Comments on: The sham of Simpson-Bowles http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/24/the-sham-of-simpson-bowles/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Heartlight3 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/24/the-sham-of-simpson-bowles/#comment-66614 Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:00:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14953#comment-66614 The thing that no one seems to remember about the Simpson Bowles report is that it was required to receive a certain number of votes in order to be accepted out of the committee, and it did not. It didn’t even pass it’s own committee vote. Shortly after the report did not pass the committee, Jan Schakowsky presented her own budget proposal that would have balanced the budget in a relatively few years, reduced the deficit, paid down the debt, reduced spending, and not caused economic hardship for the most vulnerable in our society. It was a very reasonable and balanced approach, but was not even considered because it would raise taxes slightly on the very wealthy. You can find it if you google Schakowsky Budget Proposal. When you see something that sensible and reasonable be totally ignored by our lawmakers, it makes you wonder if they really even want to fix the economy.

]]>
By: Sanity-Monger http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/24/the-sham-of-simpson-bowles/#comment-65075 Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:22:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14953#comment-65075 johnb710 — the purported goal of Simpson Bowles was to come up with a deficit reduction plan. Proposing tax rate cuts at the top was a clear signal that the stated goal was a mere charade — pay no attention to the robber baron behind the curtain folks. Some of us have been around long enough to know that the rate cuts are the only part that ever happens. There’s never any loophole closing, only more opening up. And defense never gets cut either — it’s only spending that benefits the general population (medicare, education) or programs for the needy that are expendable.

A top tax rate of 29% is immoral in a complex society where the wealthy benefit the most from the infrastructure provided by the government. The newfound mantra of the right — “broaden the tax base” — is yet another in the long line of shenanigans designed to get the least fortunate to fund the lifestyle of the most fortunate. And let’s recall that the 47% who pay no federal income taxes have had their taxes lowered over the decades by conservatives who’ve also pulled the safety net rug out from under them. Now they are hoping to get their taxes back up but of course we don’t have any money to help them stay on their feet through it. Oh no, we can’t have that. We have to reduce the deficit. But somehow we can find the funds to lower top tax rates?

Apart from the fiscal ramifications, it’s just plain unseemly to propose tax rate cuts for those who have benefited the most at the same time that you’re proposing benefit cuts for the most vulnerable.

]]>
By: johnb710 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/24/the-sham-of-simpson-bowles/#comment-65015 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:49:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14953#comment-65015 Don’t drink the cool aid.

Simpson Bowles proposed lowering tax rates AND eliminting some tax deductions and tax credits in order to broaden the tax base. Almost everyone pays something, some will pay more, the rich can’t get away with paying nothing. An overall increase in tax revenue. It proposed a reduction in spending. You could lower defense spending simply by ending two wars. This is not rocket science.

The Representative is clearly not our best and brightest.

]]>
By: Crell http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/24/the-sham-of-simpson-bowles/#comment-64995 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:22:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14953#comment-64995 That would be my congresswoman. Yay!

BBFmail: It has to do with the pay outs providers, states, insurance companies, and other intermediaries. It wasn’t targeted at cutting front-line services. Medical care is a big huge beast, and you can get more efficiencies without cutting the number of surgeries that are performed each year. Those intermediaries will of course deny that, since they’re the ones being affected, but when you can get a multi-billion dollar savings just be standardizing paperwork across the industry (yes, previous studies have suggested that is the case), there’s plenty of room for improvement before you start cutting services.

Not that those intermediaries won’t argue to the contrary, because it’s their inefficiencies that would be cut…

]]>
By: Sanity-Monger http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/24/the-sham-of-simpson-bowles/#comment-64991 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:19:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14953#comment-64991 Unfortunately, today’s so-called national conversation takes place between those who think that the rich should take it all but that we should at least make it look like we care versus those who think the rich should just blatantly get it all. Rep Schakowsky clearly hasn’t read the playbook.

BBFmail: Obamacare is not a voucher plan. Beneficiaries are eligible for a defined package of services. It cuts costs by reducing the payments for those services without cutting back on what’s in the package. This may present problems, but it is certainly not some underhanded sleight of hand. DO YOU STILL NEED IT EXPLAINED? ARE YOU SLOW OR SIMPLY TOO CLOSE-MINDED TO TAKE IN SUCH SIMPLE IDEAS?

]]>
By: Anonymous http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/24/the-sham-of-simpson-bowles/#comment-64972 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:18:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14953#comment-64972 Tinkering with the tax code will do no good. How did we get into this mess? Reform is not possible. We have the most complex and corrupt tax system on the planet. Replacement and simplicity is the only hope for salvation. With what? A universal transaction tax. Tax all transactions at a single low rate that is sufficient to balance the budget. We have the computer modeling power to manage such a system. Consult with the credit card companies. Get rid of the income tax and the 100,000 page tax code that no one understands. Rebate to the poverty level to all voters.

]]>
By: BBFmail http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/24/the-sham-of-simpson-bowles/#comment-64933 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:25:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14953#comment-64933 ““Obamacare” took a different approach, lowering costs without reducing benefits”

I still am not understanding how the ObamaCare plan of cutting Medicare and Medicaid by $715 BILLION will not effect the care provided. PLEASE SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME.

]]>
By: jcfl http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/24/the-sham-of-simpson-bowles/#comment-64924 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:03:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14953#comment-64924 unfortunately rep schakowsky speaking truthfully has earned her the scorn of teapsters and grover numbnuts. this will guarantee a huge effort to smear her and put a teabagger in her district next election. this is what we’ve come to – destroying those few individuals who speak out against unfair and downright wrong policies.

]]>
By: flashrooster http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/24/the-sham-of-simpson-bowles/#comment-64864 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:25:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14953#comment-64864 Wow. Who is this woman? Representative Jan Schakowsky should be considered for the Medal of Honor for her courage. Okay, that’s a stretch considering what real heroes have to do on the battle field to earn one, but Rep. Schakowsky does earn my deepest respect for having the courage to tell the truth, a truth that rightfully challenges what has become accepted orthodoxy. Simpson-Bowles is not the best we can do. And shouldn’t we be striving for the best we can do? Why is everything being considered in our government now formulated to benefit the richest .1% and requiring everyone else to sacrifice dearly?

A top income tax rate of 29% or less when we’re trying to make up a budget shortfall? Makes no sense. Even Republican Ben Stein believes the rich should pay more in taxes. The wealthy plutocrats are pressuring and bribing our government to lower their taxes, and this is why I’m so impressed with Rep. Schakowsky for having the courage to put her country first and telling the truth. Our country would be so much better off if we had more representation like her. We need to get money out of our elections and end the corrupting practicing of lobbying.

Thank you, Rep. Schakowsky. And I hardily agree with you. Simpson-Bowles is bad medicine. We can do better and do it in a way that benefits ALL of our country and not just the filthy rich.

]]>