Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Q: What kind of non-tax revenues, if any, have you guys suggested as a compromise on your part to bring revenues into the equation.

A: As you're very well aware, there was a big conversation underway about revenues, revenues in the context of tax reform: lowering rates, broadening the base, which would encourage more economic activity and real growth in our economy that would result in additional revenues to the federal government.

I'm not sure how you can interepret that in any way other than "lowering the rate of taxes" and "broadening the base of employment." Especially given that the question specifically asked about "non-tax revenue," which I think the Speaker correctly interpreted as meaning "tax increases," given the context of the question.

So again, Boehner wasn't proposing tax increases, he was specifically saying that taxes should be decreased.

dogma wrote:I'm merely stating that if you're interested in discussing a specific debt proposal then you should probably lead the way. I mean, there aren't that many worth mentioning, and on the Republican side two of the prominent ones contravene what you're saying regarding the absence of tax increases.

There have been only two Republican plans, the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill ("The Cut, Cap and Balance bill would impose a very high barrier to approve any tax increase, requiring a two-thirds vote -- or supermajority -- in both the House and Senate") and the Boehner plan ("The framework includes no tax hikes, a key principle that Republicans have fought for since day one") that had been passed through the House of Representatives. Neither of these plans includes tax increases.

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure how you can interepret that in any way other than "lowering the rate of taxes" and "broadening the base of employment." Especially given that the question specifically asked about "non-tax revenue," which I think the Speaker correctly interpreted as meaning "tax increases," given the context of the question.

Very easily. He redirected a question regarding non-tax revenue into tax reform, and then spoke to the generic concepts of "lowering rates" and "broadening the base". I have no idea what rates, or what base he was speaking to, as he did not say anything beyond that both relate to the concept of tax reform.

Indeed, employment wasn't mentioned at all, so the idea that Mr. Boehner must have been referencing the concept of "broadening the base of employment" and not "broadening the base of taxes" (taxes having been mentioned) seems more like wishful thinking than an accurate appraisal of Mr. Boehner's words.

biccat wrote:
So again, Boehner wasn't proposing tax increases, he was specifically saying that taxes should be decreased.

I'm glad that you're so certain.

biccat wrote:
There have been only two Republican plans, the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill ("The Cut, Cap and Balance bill would impose a very high barrier to approve any tax increase, requiring a two-thirds vote -- or supermajority -- in both the House and Senate") and the Boehner plan ("The framework includes no tax hikes, a key principle that Republicans have fought for since day one") that had been passed through the House of Representatives. Neither of these plans includes tax increases.

Indeed they do not, but they are not the only Republican plans that have been discussed in either the House, or the media. If you only mean to reference Republican plans passed by the House, and not Republican plans in general, then you should have been more specific.

dogma wrote:I'm glad that you're so certain.

Me too. Because it was a very clear answer (in the context of poiltical comments) despite not properly answering the question or distinguishing the answer to correct the reporter's mistaken assumption. But it was quite clear what he was talking about. I suppose if you would like to suggest a different interpretation, you'll have to suggest some that are reasonable in the context of the question and answer.

I'm sure it would be great to live in a world where everyone clearly spells out the meaning of every word that they use to a degree of unquestionable specificity, but those of us in the real world have to make do with context and the vagueries of language.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:Neither of these plans includes tax increases.

Indeed they do not, but they are not the only Republican plans that have been discussed in either the House, or the media. If you only mean to reference Republican plans passed by the House, and not Republican plans in general, then you should have been more specific.

Then you'll have to be more specific about what you're talking about. As I've already shown, your example to show the Republican leadership supported increases in tax rates is incorrect. The only bills to pass through the House have both exempted tax increases. If you have evidence of a plan supported by the Republican leadership that included tax hikes (and not as a concession to Democrats in a compromise bill, because that really wouldn't counter my comment), I'd be happy to cede the point.

biccat wrote:
Me too. Because it was a very clear answer (in the context of poiltical comments) despite not properly answering the question or distinguishing the answer to correct the reporter's mistaken assumption. But it was quite clear what he was talking about. I suppose if you would like to suggest a different interpretation, you'll have to suggest some that are reasonable in the context of the question and answer.

I already have. Mr. Boehner redirected a question on non-tax revenue sources into tax reform, and then specifically spoke to what can be regarded as the lowering of tax rates, and the broadening of the tax base.

Note that broadening the tax base does not mean increasing employment, and lowering tax rates does not mean lowering all tax rates.

biccat wrote:
I'm sure it would be great to live in a world where everyone clearly spells out the meaning of every word that they use to a degree of unquestionable specificity, but those of us in the real world have to make do with context and the vagueries of language.

