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 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 95

Thread: How's this for a compromise?

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    The debt limit should be raised with no strings attached, just like it's been done every time in the past. Budget fight must be done without putting our economy in danger. The chick**** from the GOP is just that, chicken****.
    When you attach every dollar to the economy and you don't want to hurt the economy all you have left is nothing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon
    In short, make no deals with Republicans at all. It's their turn to come up with cuts in their pet socialist programs, like 'Defense
    Lol!

  2. #52
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    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.

    1 Balancing the Budget in one fiscal year is something that can't be achieved without severely slashing DOD spending (as in, a complete retreat from the Middle East, Asia, and Europe), severely slashing current benefits for seniors. Those people have planned their lives around a fixed income. I'm all for chaining future benefit increases to inflation rather than CPI, but that's a long term slow expenditure reduction, not the kind of slash that gets you a balanced budget.

    2. given that the measure would be unspecific about what get's "cut" (and what is considered a "cut" - currently the Democratic position is that they can "cut" "spending in the tax code" by increasing effective tax rates), all that would happen is that we would get to this point next year and everyone would be in favor of deep cuts in general but none specifically, putting us right back where we are today. Democrats would love to have a knock-down-drag-out fight where they can posture themselves as the saviors of old people's benefits, and I don't see any way they would actually agree to the cuts that would be necessary under the legislation that they agreed to.

    3. So we end up precisely where we are today; deep in debt and diving ever deeper. But, you say, that invalidates the original debt ceiling hike. So what? the money at that point is already borrowed.

    4. Tax increases. given the ephemeral nature of the "cuts" (which never happen and never will happen), there is no way I support tax hikes that will happen sure as the increased debt will.

  3. #53
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Perhaps I'm too jaded, but resolutions don't cut it. Anything less (as an end point) to Democrats agreeing to a consitutional amendment requiring the Federal Government to a balanced budget is no go. Resolutions are too easily nullified, bypassed, ignored or simply legislated around using little known or creative strategy.

    Perhaps if our Congress and President were more serious, dedicated and reliable in that, they would not continue to play political games with our futures - sure. But that's not the case, so no. If you add in that a Constitutional Amendment be written and submitted - with the understanding that it will take years to get all the states approvals, then maybe.
    precisely. if these people were the kind that we could trust to follow resolutions, then this problem would have been solved back when Democrats passed "Paygo" in 2007.

  4. #54
    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
    Because Tax Cuts happen immediately. They pass, people start paying them, end of story.

    Spending cuts don't. Even if you pass a budget saying you're only going to do "X" amount of spending there are numerous ways congress can authorize more and more money through riders, emergency bills, and other such things.

    IE, tax cuts happen...and their there. End of story. People are paying more money and are going to do so until you cut taxes which is historically somewhat difficult and its not something a tax payer can just ignore and not do. Spending cuts are theoretical, have multiple avenues to invalidate them, and are easy for the government to ignore.
    This leaves me scratching my head. Cutting taxes is historically somewhat difficult? There isn't a single politician in America who favors higher taxes for the sake of higher taxes, as they are incredibly unpopular. The real divide is between politicians who are willing to bear the political fallout of an unpopular decision, versus the ones who are not (and that's not necessarily a partisan divide as there are both kinds of politicians in both parties).

    Furthermore, if spending cuts are easy to invalidate after the fact, then what's the whole point of this exercise? Isn't YOUR proposal essentially spending cuts that can be easily invalidated later?

    So I'm not willing to go along with a tax increase with a trust that somehow, someway, spending decreases will honestly happen at any kind of level other than a token amount.
    And yet you expect us to go along with an immediate spending cut (and an EXTREME cut at that), with the trust that somehow, some way, tax increases will follow in three years. Which is actually a year longer than it would take in the absence of any action at all.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-17-11 at 12:55 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    I agree with concessions on both sides, or no deal.

  6. #56
    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
    Just to clarify, 1% per tax bracket starting at the 2nd tax bracket (So the 0 - 8.5k bracket would not see an increase)

    So the top tax bracket would be at 40% if the Bush Tax Cuts stayed in place...which is HIGHER (by a slight amount) then the pre-bush tax cut levels. If the Bush Tax Cuts expired then that number would be almost 45%
    The problem with this approach is that it's not really a concession at all. Passing a tax hike of this nature increases the likelihood that the Bush Tax Cuts would be extended. If you subscribe to the idea of a political market (as I do), the voters are only willing to bear a certain amount of taxes (or spending, or lack of spending, or inequality, or deficits, or various other policies) before they get pissed off and the "political market" adjusts accordingly. So at best, the likely outcome of this kind of policy would be a tax rate at approximately the same level as the Clinton-era tax rates. That's not much of a concession, since those who favor higher taxes could do ALMOST as well by doing absolutely nothing and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of FY2012.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-17-11 at 01:13 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #57
    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?

