• 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!

Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

Was it Ever?


  • Total voters
    28

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,493
Reaction score
39,818
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In November 2010, the nation had a massive right-leaning correction to two, very large left-leaning previous elections.

however, the White House and the Senate turn over every 4 and 6 years respectively. The House turns over every two.

Ergo, the President and Senate are reflective of strong Democrat elections, whereas the House is reflective of a strong Republican election.

I posit, therefore, that a Grand Bargain was never a real possibility. To say that the two sides are too far apart isn't really a full explanation; but rather that in the context of a large deal, there never was any serious overlap. The math makes it nigh impossible to talk about large deficit reduction without reforming the entitlements, but Democrats are unwilling to reform the entitlements without tax hikes - and the minimum that they will accept is higher than the maximum that Republicans will accept. Both sides put forth their "best offer" and know that they are compromising as much as they possibly can - while both best offers remain too far apart, and each accuses the other of not compromising.

In short, this is something that will have to be decided by the 2012 election - because at current our government, split between the sections that were a reaction to George Bush and the section that was a reaction to Barack Obama, is simply incapable of finding ground both can stand on.
 
In November 2010, the nation had a massive right-leaning correction to two, very large left-leaning previous elections.

however, the White House and the Senate turn over every 4 and 6 years respectively. The House turns over every two.

Ergo, the President and Senate are reflective of strong Democrat elections, whereas the House is reflective of a strong Republican election.

I posit, therefore, that a Grand Bargain was never a real possibility. To say that the two sides are too far apart isn't really a full explanation; but rather that in the context of a large deal, there never was any serious overlap. The math makes it nigh impossible to talk about large deficit reduction without reforming the entitlements, but Democrats are unwilling to reform the entitlements without tax hikes - and the minimum that they will accept is higher than the maximum that Republicans will accept. Both sides put forth their "best offer" and know that they are compromising as much as they possibly can - while both best offers remain too far apart, and each accuses the other of not compromising.

In short, this is something that will have to be decided by the 2012 election - because at current our government, split between the sections that were a reaction to George Bush and the section that was a reaction to Barack Obama, is simply incapable of finding ground both can stand on.

How about reform with tax hikes? Everyone is unhappy, and likely the right course. Being to beholden to your ideaology is as bad or worse than having no ideology at all.

BTW, as both parties have held all the power from time to time, I submit having all the power almost never gets you all you want. Why? Because a lot talk isn't really serious. It's meant to keep the faithful with you, those who never measure you by what you do, but by what you say.
 
How about reform with tax hikes?

we've seen the issue comes to the matter of the amount. Democrats minimum acceptable is higher than Republicans Max. Both sides are from Base Elections.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not a deal is possible is irrelevent.. It is who will pay the highest price politically for not cooperating on the issue.. Ergo not doing their job they were elected to do..

Per your CNN Poll in another thread.. 73% of the people want the taxes increased on everyone that makes 250k or more a year.. That isn't the republican view.. It isn't smart to disagree with such a large portion of the people..

61% or something very close will blame the republicans if a deal isn't reached.. Again your CNN poll..

So.. Not very good numbers.. Republicans raised the debt ceiling for Bush like 7 or 8 times.. They look like a horses butt by not doing it now.. Their obvious cut taxes for rich while making the poor pay more for stuff or cut benefits, isn't going to get them all that far politically.. If republicans want to spend most of their time polishing the knobs of the rich and big business, then that is their choice.. But don't think for a moment that the rest of america doesn't see it for what it is.. Even if you do not..

I didn't vote in your poll because as I said.. It is irrelevent..
 
Last edited:
we've seen the issue comes to the matter of the amount. Democrats minimum acceptable is higher than Republicans Max. Both sides are from Base Elections.

Only in rhetoric. Neither will cut too far if they can't blame it on the other. Neither has. History CP, history. ;)
 
Only if the elected actually answered to the people they represent, and not some stupid-ass pledge card they signed.
 
Only if the elected actually answered to the people they represent, and not some stupid-ass pledge card they signed.

The pledge causes them some problems, to be sure. However, they would still need to blame the other in order to actually do something. They have to appease the electorial beast.
 
The pledge causes them some problems, to be sure. However, they would still need to blame the other in order to actually do something. They have to appease the electorial beast.

No, Boo. They honest to GOD don't. He didn't. I just posted in another thread, this very point. The President didn't try to pander to anybody. He was scaring us, with all the **** he was giving up. And they said No.

So, no. They don't HAVE to do anything except strap on a pair. They couldn't, they didn't, and nobody will forget for a very long time that the summer of 2011 was America being held hostage by a bunch of eunuchs kissing up to big money.
 
In November 2010, the nation had a massive right-leaning correction to two, very large left-leaning previous elections.

however, the White House and the Senate turn over every 4 and 6 years respectively. The House turns over every two.

Ergo, the President and Senate are reflective of strong Democrat elections, whereas the House is reflective of a strong Republican election.

I posit, therefore, that a Grand Bargain was never a real possibility. To say that the two sides are too far apart isn't really a full explanation; but rather that in the context of a large deal, there never was any serious overlap. The math makes it nigh impossible to talk about large deficit reduction without reforming the entitlements, but Democrats are unwilling to reform the entitlements without tax hikes - and the minimum that they will accept is higher than the maximum that Republicans will accept. Both sides put forth their "best offer" and know that they are compromising as much as they possibly can - while both best offers remain too far apart, and each accuses the other of not compromising.

In short, this is something that will have to be decided by the 2012 election - because at current our government, split between the sections that were a reaction to George Bush and the section that was a reaction to Barack Obama, is simply incapable of finding ground both can stand on.

One side has convinced themselves its a income problem and therefore we should tax the **** out of the rich to solve it. The other is knows its a spending problem and knows that significant cuts should be made so that way we can pay our debts and not wind up in this mess again. Since there is a significant mix of those who knows its a spending problem the side that views this as a income problem will not be able to increase taxes.

Seeing how both sides raised the debt ceiling a **** load of times I am wondering if this is merely a distraction and when all is said and done they will just increase the debt ceiling again with no concern over the fact we are in severe debt.
 
One side has convinced themselves its a income problem and therefore we should tax the **** out of the rich to solve it. The other is knows its a spending problem and knows that significant cuts should be made so that way we can pay our debts and not wind up in this mess again. Since there is a significant mix of those who knows its a spending problem the side that views this as a income problem will not be able to increase taxes.

Seeing how both sides raised the debt ceiling a **** load of times I am wondering if this is merely a distraction and when all is said and done they will just increase the debt ceiling again with no concern over the fact we are in severe debt.

Define tax the **** out of. This is important as no one has suggested any serious tax increases. This is just partisan hyperbole, right?
 
I think a pretty decent sized deal will happen. As the deadline closes and the poll numbers continue to trend against republicans on these issues, the motivation to make a deal will get stronger and stronger.
 
Issue is this is both a spending problem and a taxing problem. Both need to be addressed significantly. Until BOTH sides realize this, nothing is going to happen. The folks in Washington need to take their hack glasses off and do the job, addressing reducing spending and raising taxes, both across the board, both signficantly. Real simple.
 
The key is leadership, which comes from the executive.

Obama is not a leader. He has never before held the position of a leader. It should surprise no one that after electing him to be our leader we now have a failure of leadership.

It has nothing to do with which branch is up for reelection. We are two nations sharing common land. We are divided in our morals and in our values. With no leader, we cannot hope to be united. We are divided, embittered, and stalled.

Half of us want to be an entitlement nation, leaning heavily on government. Half of us want to be independent, with governement tending to the common needs. We cannot be both. One side will have to lose. And vanish.

Until then, we have the government we deserve.
 
Issue is this is both a spending problem and a taxing problem. Both need to be addressed significantly. Until BOTH sides realize this, nothing is going to happen. The folks in Washington need to take their hack glasses off and do the job, addressing reducing spending and raising taxes, both across the board, both signficantly. Real simple.

Actually this is not true, and I agree with republicans that taxes should not be raised. raising taxes, especially in a struggling economy, is akin to eating seed corn. The reality is the only thing that has to be done is reduce the growth of government to below the rate of growth of the economy. Doing somewhat more is better, but that is all that has to be done, and that can be done without any changes in taxes.
 
Issue is this is both a spending problem and a taxing problem. Both need to be addressed significantly. Until BOTH sides realize this, nothing is going to happen. The folks in Washington need to take their hack glasses off and do the job, addressing reducing spending and raising taxes, both across the board, both signficantly. Real simple.

Hear, Hear! Both created our debt problem, so we will have to address both to fix the problem.
 
Actually this is not true, and I agree with republicans that taxes should not be raised. raising taxes, especially in a struggling economy, is akin to eating seed corn. The reality is the only thing that has to be done is reduce the growth of government to below the rate of growth of the economy. Doing somewhat more is better, but that is all that has to be done, and that can be done without any changes in taxes.

I disagree. Very modest across the board tax hikes will not be noticed significantly and, with more significant and focused spending cuts, should not harm the economy, certainly not in the long term. Both will increase revenue which is the crux of the problem. There are no short term fixes and we should not be looking for them.
 
