• 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?

  • No, they actually thought a trillion dollar tax hike in a recession was reasonable

    Votes: 5 12.5%

  • No, it was a bi-partisan failure

    Votes: 25 62.5%

  • Yes, the plan from the beginning was to fail

    Votes: 10 25.0%
  • Total voters
    40
F

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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 that any real solution has to involve spending cuts and revenue increases.
 
Your Star said:
It's the same thing. And they are needed.
Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. Let me ask you a business question, let's say you own a used car dealership. If you raise the price on your 80s era Ford Escorts to $45,000, are you increasing revenues?
 
Helix said:
___________


yes.
Click to expand...

If tax increases always equal revenue increases, then why don't we just raise taxes 35% so that we can afford Obama's spending?
 
friday said:
If tax increases always equal revenue increases, then why don't we just raise taxes 35% so that we can afford Obama's spending?
Click to expand...

Not all tax increases are equal. Some would have mild negative effects on the economy, some would have drastic negative effects on the economy. However, at some point some sort of tax increase will be needed to deal with the deficit. I think right now is the wrong time since we do not even want a mild negative piled onto the economy, but at some point it will have to be seriously considered.
 
Redress said:
Not all tax increases are equal. Some would have mild negative effects on the economy, some would have drastic negative effects on the economy. However, at some point some sort of tax increase will be needed to deal with the deficit. I think right now is the wrong time since we do not even want a mild negative piled onto the economy, but at some point it will have to be seriously considered.
Click to expand...

Do you think our government spending is as low as it possibly could be and we aren't wasting any money? I think once we get to that point, then we should raise taxes if we still have deficits.
 
friday said:
Do you think our government spending is as low as it possibly could be and we aren't wasting any money? I think once we get to that point, then we should raise taxes if we still have deficits.
Click to expand...

No, nor does any one claim that. However, cutting spending also will have a negative effect on the economy, the deeper the cut, the more negative the effect. And of course getting both sides to agree what is wasteful is not going to happen easily. Let me give you an example: how much of our military spending is wasteful? Some of it certainly is. But how much?
 
Redress said:
No, nor does any one claim that. However, cutting spending also will have a negative effect on the economy, the deeper the cut, the more negative the effect. And of course getting both sides to agree what is wasteful is not going to happen easily. Let me give you an example: how much of our military spending is wasteful? Some of it certainly is. But how much?
Click to expand...

Well, as you said, not all tax increases are equal. In the same way, government spending cuts are far less harmful to the economy than tax increases on job creators. The government doesn't innovate, they rarely build new things except when we are at war or in a space race, and they don't provide goods and services that people want or need at prices they are willing to pay. So tax hikes are more harmful than spending cuts. Why not cut spending as much as possible first, and then move on to more harmful tax hikes if necessary?
 
friday said:
Well, as you said, not all tax increases are equal. In the same way, government spending cuts are far less harmful to the economy than tax increases on job creators. The government doesn't innovate, they rarely build new things except when we are at war or in a space race, and they don't provide goods and services that people want or need at prices they are willing to pay. So tax hikes are more harmful than spending cuts. Why not cut spending as much as possible first, and then move on to more harmful tax hikes if necessary?
Click to expand...

The government does not innovate? Tell that to NASA.
 
Standard & Poors said that the best solution to our debt problem over a ten-year period, was a 3 to 1 approach.

$3 trillion in spending cuts + $1 trillion in more revenue.

its a good plan. it makes sense. its fair.

Obama and Boehner almost agreed to such a plan.
 
friday said:
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?
Click to expand...

Anyone who sat in that room and wasn't willing to put both tax increases and spending cuts on the table was a saboteur. Sad to say, I think it is the fault of Republicans, pure and simple. They wouldn't budge on tax increases. Might as well have gone on vacation.

I voted "Bi-partisan Failure." I voted wrong.
 
MaggieD said:
Anyone who sat in that room and wasn't willing to put both tax increases and spending cuts on the table was a saboteur. Sad to say, I think it is the fault of Republicans, pure and simple. They wouldn't budge on tax increases. Might as well have gone on vacation.

I voted "Bi-partisan Failure." I voted wrong.
Click to expand...

indeed, the only way to have made a plan...was to allow for large spending cuts AND additional revenue through closing tax-loopholes & or higher tax-rates for the wealthy.

if you werent willing to accept one of these two possibilities...then you did not belong in this committee.

however, I hear that some of the Republicans were 100% against ANY extra revenue of any kind. why in God's name were they on this committee?
 
MaggieD said:
Anyone who sat in that room and wasn't willing to put both tax increases and spending cuts on the table was a saboteur. Sad to say, I think it is the fault of Republicans, pure and simple. They wouldn't budge on tax increases. Might as well have gone on vacation.

