How do you feel about the failed Super Committee?

Congress has an all time low approval rating of 9%. Genital herpes is technically ahead of congress. Lol.

I think that’s it’s actually a good thing in disguise. I’ve read a bunch of articles talking about this particular thing and that this failure will benefit the economy.

I’m glad. I think we will get some new taxes now especially on the rich.

I never believed there would be a compromise.

I was pleased. The odds that we will revert to Clinton era tax rates in 2013 is much greater than if we had achieved a deal.

I am concerned, however, that Democrats will cave at the end of this year and extend the cuts for the rich in order to protect unemployment benefits that expire at the end of 2011.

There are people who were surprised? Really? It’s campaign time, when the politicians lock their balls away for safe keeping.

@woodcutter You know what this teaches our society and youth over all though right? That it is ok, during certain circumstances, during election time primarily, to just put it off. We paid those mother fuckers to sit down and get a deal done. I’m not going to raise my kid to and tell them, “Oh its campaign time, accountability doesn’t matter in this case.” Fuck that shit, we as a society need to hold our officials accountable.

@whitetigress We can do that next November. But most of us won’t. All the ideologues among us will keep their “heroes” in office. So nothing will change.

Same ol’, Same ol’

Did this “super fizzle” cost the taxpayers any additional money during this time? Just curious because if it did, we deserve a refund.

We do not “pay” those “motherfuckers” to get a deal done. If we did do that, we wouldn’t hamstring Congress by making one house Republican and the other Democrat. In fact, to go by Americans’ voting behavior, you will come to understand that we “pay” Congress to do nothing. We actually want them to do as little as possible and we ensure that they don’t by keeping things evenly balanced and gridlocked.

Now if you believe these huge cuts to the defense budget will be implemented for a second, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Hell, I’ve got a dozen of the damn things and I’ll sell ‘em to you cheap! This supercommittee exercise means nothing, other than political posturing. It gives folks a talking point, and we’ll see what sells in the next election. Was it the Republicans fault or the Dems? Do we want to fork over our pensions to the rich, or do we want to destroy health care and pensions for our grandparents? Or both?

In government, it seems, the best course of action is generally inaction. It used to be that a Congress critter could bring home the bacon with earmarks. That has sort of been diminished, but that’s about all someone can do to make friends with their district these days—that and keeping an eye on those insidious others who want to destroy the country.

The supercommittee was a huge success for the country, although it was a disaster for those with any particular point of view. And yet, if you have a point of view, think of the alternative. How would you like it if your side had caved so there could be a deal? You’d be screaming bloody murder at your guy, and you’d vote him out next time. So really, the supercommittee was a big success for you, too, since the other side didn’t force us to knuckle under.

It appears to me the entire country is so evenly split between the spend more, tax more__ and the _stop spending, eliminate services groups that it is impossible to compromise. These are two strongly held, mutually exclusive beliefs.

From the time it was formed it was evident it was just postponing a decision for a couple months. Both sides said from the beginning there were things they wouldn’t compromise on. It was deadlocked 2½ months ago.

The fact that it failed proves Congress can get something meaningful done. They set out to design a process that would fail, and they succeeded. I actually think that given Republican absolute intransigence on ANY revenue increases, doing nothing was the best alternative we could have hoped for. Because the alternative would have been to push all the cuts to the poor and the elderly so that millionaires could keep an actual tax rate lower than upper middle-class workers.

I was very happy to hear the President lay down a veto threat against any attempt to just move the goal posts or kick the can past the 2012 elections. Now, Congress can do what they were elected to do, and devise a workable spending and revenue plan that addresses the deficit, or let the trigger be pulled and the automatic cuts and tax increases kick in.

The times they are a-changing. The majority of the country favors taxing the rich. The occupy movement has a lot of public support. Expect taxing the rich to become a campaign issue. It is probably Obama’s trump card to re-election. The Tea Party is largely responsible for the current impasse. I give them five more years at most before they enter the historical dustbin.

It didn’t shock me at all. The Republicans are fools, and completely tied themselves to this increasingly unpopular ideology, that we should protect tax breaks for the rich.

Talk the talk, now, let’s walk the walk. What would happen if ALL of congress incumbents, or almost all of them were defeated? It’ll probably never ever happen but what if? Well, that’s what will have to happen to make them fear us and that is what they should be doing. They need to fear getting fired, just like the rest of us do if we screw up. These people have no fear, they play games while the regular people eat the big shit sandwich because they have never had to sink their teeth into one. No matter what happens, or does not happen, they still get their perks.

Vote them all out this go around just to see what will happen. Whatever happens, I can’t believe it could make things worse. There is no reason why the same asshole should be comfortable in office for decades. There are term limits, all we have to do is administer them. They haven’t yet taken that right away from us. We get the govt. we deserve.

@woodcutter But I like my congressman. It’s yours I don’t like.

@woodcutter That would be a bone-headed direction, I think. Decide whether you agree with Republicans that Medicare and Social Security should get cut to help balance the budget, but taxes can never be raised on the rich; or the Democrats who want just the opposite. In this kind of fundamental fight over which way the country goes, just voting to shoot them all resolves nothing. You usher in a whole new crop of ideologues frozen by the partisan divide, and unable to do anything.

@zenvelo Ha!. I actually like my congressman for a reason. He emails me a newsletter showing what issues the house considered, and how he voted on each, along with Republican, Democratic and Independent vote totals on the bill. He has never voted differently than I would have done on any issue. THat’s a pretty spectacular record.

It would be nice to have a discussion (just once) without all the inflammatory rhetoric and talking points. The Republicans won’t go for a deal that includes RATE hikes. The Democrats won’t go for any deal that does not include rate hikes. That’s the stalemate. Republicans put tax increases on the table in the way of closing loopholes. Democrats won’t accept that because they do not include rate hikes.

The issue is not about revenue increases nor about spending cuts. Hell the whole point of the committee was to find spending cuts. There is middle ground here. We can increase revenue and find spending cuts. The ratio Democrats said they wanted was 3 to 1. That is the deal Republicans put on the table. It was denied because it didn’t raise tax rates.

Obama complicated the matter by proposing even more government spending while the committee was charted to cut spending. And remember that there has never been ANY real spending cut proposed. Only a reduction in the rate of growth in spending.

This whole thing is political. Democrats believe they can use the stalemate to blame Republicans. And it may work. But wouldn’t it be nice to try and solve the problem rather than scrambling to see who we can blame?

@Jaxk Parts of your summary I agree with, parts I don’t. (that’s positive direction right?)

-The additional jobs bill (spending you mentioned) proposed by the president would have been paid for by separate tax increases included in that legislation. Whether or not you agree with that move is one thing, but it’s disingenuous to suggest that the president was simply putting forward more spending without paying for it whilst the SC was trying to find things to cut (as in him simply exacerbating the problem).

-While I don’t doubt for a second that some Democrats on the committee could have bent more, I also dont’ doubt for a second that Republicans could have too. From what I’m hearing Democrat proposals basically ticked the tax rates back to what they were in the 90’s. Republicans may not like those tax rates, but they worked back then, and if you’re going to cut a trillion from programs that Democrats like, you’re going to have to meet them halfway and give them something big they like.

-I disagree that Democrats aren’t trying to fix the problem. I think especially back in the summer when the president was actively involved, he made many many overtures and concessions from the original Democratic proposal to get Republicans to compromise, and in the end they decided that 2–3 trillion in spending cuts wasn’t worth 1 trillion in new taxes (including the closed loop holes). Keep in mind these are tax increases that even Grover Norquest , the man who has all those Republican pledges not to raise taxes, signed off on and suggested would be good for the country.

Now the super-committee appears to be facing a similar impasse. If I were a Democrat, I would do what I suspect they are doing… call the Republicans bluff. I’m not willing to give anymore up without getting something back, so I say, fine we’ll take it to the people and show them what you and I can’t agree to, and see who they agree with more….. and from the polls I’ve seen, the people side with the Democrats on this one. (and frankly it’s about time the Dem’s grow a sack and stick up to the Republicans)

@tedd

The whole idea of tax hikes to fuel more spending is the problem. We need to get spending under control. It is ridiculous to talk about the tax rates of the 90s as if that were good for us. Spending was down at $1.8 trillion and that was good for us too. If you want to bring the spending more in line with the $1.8 trillion, I would go along with the tax rates.

There has been no real deficit reduction from the Democrats. Everything proposed by the Democrats has been targeted to fuel more spending. It would appear that the Democrats have no problem with the debt and are dead set on permanently adjusting spending up to 25% of GDP.

We have $15 trillion in debt. We are at near zero rates on that debt but if you believe that will continue, your kidding yourself. Germany, Europes most solid economy, is now having trouble selling it’s bonds. Interest rates are going to go up and when that happens we will be in the same condition as Greece. We have got to do something to reduce our deficit or when the interest rates start climbing it will be too late. I don’t know if Democrats can’t see that or if they just don’t care. Either way, more taxes to fuel more spending is a bad idea and will likely cripple our economy. So I say fine, take it to the people. We’ll only get one shot at this, and if the Democrats win the battle, we’re all done anyway.

@zenvelo Do you know who my congressmen are? My point being you can’t blame the super committee. Because they are are a reflection of us. It is we who are the stubborn one’s, just sure as shit it’s the other side who is unreasonable. If you make it known tolerating a business as usual won’t be tolerated then possibly the special interests may, just may have a smaller voice.You really think things would be worse? If nothing else it would make history. I’d be a lot cleaner than what’s been going on in the middle east lately.

I’m embarrassed to admit I thought the Super Committee was a good idea and was going to accomplish something. I didn’t know my history about that at the time, and I won’t forget it in the future.