GOP: $4 Trillion in Savings Too Much - Persue Smaller Deal with No Tax Increases

It appears Republicans have shot down a more extensive debt limit offer by Obama (to the tune of $4 trillion) because they're unwilling to accept any tax increases or closing of loopholes as part of a package that also implements cuts in social security.

Meanwhile, it's reported that the Obama administration will continue to push the larger deal as talks resume tomorrow.

This seems to be getting rather interesting. It seems you may have been right, -Sun_Tzu, when you stated that Republicans may be unwilling to accept any form of compromise at all on this matter.

What are your thoughts, OT?

They say both sides will have to make sacrifices for this to happen

What sacrficies are the GOP actually laying on the table?

I thought Republicans were all about saving the $$$ :P

No I kid. It's all about political points.

If the U.S. defaults, the GOP will look like complete asses.

Headline: President wants to compromise, GOP says no.

I can only see how the public would react upon seeing that.

They say both sides will have to make sacrifices for this to happen

What sacrficies are the GOP actually laying on the table?

Blue-Sky

I still suggest letting the Bush tax cuts expire. That would boost revenues tremendously. Now, the republicans will have to make sure that this extra revenue isnt just spent on more programs, but rather on tackling the debt and shoring up the existing programs.

Obama shouldn't take any wages until that debt is clear.SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Obama shouldn't take any wages until that debt is clear.sonicare

There just needs to be major spending cuts.

Raising taxes if done, needs to done carefully, the economy is crappy as is. And removing more money could cause more side effects on the economy.

Canada has less debt than we do. I propose that we disguise the entire United States as Canada.

Canada has less debt than we do. I propose that we disguise the entire United States as Canada.

MetroidPrimePwn

Somebody put this guy in charge.

I still suggest letting the Bush tax cuts expire. That would boost revenues tremendously. Now, the republicans will have to make sure that this extra revenue isnt just spent on more programs, but rather on tackling the debt and shoring up the existing programs.

sonicare

That's similar to what I think. The republicans keep tax revenue from coming in, but the Democrats over-spend it if it does. Too bad things have become so partisan, or we might be able to get the best of both worlds.

I think Republicans promised not to raise taxes, and they're holding to it. Which is fine by me.

Given the amount of money printing going on, their solution to the debt crisis is probably to monetize the debt.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I still suggest letting the Bush tax cuts expire. That would boost revenues tremendously. Now, the republicans will have to make sure that this extra revenue isnt just spent on more programs, but rather on tackling the debt and shoring up the existing programs.

Bubble_Man

That's similar to what I think. The republicans keep tax revenue from coming in, but the Democrats over-spend it if it does. Too bad things have become so partisan, or we might be able to get the best of both worlds.

...im sorry but how does this make sense? :| im canadian so i may be missing something...or is the GOP just being incredibly and unreasonably stubborn?

I think Republicans promised not to raise taxes, and they're holding to it. Which is fine by me.

airshocker

...im sorry but how does this make sense? :| im canadian so i may be missing something...or is the GOP just being incredibly and unreasonably stubborn?

linkin_guy109

did you also want a party that refused to negotiate even the interest of their voters? If they had taken the deal they would have gotten massive cuts in medicare and social security to go along with massive cuts (which is something they say they want) for a fairly small percentage of tax hikes.Serraph105

What do four trillion in cuts over a decade do for me right now? Absolutely nothing.

When we're talking about a trillion or two immediately, let me know.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]did you also want a party that refused to negotiate even the interest of their voters? If they had taken the deal they would have gotten massive cuts in medicare and social security to go along with massive cuts (which is something they say they want) for a fairly small percentage of tax hikes.airshocker

What do four trillion in cuts over a decade do for me right now? Absolutely nothing.

When we're talking about a trillion or two immediately, let me know.

when that is an actual possibility without crippling the economy, you let me know. Serraph105

And four trillion in cuts over a decade is useless.

As liberals on this very forum have said, the next President or Congress can completely throw it out.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]when that is an actual possibility without crippling the economy, you let me know. airshocker

And four trillion in cuts over a decade is useless.

As liberals on this very forum have said, the next President or Congress can completely throw it out.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]when that is an actual possibility without crippling the economy, you let me know. airshocker

And four trillion in cuts over a decade is useless.

As liberals on this very forum have said, the next President or Congress can completely throw it out.

By logic, the mess we're in is unfixable in any meaningful way.

And partly I agree.

well assuming that next president is Republican, do you really think they would?Serraph105

And if Obama gets re-elected what would stop him from completely throwing it out if Republicans lose the House?

The people have to look at Greece and then empty their wallets. This debt is incredibly disastrous. If I ran a nation I wouldn't accept debt from the US

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I still suggest letting the Bush tax cuts expire. That would boost revenues tremendously. Now, the republicans will have to make sure that this extra revenue isnt just spent on more programs, but rather on tackling the debt and shoring up the existing programs.

