• 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
Republicans did put revenue increases on the table ( 300 billion worth)..... the Democrats said " nope... not enough"

anyone who says the Republicans are 100% against increasing revenues is lying to you.
they can say they didn't raise revenues "enough" and have a valid position though.

republicans offered a plan that would cut 1.2 trillion over 10 years... 700 billion coming from cuts, the rest from " new revenues"... Democrats rejected the plan.

this was most assuredly a bipartisan "failure".

for me personally, this "failure" is fine.... i'm ok with the trigger cuts that are supposed to come ( but they will find a way to get around the trigger cuts, mark my word)

Found your link to source after this post. Thanks for that. But their plan would have been a blow to every single American.

Republicans proposed cutting the U.S. deficit with a tax overhaul that would raise about $300 billion and by raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67, said aides familiar with a congressional supercommittee’s talks.

Republicans, who until now opposed new tax revenue in any deficit plan, suggested reducing individual tax deductions, exclusions and other breaks and changing the way income tax brackets are indexed to inflation, a Democratic aide said. In exchange, Republicans called for reducing the top marginal tax rate to as low as 28 percent, the aide said. Those changes would net $300 billion in higher revenue, the aide said.

The plan would reduce annual cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security beneficiaries, said the aide, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.

The proposal also would save money by gradually raising the eligibility age for the Medicare health-care system to 67 from 65, according to another congressional aide. The Republicans’ overall proposal would cut about $1.2 trillion from the deficit over 10 years, with about $700 billion of that coming from spending cuts, that aide said.

That plan would have driven me nutz. Glad it didn't happen. If it's even true because it's from an anonymous source. (No offense.)
 
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 it is thinking like yours that produced this problem in the first place. There are two sides to a budget and BOTH must be dealt with. I never thought I would live long enough to see something held as a basic fact of reality is not a daring and nearly revolutionary thought.
 
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?

I think I agree with Obama that its probably not rise to raise taxes during this kind of economic struggles. That said, if you're going to force tax increases to get spending cuts I'd say I'd be perhaps willing to meet you half way with a few conditions.

I'd accept the $3 trillion in cuts to $1 trillion in revenues raised, however, a few conditions.

1) The Cuts and Revenue raises must coincide over years. IE, if you're looking at $100 billion in new revenue every year over that 10 year span then you better be looking at $300 billion in cuts each of those years. If its $100 billion in new revenue every year, but $2 Trillion of that $3T number doesn't happen until year 8 through 10...no dice. You don't get to front load or evenly distribute the revenue raises while back ending the spending cuts in hopes of them never coming or being changed in the future.

2) Fix tax loopholes. However, any raises to the tax rates requires EVERY tax bracket to be raised at least a point

3) Spending "saved" by the ending of inevitable concluding full scale conflicts such as the current action in Afghanistan can not be included.

That would at least get rid of the backloading Problem inherent in the original discussion, and would remove the political games of attempting to use increasing revenue to seemingly attempt to "stick it to the rich" in the hopes of populist support during election time.
 
Last edited:
tax hikes on the wealthy doesn't buy Middle-class votes.

Shocker, Thunder presenting opinion as fact.

but refusing to allow even a small tax-hike on the wealthy....DOES insure more campaign contributions.

Shocker, Thunder presenting opinion as fact
 
$1.2 trillion in savings over ten years, at a 3:1 ratio, means $480 billion in more revenue and $720 billion in spending cuts.

why couldn't the Republicans agree to even this?

Umm....

At 1.2 Trillion in savings, a 3:1 ratio would be mean $300 billion in revenue increases and 900% billion in spending cuts.

$300 (3) billion : $100 (1) billion x 3 = $900 (9) Billion : $300 (3) Billion

9:3 = 3:1

If what Thrilla is saying, which you referenced, is true then the Republicans DID offer your goldne 3:1 ratio in spending cuts to revenue raisers.
 
sure, cut only spending on defense, subsidies to the oil & natural gas industry, farm subsidies, and other corporate welfare. sounds like a good plan.

I'm shocked, truly SHOCKED by your desire to compromise given how much you're conitnually crying for the Republicans to do it.

Wait, no I'm not. You're the epitome of a hyper partisan, I'm not shocked at all.

So you want Republicans to agree to a tax increase that is targetted at only one class of people and then you want to turn around and not compromise on any spending cuts on items they would like to cut.

Well, thanks for providing a keen insight into the mentality of why the supercommittee can't work.
 
