If The Tea Party Likes a Debt Plan, IT CANT PASS.

If Tea Party Likes a Debt Deal, It Can't Pass: Economist
Published: Wednesday, 27 Jul 2011 | 3:40 AM ET Text Size
By: Patrick Allen

As the high risk-game of chicken over raising the US debt ceiling draws closer to possible economic collision, one economist is warning that any deal that wins approval from the right-wing Tea Party movement will pass neither the Senate nor the president.

U.S. House Speaker Rep. John Boehner is struggling to find a solution to the debt showdown without alienating the powerful Tea Party faction of the Republican party.

“As the Tea Partiers are showing no indications of being willing to compromise at all, the only way a deal can be done is for moderate House Republicans—those who appreciate that default would be hugely damaging for the country—to side with Democrats to pass a bill that the Senate and the president can sign,” Ian Shepherdson, chief US economist at High Frequency Economics said in a research note on Wednesday.

As things stand, such a solution looks very unlikely in the coming days. The latest plan from House Speaker John Boehner needs revising following Congressional Budget Office experts warning it would not deliver on the spending cuts it claimed. That plan is likely to be voted on by Congress on Thursday.

US Downgrade Is Minor Compared to Threat of DefaultIf There's a Debt Deal, These Four Will Make It HappenWant 1950's Taxes? Accept 1950's Spending: Analyst
President Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, told CNBC on Tuesday that he is confident that some kind of plan will pass. The head of global sovereign ratings at S&P has told CNBC that the US could prioritize debt payments to avoid default but warned such action would be “deeply disruptive” to the US economy.

A problem for the Republican Party could be that the majority of Americans now back a debt ceiling plan that involves both spending cuts and tax hikes. A Reuters/Ipsos poll this week found that 56 percent of American’s favor a plan involving both cuts and tax increases.

“We had hoped by now that House Speaker Boehner would have started to recognize this reality, but press reports suggest that he focused on party solidarity in his conference call with Republican House members,” said Shepherdson.

“Perhaps the light bulb will come on when the inevitable pushback from voters becomes overwhelming. We can only hope that happens before August 2,” Shepherdson said.

Its clearly a fact that anything the Tea party favors will not pass. Its extreme right wing for the most part.

"I think the Tea Party movement should get the credit for elevating the debate about the debt limit to the national stage. We’ve raised the debt limit 10 times in the last nine years. In the last five years, we’ve almost tripled the amount of debt this country is holding. This has all been done relatively quietly while politicians have mortgaged our futures. So the fact that we’re having a spirited debate about this now is good for the nation and I think the Tea Party can take credit for it."

That's another perspective, and remember, these people do have votes in the house.........

Obama has been elevating the debt debate.
The tea party are extremists and what they support cant pass. They believe that not passing
a raise of the debt limit would be good for this country. It clearly would be devastating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Obama has been elevating the debt debate.
The tea party are extremists and what they support cant pass. They believe that not passing
a raise of the debt limit would be good for this country. It clearly would be devastating.

---

No, the liberals are the extremists and support what they cannot pass.

Raising the debt limit would be "good" for the country? I wouldn't call it "good", but maybe the lesser of two evils.

No the tea party are the extremist and support what they cannot pass. LOL.

Obama supported a very centrist solution and that is why some Liberals were unhappy,
but interestingly he had the Democrats on board to pass his plan which would have resulted
in more deficit reduction than what will pass now. Extreme Republicans (seem to be more
and more your friends.:) opposed elimination of some tax subsidies and tax loopholes
which largely benefited the ultra wealthy. Since you say they were just bones thrown to the Liberals
and really wouldnt affect much, Im sure you had not problem with Obama's plan. Lmfao.

Raising the debt limit has ALWAYS happened and will always happen. Its not where the real fight is.
You seem to be confused. You did read the facts of the debt liimit article that i posted correct.

Siriiusly long is just so ideologically rigid that he cant even see or acknowledge that Obama was willing to negotiate and sign a very CENTRIST piece of legistlation (and he would have gotten the Dems to go along). Its just a fact.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43926716

Lost Amid Debt Talks: How 'Grand Bargain' Fell Apart
Published: Thursday, 28 Jul 2011 | 10:43 AM ET Text Size
By: Associated Press

Despite his image as a button-down Republican, House Speaker John Boehner walked to the brink of a dramatic and historic agreement to change the government's spending habits.

