Posted on 08/15/2011 10:58:11 PM PDT by NoLibZone
A 10:1 spending cut to tax increase deal would work like this. Doing a little algebra (assuming it’s still taught in our public schools), let’s make X equal to the tax increase. Therefore, the spending cuts have to equal 10X. If we want to wipe out the entire $14.5 trillion in debt, the equation would be 11X equals $14.5 trillion. Solving for X, we’d be accepting a tax increase of $1.319 trillion in return for a spending cut of $13.19 trillion.
The result: the complete elimination of our National Debt (which is really not even remotely required) and a return of our AAA rating and happy days for everyone!
Can we really achieve this type of cost reduction immediately? No! However, that wasn’t Mr. Baier’s question. The question was essentially whether the candidates would even consider it.
President Obama even mentioned the 10:1 deal at his town hall-type meeting in Cannon Falls, Minnesota, on Monday. In reference to the Republican candidates’ rejection of the theoretical deal and an apparent endorsement of this column, the President said, “Think about that. I mean, that’s just not common sense.”
Think about it indeed! It would be a sweetheart of a deal if it were spread over a relatively short period of time (say, five years). The reality is that marginal tax rates might not even have to be increased given the loopholes that could be eliminated in the 72,000+ pages of tax code if the loopholes were to be considered first. In the alternative, even if increases in the tax rates were required, they wouldn’t need to be permanent since the National Debt would have been so radically reduced.
Why would all of the Republican candidates summarily reject the idea? Why would any rational candidate reject it completely?
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...
100000:1 would be a bad deal.
The increases are instantaneous, the unnamed,unwritten, general ,framework of cuts are down the road with future congressmen that are under no obligation to honor Obama’s vote buys.
Reagan fell for this one twice.
Once on a budget the other on the Amesty.
Cause it was a stupid question ?
This is effectively what we're being asked to agree to, if you simply interchange "cuts" with "taxes." Under the Democrats' "deal," taxes will happen, and under no circumstances will they be reduced, modified, or amended throughout the deal. Taxes will go into effect first, and regardless of that, there is no mechanism that would stop "new" spending from simply replacing the "old" cuts.
This is the problem with the 10:1 proposition. It is actually 10i : 1. That is, the 10 of cuts is pure imaginary. The taxes, unfortunately, are real. That is why no reasonable person will agree to it.
I propose we increase welfare and food stamps from $4 trillion dollars to $20 trillion dollars next fiscal year. Since the actual increase approved will be only $1 trillion, taxpayers will save $15 trillion dollars in one year, and the national debt will be eliminated. DemocRat math! /s
How do we stop new sessions of Congress from doing what they have the power to do?
What ever deal made to cut is not binding to any new future Congressional sessions.
The ups are immediate and instantaneous.
Future cuts cannot be compelled to take place.
And never do.
At least it later smacked Obama for his plan being best represented by a blank sheet of paper but it buys into the false premise that a cuts-to-taxes deal would be or can be enforced for the, say, 10 year term of the deal.
I'm reminded of Palin's statement on Hannity Friday, "We're passed 'Cut, Cap & Balance.' We're at 'Cut the Crap and Balance.'"
Levin played Obama talking about the 10-to-1 deal, although he called it 5-to-1 at one point because he uh has uh the memory of a gnat, as an example of Republicans putting party over country and how irrational they are. He flubbed that line. I say again he has the memory of a gnat.
Side note: Why is Obama talking about presidential candidates when he denies this is a campaign tour?
The last thing the federal government needs is MORE MONEY...
Morons like this belittle other people’s math skills, but then make glaring mistakes themselves.
He posits that the GOP candidates are just being silly to not accept a deal that would cut $15T of debt in 5 years in exchange for $1.5T in higher taxes. Let’s think about that for a minute. Is cutting $3T EVERY YEAR for five years a real proposal ? Obviously not, since that would leave total spending at only $800B/yr and mean the immediate termination of SS, Medicare, and every other program and Federal employee except for Defense and Homeland Security. So the cuts are FAKE, and no ratio of FAKE cuts to REAL tax increase is acceptable.
Put another way, the current tax revenues are more than sufficient to pay for the remaining $800B/yr of spending, so why would we need a tax increase ?
If they were willing to actually eliminate $1T from the CURRENT budget by eliminating entire Departments so they can’t come back, I might go for it. If, after a year, those cuts were proven true and not simply shifted and renamed spending that popped up somewhere else, the IRS would be allowed to “assess” the taxpayers for an extra $100B at the end of the year at a rate of $320 per each of the 310 million populace. If government failed to save the $1T, then they don’t get the “special assessment” $100B.
My proposal — to do the cuts NOW and do the tax increase LATER — is just as unacceptable to the Progressives as their plan is to conservatives and the GOP candidates — to do the tax increases NOW and spending cuts LATER.
Thanks for repeating exactly what my post already says.
Plain and simple: Obama is FOS!
The question is do we have a tax structure that:
* Can compete against all the former USSR "Stans" and their Flat Taxes
* Can compete against India.
* Compete against Poland ( I am not kidding, I think their Corp tax is 19% vs. our 32.5%)
We need to change the debate, it is about what are we doing to grow the "Pie", the problem is Obama doesn't believe in baking....
On top of this on CNBC one of the wonks noted one of the banks has 1.2 compliance officers now per every employee to deal with Dodd / Frank. That doesn't consider the headwinds of Obamacare.
These are a double whammy against doing business, and need to be repealed.
we’ve been exposed to toxic deals like this for the last several decards. paygo and graham rudman come to mind at once. there have been many others. “I will gladly spend a little less than desired in ten years, if you give me more money now”, or “I will gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today”, only the promised cuts have never materialized.
it doesn’t matter if they promise 10:1, or 100000:1 - the cuts will NEVER materialize. Enact the cuts NOW, and in ten years, I’ll consider increasing taxes.
how many times are we gonna fall for the same crap. Lucy always pulls the football. how stupid are we for falling for the same line we’ve fallen for since the Johnson administration.
Or, we could alter the terms of the agreement.
One dollar of cuts, NOW, and you can have ten dollars of tax increases ten years from today.
In real life the tax increase would come first and spending cuts promised later under future congresses, much like this latest deal. And Obama would assume the tax increases are on to of the Bush tax cut expiration.
New fun, I heard the 13 cent federal gas tax increase passed under Clinton expires in the next few months, there's a hot one coming.
I reject all tax hikes. The government does not need more revenue, period.
Thanks sickoflibs.
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.