PDA

View Full Version : Supercommittee to announce it has failed



Sooner5030
11/20/2011, 02:32 PM
to reach an agreement.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/supercommittee-to-say-it-failed-wsj-2011-11-20?link=MW_home_latest_news


SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) - The U.S. congressional committee assigned to draft a plan for cutting $1.2 trillion from the nation's deficit over 10 years is expected to announce Monday that it has failed, the Wall Street Journal reported. Congress has until Nov. 23 to approve recommendations from the so-called deficit-reduction supercommittee. Without a plan, according to the bipartisan deal approved in August, $1.2 trillion would be automatically cut from across government.

Doesn't really matter though. Both houses have put so much emphasis on the 10 year budget that the actual appropriations (the only thing that gives departments the authority to spend)have become less important. All these alleged cuts were planned in the later years of the 10 year budget anyway.

badger
11/20/2011, 04:07 PM
Well, it should come as some relief that both sides have something besides voters' support and votes to lose. If I'm not mistaken, there are two things that are about to expire that the supercommittee was trying to find a way to fund to keep:

1- Tax cuts for rich
2- Extension of jobless benefits

Last few days have been a football blur, so I'm not sure on specifics, but I seemed to think that by the end of the year, some major tax breaks are gonna go bye-bye without renewal and the same goes for the extension of the jobless benefits.

cleller
11/20/2011, 06:37 PM
The Republicans will not idea of "we'll go to hell in a dixie cup first" on taxes, the Dems won't agree to cut the blood supply to leeches.
When will we get some responsible adults that will find a way to save the country without worrying about their reputation?

soonercoop1
11/20/2011, 06:43 PM
The Republicans will not idea of "we'll go to hell in a dixie cup first" on taxes, the Dems won't agree to cut the blood supply to leeches.
When will we get some responsible adults that will find a way to save the country without worrying about their reputation?

Why would anyone in their right mind agree to any form of tax increase unless and until major permanent spending cuts are resolved? Would be like giving alcohol to a raging alcoholic.

Curly Bill
11/20/2011, 06:45 PM
I'd have been major surprised if these dumasses had reached an agreement.

cleller
11/20/2011, 07:59 PM
Why would anyone in their right mind agree to any form of tax increase unless and until major permanent spending cuts are resolved? Would be like giving alcohol to a raging alcoholic.

Why would anyone in their right mind agree that they will not raise taxes, even if it meant that our country could go into default, face borrowing rates that would make it impossible for any American to obtain any type of loan, and send our country in unemployment that would repeat the Great Depression?
I don't want my taxes to go up, and do expect cuts to entitlements, but cutting off your nose to spite your face is unintelligent.

If I have to pay $500 or $1000 more in taxes to protect everything else I own in the world from devaluing by $50,000 or $100,000 I think I'd pay it.

And yes, I've been a Republican for 31 years, and never voted for a Democrat that I remember.

SanJoaquinSooner
11/20/2011, 08:09 PM
why would any dumbass turn down $10 in real spending cuts for every $1 in tax increase?

cleller
11/20/2011, 08:36 PM
why would any dumbass turn down $10 in real spending cuts for every $1 in tax increase?

Probably the only time we'll ever be in agreement.

They had a story about Grover "the pledge" Norquist on 60 minutes. He's obviously being well paid by people he refuses to name to champion the no tax strategy. He would have been signing on Congressman for a "no war pledge" in 1939.

The idea of taking a pledge of any kind on any issue regardless of future developments is shortsighted and irresponsible. If you have enough money in a Swiss account for your family to survive on for 20-30 years, it may sound like a great way to be the tough guy. Norquist envisions himself the tough guy right now, and he loves it. At heart, he's small and weak, but this makes him feel powerful.

Sadly, he will end up turning the power over to the Democrats, who will not only raise taxes, but spending also; locking in ever higher taxes and spending for the future. Great legacy.

sappstuf
11/20/2011, 09:05 PM
why would any dumbass turn down $10 in real spending cuts for every $1 in tax increase?

Because it isn't real spending cuts..

The Dems have done this successfully before and the Repubs have finally wised up to the tactic. They did it to Reagan and Bush I. Here is how it goes..

