Finally a Plan That Would Work

[rushmc 23]

But what is really amazing is, LOOK AT WHO IS REPORTING IT???????

And I found it on NewsMax© 2009 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.

Republicans Unveil Alternative Stimulus Package

Friday, January 23, 2009 1:26 PM


WASHINGTON – Top Republican lawmakers on Friday unveiled a plan for tax cuts and other steps meant to pull the battered US economy out of its slump after White House talks with President Barack Obama.


The blueprint, anchored on a series of tax-cut proposals and an effort to prop up sagging US home values, came with the Senate and House of Representatives looking to send Obama a stimulus bill by February 16.


Republicans have fiercely opposed a Democratic bill that comprises 550 billion dollars in spending and 275 billion dollars in tax cuts, charging it is too big, would do little to restore growth, feeds too many pet projects, and kicks in too late.


But "there's unanimity that our economy needs help," House Minority Leader John Boehner said at the White House after laying out the Republican initiative before Obama.


The Republican plan relies on cutting lowest individual tax rates from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to five percent, tax deductions for small businesses, and a ban on tax increases to pay for new spending -- which they say should be paid for by cutting spending in other areas.


It would also make unemployment benefits tax free, and offer a home-buyers credit for those who make a minimum down payment of five percent, according to a statement from the Republican leadership.


"At the end of the day, government can't solve this problem. The American people have to solve it. And the way they can solve it is if we allow them to keep more of the money that they earn," said Boehner.


Republican leaders were expected to meet with Obama next week to discuss the plan, as the House prepares to vote Wednesday on the Democratic plan and any Republican amendments.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,107]

So their plan is basically to do exactly the same thing as last time and hope that this time it does something different.

Great idea.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

So their plan is basically to do exactly the same thing as last time and hope that this time it does something different.

Great idea.

You should visit some sites that have done in depth research into what the tax cut plans have done.

But then, that doesnt support a gov controled type economy does it.

Make a bet with you. If tax cuts (for all) are enacted, the economy will rebound here in less than two years. If the Obama plans are implimented, we will see no rebound that will be blames on Bush 4 years from now. You set the terms.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[airdvr 210]

As opposed to the New Deal FDR foisted on the public? That didn't work either.

FDR's 'Fear' speech could have been re-delivered by Obama on Tuesday

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/

Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

...there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rushmc 23]

More to consider

January 22, 2009
How the House Stimulus Bill Undercuts Parental Authority
by Dennis G. Smith
WebMemo #2237
Buried in the economic stimulus legislation is a provision further undercutting parental authority and expanding control of taxpayer dollars by family planning clinics. No doubt these provisions are embodied in the economic stimulus package because their congressional sponsors believe that they would not be enacted if considered separately on their own merits.

Expanding Eligibility

Section 5004, "State Eligibility Option for Family Planning Services," would make Medicaid into a virtual money-machine for family planning clinics. The federal government already provides a 90 percent match rate for family planning services in Medicaid. States therefore have little at stake in Congress's oversight and accountability of Medicaid. Under Section 5004, eligibility and benefits can be expanded in several ways:

