• 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
I'd like to get back to the original idea in the OP. That Democrats deliberately torpedoed the Supercommittee.

The attitude here is "If they'd just agree with Republicans, it would have worked." If they agreed with Republicans, wouldn't they be Republicans? I don't know about you, but I'd rather have two parties than one. Truth be told, I'd rather have three than two, but I still think two is superior to one.

Of the one party states in history, most of them were not places where I'd want to live. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Iraq under Saddam...

I say "Thank God we don't all have to agree." They still have to find a way to work together to get stuff done, but right now there's little spirit for compromise on either side.
 
I bet its far more common among us who carry most of the load. I suspect you don't know many of us who are in that group. and its hardly fascist. fascist is making people subservient to the state-as you propose

people who have to pander to the masses to get elected aren't going to say stuff that pisses off the lowest common denominator.

First - You have not demonstrated that are carrying any load other than what was bestowed upon you that gave you a major head start and advantage over others.

Second, - so your extremist beliefs are something you believe are shared more widely that would otherwise be indicated by those who publicly advocate for them? I do not doubt that is true. I also do not doubt that it no way mitigates or excuses the extremism of those same views.

Third - as to fascism - ideologies like that do not simply become transplanted from one part of the world to the other intact and without changes due to he culture and institutions they want to thrive in. A type of American fascism is and would be no different. In fact, I have little doubt that those who are pushing it like ALEC, and those who would at least find themselves doing the Toadie Tango or the Sycophant Shuffle to their tune would dare not admit it publicly. That of course, fits right in with your previous admission about more people holding those extremist views that might otherwise be obvious.

Fourth - your admission that this is being kept on the down low so as to not anger the masses, is refreshing. And is duly noted at the same time..
 
I'd like to get back to the original idea in the OP. That Democrats deliberately torpedoed the Supercommittee.

The attitude here is "If they'd just agree with Republicans, it would have worked." If they agreed with Republicans, wouldn't they be Republicans? I don't know about you, but I'd rather have two parties than one. Truth be told, I'd rather have three than two, but I still think two is superior to one.

Of the one party states in history, most of them were not places where I'd want to live. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Iraq under Saddam...

I say "Thank God we don't all have to agree." They still have to find a way to work together to get stuff done, but right now there's little spirit for compromise on either side.

Your right about the torpedo but the one siting in the committed was Kyle, and he carry's an R around with him.:2wave:
 
"It takes two to tango."
 
noticed that your post was unable to challenge Karl's illustration of fascism, and its current proponents within the USA
instead, it whined about something else entirely

that's because Karls definition had nothing to do with reality
 
First - You have not demonstrated that are carrying any load other than what was bestowed upon you that gave you a major head start and advantage over others.

Second, - so your extremist beliefs are something you believe are shared more widely that would otherwise be indicated by those who publicly advocate for them? I do not doubt that is true. I also do not doubt that it no way mitigates or excuses the extremism of those same views.

Third - as to fascism - ideologies like that do not simply become transplanted from one part of the world to the other intact and without changes due to he culture and institutions they want to thrive in. A type of American fascism is and would be no different. In fact, I have little doubt that those who are pushing it like ALEC, and those who would at least find themselves doing the Toadie Tango or the Sycophant Shuffle to their tune would dare not admit it publicly. That of course, fits right in with your previous admission about more people holding those extremist views that might otherwise be obvious.

Fourth - your admission that this is being kept on the down low so as to not anger the masses, is refreshing. And is duly noted at the same time..


where you constantly fail is your assumption that those who are wealthy and thus seen as targets for your income redistribution nonsense are wealthy because the government GAVE them some advantages and therefore the government should be able to loot them for as much as the rabble wants.

and your comments about the rich-which we have all seen-such as the one where you say the rich should beg on their knees to keep what they have earned-is far far more extreme than anything I have said which is mainly in line with the beliefs of those who both founded this country and made it great.
 
NO CP - you got it dead wrong. Your link clearly states that the majority of the decrease was due to the recession.

no - one source said that probably most in that state were. irrespective, each of the three sources I gave you were to describe the dynamic of the trend. the history of that trend is seen in the larger pool of data on revenues - namely, that significantly higher marginal tax rates in the past have not produced higher revenues.

you mention the Clinton taxes and the Bush tax rates. I noticed you failed to mention the percentage of revenue increase under each. Why was that?

:shrug: because both come from the same thing - growth in GDP. though of course it is worth noting that Clintons' boom years came after he cut the capital gains tax rate.
 
where you constantly fail is your assumption that those who are wealthy and thus seen as targets for your income redistribution nonsense are wealthy because the government GAVE them some advantages and therefore the government should be able to loot them for as much as the rabble wants.

and your comments about the rich-which we have all seen-such as the one where you say the rich should beg on their knees to keep what they have earned-is far far more extreme than anything I have said which is mainly in line with the beliefs of those who both founded this country and made it great.

First, that is not at all my premise - so you fail on that.

Second, it is good for man to humble himself and give thanks for his blessings. People have been doing that for thousands of years. What makes you so different or special that you do not need to give thanks for all that you have and living in the greatest nation in the world at this time?
 
The super committee was doomed to failure for the simple fact was that Obama wanted to show the U.S. population what upper echelon politics has devolved into. He wanted to put a face on the gridlock that ensued after the 2010 elections. He got 12, on both sides, yeah he could have put an independent 13th person in there, but where is the fun in that.
 
I'd like to get back to the original idea in the OP. That Democrats deliberately torpedoed the Supercommittee.

The attitude here is "If they'd just agree with Republicans, it would have worked." If they agreed with Republicans, wouldn't they be Republicans?

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?
 
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
 
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 . . . .
confuse.gif


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. Republicans’ first super committee offer is $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction, which includes no new tax revenues.

[...]

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

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/politics/debt-panel-democrats-offer-cuts.html?_r=1&ref=us
 
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

:lol: you think all the bush tax cuts are going away? :)
 

:)


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:
rofl_3.gif

cpwill: :roll:
 
:)
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:
rofl_3.gif

cpwill: :roll:
Reading is fundamental. On the same page, even :doh

[...]
[...] 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.
:doh
 
Reading is fundamental. On the same page, even :doh


:doh

:) 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? ;) :)
 
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.
 
I understand this is a theory. Is there any proof/evidence to back up this theory? I appreciate common sense, but there are some who must also have evidence, common sense be damned.
 
Back
Top Bottom