And people say GOP isn't willing to compromise.....

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
The tax increases that they have refused so far are so small that any party who was actually interested in making a deal would have taken them a long time ago.

Honest question - How much are tax increases now. Last I heard Obama wanted $100 billion per year. Altering the depreciable life of corporate jets ain't gonna touch that.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
The Republicans are quite willing to compromise. All the Democrats have to do is give the Republicans everything they want and the Republicans will gladly let the Democrats vote for the resultant bill.
-snip-

The Repubs have already compromised on tax rate reductions for corporations and individuals, as well provisions affecting Medicare and SS etc. They've also reduced the amount of spending they want to cut.

Fern
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
The Repubs have already compromised on tax rate reductions for corporations and individuals, as well provisions affecting Medicare and SS etc. They've also reduced the amount of spending they want to cut.

Fern

Actually they've done none of those things, but thanks for playing.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-

The very rich, via Bush and Cheney ransacked the treasury, maxed out the national credit card...

Oh, come on. A quick simple google proves that wrong.

How did Bush "max out the national credit card" when Obama has charged more on it than Bush? Obama has charged over $4 billion on it, less than Bush in all 8 years.

Fern
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Oh, come on. A quick simple google proves that wrong.

How did Bush "max out the national credit card" when Obama has charged more on it than Bush? Obama has charged over $4 billion on it, less than Bush in all 8 years.

Fern

Obama hasn't increased the deficit anywhere near the same % Bush increased it and you damn well know it. Those nominal numbers mean nothing when you ignore the percentages. And you're a tax accountant? Pathetic.
 

RbSX

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
8,351
1
76
Let's see the math.

The math is this:

Taxes = Income
Spending = Costs

If you cut your costs the money that was supposed to be spent can pay down debt. But here's the miracle! If you have more income, you miraculously have more money to pay down your debt even quicker. OMGWTFBBQ.

It's no different than having a credit card bill. Yeah okay you choose to not go out for an expensive dinner and put that money towards your bill. But then you could also get another job and pay it down some more.

BRAIN ASPLODES.

Raising taxes and cutting spending aren't mutual exclusive things, which some idiots don't seem to understand.
 

RbSX

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
8,351
1
76
Oh, come on. A quick simple google proves that wrong.

How did Bush "max out the national credit card" when Obama has charged more on it than Bush? Obama has charged over $4 billion on it, less than Bush in all 8 years.

Fern

Bush racked his bills up by going to War (one stupid, the other one not so much). Obama presided over the single largest recession since the great depression.

That being said, some of his solutions were stupid, but he had to do something. It was one of those situations where you're doomed if you do, doomed if you don't.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
Without tax increases where do you suppose this revenue ought to come from?

Republicans
-REDUCE OUR EDUCATION SPENDING
You're not entitled to education
-SCREW HEALTHCARE
You're not entitled to healthcare
-FORGET ALL SOCIAL PROGRAMS
You're not entitled to welfare
-STOP FUNDING SCIENCE
Because.. man-bear-pig! I'm super-serial!

You people are absolutely brain-dead. It's a shame to think what a large voting block we have in this country that is so unbelievably stupid.
And I suppose you're proud of the unemployed hipsters who needed 4 years and $150000 in loans to learn sociology, women's studies, or other useless bullshit, and are now getting paid MY tax money to sit on their asses. That's exactly the kind of open-minded, progressive, tolerant thinking this country needs more of!
 

RbSX

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
8,351
1
76
You're not entitled to education

You're not entitled to healthcare

You're not entitled to welfare

Because.. man-bear-pig! I'm super-serial!


And I suppose you're proud of the unemployed hipsters who needed 4 years and $150000 in loans to learn sociology, women's studies, or other useless bullshit, and are now getting paid MY tax money to sit on their asses. That's exactly the kind of open-minded, progressive, tolerant thinking this country needs more of!

Okay, because a half retarded, uneducated, physically ill equipped society is going to be productive.

I will agree though, sociology, women's studies, political studies are all fucking waste of time. People need to start going back to technical schools.

Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Actually they've done none of those things, but thanks for playing.

Sure they have.

Look up the Ryan plan they recently passed in the House. That was a budget for next year. The debt ceiling plan proposals are all connected to the budget for next year (or even a little longer if Obama has his way).

The Repubs have dropped tons of stuff. I.e., they've compromised on many things.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Obama hasn't increased the deficit anywhere near the same % Bush increased it and you damn well know it. Those nominal numbers mean nothing when you ignore the percentages. And you're a tax accountant? Pathetic.

Real numbers don't mean anything?

Maybe you better get on the phone to Moody's etc quick and explain to 'em how they have it all wrong.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,973
47,878
136
Sure they have.

Look up the Ryan plan they recently passed in the House. That was a budget for next year. The debt ceiling plan proposals are all connected to the budget for next year (or even a little longer if Obama has his way).

The Repubs have dropped tons of stuff. I.e., they've compromised on many things.

Fern

Let me get this straight: (and I'm just picking arbitrary numbers of course)

You demand 100 things and I demand 100 things. I choose to give in to 50 of the 100 things you demand, you choose to give in to zero of the things I demand. I have then compromised, right?

You then decide to stop demanding the other 50 things that I haven't given into yet, leaving me at 50 'gives' and you still at zero. Since you aren't demanding even more, you consider that to be a compromise?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Real numbers don't mean anything?

Maybe you better get on the phone to Moody's etc quick and explain to 'em how they have it all wrong.

Fern

Sure just point out where Moody said they were scared of Obama's spending.

lmao, fucking partisan hacks.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Let me get this straight: (and I'm just picking arbitrary numbers of course)

You demand 100 things and I demand 100 things. I choose to give in to 50 of the 100 things you demand, you choose to give in to zero of the things I demand. I have then compromised, right?

You then decide to stop demanding the other 50 things that I haven't given into yet, leaving me at 50 'gives' and you still at zero. Since you aren't demanding even more, you consider that to be a compromise?

This talk of compromise focuses on the House Repubs, right?

They already staked out their position with their approval of the Ryan plan.

If you can't see the huge difference between the Ryan plan and where they are now you're clearly being obtuse.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Sure just point out where Moody said they were scared of Obama's spending.

lmao, fucking partisan hacks.

I don't remember Moody's and the other services getting so agitated back under Bush's term with $10 trillion.

Since Obama has raised it to $14 trillion they sure as hell are.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,973
47,878
136
This talk of compromise focuses on the House Repubs, right?

They already staked out their position with their approval of the Ryan plan.

If you can't see the huge difference between the Ryan plan and where they are now you're clearly being obtuse.

Fern

I would love to see what you think the differences are. You will notice that none of their positions actually run contrary to the Ryan plan, they are just not calling for its full implementation at this time. Basically you are arguing exactly what I put forth. If the other side comes 50% to you and you decide to let them stop there while giving nothing on your own, that apparently is a compromise to you.

(funny thing is that the Ryan plan would cause massive short term deficits, requiring the debt ceiling to be raised)
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I would love to see what you think the differences are. You will notice that none of their positions actually run contrary to the Ryan plan, they are just not calling for its full implementation at this time.

Which House Repub plan do y9ou want to compare the Ryan plan to?

We both know damn well they've moved far from the Ryan in this negotiation.

Basically you are arguing exactly what I put forth. If the other side comes 50% to you and you decide to let them stop there while giving nothing on your own, that apparently is a compromise to you.

No, not close.

They've moved far from the Ryan plan. To say that haven't moved at all just isn't credible.

Your only argument could be that he Ryan plan was never their position to begin with. That's a hard sell given they actually passed it just a few months ago.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,973
47,878
136
Which House Repub plan do y9ou want to compare the Ryan plan to?

We both know damn well they've moved far from the Ryan in this negotiation.



No, not close.

They've moved far from the Ryan plan. To say that haven't moved at all just isn't credible.

Your only argument could be that he Ryan plan was never their position to begin with. That's a hard sell given they actually passed it just a few months ago.

Fern

No, they haven't. not in any way, shape, or form.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Are you without hope or do you see a way outside of ordinary legislative processes that might fix things?
Both. I can imagine paths to a better system, btu I'm not emotionally invested in them like I used to be. They are a curiosity to me and little more. Good for a conversation here and there, but not to be taken any more seriously than a joke, a rumor, or a law.

Hope is an inconvenient sentiment that only leads to despair. I prefer to simply enjoy contentment and joy without worrying about causes so much. Hope for me in the political realm was always tied to a belief in a reasonable chance of sanity emerging. I gave that childish foolishness up a while ago and I haven't missed it. It can only lead to despair. Fixating on futures that won't come to pass distracts one from the myriad joys to be had in enjoying the day that is. I'd rather go surfing than opine about Congress.
The only thing I can see that will wake people to the disaster we are creating is that weightless feeling in the pit of one's stomach after we've gone off the cliff. And even then I just see it creating more pointing fingers. The hunger created by self hate is enormous, almost as enormous as the need to pretend we aren't acting out that hate. The drunk destroys his liver so he won't feel his emotional pain. The world is our liver. Most drunks die from alcoholism and some bottom out and reform. Nobody looks at the real problem in my opinion.
If self loathing is as endemic as it seems to be, perhaps it is wrong to speak of it as an undesirable state. Should man disavow his self-loathing any more than the leopard his spots? Perhaps it's just a consequence of too many neurons for our own good. Just putting that out there for you... ;)
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Obama hasn't increased the deficit anywhere near the same % Bush increased it and you damn well know it. Those nominal numbers mean nothing when you ignore the percentages. And you're a tax accountant? Pathetic.
The national debt isn't paid back in percentages, it's paid back in absolute dollars.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
The math is this:

Taxes = Income
Spending = Costs

If you cut your costs the money that was supposed to be spent can pay down debt. But here's the miracle! If you have more income, you miraculously have more money to pay down your debt even quicker. OMGWTFBBQ.

It's no different than having a credit card bill. Yeah okay you choose to not go out for an expensive dinner and put that money towards your bill. But then you could also get another job and pay it down some more.

BRAIN ASPLODES.



Raising taxes and cutting spending aren't mutual exclusive things, which some idiots don't seem to understand.

you seem to not understand the mentality of our polititians. imagine a teenager with 35000 in debt because he bought a new car even though he only makes minimum wage.(starting to look familiar already!) so he's got his part time minimum wage job and can't make his payments, so he starts letting his credit card build up. Now he's really hurting so he gets another part time job. Now he makes more than enough to make the minimum payments on the car and the credit card. He realizes now that he has TWO JOBS(yes, count them) he can take his girlfriend out to nice dinners and movies and such instead of saving and paying down his debt quickly.

this is the mentality of our government.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
The national debt isn't paid back in percentages, it's paid back in absolute dollars.
What's an absolute dollar? The Federal Reserve notes in my bank account don't have any absolute value to speak of. I can only hope they will retain some of their relative value until I get rid of the horrible things. ;)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,400
6,078
126
nonlnear: Both. I can imagine paths to a better system, btu I'm not emotionally invested in them like I used to be. They are a curiosity to me and little more. Good for a conversation here and there, but not to be taken any more seriously than a joke, a rumor, or a law.

M: Well it would seem then I have nothing to fear from you since it is the investment of emotion that leads to fanatical belief, it seems to me. You seem to have transcended the need for belief.

n: Hope is an inconvenient sentiment that only leads to despair. I prefer to simply enjoy contentment and joy without worrying about causes so much.

M: Perhaps it is inconvenient because it is a quality of the human heart that we can't, but wish we could escape. I believe that true happiness isn't possible in a world where others suffer as a result of belief in the absurd, hope of political change, for example.

n: Hope for me in the political realm was always tied to a belief in a reasonable chance of sanity emerging.

M: Emerging from what and from where. I would again suggest that sanity is our proper natural and original state, the state we were born in and soon thereafter left. What you seem to have accomplished is at least a not insignificant return to it. We were born present and fully in the now, the place where contentment and joy are in being.

n: I gave that childish foolishness up a while ago and I haven't missed it. It can only lead to despair. Fixating on futures that won't come to pass distracts one from the myriad joys to be had in enjoying the day that is. I'd rather go surfing than opine about Congress.

M: Well I would say that the same detachment from political change can be applied to hope. One can, I think, have it without any hope for hope and no sense of let down. Just as reason seems a proper state for man, so does the ability to have hope and I think that the fact that you can enjoy the moment now speaks to it. You are in a place I would hope others reach and you didn't let me down. ;) You give me hope.

n: If self loathing is as endemic as it seems to be, perhaps it is wrong to speak of it as an undesirable state. Should man disavow his self-loathing any more than the leopard his spots? Perhaps it's just a consequence of too many neurons for our own good. Just putting that out there for you... ;)

M: I think that it is an undesirable and unnecessary state that can't be disavowed because it has an unconscious motivation, that in short, we want to be asleep, irrational and insane, because to face the truth of our inner condition requires remembering. He who was born in perfection and joy and taught to hate himself suffers the most profound hopelessness a person can feel. Maybe the only folk who will look at themselves, feel what they really feel, are folk who have lost all hope. It is easier to feel how hopeless we feel when we have abandoned all hope. To let go of the rope is to abandon regret and hope. When the past and the future are gone there is only the now.