• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN: Aides; 'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal.

In the end the reason will come out that the roadblock was a refusal by the GOP to allow more spending now for promises of cuts later IMO.
 
Right. It was doomed to fail because of the Republicans! Even though they conceded their tax pledge, they didn't concede enough! They are obstructionists because they didn't mean the demands of the Democrats. You're unwillingness to compromise is the reason it failed. You/AdamT still haven't responded to my original question. If $250 billion is a joke, than what should the Republicans have offered? Is $1 trillion the right answer?

Compromise - meet the other guy halfway.

Take the damn deficit and cut it in half. Raise revenues to bring in one half and cut discretionary across the board for the other half. That is the damn compromise.
 
Compromise - meet the other guy halfway.

Take the damn deficit and cut it in half. Raise revenues to bring in one half and cut discretionary across the board for the other half. That is the damn compromise.

Do you truly believe that raising taxes is as effective as cutting spending in reducing the deficit? I'll ask the question again since it hasn't been answered. If the government raises taxes and fails to realize any meaningful increases in revenue, then who wins? To keep this whole matter in perspective, the comittee was charged with finding $120 billion in cuts a year out of $3.5 trillion budget. That's 3.4%

It's quite a racket the Democrats have going here. Jack up spending to unprecedented levels, increase the deficit to over $1 trillion a year for three years, and then use the opportunity to push new taxes on successful people in the supposed effort to "reduce the deficit". Thank God the Republicans won in 2010 and they raised the issue in August otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about this.
 
Do you truly believe that raising taxes is as effective as cutting spending in reducing the deficit? I'll ask the question again since it hasn't been answered. If the government raises taxes and fails to realize any meaningful increases in revenue, then who wins? To keep this whole matter in perspective, the comittee was charged with finding $120 billion in cuts a year out of $3.5 trillion budget. That's 3.4%

It's quite a racket the Democrats have going here. Jack up spending to unprecedented levels, increase the deficit to over $1 trillion a year for three years, and then use the opportunity to push new taxes on successful people in the supposed effort to "reduce the deficit". Thank God the Republicans won in 2010 and they raised the issue in August otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Yeah, thank God. Otherwise we'd already have a reasonable package of tax hikes and spending cuts to reduce the deficit by more than Republicans are willing to contemplate, we wouldn't have lost our AAA credit rating, and we'd have additional stimulus in place to reduce unemployment and boost GDP. What would we ever do without those those clowns who created this mess to begin with?
 
Yeah, thank God. Otherwise we'd already have a reasonable package of tax hikes and spending cuts to reduce the deficit by more than Republicans are willing to contemplate, we wouldn't have lost our AAA credit rating, and we'd have additional stimulus in place to reduce unemployment and boost GDP. What would we ever do without those those clowns who created this mess to begin with?

Additional stimulus and a reasonable package of spending cuts? Wait, what?

In reality, if we had a Democratic Senate and House, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Debt ceiling would have been raised with no debate and there would be no catalyst for spending cuts at all.
 
Yeah, thank God. Otherwise we'd already have a reasonable package of tax hikes and spending cuts to reduce the deficit by more than Republicans are willing to contemplate, we wouldn't have lost our AAA credit rating, and we'd have additional stimulus in place to reduce unemployment and boost GDP. What would we ever do without those those clowns who created this mess to begin with?

Yep, there it is.
 
Additional stimulus and a reasonable package of spending cuts? Wait, what?

In reality, if we had a Democratic Senate and House, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Debt ceiling would have been raised with no debate and there would be no catalyst for spending cuts at all.

You seem to think that Republicans are the only ones who ever heard of basic accounting principles. But of course history tells us that Republicans are worse than Democrats when it comes to running up deficits. Of course it was the sainted Ronald Reagan who blew the lid off the public debt, which, until his disasterous presidency, had been falling as a percentage of GDP since WWII. The debt exploded under Reagain, kept rising under Bush I, dropped under Clinton, started rising again under Bush II, and of course it's now completely out of control due to the Great Recession.
 
Last edited:
You seem to think that Republicans are the only ones who ever heard of basic accounting principles. But of course history tells us that Republicans are worse than Democrats when it comes to running up deficits. Of course it was the sainted Ronald Reagan who blew the lid off the public debt, which, until his disasterous presidency, had been falling as a percentage of GDP since WWII. The debt exploded under Reagain, kept rising under Bush I, dropped under Clinton, started rising again under Bush II, and of course it's now completely out of control due to the Great Recession.

Nice dodge. The matter of fact remains that spending would have never been addressed if Republicans didn't take the House in 2010. The exploding deficit can only be partly blamed on the Great Recession. Declining revenues as a result of the drop in GDP had a minor influence in adding to the deficit. TARP paid for itself. The greatest factor contributing to the federal deficit is unprecedented spending taken on by the Obama administration. Here is a little video to help wrap your mind around it.



