• 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
Ok, I'm going to see if I have a prayer at knocking you loose from your memorized talking point. Let's say Congress came together and agreed on $1.3 trillion in spending cuts this year and balanced the budget for 2011 and going forward. Would you still insist on tax hikes?

Right now, Congress can't come together and agree that Jessica Simpson has nice boobs. In other words, keep the hypotheticals somewhat believable.
 
Right now, Congress can't come together and agree that Jessica Simpson has nice boobs. In other words, keep the hypotheticals somewhat believable.

The question still stands. To borrow from your analogy, it seems like Congress can't agree that Jessica Simpson has nice boobs because Democrats are insisting that they will only agree to that if Republicans agree that she is also a rocket scientist.
 
By the way, Republicans offered $640 billion in spending cuts that Democrats and Republicans both liked as a start in negotiations and Democrats ignored it because it didn't include tax hikes. I challenge anyone to present me with evidence, aside from Harry Reid's seance over Kennedy's grave, that Democrats wanted anything but failure for this committee.
 
It's the same thing. And they are needed.

They're not the same thing. We can increase revenue, without raising taxes. I agree a revenue increase is needed, but raising taxes is the wrong way to make that happen and probably won't work.

Allowing job creation will increase revenues.
 
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.

Why not balance the effin' budget and lower taxes...lower taxes means we spend more money and people get more jobs when the economy is running smoothly...raising taxes vexes the already vexed and those in charge tighten their corporate belts and unemployment skyrockets...it's almost like the left has no grasp of common sense. Smaller government means we don't spend as much on the federal level. But noooooooooooooooooooo, some fools believe that taxing the rich will spurn the economy...it will just make many rich move away and not open new business or expand what they have already. Again, common sense!
 
...I challenge anyone to present me with evidence, aside from Harry Reid's seance over Kennedy's grave, that Democrats wanted anything but failure for this committee.

it appears that the Dems didn't want to earn more revenue on the backs of the poor & middle-class....AND cut spending on the middle-class.

why can't the wealthy share in the sacrifice?
 
They're not the same thing. We can increase revenue, without raising taxes. I agree a revenue increase is needed, but raising taxes is the wrong way to make that happen and probably won't work.

Allowing job creation will increase revenues.

Exactly. Get unemployment down to 4.6% like it was for most of the Bush administration and you are going to see tax revenues back well over $3 trillion. But you still have to cut back Obama's massive spending increases to get to a balanced budget. If he can spend it, we can scale it back.
 
it appears that the Dems didn't want to earn more revenue on the backs of the poor & middle-class....AND cut spending on the middle-class.

why can't the wealthy share in the sacrifice?

You mean the wealthy who already pay about 80% of the nation's tax burden while the bottom 47% pay nothing? Gee, why can't they just share in the sacrifice, those rich, greedy bastards.
 
The question still stands. To borrow from your analogy, it seems like Congress can't agree that Jessica Simpson has nice boobs because Democrats are insisting that they will only agree to that if Republicans agree that she is also a rocket scientist.

Do you want to know why the Not-so-super Committee failed?

Both sides came to the table with things that they weren't going to negotiate. The only problem being that those things were EVERYTHING THE COMMITTEE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE. No matter what it was, one side or the other was completely unwilling to negotiate on it. You don't have to be "Jessica Simpson the rocket scientist" to see this coming, and you want to blame only the boob on the left.

Economists are even saying now that 1.3 trillion is only about 1/3 of what we need to come up with in 10 years. Go ahead and try come up with $4 trillion without touching the following: defense, medicare, raising taxes, highways, social security.
 
Last edited:
whats wrong with 81%?

Because after that you're going to want 82%, then 85%, then 90% and so on. Kinda the same argument the Libbos made against Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan.
 
it appears that the Dems didn't want to earn more revenue on the backs of the poor & middle-class....AND cut spending on the middle-class.

why can't the wealthy share in the sacrifice?

It's obvious that the Dems aren't interested in putting people to work, since they constantly pass up oppurtunities to encourage job creation.
 
You mean the wealthy who already pay about 80% of the nation's tax burden while the bottom 47% pay nothing? Gee, why can't they just share in the sacrifice, those rich, greedy bastards.

You realize that in saying this, you're not saying "don't raise taxes," you're saying "raise taxes on everyone but the rich."

Is that what you want to be saying?
 
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.

I think it's a great idea and just as soon as we get rid of the current anti-business regime, we can start working on the one-trillion in new revenue.
 
You realize that in saying this, you're not saying "don't raise taxes," you're saying "raise taxes on everyone but the rich."

Is that what you want to be saying?

If we allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, it will raise taxes on everyone.
 
Ok, I'm going to see if I have a prayer at knocking you loose from your memorized talking point. Let's say Congress came together and agreed on $1.3 trillion in spending cuts this year and balanced the budget for 2011 and going forward. Would you still insist on tax hikes?

With all due respect sir... and if I grew a pair of wings and could fly to work, could I sell my car?
 
I think it's a great idea and just as soon as we get rid of the current anti-business regime, we can start working on the one-trillion in new revenue.

You realize of course that taxing consumption is very anti-business, because it will result in people spending less money on things that businesses make.

You also realize that one of the "9s" in St. Herman's plan is a consumption tax, right?
 
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.

Why couldn't Obama allow the trans-can pipeline to begin construction. The tax revenue from that would surpass a 1% tax hike.
 
I think it's a great idea and just as soon as we get rid of the current anti-business regime, we can start working on the one-trillion in new revenue.

oh, so we can start fixing economy, but ONLY once Obama is gone?

if Obama is re-elected, we can't fix our country for another 4 years?

interesting priorities. Its ideas like this that make the GOP the "Party of No".
 
Back
Top Bottom