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 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 95

Thread: How's this for a compromise?

  1. #1
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    How's this for a compromise?

    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?

  2. #2
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    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?
    Can you write your Congressman with it?

    I'd buy it.

    I have little confidence that Washington could do it, but it's a decent plan.

    The problem is that both sides want to "win" instead of working it out.

  3. #3
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    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.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  4. #4
    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
    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.
    While there are legitimate arguments on both sides for whether the debt ceiling is constitutional, I don't think there is any doubt that THIS would be unconstitutional. If the debt ceiling was raised and later invalidated after more borrowing had taken place, it WOULD indisputably be calling into question the credit of the United States.

    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.
    Absolutely not. This isn't really a compromise, it's just delaying a draconian 43% reduction in spending from August until next winter. Since some of the less pragmatic Republicans are already trying to use the debt ceiling as a way to force a balanced budget next month, this would be almost exactly what they wanted.

    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
    Would the first step be predicated on the formation of the committee, or tax reform actually becoming law? Ron Wyden and Judd Gregg already HAVE a good bipartisan proposal for tax reform.

    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.
    Are we talking 1% increase relative to the current rate, or the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012 plus a 1% increase? If it's the former and it doesn't go into effect until 2014, then you've effectively extended the Bush tax cuts another year and made most of them permanent. Not much of a compromise.

    For Democrats:

    This gets the Debt Ceiling raised with a relatively clean bill.
    This is supposedly something that everyone wants, so I'm not sure why you're considering it a reward for the Democrats. Furthermore, it doesn't even achieve the policy objective (i.e. allowing the government to borrow more) if you're also demanding balanced budgets for the next two years. It just pushes unbelievably harsh spending cuts back from August 2011 to next winter, which just buys the government a few months to choose which bills it's going to pay, and to prevent a quasi-default.

    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%.
    ...a tax increase which the Democrats can get anyway if they simply do nothing until the end of 2012 and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. But your plan pushes it back yet ANOTHER year.

    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?
    So to recap: Democrats get to continue borrowing for another five months or so, to pay the bills that the Democratic Senate and Republican House already approved. Republicans get another extension of the Bush tax cuts until FY2014, and a 43% reduction in spending starting in FY2012. This is the most one-sided "compromise" ever. And the irony of it is that it would STILL be unacceptable to congressional Republicans because they won't vote for a tax increase under any circumstance.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-15-11 at 04:29 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #5
    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?

    i would agree with one change: raise taxes a a small amount NOW and spread that 1% over 3 years. entitlement reform is a given. what form that reform will take is a completely different animal. i thing we should raise the cap on SS taxes and means test for some medicare benefits.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

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


  6. #6
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    While there are legitimate arguments on both sides for whether the debt ceiling is constitutional, I don't think there is any doubt that THIS would be unconstitutional. If the debt ceiling was raised and later invalidated after more borrowing had taken place, it WOULD indisputably be calling into question the credit of the United States.
    Sorry, perhaps I explained it poorly.

    The following 4 bills would essentially be voted on back to back to back. I put the provision on the debt cieling bill because its the most vital out of all of them and the lynchpin for this. The reason I put it there is so that they don't cast the vote for this...and then go to cast the vote for the next 3 things and everyone that agreed to vote yes votes a different way because hey, the debt ceiling vote is already done.

    I guess you could do the same thing by placing all of those various resolutions IN the debt cieling bill?

    You could also I guess put a time limit, so that essentially those 4 resolutions would need to be passed literally in...lets say...a 48 hour window after the debt cieling bill is passed or the bill is invalidated. And in the bill you could say the debt cieling will not increase until 72 49 hours after the bill is signed into law. Thus, if the three other resolutions don't get passed, the bill becomes invalid and the debt limit is not increased?

    Absolutely not. This isn't really a compromise, it's just delaying a draconian 43% reduction in spending from August until next winter. Since some of the less pragmatic Republicans are already trying to use the debt ceiling as a way to force a balanced budget next month, this would be almost exactly what they wanted.
    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.

