Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    07 Jun '11 13:19
    Everyone agrees the federal budget deficit is insane. But how to fix it? Dems want only take hikes and long term increasing spending (with short term insignificant "show" cuts). Republicans want no tax cuts at all and just slash and burn social spending.

    Why can't these idiots realize that BOTH are needed? Taxes have to be raised at least to Clinton levels and some benefits, ESPECIALLY social security and government sponsored elder care, are going to have to be cut.

    Everyone seems to have some good ideas, but no one is willing to listen to the other guy's idea.

    Aren't we all reasonable people here?

    Let's do this.

    1) Let all parties agree in principal that the other guy has some good ideas too

    2) Let all parties agree in principal that they can't get EVERYTHING they want in a long term budget plan

    3) Get 6 people in a room:

    1) Barack Obama
    2) Harry Reid
    3) Chris Van Hollen

    4) Pat Toomey
    5) Paul Ryan
    6) John Boehner

    (you can pick and substitute; I'm just throwing some names out there.)

    7) Some highly respected mediator (Larry Summers, perhaps) to officiate the proceedings.

    Lock the door. Nobody goes in and out except to deliver food and water until ALL SEVEN people agree on a long term budget balancing proposal.

    The proposal is written up and and analyzed to death by every armchair expert in the country for a week and then both Houses have an up or down vote on it. No riders. No amendments. No pork. Up or down. Period.

    If up, great.

    If not, try again.

    Do this twice a month until you pass something.
  2. 07 Jun '11 18:18
    Originally posted by sh76
    Everyone agrees the federal budget deficit is insane. But how to fix it? Dems want only take hikes and long term increasing spending (with short term insignificant "show" cuts). Republicans want no tax cuts at all and just slash and burn social spending.

    Why can't these idiots realize that BOTH are needed? Taxes have to be raised at least to Clinton levels a ...[text shortened]...
    If up, great.

    If not, try again.

    Do this twice a month until you pass something.
    Is it too cynical to think that the reason we don't have a fix is because people really would prefer the staus quo for as long as possible even if it is not sustainable?

    Some people simply do not want to pay more taxes, so if they have to, eventually they will pay more but certainly will not look to rush tax increases. Others group of people really want their benefits at the current level and, if they have to be cut at some point, they certainly would like to wait as long as possible.
  3. 07 Jun '11 18:26
    Originally posted by sh76
    Everyone agrees the federal budget deficit is insane. But how to fix it? Dems want only take hikes and long term increasing spending (with short term insignificant "show" cuts). Republicans want no tax cuts at all and just slash and burn social spending.

    Why can't these idiots realize that BOTH are needed? Taxes have to be raised at least to Clinton levels a ...[text shortened]...
    If up, great.

    If not, try again.

    Do this twice a month until you pass something.
    You might as well get Uther, Spleepy guy, FMF, and Marauder in a room to come up with a budget.

    Personally, I don't think either party really cares even though they may proport to care. The name of the game is to keep taxes low and entitlements and benefits coming. That is the winning formula to getting elected and ballooning deficits.
  4. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    07 Jun '11 19:15
    Originally posted by sh76
    Why can't these idiots realize that BOTH are needed? [...] Everyone seems to have some good ideas, but no one is willing to listen to the other guy's idea. [...] 3) Get 6 people in a room [...]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform
  5. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    07 Jun '11 19:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    You might as well get Uther, Spleepy guy, FMF, and Marauder in a room to come up with a budget.
    I think we'd have a better chance with that group than with a bunch of pols positioning themselves for re-election.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    07 Jun '11 19:26
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform
    Just like Grandpa Simpson....


    no teeth
  7. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    07 Jun '11 19:29
    Originally posted by sh76
    no teeth
    You don't think they went far enough, or you don't think they had enough support to accomplish what they set out to?
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    07 Jun '11 19:33
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    You don't think they went far enough, or you don't think they had enough support to accomplish what they set out to?
    The latter; plus once you allow amendments before an up or down vote, the whole thing becomes an irrelevant pork-fest.
  9. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    07 Jun '11 19:36
    Originally posted by sh76
    The latter; plus once you allow amendments before an up or down vote, the whole thing becomes an irrelevant pork-fest.
    From the link:

    "The original proposal for a commission came from bipartisan legislation that would have required Congress to vote on its recommendations as presented, without any amendment. In January 2010, that bill failed in the Senate by a vote of 53-46, when six Republicans who had co-sponsored it nevertheless voted against it."

    FWIW, this is the first time I'd read this, too.
  10. Standard member DrKF
    incipit parodia
    07 Jun '11 19:59
    While I think consensus politics tends to enhance democracy in a multi-party system, I think there's an inherent danger to functioning democracy in overly bi-partisan decision-making in 2-party states. Consensual politics then becomes more and more technocratic; politicians, tinkering around the middle and playing with established rules and conventions become more like the civil servants they are supposed to manage. Innovation is de-incentivised, indeed almost structurally excluded.

    Democratic politics should be about the competition of ideas if it is to be worthy of the name. (I have a general complaint about even healthily competitive democracies tending towards a bureaucratised middle; I just think this sort of thing would only make it worse.) Our anti-statist nutjobs would, rightly for once, be up in arms.

    I know you're just trying to think through the weird, long-term and damaging gridlock in American politics, but I think if there is a solution it will have to be structural and radical. If the US is slouching towards becoming an illiberal democracy, don't take actions to damage the democracy.

    (*contains needless provocation)
  11. 07 Jun '11 20:38
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    when six Republicans who had co-sponsored it nevertheless voted against it.
    Shocking.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    07 Jun '11 21:52
    Originally posted by sh76
    Everyone agrees the federal budget deficit is insane. But how to fix it? Dems want only take hikes and long term increasing spending (with short term insignificant "show" cuts). Republicans want no tax cuts at all and just slash and burn social spending.

    Why can't these idiots realize that BOTH are needed? Taxes have to be raised at least to Clinton levels a ...[text shortened]...
    If up, great.

    If not, try again.

    Do this twice a month until you pass something.
    Tim Pawlenty figured it all out, so there's no need: http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news/economy/pawlenty_economic_plan/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    07 Jun '11 22:13
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Tim Pawlenty figured it all out, so there's no need: http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news/economy/pawlenty_economic_plan/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1
    TimPaw FTW!
  14. 08 Jun '11 02:11
    Originally posted by DrKF
    Our anti-statist nutjobs would, rightly for once, be up in arms.
    You rang?

    BTW, where in the ##@@ did the term "up in arms" come from? As you say, I'm rightly up in arms but have no idea how this happened or even how to get out of this position.

    Heeeelp!!!
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    08 Jun '11 04:19
    Originally posted by sh76
    Just like Grandpa Simpson....


    no teeth
    In a properly functioning social democracy, teeth would be provided to all who need them.