But as he twice approached a $4 trillion deficit-reduction deal with President Obama that would have rocked both parties' bases, Boehner was reeled back in by his caucus' conservative wing.

The muscular, tea party-fueled group not only forced him to abandon a "grand bargain" with Obama, it made him scramble Wednesday to secure the votes for a far more modest deficit-ceiling plan, which in turn is all but doomed in the Senate.

The events highlight the limits of power for an experienced and well-liked politician who has struggled to budge his caucus' staunchest conservatives despite constantly reminding them that their party doesn't control the Senate or White House.

"The problem with leadership is it has to be conjoined with follower-ship," Duke University political scientist David Rohde said. "Boehner is not in a position to give orders to his members."

A grand bargain might have passed, with scores of Democratic votes replacing GOP dissenters, Rohde said. But it also could have put Boehner's speakership in jeopardy.

No matter how the White House and Congress handle next week's expiration of the government's borrowing power , the messy finish will make it easy to forget that Boehner and Obama once stood on the precipice of a daring compromise.



While never completed, the general outlines would have cut spending by about $3 trillion over 10 years. It would have started reining in Medicare and Social Security benefits, and raised tax revenues by $800 billion or more.

Both men knew the tax component would be the toughest sell for Boehner, whose party has raised the "no new taxes" mantra to near-religious status.

In turn, however, liberals would have shrieked at Obama's willingness to curb entitlement programs and severely trim other government programs, changes that Boehner could have touted as a remarkable GOP victory.

"There was always a desire to go forward with as large a package as possible that would deal with the underlying structural challenges that face the entitlement systems," a top House leadership aide told reporters at a Friday briefing after the deal collapsed. "We thought we could get to significant entitlement and tax changes."

Boehner, a mainstream conservative from Ohio, would have insisted that the changes were not "tax increases." That's a familiar semantics game in Washington. It would emphasize a freeze or even reduction in most tax rates while drawing attention away from an overall growth in tax revenues, thanks largely to eliminating loopholes and subsidies.

The grand bargain would have been a heavy lift in both parties. Perhaps it never could have passed the Democratic-controlled Senate or GOP-controlled House.

But administration and House insiders say Obama and Boehner came remarkably close to a handshake deal, even though neither man is reputed to be a great risk-taker.

"The space between us had narrowed to very, very little," a top White House official told reporters Friday.

No, the liberals are the extremists demanding more of our earnings. I have a family to raise. I have personal responsibility to my family, and I take it seriously.

I appreciated the fact that Obama came off of the left for the discussions. I really do. The fact remains that 1% of all income earners pay 38% of all income tax. It's enough. Period. Don't bother arguing this fact. I know you and your kind thurst for more, but enough already. Cut spending. Stop living beyond your means.

If you take all the millionaire's and billionaie's and CONFISCATE all their wealth, you would knock down the debt <10% for that year only. We'd still be left with 10's of trillions of dollar's of debt with "the rich" being unable to pony up the 38% they had been supplying. Great idea, no? It's all a big talking point for the left to get votes and stay in power. gThe rich, oil companies, CEO's are easy targets for the left to use for their means of staying in power.

By the way, the bottom 50% pay nothing. Just look at my little picture to the left to be reminded.

AH so now you finally acknowledge that Obama was in the middle. Damn that took days of catching you in some
false statements to finally get you to say a simple nice thing about him. But of course you had to say that "he came off the left". Silly. The left knows all too well that Obama is a moderate.

Nope. Once again you got it wrong. Obama has lowered taxes. They are the lowerst in MANY years.
On top of that the debt plan he favored would have LOWERED all income tax rates in exchange for closing
certain loopholes that mostly favor the ultra wealthy.

You seem to argue a lot for not changing the tax laws to affect the wealthy. The interesting thing is that you rarely talk
about how Republcian plans would affect the middle class. I think you forget just how good our economy was under Clinton
and Reagan when tax rates were higher but fairer.
No one is talikng about CONFISCATING wealth. Thats an exaggerated and rigid comment that doesnt allow for a real discussion.
Its a Tea Party talking point. Sorry you keep reaching for it over and over and over again.

