Dan Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) <br />Can you show me the details of this plan? Who proposed it? Where will we find the $3T cuts? What are these cuts, specifically? How fast will the cuts take place? When was this proposal put on the table? How many Republicans voted against it? When did the vote take place?<br /><br />Could you please answer these questions. Based on your comments above, it should be VERY easy for you to provide links to the proposal and who in the GOP voted against it.<br /><br />Thank you in advance.<br /> The gang of six have been meeting for weeks, if not months. Both sides in Congress have been meeting, they've had a week's worth of meetings in the WH. I think we can all assume that they've all come up with about 2-4 trillion in cuts. Unless we want to assume that they've been talking sports for all these hour's and day's of meetings. The problem always seems to be when the Dems talk about closing the tax loopholes and such. That''s when the GOP walks out. I have to agree with RI and what many polls show the majority of Americans want.... a compromise. We need massive cuts along with revenue increases. The most influential members on one side seems to be ok with that; the other side has flat refused to compromise in any way. Edited July 19, 2011 by Dan
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 The gang of six have been meeting for weeks, if not months. Both sides in Congress have been meeting, they've had a week's worth of meetings in the WH. I think we can all assume that they've all come up with about 2-4 trillion in cuts. Unless we want to assume that they've been talking sports for all these hour's and day's of meetings. With these idiots, I don't have a hell of a lot of confidence in those assumptions. The problem always seems to be when the Dems talk about closing the tax loopholes and such. That''s when the GOP walks out. I have to agree with RI and what many polls show the majority of Americans want.... a compromise. We need massive cuts along with revenue increases. The most influential members on one side seems to be ok with that; the other side has flat refused to compromise in any way. The "other" side is terrified (rightfully so) of going back on the promises they made that got them in to office (not to mention having a large group of freshmen who, by their own admission, don't understand what the big deal is about all this). Generally - and this is true of both parties - no one gives a **** about anyone outside their base. THAT game, at least, is one the Democrats are playing now as well...just playing it better. None of these !@#$s has the country's best interests at heart, though.
Dan Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) <br />With these idiots, I don't have a hell of a lot of confidence in those assumptions.<br /><br /><br /><br />The "other" side is terrified (rightfully so) of going back on the promises they made that got them in to office (not to mention having a large group of freshmen who, by their own admission, don't understand what the big deal is about all this). Generally - and this is true of both parties - no one gives a **** about anyone outside their base. THAT game, at least, is one the Democrats are playing now as well...just playing it better.<br><br>None of these !@#$s has the country's best interests at heart, though. I won't disagree much at all. Its hard to imagine a time when congress people or the President acted for the best interest of all and not just their reelections. Yes, the Dems... I think... are playing the game better right now. But they've dug a hole. If the Repubs would give in to some of the tax loophole cuts....they'd have the Dems in a position to make those cuts. Problem is they are unwilling to call the bluff. Edited July 19, 2011 by Dan
Magox Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 But they've dug a hole. If the Repubs would give in to some of the tax loophole cuts....they'd have the Dems in a position to make those cuts. Problem is they are unwilling to call the bluff. You saw 'Morning Joe' this morning?
Rob's House Posted July 19, 2011 Author Posted July 19, 2011 Buzz word update: From this point forward tax increases are to be exclusively referred to as revenue increases.
Peace Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Buzz word update: From this point forward tax increases are to be exclusively referred to as revenue increases. Did you just arrive here from May 19?
Rob's House Posted July 19, 2011 Author Posted July 19, 2011 Did you just arrive here from May 19? Perhaps we should make the order retroactive
IDBillzFan Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I think we can all assume... You lost me right here. You are more than welcome to assume you think you know what might possibly be taking place in these meetings, but you don't know jack. And back to the reason for my post: people like Buftex and pBills yap about how Obama has put cuts on the table and the GOP has walked away from them...or the Democrats have agreed to $3T in cuts for $1T in debt increase, and yet neither of them have one single link or proof that this is the case. So you have a choice: you can question the validity of their liberal talking points, to which they choke on their own BS and have absolutely NOTHING to back their claims...or you can take the "I think we can all assume..." position. It's amazing to me how many people are batschitt crazy about the GOP standing firm on their commitment to not increase taxes, and yet have no problem making up numbers and false proposals for the Democrats based on the fact that Mika and Joe told them so this morning.
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I won't disagree much at all. Its hard to imagine a time when congress people or the President acted for the best interest of all and not just their reelections. Yes, the Dems... I think... are playing the game better right now. But they've dug a hole. If the Repubs would give in to some of the tax loophole cuts....they'd have the Dems in a position to make those cuts. Problem is they are unwilling to call the bluff. It really is a "who's dumber" race to the bottom. With the Republicans currently in the lead. When anyone with half a brain (i.e., not the Republican base) knows you can't reduce the debt without increasing taxes. They're alienating 60% of the country to appease 20% of it, and simultaneously accomplishing something that the Democrats couldn't do in ten years: making the Democrats look sane and reasonable. Good strategy.
Adam Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 After several days and almost 100 posts I still haven't seen one liberal give a reasonable explanation of how the Obama approach to our economic situation can play out favorably. So it seems to me, they arrogantly cast dispersions among us for not believing in a plan they themselves can't explain. Brilliant. Nor can a find a rhyme or reason to the republicans. I also want to see the debt dissolve as quickly as possible, but the balanced budget amendment is pure balderdash.
GG Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I won't disagree much at all. Its hard to imagine a time when congress people or the President acted for the best interest of all and not just their reelections. Yes, the Dems... I think... are playing the game better right now. But they've dug a hole. If the Repubs would give in to some of the tax loophole cuts....they'd have the Dems in a position to make those cuts. Problem is they are unwilling to call the bluff. Because the GOP aren't idiots - the proposal that I've heard bandied about was tax hikes of $1 trillion in exchange for a promise to look at spending cuts equaling $3 trillion down the road. A grand bargain indeed. In the next go round regarding expiration of the Bush tax cuts, I'd let the top rate expire and retain the rest. If I were czar, I'd suggest something completely different which would probably surprise you. And that would exacerbate the revenue problem because the wealthy have a much greater ability to defer income. That's very bad fiscal policy, as you're tying a big chunk of your revenues on a demographic which can wait out the tough economic times. Nice to get votes, horrible to run a country. How many times did I tell you that tax cuts stimulate the economy by creating deficits? Laffer argued the main impact of lower taxes would be to increase savings, investment and work effort, thus increasing revenues, so there would be no deficit. Have we been arguing about this for 15 years now? God, I hope we don't end up in the same nursing home... It's more like 10 years. Yet Laffer only talks about the revenue side, and among the countless conversations in that decade has been the point that a deficit isn't a driver but an outcome of revenues & expenditures. And the whole point of the Tax Foundation graphs is that during the Bush II tax cuts, the revenue take has been in line with historic averages, even though marginal rates were low. So from that standpoint, he was right. Yet, nobody on the left wants to talk about the true drivers of runaway spending and the demographic wall we're about to hit.
birdog1960 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 It really is a "who's dumber" race to the bottom. With the Republicans currently in the lead. When anyone with half a brain (i.e., not the Republican base) knows you can't reduce the debt without increasing taxes. They're alienating 60% of the country to appease 20% of it, and simultaneously accomplishing something that the Democrats couldn't do in ten years: making the Democrats look sane and reasonable. Good strategy. it almost makes you nostalgic for the good ole days of rockefeller republican dominance...
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 it almost makes you nostalgic for the good ole days of rockefeller republican dominance... Even Obama's invoking Reagan's memory in all this. Which should tell you something. (Specifically, it should tell you that this is a REALLY !@#$ed up situation. )
IDBillzFan Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Even Obama's invoking Reagan's memory in all this. Which should tell you something. (Specifically, it should tell you that this is a REALLY !@#$ed up situation. ) Probably the biggest problem with this entire situation is that both sides are addressing the issue not from a position of "What can we do to fix the problem," but rather "How can we address this problem so the other side gets blamed." In fairness to my side, their commitment is to not raise taxes, which you could argue is the reason the GOP got control of the House last November. They have collectively stated they have no problem closing loopholes to increase revenues. At the end of the day, as long as these talks take place in private, we're left to form our opinions based on what they say outside the meetings, not what they say INSIDE the meetings, which I'm certain are two different things. It's an embarrassing display of partisanship on both sides, in large part because there is no genuine leader. This includes the important fact that not one single person on the left has offered an idea...only a reason they don't like the ideas presented to them.
Rob's House Posted July 19, 2011 Author Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) It really is a "who's dumber" race to the bottom. With the Republicans currently in the lead. When anyone with half a brain (i.e., not the Republican base) knows you can't reduce the debt without increasing taxes. They're alienating 60% of the country to appease 20% of it, and simultaneously accomplishing something that the Democrats couldn't do in ten years: making the Democrats look sane and reasonable. Good strategy. You're assuming significant revenue can be raised through tax increases, which may be possible in the very short term, but a great deal of economic data suggests in the long term the result would likely be no revenue gain at all and potentially less revenue due to detrimental effects tax increases could have on economic growth. The biggest problem we have is that despite tax revenues consistently coming in at around 19% of GDP we're setting base line spending close to 25% which is unsustainable and can't be matched with increased taxes. A long term solution, which you may not agree with but certainly isn't retarded, would be to cut spending to the point where it should come down to the baseline of 19% of GDP and allow the economy to grow out of the defecits. The problem is, as soon as we get close to the annual break even point, the usual suspects are sure to find new programs to spend on because, you know, everyone loves new programs. Nor can a find a rhyme or reason to the republicans. I also want to see the debt dissolve as quickly as possible, but the balanced budget amendment is pure balderdash. See above Edited July 19, 2011 by Rob's House
Dante Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 It really is a "who's dumber" race to the bottom. With the Republicans currently in the lead. When anyone with half a brain (i.e., not the Republican base) knows you can't reduce the debt without increasing taxes. They're alienating 60% of the country to appease 20% of it, and simultaneously accomplishing something that the Democrats couldn't do in ten years: making the Democrats look sane and reasonable. Good strategy. I disagree. I think you raise government revenues by growing the economy. Government can easily do this by getting out of the way. By unburdening both private citizens and business of regulation and taxes. In the end the only thing that will begin to fix this is Obamas demise. Business is **** scared of this guy right now. No one wants to expand and hire. Why in the hell would you? Thing is this is not until next fall.
pBills Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Couldn't the Dems just as easily take the highroad, pass some cuts, get the debt ceiling raised, and then come back later with a bill that adjusts taxes? Why not package the deal now? Why worry about partisan games after the fact?
IDBillzFan Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Why not package the deal now? Why worry about partisan games after the fact? Hey, I don't mean to be a pest, but you had mentioned a plan earlier that included "3 trillion in spending cuts offered for 1 trillion in revenue" which the GOP was against. Can you show me the details of this plan? Who proposed it? Where will we find the $3T cuts? What are these cuts, specifically? How fast will the cuts take place? When was this proposal put on the table? How many Republicans voted against it? When did the vote take place? Could you please answer these questions. Based on your comments above, it should be VERY easy for you to provide links to the proposal and who in the GOP voted against it. Thank you in advance.
Joe Miner Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Why not package the deal now? Why worry about partisan games after the fact? Because it's obviously a roadblock to getting the larger issue taken care of, the debt ceiling. If not raising the debt ceiling will do untold disaster to the US economy, why not fix that instead of playing a dangerous game of chicken with it. Hence, take the high road. Both sides say they agree that spending has to be cut. But they disagree on taxes. So why not pass what you agree on, avert the impending disaster, and work on a better fix after? Doesn't that seem to be what's in the best interest of the American people? Why not take the high-road and stop playing the political game that you chastise the republicans for?
/dev/null Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) In the end the only thing that will begin to fix this is Obamas demise Probably not the best choice of words. Especially if taken out of context. Obamabots are quite sensitive about their dear leader. If they were any more thin skinned they'd have a resevoir tip* *Not sure who to attribute quote to, Dennis Miller I think but not 100% sure Edited July 19, 2011 by /dev/null
Recommended Posts