Tax increases begin immediately. Spending cuts happen in years 8-9-10. Since the current Congress cannot make any future Congresses actually follow through with the cuts, they never happen.

Repubs want spending cuts starting in year 1. The Dems will not agree to that.

We are the most broke country in the history of the world. Our unfunded liabilities are over $62 trillion dollars or a sweet $500K per household... You cannot possibly tax your way out of that mess. Spending must be cut and it must be cut now.. Programs have to be completely restructured or phased out. The sooner the better. Delay only makes it worse.

$1.2 trillion is pocket change compared to the problems we have coming, and the Dems won't do it. A large percentage of our population has no idea how bad it really is. Too f9ck837 bad... Reality will come swift and hard and it will be worse for all because of inaction now.

diverdog
11/20/2011, 11:52 PM
Because it isn't real spending cuts..

The Dems have done this successfully before and the Repubs have finally wised up to the tactic. They did it to Reagan and Bush I. Here is how it goes..

Tax increases begin immediately. Spending cuts happen in years 8-9-10. Since the current Congress cannot make any future Congresses actually follow through with the cuts, they never happen.

Repubs want spending cuts starting in year 1. The Dems will not agree to that.

We are the most broke country in the history of the world. Our unfunded liabilities are over $62 trillion dollars or a sweet $500K per household... You cannot possibly tax your way out of that mess. Spending must be cut and it must be cut now.. Programs have to be completely restructured or phased out. The sooner the better. Delay only makes it worse.

$1.2 trillion is pocket change compared to the problems we have coming, and the Dems won't do it. A large percentage of our population has no idea how bad it really is. Too f9ck837 bad... Reality will come swift and hard and it will be worse for all because of inaction now.

Where the heck have you been?

sappstuf
11/21/2011, 07:00 AM
Where the heck have you been?

Lots of training... Headed to Afghanistan within the week.

okie52
11/21/2011, 10:09 AM
Lots of training... Headed to Afghanistan within the week.

Sapp, I thought you weren't going until Feb. Please keep in touch and may you and your fellow troops stay safe.

MountainOkie
11/21/2011, 10:46 AM
This morning's Wall Street Journal reports that the failure could result in another U.S. debt downgrade. :mad:

Putting aside all partisan B.S. for the moment:

How can a group of grown men and women be so irresponsible?

1. How can you not find a trillion dollars of crud to cut from the most bloated budget in the history of the United States? Especially when we've been hearing for 30 years about insane examples of profligacy by the U.S. government? I'm sure there is plenty to cut.

2. If you do not raise taxes now by either a nominal or reasonable amount (I've not been given any evidence other than the word of people who lie all the time that a 10:1 tax spending deal was ever made so I'm not sure this is the ballpark we're playing in, but I'll assume it is) the political atmosphere after another debt downgrade will ensure GREATER tax burdens will be foisted on the american people.

These guys got the smaller, possibly unconstitutional "supercommitee" to fix the budget and they STILL can't get it done. Even though they face another debt downgrade they still can't do their job. Add the fact that we have a president sitting in the wings who has no qualms about overstepping his constitutional authority (Not unlike Bush before him.) and you have a recipe for another crisis which the executive branch will endeavor to exploit to the hilt.

Then I have to practice controlling my gag reflex for the election cycle while Obama talks about how he's never done anything wrong with the budget negotiations and how he will come in like a conquering savior and right every wrong congress has ever committed.

Corruption and Incompetence all around! :mad:

Trophy Husband
11/21/2011, 11:18 AM
why would any dumbass turn down $10 in real spending cuts for every $1 in tax increase?

I'm sure the proposed "spending cuts" are like most proposed spending cuts, they're scheduled to take place at a later date, and they never do. So what you get is the additional spending with the promise of "future cuts" then those future cuts never happen.

diverdog
11/21/2011, 11:20 AM
Lots of training... Headed to Afghanistan within the week.

Will you be coming through Dover? If you are I will PM you my cell and if you have time buy you dinner.

I figured you had either deployed or were getting ready to go. Be safe and stay in touch.

badger
11/21/2011, 11:27 AM
The Republicans will not idea of "we'll go to hell in a dixie cup first" on taxes, the Dems won't agree to cut the blood supply to leeches.
When will we get some responsible adults that will find a way to save the country without worrying about their reputation?

I have heard that the problem can be traced back to states like California.

In ultra-liberal California, not every area is ultra-liberal, but they have many rural farming and open areas, especially in the northern part of the state. So, these areas not only send Republicans to Sacramento, but ultra-Republicans to ensure that their ideals are not pushed too far to the left like the rest of the state.

Then, you have ultra-liberal areas like LA, San Fran, Berkeley, San Diego, etc. etc. that will vote their ultra-lefties to Sacramento to ensure that their ideals are not pushed too far to the right.

And the end result is absolutely No. Common. Ground.

I greatly admired the current and past governor for trying to find middle ground somewhere between the ultra left and ultra right in California. Made me hope that if something could happen in Cali, something could happen in DC.

Alas, much like Cali, there are ultra libs and ultra conservatives who absolutely will. not. budge. There is NO possibility of raising taxes. There is NO possibility of cutting benefit programs. Therefore, there is NO possibility of getting a balanced budget. :(

The best representatives are the ones that can compromise, as much as this would infuriate Tea Partiers and Occupiers. This ensures that something will happen, even if not everybody comes away happy. THAT IS WHAT COMPROMISE IS! It's not take and take, it's GIVE and take.

soonercoop1
11/21/2011, 12:09 PM
Why would anyone in their right mind agree that they will not raise taxes, even if it meant that our country could go into default, face borrowing rates that would make it impossible for any American to obtain any type of loan, and send our country in unemployment that would repeat the Great Depression?
I don't want my taxes to go up, and do expect cuts to entitlements, but cutting off your nose to spite your face is unintelligent.

If I have to pay $500 or $1000 more in taxes to protect everything else I own in the world from devaluing by $50,000 or $100,000 I think I'd pay it.

And yes, I've been a Republican for 31 years, and never voted for a Democrat that I remember.
Raising taxes without drastic, permanent spending cuts and drastic reduction in the size and scope of the federal government would be smart how? So you trust congress to not spend the tax increase? I have no problem with a tax increase just not before all the permanent spending cuts, permanent government reductions, and congress is in permanent check. What tells you congress will do the right thing based on their past performance? The cuts they were discussing were worthless anyway...a whopping 120 mil a year for 10 years. In 10 years we would have added many trillions of new debt. We have somewhere between 15 and 20 trillion worth of debt through unfunded federal government mandates and entitlement programs (some estimate much larger numbers like 60 trillion). US GDP is 14.5 trillion. We are way past time to be able to compromise as the above fix is the only way to fix our country. Compromise is what has presented us with an enormous over-reaching federal government, a congress and president that only worry about preserving their own jobs, and trillions in debt.

Trophy Husband
11/21/2011, 12:23 PM
Raising taxes without drastic, permanent spending cuts and drastic reduction in the size and scope of the federal government would be smart how? So you trust congress to not spend the tax increase? I have no problem with a tax increase just not before all the permanent spending cuts, permanent government reductions, and congress is in permanent check. What tells you congress will do the right thing based on their past performance? The cuts they were discussing were worthless anyway...a whopping 120 mil a year for 10 years. In 10 years we would have added many trillions of new debt. We have somewhere between 15 and 20 trillion worth of debt through unfunded federal government mandates and entitlement programs (some estimate much larger numbers like 60 trillion). US GDP is 14.5 trillion. We are way past time to be able to compromise as the above fix is the only way to fix our country. Compromise is what has presented us with an enormous over-reaching federal government, a congress and president that only worry about preserving their own jobs, and trillions in debt.

The libs in DC always propose "future spending cuts" so they can get the spending increases they want now. Then when it comes time to pay the piper, they say we can't afford to cut spending from all these necessary programs.

Trophy Husband
11/21/2011, 12:26 PM
I have heard that the problem can be traced back to states like California.

In ultra-liberal California, not every area is ultra-liberal, but they have many rural farming and open areas, especially in the northern part of the state. So, these areas not only send Republicans to Sacramento, but ultra-Republicans to ensure that their ideals are not pushed too far to the left like the rest of the state.

Then, you have ultra-liberal areas like LA, San Fran, Berkeley, San Diego, etc. etc. that will vote their ultra-lefties to Sacramento to ensure that their ideals are not pushed too far to the right.

And the end result is absolutely No. Common. Ground.

