"...don't call my bluff..."

[dgs49]

Ignoring for a moment the fact that this is a rather idiotic thing for the President to say (to admit you are bluffing rather defeats the purpose, eh?), what do we think of McConnell's "Plan B"?

In very brief terms, the President would be given the ability (with Congressional approval, to make it Constitutional) to raise the debt ceiling a maximum of three times over the next year-plus, up to another 2.5T, in exchange for stipulating the corresponding spending cuts that he will support. If he does not stipulate specific, meaningful cuts, the debt ceiling will not be raised.

Tax increases (already scheduled for 2013) are temporarily off the table. The Republicans' main gripe - that Dems talk about bringing down spending, but refuse to make any specific proposals - is addressed. The economic catastrophe - if indeed it would occur - is seemingly averted.

McConnell's plan is getting support from rather unexpected quarters. Pelosi and Reid support it. Ann Coulter (who carries a lot of weight with Conservatives) has publicly endorsed it. Republicans are mixed, with those who are against it convinced that this will be yet another case of promised cuts that never materialize. Presidents Reagan and Bush41 were victims of similar Democrat scams previously.

In a sense, it is calling the President's bluff. He has claimed that the Democrats are willing to cut $3 in budget for every dollar of enhanced revenues, but no meaningful proposals have come from the Left - only the ridiculous and counterproductive nonsense about "tax breaks for corporate jets."

In the absence of any other viable proposals, I think it might work.

I personally think the R's are losing a window of opportunity to totally restructure the Internal Revenue Code, simplify the tax structure, and satisfy a lot of people who are grumbling about the tax situation generally.

[edited to correct typos]

[quaddriver]

I call bullshit.

Given that the internal revenue code is ALREADY restructured I dont see any changes. AS I pointed out a few years ago, deductions and exemptions have been redefined within congress-speak to be 'tax expenditures'. They can cut those, while maintaining plausible deniability that any new taxes went into effect, when the reality is, more of your money went into the treasury.

Prime example: employer paid helth care premiums will be counted as income. so your w2 income went up, your tax therefore is higher, but no rate changes.

another example: same with the mortgage interest deduction. eliminiating the deduction just means less off the Sch A, with no change in tax rates.

Last year my tax chick at H&R pointed out I got $4000 extra back because of short term Obama breaks that wont be there this year. tax rates didnt change, but I get $4000 less back this year. (of course one could argue why I deserved such breaks in the first place, it was nice, but it goes to show how we just hand out money for no good reason.)

[Lord Jim]

In very brief terms, the President would be given the ability (with Congressional approval, to make it Constitutional) to raise the debt ceiling a maximum of three times over the next year-plus, up to another 2.5T, in exchange for stipulating the corresponding spending cuts that he will support. If he does not stipulate specific, meaningful cuts, the debt ceiling will not be raised.

Actually Dave, the plan is structured in such a way that it would require, (after the initial vote to put the plan in place) a two thirds vote of the Congress (both houses) to overide Obama's plan....

This is a very important distinction, and explains why it's gathering political support from so many diverse quarters....

It gives those on the left who want to vote against the cuts, and those on the right who want vote against raising the ceiling, the ability to do so without realistically threatening that the government might actually go into default on it's debts...It also give Obama the opportunity to look like the "adult" who's making the tough choices.....

Politically, it's a win-win-win....

From a policy stand point this may be the best that can be done given the political divisions, so it doesn't look that bad to me...

I see that there's also new momentum to finally get an up or down "clean" vote on the Bowles Simpson plan to address the more long range structural debt issues. As I've said, I wasn't thrilled with Bowles Simpson when it first came out, but as I've seen all the other alternative plans and non-plans from both sides of the aisle, it's started to look better and better; apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way....

[Joe Guy]

Prime example: employer paid helth care premiums will be counted as income. so your w2 income went up, your tax therefore is higher, but no rate changes.

Wrong again, quad. That simply is not true. Do you have a source to support your lie?

another example: same with the mortgage interest deduction. eliminiating the deduction just means less off the Sch A, with no change in tax rates.

Are you also claiming that has been done?

More quadfacts.

Do you never tire of being handed your ass on a silver platter?

I especially enjoy when you write "AS I pointed out a few years ago..."

[Rick]

JG I don't believe he has suggested that it has already been done.

The motgage deduction is being eyed closely though.

I have only heard rumors about the insurance thing.

If done as he has shown they will both be revenue generators without actually "increasing" taxes, the mortgage deduction to the tune of ~$160 billion.

But I'm sure you can see that...

[quaddriver]

Prime example: employer paid helth care premiums will be counted as income. so your w2 income went up, your tax therefore is higher, but no rate changes.

Wrong again, quad. That simply is not true. Do you have a source to support your lie?

another example: same with the mortgage interest deduction. eliminiating the deduction just means less off the Sch A, with no change in tax rates.

Are you also claiming that has been done?

More quadfacts.

Do you never tire of being handed your ass on a silver platter?

I especially enjoy when you write "AS I pointed out a few years ago..."

Might help if you actually read what you quoted since it backs up every word I said.

The reporting of premiums on the W2 has already started.

The collecting of the tax WILL begin in appx 6 years. There is no mechanism or movement in place to stop this.

the same legislation that allows 3rd party payment of the excise also allows the 3rd party to offset losses via private party premiums: read you.

Therefore, more of your money gone, via W2 or 1040, not one single change in the tax rates. Which of course to sentient readers was the entire fcuking point of my post. Since you are not, your blunder is partially overlooked.

The same time frame exists for the mortgage interest deduction. Yes, the same 'hit' to the rich intially, but as I also pointed out, the threshold for the cadillac insurance plan is the cost of FEHB standard option - and not a very high one at that. The threshold for the mcmansion is the median home price of the area. As of this writing , there is not even talk of a proposal to repeal either.

And as I did report 2 (coming on 3) years ago based on a 2006 restructuring of tax expenditures. I even linked in the document. that you did not read it is not my fault nor reflects poorly on me.

Handed my ass indeed. For once, I would like to see a post where you are actually 'right'.

[Joe Guy]

Might help if you actually read what you quoted since it backs up every word I said.

Maybe in the world of quad, the link I gave supports your lie. But in the real world, people can read for themselves that what you wrote is false.

Very entertaining post, though.

(but only it only rates 2 stars - you've made a much bigger ass out of yourself in the past)

[Long Run]

Next year, employers are to start reporting the value of the healthcare provided to their employees on the W-2s. It won't be taxable at that time.

In 2018, healthcare reform (as currently enacted) will begin assessing an excise tax (not regular income tax) on the so-called "Cadillac" plans that cost over a certain amount ($10,200 for single coverage, $27,500 for family coverge). This will not impact any health plan I have ever been covered under, and should not impact most people's plans.

[quaddriver]

Might help if you actually read what you quoted since it backs up every word I said.

Maybe in the world of quad, the link I gave supports your lie. But in the real world, people can read for themselves that what you wrote is false.

Very entertaining post, though.

(but only it only rates 2 stars - you've made a much bigger ass out of yourself in the past)

Translation: I got nothing. Now where is that cat....

[quaddriver]

Next year, employers are to start reporting the value of the healthcare provided to their employees on the W-2s. It won't be taxable at that time.

.

This reporting has already occured for the 2010 tax year. While reporting at this time is semi-voluntary, most large employers or ones using a payroll service have already requested the new W2 form package. (meaning if you have the new forms, you must use the new fields)

[Long Run]

I agree that if the McConnell plan is implemented, the Rs are losing an opportunity to get some real reductions in future spending increases. In exchange, they may get to play some more of the "your worse than we are" game. The country is better off if (in addition to eliminating the debt ceiling ridiculosity) there is also an implemented program to reduce future deficits.

[Joe Guy]

I suppose you could show everyone where, in my link, it backs up every word you said.

Please do.

Our health care premiums are not being reported as income and mortgage interest deductions have not been eliminated.

But those are two facts in quad's world.

He wrote about it years ago...

[quaddriver]

Next year, employers are to start reporting the value of the healthcare provided to their employees on the W-2s. It won't be taxable at that time.

In 2018, healthcare reform (as currently enacted) will begin assessing an excise tax (not regular income tax) on the so-called "Cadillac" plans that cost over a certain amount ($10,200 for single coverage, $27,500 for family coverge). This will not impact any health plan I have ever been covered under, and should not impact most people's plans.

Cigna PPO I had at visa would fall under this.

