• 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.

Even if they 'succeeded' they would have failed. Everyone keeps talking about their mission like it is some grand challenge and that accomplishing what their task was would somehow cause great rewards. They have been tasked to cut a few trillion from the DEFICIT spending over a 10 year period. Considering their annual rate of deficit the last three years has been what...1.6 trillion...they are TELLING us...that 15.5 trillion dollar debt? You aint seen nothin yet. We are handwringing about a few trillion in savings over 10 years while they will add (if current trends continue and without MASSIVE medicare/medicaid and other spending reforms) at least 10 trillion. But hey...at least it wont be 12 trillion.

Go back to sleep folks...keep supporting both parties.
 
I have said this before and I will continue to bring it up since it fits perfectly. I used to teach history out of a textbook that had a chapter titled THE FAILURE OF THE POLITICIANS. It was about the era of the 1850's and the build up to the Civil War. The nation was then split geographically and economically and even morally and ethically. Those divisions caused both sides to dig in their heels more and more with each arising crisis and each passing year until we know what the resolution was.

More and more I feel that this is a parallel era. The ideological polarization of the parties is at its worst I have seen in my life time - and I am 62 and have been following politics since the sixth grade and the JFK election.
Both parties have very very different views about government, the role it plays in our lives, taxation and class and income distribution problems.

Until this ideological true believer mentality wanes and the practical pragmatists take over, we are doomed.

So, who are the pratical pragmatists--nice redundancy BTW? Lemme guess, it's the folks who want to raise taxes! Right?
 
Why don't they just propose something? I mean, seriously, just meet halfway in the middle. This proposal isn't going to become law automatically, it still has to be voted on by both houses. It's seriously ridiculous that absolutely NOTHING is going to come out of these talks.

That's why this was a big-honkin-waste-of-time, to begin with.

BTW, how much did this bull**** cost? How many millions were wasted on this crap?
 
So, who are the pratical pragmatists--nice redundancy BTW? Lemme guess, it's the folks who want to raise taxes! Right?

I do not know who the "pratical pragmatists" are. But the practical pragmatists would be the folks who subscribe to the radical extremist thought that.....and I know this is going to sound really off the wall and revolutionary.......... those who identify that there are two sides to a budget and BOTH must be dealt with.

That includes raising needed revenues and cutting spending as part of the same program and package. I could have said either the words program or package but I thought you would appreciate the two together. ;)
 

My favorite part

Why was the supercommittee doomed to fail? Mainly because the gulf between our two major political parties is so wide. Republicans and Democrats don’t just have different priorities; they live in different intellectual and moral universes.

In Democrat-world, up is up and down is down. Raising taxes increases revenue, and cutting spending while the economy is still depressed reduces employment. But in Republican-world, down is up. The way to increase revenue is to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and slashing government spending is a job-creation strategy. Try getting a leading Republican to admit that the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit or that sharp cuts in government spending (except on the military) would hurt the economic recovery.

this guy should win a prize.
 
So, who are the pratical pragmatists--nice redundancy BTW? Lemme guess, it's the folks who want to raise taxes! Right?
IMO, a pragmatist would be one who wants to limit deductions, but not raise rates. Or perhaps even lower rates slightly, if by limiting deductions it still accomplishes the goal of increasing revenue in a way that is equitable.

On the other side, a pragmatist progressive would be one who would agree to raising the retirement age or means-testing entitlement programs, or at least lowering benefits for those who retire before 67 or something.
 
IMO, a pragmatist would be one who wants to limit deductions, but not raise rates. Or perhaps even lower rates slightly, if by limiting deductions it still accomplishes the goal of increasing revenue in a way that is equitable.

On the other side, a pragmatist progressive would be one who would agree to raising the retirement age or means-testing entitlement programs, or at least lowering benefits for those who retire before 67 or something.

The problem is that the biggest spending on personal deductions, by a mile, is the mortgage interest deduction, and we REALLY do not want to be hammering the housing industry while it's laying in a bloody heap. Another big tax expenditure is the deduction for capital gains on home sales. Eliminating that would also hurt the housing industry. Another big one is deductibility of property tax on homes. Another kick in the housing industry's groin. Another is for charitable giving, which you probably don't want to eliminate when so many people are relying on charity.

I'd like to see them all phased out, but not in the next two or three years.

Personally I am more than willing to accept raising the retirement age and means testing entitlement programs.
 
Double like!!



I like this quote:

“We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.” - Ronald Reagan
Too bad the Stupid Committee never read it.

That's actually a nice slogan from Reagan - but it doesn't work.

Remember, when Reagan cut the top tax rate on income to 28% - he also raised Capital Gains to match it.

Here's my favorite Reagan quote:

Ronald Reagan: Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?

Republican Audience: More!

We are in the current situation because we decided tax cuts for the wealthy were a good idea while starting two unfunded wars. There is no way around that.

Government Spending as a Percentage of GDP | The Big Picture

Spending as a share of GDP is up. It's about 25% of GDP (compared to a post-WW2 average of around 21%).

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

However, tax revenues compared to GDP have declined from an average of around 19% of GDP to 14.4% of GDP.

We don't have JUST a spending problem. We have BOTH a taxing AND spending problem.

But the biggest problem of all is unemployment and dilly-dallying with the deficit right now isn't going to do anything to magically add jobs.

Actually, EJ DIonne said it best on NPR the other day, when he basically said, "If Congress would just go home and do nothing for the rest of the year, the deficit would be reduced by $7.9 Trillion over the next decade." Sounds weird, but the Bush tax cuts would be eliminated as would several other loopholes and things that have to be re-upped.

Deficit solved.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with Haymarket; the polarization in this country is a huge problem. I think a lot of it is attributable to the rise of hyperpartisan media outlets that intentionally preach a skewed, radical philosophy and simultaneously seek to undermine the credibility of less biased voices (a/k/a the "lamestream" media). I think political gerrymandering is also a big problem that tends to create a more polarized Congress. The result is that we are sending people to Washington who are seriously disinclined to cooperate, notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of Americans want more cooperation in Washington.

I don't know how we fix it.

To quote the band God Forbid (Chains Of Humanity (Album Version) by God Forbid | Song | Free Music, Listen Now) "Dissent governs a democracy." Unless we, the people of the US, put aside our differences for a couple minutes and agree to combat the horror that our government has become, this is only going to continue. We need radically new campaign reform laws that limit if not entirely eliminate corporate and union influence from all parts of our government because right now, to these politicians, (to quote God Forbid again) "We no longer exist." The American people are nothing to these politicians, they only care about getting re-elected and getting kickbacks from their sponsors.
 
To quote the band God Forbid (Chains Of Humanity (Album Version) by God Forbid | Song | Free Music, Listen Now) "Dissent governs a democracy." Unless we, the people of the US, put aside our differences for a couple minutes and agree to combat the horror that our government has become, this is only going to continue. We need radically new campaign reform laws that limit if not entirely eliminate corporate and union influence from all parts of our government because right now, to these politicians, (to quote God Forbid again) "We no longer exist." The American people are nothing to these politicians, they only care about getting re-elected and getting kickbacks from their sponsors.

I couldn't agree more.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
View Post
To quote the band God Forbid (Chains Of Humanity (Album Version) by God Forbid | Song | Free Music, Listen Now) "Dissent governs a democracy." Unless we, the people of the US, put aside our differences for a couple minutes and agree to combat the horror that our government has become, this is only going to continue. We need radically new campaign reform laws that limit if not entirely eliminate corporate and union influence from all parts of our government because right now, to these politicians, (to quote God Forbid again) "We no longer exist." The American people are nothing to these politicians, they only care about getting re-elected and getting kickbacks from their sponsors.

Look, there is no such thing as democracy, i.e. actual democracy in the real sense. There hasn't been. The only difference between the US electoral system and Stalinist Russia is that you get to vote on pre-picked candidates. That's it. The problem is much deeper than campaign finance reform or anything like that - it is systemic.
 
