Where are the details?

...it is NOT the job of the informed pressed to read documents. We merely regurgitate the blather that we have been informed to regurgitate. Are you implying that the press should do research and think????

on their hands, it's not worth reading.

"The Budget Control Act’s mandated $1 trillion in spending cuts would remain in place with half, $550 billion coming from defense."

highlighting it, Pro Sense~

detailed, so where is the Republican Plan so we can compare? The White house should present this plan to every major newspaper in the country, so the TV pundits can stop perpetuating their lies. This definately makes a dent in the Deficit. The press just doesn't like what the spending cuts are, instead they want it to come from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. It reveals who they are in bed with. That is why they keep focusing on those programs. And as far as I'm concerned, this is a better plan than Simpson\Bowles.

Jackals' goPlutocratic questions..

thanks Play~

Something we high IQ Dems do every day!

It should piss everyone off that ceos think they control the government. WTF does entitlements have to do with their bottom lines?

They won't accept this plan.

payroll tax cut. I thought that was going away on Jan 1 st.

We would still be running a deficit of about $1 Trillion a year even with this plan.

This years deficit will be about $1.3 Trillion. It looks like annual deficits will stay in the $1 Trillion plus range for at least the next ten years.

This is a good start, but we need a lot more.

"This is a good start, but we need a lot more."

Yes, raise tax rates higher (Eisenhower rates) on one million dollars and more earners; institute a stock trade tax; remove the cap on FICA taxes; increase capitol gains taxes so money is invested and not taken as personal wealth in offshore accounts; eliminate corporate welfare subsidies; negotiate lower medicare/ medicade drug prices; cut defense spending; there is a lot that can be done, starting with NEVER vote for any republican because identifying with that party is prima facie evidence of incompetence as a member of society.

> "raise tax rates higher (Eisenhower rates) on one million dollars and more earners"
Apply a 91% rate on taxable income (excluding capital gains) above $1 million: $140.1 billion
Calculated from 2009 tax return data.
Source: http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Size-of-Adjusted-Gross-Income

> "institute a stock trade tax"
Apply a 0.025% tax on trades: $38.9 billion
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/wall-street-transaction-tax-revenue_n_1080493.html

> "remove the cap on FICA taxes"
Apply the 4.2% rate on all taxable income: $50 billion
Calculated from 2009 tax return data.
Source: http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Size-of-Adjusted-Gross-Income

> "increase capitol gains taxes so money is invested and not taken as personal wealth in offshore accounts"
Tough to figure. A couple different sources state that capital gains represent 7% of personal income taxes collected, but the IRS doesn't break it out. If we go with that 7%, then increase the tax rate from 15% to Obama’s suggested 23.8%: $35.6 billion
Calculated from 209 tax return data, based on that 7% estimate
Sources:
http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Size-of-Adjusted-Gross-Income
http://wiki.fool.com/What_Percent_of_IRS_Revenue_Comes_From_the_Capital_Gains_Tax%3F
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/breakdown-of-government-revenue/

> "eliminate corporate welfare subsidies"
As calculated by CATO and reported on Huffington: $100 billion
A couple of notes on this one...First, CATO is a conservative outlet, but since Huffington reported it I assume they checked the numbers, Second, this includes subsidies to worthwhile ventures like green energy companies, so we may not want to eliminate it all
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-lynch-edd/welfare-and-corporate-america_b_1827680.html

> "negotiate lower medicare/ medicade drug prices"
Saves $156 billion over 10 years: $15.6 billion
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/03/how-obama-would-cut-medicare-spending-in-a-deficit-deal/

> "cut defense spending"
The defense budget last year was about $700 billion of the $3.8 trillion total budget. To pick a random, but very aggressive* number, let’s cut defense by 25%: $175 billion

* I say this is aggressive because I’m talking about an actual decrease in spending, not just reducing the rate of growth in the baseline budgeting they do in Washington. Most politicians are lying to us when they say they are cutting spending. There are automatic increases every year due to their baseline budgeting. So if a budget line item was going to grow at 8%, but they grow it only at 5%, they’ll say they've cut spending, when they really have not.

In total we've addressed $555 billion with the above strategies. There could be some debate about the impact they'll have on investments. A good chunk of the capital gains income is earned by those in that $1+ million income bracket. Raising their top rate to 91% will leave them with much less capital to invest.

That said, $555 billion is no small amount, but it's only about half of last year's deficit, and less than half of this year's projected deficit. How do we get the other $500-600 billion?

Social Security is still pretty much self contained as it is and won't be a problem for another 15 or 20 years. No cuts are are needed there. When cuts are needed, they will be structured as lower payments based on funds available after the trust fund is exhausted.

Nobody wants to touch Medicare or Medicaid.

All that really leaves are the non-defense discretionary spending departments to cut, which Obama promised to freeze but didn't. Funding for these departments was about $660 billion for FY 2010. All the various departments are funded through this portion and would be cut. This includes the EPA, Education, Health and Human Services, among the many other departments.

I have heard some say to cut defense completely, which would be very bad for the US and world. History and the corporate greed everyone hates show that human nature is sometimes rather nasty. Most people are fairly good, but they are not the ones that lust for power and obtain the leadership positions. The dollar and our economy rests on the shoulders of those who put on a uniform and protect our freedom. It is tied to our military might and ability to maintain freedom of trade across the world. Even the countries that don't like us benefit from this.

At this point, I think most people are living in a fairy tale land. We have to make a lot of hard cuts to programs and increase taxes to balance the budget. It is not going to be fun or easy, but it has to be done one way or another.

people, including me, want to know what Obama intends in the negotiations. If there is a problem with the questions Carney was asked, I am not seeing it.

And I missed the part where the Republicans "fold".

Krugman has a really good commentary on Republicans:

The G.O.P.’s Existential Crisis
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/opinion/krugman-the-gops-existential-crisis.html