    Would the first step be predicated on the formation of the committee, or tax reform actually becoming law? Ron Wyden and Judd Gregg already HAVE a good bipartisan proposal for tax reform.
    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.

    Are we talking 1% increase relative to the current rate, or the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012 plus a 1% increase? If it's the former and it doesn't go into effect until 2014, then you've effectively extended the Bush tax cuts another year and made most of them permanent. Not much of a compromise.
    The Bush Tax Cuts end in essentially 2013, not 2012, to my understanding. 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.





    This is supposedly something that everyone wants, so I'm not sure why you're considering it a reward for the Democrats. Furthermore, it doesn't even achieve the policy objective (i.e. allowing the government to borrow more) if you're also demanding balanced budgets for the next two years. It just pushes unbelievably harsh spending cuts back from August 2011 to next winter, which just buys the government a few months to choose which bills it's going to pay, and to prevent a quasi-default.



    ...a tax increase which the Democrats can get anyway if they simply do nothing until the end of 2012 and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. But your plan pushes it back yet ANOTHER year.



    This is the most one-sided "compromise" ever. And the irony of it is that it would STILL be unacceptable to congressional Republicans because they won't vote for a tax increase under any circumstance.[/QUOTE]

  7. #7
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,200

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And the irony of it is that it would STILL be unacceptable to congressional Republicans because they won't vote for a tax increase under any circumstance.
    As a Republican, I would never promise Democrats that I would agree to raise taxes. That scam has been pulled too many times by the Democrats. Promise cuts in spending in exchage for increase in taxes had meant that the latter happens and the former never happens. As I said elsewhere here:

    Fool me once, shame on you.
    Fool me twice, shame on me.
    Fool me three times, blow my head off.

    It is time for the tax and spenders to lose this battle. Help restore the United States to first principles. And, do it now!!

  8. #8
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    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. entitlement reform is a given. what form that reform will take is a completely different animal. i thing we should raise the cap on SS taxes and means test for some medicare benefits.
    No deal.

    Unless we have some method of making sure we see spending cuts, legitimate significant spending cuts, no agreement at all to tax increases. We have 0 reasons to believe the Democrats will actually make the cuts necessary. It was just half a year ago that Obama agreed to keep the Bush Tax Cuts for 2 more years and not raise taxes on anyone....and now here he is again, already attempting to do it again. There's ZERO reason for Republicans to agree to tax raises right now with the "Hope" that in the future Democrats will make good on spending cuts when even during this very debate the Democrats are showing they have no problem agreeing to something and then 6 months later attempting to undo that agreement by pushing for it in a different way.

    Republicans would agree for the tax increases to happen and make that happening law...but we need to see spending actually happen first. Everytime it goes the other way around...taxes and then supposed spending...it never pans out.

    There's no compromise being offered on your end when your solution is "Tax the rich more, then take the riches medicare away, then make the rich pay even more taxes with social security taxes". That's not compromise, that's what the Democrats have been doing for the past 2 1/2 years as their party platform.

  9. #9
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,200

    Re: How's this for a compromise?

    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. entitlement reform is a given. what form that reform will take is a completely different animal. i thing we should raise the cap on SS taxes and means test for some medicare benefits.
    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.

  10. #10
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    No deal.

    Unless we have some method of making sure we see spending cuts, legitimate significant spending cuts, no agreement at all to tax increases. We have 0 reasons to believe the Democrats will actually make the cuts necessary. It was just half a year ago that Obama agreed to keep the Bush Tax Cuts for 2 more years and not raise taxes on anyone....and now here he is again, already attempting to do it again. There's ZERO reason for Republicans to agree to tax raises right now with the "Hope" that in the future Democrats will make good on spending cuts when even during this very debate the Democrats are showing they have no problem agreeing to something and then 6 months later attempting to undo that agreement by pushing for it in a different way.

    Republicans would agree for the tax increases to happen and make that happening law...but we need to see spending actually happen first. Everytime it goes the other way around...taxes and then supposed spending...it never pans out.
    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.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

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


Page 1 of 10 123 ... 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
  •