Not Too Shabby Mr. President, Your Blue Ribbon Panel is for real!

[Conan71]

If you make 30k a year and have 11k in standard deductions and 6k in mortage deduction you can you have 43% of your income taxable.  THey could cut your tax rate in half and cut the deductions and you would still get more money.  The deductions at the top are even higher, but not as much of a percentage of total income.

Not sure where you are going with that Trog.  You can't take the standard deduction and take MID since you have to itemize to get the MID.  You pretty much need to be making payments on about a $150,000+ mortgage or have financed at an insanely high rate to out-run the standard deduction with enough MID to make it worth itemizing.

The days of someone earning $30K per year being able to finance $150 to $200K in housing ended a couple of years ago anyhow 

[Conan71]

Are you serious?

"Don't cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong."  Newt Gingrich

You might want to rethink your medicare stance.  See they just cut it, so therefore the Republican's are for medicare spending.  (Actually, really they are, look at Bush's increase in Medicare spending with his "reform".  It is right up there with stupid things to do EVER)

Let's see, Democrats wanted to gut Medicare of $500 bln to more than double-down with Obamacare.  They raised the ante by $700 bln Trog.  And that's the more conservative of CBO estimates.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Not sure where you are going with that Trog.  You can't take the standard deduction and take MID since you have to itemize to get the MID.  You pretty much need to be making payments on about a $150,000+ mortgage or have financed at an insanely high rate to out-run the standard deduction with enough MID to make it worth itemizing.

The days of someone earning $30K per year being able to finance $150 to $200K in housing ended a couple of years ago anyhow 

You are right, I was adding wrong.  Anyway, so 30k with 11k standard deduction so you can cut taxes by 1/3 and still be even.

[Gaspar]

Let's see, Democrats wanted to gut Medicare of $500 bln to more than double-down with Obamacare.  They raised the ante by $700 bln Trog.  And that's the more conservative of CBO estimates.

Actually there are no "Cuts" to Medicare proposed.  Only limitations on growth.  Combined with tort reform this is a very logical move.
The proposal would cap the growth on federal spending on healthcare to a rate of economic growth plus 1%.  Healthcare spending would continue to grow, but only by a factor linked to economic growth.  This is paramount in avoiding the economic disaster represented by a poorly performing economy and a growing entitlement class.  It's obvious that Obama's committee took some lessons from the mistakes other countries have made recently.  

I am still absolutely blown away that logic and reason have taken a front seat to pander and emotion.  

[Cats Cats Cats]

Let's see, Democrats wanted to gut Medicare of $500 bln to more than double-down with Obamacare.  They raised the ante by $700 bln Trog.  And that's the more conservative of CBO estimates.

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/boehner-endorses-more-medicare-spending-meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss/

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=28061

Bush drug benefit 720 billion first 10 years.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Actually there are no "Cuts" to Medicare proposed.  Only limitations on growth.  Combined with tort reform this is a very logical move.
The proposal would cap the growth on federal spending on healthcare to a rate of economic growth plus 1%.  Healthcare spending would continue to grow, but only by a factor linked to economic growth.  This is paramount in avoiding the economic disaster represented by a poorly performing economy and a growing entitlement class.  It's obvious that Obama's committee took some lessons from the mistakes other countries have made recently.  

I am still absolutely blown away that logic and reason have taken a front seat to pander and emotion.  

Yes, it is pretty crazy. But the house and senate won't go for it.  The Republican's will overwelmingly vote for these bills (up until they will actually get passed).  Such is the game they play.  They want as many people to look like they are for lower spending.  Until it means it actually lowers spending.  Then they point to democrats.  (And vice versa)

[Conan71]

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/boehner-endorses-more-medicare-spending-meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss/

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=28061

Bush drug benefit 720 billion first 10 years.

Don't care to argue the point so you bring up a completely different issue.  Makes sense to me, my ex wife did that all the time.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Don't care to argue the point so you bring up a completely different issue.  Makes sense to me, my ex wife did that all the time.

I said the Republicans were against decreasing Medicare.  You bring up Obama.  So I continue with Republicans not wanting to and actually increasing spending.  You are te one that changed the subject to Obama.  You were implying that Obama is the reason the republicans want to spend on Medicare.  Just showing you it's not just this year.

[Conan71]

I said the Republicans were against decreasing Medicare.  You bring up Obama.  So I continue with Republicans not wanting to and actually increasing spending.  You are te one that changed the subject to Obama.  You were implying that Obama is the reason the republicans want to spend on Medicare.  Just showing you it's not just this year.

[Insert favorite facepalm image here]

Let's see, this subject IS about President Obama.

Try again, Trog and pay closer attention to what the ongoing conversation was before you jumped in with mangled figures on tax deductions and trying to use reach-around logic to steer it to Republican increases. 

I pointed out I was amazed to see the committee was recommending Medicare cuts and malpractice tort reform in a topic principally about President Obama's Blue Ribbon committee.  Healthcare cuts and tort reform are sacred cows to Democrats.  You changed the topic around to Republicans being for spending more on Medicare.

"You might want to rethink your medicare stance.  See they just cut it, so therefore the Republican's are for medicare spending. (reach around logic alert!!!)  (Actually, really they are, look at Bush's increase in Medicare spending with his "reform".  It is right up there with stupid things to do EVER)"

I correctly pointed out the Democrat Medicare "cuts" are part of an overall increase in government healthcare spending.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Soo -500 + 700 for a net of +200?  Or is it -500 + 1.2 trillion?  I seriously think healthcare cuts are sacred cows to politicians and whoever does it will get the words healthcare and cuts regardless.

You said Medicare, I commented on Medicare.  But you didn't mean medicare, you meant the entire government spending on any health program.  It isn't the same thing.

And yes, Republican's just added a trillion in spending over 10 years.  Of course it was just a payoff for insurance and drug companies.  But yet, it is still a medicare spending increase.

[Conan71]

Soo -500 + 700 for a net of +200?  Or is it -500 + 1.2 trillion?  I seriously think healthcare cuts are sacred cows to politicians and whoever does it will get the words healthcare and cuts regardless.

You said Medicare, I commented on Medicare.  But you didn't mean medicare, you meant the entire government spending on any health program.  It isn't the same thing.

And yes, Republican's just added a trillion in spending over 10 years.  Of course it was just a payoff for insurance and drug companies.  But yet, it is still a medicare spending increase.

[YoungTulsan]

There is a lot going on with this proposal.  Overall it looks like a step in the right direction, although it really is just another typical "reduction in the rate of increase" when you look at the debt itself.  This reduces the yearly deficit, so we would be adding to the overall debt at a slower rate than currently.

Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Debt-commission-puts-out-cnnm-2160229896.html

"Three quarters of the $4 trillion would be achieved through spending cuts -- including defense -- and the rest from more tax revenue."

So they do plan to collect more tax revenues, doing so at lower rates, but eliminating all of the deductions for everything.

I find this pretty funny that we have built so many deductions and loopholes into this bloated tax code that we are now in a position where they can potentially raise more revenue and sell it as lowered tax rates.  However silly that sounds, I really like the idea of simplified tax code.   Giving breaks and deductions for specific things allows politicians to engage in social engineering and sweetheart deals for political allies and lobbyists.   Get rid of that, and you've eliminated an opportunity for corruption.   Bring it.

"Change Social Security: The report aims to make Social Security solvent over 75 years through a number of measures, including smaller benefits for wealthier recipients, a less generous cost-of-living adjustment for benefits, and a very slow rise in the retirement age (from 67 to 68 by 2050; rising to 69 by 2075). It also would expand over 40 years the amount of workers' income subject to the payroll tax."

Payroll tax is going up.   What really gets my attention though, is the "less generous COLA".  Think about what the Federal Reserve's current monetary policy is.   They call it "Quantitative Easing", what they are doing is inflating the currency.   What happens if they cap the COLA while pushing inflation as the method to pay off our debt?  Does Social Security essentially get wiped out of relevancy without being overtly eliminated?

So, what about defense cuts?

"Among the proposed defense cuts: Freeze noncombat military pay at 2011 levels for three years to save $9.2 billion and reduce overseas bases by one-third to save $8.5 billion. It would also direct $28 billion in cuts already proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates toward deficit reduction."

I'm not sure which of those numbers amount to cuts at a yearly rate, 3-year savings, or savings for the entire decade plan, but keep in mind we are spending around $1 trillion a year on defense.   I am completely unimpressed by those cuts.

This is where I think the line is drawn between real fiscal conservatives and phony conservatives.   Who is willing to make significant cuts to our trillion dollar world empire?   What is conservative about spending a trillion dollars?   We're broke.  Maybe think about reigning that in a bit?

[Gaspar]

I find this pretty funny that we have built so many deductions and loopholes into this bloated tax code that we are now in a position where they can potentially raise more revenue and sell it as lowered tax rates.  However silly that sounds, I really like the idea of simplified tax code.   Giving breaks and deductions for specific things allows politicians to engage in social engineering and sweetheart deals for political allies and lobbyists.   Get rid of that, and you've eliminated an opportunity for corruption.   Bring it.

+1

We're broke.  Maybe think about reigning that in a bit?

+1

I love it when everyone starts making sense.  Now we just need to wait and see if our President is willing to embrace the recommendations of the experts he appointed, or dismiss them. 

The timing of the release of these recommendations was remarkable.

[Conan71]

"Among the proposed defense cuts: Freeze noncombat military pay at 2011 levels for three years to save $9.2 billion and reduce overseas bases by one-third to save $8.5 billion. It would also direct $28 billion in cuts already proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates toward deficit reduction."

Yeah, that's one of those items I'd almost join the chorus in saying: "But it's only $8.5 bln!"

Great post, BTW.

[Conan71]

+1

+1

I love it when everyone starts making sense.  Now we just need to wait and see if our President is willing to embrace the recommendations of the experts he appointed, or dismiss them. 

The timing of the release of these recommendations was remarkable.

I'm just anxious to see how serious everyone really is about cutting spending in D.C.  All this chatter from Sens. Inhofe and McConnell has me a bit skeptical.  Have they forgotten the reason they were knocked out of power in 2006 already?