Indeed, we do, but that doesn't mean we must draw certain conclusions from what we hear or read.

biccat wrote:
Then you'll have to be more specific about what you're talking about. As I've already shown, your example to show the Republican leadership supported increases in tax rates is incorrect.

No, that's incorrect. You dodged the criticism by shifting from Republican plans, in general, to Republican plans that were passed by the House. I'm willing to accept that you misspoke earlier, but at the moment you seem to be moving the goal posts.

You also failed to address the proposals I referenced, I may have been too vague, but substituting other examples and claiming that they contravene my intended ones is not showing that my intended examples were incorrect.

biccat wrote:
The only bills to pass through the House have both exempted tax increases. If you have evidence of a plan supported by the Republican leadership that included tax hikes (and not as a concession to Democrats in a compromise bill, because that really wouldn't counter my comment), I'd be happy to cede the point.

Yes, it would counter your comment, which was that the Republican leadership has not backed a plan including tax increases. If any member of the Republican leadership has, at any point, backed a plan including tax increases (even in compromise) then he has backed a plan including tax increases. Perhaps you meant something else, but I can only read what you have written.

At any rate, Boehner's bill, even as passed, closes several tax loopholes and therefore raises effective tax rates (because it doesn't actually cut taxes), Cantor has not only expressed sympathy with (and voted for) this (as my cited article shows) but has included them via his support for the Ryan budget (albeit not the same ones that Boehner's plan includes). McConnell's plan also feature a series of effective tax rate increases, much as Reid's does (because they're basically the same, barring the inclusion of a trigger).

I guess you could claim that Ryan's budget isn't a part of the current negotiations, but that sort of negates the present position taken by Cantor, and much the Republican House.

CptJake wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Or is it just business as usual? "you suck, no you suck"? As a mortgage holder, i'm seeing enough blame to go around to both sides. but, i really feel like the R's have really not
been sincere in their side of the talks. the D's moved to the point where the D's are giving up on things i think they shouldn't have. yes, tax hikes, or repeeling tax breaks. whatever
you want to call it.

So, if your taxes went up it would be easier for you to make mortgage payments? If the home owners ability to deduct mortgage interest went away, it would be easier for you to pay your mortgage?

As a fellow mortgage holder, I would have to answer that in my case, NO, if MY taxes went up or I could not deduct the interest my ability to pay my mortage would not be enhanced.


But of course, all our circumstances are different....

Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....

alarmingrick wrote:Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....

Is your ability to pay your mortgage enhanced by increasing taxes on big oil companies or millionaires?

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....

Is your ability to pay your mortgage enhanced by increasing taxes on big oil companies or millionaires?

No but our countries ability to pay it's debt is

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....

Is your ability to pay your mortgage enhanced by increasing taxes on big oil companies or millionaires?

Nope. Is your's if Medicare/Medicaid goes away? how about Social Security?
My country's ability to pay it's bills would be enhanced though.

Damn! ninja'd by frgsinwntr! i will get revenge!

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....

Is your ability to pay your mortgage enhanced by increasing taxes on big oil companies or millionaires?

Nope. Is your's if Medicare/Medicaid goes away? how about Social Security?

Yes. If Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security went away, my ability to pay my mortgage would be enhanced.

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....

Is your ability to pay your mortgage enhanced by increasing taxes on big oil companies or millionaires?

Nope. Is your's if Medicare/Medicaid goes away? how about Social Security?

Yes. If Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security went away, my ability to pay my mortgage would be enhanced.

AHHH, i see now! i'm great. screw the rest of the country? got it....

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote:Yes. If Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security went away, my ability to pay my mortgage would be enhanced.

AHHH, i see now! i'm great. screw the rest of the country? got it....

Now you're making a different argument. But I don't think that dissolving those programs would "screw the country."

That depends on what part of the population you disclude from the definition of the term "the country".

biccat wrote: But I don't think that dissolving those programs would "screw the country."

I guess it all depends on if you're the one screwing or the one screwed, huh?

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote: But I don't think that dissolving those programs would "screw the country."

I guess it all depends on if you're the one screwing or the one screwed, huh?

It would depend on who you're defining as the ones "screwed." Currently, the ones doing the screwing under Social Security are a lot less numerous and a lot better off than the ones being screwed.

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote: But I don't think that dissolving those programs would "screw the country."

I guess it all depends on if you're the one screwing or the one screwed, huh?

It would depend on who you're defining as the ones "screwed." Currently, the ones doing the screwing under Social Security are a lot less numerous and a lot better off than the ones being screwed.

Who do you think?

alarmingrick wrote:
I guess it all depends on if you're the one screwing or the one screwed, huh?

And what screwing constitutes.

I'll not likely ever need Social Security, for a number of reasons, but my parents do. Provided that my desire to see them cared for is constant, it is unlikely that the amount I pay into Social Security will exceed the amount my parents will draw due to health needs.

Of course, I'm the exception because of where my income is derived from.

dogma wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:
I guess it all depends on if you're the one screwing or the one screwed, huh?

And what screwing constitutes.

I'll not likely ever need Social Security, for a number of reasons, but my parents do. Provided that my desire to see them cared for is constant, it is unlikely that the amount I pay into Social Security will exceed the amount my parents will draw due to health needs.

Of course, I'm the exception because of where my income is derived from.

Well, keep me in mind if you ever need to hire a bodyguard.....

alarmingrick wrote:
Well, keep me in mind if you ever need to hire a bodyguard.....

Admittedly my greatest assets are probably being young, single, and without children.

biccat wrote:Actually, it's not. A compromise is ceding some of your position to accomodate the other side.

Which is basically exactly what I said earlier "Compromise is about having a substantive debate on what you want, and accepting that you will have to concede somethings to get others." You're being silly.

Steadfastly refusing to agree to ANYTHING except exactly what you want (which is pretty much what the Dems got, given the details I'm seeing from the 'compromise') doesn't make the other side unwilling to compromise. It makes you a jerk.

Boehner said he wanted the split in deficit reduction to be 85% reduced expenditure, and 15% increased revenue. The final compromise between the two parties came in at 83% reduced expenditure, and 17% increased revenue. Now, you have two choices;

You can either claim that Democrats wanted an 83/17 split from the very beginning. This means you will have to surrender any and all future claims that they're socialists, and that they are in fact very keen on reducing government expenditure.

Or you can accept that Democrats wanted something much closer to 50/50, and gave up 33%, while the Republicans waited until the 11th hour to concede 2%. Which would make the Republicans the jerks you're complaining about.

Choose carefully.

The original position, which I'll grant was ceded a while ago, was that there should only be a debt increase. Then they wanted 100% tax increases to reduce the deficit. Republicans (the leadership at least) have always advocated a "cuts only" approach.

So, in ending up with 83/17 you have to concede the Republicans ended up with a final position much closer to what they wanted, and were much less willing to concede. Which would make them the jerks, yes?

sebster wrote: Which would make them the jerks, yes?

Yep.

sebster wrote:Now, you have two choices;

You can either claim that Democrats wanted an 83/17 split from the very beginning. This means you will have to surrender any and all future claims that they're socialists, and that they are in fact very keen on reducing government expenditure.

Or you can accept that Democrats wanted something much closer to 50/50, and gave up 33%, while the Republicans waited until the 11th hour to concede 2%. Which would make the Republicans the jerks you're complaining about.

Choose carefully.

What if I choose: "Please substantiate your claim that the Republicans wanted an 85/15 split and the Democrats wanted a 50/50 split."

Is that a valid choice?

alarmingrick wrote:

CptJake wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Or is it just business as usual? "you suck, no you suck"? As a mortgage holder, i'm seeing enough blame to go around to both sides. but, i really feel like the R's have really not
been sincere in their side of the talks. the D's moved to the point where the D's are giving up on things i think they shouldn't have. yes, tax hikes, or repeeling tax breaks. whatever
you want to call it.

So, if your taxes went up it would be easier for you to make mortgage payments? If the home owners ability to deduct mortgage interest went away, it would be easier for you to pay your mortgage?

As a fellow mortgage holder, I would have to answer that in my case, NO, if MY taxes went up or I could not deduct the interest my ability to pay my mortage would not be enhanced.


But of course, all our circumstances are different....

Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....

Everu one making 200k (250 for married filing joint) a year would have got taxed, and when the current rates go up next year ALL rates go up. If you pay Federal income tax, your rate WILL go up. Period.

Hooah. How much of their money do you want to confiscate?

Do you have a 401K? Any indexed funds? Any savings? Wanna bet some of that is invested in a Big Evil Company? Wanna bet if you tax them too much YOUR retirement fund suffers as their stock value declines?

Alternatively, why not allow folks to make money? Why not expect the Gov't to lfinction within a budget like my family has to? Does hurting someone who does better than you make you feel better about yourself or something?

I honestly don't get it. Why do folks feel OWED? Why be jealous because someone else is doing better than you? Why give the Gov't a pass on being irresponsible with the money they already confiscate? That line of thinking is honestly alien to me.