I greatly admired the current and past governor for trying to find middle ground somewhere between the ultra left and ultra right in California. Made me hope that if something could happen in Cali, something could happen in DC.

Alas, much like Cali, there are ultra libs and ultra conservatives who absolutely will. not. budge. There is NO possibility of raising taxes. There is NO possibility of cutting benefit programs. Therefore, there is NO possibility of getting a balanced budget. :(

The best representatives are the ones that can compromise, as much as this would infuriate Tea Partiers and Occupiers. This ensures that something will happen, even if not everybody comes away happy. THAT IS WHAT COMPROMISE IS! It's not take and take, it's GIVE and take.

Compromise just for the sake of compromise is not always the best route.

pphilfran
11/21/2011, 12:35 PM
Raising the income tax to the Clinton level will not do squat to raise revenue...in fact, income taxes outside of cap gains actually declined with the Clinton rates....too many loopholes and places to move money to lower the effective tax rate...

We cannot balance the budget with cuts alone...we cannot balance the budget with tax increases alone....

sappstuf
11/21/2011, 03:49 PM
Sapp, I thought you weren't going until Feb. Please keep in touch and may you and your fellow troops stay safe.

Things change my friend, things change.

sappstuf
11/21/2011, 03:57 PM
Will you be coming through Dover? If you are I will PM you my cell and if you have time buy you dinner.

I figured you had either deployed or were getting ready to go. Be safe and stay in touch.

I have kept that in mind, but I don't that that is going to happen. I am getting my transportation brief tonight so we will see. I will PM you with any details.

REDREX
11/21/2011, 05:52 PM
Obama just made a statement -----He is a very weak leader

KABOOKIE
11/21/2011, 05:59 PM
It's all dem evil republicans. Brilliant speech *******. ****er needs to be canned.

TheHumanAlphabet
11/21/2011, 09:35 PM
This supers hit committee never was going to make a deal. It was all about posturing for the elections and protecting butt buddy O'bummer. I am sick and tired of fake cuts in the budget, nothing real and nothing ever cut. I am sorry since when does the word "cut" mean to not increase a value as much as planned. It is all bull****... Make real cuts and then we can talk real increases in taxes, but not before. These yahoos are a joke, it is too bad we can't fire the lot and start over. You were in congress before, nope you're done get out of DC.

TheHumanAlphabet
11/21/2011, 09:39 PM
Lots of training... Headed to Afghanistan within the week.
Wow, god's speed and stay safe!

diverdog
11/21/2011, 11:03 PM
This supers hit committee never was going to make a deal. It was all about posturing for the elections and protecting butt buddy O'bummer. I am sick and tired of fake cuts in the budget, nothing real and nothing ever cut. I am sorry since when does the word "cut" mean to not increase a value as much as planned. It is all bull****... Make real cuts and then we can talk real increases in taxes, but not before. These yahoos are a joke, it is too bad we can't fire the lot and start over. You were in congress before, nope you're done get out of DC.

What real cuts would you make? And if you make them how do you do it without affecting the economy?

Sooner5030
11/21/2011, 11:21 PM
What real cuts would you make? And if you make them how do you do it without affecting the economy?

that's the major problem.......doing what is fiscally right, cutting spending and raising taxes will lower GDP...ceteris paribus.

Not one adult in 436 elected f-sticks can explain to the mob that we have to increase tax revenue and cut spending in order to pay for the accumulated past excesses......and that it will contract GDP.

this is a self correcting problem.......but it will be even more painful the longer we wait.

nothing gets better with time

hope is not a method

AlboSooner
11/21/2011, 11:37 PM
why isn't it: it has superfailed?

IndySooner
11/22/2011, 05:01 AM
Things change my friend, things change.They must be changing quickly because two of my friends are getting deployed soon, too. One wasn't ever supposed to get deployed, the other was supposed to be in 2013. Both will be deployed by summer.

soonercoop1
11/22/2011, 08:33 AM
Raising the income tax to the Clinton level will not do squat to raise revenue...in fact, income taxes outside of cap gains actually declined with the Clinton rates....too many loopholes and places to move money to lower the effective tax rate...

We cannot balance the budget with cuts alone...we cannot balance the budget with tax increases alone....

