For anti-Trump conservatives like BigDave and myself...

[RiverguyVT]

I see what you are doing here. - Do you, now? Apparently not. I asked a pretty simple question, since you made the bold statement that "...the TP faction of the GOP will not compromise..." You couldn't answer it. I doubt anyone can, because "compromise" carries a different definition depending upon whether one is a liberal or a conservative.

Liberal: R compromise means for the R's to simply give in to what the D's want.
Conservative: R compromise means to meet the D's half-way on a piece of legislation.

R's have been rolling over for years & years. I can't think of a single time that D's have met the R's half-way on anything. Short of total capitulation, R's aren't compromising as D's see the word.

I did answer your question. During the "Grand Bargain" negotiations, the Dems offered spending cuts to liberal programs such as SS. That is meeting the Rs halfway. But is was the R's that scuttled the deal because they did not want to meet then Dems halfway.

Let's be very clear - to really meet then Dems halfway on anything would require a tax increase. The Dems would have to agree to social spending cuts and the GOP would have to agree to a tax increase. I have shown you an example of when Dems have been willing to reduce social spending. The evidence is very clear that the GOP will never compromise on taxes. So what is this foolishness you seem to be arguing about Dems never compromising?

The Grand Bargain doesn't count- There was no compromise. The deal fell apart. You can see it the dems' way (that the evil R's wouldn't meet the D's half way) but the R version of why the deal fell short was that the goalposts were moved, the D's were dishonest, and would not meet the R's half way.

I want 2 instances where the D's compromised, came off point, and met the R's half-way. There aren't any. You gave one example where there was no compromise.
Basically anything congress has passed the last 20 years is representative of R's meeting the D's on D terms. How about a case where the D's met the R's on R terms? There aren't any.

It is a complete fallacy to say the R's don't compromise. It is the D's who don't. This is why the R party is being turned over, and the D party is going even harder left.

[Hokie CPA]

Like I said above... the Dems still owe the Reps for SEVERAL ROUNDS of spending increases/tax increase for promised future cuts which never materialized. The fact is, the government collects enough. It collects MORE than enough to pay for all things it is required to do. The budget needs to be balanced at this point on spending cuts. Dems just got their tax increase a couple of years ago.

Well... that's your opinion. But as a negotiating strategy - which is what this thread is about - it lacks realism. The "I gave in last time, it's your turn" strategy wouldn't work anywhere.

As for taxes... what the government is REQUIRED to do is of no consequence. Taxes are not high enough to cover the services Americans want and expect from their government - hence, the deficit. Social security, Medicare, Welfare, Transportation Programs, many things are not required. So?

I think you hit the nail on the head with your repetition of the GOP mantra: "The budget needs to be balanced at this point on spending cuts." This is not meeting the Dems halfway. What do you expect to happen? The Dems offer SS cuts and the GOP matches them with Welfare cuts? LOL Welcome to Fantasy Island

How about the Dems offer SS/MC cuts and the Reps answer with military cuts? We could balance the budget by cutting $350 billion from each of Military and Social Security/Medicare.

Or, even better -- Cut the Military by $100 billion per year for 4 years, cut SS/MC by $70 billion per year for 4 years, and freeze all other budgeted spending increase until such time as revenues catch up and the budget is balanced?

[VoiceOfReason]

The Grand Bargain doesn't count- There was no compromise. The deal fell apart. You can see it the dems' way (that the evil R's wouldn't meet the D's half way) but the R version of why the deal fell short was that the goalposts were moved, the D's were dishonest, and would not meet the R's half way.

I want 2 instances where the D's compromised, came off point, and met the R's half-way. There aren't any. You gave one example where there was no compromise.
Basically anything congress has passed the last 20 years is representative of R's meeting the D's on D terms. How about a case where the D's met the R's on R terms? There aren't any.

It is a complete fallacy to say the R's don't compromise. It is the D's who don't. This is why the R party is being turned over, and the D party is going even harder left.

I disagree. You are spouting the GOP party line. You asked for an example of the Dems compromising and I gave it to you. You also admit the GOP scuttled the deal... but this "moving goalposts" is GOP face saving nonsense.

Can I give you an example of real compromise that was enacted? No, and you cannot either. Because the two parties have not been able to compromise - which is kind of the point of the thread.

You take issue with me laying more of the blame with the GOP... but the facts for this are simple.

FACT: Real compromise between Dem & GOP cannot take place without real, meaningful spending cuts on social programs (Dems) and tax increases focused primarily on the wealthy (GOP). There is no other way. Doing it without tax increases is not a compromise - it would be the GOP shoving something down the Dems throats. (Which you would love... but it's not compromise, lol)

FACT: GOP currently will not entertain one penny of tax increase.

So you tell me... where is the room for GOP compromise?

[Hokie CPA]

The Grand Bargain doesn't count- There was no compromise. The deal fell apart. You can see it the dems' way (that the evil R's wouldn't meet the D's half way) but the R version of why the deal fell short was that the goalposts were moved, the D's were dishonest, and would not meet the R's half way.

I want 2 instances where the D's compromised, came off point, and met the R's half-way. There aren't any. You gave one example where there was no compromise.
Basically anything congress has passed the last 20 years is representative of R's meeting the D's on D terms. How about a case where the D's met the R's on R terms? There aren't any.

It is a complete fallacy to say the R's don't compromise. It is the D's who don't. This is why the R party is being turned over, and the D party is going even harder left.

I disagree. You are spouting the GOP party line. You asked for an example of the Dems compromising and I gave it to you. You also admit the GOP scuttled the deal... but this "moving goalposts" is GOP face saving nonsense.

Can I give you an example of real compromise that was enacted? No, and you cannot either. Because the two parties have not been able to compromise - which is kind of the point of the thread.

You take issue with me laying more of the blame with the GOP... but the facts for this are simple.

FACT: Real compromise between Dem & GOP cannot take place without real, meaningful spending cuts on social programs (Dems) and tax increases focused primarily on the wealthy (GOP). There is no other way. Doing it without tax increases is not a compromise - it would be the GOP shoving something down the Dems throats. (Which you would love... but it's not compromise, lol)

FACT: GOP currently will not entertain one penny of tax increase.

So you tell me... where is the room for GOP compromise?

The Tax Increases already happened. Remember? A couple of years ago? The top rate went from 35% to 39.6%, which is right where it was when the GOP Congress and Bill Clinton almost balanced the budget in 2000. That 39.6% top rate on the wealthiest of Americans seems to be the sweet spot. I don't think taxes need to go up any further, nor do they necessarily need to be cut. The revenue side is set. Balancing needs to be done by making cuts, most of which need to be to military and SS/MC.

[VoiceOfReason]

How about the Dems offer SS/MC cuts and the Reps answer with military cuts? We could balance the budget by cutting $350 billion from each of Military and Social Security/Medicare.

Or, even better -- Cut the Military by $100 billion per year for 4 years, cut SS/MC by $70 billion per year for 4 years, and freeze all other budgeted spending increase until such time as revenues catch up and the budget is balanced?

From a math standpoint, that's the only possible way to do this without increasing taxes. But would either side be willing to make these cuts and what would be the impacts? I don't know the answers to the following questions, but these would be critical to the viability of your compromise:

1) How can we cut $350B from SS? Raise the eligibility age even more? Reduce benefits? Would there be grandfathering? Means testing? The details are critical because this is a very popular service to all citizens.

2) How can we cut $350B from Medicare? Price reductions to providers? Not covering certain types of care? Restricting access? The country is moving to a thought process of more coverage, not less... so the details are also critical.

3) How can we cut $700B from defense? GOP candidates are calling for increases and claiming today's spending levels put the Country at risk. How can we implement these cuts without endangering national defense... or how much risk is reasonable to accept?

If there are easy answers to these questions that keep us safe and do not throw grandma out on the street, then great! Let's get it done! If not, there are so many political land mines for both parties here that neither have the stomach for.

[RiverguyVT]

[
I disagree. You are spouting the GOP party line. You asked for an example of the Dems compromising and I gave it to you. You also admit the GOP scuttled the deal... but this "moving goalposts" is GOP face saving nonsense.

Can I give you an example of real compromise that was enacted? No, and you cannot either. Because the two parties have not been able to compromise - which is kind of the point of the thread.

You take issue with me laying more of the blame with the GOP... but the facts for this are simple.

FACT: Real compromise between Dem & GOP cannot take place without real, meaningful spending cuts on social programs (Dems) and tax increases focused primarily on the wealthy (GOP). There is no other way. Doing it without tax increases is not a compromise - it would be the GOP shoving something down the Dems throats. (Which you would love... but it's not compromise, lol)

FACT: GOP currently will not entertain one penny of tax increase.

So you tell me... where is the room for GOP compromise?

You are spouting the GOP party line. - And you're spouting the Socialist Democrat party line. Welcome to the Thunderdome, Voice.
You asked for an example of the Dems compromising and I gave it to you. - there was no deal. So, there was no compromise. ...Next!
You also admit the GOP scuttled the deal - I did? Where?
but this "moving goalposts" is GOP face saving nonsense. - Opinion. And also requires buying the Socialist Dem party line to believe that. Are you 100% positive the Dems didn't change the deal that was being struck? If not, you really can't say what you just said.
Can I give you an example of real compromise that was enacted? No, and you cannot either. Because the two parties have not been able to compromise - which is kind of the point of the thread. - Well, the thread has morphed into this now. Your claim was that one party would not compromise, while the other would. You cannot back that claim up. Period.
Doing it without tax increases is not a compromise - I would think increasing tax revenues would matter more, but that's just me.
it would be the GOP shoving something down the Dems throats - and again I ask...when has that happened in the last umpteen years?
GOP currently will not entertain one penny of tax increase. So you tell me... where is the room for GOP compromise? - funny, the GOP has done a lot to impose more fees upon us. Compromise- again, does a high tax rate send a tingle down your leg, or does increased tax revenue get the job done? There's a difference, ya know.

[VoiceOfReason]

The Tax Increases already happened. Remember? A couple of years ago? The top rate went from 35% to 39.6%, which is right where it was when the GOP Congress and Bill Clinton almost balanced the budget in 2000. That 39.6% top rate on the wealthiest of Americans seems to be the sweet spot. I don't think taxes need to go up any further, nor do they necessarily need to be cut. The revenue side is set. Balancing needs to be done by making cuts, most of which need to be to military and SS/MC.

Are you referring to when Obama made the temporary Bush tax cuts permanent for 98% of us. But let the top 2% expire? Oh please...

I think we both agree that business as usual will not get the job done. The reason why tax increases must be included is both math and politics. Even if you can find enough cuts to make the math work without tax increases - which would be difficult - you can't ignore the politics.

In order for this to get done, both the liberals and the conservatives need to feel pain. Neither side can risk screwing over their own base, while the other side skates free. Both sides need to feel screwed - so that neither side gains a political advantage to "doing the right thing" and finally balancing a budget. I'm not saying that's how things SHOULD work... but in this case, that's the only way I can see it getting done.

[Hokie CPA]

How about the Dems offer SS/MC cuts and the Reps answer with military cuts? We could balance the budget by cutting $350 billion from each of Military and Social Security/Medicare.

Or, even better -- Cut the Military by $100 billion per year for 4 years, cut SS/MC by $70 billion per year for 4 years, and freeze all other budgeted spending increase until such time as revenues catch up and the budget is balanced?

From a math standpoint, that's the only possible way to do this without increasing taxes. But would either side be willing to make these cuts and what would be the impacts? I don't know the answers to the following questions, but these would be critical to the viability of your compromise:

1) How can we cut $350B from SS? Raise the eligibility age even more? Reduce benefits? Would there be grandfathering? Means testing? The details are critical because this is a very popular service to all citizens.

2) How can we cut $350B from Medicare? Price reductions to providers? Not covering certain types of care? Restricting access? The country is moving to a thought process of more coverage, not less... so the details are also critical.

3) How can we cut $700B from defense? GOP candidates are calling for increases and claiming today's spending levels put the Country at risk. How can we implement these cuts without endangering national defense... or how much risk is reasonable to accept?

If there are easy answers to these questions that keep us safe and do not throw grandma out on the street, then great! Let's get it done! If not, there are so many political land mines for both parties here that neither have the stomach for.

1... I would say increasing the eligibility age to 68 immediately and then having it increase by 1 every three years (until such time as eligibility age = average life expectancy-3) would have to be a mandatory step. If you're currently drawing SS and under the age of 68, you're grandfathered in. Everybody else must wait.

2 and 3) Your numbers are too big. The entire deficit is a hair under $700 billion. The cut would be $350B from military, and split the other $350B between SS/MC as you see fit. maybe you cut SS by $300B and Medicare by only $50B?

I reckon you skipped over the other suggestion:

Cut the Military by $100 billion per year for 4 years, cut SS/MC by $70 billion per year for 4 years, and freeze all other budgeted spending increase until such time as revenues catch up and the budget is balanced?

I think that would be an easier pill to swallow. The only problem is, it goes over more than one Congress and requires discipline in the next Congress to stick to it.

