Looks like the deal might be un-done... (unemployed, Congress, party)

[lifeexplorer]

For every dollar from tax increase, there should be at least two dollar spending cut.

I won't agree to anything else.

[npaladin2000]

Frankly we're better off doing nothing than taking the "deal." At least if we go over the cliff sequestration will impose real, serious spending cuts.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

For every dollar from tax increase, there should be at least two dollar spending cut.

I won't agree to anything else.

Where are your $2 in cuts coming from?

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by npaladin2000

Frankly we're better off doing nothing than taking the "deal." At least if we go over the cliff sequestration will impose real, serious spending cuts.

I have to agree. Going over the cliff is preferred to a half arsed "deal" that fixes nothing.

[ALackOfCreativity]

Originally Posted by npaladin2000

Frankly we're better off doing nothing than taking the "deal." At least if we go over the cliff sequestration will impose real, serious spending cuts.

The sequestration is only going to be delayed 2 months.

Pocketing the permanent extension of the Bush cuts and lower estate/cap-gains rates for 99.5% of the population for a year of lengthened unemployment and a 2 month delay in sequestration is not a bad deal.....and anyway, spending cuts are going to inevitably be extracted through the debt ceiling, as they should be.

[ellemint]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

For every dollar from tax increase, there should be at least two dollar spending cut.

I won't agree to anything else.

That is exactly what the federal budget put forth by the White House for 2013 proposes:

"For every $1 in new revenue from those making more than $250,000 per year and from closing corporate loopholes, the Budget has $2.50 in spending cuts including the deficit reduction enacted over the last year."

And it specifies every detail of those cuts at the following link.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...assets/ccs.pdf

Budget Overview | The White House

[ray1945]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

It's a bad bill. We need to hold out for a good one. There is no sense in striking a deal that doesn't resolve the issue of the debt.

Just curious - were you this adamant about the "debt" issue when this country was hemorrhaging (borrowed) money to fight the Iraqi war?

[swbtoo]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

For every dollar from tax increase, there should be at least two dollar spending cut.

I won't agree to anything else.

Agreed, there should be, but Dems don't want spending cuts. Spending cuts = lost votes.

They've promised to talk about spending cuts "later"...that ploy worked once before and they didn't have to keep their promise, and didn't suffer any consequences (except drive up the debt burden on all of us), so they think it will work again. If the GOP doesn't have the courage to stand up for principle and what is good for the country, they'll be taken in again. You can't trust the left.

Spending is the problem!!

[Smash255]

What this deal does is deal with the tax cuts now and puts the spending issue for when that would become the immediate issue two months down the road when we reach the debt ceiling. The bill is far from perfect and spending will be dealt with, however the tax issue is more important at the moment because no action on that has an immediate impact no where little or no action on the spending side will have no impact for two months.

[npaladin2000]

Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity

The sequestration is only going to be delayed 2 months.
.

Just enough time to delay it further or eliminate it completely. They've been trying to do that ever since they found out it'll actually happen.