Contrary to current law, the income of parents or even a spouse may not be counted in determining eligibility. A state would have the option to "consider only the income of the applicant or recipient." In other words, a child in a family at any income level may be eligible for free family planning services.
A child would be able to receive benefits through a "presumptive eligibility period" and beyond without parental knowledge that he or she applied for Medicaid.
Typically, Medicaid eligibility is restricted to individuals in a family with a dependent child. Section 5004 creates a new eligibility group that would include college students, adults without children, and even adults in a household that has significant income but little or no income for the applicant. Moreover, applicants would not have to prove their citizenship before their "presumptive eligibility" is determined.
Benefits are not limited to "family planning services and supplies." Section 5004 expands benefits at state option to include "medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided in conjunction with a family planning service in a family planning setting." This is a massive loophole. Providers would quickly learn that all they have to do is ask certain questions to qualify as "a family planning service in a family planning setting." For instance, all a provider has to do is ask a patient, "Are you sexually active?" and that encounter automatically meets the new, broad test, thereby triggering Medicaid payment for other services as well, paid for with a 90 percent match rate from the federal government. While family planning clinics are clearly intended to become the sites for delivering services, there is nothing to prevent other types of providers (such as a hospital outpatient department, which has access to an even broader array of tests and treatments) from doing the same. Since states have little of their own funds at stake, they would have incentive to raise reimbursement rates to clinics and steer individuals to them. The provision of additional benefits would also create new inequities. Individuals who are not pregnant will qualify for all the new benefits. All the while, expectant mothers, by definition, are not intended to be eligible for this coverage.
Since family planning services can include services to achieve pregnancy, it will be up to the Obama Administration to interpret the language as to whether the expansion of benefits would include expensive fertility treatment. Fertility drugs are not currently covered by Medicaid, but as a new benefit to be defined by the states, it is not clear whether these restrictions would still apply. Without a doubt, special interest groups would pressure the states to expand such benefits, given the 90 percent match rate. If allowed, this would create another new inequity. The newly eligible individuals at higher income levels could receive fertility services while lower-income individuals served through regular Medicaid would not.
Debate over family planning coverage reveals a deep ideological division among the proponents. In general, congressional leaders have strongly insisted that all children covered by Medicaid receive the comprehensive benefits of Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) services. It seems inconsistent to maintain that a "family planning only" benefit is appropriate for some children while a benefit package that includes hospitalization, physician services, dental care, and prescription drugs--but not EPSDT--is insufficient to merit public funding.
Providers will be empowered to give at least two months of benefits under the "presumptive eligibility" provisions. Benefits could be extended further through additional presumptive eligibility periods. Typically, presumptive eligibility has been reserved to public entities. This provision will give the power to private clinics to provide easy access to so-called "emergency contraceptives" and be reimbursed with taxpayer dollars.
The Obama Administration will interpret whether the payment language ("[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law") may be used as a backdoor means of overturning Hyde Amendment restrictions on federal funding of abortions.
More Loopholes

Section 5004 will also reverse current law in respect to state benefit flexibility. Since the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, states have had the authority to offer "benchmark plans" and were allowed by federal law to provide coverage that does not include family planning services. Some religious organizations believe low-income families should be able to participate in a health benefit program that does not include contraceptives or sterilization. In a statement on reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), for example, the Catholic Medical Association recommends that "at a minimum, state and federal regulations should permit parents to have access to SCHIP funds to enable them to choose health insurance coverage that does not conflict with their values and that does not separate funding mechanisms from parental oversight."[1] Under Section 5004, that choice would not be available to parents of children on Medicaid.

Finally, the legislation provides a special "safe harbor" protection to the state of California. Under procedures dating back to the Clinton Administration, California created an eligibility process that bypasses the county welfare agencies. As a result, California is allowed to provide coverage to individuals--including immigrant populations--who are not eligible for Medicaid. The Bush Administration attempted to bring California into conformance with standard eligibility procedures. Section 5004 would allow California to continue to use the same procedures that have been abused in the past.

A Hidden Agenda?

A radical social agenda does not belong in the economic stimulus package. At a minimum, congressional sponsors should be required to present it for a full debate with the potential for amendments in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It should not be buried in the economic stimulus package.

Dennis G. Smith is Senior Fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TrophyHusband 0]

it doesn't matter how good a plan is, if it was written by the republicans it will not be concidered. according to pelosi, the dems won, so they are going to write the bills. i think that to her (and many others on both sides, but she's the pack leader) the party is more important than the country. thanks mrs pelosi for continuing the hyper-partisonship.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

it doesn't matter how good a plan is, if it was written by the republicans it will not be concidered. according to pelosi, the dems won, so they are going to write the bills. i think that to her (and many others on both sides, but she's the pack leader) the party is more important than the country. thanks mrs pelosi for continuing the hyper-partisonship.

So we will see if billvon will take my bet.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gawain 0]

Quote

So their plan is basically to do exactly the same thing as last time and hope that this time it does something different.

Great idea.

Tax cuts have always been followed by growth, and an increase of actual tax-income to the government. The problem is Congressional spending.

Tax cuts are administratively cheaper, and can have an immediate affect. These "shovel ready" crap programs don't do that, and do not get government out of the way.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

So their plan is basically to do exactly the same thing as last time and hope that this time it does something different.

Great idea.

Tax cuts have always been followed by growth, and an increase of actual tax-income to the government. The problem is Congressional spending.

Tax cuts are administratively cheaper, and can have an immediate affect. These "shovel ready" crap programs don't do that, and do not get government out of the way.

That must be the reason the deficit ballooned after the Reagan tax cuts and the GW Bush tax cuts. Yes, that must be the reason.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So their plan is basically to do exactly the same thing as last time and hope that this time it does something different.

Great idea.

Well, at least all of these line items (assuming they're not trying to sneak them in) are actually beneficial to the lower classes, rather than trying to pull off that zero tax BS for capital gains.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Make a bet with you. If tax cuts (for all) are enacted, the economy will rebound here in less than two years. If the Obama plans are implimented, we will see no rebound that will be blames on Bush 4 years from now. You set the terms.

Funny guy.

Easy to blow smoke like that, knowing that only one attempt can be made (and it will be something from the Obama-Pelosi side), and given how crappy things are it can easily take longer than 2 years. Why does that make you a winner? Remember, they cut taxes for 2008 by $600 for most people and things got worse, not better.

Or think back to 1981 - Reagan's tax cuts didn't turn it right around, it continued to get worse. It started going upward by 1983, but by the end of his term, it was no better off than when he started.

[billvon 3,107]

>Make a bet with you. If tax cuts (for all) are enacted, the economy will
>rebound here in less than two years.

If we cut taxes, the economy will rebound in less than two years.

If we don't cut any taxes, the economy will rebound in less than two years.

If we have a massive stimulus package, the economy will rebound in less than two years.

If we don't have a massive stimulus package, the economy will rebound in less than two years.

There's a common theme there, and it ain't tax cuts or stimulus packages.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

So their plan is basically to do exactly the same thing as last time and hope that this time it does something different.

Great idea.

kinda like a $1T economic stimulus package?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So their plan is basically to do exactly the same thing as last time and hope that this time it does something different.

Great idea.

Tax cuts have always been followed by growth, and an increase of actual tax-income to the government. The problem is Congressional spending.

Tax cuts are administratively cheaper, and can have an immediate affect. These "shovel ready" crap programs don't do that, and do not get government out of the way.

That must be the reason the deficit ballooned after the Reagan tax cuts and the GW Bush tax cuts. Yes, that must be the reason.

You would be correct. With the increase in "revenue", Congress out-paced revenue at incredible rates. It started in the 80s, enhanced by trade deficits because the dollar was very strong. President Clinton was able to balance the budget by cutting the capital gains tax.

Don't get me wrong, the Presidents all signed these budgets and spending bills over the years. The onus is on them as well. But it is Congress that holds the purse. Of course, that also changed the Congress passed that stupid, stupid, retarded TARP bill...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Make a bet with you. If tax cuts (for all) are enacted, the economy will
>rebound here in less than two years.

If we cut taxes, the economy will rebound in less than two years.

If we don't cut any taxes, the economy will rebound in less than two years.

If we have a massive stimulus package, the economy will rebound in less than two years.

If we don't have a massive stimulus package, the economy will rebound in less than two years.

There's a common theme there, and it ain't tax cuts or stimulus packages.

I will agree that doing nothing is better than the TARP bs. But doing nothing also means leaving the Bush tax cuts in place and not change them to the tax welfare bill Obama wants

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You would be correct. With the increase in "revenue", Congress out-paced revenue at incredible rates. It started in the 80s, enhanced by trade deficits because the dollar was very strong. President Clinton was able to balance the budget by cutting the capital gains tax.

Right....those higher income tax brackets had nothing to do with it.

Sheesh - when basic math is missing, these conversations suck.

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So their plan is basically to do exactly the same thing as last time and hope that this time it does something different.

Great idea.

Tax cuts have always been followed by growth, and an increase of actual tax-income to the government. The problem is Congressional spending.

Tax cuts are administratively cheaper, and can have an immediate affect. These "shovel ready" crap programs don't do that, and do not get government out of the way.

That must be the reason the deficit ballooned after the Reagan tax cuts and the GW Bush tax cuts. Yes, that must be the reason.

You would be correct. With the increase in "revenue", Congress out-paced revenue at incredible rates. It started in the 80s, enhanced by trade deficits because the dollar was very strong. President Clinton was able to balance the budget by cutting the capital gains tax.

Don't get me wrong, the Presidents all signed these budgets and spending bills over the years. The onus is on them as well. But it is Congress that holds the purse. Of course, that also changed the Congress passed that stupid, stupid, retarded TARP bill...

Under Bush II, the tax cuts led to a 6.7% decline in REAL revenue for the first 4 years of his presidency. Because his spending increases far outpaced the decrease in government revenue, the total national debt outstanding increased 41%. The cumulative effect of the Bush tax cuts over his presidency on REAL revenues is negative.


To compare, Clinton increased taxes on the upper-income taxpayers, which led to a 97% increase in government revenue. He grew the economy at a healthy pace. He decreased the debt/GDP ratio in each year starting in 1995 of his presidency.

The so-called "Laffer Curve", beloved of Republicans, has absolutely no evidence to indicate what its actual shape is, or where we are on it with respect to maximizing revenues. Basically, it's a right wing myth.