Compromise

[konradv]

Democrats
Moderates
Independents

I bet even a few republains voted for Obama too

Yeah, those precincts where Romney didn't get any votes. The Republicans either stayed home or voted for Obama.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

For the same reason that giving them a tax cut isn't.

That looks a lot like a deflection from where I'm sitting. Why is arbitrarily raising taxes on Democrats different in principle from arbitrarily raising them on people who are wealthy?

Because it is far from arbitrary, we as a nation extended them numerous tax cuts as an incentive to grow the economy and it apparently did not work, so now we must take them back and find some other use for the money. Nothing personal, nothing punitive, just a failed policy that must now be reversed. On the other hand a law that only applies to people of a certain ideology has always been unconstitutional.

Really? You don't see anything punitive in that statement? The whole "your ideology failed so we're going to confiscate more of your money" doesn't sound like punishment to you? Sounds like the exact same thing the OP suggested, simply with a different target for punishment.

 

[BreezeWood]

like children in a candy store - only Republicans voted for the 2003 tax reconciliation act, just before voting for an unprovoked and unfunded war.

 

[daveman]

For the same reason that giving them a tax cut isn't.

Really?

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial.​

The rich are guilty of being wealthy.

OWS and similar stinky stupid slobs have assured us repeatedly that being wealthy is a crime. And Obama said this election was about "revenge".

Are you serious this time or just joking? Never can tell with the likes of you.

Should Being Rich Be A Crime Against Humanity? | DANGEROUS CREATION — for thinkers.

Opinion: President Obama Says Vote For Revenge « CBS Chicago

 

[occupied]

That looks a lot like a deflection from where I'm sitting. Why is arbitrarily raising taxes on Democrats different in principle from arbitrarily raising them on people who are wealthy?

Because it is far from arbitrary, we as a nation extended them numerous tax cuts as an incentive to grow the economy and it apparently did not work, so now we must take them back and find some other use for the money. Nothing personal, nothing punitive, just a failed policy that must now be reversed. On the other hand a law that only applies to people of a certain ideology has always been unconstitutional.

Really? You don't see anything punitive in that statement? The whole "your ideology failed so we're going to confiscate more of your money" doesn't sound like punishment to you? Sounds like the exact same thing the OP suggested, simply with a different target for punishment.

Nope, the government can spend it's funds as it sees fit, it can also cancel programs that are ineffective and too costly, you can frame it how you like and to be honest there is some truth that I will feel a sense of satisfaction when the tax cuts sold to us under false pretenses are finally allowed to lapse, but as far as the lawyers are concerned targeting tax cuts or tax hikes to certain segments of the economy is no different than spending money on narrow segments of the economy. Furthermore, notice I said "lapse" in regards to the Bush tax cuts of the wealthy? They had a time limit that we extended in misplaced good faith and they still did not work. Why to you like expensive government programs that do not work?

 

[OKTexas]

like children in a candy store - only Republicans voted for the 2003 tax reconciliation act, just before voting for an unprovoked and unfunded war.

And those rates have been extended how many times since then, and what president signed it the last time?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Cool, as soon as you all pay off that 12 Trillion dollars in debt you all rung up, we'll start paying for our share.

Wrong as usual, you see the Democrats all voted for it too. Under Reagan the democrats tried to cut defense. Reagan fought them to a stand still and after threatening to shut down the Government the Democrats blinked. BUT then they STATED that for every dollar spent on defense they were gonna spend an extra dollar on their programs.

Under Reagan not a single one of his budgets was passed. EVERY single time the Dem controlled Congress spent billions more then he asked for. That debt is YOURS. Under Bush II both wars were supported by a majority of Democrats. Hell the Democrats controlled the Senate when the authorization for Force was passed. If they were against it they did not even have to table the request. Same with Afghanistan. SO that debt is equally owned by dems and Republicans.

 

[Immanuel]

Sounds like a "bill of attainder" to me. Look it up.

No more than any progressive tax, SCOTUS says you can be taxed for what you do or don't do. Maobama supporters want higher taxes, hell let's grant their wish.

You guys don't understand. They only want tax increases on the other guy. They draw the line at increasing their own taxes.

Immie

 

[BreezeWood]

like children in a candy store - only Republicans voted for the 2003 tax reconciliation act, just before voting for an unprovoked and unfunded war.

And those rates have been extended how many times since then, and what president signed it the last time?

why did the Republicans not vote them to be permanent ? -

because with expiration the CBO was unable to project the obvious deficits they would incur otherwise ... only their expiration would prevent the massive budget deficits that were projected.

not to mention the unfunded Iraqi war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because it is far from arbitrary, we as a nation extended them numerous tax cuts as an incentive to grow the economy and it apparently did not work, so now we must take them back and find some other use for the money. Nothing personal, nothing punitive, just a failed policy that must now be reversed. On the other hand a law that only applies to people of a certain ideology has always been unconstitutional.

Really? You don't see anything punitive in that statement? The whole "your ideology failed so we're going to confiscate more of your money" doesn't sound like punishment to you? Sounds like the exact same thing the OP suggested, simply with a different target for punishment.

Nope, the government can spend it's funds as it sees fit, it can also cancel programs that are ineffective and too costly, you can frame it how you like and to be honest there is some truth that I will feel a sense of satisfaction when the tax cuts sold to us under false pretenses are finally allowed to lapse, but as far as the lawyers are concerned targeting tax cuts or tax hikes to certain segments of the economy is no different than spending money on narrow segments of the economy. Furthermore, notice I said "lapse" in regards to the Bush tax cuts of the wealthy? They had a time limit that we extended in misplaced good faith and they still did not work. Why to you like expensive government programs that do not work?

Well then not taxing Democrats more is ineffective and too costly, since their ideology is failed.

I don't like expensive government programs that don't work, that's why I'm not advocating government do anything at all. However, trying to redefine tax cuts as an expensive government program is ridiculous. It's not the government's money. It belongs to the person who earned it.

 

[occupied]

Really? You don't see anything punitive in that statement? The whole "your ideology failed so we're going to confiscate more of your money" doesn't sound like punishment to you? Sounds like the exact same thing the OP suggested, simply with a different target for punishment.

Nope, the government can spend it's funds as it sees fit, it can also cancel programs that are ineffective and too costly, you can frame it how you like and to be honest there is some truth that I will feel a sense of satisfaction when the tax cuts sold to us under false pretenses are finally allowed to lapse, but as far as the lawyers are concerned targeting tax cuts or tax hikes to certain segments of the economy is no different than spending money on narrow segments of the economy. Furthermore, notice I said "lapse" in regards to the Bush tax cuts of the wealthy? They had a time limit that we extended in misplaced good faith and they still did not work. Why to you like expensive government programs that do not work?

Well then not taxing Democrats more is ineffective and too costly, since their ideology is failed.

I don't like expensive government programs that don't work, that's why I'm not advocating government do anything at all. However, trying to redefine tax cuts as an expensive government program is ridiculous. It's not the government's money. It belongs to the person who earned it.

The Bush tax cuts had the exact same effect on the deficit as spending the amount that they were allowed to keep, no one cut a damned thing or attempted to get revenue from other sources to cover them so it was pure aimless deficit spending and it bought us nothing as a nation except a crop of teabagger republicans who's only mission was to preserve them at all costs. No job boom, no trickle down, nothing except an emboldened plutocracy who only had their own narrow interests in mind. We cannot continue to worry if the rich are happy, if billionaires are sad it's their own damned fault.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nope, the government can spend it's funds as it sees fit, it can also cancel programs that are ineffective and too costly, you can frame it how you like and to be honest there is some truth that I will feel a sense of satisfaction when the tax cuts sold to us under false pretenses are finally allowed to lapse, but as far as the lawyers are concerned targeting tax cuts or tax hikes to certain segments of the economy is no different than spending money on narrow segments of the economy. Furthermore, notice I said "lapse" in regards to the Bush tax cuts of the wealthy? They had a time limit that we extended in misplaced good faith and they still did not work. Why to you like expensive government programs that do not work?

Well then not taxing Democrats more is ineffective and too costly, since their ideology is failed.

I don't like expensive government programs that don't work, that's why I'm not advocating government do anything at all. However, trying to redefine tax cuts as an expensive government program is ridiculous. It's not the government's money. It belongs to the person who earned it.

The Bush tax cuts had the exact same effect on the deficit as spending the amount that they were allowed to keep, no one cut a damned thing or attempted to get revenue from other sources to cover them so it was pure aimless deficit spending and it bought us nothing as a nation except a crop of teabagger republicans who's only mission was to preserve them at all costs. No job boom, no trickle down, nothing except an emboldened plutocracy who only had their own narrow interests in mind. We cannot continue to worry if the rich are happy, if billionaires are sad it's their own damned fault.

We can't continue to worry if the Democrats are happy. If the liberals are sad it's their own damned fault.

As for Bush cutting taxes and then not cutting spending, well no kidding. That doesn't mean we should tax anybody, rich or Democrat or both, any more than they already are. It means we should cut spending.

 

[occupied]

Well then not taxing Democrats more is ineffective and too costly, since their ideology is failed.

I don't like expensive government programs that don't work, that's why I'm not advocating government do anything at all. However, trying to redefine tax cuts as an expensive government program is ridiculous. It's not the government's money. It belongs to the person who earned it.

The Bush tax cuts had the exact same effect on the deficit as spending the amount that they were allowed to keep, no one cut a damned thing or attempted to get revenue from other sources to cover them so it was pure aimless deficit spending and it bought us nothing as a nation except a crop of teabagger republicans who's only mission was to preserve them at all costs. No job boom, no trickle down, nothing except an emboldened plutocracy who only had their own narrow interests in mind. We cannot continue to worry if the rich are happy, if billionaires are sad it's their own damned fault.

We can't continue to worry if the Democrats are happy. If the liberals are sad it's their own damned fault.

As for Bush cutting taxes and then not cutting spending, well no kidding. That doesn't mean we should tax anybody, rich or Democrat or both, any more than they already are. It means we should cut spending.

We are, but the foolish republicans seem to do it backwards, it would make more sense to cut spending and then pass the savings on to billionaires. Taxes are too low for our basic needs as a nation, most conservatives will agree that some level of taxation is necessary but we dropped below that point in the eighties if the deficit is any indication.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Bush tax cuts had the exact same effect on the deficit as spending the amount that they were allowed to keep, no one cut a damned thing or attempted to get revenue from other sources to cover them so it was pure aimless deficit spending and it bought us nothing as a nation except a crop of teabagger republicans who's only mission was to preserve them at all costs. No job boom, no trickle down, nothing except an emboldened plutocracy who only had their own narrow interests in mind. We cannot continue to worry if the rich are happy, if billionaires are sad it's their own damned fault.

We can't continue to worry if the Democrats are happy. If the liberals are sad it's their own damned fault.

As for Bush cutting taxes and then not cutting spending, well no kidding. That doesn't mean we should tax anybody, rich or Democrat or both, any more than they already are. It means we should cut spending.

We are, but the foolish republicans seem to do it backwards, it would make more sense to cut spending and then pass the savings on to billionaires. Taxes are too low for our basic needs as a nation, most conservatives will agree that some level of taxation is necessary but we dropped below that point in the eighties if the deficit is any indication.

If Republicans are foolish and doing it backwards, what does that make Democrats? Foolish for blindly rushing ahead? You can raise taxes and continue to increase spending, but eventually, and sooner than you think, you're going to run out of people to tax. The end result is the same. The only option is to cut spending, and drastically. Token cuts aren't going to get the job done.

 

[occupied]

We can't continue to worry if the Democrats are happy. If the liberals are sad it's their own damned fault.

As for Bush cutting taxes and then not cutting spending, well no kidding. That doesn't mean we should tax anybody, rich or Democrat or both, any more than they already are. It means we should cut spending.

We are, but the foolish republicans seem to do it backwards, it would make more sense to cut spending and then pass the savings on to billionaires. Taxes are too low for our basic needs as a nation, most conservatives will agree that some level of taxation is necessary but we dropped below that point in the eighties if the deficit is any indication.

If Republicans are foolish and doing it backwards, what does that make Democrats? Foolish for blindly rushing ahead? You can raise taxes and continue to increase spending, but eventually, and sooner than you think, you're going to run out of people to tax. The end result is the same. The only option is to cut spending, and drastically. Token cuts aren't going to get the job done.

It's because we are at a point, and have been for decades, that the cuts needed to pay for our historically low rates of taxation are political suicide. I am all for cutting spending but everyone has their sacred cows, their constituency to protect, the jobs in their state to protect, it is just not going to happen. On some of the most popular programs we are already at rock bottom, you have to remember that even just cutting blatant waste is still a vote for putting someone out of business and there is just too much political inertia, the Obama cut medicare smear during the election is a good example. Cuts have finally become more politically costly than the former third rail of raising taxes, a sure sign that taxes are too low and Americans know it.

 

[oldfart]

The GOP had their arses handed to them and what have they learned....NOTHING They won't be happy until they lose the House also. Yes, please dig in your heels and defend the wealthy. That would be just Peachy!

Sun Tzu: "Never get in the way of an opponent in the process of self-destruction."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We are, but the foolish republicans seem to do it backwards, it would make more sense to cut spending and then pass the savings on to billionaires. Taxes are too low for our basic needs as a nation, most conservatives will agree that some level of taxation is necessary but we dropped below that point in the eighties if the deficit is any indication.

If Republicans are foolish and doing it backwards, what does that make Democrats? Foolish for blindly rushing ahead? You can raise taxes and continue to increase spending, but eventually, and sooner than you think, you're going to run out of people to tax. The end result is the same. The only option is to cut spending, and drastically. Token cuts aren't going to get the job done.

It's because we are at a point, and have been for decades, that the cuts needed to pay for our historically low rates of taxation are political suicide. I am all for cutting spending but everyone has their sacred cows, their constituency to protect, the jobs in their state to protect, it is just not going to happen. On some of the most popular programs we are already at rock bottom, you have to remember that even just cutting blatant waste is still a vote for putting someone out of business and there is just too much political inertia, the Obama cut medicare smear during the election is a good example. Cuts have finally become more politically costly than the former third rail of raising taxes, a sure sign that taxes are too low and Americans know it.

So what's your proposal for when the taxes are too high, and spending continues to soar? I'd say whatever it is, it's better to implement it sooner rather than later. Raising taxes on the rich, even if it were desirable, is only a temporary measure. Or do you disagree that you can only raise taxes so much?

 

[Old Rocks]

Cool, as soon as you all pay off that 12 Trillion dollars in debt you all rung up, we'll start paying for our share.

Word on the street is your "fair share" is zero.

Tax the rich!!

Yes, by all means, tax the rich. Force those poor creatures to pay the same percentage that their secretaries pay. Such a terrible thing to do to them. Perish the thought. Why they might have to forego a Rolls, and get a Bentley.

 

[occupied]

If Republicans are foolish and doing it backwards, what does that make Democrats? Foolish for blindly rushing ahead? You can raise taxes and continue to increase spending, but eventually, and sooner than you think, you're going to run out of people to tax. The end result is the same. The only option is to cut spending, and drastically. Token cuts aren't going to get the job done.

It's because we are at a point, and have been for decades, that the cuts needed to pay for our historically low rates of taxation are political suicide. I am all for cutting spending but everyone has their sacred cows, their constituency to protect, the jobs in their state to protect, it is just not going to happen. On some of the most popular programs we are already at rock bottom, you have to remember that even just cutting blatant waste is still a vote for putting someone out of business and there is just too much political inertia, the Obama cut medicare smear during the election is a good example. Cuts have finally become more politically costly than the former third rail of raising taxes, a sure sign that taxes are too low and Americans know it.

So what's your proposal for when the taxes are too high, and spending continues to soar? I'd say whatever it is, it's better to implement it sooner rather than later. Raising taxes on the rich, even if it were desirable, is only a temporary measure. Or do you disagree that you can only raise taxes so much?

Well certainly but the deficit is never going to get paid down with taxes where they are, it is impossible. It sometimes seems, given their history, that when republicans gripe about our grandchildren paying our debts they are really laying out their fiscal plan, they have no claim to ever having been responsible with our nation's credit card and only seem to bitch about the debt when they do not have control. If we as a nation make deficit reduction a real priority then tax hikes cannot be ruled out, they are as necessary as spending cuts and I cannot believe republicans are serious about deficit reduction as long as they refuse to put them on the table.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's because we are at a point, and have been for decades, that the cuts needed to pay for our historically low rates of taxation are political suicide. I am all for cutting spending but everyone has their sacred cows, their constituency to protect, the jobs in their state to protect, it is just not going to happen. On some of the most popular programs we are already at rock bottom, you have to remember that even just cutting blatant waste is still a vote for putting someone out of business and there is just too much political inertia, the Obama cut medicare smear during the election is a good example. Cuts have finally become more politically costly than the former third rail of raising taxes, a sure sign that taxes are too low and Americans know it.

So what's your proposal for when the taxes are too high, and spending continues to soar? I'd say whatever it is, it's better to implement it sooner rather than later. Raising taxes on the rich, even if it were desirable, is only a temporary measure. Or do you disagree that you can only raise taxes so much?

Well certainly but the deficit is never going to get paid down with taxes where they are, it is impossible. It sometimes seems, given their history, that when republicans gripe about our grandchildren paying our debts they are really laying out their fiscal plan, they have no claim to ever having been responsible with our nation's credit card and only seem to bitch about the debt when they do not have control. If we as a nation make deficit reduction a real priority then tax hikes cannot be ruled out, they are as necessary as spending cuts and I cannot believe republicans are serious about deficit reduction as long as they refuse to put them on the table.

So what do we cut when the time comes?