• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

They did it on purpose

Did Democrats cause the super committee to fail on purpose?


  • Total voters
    40
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?

:shrug: 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 :shrug:. 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You didn't get my point. The income and wealth derived from those cuts in the 90s and 2000s is still there. Why isn't it being used to hire folks NOW? Because there's more to the economy than just being a function of how much cash business have on hand.

he did get your point. it just happened that your point that increased investment didn't mean increased business was incorrect. The question isn't "will rich folks increase their demand because their income has increased" - that's looking at the process backwards. The question is "has the incentive for investing in the American economy increased". Seek Ye First A Proper Incentive Structure, And All Those Things Shall Be Added Unto Thee.
 
:) here's an idea - let's stop making monies paid to state and local taxes tax free. There is no particular reason why the people of Indiana should subsidize the profligacy of the people of California.
 
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.
14th Amendment (unconstitutional to single out subsets of select groups).

And rich people are not significant employers, nor job creators. The more the right plays that dim-witted talking point, the stupider they collectively paint themselves.
 
14th Amendment (unconstitutional to single out subsets of select groups).

And rich people are not significant employers, nor job creators. The more the right plays that dim-witted talking point, the stupider they collectively paint themselves.

Whoa, wait a minute! Then how do we justify a progressive tax system that taxes people different amounts if they make higher wages, or one that taxes people different amounts depending on how they make their money? What about deductions for specific groups (homeowners, people who give to charity, etc). Didn't you just rule out everything but a flat tax?
 
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.

Never said that. This is this. This isn't something else. This is this.

There are two sides to a budget. Let us deal with both together.

Extremists who only look at one side and take an all or nothing position would destroy this nation.
 
Never said that. This is this. This isn't something else. This is this.

There are two sides to a budget. Let us deal with both together.

Extremists who only look at one side and take an all or nothing position would destroy this nation.

Ok, let's try again. Let's say you are writing your family budget. You work 80 hours a week, but can't afford the payment on your Lexus. Do you buy a used car instead? Or lease a Camry and take on another 20 hour a week part time job?
 
Never said that. This is this. This isn't something else. This is this.

There are two sides to a budget. Let us deal with both together.

Agreed. how about $500 Bn in revenue (tilted towards upper income earners) for $700 Bn in spending cuts?
 
Ok, let's try again. Let's say you are writing your family budget. You work 80 hours a week, but can't afford the payment on your Lexus. Do you buy a used car instead? Or lease a Camry and take on another 20 hour a week part time job?

After all, there are two sides to a budget. Shouldn't you deal with both?
 
Whoa, wait a minute! Then how do we justify a progressive tax system [...]
By educating ourselves. Google "equal protection under the law" and give it a try.
 
Ok, let's try again. Let's say you are writing your family budget. You work 80 hours a week, but can't afford the payment on your Lexus. Do you buy a used car instead? Or lease a Camry and take on another 20 hour a week part time job?

Your example is fatally flawed resulting in a really bad premise. If I am already working 80 hours a week, it leaves no time for much else other than sleep and eating doesn't it. But that is not the situation we find ourselves in.

We cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003 and the result was debt debt and more debt. To use your line of thinking on this - we had two jobs but decided to give up one and now we cannot understand why our finances are in shambles.

After all, there are two sides to a budget. Shouldn't you deal with both?

Yes. And to avoid the swampy morass of politics, let us deal with both equally on a one to one basis with cuts across the board on discretionary spending and increases across the board hitting all taxpayers equally after we end all preferential loopholes and discriminatory treatment.

There is your true compromise.
 
Last edited:
Your example is fatally flawed resulting in a really bad premise. If I am already working 80 hours a week, it leaves no time for much else other than sleep and eating doesn't it. But that is not the situation we find ourselves in.

We cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003 and the result was debt debt and more debt. To use your line of thinking on this - we had two jobs but decided to give up one and now we cannot understand why our finances are in shambles.

Ok, so basically you are saying we are not stretched economically right now and employers can afford tax hikes without it affecting the economy. In other words, we are only working 60 hours a week and have time to take on another job so we can lease that new Camry instead of buying a used car.
 
Ok, so basically you are saying we are not stretched economically right now and employers can afford tax hikes without it affecting the economy. In other words, we are only working 60 hours a week and have time to take on another job so we can lease that new Camry instead of buying a used car.

What I am saying is what I have said: we must deal with both sides of the federal budget - INCOME and EXPENDITURES. And to avoid the political deadlock that has gotten us nowhere, we need to deal with both sides equally.
 
What I am saying is what I have said: we must deal with both sides of the federal budget - INCOME and EXPENDITURES. And to avoid the political deadlock that has gotten us nowhere, we need to deal with both sides equally.

Ok, I'm going to see if I have a prayer at knocking you loose from your memorized talking point. Let's say Congress came together and agreed on $1.3 trillion in spending cuts this year and balanced the budget for 2011 and going forward. Would you still insist on tax hikes?
 
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 bias is showing.
 
Ok, so basically you are saying we are not stretched economically right now and employers can afford tax hikes without it affecting the economy. In other words, we are only working 60 hours a week and have time to take on another job so we can lease that new Camry instead of buying a used car.
A little old, but you get the point: Companies hold record $837B in cash, yet won't hire workers - USATODAY.com Companies hold record $837B in cash, yet won't hire workers
 
Back
Top Bottom