PDA

View Full Version : "Super" committee



eg8r
11-21-2011, 10:59 PM
OK, so we have heard about the one concession the Reps are unwilling to make at this point (tax increase on wealthy). All the news sites keep talking about the Reps refusal to make "any" concessions so I was just wondering what concessions did the Dems make?

I find it to be crazy that these 12 or so people could not come up with a plan that was acceptable to both sides with both sides giving in on certain things. What did the left "give in"?

eg8r

Qtec
11-22-2011, 12:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, so we have heard about the one concession the Reps are unwilling to make at this point (tax increase on wealthy). All the news sites keep talking about the Reps refusal to make "any" concessions so I was just wondering what concessions did the Dems make?

I find it to be crazy that these 12 or so people could not come up with a plan that was acceptable to both sides with both sides giving in on certain things. What did the left "give in"?

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> SEN. KERRY: We, we could have a deal--in the next two hours, we could have an agreement, a solution to this problem. We could cut $1.2 trillion, and we could do it tomorrow morning, we could put it before the nation and get this job done. And there are only two things blocking us from doing that. One, and I've heard this from Republicans in the Senate and in the House who say to me, "The calculation politically has been made by many that they think they're going to win the Senate, win the presidency, and they want to wait until next year and just write their own deal." And the second and most significant block to our doing something right now, tomorrow, is their insistence, insistence, insistence on the Grover Norquist pledge and extending the Bush tax cuts. Now we are not a tax-cutting committee. We're a deficit-reduction committee. And everybody out there has said to us, "Go big. Do $4 trillion." <span style='font-size: 14pt'>We Democrats put a $4 trillion deal on the table, and it included huge, hard, though, horrible reductions on the sacred cows and things that we have been accused of not being willing to do. We put it out there. I've had demonstrations outside my offices in Boston. I've had people screaming at me because we'd even dare to think of doing this. But they went--they wouldn't accept it. They wouldn't accept a $1.3 trillion cut, $1.3 trillion revenue.</span></div></div>

Name me one concession the republicans made.

Q

Sid_Vicious
11-22-2011, 04:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, so we have heard about the one concession the Reps are unwilling to make at this point (tax increase on wealthy). All the news sites keep talking about the Reps refusal to make "any" concessions so I was just wondering what concessions did the Dems make?

I find it to be crazy that these 12 or so people could not come up with a plan that was acceptable to both sides with both sides giving in on certain things. What did the left "give in"?

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> SEN. KERRY: We, we could have a deal--in the next two hours, we could have an agreement, a solution to this problem. We could cut $1.2 trillion, and we could do it tomorrow morning, we could put it before the nation and get this job done. And there are only two things blocking us from doing that. One, and I've heard this from Republicans in the Senate and in the House who say to me, "The calculation politically has been made by many that they think they're going to win the Senate, win the presidency, and they want to wait until next year and just write their own deal." And the second and most significant block to our doing something right now, tomorrow, is their insistence, insistence, insistence on the Grover Norquist pledge and extending the Bush tax cuts. Now we are not a tax-cutting committee. We're a deficit-reduction committee. And everybody out there has said to us, "Go big. Do $4 trillion." <span style='font-size: 14pt'>We Democrats put a $4 trillion deal on the table, and it included huge, hard, though, horrible reductions on the sacred cows and things that we have been accused of not being willing to do. We put it out there. I've had demonstrations outside my offices in Boston. I've had people screaming at me because we'd even dare to think of doing this. But they went--they wouldn't accept it. They wouldn't accept a $1.3 trillion cut, $1.3 trillion revenue.</span></div></div>

Name me one concession the republicans made.

Q </div></div>

I second that question...sid

LWW
11-22-2011, 05:58 AM
Neither of you actually want to know the truth. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/09/nation/la-na-super-committee-20111109)

Qtec
11-22-2011, 06:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Republicans familiar with the proposal said it was offered by <span style='font-size: 17pt'>one </span>GOP member on the panel. </div></div>

Not a serious offer at all.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The GOP plan would essentially swap lower tax rates ending the long-running debate over the expiring President George W. Bush-era tax breaks for new limits on itemized tax deductions used primarily by wealthier households, such as the mortgage interest deduction on second homes.

Republicans estimate that closing or limiting such itemized deductions would generate <u>$250 billion</u> in new tax revenue <u>over 10 years,</u> <span style='font-size: 23pt'>some</span> of which would be applied to the deficit, with <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the rest used to lower income tax rates across all brackets.</span>

The top income tax rate under the GOP proposal<span style='font-size: 26pt'> would drop permanently to 28% from the current 35%</span> enacted under Bush. If the break is allowed to expire at the end of 2012, as it is scheduled to do, the top rate rises to 39%.</div></div>

Don't make me laugh.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democrats dismissed the proposal as unrealistic, saying the cost of the income tax breaks would substantially exceed the revenue generated by eliminating or reducing some itemized deductions.

For example, eliminating the mortgage deduction for second homes would generate about $15 billion, while every 1 percentage point reduction in the income tax rate costs about $100 billion over 10 years, budget experts said.

"Their plan would mean a massive tax cut for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans and is not a solution Democrats or middle-class Americans would ever be willing to accept," said a Democratic aide familiar with the talks who was not authorized to discuss them publicly and who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It's a shell game." </div></div>

Q

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Name me one concession the republicans made.

Q </div></div>

Try again.

Gayle in MD
11-22-2011, 07:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Republicans familiar with the proposal said it was offered by <span style='font-size: 17pt'>one </span>GOP member on the panel. </div></div>

Not a serious offer at all.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The GOP plan would essentially swap lower tax rates ending the long-running debate over the expiring President George W. Bush-era tax breaks for new limits on itemized tax deductions used primarily by wealthier households, such as the mortgage interest deduction on second homes.

Republicans estimate that closing or limiting such itemized deductions would generate <u>$250 billion</u> in new tax revenue <u>over 10 years,</u> <span style='font-size: 23pt'>some</span> of which would be applied to the deficit, with <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the rest used to lower income tax rates across all brackets.</span>

The top income tax rate under the GOP proposal<span style='font-size: 26pt'> would drop permanently to 28% from the current 35%</span> enacted under Bush. If the break is allowed to expire at the end of 2012, as it is scheduled to do, the top rate rises to 39%.</div></div>

Don't make me laugh.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democrats dismissed the proposal as unrealistic, saying the cost of the income tax breaks would substantially exceed the revenue generated by eliminating or reducing some itemized deductions.

For example, eliminating the mortgage deduction for second homes would generate about $15 billion, while every 1 percentage point reduction in the income tax rate costs about $100 billion over 10 years, budget experts said.

"Their plan would mean a massive tax cut for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans and is not a solution Democrats or middle-class Americans would ever be willing to accept," said a Democratic aide familiar with the talks who was not authorized to discuss them publicly and who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It's a shell game." </div></div>

Q

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Name me one concession the republicans made.

Q </div></div>

Try again. </div></div>
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif


Obviously the Repigs refuse to compromise, since their main goal is to make President Obama a one term president, hence their only goal is to obstruct a recovery, and move further along on their Neocon, fascist policies, robbing everyone, for the benefit of the wealthy corporate cronies.

Repiglicans and Bush did what no former administration in our history was ever stupid enough to do...they cut taxes while fighting two expensive wars. Wasted a surplus, grew the deficit to dangerous levels, grew a housijg bubble, ignored growing threats of the ocming crash, and all the while they were spending and borrowing us into obvlion.

Then, when we finally get them out....they are immediately right back out there blaming all of it on the Democratics!

BWA HA HA HA....obviously, Repiglican's spending and borrowing and corruptionn, destroyed the economy....not only here, but across the globe...it's called negligence, greed, corruption, corporate cronyism and Repiglican deregulatory madness.

We Americans MUST get rid of as many of them as we can in the next election, State and Federal, or The American Dream, will be gone forever....their fascist goals will take such hold in this country that we won't have a chance to turn around their assault on American values for many decades.

We are going to see another crooked stolen election.....not only Presidential, but across this country.

G.

Sev
11-22-2011, 07:37 AM
The economic collapse of the US is on track.
Violence, anarchy and revolution are in the pipeline.
Invest in lead and brass. It will become a precious commodity.

Gayle in MD
11-22-2011, 07:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The economic collapse of the US is on track.
Violence, anarchy and revolution are in the pipeline.
Invest in lead and brass. It will become a precious commodity. </div></div>

LOL, thanks for the tip. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

eg8r
11-22-2011, 08:18 AM
The Reps did put a deal out there and they did offer some tax increases. Nothing to drastic but there were some. Question though, since you quoted Kerry can you tell us which side would have benefitted most from that $4 trillion dollar deal? I am not talking about us as citizens because anytime Congress finds a way to cut $4 trillion and would be good but I mean which side, Rep/Dem, would benefit as viewed by their voters/supporters. It is odd, but I don't remember a whole of coverage of these "demonstrations" outside of Kerry's office. Not saying they didn't happen, but again, I am also not saying he did not fund them to make it look like he was being tough.

eg8r

eg8r
11-22-2011, 08:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Violence, anarchy and revolution are in the pipeline.
</div></div>And you can see all that in one OWS tent party. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r