Once again we hear Republican and Tea Party talking points. Boring.
You arent saying the bottom 50% dont pay ANY taxes are you? Thats another Republican trick which tries to pretend they pay nothing. Semantics matter. Be more specific and honest please.

Do you think a family of four should pay income taxes if they earn $30,000 a year? Do you think thats a salary that
can support a family of four.? Last time we argued this you acknowledged it made no sense for them to pay income tax on so little.


What you seeem to forget is that the wealthy have ways to escape taxes. Those 50% NOT SO MUCH.
Remember your obsession about accountants? LOL>

If closing loopholes for the very wealthy would do very little then why are they being fought so fiercely by the Republicans
Its just part of the puzzle. No one is saying it is ALL.

Check this out.

Clinton spent $547 Million per day.

Bush spent $1.6 Billion per day.

Obama has spent $4.1 Billion per day.

No, the bottom 50% of income earners pay no compulsory income tax. The top 1% covers 38% of them. The next 5% cover the rest and then some. And here you want more. Talk about inequality.................. Talk about fairness........... We all pay other "non compulsory" taxes - cigarettes, gasoliine, goods.... but not food and clothing (unless you eat out).

Yes, Obama did reduce my taxes as part of the stimulus package. Now the fight is on to keep them from going back up. I'd prefer to invest my earnings myself and stimulate my own local economy.

The point about "confiscation" was to demonstrate the size of the problem. Liberals sense of "fairness" is one thing , but solving the problem is another. I'm sorry you need it explained and understand it as a tea party talking point, but that's your shortcoming, not mine. Anyone who graduates film school should be able to get the point; that is, unless you did get the point, but wanted to somehow turn it around with rhetoric??

Yes, we should all pay some income tax.

The weathly escape taxes?? Hmmm, let's see. The top 1% of income tax earners pay 38% of all compulsory income taxes. How's that escaping??

You may recall that I have shown indiffernce to taxing the rich. I don't really care. I fiind it odd that liberals focus on it, and I find it unbelievable that the democrats may allow default because of it.

Back to the original statistics presented. It is not a revenue problem; it is a spending problem.

What is a more profound question is why is far left so fiercely fighting to tax the wealthy? You know the answer. They use this tactic to incite emotion and anger of people in order to get their votes and stay in power. It is so corrupt. Demogoguery is what it is.

Once again you get it wrong. The fight now is not to keep taxes from going up. The fight is over what to cut and whether or not
it would impact the middle class dissproportionately.
Obama's plan would reduce all tax rates. You dont seem to want to acknowledge facts but prefer to keep saying the same
falsehoods.

I see youve changed your position a little. in the past you acknowledged that it didnt make sense for some low income earners
to pay income taxes. Please tell me what the tax rate should be on a family of 4 that earns $20,000, on $25,000, on $30,000 etc.
Are you seriously telling me that extra tax would solve our major economic problems? If not then you are simply appealing to
emotions in a way thats
Your statistics are meant to decieve. Tell me why Warren Buffett was shocked that his secretary paid a higher rate of taxes?

"Its not a revenue problem. Its a spending problem" Has anyone heard that from the Republican Party and Tea Party?
LMFAO. Your almost a drone right down to saying the same phrases you've repeatedly said. Scary.

The Left fights so "profoundly" because they believe like Buffett, Gates, Bloomberg, etc. that they pay too little and have made out enormously well over the last years. Nothing complicated about it. Its just about a basic sense of fairness. Afterall NO one complained of how things were going under Clinton and Reagan when taxes were slightly higner on the upper income earners.

The tax rate for a family of 4 making $20,000 is

Taxable Income Tax
$0 – $17,000 10% of taxable income
$17,000 – $69,000 $1,700 plus 15% of excess over $17,000
$69,000 – $139,350 $9,500 plus 25% of excess over $69,000
$139,350 – $212,300 $27,087.50 plus 28% of excess over $139,350
$212,300 – $379,150 $47,513.50 plus 33% of excess over $212,300
$379,150+ $102,574 plus 35% of excess over $379,150

It's already the law. Each week the US government helps itself to roughly 10% of this families earned income. Via credits, deductions.... that family will get it all back in April. But the government holds their money for a full year. I would think that they need it right away. Wouldn't you?

