namatad: yawn

why would we expect a secret super committee to act any different than the rest of congress?

It's like the retarded version of the Superfriends.

I'm sure only the taxes will get implemented and the "debt reduction" will be nothing but a nominal on-paper gesture. And the government will continue to grow...

At the same time it jettisoned a plan to slow the growth in future cost-of-living increases in Social Security benefits

This just in, this plan is DOA. Film at 11.

FrailChild: I'm sure only the taxes will get implemented and the "debt reduction" will be nothing but a nominal on-paper gesture. And the government will continue to grow...

I'm sure they have no problem with the Defense cuts.

As long as the tax raise is for the middle and lower class and the 1% get a tax cut the GOP will be all for it.

GOP counter-offer: we'll see your trillion in spending reductions and raise you a trillion in tax cuts for the rich.

At the same session, GOP lawmakers in attendance advanced a revised proposal of their own that signaled for the first time they would be willing to accept higher revenues as part of a plan to cut deficits over the next decade

Keep an eye on that phrase, it is the most relevant phrase there is in these talks. The wording is always critical. The GOP is and has always been willing to get higher revenues. The GOP is and has always been willing to get higher tax revenues. But the GOP believes if you lower taxes, you will get increased revenue via increased tax revenues.

No joke, when pressed on it this is what the GOP in the super committee say. They are still against raising taxes. So when you read:

"Republicans have put revenues on the table. Democrats have put entitlements on the table," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn

You should not think Republicans have agreed to higher taxes.

This is not a repeat from 1982, 1986, 1992 ...

lennavan: Keep an eye on that phrase, it is the most relevant phrase there is in these talks. The wording is always critical. The GOP is and has always been willing to get higher revenues. The GOP is and has always been willing to get higher tax revenues. But the GOP believes if you lower taxes, you will get increased revenue via increased tax revenues.

It's either that or they want to raise taxes on all those poor people who don't pay a penny in taxes*.

GaryPDX: One trillion in tax increases now? Have people forgotten the Bush era tax cuts expire in 13 months? That's a trillion in tax increase across the board right there coming in 13 months unless something changes.

Funny how these things work, raise taxes with the promise of spending cuts. The only problem is, spending never gets cut. Never.

That's because the GOP only wants to cut spending on the poor and middle class.

GaryPDX: One trillion in tax increases now? Have people forgotten the Bush era tax cuts expire in 13 months? That's a trillion in tax increase across the board right there coming in 13 months unless something changes.

Funny how these things work, raise taxes with the promise of spending cuts. The only problem is, spending never gets cut. Never.

Have you forgotten the Bush era tax cuts were tax cuts?

Don't answer that, you're stupid.

sprawl15: lennavan: Keep an eye on that phrase, it is the most relevant phrase there is in these talks. The wording is always critical. The GOP is and has always been willing to get higher revenues. The GOP is and has always been willing to get higher tax revenues. But the GOP believes if you lower taxes, you will get increased revenue via increased tax revenues.

It's either that or they want to raise taxes on all those poor people who don't pay a penny in taxes*.

Sure. And when you read Dick Durbin feels the usage of the word "revenue" is significant progress, you start to think Dick Durbin is either farking stupid/naive, or he's a farking pussy. Using the word revenue is not significant progress. Democrats agreed to $1 trillion in cuts and the best Dick Durbin can say came from it is the Republicans are using the word "revenue?" God I hope someone runs against him in the primary.

GaryPDX:
Funny how these things work, raise taxes with the promise of spending cuts. The only problem is, spending never gets cut. Never.

We are sitting in the middle of a crumbling infrastructure, deteriorating environment, decimated manufacturing base, tottering economy, underfunded court system, and evaporating technological lead. And this douche is only concerned about how much billionaires get to keep out of their "profits" from the only growth industry we have: the finance sector. Gotta keep dem tax cuts!

lennavan: You should not think Republicans have agreed to ut taxes.

That's absolutely right. Additionally, even if they ever do cave and agree to raising taxes, they sure as hell won't agree to raise taxes where they really should be raised: on the wealthy and corporations (either by eliminating loopholes that are primarily used by these groups, or by raising upper-end rates). If the GOP agrees to raise taxes anytime soon, it will be on the middle class and the poor (for example, by raising Social Security tax rates, flattening the tax bracket structure (so that higher rates kick in at a lower income level), or eliminating tax credits and deductions and that benefit the middle class and poor, like the EITC or student loan interest deductions). See: Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, Rick Perry's "flat tax" proposal, etc.

holy shiat i got you good you farker

This is not "spiffy." We should be focusing on creating demand for the unused capacity of our economy, not enacting more debt austerity that depresses demand.

AntiNerd: GaryPDX:
Funny how these things work, raise taxes with the promise of spending cuts. The only problem is, spending never gets cut. Never.

We are sitting in the middle of a crumbling infrastructure, deteriorating environment, decimated manufacturing base, tottering economy, underfunded court system, and evaporating technological lead. And this douche is only concerned about how much billionaires get to keep out of their "profits" from the only growth industry we have: the finance sector. Gotta keep dem tax cuts!

I wonder if this is how it happened back in the days of decadent Rome...

Is this what provoked the era of the Emperors? Too much corruption in the Roman Senate? Too much talking while the Empire decayed?

So much gridlock and indifference in government that when one strong man took charge of the military and took over, the people 'cheered' the loss of the democracy because at least HE got things done?

I wonder sometimes.

DarnoKonrad: This is not "spiffy." We should be focusing on creating demand for the unused capacity of our economy, not enacting more debt austerity that depresses demand.

Supply side/trickle down economics will work! It just needs a little more time. 30+ years isn't enough!

I'm all for cutting taxes to the wealthy and the job creators. I mean, we've been doing that for so long now, and this country has been nothing but unicorns and rainbows thanks to the generosity, the patriotism, and the intellectual powerhouses that are America's corporations.

GaryPDX: Well, I guess if you believe it's all the governments money to begin with and not Free peoples private property.

Google 'fiat currency'.

GaryPDX: lennavan: GaryPDX: One trillion in tax increases now? Have people forgotten the Bush era tax cuts expire in 13 months? That's a trillion in tax increase across the board right there coming in 13 months unless something changes.

Funny how these things work, raise taxes with the promise of spending cuts. The only problem is, spending never gets cut. Never.

Have you forgotten the Bush era tax cuts were tax cuts?

Don't answer that, you're stupid.

Well, I guess if you believe it's all the governments money to begin with and not Free peoples private property. Now that's stupid. And BTW, my point is about spending cuts. Those NEVER happen. It's just perpetual government expansion which is bad, we can't afford it.

As long as the population continues to perpetually expand, government spending should perpetually expand (albeit perhaps at a reduced rate over time, because of the fact that the marginal cost of adding more citizens and providing them the same level of services might decrease).

If the Democrats raised taxes, is there any evidence that they won't spend the increased revenues?

Republicans care only about tax cuts for the rich and getting rid of programs they don't like that they hide behind "deficit reduction" they really don't give two shiats of reducing the deficit.

If you vote for Republicans to reduce the deficit you are an idiot. They all say they want to cut taxes and spend more on military.

Mnemia: GaryPDX: lennavan: GaryPDX: One trillion in tax increases now? Have people forgotten the Bush era tax cuts expire in 13 months? That's a trillion in tax increase across the board right there coming in 13 months unless something changes.

Funny how these things work, raise taxes with the promise of spending cuts. The only problem is, spending never gets cut. Never.

Have you forgotten the Bush era tax cuts were tax cuts?

Don't answer that, you're stupid.

Well, I guess if you believe it's all the governments money to begin with and not Free peoples private property. Now that's stupid. And BTW, my point is about spending cuts. Those NEVER happen. It's just perpetual government expansion which is bad, we can't afford it.

As long as the population continues to perpetually expand, government spending should perpetually expand (albeit perhaps at a reduced rate over time, because of the fact that the marginal cost of adding more citizens and providing them the same level of services might decrease).

There's logic in this. A built bridge is a one-time expense, but there's a certain amount of upkeep that has to be done regularly or the damned thing is going to fall into the river.

If only we had more tax cuts then the jobs would start raining from the sky!

LordJiro: DarnoKonrad: This is not "spiffy." We should be focusing on creating demand for the unused capacity of our economy, not enacting more debt austerity that depresses demand.

Supply side/trickle down economics will work! It just needs a little more time. 30+ years isn't enough!

But that's just it!! Saint Ronald of Reagan (PBUH) lowered taxes, which would have trickled wealth down on to all of us peons, but for the evil Morning Star, Bill Clinton.

This demon's tax-and-spend-happy ways caused a lost decade where there was no appreciable growth in GDP or employment rate.

Thank God for sending his Other Son, George the Bush to us. He cut taxes, rooted out evil terrorists, stuck it to the libs, and caused more trickling of wealth through the economic ladder. Which is why unemployment is so low, wages have increased year-over-year at an unprecedented rate, and Jesusis43 left office with a 60% approval rating.

dosboot: If the Democrats raised taxes, is there any evidence that they won't spend the increased revenues?

Well republicans spent more they added 700 BILLION to the deficit just months ago.
They added a TRILLION on wars
They added 1.6 TRILLION on Bush "stimulus package".
Bush Medicare expansion also added like 700 billion.

So you trust those people?

GaryPDX: And BTW, my point is about spending cuts. Those NEVER happen.

I wouldn't say never. But in part I do agree with you, I was disgusted by the waste of $1 trillion in Iraq/Afghanistan. That's why we both voted for a Democrat in the last two elections, right?

Debt austerity and tax cuts for the rich are fundamentally damaging to the economy. Right wing corporatist economic policy is completely failed. From the US to Iceland, every place these ideas have been tried they've been disastrous. Why are we still listening to these farks?

winterwhile: its not our money

it the liberals money to spend

until they run out of other folks money to spend.........

LOL INORITE, WHATS UP WITH AL GORE SPENDING OUR MONEY ON KILLING BROWN PEOPLE.

AND THEN KERRY JUST KEPT IT GOING

GaryPDX: sprawl15: GaryPDX: Well, I guess if you believe it's all the governments money to begin with and not Free peoples private property.

Google 'fiat currency'.

Just because the government dicks around with the value of the paper doesn't make it government property. Fiat currency is very bad.

Ok what should we do?

Go to the gold standard?

Let's see if you know what you are talking about:

What country owns the most gold on the planet?

What would happen to our economy if they dumped billions in gold on the market?

Was inflation MORE or less stable in the US when the dollar was connected gold or silver?

I bet you don't even have a clue to the answers to this. Most "gold standard" people have no clue about the actual details. Just because an idea "sounds good" doesn't mean it is. Look into things.

GaryPDX: Just because the government dicks around with the value of the paper doesn't make it government property.

Uh, it pretty much does. That's why defacement of currency is a crime.

GaryPDX: Fiat currency is very bad.

It is, but backing currency with something like gold is worse.

Dancin_In_Anson: 1937 called. They want their failed policy back.

0/10. Citation needed.