Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
You have to pay more to make big cuts it sounds backwards but that's what senate budget chairman Kent Conrad has in mind.
He wants -- nearly two trillion dollar tax hike to cut down the United States is four point three trillion dollar and every day growing debt.
This on top of cutting just eighty billion from entitlement programs.
Does any of this make sense.
Here now to discuss -- my freedom fighters Fox Business anchor and my colleague Cheryl Casone Nancy Skinner radio host and freedom -- regular.
And the -- really independent women's forum.
Executive director Stan -- first I suppose because you never met a tax -- like you're in favour -- raising taxes by two trillion bucks right.
Well I have to tell you this judge I'm Kent Conrad is is deficit -- OK so.
I watched his whole presentation anyone who watches that would be thoroughly convinced that it's the right plan and -- -- away judge and they don't -- that that that's dealing.
For every 1% increase in it interest rates we're gonna have.
-- -- the debt one point three trillion dollars so this game of chicken.
Could and up just.
Making this debt problem so much larger he is proposing a 5050 deal yes we would actually overall there's going to be net tax reductions.
Did Democrats have to -- -- the Republicans have to we -- revenue increases and spending cuts and he has a logical plan dot Nicole aren't.
New taxes tax increase is dead on arrival.
In the House of Representatives where the Republicans have a majority and in the senate where they have enough to filibuster this.
Excellently and you know what -- economy hasn't done his job for 800 days there has not budget.
I am shocked that he thought.
That it would even acceptable to come to the table after the president of post a proposed five dollars for every one dollar but -- arcing cuts for every one dollar in tax increase -- since up -- -- have proposed three dollars in cuts and then.
Kind of shows that he thinks one to one is okay.
Charles Wall Street think about -- -- -- two trillion dollar tax increase would be eaten any enormous blow to the economy if they even thought that it was gonna.
It's a little more concerned right now about the deadline to be honest with you because it's not gonna affect what happens in politics and who who does not get elected next year effects.
Mortgage rates it -- auto loans student loans -- mean that's the credit rating of the United States what Wall Street cares about.
With regards mr.
Conrad his numbers don't add up but I think that's the problem on the numbers lady as you know me and you if you don't make meaningful spending cots.
Forget that it the raising of the taxes even if it is to fit tactic to innovate thousands he's made -- -- -- doesn't even begin to cover the problem -- mix but because.
Right about an -- please put your hat on SA democratic ask democratic analyst and he -- this -- me please.
The president and submitted he'd like to raise taxes by a trillion.
Senator Conrad who knows this would never happened while the Republicans control the house.
And the Republicans have a filibuster proof majority in the senate wants to raise taxes by two trillion.
What do they gain politically.
By offering to do that which they know will never happened legally.
In the present environment.
Well the the -- of the proposal by Conrad is.
This is this is very key they would only worries taxes an individual making over 500000 dollars a couple of making over a million dollars.
Okay that is it is -- the equity public support and we're back into the call that that's bad -- business know I don't know and now -- you know and to I don't know.
No that is not know Cheryl why I don't I can't see eye disease in check it out.
And -- -- closed tax havens.
Yeah there's want kittens -- building in the Cayman Islands that is five stories and it -- 181000 commodities about it yeah.
These guys are yeah -- wanna look.
-- gradually got there.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- to propose the impossible which is a tax increase when Republicans controlling the congress the Obama administration has now extended the deadline for states to establish that.
Health care exchanges.
Mandated under Obama can't remember that some of our -- Twelve states have set up these exchanges leaving the rescue the financially unable or unwilling to comply.
But as more time really what we're the remaining states need.
And they don't have the -- They haven't later -- the states are trying to close a collective budget gap amongst all fifty of them in over a hundred billion.
Where are they gonna get the cash to set up big insurance exchanges that obamacare man -- There's not and what's gonna happen with many states that had and -- forty date the -- kids at this point.
And could could be insolvent I mean we still -- huge problems in the media market -- right now which is what I look at from a business perspective.
They don't have the money it's can end up going to the federal government that it's it's gonna be responsible by the federal government and the federal government doesn't have the money either younger or are we gonna.
Have a one Payer system because the states can't afford to set up these exchanges and the federal government can just print it's own cash and spend that on a grand national exchange what do you think.
-- you know other reason that most states are broke is because of mad at.
Medicaid is out of control so it is in their interest to set up and and and this is the complaint that -- maximum flexibility.
That states could set it up however they want to.
It if if they want more control over the policy if they want the company's.
And that's what Republicans should love the maximum flexibility and ultimately they will pay less in Medicaid expenses.
And then they will their budgets will come mourns and so now -- they should this this -- -- the law.
Nancy Skinner wants to make a states rights argument but really this is the opposite of states' rights this is the federal government -- in the states and saying you will raise taxes -- -- spend that money how we tell you or we will do it and take a credit on what we -- you.
-- pretending like we're giving states the flexibility but Obama care -- that's federal levels and if your state program as -- -- not that it isn't it or not it's not comprehensive enough.
They can still step -- so this is a state program in name only.
And at the end of the day we don't have -- it's ridiculous federal government's -- responsible and I visited -- government decide what states -- go hard on what states of Louisiana law that states are.
Gonna have to actually make that determination themselves and other was the gonna go back with their handout to the US government at the end of the day is that we cannot afford this again because of perfect argument the Medicaid situation is correct on that answer is is -- high ground that.
Nancy finally said it said -- we all agree on Nancy Skinner had called nearly.
As Cheryl Casone it's a pleasure thank you for joining us.
Filter by section