Posted on 12/09/2012 1:17:09 PM PST by Orange1998
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told me Sunday on ABC News' "This Week" that he is willing to accept tax rate increases as a component of a fiscal cliff deal, as long as Democrats put "significant entitlement reform" on the table.
"What we ought to be working on is the other 93 percent, because even if you do what [Obama] wants to do on tax rates, you only affect 7 percent of the deficit," Coburn said. "What we have done is spend ourselves into a hole, and we're not going to raise taxes and borrow money and get out of it."
"And so will I accept a tax increase as a part of a deal to actually solve our problems? Yes," he said.
But his Republican colleague in the House, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), disagreed.
He said that Republicans shouldn't vote for a tax increase which they believe will harm the economy.
"No Republican wants to vote for a rate tax increase," Hensarling said. "I mean, what that is going to do, according to the National Federation of Independent Business that commissioned a study by Ernst & Young, is cost 700,000 Americans to go from having paychecks to unemployment checks."
Hensarling said that President Obama pulled a "bait and switch" on Congressional Republicans by adding a demand for tax rate increases after the election. In 2011 Obama had suggested that $1.2 trillion could be raised by closing loopholes and pursuing tax reform alone, without raising rates.
"The president, again … if he would do what he said before the election, as opposed to the bait-and-switch, what Republicans feel like is a little bit like Charlie Brown running to kick the football and Lucy pulls it away," Hensarling said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
These “generational” arguments against SS/Medicare used to make my head explode. Now they just amuse me.
Let me say first, I don’t agree with SS, Medicare or Obamacare. None of this should have ever been done in the first place. But they were enacted..with forced participation. So if one pays into these programs by law, yes they should get the benefits.
Will any of these programs be repealed? Probably not. It really isn’t a matter of “what about me and mine”. It is a matter of misguided law. There has been reform equitable to all placed on the table in the past.. the legislators won’t touch it. I place a lot of the blame on media misinformation.
As far as the pay-in vs pay out meme..That is how these programs were sold to the public. Had they been handled correctly, there would not be a problem today. They weren’t. Medicare (and SS) is not welfare. It is an insurance policy. I didn’t apply for the policy, but I darn sure have to pay for it. Much like a private health care policy, the premiums paid seldom equal the cost of one catastrophic illness. Is Medicare rife with fraud..you bet. This should be addressed if the program continues to exist..which it will unless OCare kills it.
I think a lot of folks forget that noone “chose” to particpate in these programs. It was not a voluntary program...unlike today when people are forced to contribute. /s We aren’t talking about some Madoff scheme. We are talking about the Federal Government.
As far as “means testing”...the rich already are penalized for their wealth in Medicare. In what other industry would this be allowed? IMHO, if the tax was paid..they are entitled to the benefit. I don’t subscibe to the Barry Obama method of “spreading the wealth”. And, no, I’m not rich. My thoughts are made in the interest of fairness. If the wealthy can self-insure and provide for their own retirement, they should have the ability to opt out of either program.
As already stated on this thread..return my confiscated deductions with interest...and I’ll shut up and go away. I’ll take care of my kids and parents...you take care of yours.
Romney promised not to mess with the entitlements of our seniors.
Doesn't quite add up, unless you have a very loose definiation of "just now" or else your kids started college at 14 or so...In which case they clearly didn't inherit your IQ!
Thank you. I would venture a good guess that most “old people” ON THIS SITE would be happy to accept exactly what rhey paid in all their lives.
Listen, I know seeing your neighbor hauled off in the middle of the night for non-compliance, never to be seen again, can make even the most stalwart believer have his doubts, but where does THAT leave us NOW?
I’d be happy to pay for SS for current seniors if they would wind down the program before my time (I’m 50). There’s no money, the pols spent every dime so I do not expect anything back, nor do I propose to renege on current recipients or people about to retire. All I would ask in return is some favorable tax rules on my own retirement savings since I will have to make do with that.
I put 34 years into SS so far, but see my previous post. The program is doomed by demographics.
I’ll make you a deal.
If you are employed...tell your employer to take no federal deductions.
If you are self-employed...I’ll be interested to see how long not paying paying the required taxes lasts for you.
Being hauled off in “the middle of the night” could be kinder than dealing with the government in a court of law.
You give it a whirl...and let me know the outcome. :)
Not going to happen. The best you can (and should) hope for is that they give you a decent chance to fund your own retirement. If you close enough to retirement, then you should get what was promised. If not, then something less.
I think we need to clean house. Just let them all go. Might as well let the GOP die
I hear ya, Dave. Not sure it would work out like that. Income levels don’t know party distinction. Dems would stop any bill that fixes a different rate, credits, exclusions based on profession. Great idea. I just don’t see how it gets passed. But if you have specific ideas - send it to Ryan.
whatever they do they may as well extend the tax cuts on the 98% so it continues to be a Bush / Republican legacy and Obama isn’t able to claim it for himself next year. They don’t have the votes to do any more than that.
As I’ve said a bunch of times taxes are a distraction. The dems have the votes to pretty much do what they want & there is no way for the dems to tax their way out of this. We have a $16T debt and adding $1T+ per yr in add’l debt. We need to push for massive spending cuts and make that the focus on the debate.
It would help to start fresh. Too much corruption in the present set of politicians. It seems to take about 6 years, they either quit like they promise (one senate term or three house terms and out) or they stay and become part of the problem.
First, these are not ‘programs’, these are taxes. Means testing is just a way to screw over those that do well in life; which, to me, is worse than failing to pay out if one dies before collecting. But the Ponzi output is still the same.
Lastly, they are and were Unconstitutional, regardless of how they were begun. Sport, but you got screwed, you have no moral authority to indebt future generations just to ‘get what’s mine’
Well, I assume you skipped over my post 101.
We agree that these programs, taxes are unconstitutional. But it is what it is.
We also seem to agree against means testing.
I simply am not able to reconcile myself with the fact that our government has the ability to enforce a law and then renig. Perhaps you can. Truthfully, that money IS mine... Sport.
I have been looking at Panama or Costa Rica. It’s that 30% exit tax that’s stopping me.
“I’d be happy to pay for SS for current seniors if they would wind down the program before my time (I’m 50). There’s no money, the pols spent every dime so I do not expect anything back, nor do I propose to renege on current recipients or people about to retire. All I would ask in return is some favorable tax rules on my own retirement savings since I will have to make do with that.”
I think the people that “reneged” are the ones that chose to spend their retirement money (via the people they elected, collectively), so even them shouldn’t get a free ride.
But we’re past that point - as you can tell by the reactions to my postings, we WILL given EVERYONE every penny they think they deserve. The only question, again, is who should pay? My kids, or me and them a bit (before they retire). I vote for me and them...as I STILL don’t see why MY KIDS should be blamed for this mess.
It is for now. In the future the USGOV will 1) default, 2) inflate or 3) grow tax revenues or some combo. #3 is not looking good over the long run, even if we milk the rich that only works once. #2 means they will pay your $$ but you will have to lower your standard of living. #1 means cutting what we owe to China or cutting your benefits, probably both, as in everybody takes a haircut.
I agree. Just wind the whole thing down with general revenues while we still can.
“Where should the cuts come from? Before those who have been compelled to pay in (since this is not a voluntary system) all their working lives are forced to forego what they’ve been promised, I would like to see exactly what other groups will lose benefits.”
NOBODY WILL LOSE BENEFITS!!! Do you understand that? You have WON that battle - you should be happy. The ONLY thing I’m asking now is that TODAY’s workers pay for it - not my kids. There is absolutely no hope in convincing you guys that the people YOU voted into office, collectively, have already spent this country dry. My problem is that I have kids, and I would like to leave them some semblance of a country.
“A lot of the resentment is caused by the fact that non-citizens (exhibit A - Auntie Zeituni) who have paid exactly nothing into the system enter the U.S. and then spend the rest of their lives on the government dole, at the expense of working Americans. Will they be required to forego their “entitlements”? Not likely. And the people who have been the honest players and have done their part and followed the rules will take it in the shorts before the freeloaders such as this deadbeat dad are cut off.”
Like I said, EVERYONE will get a free ride, including you. My point is that taxes need to be high enough to pay for all you guys. Since you guys, older conservatives, are not willing to part with one penny of what you think is owed to you (even if it was spent twice over), the ONLY question left is who pays for you guys - me, or my kids (and later grand kids)...I would like it NOT to be my kids and later generations. That is the ONLY thing left to argue over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.