Why do your paragraphs suck so badly? It really makes it hard to read. See how mine are nice and neat with each paragraph having one subject??

It is a spending problem. Assign it to whomever you like. The facts speak for themselves. Bush 2 spent 3x Clinton, and now Obama is spending > 3x Bush 2. When will it end? It's not a spending problem?? Is the next guy going to keep the trend? How would he reverse it? Oh, that's right, tax the rich. The total value of the Forbes 400, the people you focus on, is only $1.37 T - less than 10% of the debt.

Buffett, Gates and Bloomberg should pay more. I shouldn't. I can't speak to your situation, but my guess is that you should too. Any one who has a tax accountant should be viewed suspiciously. Or better yet, how about a tax on tax accountants. Heck, you probably get to deduct his fees.

Well, the house passed the "Boehner Bill" with no tax increases. Let's see what happens.

Honestly, have you ever met someone more obsessed with accountants? Lets take up a collection and get
S&L some help.:)

American people seem to agree as well that SL is an extremist. LOL

Public Wants a Debt Ceiling Compromise, Expects a Deal Before Deadline
GOP Widely Viewed as 'More Extreme in Its Positions'

Most Support Combination of Spending Cuts, Tax Increases
The public remains skeptical that lawmakers will make headway in reducing the budget deficit over the next several years: Just 39% say the country will have made significant progress in reducing the deficit five years from now. At the same time, a majority (60%) say that the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit involves both cutting major programs and increasing taxes. Just 19% say the best approach is to focus mostly on cutting major programs; 8% say the focus mostly should be on increasing taxes.

Clear majorities of Democrats (67%) and independents (63%) say the best way to reducing the deficit includes both major program cuts and tax increases. By contrast, Republicans are more divided: 46% favor an approach that includes both tax increases and program cuts, while 39% say the best approach mostly focuses on program cuts.

Within the Republican coalition there is a substantial division of opinion. A majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party movement (52%) say deficit reduction should come mostly through major program cuts; just 24% of those who do not agree or have no opinion of the Tea

Did the House pass the Boehner bill yet? Im confused by what you said.

I have no doubt they will pass it eventually with enough arm twisting. The Dems in the Senate will vote it down and then
there will be a compromise between the Reid and Boehner plan.
.
You should be feeling unhappy that the Tea Party held Boehner back from doing a grand plan with Obama. No?

Once again you are wrong.

Liberals are only 20% of all individuals. That would put you on the extreme side of the bell curve. On the other side are Tea Partiers. So you are just as extreme, but opposite. And you are certainly as unyielding too.

The house passed a bill with no taxes (at least that's what I've heard so far) . That is good for all Americans - liberals and tea partiers alike. No extreme ideology, just spending within means, and not taking it off the backs of hard working Americans.. It appears to be a good common sense approach.

Americans voted these people into office for a reason. That's the majority. You sell it otherwise, but that's what one can expect from an extreme liberal.

And you still haven't addressed if you get to deduct your tax accountants fees.

The House passed nothing as far as i know. Where do you hear that?


No I dont deduct my tax accountant fees. Should I? What do you know about accountants and tax deductions?
I think you might need some help. You seem to have an obsession with accountants. lol.

Umm how do i say this. I am with the over 60% of Americans who believe we need a combination of revenues and spending cuts to properly reduce the deficit. You are with the Tea Partiers. You cant even acknowledge you
might be in the minority on this issue.

Are you telling me you opposed the larger deficit reduction plan that Boehner was close to agreeing to?

What you are telling me is that we collectively should pay for the mistakes of politicians and terrible mismangement of the taxes we have provided. I'm not buying, and most Americans aren't buying if they really knew the story. It's stupid.

Take a walk down your street and ask your neighbors if they want to pay extra for government stupidity?? Tell me the results of that poll.

Wow. You are starting to appear unhinged from reality. You wont acknowledge all the various polls that tell us that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in both revenue raises and spending cuts. You are in tea partier fantasy land once again.

The fantasy is all yours, but I do stand corrected on the house bill. I thought it was reported earlier that it had passed, but apparently it hasn't.

I was hoping for progress.

Go take the poll I suggest. You'll become unglued. No one wants to pay for government greed.