• 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!

How's this for a compromise?

Would this be an acceptable compromise to you?

  • Total voters
    16
pbrauer said:
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****.
Click to expand...

When you attach every dollar to the economy and you don't want to hurt the economy all you have left is nothing.


Oberon said:
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
Click to expand...

Lol!
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
I agree with concessions on both sides, or no deal.
 
Zyphlin said:
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%
Click to expand...

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:
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?
 
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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
Jerry said:
No compromise is acceptable. No compromise of any kind.

The debt limit should be lowered, not increased, and lowered by a lot.
Click to expand...

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....
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kandahar said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

My intent is to either bring the economy back under control, or tank it completely, forcing a currency reset.

No half-measures. No compromise. Either allow the phoenix the retain it's youth or let it die to be reborn.
 
Jerry said:
My intent is to either bring the economy back under control, or tank it completely, forcing a currency reset.

No half-measures. No compromise. Either allow the phoenix the retain it's youth or let it die to be reborn.
Click to expand...

:roll:
OK, cowboy. Whatever. Just out of curiosity, what makes you so sure that the system that rose from the ashes would be more amenable to the policies that you like?
 
Jerry said:
You don't see me disrespecting you.



What makes you think I think it would?
Click to expand...

So you just want to destroy the economy for no reason whatsoever, not even because of some illusions of grandeur that desperation will cause the voters will suddenly see things your way?
 
Kandahar said:
So you just want to destroy the economy for no reason whatsoever, not even because of some illusions of grandeur that desperation will cause the voters will suddenly see things your way?
Click to expand...




I've pretty much had enough with everyone's bull****, and don't care anymore. Republican and Democrat, a pox on both your houses.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...
At this moment. Not necessarily in the future.
 
Kandahar said:
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)
Click to expand...

So you criticize my hypothetical compromise for being lopsided, and then you propose that the Republicans cave on something they've stated they want (Not to raise the debt limit) in exchange for....nothing? Or at most, in exchange for cuts the Democratic Vice President's group suggested. So you complain mine is lopsided and then push one that is Republicans compromising in exchange for ...... nothing?
 
Zyphlin said:
So you criticize my hypothetical compromise for being lopsided, and then you propose that the Republicans cave on something they've stated they want (Not to raise the debt limit) in exchange for....nothing? Or at most, in exchange for cuts the Democratic Vice President's group suggested. So you complain mine is lopsided and then push one that is Republicans compromising in exchange for ...... nothing?
Click to expand...

You directly quoted him, and still managed to miss this bit? "(although I have no objections to including the cuts that were already identified by Biden's group)"
 
Jerry said:
My intent is to either bring the economy back under control, or tank it completely, forcing a currency reset.

No half-measures. No compromise. Either allow the phoenix the retain it's youth or let it die to be reborn.
Click to expand...

A perfect illustration of the true believer mindset which is going to destroy this nation. Very sad.
 
haymarket said:
A perfect illustration of the true believer mindset which is going to destroy this nation. Very sad.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but so is it a perfect illustration of the true believer mindset which is going to destroy this nation and that is believing that we need to reward irresponsible behavior on the part of our legislators by giving them more money to waste and not dramatically cutting expenses. Very sad.
 
BDBoop said:
You directly quoted him, and still managed to miss this bit? "(although I have no objections to including the cuts that were already identified by Biden's group)"
Click to expand...

You directly quoted me, and still managed to miss this bit?

Zyphlin said:
Or at most, in exchange for cuts the Democratic Vice President's group suggested.
Click to expand...

So the "compromise" is performing cuts that the Democratic Vice President's formed group has suggested, which according to Biden should include cuts that are effective tax increases.

I'm not even sure I'd go with my compromise, and I would be fine with raising the debt ceiling in exchange for 1 to 2 trillion in cuts if those cuts do not raise effective tax rates. However, to suggest that a raise to the debt limit, a few token cuts, and raises in effective tax rates would be a fair compromise either is absolutely erroneous in my mind. And from what I've seen, Biden seem's to be implying that his groups cuts include things that would raise the effective tax rates.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
A perfect illustration of the true believer mindset which is going to destroy this nation. Very sad.
Click to expand...

Salary of the US President... $400,000.
Salary of retired US Presidents... $180,000.
Salary of House/Senate... $174,000.
Salary of Speaker of house... $223,500
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders... $193,400
Average US Salary... $33,000 to $77,000.

I think we found where the cuts should be made.
 
Jerry said:
Salary of the US President... $400,000.
Salary of retired US Presidents... $180,000.
Salary of House/Senate... $174,000.
Salary of Speaker of house... $223,500
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders... $193,400
Average US Salary... $33,000 to $77,000.

I think we found where the cuts should be made.
Click to expand...

I forgot about de-funding the zars, a station which is incidentally unconstitutional.
 
Out of curiosity, what would people consider a reasonable compromise? For simplicity, lets look at it from an abstract level. Would you be satisfied with 1 dollar of increases tax revenue for 1 dollar of spending? If not, what what ration would you consider acceptable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom