View Poll Results: Would this be an acceptable compromise to you?

Voters
29. You may not vote on this poll
  • Lean Left, Yes

    3 10.34%
  • Lean Left, No

    8 27.59%
  • Lean Right, Yes

    2 6.90%
  • Lean Right, No

    6 20.69%
  • Lean Centrist, Yes

    4 13.79%
  • Lean Centrist, No

    6 20.69%
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 95

Thread: How's this for a compromise?

  1. #11
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    No way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All this proposal does is eliminates an entitlement and creates yet another welfare program while punishing others. You want "the wealthy" to take an income tax rate hike, cut them out of receiving Social Security and make them pay for those who do receive Social Security. You generosity is simply overwhelming.
    calm down...i'm not sure you read my post correctly.

    how do you figure it would eliminate one entitlement and create another? how do you figure anyone would be cut out of receiving SS? please take the time to actually read my post.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  2. #12
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Alright, here's your compromise.

    1. Republicans agree to raise the debt limit in a nearly clean bill, with its only additional bit of legislation stating that if the following resolutions don't pass the bill is invalid.

    2. Democrats must agree to pass a resolution requiring that the 2012 and 2013 budget must be balanced in regards to expenditures compared to revenue, IE that spending will match predicted revenue. Included in this resolution is that no tax increases will be allowed to be considered until FY 2013.

    3. Democrats and Republicans agree to form a bipartisan committee to draft a bill to reform the tax code and close loopholes in such a way to increase efficiency in the system while maintaining the current effective tax rates

    4. Republicans agree to a 1% per tax bracket (starting with the 2nd bracket) increase that does not go into effect until FY 2014 AND is rendered invalid if spending in 2012 or 2013 exceeds both the budget and taken in revenue.

    For Democrats:

    This gets the Debt Ceiling raised with a relatively clean bill. You also have a tax increase signed in and ready to occur but also doesn't happen immedietely giving Obama a bit of cover regarding taxes in the near term. The tax increase would take those making 175K or more a year up 4% and those making over 380k up 5%.

    For Republicans:

    You get a balanced budget for the next two years with significant spending cuts and political ammo to potentially push for entitlement reform. You get one and a half years free of having to worry about any tax increases. And the tax increase that will come in 2014 will only come if the budget actually remained balanced for 2 years meaning only if the government actually acts seriously regarding spending.

    Would this be an acceptable compromise for you?
    NO-it means the top 2% are paying EVEN MORE of the federal income tax burden

    any increases should be to get most of those who don't pay any tax paying some and increasing the bottom bracket a few % points would affect the top payers as well



  3. #13
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Delaying it till next winter allows for significant time and reasoned effort to actually thuroughly look at the budget...including the Military, Social Security, Medicare, and others...and take what steps are necessary. I don't believe a 43% reduction in spending is impossible, but I think attempting to do such in a months time of research is dangerous. I think it could very well be done with significant time to completely look at the options.
    It would certainly be better to delay it from the perspective of creating less chaos, but that doesn't make a 43% spending cut any less atrocious from an economic perspective. It still hollows out virtually ALL non-defense discretionary spending and significantly eats into entitlements, whether it happens next month or next year. And rather than a temporary quasi-default for a couple weeks in August while a deal is hammered out (which would be bad enough), you're suggesting we endure TWO YEARS of this. And you're marking that as a policy victory for the Democrats. What makes you think that the Democrats are so desperate for an extra five months of spending (which was already agreed upon by both houses of Congress) that they'd agree to something like this?

    The first step would be contingent upon taking action to begin this process, either in actually forming the committee or agreeing to form it even. Wyden and Gregg could both be members and use their reform package as a blueprint if they'd like. I'll have to look into it.
    So essentially the tax reform part of the agreement would be merely a suggestion rather than a binding obligation.

    The Bush Tax Cuts end in essentially 2013, not 2012, to my understanding.
    Correct. End of FY2012 / beginning of FY2013. And you suggested no new tax increase until FY2014, which sounded like a sneaky way to extend them another year.

    I would say the 1% per bracket increase would occur on whatever the tax rates are at that given point. So if the Bush Tax Cuts manage to actually expire, then it goes off the old rates. Or congress could renew the Bush Tax Cuts for one more year and then they'd go up in 2014.
    No. You want the spending cuts to happen immediately, and the tax hikes in two years. I don't trust the Republicans (or the Democrats) enough to adhere to that agreement. And in any case, 1% isn't enough...especially if the Bush Tax Cuts ARE made permanent. Certainly not enough to justify a 43% cut in spending starting next year.

    Frankly this "compromise" is pretty insulting. It's a list of things extreme Republicans want (and yes, a 43% reduction in spending IS extremist), with some "concessions" to the Democrats that either A) they can get anyway by taking no action, B) are supposedly things that EVERYONE wants, or C) grossly disproportionate to the giveaways to Republicans. Any Democrat would be a fool to sign on to this, and any Republican (assuming he cared more about advancing the conservative agenda than the economy) would be a fool NOT to. This is a far worse deal for Democrats than the $4 trillion of cuts that were under consideration a few days ago...by at least a couple orders of magnitude.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-15-11 at 05:15 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #14
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,344
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    I like the basic premise of compromise, but I dislike too many details in this compromise. That large of spending cuts, at once, would have a significant negative effect on the US economy to my mind, possibly enough to take us back into recession. It has taken 50 years to get where we are, it is unreasonable to try and fix that in one year. Further, I have and do oppose any tax increases.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #15
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,204

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    calm down...i'm not sure you read my post correctly.

    how do you figure it would eliminate one entitlement and create another? how do you figure anyone would be cut out of receiving SS? please take the time to actually read my post.
    I most humbly apologize for not carefully reading your posting. I find just as much fault with the correctg reading as I did the incorrect reading. Please let me begin anew:

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i would agree with one change: raise taxes a a small amount NOW and spread that 1% over 3 years.
    Increasing taxes is the wrong thing to do at this time due to a lingering malaise in the economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i thing we should raise the cap on SS taxes
    Nope. You just want to soak "the wealthy" to pay for the not-so-wealthy. Class warfare is really getting old and disgusting.

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    means test for some medicare benefits.
    Hmmm. I said you wanted to end Social Security for "the wealthy." It appears that I had the wrong "entitlement." Or, do you just want to punish the rich only by "making them pay more for their services? Again, class warfare is really getting old and disgusting.

    Sorry, but we continue to disagree.

  6. #16
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i agree with a balanced budget amendment. i agree with no tax increases if we don't balance the budget.
    But you don't. You just said to do the tax increases immedietely. The balanced budget wouldn't come into affect until 2012. And would still be contingent on the Democrats actually making good with their agreement after the taxes are already in place.

    You say you agree with no tax increases if we don't balance the budget.......but you also said you want tax increases NOW. those don't jive.

    but you know what will happen if we balance the budget solely with spending cuts? what do you think our "austerity budget" would look like? crime would increase, police departments would decrease staff. education would suffer, infrastructure would suffer, other taxes would be raised, at the state as well aas the federal level. new fees would be developed. i would much rather have an honest increase on the wealthy than a back door increase for everyone.
    This is the penalty we take for allowing it to get this far both under Obama and Bush. Things should not have gotten to the point that they are now and if we don't suffer some problems in the short term we're going to suffer them far worse in the long term. I'm not one you're going to boogeyman into submission with threats of bad things happening or hard times...I expect that. You don't run up the bill and the problems this country has done fiscally and expect to fix it without pain. Its not realistic.

    And I am against putting into a mentality that somehow the pain that we are ALL responsable for enabling should be felt only by the wealthy through force. I am against the notion that somehow putting that mentality into place isn't going to just cause it to continue to increase. And I am against the notion that I find illogical and simply wrong that magically if we start gouging the wealthy for even more than we do now that the Democrats (and republicans as well) will finally find fiscal responsability rather than going "Hey, we have more money, that means we don't have to cut as much or worry about reforming things right now".

    Giving them more revenue, if we even buy the premesis that Taxes will significantly do that, is just going to kick the can down the road farther one what really needs to happen which is getting our spending under control.

    If we're looking for a painless fix in this then we're not being realistic.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i agree with a balanced budget amendment. i agree with no tax increases if we don't balance the budget. but you know what will happen if we balance the budget solely with spending cuts? what do you think our "austerity budget" would look like? crime would increase, police departments would decrease staff. education would suffer, infrastructure would suffer, other taxes would be raised, at the state as well aas the federal level. new fees would be developed. i would much rather have an honest increase on the wealthy than a back door increase for everyone.
    Wow... someone who -really- thinks that the Fed Government -not- spending ~$1500B will bring the end of the world as we know it.


  8. #18
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    I most humbly apologize for not carefully reading your posting. I find just as much fault with the correctg reading as I did the incorrect reading. Please let me begin anew:



    Increasing taxes is the wrong thing to do at this time due to a lingering malaise in the economy.



    Nope. You just want to soak "the wealthy" to pay for the not-so-wealthy. Class warfare is really getting old and disgusting.



    Hmmm. I said you wanted to end Social Security for "the wealthy." It appears that I had the wrong "entitlement." Or, do you just want to punish the rich only by "making them pay more for their services? Again, class warfare is really getting old and disgusting.

    Sorry, but we continue to disagree.
    i see.....your reform would mean only the middle class and poor are affected. isn't that really class warfare? the tax rates on the rich have decreased by giant amounts over the last 50 years.........and you want hem to be even lower? lol!

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  9. #19
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    NO-it means the top 2% are paying EVEN MORE of the federal income tax burden

    any increases should be to get most of those who don't pay any tax paying some and increasing the bottom bracket a few % points would affect the top payers as well
    Are you suggesting that every rate is increased like 2% across the board or something? Or are you playing Class Warfare, no different than the Democrats, when you are suggesting we should increase it only on the bottom of the bracket where it only significantly affects the lower classes. That is no different than what they're doing by saying we should increase it only at the top.

  10. #20
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i see.....your reform would mean only the middle class and poor are affected. isn't that really class warfare? the tax rates on the rich have decreased by giant amounts over the last 50 years.........and you want hem to be even lower? lol!
    federal income taxes on the poor have decreased even more and the top 1 and 5 percent are paying more of the federal tax burden than at any time in the last 55 years



Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •