The Proposed Deficit Reduction Plan

[Elwood]

It's gonna be interesting, that's for sure. Most interesting for me is the possibility of means tests for SS. That's a very contentious issue in Canada, where we have none. The rich draw the same Canada Pension as the not-so-rich. That's socialism for ya.

Jon Stewart is Rachel Maddow's guest tonight (Nov 11). Should be good.

Thanks for the tip about Maddow/Stewart. Watched online last night and again the uncut version early this am. Excellant from both, sure be nice if more talking heads were as intelligent as those two. I liked how he called her "Ginger Root" for her soothing delivery =D> Anyone interested in network or cable news should watch this.

Sorry you got censored ge on the other forum, but the powers that be must make or suggest divertion to calm the waters at times. Too bad really as it seems unfair.

[turk]

What is amazing, is that continuing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will cost us an easy trillion in lost revenues. Why don't the deficit hawks call it out? There is no credible proof that continuing the tax cuts for the wealthy would be any sort of spur to the economy.
Colin

But don't you think that it's the wealthy that would more likely to take tax exemptions for "Business Meetings" at the Ritz Carlton - Maui? Take that away the exemptions and you take away a lot of the places for the wealthy to hide in the tax code. Instead of making it more complex in order to make it "fair" (which many times gives the opposite effect), can we try making it simple to be fair for a while?

The tax-cuts are not government money in the first place, right? That's why they're called taxes. They're money the government wants to take from income produced NOT by the government, but private enterprise. Can we agree this is a fact? So, the 1 trillion dollar deficit quoted above is what? It's a static number which doesn't take into account future growth. That's why it is only a number, big scary number, tossed into the ring of debate, a piece of propaganda to further the Class War. I'm not arguing your point here BP. Just adding this little fact to the discussion.

[Randy in Maine]

A couple of things I would like to see include....

An increase tax on fuels by about 25 cents per gallon to help support this immense infrastructure that has been built since the 50's for transportation of all sorts. It would make us use our fuels more wisely and would also decrease the carbon footprint.

How about allowing some of the people going through foreclosure access to the lower interest loans that are out there. Currently Freddie Mac is is on ht e"hook" for about 75% of the loans out there anyway and allowing for a lower interst rate (or allowing only interest to be paid) might keep a number of people in their homes right now at least for 2-4 of years? Might take some of the forclosures off the table for the next while.

How about having the Feds pay for all of Medicaid instead of having the states do that? Most of the states are in poor financial shape and other demands on state tax money is at a premium to priovide for other safety nets.

How about the Feds paying for special education costs now borne by the local school districts? I think that was in the law when it was passed and signed numerous years ago. It has never happened.

If not an end to the "interest on a home mortgage is deductable", how about a limit on how much may be deducted? Say $5,000 dollars or some percentage of the total income?

Just some random thoughts...

[yondermtn]

There is already a limit on the mortgage interest deduction.

"You are subject to the limit on certain itemized deductions if your adjusted gross income (AGI) is more than $166,800 ($83,400 if you are married filing separately). Your AGI is the amount on Form 1040, line 38."

[Amskeptic]

The tax-cuts are not government money in the first place, right? That's why they're called taxes. They're money the government wants to take from income produced NOT by the government, but private enterprise. Can we agree this is a fact?

And "The Government" does not keep it. The government turns around and provides services. Republicans love to paint this picture to their tantruming base that the "government" steals your lollipops.

Watch John Boehner and Mitch McConnell pretzel into bizarre postures as they pander to those who do not want to see their sacred handouts diminish, the agribiz lobby/the military industrial lobby/the pharmaceuticals lobby/the corporations-many who get subsidized advertising overseas, yet they will thunder on how the deficit is SCARY, yet try to sell reduced taxes to the wealthy AGAIN while they plug further reductions in the VA health benefits. They are morally bankrupt bullshitters. Did you know, turk, that Exxon Mobil (the most profitable corporate take in history) and GE paid no taxes last year? None.
So Exxon Mobil has profited scandalously from underpaying oil leases on Federal lands/waters (owned by you and me), yet it's their money in your view? That's . . . . rich.
Colin

[turk]

Alright, to be fair, I was talking about the tax-cuts Bush is responsible for. Ya' know the ones Obama thinks should expire for individuals making $ 250,000 and more (the "rich"). I honestly don't buy that story about Exxon paying $ 0 in taxes, "none". You have documentation of some kind? Ya' mean the corporation, meaning the charter, articles of constitution, and by-laws of the business? Of course the business itself doesn't pay corporate taxes anymore than a plot of land pays property taxes. The stock-holders do. The government, in my view, doesn't turn around and provide services. The government is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse that makes Exxon look harmless. Okay, how about congress limiting the president's vacation travel budget? A little ostentatious in my view, what with booking hundreds of rooms at 5 star hotels, armadas of ships and planes, digging tunnels from said hotels to acommodate 1 time visits of palaces, etc.?