Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Showing Original Post only (View all)

democrattotheend

(11,605 posts)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:56 PM Dec 2012

Fiscal Cliff Talks Center on $2 Trillion Proposal [View all]

Source: Political Wire/CNN/WSJ

President Obama and House Speaker Boehner "are discussing a $2 trillion framework on a deal to avert the fiscal cliff, that would include roughly a trillion in tax increases and roughly a trillion in savings from entitlement programs," CNN reports.

"Boehner and the president met in person on Monday, but sources familiar with the talks indicate that the framework under discussion is what Republicans are pushing to get to agreement, but it's unclear whether the make up of the $2 trillion framework could get support from Democrats."

Wall Street Journal: "While the White House objected to major parts of the proposal, senior Democrats described it as a tipping point that moves talks away from deadlock. Instead, it cleared the way for both sides to engage in nitty-gritty haggling over exactly where the new income threshold might be set and what should comprise the spending cuts."

Read more: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/12/17/fiscal_cliff_talks_center_on_2_trillion_proposal.html



No good, IMO. The $1 trillion in revenue is OK depending on how it is structured (the president upped it to $1.6 trillion in his initial offer to start out from a high bargaining position; we never expected to actually get it). But $1 trillion in cuts is bad...way too much. They already cut $1 trillion last year, which means they probably got most of the low-hanging fruit. I don't see how you cut $1 trillion w/o seriously hurting the most vulnerable populations.

It looks like it's far from a done deal...WSJ says the White House is pushing back on major parts of the proposal. But we need to keep the pressure up, and not just regarding Social Security and Medicare. There are a lot of other important programs, such as food stamps and LIHEAP, that could be on the chopping block. Medicaid not so much, according to an article I read last week, but doesn't hurt to be vigilant.
35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Doesn't the President's repeatedly mentiond desire of "a balanced approach" imply PoliticAverse Dec 2012 #1
I hope not democrattotheend Dec 2012 #6
You're right. Obama said to keep pressure on representatives of both parties to disallow changing freshwest Dec 2012 #2
This keeps John2 Dec 2012 #3
I think this weekend gives POTUS a whole new stance to argue from. Myrina Dec 2012 #4
Where is there any mention of the Pentagon's budget? Dustlawyer Dec 2012 #5
Exactly, we could cut a trillion from the pentagon and never miss it. grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #7
How do you cut a trillion from a $700 billion budget? mostlyconfused Dec 2012 #12
Over 10 years, that's what they were talking about in the article, although grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #13
Cutting half of the defense budget mostlyconfused Dec 2012 #14
Off the top of my head? grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #17
"Our real revenue would come from taxing the rich at pre-Reagan levels"? Doubtful. mostlyconfused Dec 2012 #15
Well, now we're talking about paying off the debt.... grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #18
Lets see how well that works for France. dkf Dec 2012 #26
The last time they did that, it worked out really well for them, but for the rich, grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #29
No need to kill them, people who want to pay will stay and others will leave. dkf Dec 2012 #34
I wonder if other current issues will allow significant entitlement cuts plethoro Dec 2012 #8
No cuts to Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid. JDPriestly Dec 2012 #9
a trillion from the rich, a trillion from the poor. Seems a little unfair to me. olddad56 Dec 2012 #10
The rich never pay humbled_opinion Dec 2012 #11
Really wish they'd talk annual numbers, not 10 year numbers mostlyconfused Dec 2012 #16
It's just talk. I don't think Boehner can keep the Tea Party on board. Redfairen Dec 2012 #19
It's a revenue problem, NOT a spending problem (except for the bloated military, which is 60% of it) grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #20
You can't raise enough revenue to fix the problem mostlyconfused Dec 2012 #21
Ahem, but Bull Hockey grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #22
Sadly, that would get maybe 10 votes in the Senate democrattotheend Dec 2012 #23
Thing is, we can tax our way out of this debt that the wealthiest Americans have led us into - grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #24
Simple if we don't live in the real world, or have to do real math mostlyconfused Dec 2012 #25
One correction to my math... mostlyconfused Dec 2012 #27
How about a 79.6% rate or a 94% rate? mostlyconfused Dec 2012 #28
The President's numbers come from the CBO, and have been fully vetted, grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #30
CBO also says Obamacare will cost twice as much as originally projected mostlyconfused Dec 2012 #31
Disagree, thanks! grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #32
Disagree with tax return data direct from the IRS? mostlyconfused Dec 2012 #33
my mom with Alzheimer's gets $2200/mo Soc. Sec, her expenses are $14,000/mo wordpix Dec 2012 #35
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Fiscal Cliff Talks Center...