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 37 of 38 FirstFirst ... 2735363738 LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 372

Thread: They did it on purpose

  1. #361
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,151

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    that is not the attitude. the attitude is "Republicans offered a position that was halfway between what they wanted and what the Democrats wanted". specifically, republicans started from a position of no revenue increases, democrats started from a position of $1 Trillion in revenue increases, and so Republicans offered $500 Bn in revenue increases. Democrats then insisted again on their original bargaining position of $1 Trillion. so, the attitude is, why can't democrats meet republicans in the middle on revenue?
    the democrats would now be foolish to do so (so we should expect that to happen)
    they can now expect three times as much revenue increase as spending decrease
    and that spending decrease does not touch the social safety net that the neocons want to eliminate
    don't think most progressives are opposed to the spending cuts being made at DoD

    in short, the republicans were hoist with their own petard
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  2. #362
    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 cpwill View Post
    that is not the attitude. the attitude is "Republicans offered a position that was halfway between what they wanted and what the Democrats wanted". specifically, republicans started from a position of no revenue increases, democrats started from a position of $1 Trillion in revenue increases, and so Republicans offered $500 Bn in revenue increases. Democrats then insisted again on their original bargaining position of $1 Trillion. so, the attitude is, why can't democrats meet republicans in the middle on revenue?
    Where do you find that propaganda? Seriously . . . .

    October 26, 2011: Democrats first super committee offer is $3 trillion in deficit reduction comprised of about $1.3 trillion in revenues and $1.7 trillion in spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans immediately reject it. Republicansí first super committee offer is $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction, which includes no new tax revenues.

    [...]

    November 11, 2011: Democrats agree to Republicansí top lines including just $400 billion in revenues and $875 billion in spending cuts, but refuse to accept the GOPís tax cut for the rich. Republicans reject it and make their final offer: $640 billion in spending cuts and $3 billion in revenues.

    How Republican Tax Intransigence Sank The Super Committee: A Timeline | ThinkProgress
    The [super] committee is charged with cutting budget deficits by a total of at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The [first] Democratic plan would trim much more, a total of $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion, through cuts in the growth of federal entitlement programs, including Medicare, and more than $1 trillion in new tax revenues.

    The proposal, which came after weeks of silence, has virtually no chance of winning approval from Republicans on the committee, who have repeatedly said they would not accept a package that included tax increases.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/us...ml?_r=1&ref=us

  3. #363
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    the democrats would now be foolish to do so (so we should expect that to happen)
    they can now expect three times as much revenue increase as spending decrease
    you think all the bush tax cuts are going away?

  4. #364
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    Where do you find that propaganda? Seriously . . . .
    um. both of your sources confirmed what I had written.

  5. #365
    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 cpwill View Post
    um. both of your sources confirmed what I had written.



  6. #366
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post



    cpwill: Democrats refused to consider anything without a minimum of a trillion dollar tax hike
    Karl: That's not true, Democrats offered multiple deals that all included a tax hike of over a trillion dollars.
    cpwill: Yes, just as I said, they refused to consider anything without a minimum of a trillion dollar tax hike.
    Karl:
    cpwill:

  7. #367
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    i think that any real solution has to involve spending cuts and revenue increases.
    This is common sense.....shared sacrifice.....anathema to the conservatives.......

  8. #368
    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 cpwill, in post #366 View Post

    cpwill: Democrats refused to consider anything without a minimum of a trillion dollar tax hike
    Karl: [horribly misquoted] That's not true, Democrats offered multiple deals that all included a tax hike of over a trillion dollars.
    cpwill: Yes, just as I said, they refused to consider anything without a minimum of a trillion dollar tax hike.
    Karl:
    cpwill:
    Reading is fundamental. On the same page, even

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill, in post #364 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    [...]
    [...] November 11, 2011: Democrats agree to Republicans’ top lines including just $400 billion in revenues and $875 billion in spending cuts, but refuse to accept the GOP’s tax cut for the rich. Republicans reject it and make their final offer: $640 billion in spending cuts and $3 billion in revenues.

    How Republican Tax Intransigence Sank The Super Committee: A Timeline | ThinkProgress
    [...]
    um. both of your sources confirmed what I had written.

  9. #369
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    Reading is fundamental. On the same page, even


    math is important, too.

    ...Democrats agree to Republicans’ top lines including just $400 billion in revenues and $875 billion in spending cuts, but refuse to accept the GOP’s tax cut for the rich.
    that second bit they are referring to is the current tax code v going back to the clinton era rates, and is scored at $800Bn.

    now, 400Bn plus 800bn is.... greater than, or less than, $1 Trillion?

  10. #370
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    Here is my theory:
    Democrats never wanted the super-committee to succeed. They came to the table with over a trillion in tax hikes in a recession, which not only is absolutely stupid, it is also a non-starter. But what have they lost? Now military spending has to be cut and they don't have to take responsibility for it.

    What about Medicare cuts? Those cuts are to Medicare providers. Not only do Democrats not care about Medicare provider doctors, but they view this as a way to continue to destroy our healthcare system so that they can implement single payer.

    But the best part for Dems on the super-committee failure is that Obama can run against a do-nothing congress in 2012. His biggest hope for re-election is that congress will have a lower approval rating and he can try to identify congress as Republicans, even though Reid still controls the senate where bills go to die.

    As if to prove my point, Obama has sworn to veto any attempt by Congress to stop these draconian cuts to military and provider payments. The committee failure is all part of Obama/Biden 2012.

    What do you think?
    I think your survey reeks of partisanship making it impossible to answer in a way that will not put the responsbility where it belongs, so I will place the burden right where it belongs on the republicans and specifically on the 279 Grover Norquist pledges who signed away thier right to represent the people who elected them.

    Why might you ask? The thrust of the republicans has not been just to protect the Bush tax cuts it has also been to take away collective bargaining rights, to make it difficult for many voters to vote in 2012. To reduce SS/Medicare and other programs that help the needy and poor. To prevent bills that would make off shoring and over seas manufacturing less attractive from ever coming up for a vote, to opposing bills that would make it more difficult for wall street to steal from the people.To opposing infrastructure work projects that would put people to work. To try to lower the age of child labor laws.

    I wondered how the President of the United States "President Bush" with all of the economist he had at his disposal could not be aware of the economic mess this country was in at the end of 2008 and if he did why he did not use the media to alert the American people. My opinion/conclusion is he knew and did not want to stop the economic train wreck the country was headed for.

Page 37 of 38 FirstFirst ... 2735363738 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
  •