That's similar to what I think. The republicans keep tax revenue from coming in, but the Democrats over-spend it if it does. Too bad things have become so partisan, or we might be able to get the best of both worlds.

The people have to look at Greece and then empty their wallets. This debt is incredibly disastrous. If I ran a nation I wouldn't accept debt from the US

LaytonsCat

We're actually in worst debt than greece and have none of the benefits.

It really infuriates me how uneducated the average voter is about American politics. I can't believe anyone actually believes the Republican party's claims that they're for small government and responsible spending when the Republicans are all about eliminating taxes on only the wealthiest Americans and corporations, blowing TRILLIONS of dollars on unnecessary military spending (see: F-35 program which has thus far cost the US more money than the continent of Australia is worth) while opposing public programs like healthcare that only cost mere millions or billions in comparison, and who want to legislate Pentacostal Christianity and its "morals" onto the rest of America.gameguy6700

It really infuriates me how uneducated the average voter is about American politics. I can't believe anyone actually believes the Republican party's claims that they're for small government and responsible spending when the Republicans are all about eliminating taxes on only the wealthiest Americans and corporations, blowing TRILLIONS of dollars on unnecessary military spending (see: F-35 program which has thus far cost the US more money than the continent of Australia is worth) while opposing public programs like healthcare that only cost mere millions or billions in comparison, and who want to legislate Pentacostal Christianity and its "morals" onto the rest of America.gameguy6700

It's kind of ironic that you're talking about people being uneducated when you don't back up anything in your own post.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]well assuming that next president is Republican, do you really think they would?airshocker

And if Obama gets re-elected what would stop him from completely throwing it out if Republicans lose the House?

looking at republicans though it seems more like Chris Christie's MO than Obama's........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb1n1X0Oqdw

It's dramatized and Ron Paul biased, but a good watch for anyone who wants a sum-up of just how bad things are.

has Obama ever thrown out his own legislation? Or not held up both sides when a negotiation has been made? I'm not saying your wrong, just that to my knowledge Obama's track record doesn't exactly support your theory,Serraph105

If the Democrats throw in their support for a balanced budget amendment, I'd be okay with a slight tax raise. That's the only way they'll get my support for a tax increase.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]It really infuriates me how uneducated the average voter is about American politics. I can't believe anyone actually believes the Republican party's claims that they're for small government and responsible spending when the Republicans are all about eliminating taxes on only the wealthiest Americans and corporations, blowing TRILLIONS of dollars on unnecessary military spending (see: F-35 program which has thus far cost the US more money than the continent of Australia is worth) while opposing public programs like healthcare that only cost mere millions or billions in comparison, and who want to legislate Pentacostal Christianity and its "morals" onto the rest of America.airshocker

It's kind of ironic that you're talking about people being uneducated when you don't back up anything in your own post.

So you're saying that the Republicans don't love to jack up military spending each year, have never given disproportionate tax cuts and incentives to the wealthiest 2% of Americans as well as corporations (see Regan and Bush tax cuts), do not oppose universal healthcare, have never tried to dismantle medicare/medicaid (much less not in the past six months), do not want bans on gay marriage and abortion, do not often use "the war on Christianity" as rhetoric for getting support ("our kids can't pray in schools!"), and do not have a tendency to deny evolutionary theory?

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]has Obama ever thrown out his own legislation? Or not held up both sides when a negotiation has been made? I'm not saying your wrong, just that to my knowledge Obama's track record doesn't exactly support your theory,airshocker

If the Democrats throw in their support for a balanced budget amendment, I'd be okay with a slight tax raise. That's the only way they'll get my support for a tax increase.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]has Obama ever thrown out his own legislation? Or not held up both sides when a negotiation has been made? I'm not saying your wrong, just that to my knowledge Obama's track record doesn't exactly support your theory,airshocker

If the Democrats throw in their support for a balanced budget amendment, I'd be okay with a slight tax raise. That's the only way they'll get my support for a tax increase.

I believe you. Most AMERICANS will support a tax increase.

Too bad Republicans has completely thrown it off the table. it's not even negotiable.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]well assuming that next president is Republican, do you really think they would?airshocker

And if Obama gets re-elected what would stop him from completely throwing it out if Republicans lose the House?

The filibuster, plus the fact that he then most certainly wouldn't be able to get a new package through.

I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure the people of the Roman Empire had a similar discussion 2000 years ago. We are doing a pretty good job of following their lead so far. I say keep voting for the same people over and over! It has worked well in the past.

Anyways, what is the point of a debt ceiling?

I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure the people of the Roman Empire had a similar discussion 2000 years ago. We are doing a pretty good job of following their lead so far. I say keep voting of the same people! It has worked well in the past.

Anyways, what is the point of a debt ceiling?

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]did you also want a party that refused to negotiate even the interest of their voters? If they had taken the deal they would have gotten massive cuts in medicare and social security to go along with massive cuts (which is something they say they want) for a fairly small percentage of tax hikes.airshocker

What do four trillion in cuts over a decade do for me right now? Absolutely nothing.

When we're talking about a trillion or two immediately, let me know.

So you're saying that the Republicans don't love to jack up military spending each year, have never given disproportionate tax cuts and incentives to the wealthiest 2% of Americans as well as corporations (see Regan and Bush tax cuts), do not oppose universal healthcare, have never tried to dismantle medicare/medicaid (much less not in the past six months), do not want bans on gay marriage and abortion, do not often use "the war on Christianity" as rhetoric for getting support ("our kids can't pray in schools!"), and do not have a tendency to deny evolutionary theory?

gameguy6700

Last time I checked the last tax cuts we got were the Bush tax cuts, and they affect everyone. Perhaps you should see them?

Our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world, and Democrats also approve of the loopholes that allowed GE to pay nothing in taxes. Pot calling kettle black.

No universal healthcare and a dismantling of the current welfare system doesn't sound too bad to me, to be honest. That's all subjective.

How does wanting someone's child to be able to pray in school equate to Republicans wanting to force Christianity on the rest of America? You're grasping at straws.

So you're in favor of throwing out a larger deal in favor of a smaller deal because the larger deal isn't big enough?mattbbpl

I thought I was pretty clear in what I wanted.

I want an immediate cut of a trillion dollars or more. Then we can talk about the next decade,

[QUOTE="linkin_guy109"]

...im sorry but how does this make sense? :| im canadian so i may be missing something...or is the GOP just being incredibly and unreasonably stubborn?

mattbbpl

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]did you also want a party that refused to negotiate even the interest of their voters? If they had taken the deal they would have gotten massive cuts in medicare and social security to go along with massive cuts (which is something they say they want) for a fairly small percentage of tax hikes.airshocker

What do four trillion in cuts over a decade do for me right now? Absolutely nothing.

When we're talking about a trillion or two immediately, let me know.

Yeah, its not like 4 trillion over 10 years will help me at all, nah. Let the US default just to make those pesky liberals see who's boss! Who cares about what may happen to the economy as long as we make the liberals look stupid! It's not like letting the US default will create a domino effect of rising interest rates and the possible crash of the world's stock markets! Nah, that'll never happen.

What do you support then? Cutting everything? Even that oh so precious military budget? What about increasing taxes for the top 2%? Oh, wait still believing in that fairy tale that rich people magically hand out jobs when given more money, my bad.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]So you're in favor of throwing out a larger deal in favor of a smaller deal because the larger deal isn't big enough?airshocker

I thought I was pretty clear in what I wanted.

I want an immediate cut of a trillion dollars or more. Then we can talk about the next decade,

Canada has less debt than we do. I propose that we disguise the entire United States as Canada.

MetroidPrimePwn

Actually, I'm still in favor of letting Octavia wipe out our national debt :P

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]So you're in favor of throwing out a larger deal in favor of a smaller deal because the larger deal isn't big enough?mattbbpl

I thought I was pretty clear in what I wanted.

I want an immediate cut of a trillion dollars or more. Then we can talk about the next decade,

mattbbpl has a point actually. Obama's plan would roughly save 400 billion a year and the Republican plan would save 200 billion a year. That would make Obama's plan closer to what you currently want.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]did you also want a party that refused to negotiate even the interest of their voters? If they had taken the deal they would have gotten massive cuts in medicare and social security to go along with massive cuts (which is something they say they want) for a fairly small percentage of tax hikes.carrot-cake

What do four trillion in cuts over a decade do for me right now? Absolutely nothing.

When we're talking about a trillion or two immediately, let me know.

Yeah, its not like 4 trillion over 10 years will help me at all, nah. Let the US default just to make those pesky liberals see who's boss! Who cares about what may happen to the economy as long as we make the liberals look stupid! It's not like letting the US default will create a domino effect of rising interest rates and the possible crash of the world's stock markets! Nah, that'll never happen.

What do you support then? Cutting everything? Even that oh so precious military budget? What about increasing taxes for the top 2%? Oh, wait still believing in that fairy tale that rich people magically hand out jobs when given more money, my bad.

I think he is trying to tell you guys that many people do not have the foresight nor the patience to agree with anything that does not help them NOW. Ignorant people only care about the present, and neglect the future because it's "later on" or "doesn't do anything for me now". If this "now now now, me me me" mentality becomes dominant, it will bring about the collapse of not only the U.S. , but modern civilization as well. I doubt this will happen soon but hey, who ever thought that man could harness the power of the sun and become cabable of destroying itself within one century?