Are Republicans about to cave on tax hikes?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 10:24:36 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Are Republicans about to cave on tax hikes?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Are Republicans about to cave on tax hikes?  (Read 621 times)
Jacobtm
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 14, 2011, 12:21:14 PM »

Few people actually want to see a debt default. Republicans, generally having more balls than Democrats, thought they could bully Dems into accepting huge cuts without giving anything on tax hikes.

It now appears that Obama is finally taking a stand, and will not simply cut cut cut without raising any taxes. Republicans have a bit of a disjointed voice on this, but with Moodys talking about downgrading US debt, it seems they finally are getting nervous. Their backers in big business and the financial sector certainly do not want this added headache to satisfy some weirdo tea partiers.

``Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence.``

Could we see something like that? Out of $4 trillion, that would be $3.4 trillion in spending cuts and $600 billion in tax increases. Seems like that would still be a huge victory for Reps. Will they take it?

http://www.economist.com/node/18928600?story_id=18928600
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2011, 12:37:46 PM »

Looks like Ron Paul's campaign ad is going to strike big with this news.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2011, 01:14:32 PM »

Thing is, Jacob, when the Republicans came to Democrats with that 85%-15% figure, and the White House responded by offering a deal of 87%-13%, the Pubbies walked out, suddenly insisting the budget deal was to include no tax adjustments (100%-0%), which, as I understand it at the moment, is still their position.

That's not negotiating, it's psychosis.  If I wanted to buy a house from someone, and the seller set a price at $250,000, and I said: "mmm, not bad, but there's this thing and that thing that needs fixing, so I'll give you $242,000," if the seller then sent back an amendment saying he now wanted $305,000, I'd stop making offers.  Not only wouldn't I negotiate anymore, I'd be worried about what kinds of ghosts were in the house.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,486
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2011, 01:35:58 PM »

At this point, frankly, I don't think Obama wants a deal, or that he would benefit from one.  If it comes to it, let the public see what kind of government they get if they don't want to pay any taxes.  And a default provides the perfect backdrop against which to shift blame for the continued economic weakness onto the "do-nothing" GOP congress, like Truman successfully did in 1948.
Logged
Kevin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,424
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2011, 02:01:19 PM »
« Edited: July 14, 2011, 02:41:00 PM by Kevin »

The way I see things higher taxes and sharp cuts to spending are going to have to be made eventually. Regardless of whether a Democratic or Republican Administration is elected in 2012.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,486
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2011, 02:06:13 PM »

The way I se things higher taxes and sharp cuts to spending are going to have to be made eventually. Regardless of whether a Democratic or Republican Administration is elected in 2012.

But the 2012 result probably makes the difference between an 80/20 split in favor of cuts or in favor of taxes.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,956


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2011, 02:07:57 PM »

Pretty much dead on. For Christ's sake, we can't keep spending like this without any changes in our fiscal policy. Our eonomy isn't going to recover that drastically if we are under 14 trillion dollars of debt with it encompassing over 100% of our GDP!
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,076
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2011, 02:08:53 PM »

Yes, they will.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2011, 02:11:03 PM »

Pretty much dead on. For Christ's sake, we can't keep spending like this without any changes in our fiscal policy. Our eonomy isn't going to recover that drastically if we are under 14 trillion dollars of debt with it encompassing over 100% of our GDP!

You mean like the fiscal recklessness that was joining World War II?
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,956


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2011, 02:15:08 PM »

^^^ that was a different time. Fundamentally, our economy is likely not to recover like the US economy of the 1940s.

If we were spending on things like infrastructure upgrades and actual job producing projects, we'd be okay. Unfortunately, we are not.
Logged
Kevin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,424
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2011, 02:43:55 PM »

The way I se things higher taxes and sharp cuts to spending are going to have to be made eventually. Regardless of whether a Democratic or Republican Administration is elected in 2012.

But the 2012 result probably makes the difference between an 80/20 split in favor of cuts or in favor of taxes.

We can't have it ether way, we have to do both in my opinion. Especially since this crisis is going to increase in seriousness and urgency in the coming years.
Logged
Kevin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,424
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2011, 02:45:44 PM »

^^^ that was a different time. Fundamentally, our economy is likely not to recover like the US economy of the 1940s.

If we were spending on things like infrastructure upgrades and actual job producing projects, we'd be okay. Unfortunately, we are not.

Wasn't that the whole purpose of the $800 Billion or so stimulus package that has seemed to have disappeared int thin air without a trace?
Logged
exopolitician
MATCHU[D]
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2011, 01:55:17 AM »

Maybe, Boehner and McConnel seem to be budging a bit. I wont hold my breath though.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,658
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2011, 09:05:08 AM »

No, we'll get the McConnell-pass-the-buck with no revenue or spending cuts. Neither party is serious about the deficit, which will be quite clear to the world when we spend all this time arguing about it and then doing nothing.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2011, 09:10:24 AM »

Pretty much dead on. For Christ's sake, we can't keep spending like this without any changes in our fiscal policy. Our eonomy isn't going to recover that drastically if we are under 14 trillion dollars of debt with it encompassing over 100% of our GDP!

Spending is too low Duke.  I find it bizarre that people remark at 'spending like this', when historically (when america was a better place because of it) we spend far, far more.  In a tolerable and economically vibrant society federal spending should be around 25% of the economy at least.

The problem is inadequate taxation of the rich, not excessive spending.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.234 seconds with 12 queries.