I said it again, and I'm going to say it again:
Taxes should be lowered, but loopholes in the tax system should be closed. Tax cuts should expire for all classes. Spending should be decreased, particularly at the areas of defense and welfare, but cutting waste and unecessary and unproductive projects should be done first.
Both parties and both ideologies need to compromise. Is that too hard to understand or implement?
 
The name of this thread should be why did Grover Norquist and his handful of his teatards Block any chance of reasonable discourse and compromise because they signed a Pledge to the Super Rich that they will not vote for more taxs...which in the end they wont and cant keep....
This thread INSINUATES this was just a democrat failure and that is pure Horsedung
 
Any member of congress that truly believes that they should not balance the budget should be sent home. We private citizens by law have to balance our checkbooks or else pay a penalty and if we continue to write "bad checks" then we go to jail. Since they are "public servants" they should all be required to go to jail if they ever vote to spend more money than has been allocated for the fiscal year.
 
Republicans refuse to compromise on tax hikes because they know you don't raise taxes in a recession. Look back at what Obama said, he knew that too when he signed the bill extending the Bush cuts. Somehow he got stupid over the last 10 months. Republicans also know that taxes are high enough right now. Republicans do not believe that taxes should be any higher.

Conversely, couldn't we conclude that Democrat stubbornness on any spending cut compromises means that they believe government is as small as it should be and we are not wasting any money at all? Do Democrats think there is anywhere in our 25% over budget spending that could be cut? Or do they think we are running as lean and mean as absolutely possible? Maybe some of the Democrats and liberals here could chime in on that one.
 
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?

That's a horrible analogy. Government taxation isn't the same thing as a firm increasing prices, for wholly obvious reasons.
 
That's a horrible analogy. Government taxation isn't the same thing as a firm increasing prices, for wholly obvious reasons.

Really? Then why don't we increase taxes across the board by 35% and eliminate the deficit? Won't a 35% tax hike across the board result in 35% more revenue?
 
Really? Then why don't we increase taxes across the board by 35% and eliminate the deficit? Won't a 35% tax hike across the board result in 35% more revenue?

Like others have pointed out, some tax hikes make sense, others don't. We don't hike taxes by 35% across the board because

1) that is just plain idiotic and would ruin the economy and
2) there would be no political will to do so anyway.

Doesn't take away from the fact that your Ford dealership analogy doesn't work :shrug:

What you're proposing is typical supply-side spin bullcrap. The only way your statement about revenue increases not being equivalent to tax increases would make sense would be if we were on the right side of the Laffer curve, which we are not.
 
Like others have pointed out, some tax hikes make sense, others don't. We don't hike taxes by 35% across the board because

1) that is just plain idiotic and would ruin the economy and
2) there would be no political will to do so anyway.

Doesn't take away from the fact that your Ford dealership analogy doesn't work :shrug:

What you're proposing is typical supply-side spin bullcrap. The only way your statement about revenue increases not being equivalent to tax increases would make sense would be if we were on the right side of the Laffer curve, which we are not.

Has it occurred to you that the reason there is no political will to raise taxes is because it is idiotic and would destroy the economy? Tell me what are smart tax hikes in an economic downturn? How do you smartly take money away from employers without hurting employment?
 
Has it occurred to you that the reason there is no political will to raise taxes is because it is idiotic and would destroy the economy?

Has it also occured to you that spending cuts in a recession don't help either? This is Econ101. Look at what austerity is doing to Greece. The problem lies in the fact that it's really hard to spur economic growth and close a deficit at the same time.

There is no political will to raise taxes because

1) nobody likes taxes, and
2) Republicans since the late 80s to early 90s have adopted an orthodox, hardcore anti-tax position. It's about ideology more than it is about economics when you have 90+ percent of Republicans in Congress signing onto the Norquist pledge.

Tell me what are smart tax hikes in an economic downturn? How do you smartly take money away from employers without hurting employment?

Employment, and economic growth as a whole, is more a function of consumer demand than it is about how much cash businesses have on hand. You can cut taxes all you want, but if the demand isn't there, all you're going to have is folks pocketing the extra money rather than hiring people, because there's no money to be made when there's no business and demand.

As others have proposed, close loopholes, simplify the tax code. Lower the overall rates somewhat, I personally would add more brackets. Tax capital gains at a slightly higher rate.
 
Has it also occured to you that spending cuts in a recession don't help either? This is Econ101. Look at what austerity is doing to Greece. The problem lies in the fact that it's really hard to spur economic growth and close a deficit at the same time.

