View Poll Results: Did Democrats cause the super committee to fail on purpose?

Voters
71. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, they actually thought a trillion dollar tax hike in a recession was reasonable

    9 12.68%
  • No, it was a bi-partisan failure

    28 39.44%
  • Yes, the plan from the beginning was to fail

    34 47.89%
Page 11 of 38 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 372

Thread: They did it on purpose

  1. #101
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:44 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,925

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    So why don't we just raise taxes until the deficit goes away?
    Do you believe taking an extreme position on one far side of the continuum gives you some credibility on these issues? Your posts indicate that you certainly do.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #102
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,120

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    It's the same thing. And they are needed.
    yes and no. you can raise effective tax rates while lowering nominal ones in order to increase the incentives to engage in net productive behavior. In addition, the US has other potential income streams than simple taxation.

  3. #103
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    Revenue increases, or tax increase?
    This from someone who just accused the Democrats of being obstinate

  4. #104
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Do you believe taking an extreme position on one far side of the continuum gives you some credibility on these issues? Your posts indicate that you certainly do.
    Well, it's like you're saying in order to fix a broken leg we need to cut it off, but you'll compromise with me by putting a cast on half and cutting the other half off. Sorry, some things deserve an extreme position. As long as the government is spending too much, we shouldn't raise taxes. That's stupid. Once we get spending under control, if we still can't pay the bills then raise taxes.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  5. #105
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    yes and no. you can raise effective tax rates while lowering nominal ones in order to increase the incentives to engage in net productive behavior. In addition, the US has other potential income streams than simple taxation.
    I agree. Although lowering nominal rates while raising effective rates isn't a "tax cut" in my opinion.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  6. #106
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I agree. Although lowering nominal rates while raising effective rates isn't a "tax cut" in my opinion.
    Isn't that an admission that you support raising taxes the way Bush did in 2001 and 2003?
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I'm shocked, truly SHOCKED by your desire to compromise given how much you're conitnually crying for the Republicans to do it.....
    I was being sarcastic.

  8. #108
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,120

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    No, nor does any one claim that. However, cutting spending also will have a negative effect on the economy, the deeper the cut, the more negative the effect. And of course getting both sides to agree what is wasteful is not going to happen easily. Let me give you an example: how much of our military spending is wasteful? Some of it certainly is. But how much?
    it's government spending - ergo, a good chunk. the problem isn't necessarily the wasteful spending, but how it is interspersed. it's not the huge programs that are wasteful, it is the smaller spending within the programs. we send alot of guys TAD that don't all have to go TAD, and they get full per diem when they often don't need it. we have more high ranking officers than probably we need, alot of them doing make-work. the military actually serves as a money-laundering mechanism for congresscritters and the like who want to increase foreign aid without increasing the foreign aid budget; so we spend alot of money on our "partners". our procurement rules don't allow us to stock up on long-term needs (like, for example, oil) when the price goes down, trapping us at the market rate. Strictly speaking many of our higher ranking SNCO's and officers have nicer chairs than they precisely need . I used to make supply runs for my company; and I always got the nice pens with the rubber grips. The simple papermate POS cheap metal ones wrote just as effectively, but hey - the CO and Gunny liked the nice pens, and it's not my money. There is a real bias in favor of finding a way to spend the money you have been allotted rather than search for savings - because there is no incentive to do anything else. If we were to find a way to work incentives for bottom-line savings into our job-performance-evaluations or unit funds, then we would see the slow stripping out of large amounts of waste. It would just take a few years to fully tap the resourcefulness of our workforce as they rotate from billet to billet.

    In general, however, our biggest expense is benefits (veterans, healthcare, etc), and our second biggest expense is personnel (paychecks).

    But when you just hit the DOD with a "cut your budget by a fifth overnight", then it's not possible to do it by pulling out the waste. You have to start slashing non-waste; and the people who will pay the price for that are the soldiers and Marines who find themselves in Iraq in 2004 with no armor.

  9. #109
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,120

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I agree. Although lowering nominal rates while raising effective rates isn't a "tax cut" in my opinion.
    but it's fine-printed enough to allow BOTH sides to claim victory. Democrats can talk about how they increased taxes on the wealthy by getting rid of all their loopholes "so they finally pay what they should have been paying" etc., while Republicans can talk about how they lowered top rates, and kept Democrats from engaging in job-killing repeal of the Bush tax cuts etc...


    it is the perfect area for compromise; and Republicans have offered to do it now three or four times; just as they were willing to (grudgingly) accept the Simpson Bowles commission. The only ones stamping their feet and refusing to meet at the compromise point here are Democrats; and it is because (I suspect), tax rates for them are not revenue issues, but cultural ones. They don't want to raise rates so much to raise revenue as they want to raise rates in order to be "getting" the wealthy.

  10. #110
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Here is an important question for Democrats. You are looking for painless taxes that will have the least effect on the economy, but will hit the top 1% and make them pay their fair share, right? Why aren't you clamoring for an Entertainers, Artists, Actors and Sports tax on people who make more than $250,000 a year and are not employers. Wouldn't that make sense? Tax Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, George Clooney, etc. How come that idea hasn't hit the Democrat talking points? They are all easily in the top 1%, and they don't employ large groups of people or produce goods and services that cause additional economic growth.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

Page 11 of 38 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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
  •