Senate Dems to announce sequester-replacement plan today

[bripat9643]

So what will this new plan for deficit reduction look like? Ten years of cuts get turned into ten months of tax hikes and cuts in equal measure. The tax hikes in the plan equal that gained by Barack Obama in the January standoff for the rest of this year. The cuts fall mainly in defense spending and agricultural subsidies. Will that fly? Only like the domesticated turkey that it is:

CBS News has learned that the Senate Democrats’ long-awaited plan to avert the sequester, being announced by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, Thursday, would replace the 10-year sequester for the rest of 2013 — 10 months — with $120 billion in spending cuts and new tax revenue, split 50-50.

Most of the revenue would come from implementing what’s known as the Buffett Rule, named after investor Warren Buffett. The rule would cap deductions and loopholes for millionaires so they pay at least 30 percent of their salary in taxes. Senate Democrats tried and failed to pass the Buffett Rule last year.

The spending cuts would come from eliminating agriculture subsidies and from trimming the defense budget, though not as drastically as the sequester would.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Video: Senate Dems to announce sequester-replacement plan today « Hot Air

VIDEO LINK
Dems' plan to avoid sequester: $120B in spending cuts, new tax revenue - CBS News

 

[BreezeWood]

"When the Senate passes a plan, we'll be happy to take a look at it," Boehner said.

does the sequester prevent Republicans from being paid if it is implemented ?

 

[bripat9643]

"When the Senate passes a plan, we'll be happy to take a look at it," Boehner said.

Does the sequester prevent Republicans from being paid if it is implemented ?

That's what you would like, isn't it?

I'm surprised that no one has taken an interest in this topic. The utter sleaziness of Democrats defies comprehension. How can any honest American vote for one of these scumbags?

 

[peach174]

You can always count on having more taxes in it.

 

[bripat9643]

You can always count on having more taxes in it.

You would think they would be smart enough to realize that they have to propose something that republicans find more palatable than the sequester. This bill doesn't even come close. It has more of the stuff that republicans don't like. More of the cuts are in defense, and it adds in more tax increases.

 

[deaddogseye]

Personally I think the Republicans have to see the sequester through unless obama agrees to alternative cuts without more taxes -- which he will not do. If they agree to more taxes and back off this they will lose too much credibility after backing off on the tax increase before and the debt ceiling. No one will believe anything they say any more and they should just let themselves be bitch-slapped around for the next 4 years. This is where they actually can dig in and start to turn things more to their advantage if they have the balls to do it. To me it should be an easy call but you never know with politicians - they dont tend to be very smart on either side of the aisle.

 

[BreezeWood]

"When the Senate passes a plan, we'll be happy to take a look at it," Boehner said.

Does the sequester prevent Republicans from being paid if it is implemented ?

That's what you would like, isn't it?

I'm surprised that no one has taken an interest in this topic. The utter sleaziness of Democrats defies comprehension. How can any honest American vote for one of these scumbags?

i'm not sure you got the point

since Republicans are all for putting people out of work, maybe they would like to join them ... at least the not being paid part.

 

[AmericanFirst]

"When the Senate passes a plan, we'll be happy to take a look at it," Boehner said.

does the sequester prevent Republicans from being paid if it is implemented ?

We should stop paying the dimwits, they are the real problem.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

You can always count on having more taxes in it.

Technically, just less deductions and loopholes. The tax rate isn't changing.

Hey wait, isn't this what Romney campaigned for?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

So what will this new plan for deficit reduction look like? Ten years of cuts get turned into ten months of tax hikes and cuts in equal measure. The tax hikes in the plan equal that gained by Barack Obama in the January standoff for the rest of this year. The cuts fall mainly in defense spending and agricultural subsidies. Will that fly? Only like the domesticated turkey that it is:

CBS News has learned that the Senate Democrats’ long-awaited plan to avert the sequester, being announced by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, Thursday, would replace the 10-year sequester for the rest of 2013 — 10 months — with $120 billion in spending cuts and new tax revenue, split 50-50.