There is no political will to raise taxes because

1) nobody likes taxes, and
2) Republicans since the late 80s to early 90s have adopted an orthodox, hardcore anti-tax position. It's about ideology more than it is about economics when you have 90+ percent of Republicans in Congress signing onto the Norquist pledge.



Employment, and economic growth as a whole, is more a function of consumer demand than it is about how much cash businesses have on hand. You can cut taxes all you want, but if the demand isn't there, all you're going to have is folks pocketing the extra money rather than hiring people, because there's no money to be made when there's no business and demand.

As others have proposed, close loopholes, simplify the tax code. Lower the overall rates somewhat, I personally would add more brackets. Tax capital gains at a slightly higher rate.

Businesses are some of the largest consumers out there. So you would raise taxes on investment? You think that is a smart tax hike in a recession?
 
Businesses are some of the largest consumers out there. So you would raise taxes on investment? You think that is a smart tax hike in a recession?

Consumers - and by consumers i mean households - contribute much more to demand than businesses.

Yes I would raise taxes in investment income. Where were all those jobs and employment opportunities that were supposed to come with slashing the capital gains rate in the 90s and 2000s? That investment income - capital gains, dividends, what have you - clearly hasn't been used to hire folks.
 
Republicans refuse to compromise on tax hikes because they know you don't raise taxes in a recession. Look back at what Obama said, he knew that too when he signed the bill extending the Bush cuts. Somehow he got stupid over the last 10 months. Republicans also know that taxes are high enough right now. Republicans do not believe that taxes should be any higher.

Conversely, couldn't we conclude that Democrat stubbornness on any spending cut compromises means that they believe government is as small as it should be and we are not wasting any money at all? Do Democrats think there is anywhere in our 25% over budget spending that could be cut? Or do they think we are running as lean and mean as absolutely possible? Maybe some of the Democrats and liberals here could chime in on that one.

I will be happy to chime in on that.

Republican position is what you describe as what you BELIEVE in - you cannot raise taxes. You will not move one inch.
If the Democrats took the opposite position of the GOP, it would be we cannot cut spending. But that is not our position.
Democratic position is lets look at both sides of the budget ledger and deal with both. We have already moved a great deal from the opposite of your position.
 
I will be happy to chime in on that.

Republican position is what you describe as what you BELIEVE in - you cannot raise taxes. You will not move one inch.
If the Democrats took the opposite position of the GOP, it would be we cannot cut spending. But that is not our position.
Democratic position is lets look at both sides of the budget ledger and deal with both. We have already moved a great deal from the opposite of your position.

So why don't we make spending cuts of waste and things we can't afford a priority?
 
I will be happy to chime in on that.

Republican position is what you describe as what you BELIEVE in - you cannot raise taxes. You will not move one inch.
If the Democrats took the opposite position of the GOP, it would be we cannot cut spending. But that is not our position.
Democratic position is lets look at both sides of the budget ledger and deal with both. We have already moved a great deal from the opposite of your position.

Especially in a recession. Why does the left make punishing people through higher taxes such a high priority?
 
Consumers - and by consumers i mean households - contribute much more to demand than businesses.

Yes I would raise taxes in investment income. Where were all those jobs and employment opportunities that were supposed to come with slashing the capital gains rate in the 90s and 2000s? That investment income - capital gains, dividends, what have you - clearly hasn't been used to hire folks.

Are you kidding me? We had full employment in the 90s and most of the 2000s. We had 4.6% unemployment, considered to be full employment by economists for most of the Bush administration. It didn't start rising until Democrats took over Congress in 2007.
 
Especially in a recession. Why does the left make punishing people through higher taxes such a high priority?

Your extremist attitude is exactly why the super committee failed. Oliver Wendell Holmes said that taxes are the price for a civilized society. No mention of punishing anybody.
 
Your extremist attitude is exactly why the super committee failed. Oliver Wendell Holmes said that taxes are the price for a civilized society. No mention of punishing anybody.

So why don't we just raise taxes until the deficit goes away?
 
Are you kidding me? We had full employment in the 90s and most of the 2000s. We had 4.6% unemployment, considered to be full employment by economists for most of the Bush administration. It didn't start rising until Democrats took over Congress in 2007.

You didn't get my point. The income and wealth derived from those cuts in the 90s and 2000s is still there. Why isn't it being used to hire folks NOW? Because there's more to the economy than just being a function of how much cash business have on hand.
 
You didn't get my point. The income and wealth derived from those cuts in the 90s and 2000s is still there. Why isn't it being used to hire folks NOW? Because there's more to the economy than just being a function of how much cash business have on hand.

Just to be clear, you are not saying that those tax cuts had no effect on job growth, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom