Both sides claim the other won't compromise...
Yet the fact is, only ONE side has signed a pledge that states they refuse to compromise on certain aspects. I find it funny how any Republican supporter can claim that it is Democrats who are being unsupportive when Democrats have signed no pledge against tax cuts yet ever Republican candidate for the presidency claimed they would walk away from a deal that would see $10 cut for every $1 of tax rises [link] When have Democrats ever said they would walk away from such a deal?
There is clearly one side that has no interest in dialogue and to pretend otherwise is just dishonest. Show any Democrat pledge against spending cuts, show any Democrats that would walk away from a 10-1 deal in their favour.
Now the presidential race is over, the whole joke of Republicans digging their heels in and flat out refusing any sort of compromise has started all over. The stupidity of it is that if they don't reach an agreement then the Bush tax cuts will automatically expire and taxes will rise ANYWAY.
There is clearly one side that has no interest in dialogue and to pretend otherwise is just dishonest. Show any Democrat pledge against spending cuts, show any Democrats that would walk away from a 10-1 deal in their favour.
Now the presidential race is over, the whole joke of Republicans digging their heels in and flat out refusing any sort of compromise has started all over. The stupidity of it is that if they don't reach an agreement then the Bush tax cuts will automatically expire and taxes will rise ANYWAY.
Comments169
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
and you say this as if the pledge wasn't set in place because of the other sides unwillingness to compromise on their nonsense about how taxing the living heck out of the rich will magically fix everything.
cause it wont... it just wont...
cause it wont... it just wont...
Lol don't try that defence. Republicans haven't voted for tax rises since the 90's and this pledge was just a written re-confirmation of that. Your argument doesn't hold water. Also the Dems are proposing returning to Clinton era tax levels, that is not "taxing the living hell" out of the rich. To put things in perspective, my dad is taxed more as a % than the US rich are and he earns £50k. He has not had the living hell taxed out of him so that's pure bollocks. Americans have no concept of what heavy taxation actually is nor can they comprehend that the rich won't suddenly stop using their money when taxed more.
give a liberal an inch and they'll take away the debt ceiling!
You mean as if anybody ever cared about the debt ceiling before Obama took office?
first of all SIXTEEN POINT FOUR TRILLION!!!
secondly he's not exactly getting rid of it... he wants to get rid of congresses roll in raising of the debt ceiling. effectively "once again" bypassing congress in matters of federal interest...
they should just bump our credit rating down a couple notches regardless of what happens anyway. this country doesn't deserves to keep the AAA rating it has now... it's not like we'll ever repay china and whoever else the heck we own money to anyways.
secondly he's not exactly getting rid of it... he wants to get rid of congresses roll in raising of the debt ceiling. effectively "once again" bypassing congress in matters of federal interest...
they should just bump our credit rating down a couple notches regardless of what happens anyway. this country doesn't deserves to keep the AAA rating it has now... it's not like we'll ever repay china and whoever else the heck we own money to anyways.
first of all SIXTEEN POINT FOUR TRILLION!!!</i>
And what does that mean, honestly? What was the threshold number before "trillions of dollars in debt" was a serious problem?
he wants to get rid of congresses roll in raising of the debt ceiling.
And no wonder; with a hostile minority party who wants to hold the federal budget hostage in order to have their way, it's only reasonable to try and work around them. I certainly don't like it myself for the same reasons, but I don't like the idea of defaulting on our debt even more.
they should just bump our credit rating down a couple notches regardless of what happens anyway.
The credit rating is absolute bullshit, full stop. We only lost our AAA rating last year or so, I believe, not because of our deficit or anything, but because of the same fucking around going on now. It's pretty much arbitrary.
And what does that mean, honestly? What was the threshold number before "trillions of dollars in debt" was a serious problem?
he wants to get rid of congresses roll in raising of the debt ceiling.
And no wonder; with a hostile minority party who wants to hold the federal budget hostage in order to have their way, it's only reasonable to try and work around them. I certainly don't like it myself for the same reasons, but I don't like the idea of defaulting on our debt even more.
they should just bump our credit rating down a couple notches regardless of what happens anyway.
The credit rating is absolute bullshit, full stop. We only lost our AAA rating last year or so, I believe, not because of our deficit or anything, but because of the same fucking around going on now. It's pretty much arbitrary.
[link]
the republicans are walking away from their tax pledge. I hope this is a greater sign that partisan hand wringing and greater douchebaggery are behind us.
the republicans are walking away from their tax pledge. I hope this is a greater sign that partisan hand wringing and greater douchebaggery are behind us.
We shall see.
nobody wants to admit that socialism has failed...to many people eating for free...to many women dropping babies they dont' want to work to feed. California is paying welfare to half the population of Mexico...Big Brother dooling out trillions to a healthcare system that is so overpriced and bloated its stupid.
Democrats refuse to stop the handouts cause they need them to buy votes...no body is stupid enough to vote for them based on their policies.
Democrats refuse to stop the handouts cause they need them to buy votes...no body is stupid enough to vote for them based on their policies.
Democrats are refusing to put spending cuts on the table just as firmly as Republicans are refusing to allow tax increases. Throw out ALL the bums. 
Oh, well except Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Paul Ryan.
Oh, well except Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Paul Ryan.
Silly, didn't you know that to offer more spending and 100% tax increases means you are compromising when you retract that to slight spending cuts and 80% tax increase. See.....we compromised....why don't they accept it?
The tea party happies aren't talking about tax hikes either. The only tax hikes the Dems are asking is from the richest 1-2%. They want to give everybody else tax cuts. I don't see how that isn't compromising...
Did you know that if the wealthiest 1% of Americans was taxed at a rate of 100%, it would only cover the deficit for about 30 days? It's not a solution to the problem we're facing. That is why Republicans are so opposed to tax cuts. It isn't because they just love rich people (eight of the ten wealthiest counties in America voted for Obama), it's because it would not help the deficit in any way, and it would actually hurt the economy tremendously. They wealthy in this country also happen to be the job creators and the employers. If they have less money, then they can't afford to hire as many people or pay their employees as much.
This has been proven to be false time and time again. Just because they have more money, doesn't mean they'll use it on more jobs or paying their employees. In fact, they certainly won't pay their employees more as that would not be maximizing profits.
And what makes you think those people will spend more on creating jobs and rising wages after being taxed higher?
I don't think they will. That's not the goal of taxing them higher.
And what is?
I know the answer - more governmental spending. You see, the problem is, governmental spending is inefficient. Business owners depend their well-being on how is their business doing, so they are really careful and thoughtful on spending. Some clerk in a federal agency gets his wage anyway, so he doesn't care so much on what he is spending money - it's not his money, so he doesn't suffer when his ideas fail.
I know the answer - more governmental spending. You see, the problem is, governmental spending is inefficient. Business owners depend their well-being on how is their business doing, so they are really careful and thoughtful on spending. Some clerk in a federal agency gets his wage anyway, so he doesn't care so much on what he is spending money - it's not his money, so he doesn't suffer when his ideas fail.
View all replies
Proven false by who? How can anyone know what they would do with their money if they had more of it?
By history. Taxes on the wealthy are certainly not as high as they once were, yet we have not seen a surge in jobs.
You need to understand that corporations are out to do one thing and one thing only: make money. Just because they have more cash on hand, does not mean they'll invest it in jobs. They'll do what they believe enhances their profits the most and that often is not jobs or better pay.
In addition, most of these wealthy CEOs are so very wealthy that they could readily create jobs or expand if they really wanted to without these tax cuts.
You need to understand that corporations are out to do one thing and one thing only: make money. Just because they have more cash on hand, does not mean they'll invest it in jobs. They'll do what they believe enhances their profits the most and that often is not jobs or better pay.
In addition, most of these wealthy CEOs are so very wealthy that they could readily create jobs or expand if they really wanted to without these tax cuts.
:sigh: Sorry, I let myself get off topic. Maybe they wouldn't create more jobs, maybe they would. But that does not matter. The money belongs to them, and just because your heart is bleeding for all the poor unfortunate souls who don't have nearly as much as these evil CEOs (I count myself in this group of "unfortunates," but I don't whine about rich people all day), the money is still theirs.
You yourself do not have the authority to take the money from them and give it to someone else, and since government is nothing but an extension of the power of the people, the government has no right to do this either.
You yourself do not have the authority to take the money from them and give it to someone else, and since government is nothing but an extension of the power of the people, the government has no right to do this either.
View all replies
I don't mean the national debt, I mean the deficit, or the yearly gap between spending and revenue which is what is driving the debt up so quickly. A 100% tax on the wealthiest 1% would cover that gap for (I think it was) about 30 days, but wouldn't help pay down the debt at all.
(I mean, I agree with your point, but it's much worse than that)
Income disparity has grown sharply since the days the wealthy were ever harshly taxed. If they're not going to create jobs with all that money they have now, they're never going to.
Besides, if Republicans really cared about the deficit as you say, they wouldn't be overlooking our bloated military spending in favor of cutting things like the miniscule PBS budget.
Besides, if Republicans really cared about the deficit as you say, they wouldn't be overlooking our bloated military spending in favor of cutting things like the miniscule PBS budget.