Most of the revenue would come from implementing what’s known as the Buffett Rule, named after investor Warren Buffett. The rule would cap deductions and loopholes for millionaires so they pay at least 30 percent of their salary in taxes. Senate Democrats tried and failed to pass the Buffett Rule last year.

The spending cuts would come from eliminating agriculture subsidies and from trimming the defense budget, though not as drastically as the sequester would.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Video: Senate Dems to announce sequester-replacement plan today « Hot Air

VIDEO LINK
Dems' plan to avoid sequester: $120B in spending cuts, new tax revenue - CBS News

Sounds good to me. Though I wonder how much of the agriculture subsidy will be cut?

 

[bripat9643]

Does the sequester prevent Republicans from being paid if it is implemented ?

That's what you would like, isn't it?

I'm surprised that no one has taken an interest in this topic. The utter sleaziness of Democrats defies comprehension. How can any honest American vote for one of these scumbags?

i'm not sure you got the point

since Republicans are all for putting people out of work, maybe they would like to join them ... at least the not being paid part.

I think the point is that you're an imbecile. I would certainly like to see a lot of government employees put out of work, permanently. However, only a lib would conceive of the idea of only laying off Republicans. It just goes to show that if you scratch a liberal, you find a Stalinist underneath.

 

[bripat9643]

So what will this new plan for deficit reduction look like? Ten years of cuts get turned into ten months of tax hikes and cuts in equal measure. The tax hikes in the plan equal that gained by Barack Obama in the January standoff for the rest of this year. The cuts fall mainly in defense spending and agricultural subsidies. Will that fly? Only like the domesticated turkey that it is:

CBS News has learned that the Senate Democrats’ long-awaited plan to avert the sequester, being announced by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, Thursday, would replace the 10-year sequester for the rest of 2013 — 10 months — with $120 billion in spending cuts and new tax revenue, split 50-50.

Most of the revenue would come from implementing what’s known as the Buffett Rule, named after investor Warren Buffett. The rule would cap deductions and loopholes for millionaires so they pay at least 30 percent of their salary in taxes. Senate Democrats tried and failed to pass the Buffett Rule last year.

The spending cuts would come from eliminating agriculture subsidies and from trimming the defense budget, though not as drastically as the sequester would.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Video: Senate Dems to announce sequester-replacement plan today « Hot Air

VIDEO LINK
Dems' plan to avoid sequester: $120B in spending cuts, new tax revenue - CBS News

Sounds good to me. Though I wonder how much of the agriculture subsidy will be cut?

Of course it sounds good to you. You're an idiot.

The question is "why would any Republican vote for it?"

 

[bripat9643]

You can always count on having more taxes in it.

Technically, just less deductions and loopholes. The tax rate isn't changing.

It's still a tax increase.

Hey wait, isn't this what Romney campaigned for?

Nope. His proposal was revenue neutral. It eliminated deductions, but it lowered rates. Only a sleazy Dim would attempt to equate the two things.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

So what will this new plan for deficit reduction look like? Ten years of cuts get turned into ten months of tax hikes and cuts in equal measure. The tax hikes in the plan equal that gained by Barack Obama in the January standoff for the rest of this year. The cuts fall mainly in defense spending and agricultural subsidies. Will that fly? Only like the domesticated turkey that it is:

CBS News has learned that the Senate Democrats’ long-awaited plan to avert the sequester, being announced by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, Thursday, would replace the 10-year sequester for the rest of 2013 — 10 months — with $120 billion in spending cuts and new tax revenue, split 50-50.

Most of the revenue would come from implementing what’s known as the Buffett Rule, named after investor Warren Buffett. The rule would cap deductions and loopholes for millionaires so they pay at least 30 percent of their salary in taxes. Senate Democrats tried and failed to pass the Buffett Rule last year.

The spending cuts would come from eliminating agriculture subsidies and from trimming the defense budget, though not as drastically as the sequester would.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Video: Senate Dems to announce sequester-replacement plan today « Hot Air

VIDEO LINK
Dems' plan to avoid sequester: $120B in spending cuts, new tax revenue - CBS News

Sounds good to me. Though I wonder how much of the agriculture subsidy will be cut?