[dales]

Might help if you actually read what you quoted since it backs up every word I said.

Maybe in the world of quad, the link I gave supports your lie. But in the real world, people can read for themselves that what you wrote is false.

Very entertaining post, though.

(but only it only rates 2 stars - you've made a much bigger ass out of yourself in the past)

Translation: I got nothing. Now where is that cat....

Pussy?

[Joe Guy]

quad always talks around issues when he is (constantly) proved wrong.

He should be good at it. He has had years of practice trying to explain how what he meant to say is true even though it was a lie.

The problem for quad is (and the entertaining part), his explanations are even more funny than his original misstatements.

Which is why he has reached the level of one of the most entertaining posters on this BBS.

btw - handing him his ass requires a very large heavy duty platter...

thanks again, quadly.

[Gob]

My thoughts?

[Lord Jim]

I agree that if the McConnell plan is implemented, the Rs are losing an opportunity to get some real reductions in future spending increases.

The future spending reduction idea was always illusory Long Run, (at least in this package, in the "grand bargain" form) because that was going to require them to sign on to tax increases in one form or another in order to become law, (since it couldn't happen without Obama's support) and that wasn't going to happen....

The McConnell plan is politically brilliant....

It will allow the hardcore right in the Congress to vote against raising the debt ceiling three times between now and the next election claiming every time that Obama's cuts aren't real cuts....

And allow the hardcore left in the Congress to vote against raising the debt ceiling three times between now and the next election claiming that Obama's cuts go to far....

While not in anyway posing any real threat that the debt limit won't be raised, (with all the catastrophic implications that would have) because all that's needed under this plan to prevent that from happening is the votes of 34 members of the US Senate, (which will always be available) thus reassuring the financial markets....

"I heartily approve"

[rubato]

The Republicans go from treason to lies.

First they threaten to commit treason by not raising the debt limit. All of the sane economics writers admit this is so uniformly bad an idea that it would be causing willful harm to the United States to do it. Causing gross willful harm merely to advance their own agenda is treason.

Then when their brain-dead scheme falls apart, even such low-functioning pundits as Bill O'Reilly say its dumb, they come up with a way of raising the limit and denying they are responsible for it.

All lies all the time, they're Republicans.

Who is stupid enough to vote for these jackasses? They have caused enormous harm to the country already and their constituents are such gibbering sheep that they are getting away with BORROWING $200 billion a year to give to the rich (hey, thanks!) They're BORROWING another $300 billion/yr in excess spending for defense, and cutting education and healthcare to do it.

They have made the country weaker and poorer with every new legislation they influence for over 10 years.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Has his bluff been called?

Republican House Speaker John Boehner has walked away from crunch debt ceiling talks at the White House with US President Barack Obama.

Mr Obama said Mr Boehner had rejected an "extraordinarily fair deal" that would have included $650bn (£400bn) of cuts to entitlement programmes.

Mr Obama said he had been willing to take "a lot of heat" from his party.

Mr Boehner told a news conference afterwards that Mr Obama had "moved the goal posts" by demanding a tax hike.

"I have decided to end discussions with the White House and begin conversations with the leaders of the Senate in an effort to find a path forward," Mr Boehner wrote earlier in a letter to the Republican rank and file.

The president called for new talks with congressional leaders on Saturday at 1100 (1500 GMT).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14258888

[Lord Jim]

The president called for new talks with congressional leaders on Saturday at 1100 (1500 GMT).

I just caught his press conference, and Boehner said he'll be there...

Boehner said that they had a deal which included 800 billion in "revenue" but that Obama backed off and demanded 400 billion more...

Earlier in the day, both camps were insisting that they'd never been close to a final deal...

It's impossible to know what the truth is in this situation...It's like a giant game of "chicken" only more complicated than that...

Imagine a "chicken" contest where neither driver has complete control of his steering wheel, and you'll have a better analogy....

I don't doubt for a moment that if it had been up to Obama and Boehner they'd have had a deal on this weeks ago....

What has to happen now is for both sides to basically scare the hardcore elements within their Congressional constituencies into going along with a deal, and that probably means the drama is going to play out till nearly the last minute....

In my opinion, the best thing that could possibly happen to get something done would be for the stock market to drop 500 points on Monday if no deal is reached over the weekend.

If that happens there'll be a deal by Wednesday.