[VoiceOfReason]

You are spouting the GOP party line. - And you're spouting the Socialist Democrat party line. Welcome to the Thunderdome, Voice.
You asked for an example of the Dems compromising and I gave it to you. - there was no deal. So, there was no compromise. ...Next!
You also admit the GOP scuttled the deal - I did? Where?
but this "moving goalposts" is GOP face saving nonsense. - Opinion. And also requires buying the Socialist Dem party line to believe that. Are you 100% positive the Dems didn't change the deal that was being struck? If not, you really can't say what you just said.
Can I give you an example of real compromise that was enacted? No, and you cannot either. Because the two parties have not been able to compromise - which is kind of the point of the thread. - Well, the thread has morphed into this now. Your claim was that one party would not compromise, while the other would. You cannot back that claim up. Period.
Doing it without tax increases is not a compromise - I would think increasing tax revenues would matter more, but that's just me.
it would be the GOP shoving something down the Dems throats - and again I ask...when has that happened in the last umpteen years?
GOP currently will not entertain one penny of tax increase. So you tell me... where is the room for GOP compromise? - funny, the GOP has done a lot to impose more fees upon us. Compromise- again, does a high tax rate send a tingle down your leg, or does increased tax revenue get the job done? There's a difference, ya know.

Sorry River - I used to think you were capable of an honest convo. But there is no sense trying to talk to GOP talking points.

I do not subscribe to the GOP fantasy that lowering tax rates will increase tax revenue. That kind of math is even worse that the common core math you guys rail on about

[RiverguyVT]

Sorry River - I used to think you were capable of an honest convo. But there is no sense trying to talk to GOP talking points.
I do not subscribe to the GOP fantasy that lowering tax rates will increase tax revenue. That kind of math is even worse that the common core math you guys rail on about

Lowering rates sometimes does, sometimes does not, increase revenue.
Raising rates sometimes lowers revenue, sometimes it does not.
If you don't believe that, that's not a me problem, that's a you problem.
There are a multitude of variables involved with raising revenues, not just one. Honest.

BTW... nice "fold" on the compromise question. I can't think of a single time (much less twice) that Dems dared lower themselves to compromise with those evil dastardly republicans.

[Hokie CPA]

Are you referring to when Obama made the temporary Bush tax cuts permanent for 98% of us. But let the top 2% expire? Oh please...

I think we both agree that business as usual will not get the job done. The reason why tax increases must be included is both math and politics. Even if you can find enough cuts to make the math work without tax increases - which would be difficult - you can't ignore the politics.

In order for this to get done, both the liberals and the conservatives need to feel pain. Neither side can risk screwing over their own base, while the other side skates free. Both sides need to feel screwed - so that neither side gains a political advantage to "doing the right thing" and finally balancing a budget. I'm not saying that's how things SHOULD work... but in this case, that's the only way I can see it getting done.

First of all, the very moment 0bama extended EGTRRA betond the 2010 sunset date, they became 0bama tax cuts. He owned the 35% rate from December 2010 and he had it raised back to 39.6% a few years later.

But if you're Hell-bent on having tax increases, here's how it should be done: you eliminate "refundable credits." Once a credit is used to reduce a taxpayer's liability to $0, that's it. You don't get a "refund" of money you never paid in. Then I'd create a minimum tax of $100 to be assessed AFTER the application of the credits so that every taxpayer out there with income above the filing threshold (currently $10,300 for unmarried taxpayers) has a minimum skin in the game. Everybody pays something.

[133743Hokie]

As I said, I can support Paul, Cruz or Rubio. I've said as much several times in this thread. But I will not vote for Trump.

Incidentally, I know those guys talk a big game about balancing the budget and paying down the debt, but I don't expect Congress to play along, regardless of who controls it. The debt is going to continue to grow.

Thank you for mentioning my favorite subject. Sadly, nobody from either party is talking seriously about balancing the budget. Because in order to be serious about it, you need to talk about at least one of these four things:

1) Cuts to spending on Social Security
2) Cuts to spending on Medicare
3) Cuts to spending on Defense
4) Raising taxes

The first 3 things represent 75% of the federal budget - when combined with mandatory debt service, it's 80%. Nothing else is more than 2%.

So... big talk about welfare, food stamps, Planned parenthood, NPR, whatever... are simply statistically insignificant. If you are voting for a candidate because you think he/she will balance the budget... and they have not campaigned on at least one of the these 4 things... you're just letting a politician fool you again.

The dems and repubs are so far apart on these issues that they will never, I repeat never, reach a consensus on deficit spending. Never.

I agree. In this polarized climate there is no compromise possible. The only way this gets done is COMPROMISE... and the TP faction of the GOP will not compromise. The only way for compromise is for the Dems to give in on spending reductions to SS & Medicare and the GOP to give in to spending reductions to defense and tax increases primarily on the wealthy. No party is going to be able to have it their way and shove it down the other party's throat. It will take grown ups, leadership and compromise... something neither party has shown much of an appetite for lately. Sigh...

Keep in mind the last time the repubs compromised with the deems taxes went up but the spending cuts (in later years) never occurred. So you can understand why the repubs are hesitant.