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 ...
“I understand. On a personal level I feel the same way. That is why I am here taking care of my mother.”
Good for you...the same was 4,930 years of human history - but now we expect people, many of whom have not yet been born, to do the same.
No doubt the entitlement programs need to be reformed in order to be sustained. I really don’t like the term “entitlement”. Welfare and medicaid is an unpaid for entitlement.
But would you agree that there are many departments that could be shut down in the interest of saving money?
Of course YOUR children will be impacted. Just as all our children are. It’s not just about you.
What is your idea to “fix it”?
For clarity's sake; we didn't start that. Also, for 4,930 years the choices were more straightforward and life was more brutal too.
Friend, I am under no illusion that what remains of my life will be easy or comfortable. Such a life, I know now, is worthless.
If yours is arranged such that it will, good for you.
never mind..I just saw your previous post.
And they say, well, we voted, and things didn't really go the way we wanted, so now all you suckers, even though it's pretty obvious voting won't do jack, keep coughing up the bread, and yeah, while you're at it, keep coming up with good non-violent ways to turn things around.
We'll be on the golf course.
Straw man.
“What is your idea to “fix it”?”
In a perfect world, I’d start by declaring that Social Security, Medicare, and others are WELFARE PROGRAMS, because there is no pot of money to draw from. I know people would like to think they paid into it, so it must be there - but it ain’t, and we all know that. If I have a 401k and my wife takes a loan out from it (with me also signing off), guess what - the MONEY IS GONE, and I am expected to pay it back - not my newly-hired coworkers who were kids when she (we) borrowed the money.
So once we get past the point of thinking there is some pot of money, the next step is to MEANS TEST. There is NO REASON why my kids should have to pay money to Bill Gates or (literally) millions of people like him that have plenty of money for retirement - saying that they should have to pay now is no different than saying they should have to pay Bill Gates when he was working and making big bucks. That, right there, will take care of some 10% of today’s cost.
Beyond that, you get into who should really pay for people that cannot otherwise take care of themselves. If they were kids, then the parents are expected to pay their way, particularly if the parents are making money. So why not flip that around and have the well-off kids help out a bit (as Tiger is doing)? If the older person needs help, track down his family and if they have resources, then they should pony-up.
If there are no kids, or no kids with means, then the state should step in and take care of these people.
If all that is done, we’d have a balanced budget tomorrow. Yes, there wouldn’t be as many Winnebego’s driving to Alaska every summer, and yes, there wouldn’t be nearly as many large houses with 2 old people left in them, but my kids would not be going broke, even before they get a chance to work.
Now, having said all that, I realize that I’m dreaming (but you did ask) - so the ONLY other option (aside from leaving my kids a bankrupt country) is to raise taxes, particularly on the middle class, as that is where the money is.
“For clarity’s sake; we didn’t start that. Also, for 4,930 years the choices were more straightforward and life was more brutal too. “
True, but does it matter who started it?
I don’t think that any of us are assured of an easy, comfortable life.
I don’t think that any of us are assured of an easy, comfortable life.
It matters to those who are now in no position to make any changes to provide for themselves.
What was the effective tax rate in 1880? 1830?
“It matters to those who are now in no position to make any changes to provide for themselves.”
I agree...that’s why I posted that I don’t want anyone thrown in the streets, I just want people who are closer to the seniors to pay their way, if they can.
“What was the effective tax rate in 1880? 1830?”
That doesn’t matter. The FACT is that when money is put away for retirement, then it needs to be protected and stay put. That didn’t happen, and my kids don’t feel they should be the ones stuck with having to pay for that stupidity.
Yep. But they will, one way or another- inflation or whatnot
This is what I have been looking for. Some solutions that recognize that the vice we are in crushes on both ends, young and old. I suspected that you were more reasonable than you were letting on. It did not go unnoticed that you didn't try to straw man or ad-hominem me into silence. I don't have a problem with the solutions you proposed.
I like that idea.
Thanks Tiger, I kind of suspected that you were being open-minded also. I see the age of older people living on their own as only a luxury that a very wealthy country can afford...and we had it, but then blew it (thanks to liberalism). We simply aren’t that wealthy anymore, so we are very likely to end up that way...I would just like to get there on our terms, rather than the on the terms of China or the IMF.
I see that now. You held back on that part of your view for a while. Good discussion. Reason says that it is neither right to enslave ‘our children’ nor to turn ‘our elders’ out in the street. Unfortunately it’s not going to be as easy to find reason in DC as it is on this thread.
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.