Deficit committee blows up, any surprise?

Great Debates
81

…But this is bullshit. Not only is it not fair to compare cutting certain crucial entitlement programs to raising any taxes (it would be comparable if, say, the Democrats refused to cut spending in any area), not only is cutting these entitlement programs an incredibly unpopular move that no political party could reasonably stomach (if the Republicans managed to destroy medicare, for example, then the Republican Party would cease to exist within the next year or so) and is not really on the republican menu either way, but the democrats have offered compromises. They have offered compromises on the issues, including some cuts to medicare and social security. So what aren’t they compromising on? Their unwillingness to eat babies? I bet they’d catch flak for that too if the Republicans thought they could get away with it. :rolleyes:

But hey, you know what? If that’s not enough, here’s one more for you: Cain’s 9-9-9 plan slashes taxes on the incredibly rich and on corporate income (a major disincentive to reinvest, by the way), while raising taxes massively on the poor and middle class. Republicans: obviously not evil, no sirree.

…Except our uteruses, bedrooms, and internet. :rolleyes:

This… is completely inaccurate. Nobody is advocating this kind of shit. Nobody. This is not the point. If 35% of every dollar you earn beyond the first $250,000 is confiscatory, then apparently you missed how it’s pretty much the lowest it’s ever been. Ever. If offering extremely basic social safety nets that most other civilized countries have and prosper under is ridiculous, then I want to be ridiculous.

You can’t be serious. Do you have any idea what letting the debt ceiling deal fall through would’ve done to the country? I’ll give you a hint: it would not involve our big crises being the rift between poor and rich becoming an unfathomable chasm. It would involve the country slipping into possibly the worst depression ever; worse than anything we’ve ever seen. I mean, when you fail to pay your debts, what happens? Your rating gets slashed, your interest rates go up, and people hesitate to pay you money. Geez, I wonder how this would effect our financial systems.

The republicans strongarmed our country into concessions that were both unnecessary and stupid, over a crucial vote that should not have been a political issue to begin with. Claiming that the democrats got “just what they wanted” out of the deal, but the Republicans didn’t, is essentially claiming that the republicans were in favor of letting our economic systems collapse into themselves. But you know what? That’s a viewpoint I’d honestly be willing to take very seriously, knowing the modern republican party. :rolleyes: Seriously, it almost seems like their tack is as follows:
Step 1: Break something important to the extent where it can’t really be fixed
Step 2: Demand that the Democrats know how to fix it
Step 2.5: If it can be fixed, block democratic process as much as humanly possible
Step 3: Claim that the Democrats are “clueless” when they can’t fix the problem that the Republicans caused and which is not really fixable to begin with.
Iraq. The Financial Sector Meltdown. The debt ceiling and America’s credit rating. The deficit problem. Need I go on?

I mean, obviously there’s no real way of pinning that to them, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim that in any serious way, but that’s really what it’s starting to look like from here.

82

Really? Really?! You can’t be serious with this. If the Republicans get a bad law passed, it’s the Democrats’ fault. They should have stopped it. Apparently the Republicans are in no way at fault for, I don’t know, proposing a bad law?

And reading through, thank you Tristan. I think you said it better than I did.

83

The Bush era tax cuts.

See what it says?

This specifically addresses everything that the lefties claim is bad about the GOP. It compromised, it raises taxes, it hits the deficit reduction target - and the Dems turned it down. Again, read the fucking cites -

See that? Democrats agreed in the past that these were a good idea - but now they turned it down. Because they would rather do what the Usual Suspects scream repeatedly that the GOP does - they would rather play politics (and hope to regain the house come 2012) than actually do *what they agreed in the past was worthwhile. *

They refused to vote for the “low-hanging fruit” - because they didn’t want the Republicans to get any credit. They would rather that everybody failed.

Regards,
Shodan

84

No, you’re right. The Republicans will never agree to fix what’s broken because breaking it IS THE PLAN.

The long term goal is to remake American society to serve the needs of a small circle of haves and their eager courtiers. Their attack is three-fold:

  1. Eliminate all regulations that stand in the way of corporate greed.
  2. Siphon as much government spending as possible into the pockets of the rich and powerful.
  3. Destroy the public safety net to make the citizenry more dependent upon private business interests.

In order to accomplish these ends in a representative democracy, they need to undermine confidence in government. By governing poorly they send the message that poor government is all that is possible. Corruption, shoddy performance, and institutional gridlock become the norm. The public sector shrivels away to a tiny ceremonial appendage while the rich and powerful run the country like their private plantation.

The Republicans will not try to fix things, because they benefit from them being broken.

85

Yes, they’re not willing to let the most ridiculously stupid piece of taxation legislature, one that has not worked in the slightest but has cost us (according to Wikipedia) $2T over the last 10 years, continue.

I see the “in part”. You do realize that, if there are unacceptable tenants to a bill, they can negate the acceptable parts, right? Even ignoring the bush tax cuts.
I also saw other posts noting that the proposal actually didn’t do what you think it did.

86

Obama just said he’d veto any attempt to remove the trigger cuts. He is putting it to the Republicans to deal or accept the blanket trigger cuts.

87

This is gonna suck when the spinsters get their hands on it… It’s almost too easy: “Obama demands cuts to Medicare, Army, Social Security”. :smack:

88

If the Dems thought it was so terrible, why did they vote to extend it? Why are they waiting until now to dig in their heels?

Don’t give me this garbage about not letting it continue - the Democrats voted to extend those cuts. All they had to do was sit still last year and let them expire. Didn’t have to lift a finger, didn’t have to vote for cloture, didn’t have to do shit to get what they now claim is so all-fired important in reducing the deficit.

But they extended the cuts they now claim are so awful, and they are trying to blame it on the Republicans.

Of course the SDMB falls for it like bricks down a well. 'Twas ever thus.

Regards,
Shodan

89

I don’t see what else he can do at this point. There wasn’t that much incentive to make a deal because everybody knew the intolerable cuts to Medicare and defense spending weren’t really set in stone and could be changed. If that’s not an option, they either have to make a deal, and hopefully a bigger one that just the $1.2 trillion, or they’ll have to explain to their voters why they let the automatic cuts happen.

As part of a compromise on tax legislation and the stimulus extension. This was helped along by the fact that some Republicans were saying they would filibuster almost every single piece of legislation unless the tax cuts were extended.

90

I’m not finding when and where this happened, nor the context… Both of which would be helpful in actually forming a position on the issue. Would appreciate a little help.

91

But they make it so easy! I can see the political ads already:

“Republicans Choose Deep Cuts to Defense to Avoid Millionaire Tax Increases”

92

That happened in late 2010. Cite for the filibuster threat.

93

Are you able to form long-term memories? I’m just asking because this was explained to you in this thread. They voted to extend it because the hysterical children you voted into office were going to fuck hammer unemployment and working class tax cuts during the hugest economic downturn in seven decades. There was also that thing about trying to sabotage our nuclear agreements with Russia.

So to sum up, the Republicans were threatening to destroy American lives and put us in more nuclear danger if they didn’t get those tax cuts extended.

Write that down, you’ll remember it next time.

It is important to reducing the deficit.

You walk up to me and say, “Give me all the money in your pocket or I’ll kill your wife.” You have a gun aimed at her. I give you the money.

Later you walk up to me and say, “I’d like more money, but I no longer have a gun and am not threatening anyone.” I’d say no. This doesn’t make me a flip-flopper.

You are basing your opinions on misinformation and misconceptions. I understand why you’re so mad. If all the stuff you think is true was true, I’d be angry too.

94

Because they were held hostage, same as with the “debt crisis” - the republicans threatened to majorly fuck the country over if they didn’t get their way, and the democrats capitulated.

When a bunch of bank robbers take hostages and demand a helicopter to Mexico, do you blame the bank robbers or claim that the police negotiator created the mess by giving them a helicopter?

You are intellectually dishonest. You imply that you’re supporting the argument that the democrats must’ve actually WANTED the tax cuts to continue, which is clearly not the case. Is that your argument?

No, you’re essentially repeating that “HAHA WE WRECKED THE COUNTRY AND YOU COULDN’T STOP US!!!” thing, except you’re also adding “you must really not have wanted to!”

95

No; they want the Feds in our bedrooms, imposing a Christian theocracy, spying on “leftists”, and in general mistreating the common people. What they want is the Feds to let the wealthy & powerful do whatever they want, and stomp on the serfs if they protest.

Say what? That’s ridiculous; the Democrats are moderate corporatists. They aren’t remotely socialist; they are right wing, just not as insane as the Republicans.

96

The Dems have a far broader base than that. There are plenty of progressive who have not had a platform to voice in the party for the last few years. The Occupations have permitted them to speak again. There is a possibility for real change.

97

To take hostages, you need a weapon. What’s the Republicans’ weapon? What magical powers do they have such that they can get away with these actions you claim are so transparently and objectively wrong? If your answer is the debt ceiling, that’s like handing a bat to your opponent and then standing there while he beats you silly with it.

98

Cutting unemployment benefits, and the debt ceiling are the most obvious examples. But they were threatning to stop doing everything - including sabotaging the aforementioned Russian nuclear treaty talks.

How is the debt ceiling crisis like handing them a bat? Are you saying the democrats are the reason for the deficit? If that wasn’t absurd enough, you ignore the fact that no one in the entire political history of the united states has ever seriously considered letting the debt ceiling be hit - it isn’t until the 2010 Republican party that we have someone who is so transparently willing to destroy the country to get their way.

99

They are not destroying the country. They are transforming it. The Repubs have little use for the American philosophy. They want a different world, where the special people on top, who were put there by god, get all the power, money and influence.
It is the America of the Robber Barons , oligarchies and monopolies. It is the one we are well on our way to having again. Many will suffer ,but they don’t matter.
It is not a difference of policy but of philosophy. But the results will be devastating to the people.

100

Oh look, Shodan. It wasn’t a flip-flop. It was a necessary compromise.