Or wake up and quit supporting either party in favor of supporting individual legislators who will actually get the job done.
Right...cause they are sure out there doing that job right...arent they? So...what...you are a Tea Party supporter then? I didnt get that sense from you.
 
Look, there is no such thing as democracy, i.e. actual democracy in the real sense. There hasn't been. The only difference between the US electoral system and Stalinist Russia is that you get to vote on pre-picked candidates. That's it. The problem is much deeper than campaign finance reform or anything like that - it is systemic.

Well of course the problem is deeper than campaign finance reform. The US is a militaristic global empire that has no qualms about fulfilling its foreign policy objectives by any means necessary. I was just bringing up campaign finance reform as an example.
 
Well of course the problem is deeper than campaign finance reform. The US is a militaristic global empire that has no qualms about fulfilling its foreign policy objectives by any means necessary. I was just bringing up campaign finance reform as an example.
There is plenty of room for cuts in defense spending...believe me...but as it is, cumulative defense spending is 19.27% of the total fed budget. Social Security is 20.04% of the total ANNUAL fed budget. Healthcare is 22.62%. Unemployment is 14.48%. 57.14% of the annual budget is in those three social spending programs. Add in defense and in those 4 programs alone you have 76.41% of the debt. An additional 6.3% goes just to paying the interest on the debt and that has climbed since our nations credit rating went down. Add in the discretionary budget and vet benefits and that is another 7.5% ANNUALLY. You find that sustainable? The country doesnt...thats why we keep adding annual debt via deficits and raising the debt ceiling.

The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 | The White House

Unless people start getting realistic and serious about the cuts and stop playing idiotic games to pander to their parties...none of this is going to matter.
 
An additional 6.3% goes just to paying the interest on the debt and that has climbed since our nations credit rating went down.

Actually, and ironically, it has gotten cheaper since the credit downgrade. The rate on the 10 year Treasury note is almost a full point lower today than it was the week before the downgrade.
 
Last edited:
Actually, and ironically, it has gotten cheaper since the credit downgrade. The rate on the 10 year Treasury note is almost a full point lower today than it was the week before the downgrade.
Sweet...we should get downgraded more often then. And since the dems and reps in congress ARE going to bump us up another 10 trillion in debt over the next years, eventually Im sure it will pretty much pay for itself!
 
Why are we are in Afghanistan again?
 
Why are we are in Afghanistan again?
Maybe it has something to do with eradicating the government (Taliban) that harbored and protected the group (al Qaeda) that killed thousands of our citizens on our own soil in 2001?
 
Maybe it has something to do with eradicating the government (Taliban) that harbored and protected the group (al Qaeda) that killed thousands of our citizens on our own soil in 2001?

So I suppose we will be done when the entire population has been eradicated.
 
Another is for charitable giving, which you probably don't want to eliminate when so many people are relying on charity.
How about qualifying the charity deduction so that the charity has to be for the benefit of Americans? I think it's ridiculous that you can deduct donations to foreign charities.

I agree with you that the housing-related deductions can wait.
 
How about qualifying the charity deduction so that the charity has to be for the benefit of Americans? I think it's ridiculous that you can deduct donations to foreign charities.

I agree with you that the housing-related deductions can wait.

I wouldn't support that, but I wouldn't filibuster over it either. People are worse off in other parts of the world. Is it better to give $50 bucks here so kids can have nice presents at Christmas, as opposed to giving $50 to a charity in sudan that might save a few kids' lives?
 
The GOP tanked the super-Comm to protect hedge funds.

Well done tea baggers... Well done.
 
Senator Toomey reports that Republicans offered $250 billion in new revenue for the $1.2 trillion in cuts, said that Democrats refused to make a deal unless there was $1 trillion in new taxes. While I do support some increases in revenue purely for the sake of getting a deal done, $1 trillion in new taxes is absurd. I'm curious to see the Democratic response to this.
 
Back
Top Bottom