The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Make Me an Offer||Date: 12/3/2012 10:23 PM|
|Author: PuddinHead42||Number: 1842076 of 1913544|
Boehner would not name a single specific cut or revenue increase but claims he won't allow the "can to be kicked down the road".
This might seem disappointing, but the Democratic offer is just as devoid of details about spending cuts. Republicans often react like a beaten dog, flinching at any offer of "spending cuts" because tax increases are immediate and spending cuts are always promises for future cuts that never stick. At best spending cuts are just decreases in the spending rate.
Nevertheless, before Sunday there were lots of signals from republicans that they are willing to work with increased revenues. However, like a classic Japanese drama, they need to save face. They painted themselves into a corner saying no tax (rate) increases, but there is plenty of signaling saying they will extract more tax from rich people without raising rates. So, if the dems want X dollars of revenues from rich people, how important is it that they MUST be via rate increases versus deduction limits? Why is that less intransigent then refusing to raise rates? Negotiate a little face saving and you might get a lot more of what you want.
I believe that today, the Republicans took a framework from Democrat Erskine Bowles (Bowles is best known for his appointment in 2010 as the Democratic co-chair of President Barack Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform with Alan K. Simpson.) and offered that as a starting point. It basically requires $2 of cuts for each $1 of tax increases. This is less than the $3 of cuts suggested by the actual committee. I don't believe the Bowles framework was specific about cuts, but I believe it did recognize, like Obama has, that entitlements are the long term problem and must be fixed (and not just from an imaginary money tree).
So I believe that compromise is possible, but there should be more private discussions and fewer public insults.
I you are selling your $500k house and I offer you $100K and call you a d-bag, we are not going to reach a deal.
I give it a 10% chance of a solution before the cliff, a 50% chance before the inauguration (with a short jump off the cliff), 35% of kicking it down the road past June and 5% of dropping off the cliff for more than a few weeks. (and a 100% chance of it sucking for everyone.)
Maybe this is one of those suicide-murder cases you read about - nobody wins.
Frankly, I would be happy with the success and environment of the Clinton years - let ALL tax cuts expire and balance the budget. I will gladly pay more taxes for that.
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|