You do realize Obama offered Boehner $10 in spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and the speaker of the house refused. If you can't compromise with a 10 to 1 favor then you obviously have no intention of doing any work.
Hikes in the actual tax rates are non-negotiable. It would completely violate the basic principles of every Republican, conservative, and libertarian. It's not compromise if you're deliberately violating the principles of the people you're trying to bargain with.
Obama doesn't want compromise. He just wants to make a show of it, but ensure that the deal is too poisonous for the Republicans to touch. If he actually wanted to compromise, he would offer Boehner the same plan with additional revenue through elimination of tax credits and deductions, rather than through hikes in the marginal tax rates. Obama is one of the shittiest leaders this country has ever had.
Dude you are the biggest bullshitter, the only reason republicans refuse to raise taxes is to appease their campaign contributors. They have been given overwhelming favor in negotiations and absolutely refuse to negotiate. Obama gives them ten to one favor and they still refuse to cooperate, there's nothing they can do about that. And I'm fully aware of what Americans for Prosperity is and why it's destroying this country.
It's the kind of plan we often see in Belgium. Personally, I think the USA has become too divided because of the two party system. It's become an Us vs Them thing rather than electing the most capable government. Because of that, the people are quick to demonize the other party instead of trying to understand where they're coming from. That makes compromises very hard to pull off for today's politicians. It's quite a distressing social evolution.
Belgium is strictly ruled by coalitions. We don't have parties capable of ruling alone due to the multi-party system. It's actually more complicated than that, since we're also a country in different parts with separate governments and one federate government as well. The federate government consists of both the elected French and Dutch parties from the Walloons and the Flemish, which sometimes leads to rather interesting combinations of ideologies. [link] [link]
Due to this though, there's less polarisation, and parties are often capable of reaching compromises, though it limits certain decisions. Taxes are a very touchy subject, for example. The only party excluded from this trend is the Vlaams Belang, an extreme right party. No one wants to work together with them for historic reasons. (They were openly racist and we wanted to push Belgium as a multicultural country) [link]
Basically, Belgium is like a small version of Europe. It may be functional, but it is slow.
Ah yes, the deadlock was actually over an issue that mattered to no one but politicians. There were a number of Flemish cities nearby Brussels where the French speaking people could vote for the Walloon parties, but the same did not count for Dutch speakers in similar Walloon cities. The info on that is shortlisted here: [link]
The funny part is that while we spent years without a functional federal government, the country simply continued to run as if nothing happened. Then again, we had the other governments to count on. Redundancy works.
On the one hand, yeah, you're right. On the other hand, the tax deduction powers put a lot of money indirectly under the government's control. So the net result of this plan would be to take all the money they're indirectly controlling, and give them direct control over some of it while completely removing their control over most of it.
snuffles11Featured By OwnerNov 15, 2012Hobbyist General Artist
As you asked, here I am.
I have no great surety that anybody would do this. Or that if they did, they'd do it to be "first" and grab political points to show that the other side wouldn't compromise. It's pretty polarized right now.
Also, this is very similar to Mitt Romney's proposal, except instead of proposing a massive tax cut and hoping the revenue adds up, we're letting the amount of revenue we can raise define how big the cuts are. Plus, Romney's plan was supposed to be revenue-neutral, whereas this plan would be revenue-positive.
To give an example of how this would work, suppose the Democrats choose to eliminate a certain donation tax credit that mainly affects people in the top two tax brackets. This is calculated by the CBO to bring in $100 billion in additional revenue over the next 10 years, 40% of which is from the 33% bracket, and 60% of which is from the 35% bracket. This plan would then require that the 33% rate be cut down enough to return $20 billion to that bracket over the next 10 years, and the 35% rate would be cut down enough to return $30 billion to them.
If a higher rate is cut down enough to pass a lower rate, then the two brackets are simply merged.
This would eliminate quite a few special interests and make the way we support the government far more egalitarian, while giving people more control over their own money.