So we hit the debt limit...

[Faeelin]

We're going to need tax hikes along with heavy budget cuts. The tax cuts to the wealthy seems a good place to start. I'd say they shouldn't have passed that in the first place, just a more limited portion of the Bush tax cuts should have gone through. Seems both sides are doubling down, catering to certain segments of their voting block, locked in a bash-athon, to score political points.

bit more information has trickled out over the last few days detailing the exact state of the budget negotiations when they collapsed. Both sides, as they often said, were shooting for about $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. They'd already agreed on around $1 trillion in spending cuts and were making good progress on the rest of it. But Democrats insisted that $400 billion -- so, 17 percent -- of the package be tax increases. And that's when Republicans walked.

Specifically, the Obama administration was looking at a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy.

It's almost not worth going into the details on those particular tax changes because the Republican position has held that the details don't matter: well-designed tax increases won't be looked at any more favorably than poorly designed tax increases. The point, Republicans say, is that there can't be any tax increases, full stop.

For now, Democrats are holding their ground. "Do we perpetuate a system that allows for subsidies in revenues for oil and gas, for example, or owners of corporate private jets, and then call for cuts in things like food safety or weather services?" Press Secretary Jay Carney asked. But at some point, this will cease to be a clean choice between two budget plans and begin to be a question over whether we can raise the debt ceiling. And that, Republicans are betting, is when the Democrats will stop holding their ground.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57890.html

So in other words, the Democrats proposed that 1/5 of the deficit reduction come from tax increases is a sign that they are committed to scoring points?

[MadImmortalMan]

$2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years

Not impressed.

[KRonn]

So in other words, the Democrats proposed that 1/5 of the deficit reduction come from tax increases is a sign that they are committed to scoring points?   

Both parties have made a habit of trying to score points, at least as much as solve the issues. It would be laughable for you or anyone to say that the parties aren't trying more to milk as much political favor out things as they could by bashing the other side at any opportunity. You should be tired of that same old game  by now, just as I am. Just look at talk of reforming Medicare or Social Security, or Defense spending. The party or politician who makes a proposal gets hammered, political ads showing how they're bad on Defense or hate the troops, or want to toss old ladies off of cliffs. If you read my post, I suggest the parties do more working together, since the decisions that need to be made are so tough, so neither party can be played the cretin by the other, preferably with leadership by the President. I wasn't pointing to any particular plans by either side some of which might be good ideas, or not.

[grumbler]

So in other words, the Democrats proposed that 1/5 of the deficit reduction come from tax increases is a sign that they are committed to scoring points?

1/6, actually ($400B out of $2400B).  Just reinforces your point, of course.

[Admiral Yi]

$2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years

Not impressed.

Me neither.

[alfred russel]

We're going to need tax hikes along with heavy budget cuts. The tax cuts to the wealthy seems a good place to start. I'd say they shouldn't have passed that in the first place, just a more limited portion of the Bush tax cuts should have gone through. Seems both sides are doubling down, catering to certain segments of their voting block, locked in a bash-athon, to score political points.

bit more information has trickled out over the last few days detailing the exact state of the budget negotiations when they collapsed. Both sides, as they often said, were shooting for about $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. They'd already agreed on around $1 trillion in spending cuts and were making good progress on the rest of it. But Democrats insisted that $400 billion -- so, 17 percent -- of the package be tax increases. And that's when Republicans walked.

Specifically, the Obama administration was looking at a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy.

It's almost not worth going into the details on those particular tax changes because the Republican position has held that the details don't matter: well-designed tax increases won't be looked at any more favorably than poorly designed tax increases. The point, Republicans say, is that there can't be any tax increases, full stop.

For now, Democrats are holding their ground. "Do we perpetuate a system that allows for subsidies in revenues for oil and gas, for example, or owners of corporate private jets, and then call for cuts in things like food safety or weather services?" Press Secretary Jay Carney asked. But at some point, this will cease to be a clean choice between two budget plans and begin to be a question over whether we can raise the debt ceiling. And that, Republicans are betting, is when the Democrats will stop holding their ground.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57890.html

So in other words, the Democrats proposed that 1/5 of the deficit reduction come from tax increases is a sign that they are committed to scoring points?

I think it is. It is a trivial amount to raise a stink over regarding the debt limit. I imagine they came with this proposal to at least appear to be fighting, and to embarrass the republicans. At least if they were pushing for a $2 trillion tax increase you could say they were fighting fire with fire.

[Razgovory]

$2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years

Not impressed.

Me neither.

How does the Ryan plan compare over the next 10 years?

[Admiral Yi]

How does the Ryan plan compare over the next 10 years?

4 and change IIRC.

[Faeelin]

So in other words, the Democrats proposed that 1/5 of the deficit reduction come from tax increases is a sign that they are committed to scoring points?

1/6, actually ($400B out of $2400B).  Just reinforces your point, of course.

What's funny is that the GOP rejected a ratio of cuts and increases that they themselves proposed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/republicans-reject-their-own-deficit-reduction-report/2011/05/19/AGTcR2rH_blog.html

[CountDeMoney]

Chuck Shumer's right, you know.

[Razgovory]

How does the Ryan plan compare over the next 10 years?

4 and change IIRC.

Increase or decrease?  From what I saw it increases debt over the next 10 years by about 4 trillion.  It manages to balance the budget some time in 2050's or something like that.

[Habbaku]

Chuck Shumer's right, you know.

No he's not.  About anything.

[Admiral Yi]

Increase or decrease?  From what I saw it increases debt over the next 10 years by about 4 trillion.  It manages to balance the budget some time in 2050's or something like that.

I would be interested to know what the components of that increase are.

[Razgovory]

Increase or decrease?  From what I saw it increases debt over the next 10 years by about 4 trillion.  It manages to balance the budget some time in 2050's or something like that.

I would be interested to know what the components of that increase are.

Probably the tax cuts.

[CountDeMoney]

Chuck Shumer's right, you know.

No he's not.  About anything.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, yes he is.