• 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

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,429
Reaction score
35,267
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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]
 
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!!
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

calm down...i'm not sure you read my post correctly.

how do you figure it would eliminate one entitlement and create another? how do you figure anyone would be cut out of receiving SS? please take the time to actually read my 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?

NO-it means the top 2% are paying EVEN MORE of the federal income tax burden

any increases should be to get most of those who don't pay any tax paying some and increasing the bottom bracket a few % points would affect the top payers as well
 
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.

It would certainly be better to delay it from the perspective of creating less chaos, but that doesn't make a 43% spending cut any less atrocious from an economic perspective. It still hollows out virtually ALL non-defense discretionary spending and significantly eats into entitlements, whether it happens next month or next year. And rather than a temporary quasi-default for a couple weeks in August while a deal is hammered out (which would be bad enough), you're suggesting we endure TWO YEARS of this. And you're marking that as a policy victory for the Democrats. What makes you think that the Democrats are so desperate for an extra five months of spending (which was already agreed upon by both houses of Congress) that they'd agree to something like this?

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.

So essentially the tax reform part of the agreement would be merely a suggestion rather than a binding obligation.

The Bush Tax Cuts end in essentially 2013, not 2012, to my understanding.

Correct. End of FY2012 / beginning of FY2013. And you suggested no new tax increase until FY2014, which sounded like a sneaky way to extend them another year.

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.

No. You want the spending cuts to happen immediately, and the tax hikes in two years. I don't trust the Republicans (or the Democrats) enough to adhere to that agreement. And in any case, 1% isn't enough...especially if the Bush Tax Cuts ARE made permanent. Certainly not enough to justify a 43% cut in spending starting next year.

Frankly this "compromise" is pretty insulting. It's a list of things extreme Republicans want (and yes, a 43% reduction in spending IS extremist), with some "concessions" to the Democrats that either A) they can get anyway by taking no action, B) are supposedly things that EVERYONE wants, or C) grossly disproportionate to the giveaways to Republicans. Any Democrat would be a fool to sign on to this, and any Republican (assuming he cared more about advancing the conservative agenda than the economy) would be a fool NOT to. This is a far worse deal for Democrats than the $4 trillion of cuts that were under consideration a few days ago...by at least a couple orders of magnitude.
 
Last edited:
I like the basic premise of compromise, but I dislike too many details in this compromise. That large of spending cuts, at once, would have a significant negative effect on the US economy to my mind, possibly enough to take us back into recession. It has taken 50 years to get where we are, it is unreasonable to try and fix that in one year. Further, I have and do oppose any tax increases.
 
calm down...i'm not sure you read my post correctly.

how do you figure it would eliminate one entitlement and create another? how do you figure anyone would be cut out of receiving SS? please take the time to actually read my post.

I most humbly apologize for not carefully reading your posting. I find just as much fault with the correctg reading as I did the incorrect reading. Please let me begin anew:

i would agree with one change: raise taxes a a small amount NOW and spread that 1% over 3 years.

Increasing taxes is the wrong thing to do at this time due to a lingering malaise in the economy.

i thing we should raise the cap on SS taxes

Nope. You just want to soak "the wealthy" to pay for the not-so-wealthy. Class warfare is really getting old and disgusting.

means test for some medicare benefits.

Hmmm. I said you wanted to end Social Security for "the wealthy." It appears that I had the wrong "entitlement." Or, do you just want to punish the rich only by "making them pay more for their services? Again, class warfare is really getting old and disgusting.

Sorry, but we continue to disagree.
 
i agree with a balanced budget amendment. i agree with no tax increases if we don't balance the budget.

But you don't. You just said to do the tax increases immedietely. The balanced budget wouldn't come into affect until 2012. And would still be contingent on the Democrats actually making good with their agreement after the taxes are already in place.

You say you agree with no tax increases if we don't balance the budget.......but you also said you want tax increases NOW. those don't jive.

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.

This is the penalty we take for allowing it to get this far both under Obama and Bush. Things should not have gotten to the point that they are now and if we don't suffer some problems in the short term we're going to suffer them far worse in the long term. I'm not one you're going to boogeyman into submission with threats of bad things happening or hard times...I expect that. You don't run up the bill and the problems this country has done fiscally and expect to fix it without pain. Its not realistic.

And I am against putting into a mentality that somehow the pain that we are ALL responsable for enabling should be felt only by the wealthy through force. I am against the notion that somehow putting that mentality into place isn't going to just cause it to continue to increase. And I am against the notion that I find illogical and simply wrong that magically if we start gouging the wealthy for even more than we do now that the Democrats (and republicans as well) will finally find fiscal responsability rather than going "Hey, we have more money, that means we don't have to cut as much or worry about reforming things right now".

Giving them more revenue, if we even buy the premesis that Taxes will significantly do that, is just going to kick the can down the road farther one what really needs to happen which is getting our spending under control.

If we're looking for a painless fix in this then we're not being realistic.
 
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.
Wow... someone who -really- thinks that the Fed Government -not- spending ~$1500B will bring the end of the world as we know it.

:lol:
 
I most humbly apologize for not carefully reading your posting. I find just as much fault with the correctg reading as I did the incorrect reading. Please let me begin anew:



Increasing taxes is the wrong thing to do at this time due to a lingering malaise in the economy.



Nope. You just want to soak "the wealthy" to pay for the not-so-wealthy. Class warfare is really getting old and disgusting.



Hmmm. I said you wanted to end Social Security for "the wealthy." It appears that I had the wrong "entitlement." Or, do you just want to punish the rich only by "making them pay more for their services? Again, class warfare is really getting old and disgusting.

Sorry, but we continue to disagree.

i see.....your reform would mean only the middle class and poor are affected. isn't that really class warfare? the tax rates on the rich have decreased by giant amounts over the last 50 years.........and you want hem to be even lower? lol!
 
NO-it means the top 2% are paying EVEN MORE of the federal income tax burden

any increases should be to get most of those who don't pay any tax paying some and increasing the bottom bracket a few % points would affect the top payers as well

Are you suggesting that every rate is increased like 2% across the board or something? Or are you playing Class Warfare, no different than the Democrats, when you are suggesting we should increase it only on the bottom of the bracket where it only significantly affects the lower classes. That is no different than what they're doing by saying we should increase it only at the top.
 
i see.....your reform would mean only the middle class and poor are affected. isn't that really class warfare? the tax rates on the rich have decreased by giant amounts over the last 50 years.........and you want hem to be even lower? lol!

federal income taxes on the poor have decreased even more and the top 1 and 5 percent are paying more of the federal tax burden than at any time in the last 55 years
 
Are you suggesting that every rate is increased like 2% across the board or something? Or are you playing Class Warfare, no different than the Democrats, when you are suggesting we should increase it only on the bottom of the bracket where it only significantly affects the lower classes. That is no different than what they're doing by saying we should increase it only at the top.


1) there should be no tax increases but if there is an increase those who aren't paying any federal income tax should be the first to face an increase

2) THe top few percent pay too much as it is
 
No. You want the spending cuts to happen immediately, and the tax hikes in two years. I don't trust the Republicans (or the Democrats) enough to adhere to that agreement. And in any case, 1% isn't enough...especially if the Bush Tax Cuts ARE made permanent. Certainly not enough to justify a 43% cut in spending starting next year.

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%
 
But you don't. You just said to do the tax increases immedietely. The balanced budget wouldn't come into affect until 2012. And would still be contingent on the Democrats actually making good with their agreement after the taxes are already in place.

You say you agree with no tax increases if we don't balance the budget.......but you also said you want tax increases NOW. those don't jive.



This is the penalty we take for allowing it to get this far both under Obama and Bush. Things should not have gotten to the point that they are now and if we don't suffer some problems in the short term we're going to suffer them far worse in the long term. I'm not one you're going to boogeyman into submission with threats of bad things happening or hard times...I expect that. You don't run up the bill and the problems this country has done fiscally and expect to fix it without pain. Its not realistic.

And I am against putting into a mentality that somehow the pain that we are ALL responsable for enabling should be felt only by the wealthy through force. I am against the notion that somehow putting that mentality into place isn't going to just cause it to continue to increase. And I am against the notion that I find illogical and simply wrong that magically if we start gouging the wealthy for even more than we do now that the Democrats (and republicans as well) will finally find fiscal responsability rather than going "Hey, we have more money, that means we don't have to cut as much or worry about reforming things right now".

Giving them more revenue, if we even buy the premesis that Taxes will significantly do that, is just going to kick the can down the road farther one what really needs to happen which is getting our spending under control.

If we're looking for a painless fix in this then we're not being realistic.


one third of 1 percent. big deal. and a total of 1% total is hardly "gouging the wealthy".....please. i know there won't be a painless fix, it could get very ugly. the poor and middle class will undoubtedly suffer the ugliness FAR MORE than the wealthy will. it's their programs that will cut.....after all. no tax increase combined with spending cuts means exactly that.....the wealthy are unaffected and the poor and middle class are heavily affected. that's hardly sharing the pain.

do you really want to know what this country would be like without a middle class?
 
1) there should be no tax increases but if there is an increase those who aren't paying any federal income tax should be the first to face an increase

2) THe top few percent pay too much as it is

Gotcha, Democrat reverse. Class Warfare, its Bi-Partisan goodness
 
one third of 1 percent. big deal. and a total of 1% total is hardly "gouging the wealthy".....please. i know there won't be a painless fix, it could get very ugly. the poor and middle class will undoubtedly suffer the ugliness FAR MORE than the wealthy will. it's their programs that will cut.....after all. no tax increase combined with spending cuts means exactly that.....the wealthy are unaffected and the poor and middle class are heavily affected. that's hardly sharing the pain.

do you really want to know what this country would be like without a middle class?


if taxes need to be increased we should first tax those who are paying way less than they should not those who already pay way more than they should
 
Back
Top Bottom