant, since the White House used exactly the same language -- a "balanced approach" --  when campaigning this year.  

              I suspect that the release of the document could put some pressure on the White House to agree to some of those same kinds of things IF the Republicans are willing to increase tax paid by households over $250,000 (which, of course, is a very big "if").

              •  Nor do I (5+ / 0-)

                I HR'd for THESE posts. These ones which say that Democrats, right now, are going to currently cut Social Security and Medicare, that this is absolutely known, and that they are a bunch of "BScrats" for it.

                Of course, if you notice someone consistently is trolling the site, you notice that someone consistently is trolling the site. Are you supposed to forget that? Are you meant to forget where they said, a week or two ago, that they aren't voting for the Democratic nominee because they want to protest the Democratic Party? I don't think that if you read something like that, that the site rules say you must scrub your mind free of any memory of such a rabid statement made days before a major election.

                It was a document from last year. It existed in a different political situation than the one President Obama presently is in: he is currently in his second term, he currently has more control than he did last year because of the shift after this election. What may have been considered "a balanced approach" last year is very likely not what would be now considered a "balanced approach." You've noticed that Boehner's in a weak position, correct? Right now, sorry to say, but we're kicking ass and the GOP is going to have to do the begging for balanced approaches.

                •  We'll have to see what spending cuts the President (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  splintersawry, VClib

                  offers.  I think that it's true that Boehner is going to put additional tax revenue on the table.  If I had to guess, it would be tax rate increases on "millionaires and billionaires" and additional taxes paid by incomes from $250,000 - $1 million through limits on deductions and exemptions.  That seems to me to be a deal that could get done.  

                  But I think it's unrealistic to think that the President is not going to offer serious spending cuts in return.  After all, even if the President got everything he wanted in tax increases (which is probably not likely), that's only $80 billion a year.  

                  Remember, the sequester is about $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over nine years, and expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts on everyone is about $3.4 trillion over nine years (the vast majority from houses under $250,000) -- that's a total of $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction over the next nine years.  That was the deal reached the last time the debt ceiling needed to be raised.  Now we've got both the so-called "fiscal cliff" plus another debt ceiling coming up.  Nobody is going to agree to a deal that is just $720 billion over nine years.  I can't imagine that there's going to be any deal this time without serious spending cuts to go along with tax increases.  

                  The fact that the President was offering these specific spending cuts last time gives us an indication, I think, of what he might offer this time. You may disagree as to exactly what spending cuts he will offer.  But I think it's pretty clear that he will offer significant spending cuts if -- and that's a big "if" -- the House Republicans agree to more tax revenue.  

                  •  Four days ago, Harry Reid stated that SS was off (4+ / 0-)

                    the table, period, in these negotiations.

                    Talking Points Memo states (linked in another comment in this diary):

                    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Social Security is off limits in upcoming negotiations over how to replace steep automatic tax increases and tax cuts with more targeted deficit reductions.

                            "We're not going to mess with Social Security," he said.

                    And a concerned Bernie Sanders, a staunch Leftist if ever there was one and one of my political heroes, called and spoke with Harry Reid out of concern:


                    Reid told Sanders in a phone call Thursday that he will oppose cuts to Social Security benefits, which deficit hawks, including members of the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission, have pushed.

                    “I just spoke to him last night. He has been very strong on this issue and it gives me a great deal of comfort when we have the majority leader of the United States Senate saying very clearly that Social Security has nothing to do with deficit reduction and should not be part of the discussion with regard to deficit reduction,” said Sanders, founder of the Senate’s Defend Social Security Caucus.

                    “I think that is a huge step forward for those of us who are trying to protect Social Security beneficiaries and disabled veterans,” he said.

                    If Sanders is comfortable and assured, and Reids says "No way," then what exactly are we freaking out about here?
                    •  Medicare and Medicaid? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Don midwest, splintersawry, VClib

                      I can understand SS being off the table.  If you let the payroll tax cut (which was intended as a temporary stimulus) go back to where it was supposed to be, and increase insured wages back to 90% of all wages earned, I think SS would be just fine.  

                      The big drivers of the deficit in the future are Medicare and Medicaid.  The CBO has called the projected growth in the cots of those programs "unsustainable."  And raising taxes on the rich won't do it.  The extra $80 billion a year that raises doesn't bring tax revenues back up to historical levels as a % of GDP.   Even if you raised taxes on everybody to bring those levels back to historical levels, the CBO makes clear that doesn't make Medicare and Medicaid sustainable:  

                      Today CBO released a report, Choices for Deficit Reduction, that addresses those questions.

                      It notes that the aging of the baby-boom generation and growing per capita spending on health care will put increasing pressure on the budget in the coming decade and beyond. Moreover, increases in federal debt lead to higher interest payments for the government, reduce national saving, limit lawmakers’ ability to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges, and increase the likelihood of a fiscal crisis.

                      To avoid those consequences, lawmakers will have to adopt policies that make major reductions in the benefits that people receive when they get older, substantially decrease other activities of the federal government (relative to the size of the economy), raise revenues significantly above the historical average percentage of GDP, or involve some combination of those approaches. The report lists a number of options, mostly taken from previous CBO publications, that illustrate how challenging it would be to shrink the deficit by as much as $500 billion, $750 billion, or $1 trillion in 2020 relative to the shortfalls projected under current policies.

                      Very few of the policy changes that CBO has examined in the past are large enough, by themselves, to achieve a sizable portion of the deficit reduction necessary to put the budget on a more sustainable path. In addition, many options that would have a substantial budgetary impact would require large numbers of people to pay more in taxes or receive less in government benefits or services; others would shift significant costs to state and local governments.

                      It is possible to keep tax revenues at their historical average share of GDP—but only by making substantial cuts, relative to current policies, in the large benefit programs that aid a broad group of people at some point in their lives. Alternatively, it is possible to keep the policies for those large benefit programs unchanged—but only by raising taxes substantially, relative to current policies, for a broad segment of the population. Changes in other federal programs can affect the size of the changes needed in taxes or large benefit programs, but they cannot eliminate the basic trade-off between those two parts of the budget.

                    •  Thanks for finding that SS link (0+ / 0-)

                      I've cited that to the local Obama-hating-deranged and like water off a duck they ignore it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site