Of course it sounds good to you. You're an idiot.

The question is "why would any Republican vote for it?"

Can you explain what you don't like about it. Besides the fact that it was written by people with a D next to their name, instead of an R.

 

[OKTexas]

Funny thing about Washington, they call a reduction in projected spending a cut. How about we insist on acutal year over year cuts where the numbers of dollars spent are fewer?

 

[bripat9643]

Sounds good to me. Though I wonder how much of the agriculture subsidy will be cut?

Of course it sounds good to you. You're an idiot.

The question is "why would any Republican vote for it?"

Can you explain what you don't like about it. Besides the fact that it was written by people with a D next to their name, instead of an R.

It raises taxes and cuts less spending than the sequester. Furthermore, a higher percentage of the cuts are in defense. From the Republican point of view, and the taxpayer point of view, it's lose, lose, lose. The sequester smells like the sweetest rose compared to this turd.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny thing about Washington, they call a reduction in projected spending a cut. How about we insist on acutal year over year cuts where the numbers of dollars spent are fewer?

Yep, no more of these 10 year budget deals. They are designed to promote fraud. we should demand that every year Congress propose a one year budget with $200 billion less than the year before.

 

[Mustang]

So what will this new plan for deficit reduction look like? Ten years of cuts get turned into ten months of tax hikes and cuts in equal measure. The tax hikes in the plan equal that gained by Barack Obama in the January standoff for the rest of this year. The cuts fall mainly in defense spending and agricultural subsidies. Will that fly? Only like the domesticated turkey that it is:

CBS News has learned that the Senate Democrats’ long-awaited plan to avert the sequester, being announced by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, Thursday, would replace the 10-year sequester for the rest of 2013 — 10 months — with $120 billion in spending cuts and new tax revenue, split 50-50.

Most of the revenue would come from implementing what’s known as the Buffett Rule, named after investor Warren Buffett. The rule would cap deductions and loopholes for millionaires so they pay at least 30 percent of their salary in taxes. Senate Democrats tried and failed to pass the Buffett Rule last year.

The spending cuts would come from eliminating agriculture subsidies and from trimming the defense budget, though not as drastically as the sequester would.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Video: Senate Dems to announce sequester-replacement plan today « Hot Air

VIDEO LINK
Dems' plan to avoid sequester: $120B in spending cuts, new tax revenue - CBS News

This is what's known as a negotiating position from where negotiations START on the way to a compromise which nobody is entirely happy with but everyone can live with.

Alas, conservatives are the prima donnas of Washington politics; they're constantly making grandiose pronouncements and caterwauling when they can't get their way in all things. Frankly, they remind me of 15 yo teenage girls in this respect. PLENTY of drama (and melodrama). But the only real crisis is the one they create when they can't get 100% of what they want.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Of course it sounds good to you. You're an idiot.

The question is "why would any Republican vote for it?"

Can you explain what you don't like about it. Besides the fact that it was written by people with a D next to their name, instead of an R.

It raises taxes and cuts less spending than the sequester. Furthermore, a higher percentage of the cuts are in defense. From the Republican point of view, and the taxpayer point of view, it's lose, lose, lose. The sequester smells like the sweetest rose compared to this turd.

It cuts less defense than the sequester does, you should be happy about that. And defense is easily cut by returning to pre-war levels. The wars are over, we can drop defense spending now.

I'll have to disagree on taxes. I think every deduction and loophole imaginable should be scrapped.

 

[bripat9643]

This is what's known as a negotiating position from where negotiations START on the way to a compromise which nobody is entirely happy with but everyone can live with.

Alas, conservatives are the prima donnas of Washington politics; they're constantly making grandiose pronouncements and caterwauling when they can't get their way in all things. Frankly, they remind me of 15 yo teenage girls in this respect. PLENTY of drama (and melodrama). But the only real crisis is the one they create when they can't get 100% of what they want.

Unless the Democrat offer is more palatable than the sequester, what is there to negotiate? It would have to have smaller cuts in defense and greater cuts in social spending and no tax increases. Anything else is DOA.