I voted "Bi-partisan Failure." I voted wrong.
Click to expand...

why couldn't there just be spending cuts to start with? bipartisan means the GOP cuts stuff they like (military) and the dems cut stuff they like (social spending and handouts). why should anyone want tax hikes until the government can prove they can live with less. why should any of us have even more income taken from us by a bloated government?
 
Before we answer this (loaded) question, we should determine if the GOPs on the committee cheated on their wives on purpose.
 
TurtleDude said:
why couldn't there just be spending cuts to start with? bipartisan means the GOP cuts stuff they like (military) and the dems cut stuff they like (social spending and handouts). why should anyone want tax hikes until the government can prove they can live with less. why should any of us have even more income taken from us by a bloated government?
Click to expand...

Standard & Poor's felt a 3 to 1 plan of spending cuts/revenue increases of $4 trillion over 10 years, was the best way to do it.

what say you?
 
friday said:
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.
Click to expand...

Republicans never wanted it to succeed either. In their zeal to protect rich people from tax cuts, they will end up raising everyone's taxes when the tax cuts expire. No responsibility.

I take it you don't want to see military cuts. That's fair, but how do you propose to go after government spending without going after one of the largest beneficiaries of that spending? We'll never be able to fund the spending priorities of either party without raising taxes. If we're going to play favorites on spending, that is.
 
TurtleDude said:
why couldn't there just be spending cuts to start with? bipartisan means the GOP cuts stuff they like (military) and the dems cut stuff they like (social spending and handouts). why should anyone want tax hikes until the government can prove they can live with less. why should any of us have even more income taken from us by a bloated government?
Click to expand...

Why couldn't Republicans put a measly 1% tax increase on the table? A .5% tax increase? This was a misguided line drawn in the sand that put the negotiations into a win/lose scenerio. And ya' know that never works. Tax hikes are inevitable, Turtle. You and I both know that. This was an opportunity to at least try to build some teeny-tiny consensus...some acknowledgement that things have got to change.

And Republicans failed.
 
MaggieD said:
Why couldn't Republicans put a measly 1% tax increase on the table? A .5% tax increase? This was a misguided line drawn in the sand that put the negotiations into a win/lose scenerio. And ya' know that never works. Tax hikes are inevitable, Turtle. You and I both know that. This was an opportunity to at least try to build some teeny-tiny consensus...some acknowledgement that things have got to change.

And Republicans failed.
Click to expand...

class warfare is the main argument obama will use in 2012. He will whine about the "rich" not paying their fair share when they are actually the only group that pays more of the income tax burden than their share of the income. If the GOP agreed to a tax hike on the "rich" they are playing into this class warfare scheme. If they agreed to a tax hike on the middle class even worse. why couldn't the dems start with spending cuts? why should someone like me pay any more taxes when I already pay more than millions upon millions of MIDDLE CLASS people pay in income taxes?

and why should ANYONE pay a dime more until this malignant bloated government can prove it is willing to tighten its belt. the dems wanted tax hikes to JUSTIFY even more social (ie VOTE BUYING) spending
 
TurtleDude said:
class warfare is the main argument obama will use in 2012. He will whine about the "rich" not paying their fair share when they are actually the only group that pays more of the income tax burden than their share of the income. If the GOP agreed to a tax hike on the "rich" they are playing into this class warfare scheme. If they agreed to a tax hike on the middle class even worse. why couldn't the dems start with spending cuts? why should someone like me pay any more taxes when I already pay more than millions upon millions of MIDDLE CLASS people pay in income taxes?

and why should ANYONE pay a dime more until this malignant bloated government can prove it is willing to tighten its belt. the dems wanted tax hikes to JUSTIFY even more social (ie VOTE BUYING) spending
Click to expand...

No, "class warfare" is how you will try and spin Obama's arguments.
 
rocket88 said:
Republicans never wanted it to succeed either. In their zeal to protect rich people from tax cuts, they will end up raising everyone's taxes when the tax cuts expire. No responsibility.

I take it you don't want to see military cuts. That's fair, but how do you propose to go after government spending without going after one of the largest beneficiaries of that spending? We'll never be able to fund the spending priorities of either party without raising taxes. If we're going to play favorites on spending, that is.
Click to expand...

Trying to micromanage spending cuts seems ludicrous. Any business / any household can cut 5% from their operating budget without batting much of an eye. And it's not as if our government is run like a lean and mean machine. We all know it's not.

As an example, a 5% cut in military spending concentrated in all areas except military personnel, retirement benefits and family housing allowances would save about $35 billion all by itself. And that 5%? Most of that could be taken up with tougher negotiations with contractors. Businesses do it alllll the time. The Federal Pie Chart
 
Redress said:
No, "class warfare" is how you will try and spin Obama's arguments.
Click to expand...

when that moron claims that the rich are "not paying their fair share" he is both lying and engaging in class warfare
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom