You ask for non-partisan rhetoric, and then label as “confiscatory taxes” the calls to raise taxes back to the level of the Reagan era. 
:smack:
BTW, you might want to do some fact-checking with Google if your belief that it is the Demos who deficit spend is an honest one.
Their positions in Congress, naturally. At one point they even called what they were doing taking the economy hostage, and said that sooner or later they’d have to “shoot the hostage”.
Which is directly contradicted by what they are saying now - that it is something they would rather sabotage the deficit talks than compromise on.
So then they said it was a necessary compromise, and now they are saying it is something they cannot compromise on. Were the Democrats lying then, or are they lying now?
Regards,
Shodan
This is not a particularly difficult political analysis:
Late 2010 Choices: All tax cuts expire (including ones Dems support) or all tax cuts are extended.
Today: Cut entitlements without de-coupling the tax rates or allow sequestration (which doesn’t really hurt any Dem constituencies).
Can you really not see why the Democratic leadership would support the first compromise (in which they actually got something and avoided losing something) but not the second (in which they would have gotten nothing and lost their position as protectors of entitlements)?
The Democratic position has been crystal clear - if the GOP wants entitlement reform they have to give up the marginal rate cuts on the top two brackets. There was certainly nothing scary enough in the trigger to cause them to go back on that now. They were willing to trade those cuts in 2010 for other tax measures, but there was (and is) no way in hell they’re giving up Medicare and Social Security cuts without getting significant marginal rate increases on the upper brackets.
And the political situation in Dec 2012 will be very different than it was in 2010 - either Obama will have been re-elected (in which case he likely has enough clout to do what he wants on the expiring cuts) or he is a lame duck (in which case I fully expect him to veto any extension of the upper-bracket rates unless they are coupled with some larger reform and make the next Congress/President own any deficits caused by extending the Bush rates).
In other words, the Democrats are doing exactly what the Republicans are doing. Except it’s wrong for the Republicans to do it, and fine for the Democrats.
Exactly. They are refusing to compromise, including on deals that would reach the deficit targets, unless it includes something they want politically.
Both sides are doing the same thing. Only one side is being condemned for it.
Regards,
Shodan
Nonsense. Democrats are taking enormous heat for putting entitlements on the table, in return for tax increases on millionaires. That is what compromise looks like. What have Republicans put on the table? Nothing. There is no equivalency on which party is obstructing progress.
The Democrats are willing to give up some funding of programs in exchange for letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the highest incomes and keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rest of us.
The Republicans want to gut the program in exchange for nothing.
The Republicans, who are the party that so frequently says people should not get something for nothing, are demanding something for nothing.
Time for another simple analogy. The budget is a pie. The Democrats are saying, ‘There a two of us, but only one pie. We have to share.’ The Republicans are saying, ‘We agree. This is how we’ll share it: We get to eat it, and you get to watch us eat it.’
Incorrect; McConnell said this about the actions of other Republicans, in the context of disagreeing with what they were doing. He then said that the hostage was worth ransoming.
Besides, if a seat in Congress was an entitlement to act like a tyrant, Democrats would do it too. But they all have to stand for re-election at some point.
There have been two Republican proposals, one with no increase in taxes and one with about $250 billion in new tax revenue, both of which the Democrats rejected.
There have been two Democratic proposals, one with $1.3 trillion in new taxes and one with about $1 trillion in new taxes, both of which the Republicans rejected.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that the final agreement will probably have about $500-600 billion in new taxes. But they didn’t have enough time to get there with the supercommittee.
Some of the comments in this thread seem to assume that the Republicans have a magical ability to impose their will, maybe a hypno-ray-gun the Koch brothers built for them that they can use to mind-meld the Democrats. You know, they wanted to privatize social security but couldn’t do it even when they had the Presidency and both houses of Congress. The system is set up to default to gridlock on high-visibility issues, which is what it just did.
First, the Democrats are spineless. And second,the Democrats are trying to accomplish things, while all the Republicans are doing is trying to be as obstructionist and as destructive to the country as possible. Much easier.
All right, let’s get a little fucking perspective here.
In the past, the Republicans were holding the full faith and credit of the United States of America hostage in order to get cuts to entitlement programs and no revenue increases (i.e. exactly what they wanted).
Right now, the stakes are considerably lower. Even then, what’s the deal? The democrats have put virtually everything else on the table. The republicans? What, exactly, are the republicans losing in this “compromise”? They’ll get their cuts either way. You’re equivocating two completely different scenarios.
Maybe I should restate the figure: the bush tax cuts have cost us over $2,000,000,000,000 in the last 10 years while providing absolutely nothing back. The policy has been a complete and utter failure. The only reason it was backed by the democrats in 2010 was because it was part of a compromise to also cut taxes on the lower and middle classes. Now, there’s no good reason for them to stick around, and when cuts to medicare and social security are already on the table, I don’t really know if it’s that unreasonable to suggest. Furthermore, you are still ignoring a key phrase: “in part”. Oh, and the fact that if the committee expires, the republicans basically get what they want.
Even if we assume that you are correct, which most of us disagree with, and that the Democrats are playing partisan politics, there is still no comparison to the Debt Ceiling crisis. None at all.
Don’t make personal comments like this in Great Debates.
Already cited, twice. Tax increases are included in at least two of the compromises floated by Republicans. The Democrats responded “No, not if it’s not a trillion dollars”.
And when Republicans suggested a compromise that raised taxes for some and lowered them for the lower and middle classes, the Democrats said No.
So again, were the Democrats lying then, or are they lying now?
The only difference is the same one it always is - IOKIADDI.
Regards,
Shodan
Pat Toomey says the Democrats said that. On Fox and Friends. Considering his tax plan was just a fig leaf to permanently lower upper bracket tax rates (from 35% to 28%) in exchange for limiting deductions (which we all know would magically reappear once the lobbyists started lining Congressional pockets), I don’t think he’s above being deceptive.
Because Congress has no incentive to cut spending, and every incentive to increase spending.
That is why the budget allocates money for rape crisis centers in South Africa, and bridges to nowhere in Alaska.
The real problem is the growth of the Federal Government-we need to eliminate entire departments.
That and the “Imperial” USA-we have bases around the world, and the largest Navy in the world.
I really think that the attitude of most senators is:“the hell with this, we can just borrow more money” or…“I’ll be retired when the whole thing implodes”.
Add to that that most senators are rich, and that Washington increasingly resembles Versailles (on the eve of the French Revolution).
because part of the deal is making the Bush tax cuts permanent, at a cost of $3.7 trillion over the next decade, which rather dwarfs the revenue increases the GOP is willing to include. So fuck that shit."
Democrats have presided over a near-continuous expansion of the government over the last 80 years, including an almost unbroken string of victories for the progressive agenda. The Republicans are fighting very much a rear-guard action on this issue.
Funny, then, that the greatest expansions in deficits and debts occured during Reagan and Bush 2.
But those guys said they were all about fiscal responsibility, so let’s just trust them on that and not look at the numbers.
Democrats have no “progressive agenda”; this isn’t the 60s. They are moderate conservatives. And the Republicans have also quite cheerfully expanded government, and massively increased the debt whenever they could.
No not really, I expected this. I’m glad the cuts will go into effect especially the ones of military spending and that abomination known as farm subsidies.