    Let's make a list of the various items you are proposing and see how the lists compare, from both a political and policy perspective:

    Things that the Republicans get:
    • Another one year extension of the Bush tax cuts
    • An immediate 43% cut in federal spending, starting next year

    Things that the Democrats get:
    • A modest tax increase (beyond the Bush tax cuts) in FY2014...assuming Congress takes no action to invalidate it in the mean time, which is by no means certain or even likely.

    Things that are a wash, because everyone supposedly wants them:
    • A government that doesn't default on its obligations.
    • A few extra months to figure out the best way to handle the draconian cuts which are now coming at the start of FY2012 instead of next month.


    Does this list REALLY look like an equitable (or even a lopsided-but-tolerable) compromise to you? I mean, really?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #58
    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?

    Furthermore, this whole approach is premised on a faulty assumption: that we need to balance the budget, and do it right now. While the US has some long-term fiscal problems that need to be worked out, we are in no danger of an imminent economic default (as opposed to a political default). Our debt-to-GDP ratio is climbing and we'd be better off if it was lower...but it's not yet in the danger zone or even close to it.

    This approach is scarcely better than the people who are calling for Congress to not raise the debt ceiling at all, and use that as a means to balance the budget. The only allowance for reality that you've made is providing a few months to make an orderly transition to draconian cuts, rather than a chaotic transition that would happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised next month.

    Government spending cannot and will not be cut by 43% over the next few months. It's just not going to happen, because there simply isn't enough waste in the government to do it. This would entail deep cuts into entitlements and/or defense spending, as well as the shutdown of virtually the entire government on a permanent basis.

    My approach is pretty simple: Pass the debt ceiling increase on a relatively clean bill (although I have no objections to including the cuts that were already identified by Biden's group). Then get to work on reforming the four long-term drivers of our deficit: Social security, health care, defense, and tax policy. Leave non-defense discretionary spending alone for the most part, because it's not a problem. I'm not saying there isn't waste or there's no silly spending in the non-defense discretionary budget...but there just isn't that much compared to the size of our total government spending.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    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 compromise is acceptable. No compromise of any kind.

    The debt limit should be lowered, not increased, and lowered by a lot.
    Spending to be cut even more.

    Oh no Mr. President, we're not going to threaten social security and military pay while Congress is still drawing a salary. No. We're going to begin spending cuts with a full repeal of ObamaCare, followed with refunding the public all that unspent TARP money you still have. Then make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, privatize social security and K-12 education, allow citizens to buy insurance across state lines, increase our oil tariffs, lower unemployment benefits to 2/3rds pay for 90days, establish the line-item veto, build the damn wall along the southern border (we saw you close it during 9-11, we know you can do it, and do it fast), Congressmen pay for their own damn transportation and meals, **** these little curly-Q light-bulbs....
    Last edited by Jerry; 07-17-11 at 01:33 AM.

  10. #60
    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 Jerry View Post
    No compromise is acceptable. No compromise of any kind.

    The debt limit should be lowered, not increased, and lowered by a lot.
    This is clearly unconstitutional. The public debt of the United States is not to be questioned. Lowering the debt ceiling below the current debt level would do exactly that.

    Spending to be cut even more.

    Oh no Mr. President, we're not going to threaten social security and military pay while Congress is still drawing a salary. No. We're going to begin spending cuts with a full repeal of ObamaCare, followed with refunding the public all that unspent TARP money you still have. Then make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, privatize social security and K-12 education, allow citizens to buy insurance across state lines, increase our oil tariffs, lower unemployment benefits to 2/3rds pay for 90days, establish the line-item veto, build the damn wall along the southern border (we saw you close it during 9-11, we know you can do it, and do it fast), Congressmen pay for their own damn transportation and meals, **** these little curly-Q light-bulbs....
    I've heard plenty of other laughably inadequate proposals for balancing the budget in the last couple weeks...but yours is the first one I've seen that would actually INCREASE the deficit.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •