Concessions GOP-Style

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 10:44:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Digby, how Republicans propose "concessions" and how Dems and the Media react:

[CNN's Jessica] Yellin: Senator Chamblis do you believe that Senate Republicans will agree to a package that includes any sort of tax changes?

Chambliss: Well, the fact of the matter is that you can't solve this debt problem just with reductions in discretionary spending. [. . .] You've got to look at the revenue side also. What we are looking at proposing is actually a reduction in corporate rates and personal individual income tax rates [. . .] Every time we've done that in years past whether it was under President Reagan or president Bush we have seen revenues increase.

Yellin: Senator Warner, that's a big concession by Republicans. [. . .]

(Emphasis supplied.) Digby reports that Warner basically agreed with Chambliss. So the big GOP concession on taxes is that they will cut them for the rich and for corporations. Classic.

Speaking for me only

< WaPo: Obama To Back Simpson-Bowles | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Concessions GOP-Style | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

hmmm . . . . (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by nycstray on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:06:34 AM EST

with all these tax cuts over the past years, shouldn't we be rolling in revenues by now? Or am I missing something here . . . .?

: Yes, you are (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by sj on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:10:38 AM EST

Clearly you're missing your blinders.

Big Brother has raised (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Warren Terrer on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:24:39 AM EST

the chocolate ration! We love Big Brother.

Watch and learn Dems, that is how it's done (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:54:56 AM EST

The Dem counteroffer should be raising taxes on the top 2%. Concession should be that they will only raise taxes only the top 1%.

And (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by cal1942 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 10:40:22 PM EST

Jessica Yellin was too ignorant to counter.

The news media actually did that in a bygone era.

Now we have 'balance.' Let 'em unload any kind of bullshit they want without challenge. No wonder the public is in a perpetual state of confusion.

Ka (none / 0) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 10:54:36 AM EST

Boom

: Too bad (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by sj on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:06:02 AM EST

it's getting expensive to buy in to Costa Rica.

Cutting Corporate Taxes (none / 0) (#3)
by Politalkix on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:06:28 AM EST

If (not sure whether it is under consideration) a cut in the corporate tax rate is offset by the imposition of a corporate withholding tax on dividend and interest payments to shareholders and bondholders, it may not be bad. It can possibly provide incentives for private capital investment within our borders.

I believe what has been put on (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by ruffian on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:47:43 AM EST

the table in various forums - possibly Simpson-Bowles, and I believe the SOTU address, was lower rates in exchange for closing some loopholes.

I have no doubt different loopholes would be opened.


One of the loopholes is (none / 0) (#11)
by MO Blue on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:51:47 AM EST

really, really unfriendly to large corporation. Now wait for it....The loophole to be closed is eliminating the Earned Income Tax Credit. :-(


I know (none / 0) (#18)
by sj on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:52:47 PM EST

That just makes me sick.


I need to modify the information on EITC (none / 0) (#24)
by MO Blue on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 09:36:34 PM EST

I know that Simpson/Bowles eliminated the Earned Income Tax Credit in their initial draft of 11/10/10. This from a interview Simpson and Bowles did on CBS on 11/18/10:

Cordes: "End the mortgage deduction. You eliminate the earned income tax credit. You eliminate the child tax credit."
Simpson: "Yeah. And use the money to reduce the tax rates which everybody's been whining about for years."
It's a stunning reduction with just three tax brackets. Depending on their income, Americans would pay either eight, 14 or 23 percent. link

Critics were still discussing the elimination of the Earned Income Tax Credit in late November. From what I can gather the chairmen offered two other options that did not eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit. The final report issued on Dec. 1, 2010 provides for three scenarios. The first scenario eliminates all "Tax Expenditures" (i.e. tax deductions). In this scenario the child tax credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit would be eliminated. In scenarios two and three, the child tax credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit would not be eliminated.

So elimination of the Earned Income Tax Credit is possible but not as definite as what I stated in my original comment. I based my comment on the what was said in the interview and just became aware of the other options.


Nonetheless (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by cal1942 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 10:37:43 PM EST

elimination of EITC is still an option.

Disgusting.


: I agree (none / 0) (#30)
by MO Blue on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:35:51 AM EST

It seems to be the preferred option of Simpson and I'm sure that it would be the preferred option of the Republicans since it results in larger tax breaks for corporations and the rich.
I did want to be more accurate once I discovered the other options when going through the information on the final recommendations.

NO WAY! (none / 0) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 05:23:21 PM EST

Who gives a rip about this President anymore? Not me


I need to modify the information on EITC (none / 0) (#25)
by MO Blue on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 09:38:54 PM EST

See my comment #24 above


: After my daughter's divorce this past year (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:03:32 AM EST

She got EIC for the first time, and oddly enough she bought what I bought with it when I got it....a washer and a dryer. Earned Income Credit and the Child Care tax credit is how the working poor manage to make it one more year. Do these people know what would happen to the crime rate if they did what they propose to do?
My father was very much a Union man, and I grew up hearing this saying often..."Minimum wage and all you can steal".

I'd say it's highly unlikely (none / 0) (#6)
by Dadler on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:15:55 AM EST

The corporate masters don't buy the government so their booty can be offset by anything. This is about killing the federal government, period. And if Americans by the tens of millions go down with it, all the better. If only we had a leader who could just stand up and say to the right, "Why don't we just shoot all the poor and elderly, be rid of them quickly, instead of killing them slowly like you propose here? Why make them suffer? It's inhumane. If we're not going to offer them a decent life, why even bother keeping them around, they could easily spread disease to the one-percenters. Let's just do the compassionate thing and get rid of the poor and elderly, and all the other weak and dependent, right now."

Hey, Stephen Colbert, seriously, give it a run.


: Cut corporate taxes.... (none / 0) (#23)
by NYShooter on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 06:07:44 PM EST

and G.E/ what? They get a refund?

My Take Away: (none / 0) (#8)
by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:44:31 AM EST

I think it's time to incorporate!

;)

Meet Jessica Yellin, media mannequin (none / 0) (#9)
by Dadler on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:46:27 AM EST

You put the propaganda on her and she'll model the hell out of it for you, and never make a fuss.

What's not surprising (none / 0) (#28)
by cal1942 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 10:47:19 PM EST

is that Republicans are still pushing the Laffer Curve.


: That just gives me a Boehner. (none / 0) (#33)
by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:12:52 AM EST

Maybe (none / 0) (#12)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:52:58 AM EST

this baby that Obama is determined to birth will finally finally kill the belief that tax cuts reduce the deficit. They're not going to cut military spending which is where most of the money is going anyway. Eventually the empire is going to collapse.

Did you read how much corporate (none / 0) (#14)
by observed on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:58:27 AM EST

tax GE paid last year? ZERO.
What can we do? Give subsidies?

They got one (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Dadler on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:41:20 PM EST

They claimed a tax BENEFIT of $3.2 billion in the U.S..


: Oh, Dadler, that isn't enough! (none / 0) (#17)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:44:10 PM EST

Barry sticks by his ol' buddy, y'know? How can that be a bad thing?

We don't want to molest the (none / 0) (#15)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:37:19 PM EST

oligarchs and the plutocrats now, do we? Let's all eat cake, since we can't do much else.


: Want to see how well U.S. money is (5.00 / 0) (#31)
by MO Blue on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:44:21 AM EST

used to benefit the oligarchs and the plutocrats?
Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stones, The Real Housewives of Wall Street
Why is the Federal Reserve forking over $220 million in bailout money to the wives of two Morgan Stanley bigwigs?

Bizzaroworld (none / 0) (#19)
by pluege2 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 01:19:08 PM EST

its getting to the point where I can't read this stuff anymore - its THAT stupid, and yet so real.

We're living (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by cal1942 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 10:51:00 PM EST

in a nation sized insane asylum. This is the place where great nations/empires reside in when they die. Our dementia set in a few decades ago and it ain't improving with age.


It was Cars plus TV, then electronic (none / 0) (#34)
by observed on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 10:13:38 AM EST

gizmos that did us in.
Who has time to read history books?


: Actually (none / 0) (#35)
by cal1942 on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:46:38 AM EST

it's Conservative ideology that's been expounded relentlessly changing the nature of our society into me not we and allowed the strength of the nation to whither. Tossing away the common good for the sake of concentrating power among a small subset of society who take no responsibility for the fate of the nation.

Some legislators (and the president) (none / 0) (#20)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 04:04:40 PM EST

need to re-read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

There can be no default.

: True, Not on Prior Debt (none / 0) (#21)
by The Maven on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 04:57:21 PM EST

but we're now only some $81 billion away from reaching the debt amount "authorized by law", after which point the validity of any additional debt presumably can indeed be questioned.
Is that default? No, not in a strict sense. But it would seem to say that repayment of any new debt instruments would not necessarily be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.