There are people who self-identify as Republican who come from the time when the Republicans were sincere. But now that Republicans have become the party of outright nonsense, they can’t take the idea that their party is full of drivel-spouting-evangelical-cowards. So to make their previous association with Republicans seem more palatable they decide that the Dems must necessarily be just as fucked in the head.
It’s a defense mechanism. Which is silly, because it’s reasonable to say, “Hey, I was a Republican back when they were sane.”
We’re not talking about raping babies on TV. We’re talking about compromise, and compromise takes two parties. Expecting the other side to give while you give up nothing, and complaining about the other side being unwilling to cave when you are unwilling to cave on some principle, is ridiculous.
Could you point out to me which spending cuts Dems agreed to (oh, wait, they agreed to cuts in defense spending, yeah!), because I’m apparently dumb and can’t find them.
Do you realize I did no such thing? I find it… amazing… that one party could be as unwilling as the other to compromise, yet get a pass for it. And people like to call me the partisan hack. Puh-lease.
Do you not realize you’re on the wrong side of this one? It’s the republicans that signed pledges to never increase taxes under any circumstances.
Well, except everyone raves when they propose radical tax plans that increase taxes for 84% of Americans while reducing total tax revenues - that’s just fucking awesome.
The idea that you can look at the current situation - and that of the last few years - and come to the conclusion that the Republicans are willing to compromise but the Democrats refuse to - means you’re willfully ignorant. I mean, it’s not a close call here - it’s not a value judgement - any observer with even the slightest shred of objectivity would see it.
Depends on your standard. By your own cite, the GOP ‘compromise’ was to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, costing $3 trillion or so over the next decade, and raise revenues by $400 billion and cut spending by $800 billion to partially offset the rather enormous loss of revenue.
So the GOP compromise ‘deficit reduction plan’ actually increases the deficits over the coming decade by ~$2,000,000,000,000.
At least the Dem plan for reducing the deficit would actually reduce the deficit.
The Dems are compromising. That is what you don’t understand. You should think about it for a bit. The Dems want to raise taxes and cut spending. The Repubs want to cut spending and lower taxes. They both want to lower the deficit. The Dems are willing to go with more spending cuts than they want. The Repubs are unwilling to raise taxes. Ever.
It’s because they believe the misinformation that the right-wing news bubble puts out there.
Two posts up from yours states that the left doesn’t believe we have a deficit problem. Which is it?
If the left is against deficit spending, how do you explain the stimulus, the jobs bill, and the new left plan from the committee for $700 billion in more stimulus?
The deficit is a long term problem. The economic downturn is the current problem.
The Republicans are being stupid because they are working on the long-term problem which makes the short-term problem worse.
Pretend you’re a fat dude. You have high cholesterol. You also have been stabbed in the belly and are bleeding out. Working on the high cholesterol while you’re still bleeding is stupid.
So working on the deficit while we are in a huge economic gut-stab is counterproductive. Cutting spending by the government right now lowers the number of jobs in the economy.
That said, we can make changes in government spending that don’t greatly impact the recovery. In the fat guy metaphor you’re using special cholesterol medicated bandages. That’s what we should be doing. It’s what the Dems want to do.
The new plan is paid for. The stimulus was necessary. I’m sure this has been explained to you before, but you probably don’t retain things that challenge your chosen ideology. So here it is again:
The stimulus was necessary. It averted a greater disaster. The money spent wasn’t wasted, it saved money by keeping the economy from collapsing.
Personally, I’m glad this committee is a failure. It was an unconstitutional abrogation of responsibility on the part of both parties.
I’m entirely comfortable with the US government shutting down except for constitutionally required payments on debt and pensions. Let them deal with no paychecks for a few days and then they might remember who they work for and who they don’t work for.
Instead of warning you, I’m just going to tell you not to post in this thread again. It’s not a very productive thread to begin with, and I’m sure you’ll feel better if you don’t have to read it.
Based on the above, obviously, G-SE can’t answer this question.
The Republicans have been actively working to manufacture a “deficit crisis” for years. That’s what “Starve the Beast” is. Make it impossible for the government to meet its financial obligations so that popular programs can be slashed. This isn’t some secret conspiracy. They’ve been totally up front with what they’re doing and why they’re doing it.
It’s incredibly disingenuous to slam the Democrats for failing to come up with the Bestest Possible Way to Screw the Middle Class Just Like the Republicans Want. I’d rather slam the Democrats for being too stupid to see the Republican game for what it is even when its spelled out for them in black and white.
“It’s all the Republicans’ fault” is to some Democrats what “God hates fags” is to Phelps and Co., and for many of the same reasons.
For Democrats, apparently sticking it to the rich is more important than actually doing their jobs.
What is actually going on is that the Democrats had the chance to rescind the Bush tax cuts, and didn’t do it. Now they are bound and determined to force the GOP to do what they couldn’t. It’s all politics - the Dems want to be able to crow that the GOP broke its promise come 2012.
Indeed, $3 billion in tax increases and $637 billion in cuts is definitely a right down the middle compromise.
And no, the democrats tried their best to cancel the Bush tax cuts, but as usual, the republicans took the country hostage. Now - could they have let unemployment benefits expire? I think it would’ve been a good idea - the riotiong in the streets would’ve rectified the situation quickly and it would show the true interests of the republicans - but don’t act like they just didn’t want to.
Again, the “haha, your side is incapable of keeping our side from doing evil!” stuff doesn’t help you like you seem to think it does.
Edit: Woops, it said $540b in cuts. So make that $540b cuts/$100 increases.