CptJake wrote: Why not expect the Gov't to lfinction within a budget like my family has to?

Because even if the comparison is apt, most families cannot exist without incurring debt.

CptJake wrote:
Does hurting someone who does better than you make you feel better about yourself or something?

Human history suggests that yes, this is often the case.

CptJake wrote:
Why be jealous because someone else is doing better than you?

Because that's what jealousy is, and it isn't a matter of choice to feel jealous?

CptJake wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

CptJake wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Or is it just business as usual? "you suck, no you suck"? As a mortgage holder, i'm seeing enough blame to go around to both sides. but, i really feel like the R's have really not
been sincere in their side of the talks. the D's moved to the point where the D's are giving up on things i think they shouldn't have. yes, tax hikes, or repeeling tax breaks. whatever
you want to call it.

So, if your taxes went up it would be easier for you to make mortgage payments? If the home owners ability to deduct mortgage interest went away, it would be easier for you to pay your mortgage?

As a fellow mortgage holder, I would have to answer that in my case, NO, if MY taxes went up or I could not deduct the interest my ability to pay my mortage would not be enhanced.


But of course, all our circumstances are different....

Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....

Everu one making 200k (250 for married filing joint) a year would have got taxed, and when the current rates go up next year ALL rates go up. If you pay Federal income tax, your rate WILL go up. Period.

Hooah. How much of their money do you want to confiscate?

Do you have a 401K? Any indexed funds? Any savings? Wanna bet some of that is invested in a Big Evil Company? Wanna bet if you tax them too much YOUR retirement fund suffers as their stock value declines?

Alternatively, why not allow folks to make money? Why not expect the Gov't to lfinction within a budget like my family has to? Does hurting someone who does better than you make you feel better about yourself or something?

I honestly don't get it. Why do folks feel OWED? Why be jealous because someone else is doing better than you? Why give the Gov't a pass on being irresponsible with the money they already confiscate? That line of thinking is honestly alien to me.

How about the Republicans stand up and admit they ran this crap up going into Iraq and pushing through the tax cuts in the first place? Why doesn't the truth of why we are where we are come out?

CptJake wrote: Alternatively, why not allow folks to make money?

I wouldn't midn this attitude if the comanies in question would actually MAKE SOME FETHING NEW JOBS ALREADY.

But they're not. They're cutting DOWN on jobs . So I gain lots of new companions in the unemployed category of US citizens.

Families incur debt they can manage, like car and house payments. They also lose those assets when they fail to manage the debt. Or like college loans, which they believe will lead to a better paying job, which will be used to pay back the loan. No reason the Gov't should not be forced to do the same. They sure as heck used to...

As for Iraq being the cause, I'm not going to do your homework, but look up the actual numbers. Add up what a decade of war actually costs and compare it to the debt the country holds. You will see that the debt is WAY more than what Iraq cost. Did Iraq and other military actions contribute? Yep, but to consider them the cause is dishonest.

POINT: The wars are scheduled to wind down, and yet the debt is projected to rise faster.

As for tax cuts, since every single person who payed Federal income tax got one, why not be willing to raise the taxes on everyone? Why target the 'rich' who again are the 200k and above? How much of my money do you need? Again, check the numbers. If you consifcated every single dollar from every single person making more than 200k a year, you would not cover the projected defficit for fiscal year 2011. But you would hurt the economy. And show me a Gov't plan to use those confiscated dollars to actually pay debt? There is not one,instead, the plan is to continue to spend way, way beyond collected revenue. Give them more revenue, they increase the rate of spending and borrowing. That is destructive behavior we don't tolerate in individuals or businesses, why should we tolerate it in our Gov't? If I actually thought the Gov't would use the money wisely I would not have as much heartache giving it up.

We, as a nation need to realize we MUST SPEND less. That honestly is the bottom line.

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote: Why not expect the Gov't to lfinction within a budget like my family has to?

Because even if the comparison is apt, most families cannot exist without incurring debt.

But most families cannot exist by running a year-to-year spending deficit. Even if their income steadily increases year-to-year to service the added debt, eventually there will be a bump in the road and then you're in deep.

Solution : abolish capitalism.

Phototoxin wrote:Solution : abolish capitalism.

Agreed. The world can then become 1 state so we can, slowly but surely, move out into space.
According to a White Dwarf I read, a tyranid hive fleet will approach in 38,000 years. GET A MOVE ON PEOPLE!

Phototoxin wrote:Solution : abolish capitalism.

Assuming for the moment that this is a good idea, how would you go about abolishing capitalism?