EDIT: Here is another one to visualize what exactly cutting $100 billion (super committee proposed $120B) looks like.

 
Last edited:
Nice dodge. The matter of fact remains that spending would have never been addressed if Republicans didn't take the House in 2010.

That is a matter of pure speculation, not fact, as no one can know what *would* have happened. I cited what's happened in the past because it generally provides a clue to what will happen in the future.

The exploding deficit can only be partly blamed on the Great Recession. Declining revenues as a result of the drop in GDP had a minor influence in adding to the deficit. TARP paid for itself. The greatest factor contributing to the federal deficit is unprecedented spending taken on by the Obama administration.

Virtually all of Obama's excess spending has been in response to the Great Recession. You can see from the following graph that the problem is clearly revenue much moreso than spending. Spending has been rising in a linear fashion for decades, and the trend has not changed substantially under Obama. Revenue has generally tracked spending throughout this time period, but it dropped dramatically during the Great Recession and it has not yet recovered.

us-federal-receipts-and-expenditures-2000-2011.png
 
That is a matter of pure speculation, not fact, as no one can know what *would* have happened. I cited what's happened in the past because it generally provides a clue to what will happen in the future.

What happened in the past is that Obama was gave $800 billion to blow through. He then wanted $500 billion more. What happened in the past doesn't work as an indicator here?
 
Do you truly believe that raising taxes is as effective as cutting spending in reducing the deficit? I'll ask the question again since it hasn't been answered. If the government raises taxes and fails to realize any meaningful increases in revenue, then who wins? To keep this whole matter in perspective, the comittee was charged with finding $120 billion in cuts a year out of $3.5 trillion budget. That's 3.4%

It's quite a racket the Democrats have going here. Jack up spending to unprecedented levels, increase the deficit to over $1 trillion a year for three years, and then use the opportunity to push new taxes on successful people in the supposed effort to "reduce the deficit". Thank God the Republicans won in 2010 and they raised the issue in August otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Does not your gag reflex attempt to kick in when you attempt to seriously write an indictment of Democrats and deficit spending while you have a picture of Ronald Reagan as your avatar? The Irony Meter must be broken beyond repair in your house.

You have made it quite crystal clear that you follow the mentality of the GOP members on that Super Committee and your attitude is a perfect example of why the committee failed. This is the problem with trying to compromise with a true believer that looks at their positions as holy writ and akin to religious dogma.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps if we now simply allow to happen what is set to happen......... let the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire as set to do and let the automatic spending cuts take place in 2013. Nobody need do nothing except let the clock run out.

Yes, but Bowles includes entitlement reform. The sequester is as precise as eye surgery with a hatchet.
 
It disgust me that some in Congress are already attempting to go around the automatic cuts to protect their friends in the Defense industry.
 
It disgust me that some in Congress are already attempting to go around the automatic cuts to protect their friends in the Defense industry.

But it is not surprising. That is the sad thing. I wish they would disguise it with a statement like, "We need these weapons to defend ourselves from the extremists/Chinese/Canadian Hordes/Beanie Baby Uprising."

Your point is exactly why I feel we need to vote most of them out.
 
Remember when the Bush tax cuts were unpopular even amongst the Republicans to the point where it required a Sunset condition? Remember when McCain argued against it on the basis that such revenue was required and that a fiscal plan outlining a controlling of the debt be implemented before further tax cuts?

Because that happened.
 
Remember when the Bush tax cuts were unpopular even amongst the Republicans to the point where it required a Sunset condition? Remember when McCain argued against it on the basis that such revenue was required and that a fiscal plan outlining a controlling of the debt be implemented before further tax cuts?

Because that happened.

More particularly the Bush Tax Cuts were not made permanent because if they had been, long-term CBO budget analysis would have shown just how irresponsible they were.

It's amazing how far to the right the right has moved in just the last 10 years.
 
'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal.

A weekend of talks among members of the congressional committee charged with coming up with $1.2 trillion in budget cuts appeared to produce no last-minute compromise ahead of Monday's practical deadline.Democratic and Republican aides told CNN on Sunday that discussions had turned to how to announce the failure to reach a deal.A senior Democratic aide said talks are focused on a Monday announcement.Another senior Democratic source said, "No decisions or agreement has been reached concerning any announcement or how this will end. But, yes, the likely outcome is no agreement will be reached."

Maybe the US government can learn something about financial house keeping from Margaret Thatcher. UK really understands what real democracy and real capitalism means... unlike our government who defines democracy / capitalism as the rich men's low tax paradise

Thatcher: There is no such thing as public money
Thatcher: There is no such thing as public money - YouTube

Thatcher on Credit Cards
margaret thatcher on credit cards - YouTube
 
Last edited:
It disgust me that some in Congress are already attempting to go around the automatic cuts to protect their friends in the Defense industry.

Who knew Panetta had so many friends.
 
Back
Top Bottom