Issue is this is both a spending problem and a taxing problem. Both need to be addressed significantly. Until BOTH sides realize this, nothing is going to happen. The folks in Washington need to take their hack glasses off and do the job, addressing reducing spending and raising taxes, both across the board, both signficantly. Real simple.

I completely agree. The House is not learning from previous examples that these problems have to be addressed over time and the compromising now is the best option. Ted Kennedy always said that his greatest regret was not compromising and getting a deal done with Nixon on health care. The reason he wouldn't: ideology. He wanted it all now just like the House Republicans are demanding. Republicans will need to learn the hard way that on some things compromise is superior to principle.
 
All this depends on what the true motivation is behind all these talks and posturing. If indeed the true goal of the Republican Party is to get rid of President Obama in the White House, and that has been often stated, then a major deal which can be trumpeted to the American people would work against that.

I think something is happening here that the Republicans did not plan on. Because the President has compromised so much towards the center and even the right, he is splitting his own base of support on the left. A clever machiavellian politician would recognize this and shift gears accordingly. The Republicans should place the role of the Obstructionist to the sidelines and work the biggest possible deal with Obama, and get concessions on the Big Three - Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare - get lower taxes for the wealthy in exchange for direct elimination of corporate tax loopholes, and then let the progressives rally against what Obama has done possible producing a primary opponent next winter in the Democratic Party.
 
I disagree. Very modest across the board tax hikes will not be noticed significantly and, with more significant and focused spending cuts, should not harm the economy, certainly not in the long term. Both will increase revenue which is the crux of the problem. There are no short term fixes and we should not be looking for them.

hauser.gif


higher rates doesn't increase revenue. Growth in GDP does.
 
All this depends on what the true motivation is behind all these talks and posturing. If indeed the true goal of the Republican Party is to get rid of President Obama in the White House, and that has been often stated, then a major deal which can be trumpeted to the American people would work against that.

I think something is happening here that the Republicans did not plan on. Because the President has compromised so much towards the center and even the right, he is splitting his own base of support on the left. A clever machiavellian politician would recognize this and shift gears accordingly. The Republicans should place the role of the Obstructionist to the sidelines and work the biggest possible deal with Obama, and get concessions on the Big Three - Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare - get lower taxes for the wealthy in exchange for direct elimination of corporate tax loopholes, and then let the progressives rally against what Obama has done possible producing a primary opponent next winter in the Democratic Party.

that sword cuts in both directions - which is why the President is insisting on large tax hikes to accompany any reductions to the entitlements. that would create a civil war in the Republican Party, which he well knows.
 
producing a primary opponent next winter in the Democratic Party.

Is that possible? I'd probably vote for Hillary in the general too.
 
You are still peddling that failed "law"?

Given how many times its been debunked (in fact a simple google search will give websites that show the math tricks that make the graph). its funny how it keeps getting brought back up.

Maybe its the new bls.gov
 
One side has convinced themselves its a income problem and therefore we should tax the **** out of the rich to solve it.

I am sorry.. The government had a surplus when Bush took office.. The rich got richer and companies profited and the unemployment was much lower.. I cut 3.2 trillion out of the economy over 10 years and ruin it and not consider putting that 3.2 trillion back to fix it..

If top 1% of the population control over 40% of our nations wealth and the lowest 50% of the people control less than 1% of the nations wealth.. Explain to me exactly why the lowest 50% should pay the same amount if not more taxes than the top 1%??

If you are rich, you should pay more in taxes.. There is nothing to argue there.. You want to fix the eceonomy.. Start working to undo the changes that Bush did.. One of which was his retarted tax cuts that did nothing to help the nation.. Where are the jobs we were constantly promised and the republicans still seem to think will come?? Where are the damn jobs??

See also: Wealth inequality in the United States and Wealth in the United States

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[13]

According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States

The wealthy should be paying the most in taxes.. It is what should happen when you make the most.. I am sure many in poverty would love to switch with them and pay higher taxes to boot..

They need to pay their fair share..

% of US Population % of Wealth Owned
==========================================================
Top 1%........................................................38.1%
Top 96-99%..................................................21.3%
Top 90-95%..................................................11.5%
Top 80-89%..................................................12.5%
Top 60-79%..................................................11.9%
General 40-59%..............................................4.5%
Bottom 40%...................................................0.2%

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2050

The tax cuts need to go!! Feel free to attempt to argue otherwise.. When 40% of the population is having to live with 0.2% of the wealth.. The rich don't have much to say.. And neither do you..
 
Last edited:
You are still peddling that failed "law"?

those are the numbers. we've seen dramatically higher rates without seeing significant upticks in revenue - to the extent that it has risen, it has risen slightly as tax rates have fallen and the incentive to engage in tax avoidance lessens.
 
Back
Top Bottom