Agreed but many of us believe that until there are drastic permanent spending cuts and a drastic permanent reduction in the size and scope of the federal government it just wouldn't be prudent to even discuss tax increases until that happens...I believe we will have to have some increases with drastic changes to the tax code but congress can't be trusted to do what is needed first...unfortunately we will probably have a complete collapse before any changes are made...

TheHumanAlphabet
11/22/2011, 10:57 AM
I will NOT give in to the increased taxes (revenue) aspect UNTIL congress and D.C. SHOWs they will truly cut expenses, across the board. Cuts in DC have come to mean not to increase the budget as much as planned. That is not a cut! that is still an INCREASE. These ****ing morons in DC can't get it straight.

diverdog
11/22/2011, 06:21 PM
Hand waiving in the room.

Am I correct in thinking that because the committee did not come to a conclusion that we are going to see more drastic cuts than what congress would have announced? Is it not a good thing that they did not come to a consensus? Isn't there a required $1.2 Trillion dollar cut called the sequester mechanism?



Failure by the committee, evenly split between six Democrats and six Republicans from the House and Senate, sets in motion an alternative timetable for $1.2 trillion in spending reductions starting in January 2013.
Leaders on both sides of the aisle are unhappy with the nature of the fallback plan, which cuts evenly from domestic and defense programs. Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, veterans' benefits and other politically sensitive programs are spared the budget ax.

dwarthog
11/22/2011, 06:31 PM
Hand waiving in the room.

Am I correct in thinking that because the committee did not come to a conclusion that we are going to see more drastic cuts than what congress would have announced? Is it not a good thing that they did not come to a consensus? Isn't there a required $1.2 Trillion dollar cut called the sequester mechanism?

Not until 2013 and based on this committees actions, who doubts that Congress will figure out a way to not adhere to those requirements?

The rats nest is in danger of coming unraveled.

Sooner5030
11/22/2011, 06:39 PM
Hand waiving in the room.

Am I correct in thinking that because the committee did not come to a conclusion that we are going to see more drastic cuts than what congress would have announced? Is it not a good thing that they did not come to a consensus? Isn't there a required $1.2 Trillion dollar cut called the sequester mechanism?

the cuts are in the 2013 and on budget but not an any appropriations. You only appropriate 1 year ahead (exceptions for large capital projects) and budget for 10years out. Budgeting does not give the departments/agencies authority to spend money......only appropriations do that. So in FY 12 we'll probably appropriate more than what was budgeted in FY13 during previous years.

NormanPride
11/22/2011, 07:53 PM
If there's anything good that comes outta the Super Failure, it's that both sides will suffer about equally now. The defense gets cut, so Republicans suffer. The jobless benefits are not extended, so Dems suffer. The social security tax cuts are not extended, so Republicans and Dems suffer.

This is badger, btw.

President Obama actually did say something that I appreciated a little though--- he said that he'll veto any attempts to thwart the Super Fail cuts unless there is a way to equally cut spending also proposed. Thus, no thwarting the defense cuts by Republicans without, say... a tax increase. No thwarting the benefits cuts without, say, a cut in spending elsewhere.

Hold your nose cuz here goes the cold water...

East Coast Bias
11/22/2011, 08:35 PM
I thought this would be a good thing as well Diver, as we go directly to deep military cuts, but turns out they have more time. Nothing is automatic for a year. That just puts the political poison back into the process. Everyone has there spin on who is to blame in this but the accountability is missing...

soonercruiser
11/22/2011, 09:14 PM
why would any dumbass turn down $10 in real spending cuts for every $1 in tax increase?

Because they are smart enough to know that all Democratic promises are empty hot air.

soonercruiser
11/22/2011, 09:17 PM
Why would anyone in their right mind agree to any form of tax increase unless and until major permanent spending cuts are resolved? Would be like giving alcohol to a raging alcoholic.

That's roughly what I posted a few days ago.
The Dems always got cutting the milkitary first when they need money.
Time to make the military much more efficient. But, social program cuts first!

diverdog
11/22/2011, 09:20 PM
That's roughly what I posted a few days ago.
The Dems always got cutting the milkitary first when they need money.
Time to make the military much more efficient. But, social program cuts first!

What is the milkitary? Is this a totally top secret department in the government that I have not heard about? :biggrin: