• 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.

i suppose i have to ask why they are allowed to leave the room and go on a nice Thanksgiving break without reaching a deal.

get back in there and do what you were hired to do.
 
Just to put the situation where partisan interests are taking precedence over the national interest into perspective, here's what S&P wrote in its August 5, downgrade of the U.S. credit rating:

...the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.

From the co-chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the "Supercommittee"):

After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline.

It's important to note that the Supercommittee was working on finding $1.2 trillion in agreed cuts to avoid an automatic sequester that would allocate the cuts between domestic nondefense discretionary spending and defense spending. The Supercommittee was not addressing the more challenging task of stabilizing U.S. debt relative to GDP.

Already, the Defense Secretary is urging that the Pentagon be spared from its share of the cuts under the sequester. In addition, Congressman Buck McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is poised to introduce legislation to try to shield the Pentagon.

I am deeply sympathetic to the concerns of the Defense Secretary and House Armed Services Committee Chairman. However, in the larger context, I believe it would be far more harmful for the U.S. to abandon even its modest deficit reduction committment. The costs in terms of reduced market confidence, almost certain reduced credit rating, and increased present value long-term imbalances, all of which would put upward pressure on interest rates, would far outweigh the benefits of short-term relief for the Pentagon. The Congress and the President should work to address the nation's fiscal imbalances in a fashion that mitigates harm, though some amount of pain cannot be avoided. Failing that, I believe that the sequester should go forward, as it might offer the only opportunity for deficit reduction that can currently be agreed in the present environment of hyperpartisanship. Too much is at stake for the U.S. should to retreat from its modest deficit reduction commitment, one that falls far short of the need to stabilize debt relative to GDP.
 
1Perry said:
Why are we are in Afghanistan again?
Click to expand...

Because their government supported al-Qaeda when they attacked the United States. However, bin Laden is now dead, and now we should leave.
 
So it looks like the republican's offered revenue increases by way of closing loop holes (What everyone thiks is a good idea), and various other methods, and yet, the Democrats turned them down unless the revenue raising targets were approaching 1 trillion? Are they serious?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
So it looks like the republican's offered revenue increases by way of closing loop holes (What everyone thiks is a good idea), and various other methods, and yet, the Democrats turned them down unless the revenue raising targets were approaching 1 trillion? Are they serious?


Tim-
Click to expand...

No, what they offered was to close loopholes ... OFFSET by a reduction in tax rates. With a trigger that would actually raise revenue under certain conditions. Another giveaway for the wealthy.
 
AdamT said:
No, what they offered was to close loopholes ... OFFSET by a reduction in tax rates. With a trigger that would actually raise revenue under certain conditions. Another giveaway for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Spin it all you want, the net revenue projections were $250 billion. Democrats refused to budge on anything under $1 trillion. "Compromise" at it's finest.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Spin it all you want, the net revenue projections were $250 billion. Democrats refused to budge on anything under $1 trillion. "Compromise" at it's finest.
Click to expand...

$250 billion is a joke when we are trying to reduce the deficit by eight times that much. And the offer is tied to making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, which is absurd. AND it results in a net tax CUT of over $100 billion for the richest Americans. Joke is too kind a word.
 
AdamT said:
$250 billion is a joke when we are trying to reduce the deficit by eight times that much. And the offer is tied to making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, which is absurd. AND it results in a net tax CUT of over $100 billion for the richest Americans. Joke is too kind a word.
Click to expand...

You're right, $250 billion is a joke when we are in a very weak recovery. $1.2 trillion in spending cuts is a joke. In case you forgot, the repeal of the Bush tax cuts failed in Congress earlier this year. Even some Democrats don't support it as it would result in a net tax increase on the middle class. Obviously the core of the problem is runaway spending. Increasing taxes is no guarantee for revenue increases. Cutting spending is a 100% guarantee of deficit reduction.

Where do you see the problem?

Federal Budget.jpg
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
You're right, $250 billion is a joke when we are in a very weak recovery. $1.2 trillion in spending cuts is a joke. In case you forgot, the repeal of the Bush tax cuts failed in Congress earlier this year. Even some Democrats don't support it as it would result in a net tax increase on the middle class. Obviously the core of the problem is runaway spending. Increasing taxes is no guarantee for revenue increases. Cutting spending is a 100% guarantee of deficit reduction.

Where do you see the problem?

View attachment 67118633
Click to expand...

Eliminating the top Bush tax cut had strong Democratic support, and I'm sure it will next time around as well. All of the tax cuts should be phased out over the next 2-3 years, which would go a long way towards reaching the deficit reduction goal. Of course we need to cut spending and reform entitlements as well.
 
AdamT said:
Eliminating the top Bush tax cut had strong Democratic support, and I'm sure it will next time around as well. All of the tax cuts should be phased out over the next 2-3 years, which would go a long way towards reaching the deficit reduction goal. Of course we need to cut spending and reform entitlements as well.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you support cuts in spending and entitlements. I support revenue increases. Something tells me that if we we're on that committee something might of actually gotten done. In terms of revenue increases, if $250 billion is a "joke" to you, what is a reasonable level? $1 trillion? Don't forgot the payroll tax increase at the end of this year (even Obama is opposed to that) and the new tax increases that are set to take place at the beginning of 2013.

EDIT: Another question. If we raise taxes, but revenues don't increase, who stands to benefit? From that graph, meaningful changes in revenue seem to follow GDP closer than they do changes in tax rates.
 
Last edited:
Rhapsody1447 said:
Glad to see you support cuts in spending and entitlements. I support revenue increases. Something tells me that if we we're on that committee something might of actually gotten done. In terms of revenue increases, if $250 billion is a "joke" to you, what is a reasonable level? $1 trillion? Don't forgot the payroll tax increase at the end of this year (even Obama is opposed to that) and the new tax increases that are set to take place at the beginning of 2013.
Click to expand...

There's no payroll tax increase at the end of the year. We've been on tax holiday paying Social Security taxes at 4.2% instead of 6.2%. Paying less into a program that's in trouble makes perfect sense, yes? Pandering. Pure and simple.
 
MaggieD said:
There's no payroll tax increase at the end of the year. We've been on tax holiday paying Social Security taxes at 4.2% instead of 6.2%. Paying less into a program that's in trouble makes perfect sense, yes? Pandering. Pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Really? You're saying there is no payroll tax hike at the end of the year?

Obama Urges Congress To Prevent Payroll Tax Hike After Deficit Panel Failure | Fox News

Obama Urges Congress to Prevent Payroll Tax Hike After Deficit Panel Failure

It's an extension of the payroll tax cut, but a tax hike regardless if isn't extended. Check your facts before you accuse me of pandering.
 
Last edited:
The failure of the supercommitee is the best outcome possible; people on the hill are already talking about the Bowles report recomendations, a bigger, more wide-ranging comprimise framework for deficit reduction. Now the ball is back to the house to get it moving. Maybe Bohener can get it done this time.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you feel that "I give in five and you give in one" is a fair and equal bargain?
 
nijato said:
The failure of the supercommitee is the best outcome possible; people on the hill are already talking about the Bowles report recomendations, a bigger, more wide-ranging comprimise framework for deficit reduction. Now the ball is back to the house to get it moving. Maybe Bohener can get it done this time.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AdamT said:
No, what they offered was to close loopholes ... OFFSET by a reduction in tax rates. With a trigger that would actually raise revenue under certain conditions. Another giveaway for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The idea of getting back a dollar today to pay in ten more tomorrow is ludicrous and disingenuous in the extreme.
 
haymarket said:
So you feel that "I give in five and you give in one" is a fair and equal bargain?
Click to expand...

Given the context of the debate in terms of taxing and spending? Absolutely.
 
haymarket said:
So you feel that "I give in five and you give in one" is a fair and equal bargain?
Click to expand...

And WTF is up that, anyway? Now we're talking about cutting deficits by $1.5 trillion ... when Obama started the discussion by offering over $4 trillion?
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Given the context of the debate in terms of taxing and spending? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

thank you for explaining in one line why the Super Committee was doomed to fail before anyone ever walked in that room.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Really? You're saying there is no payroll tax hike at the end of the year?
Click to expand...

What she is stating is that the payroll tax was not permanently lowered. Legislation was adopted to offer a temporary "holiday" at a reduced rate. If legislation to extend the holiday is not adopted, then the payroll tax would revert to the existing statutory rate.

Her other other point concerns the wisdom of the holiday. Social Security faces long-term imbalances. It is funded by payroll taxes. The holiday has somewhat reduced revenue to Social Security and had an impact of increasing (modestly) the long-term imbalances associated with the program.
 
haymarket said:
thank you for explaining in one line why the Super Committee was doomed to fail before anyone ever walked in that room.
Click to expand...

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?
 
donsutherland1 said:
What she is stating is that the payroll tax was not permanently lowered. Legislation was adopted to offer a temporary "holiday" at a reduced rate. If legislation to extend the holiday is not adopted, then the payroll tax would revert to the existing statutory rate.

Her other other point concerns the wisdom of the holiday. Social Security faces long-term imbalances. It is funded by payroll taxes. The holiday has somewhat reduced revenue to Social Security and had an impact of increasing (modestly) the long-term imbalances associated with the program.
Click to expand...

I understand that. I included it in my response to her. I said she should check her facts or rephrase her wording before she accuses me of pandering. I agree that the Social Security imbalances warrants re-evaluating the tax/spend structure of SS. Obama wants to extend the payroll tax cut. I never said I did! All I said is that it should be taken into consideration when debating tax increases as a solution to the debt ceiling debates.
 
It'll come, eventually. Just remember folks, we are part of the blame. The American public demands a strange mixture between "getting stuff done," staying true to ideology, and compromise. However, if you do any of the three, you are ruining the Republic, and we amp up the fervor to get rid of our elected leaders.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Because their government supported al-Qaeda when they attacked the United States. However, bin Laden is now dead, and now we should leave.
Click to expand...

We found him where?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom