Fixing the economy: It’s Boehner’s turn

UPDATE BELOW

 

CNN: Fixing the economy: It’s Boehner’s turn.

Oh, I can’t wait for the GOP “plan.” No doubt, it will put Obama’s plan to shame!

Any guesses as to the meat of Boehner’s plan? Let me go way out on a limb this morning and take a wild stab.

Let’s see….

How about these three:  1.) tax cuts;  2.) deregulation; 3.) cutting workers’ benefits

Of course I’m only taking wild guesses.  I could be wrong.

Doubt it.

 

 

UPDATE 5:30 PM

From the LA Times: Boehner’s speech highlighted the broad approach long advocated by the Republicans and offered no new specific proposals.

What else can I say???

 

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Fixing the economy: It’s Boehner’s turn

  1. “2.) deregulation” ???

    You should have stated “select” deregulation. Some things they want more regulation while other thing less regulation. It depends on who’s getting the regulation.

  2. OK, me again. After reading some other blog and their comments, I came across this ditty: “In a high-profile speech, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner called on a special congressional committee to consider tax reforms that would close loopholes but not raise rates — or tax revenues — as part of its bid to cut the U.S. deficit.”

    Wouldn’t it be fun if some of those loopholes were loopholes the LIV are currently using while the the same time blaming the government for runaway spending?

    P.S. How can you close tax loopholes without raising tax revenue? Are there loopholes that actually increase the tax paid? If anyone knows of any, let your Congressperson know about them immediately. We sure as hell don’t want to close any to those.

    1. Jeff- You said you were an accountant. Rates, and tax revenues are different. That much I do know. If you close loopholes, that would automatically raise revenue, but would not raise tax rates. Right?

      1. Correct. 10% tax rate of $100 income is $10 tax due. 12% tax rate of $100 earning is $12 due.

        But if I claim a tax exemption of $40 for expenses related to my “pet rock” farm, I only pay a 10% rate of [$100 earnings minus $40 exemption = $60 taxable earnings] which is $6 tax. Close that moon rock tax exemption loophole and I’ll pay 10% on the whole $100 I earn or $10 tax. That’s closing a loophole, but also raising revenue, the difference of $4 tax revenue (the amount of money the Internal Revenue Service takes in). You have to lower the tax rate from 10% to 6% to close the loophole but also not raise tax revenue. Maybe he was misquoted and he meant closing loopholes with the intent of RAISING revenue.

        I’ve lost trust in our elected officials so I watch EXACTING the words they use because I think they throw terms at the American public to confuse us. A big use of mis-terms this year has been the amount to tax General Electric paid. The say how much money GE made, but you don’ t if it’s revenue, gross profit, net profit or net profit made in the U.S. You also don’t hear if it’s earned income, capital gains, income after an obsolete write off, sell off or revaluation of stock held by the company. If they included all this information, most people would lose interest after the first few lines.

        The big “loophole” they’re talking about now affects retirees. If you’re living off your investments (stocks and bonds), the income you take is usually capital gains and/or unearned income. They want to start taxing those income sources. Because capital gains have basically been nonexistent due to sinking of stockmarket values, they can change capital gains laws now you wouldn’t notice anything for at least a couple of years. But this change will enhance the government’s ability to repay debt so it can help restore the U.S.’s AAA credit rating which translates into lower interest rates on money they borrow on the open market. The government has been borrowing privately from the Social Security Fund, but the the first time that fund is zero and the government has to pay back some of that borrowed money so people will still get social security checks that don’t bounce.

  3. Maybe he was misquoted and he meant closing loopholes with the intent of RAISING revenue.

    …or, alternatively, one might write: Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.

    Jeff- I am appointing you as chief economic adviser of Man With the Muckrake Blog.

    1. Mud- You should appoint him Chief Economic Officer…C.E.O. has a much better ring too it:)

Comments are closed.