Since defaulting on the debt is practically a plank in the Republican platform, I find this amusing. Democrats have no problem with paying debts, and raising revenues if necessary. Republicans want to prevent the payment of the national debt, like the deadbeat who dines and dashes, leaving the check on the table.
Republicans want a plan to reduce the deficit, and extracted it from Democrats. If there’s no plan to ever reduce the deficit, then what does it matter whether we default now or 10 years from now?
Democrats’ ONLY firm offer is to raise taxes on the wealthy, solving a mere 10% of the deficit over the next ten years.
You have been misinformed. Democrats have offered spending cuts at a rate of four to one for each tax cut dollar. It is the Republicans that have refused any debt solutions other than spending cuts.
:shrug: Republicans refuse to consider any plan which includes restoring the tax rates we had back when we had a budget surplus. They’d rather shut the government down, and downgrade the country’s credit rating for the first time ever, than even talk about it. Why are you holding that out as acting responsibly?
Maybe if Democrats believed that the burden were shared anything like equally, they’d be eager to atttack the next 90% of the problem. As long as Republicans are saying, “OK, but not on OUR backs” there will be no progress. Pay up, you rich fucks. Then we can look into the deficit. I’m not living in a tarpaper shack in the swamp so you can live it up in your mansion.
I’m aware of the news reports, but I have yet to see the offer. Only what ‘sources’ say was offered.
Aww, Mittens cancels Orlando stop due to “exhaustion” after two days of promoting Paul Ryan pick. Seriously, he’s tired? The guy who used to be able to lay off a factory and pillage their pensions all before breakfast is all tuckered out after one lousy weekend of campaigning? What’s he gonna do when that 3 am call comes in- hit the snooze button?
I wonder how long this energizing jolt from the VP pick is going to last. I mean, it isn’t going to go on forever, and once the Obama team starts to define Ryan and his budget to the public - I’d be shocked if the campaign isn’t in overdrive right now focus testing and preparing those sorts of Ryan ads - there’s bound to be a noticeable dip in enthusiasm amongst the persuadables. Like it or not, the Ryan budget is a losing argument politically, period.
FWIW, Politico has a new poll out showing a tie in the race. That’s at odds with other recent polls showing strong leads for Obama.
The Ryan budget is only a losing argument when it’s compared to nothing. When pollsters ask whether voters prefer Ryan’s budget or Obama’s budget, then it’s even.
So you keep asserting without offering any evidence to that effect. Please provide a cite.
This confuses me. Do you want someone to personally come to your house to make the offer?
Oh, come on now. Democrats/liberals/whatever have an odd view of “equal”, I’ll tell you that. Have you even bothered to check how the Federal tax liabilities are distributed? Based on that information, could you tell me who’s getting a raw deal (note the changes from 1979 to present)? I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that Republicans/the rich don’t pay their fair share, but it’s absurd as it is wrong. As it stands approximately half of American’s don’t even pay an income tax, anyway, with the bottom two quartiles have a negative effective individual income rate (because it things like EITC).
But you’re damn right. That’s not equal, though chances are you’re fine with that because “the rich can afford it” or something along those lines. The problem here is that Democrats don’t want to pay their fair share, or anything at all, of Federal income taxes, but then complain when the guy who is paying both his share and the Democrat’s share of taxes gets a break or complains about having to pay more while someone else pays little to nothing. You want to take money away from someone else while you, yourself, don’t want to give up any of your money to “solve the problem”. That’s wrong.
Christ, not this again. The single mom working two jobs at minimum wage may not pay any net federal income tax, but her SS and Medicare tax, plus state income and sales taxes mean she pays a greater share of her income in taxes than does Mitt Romney.
No, I want to know what’s in the offer and how they got their numbers. The Bush tax cuts, we know exactly what they want and how much money it will raise. On the $3 trillion in spending cuts, there have been conflicting reports on what was offered and no indication of how they arrived at a $3 trillion estimate, since the plan was never scored by the CBO.
But right now I’ll just settle for knowing the basic outlines of the plan, from the mouths of those offering it, or a written document, not just ‘sources’.
Why is the Gallup poll from April the one and only one that various conservative water carriers keep citing
Multiple cites show that public opinion on the Ryan plan tanked after that, as people came to understand the contents. For instance:
I linked earlier to a politico post that assembled multiple data sources to show the same. Do you have any evidence that has remained accurate in support of your assertion?
The Ryan plan was unpopular from the start. The reason I cite the Gallup polls i because I know of no other poll asking voters to choose between the two budgets. If you know of any, I’d love to see them.
But tell ya what, I bet Romney’s pollsters asked for the comparison and decided that they could win that argument. I think they can win that argument too.
Tell me straight out that voters will like Obama’s budget better than Ryan’s. Do you really believe that is the case?
This has nothing to do with what I typed out or what I responded to. So let me try this again by posing a simple question; how can you demand that someone should pay more in taxes (or even complain when the person paying the most gets a break) when you aren’t paying anything yourself? I’m quite curious. How, on Earth, can you legitimately argue that the “rich” don’t pay their fair share of taxes?
(Yeah, I know. “But the rich can afford it!”. That’s not any kind of response, but I’ll bet I’ll get it again.)
ETA: I once posted a chart showing that lower income brackets, obviously, benefit more from tax increases, as they receive more in government benefits than they pay out while the rich pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. That’s kind of a “well, duh” thing, but it’s worth pointing out.
The largest single holder of US debt is the social security administration, whose surplus was built by increasing taxes on middle class workers in the 80s. That trust fund has been raided to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. How about if the wealthy pay us back first before taking yet another tax cut?
Absolutely! How many different ways do you need to see evidence that Ryan’s plan was devastatingly unpopular as people learned what was in it?
People aren’t keen on pushing grandma over the cliff so that the superrich can have a car elevator in their garage. Good luck selling that one.