The Solution

By Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post
Published: August 4

Conventional wisdom holds that the congressional super-committee established by the debt-ceiling deal to propose further deficit reduction will go nowhere. I’m not so sure. There is a grand compromise to be had. It does, however, require precise sequencing. To succeed it must proceed in three stages:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/charles-k ... _page.html

Interesting, and not so out there as to be totally rejected. But just having the word "revenue" in it will give the Tea Party vapors.

archer wrote: Interesting, and not so out there as to be totally rejected. But just having the word "revenue" in it will give the Tea Party vapors.

Lets see. IMO your view of the tea party is terribly twisted.

neptunechimney wrote:

archer wrote: Interesting, and not so out there as to be totally rejected. But just having the word "revenue" in it will give the Tea Party vapors.

Lets see. IMO your view of the tea party is terribly twisted.

So you think the Tea Party will change their mind suddenly and allow a solution with revenue in it? why? they were dead set against any revenue increase this last go around. This "solution" says revenue neutral to begin with, but then allows for the raising of the tax rate, or closing of loopholes to increase revenue. My impression of the Tea Party's stand is there is to be only spending cuts, no revenue increases. Am I wrong in that interpretation? what is "twisted" about this view of the Tea Party?????

archer wrote: [So you think the Tea Party will change their mind suddenly and allow a solution with revenue in it? why? they were dead set against any revenue increase this last go around. This "solution" says revenue neutral to begin with, but then allows for the raising of the tax rate, or closing of loopholes to increase revenue. My impression of the Tea Party's stand is there is to be only spending cuts, no revenue increases. Am I wrong in that interpretation? what is "twisted" about this view of the Tea Party?????

The tea party is not a party and it is not homogeneous. Just a bunch of people who care about their country.

With that my beer/post ratio is past my legal limit. Good night.

ok....there is no Tea Party.....



.........who were those masked men and women?

archer wrote:

neptunechimney wrote:

archer wrote: Interesting, and not so out there as to be totally rejected. But just having the word "revenue" in it will give the Tea Party vapors.

Lets see. IMO your view of the tea party is terribly twisted.

So you think the Tea Party will change their mind suddenly and allow a solution with revenue in it? why? they were dead set against any revenue increase this last go around. This "solution" says revenue neutral to begin with, but then allows for the raising of the tax rate, or closing of loopholes to increase revenue. My impression of the Tea Party's stand is there is to be only spending cuts, no revenue increases. Am I wrong in that interpretation? what is "twisted" about this view of the Tea Party?????

A simplification of the tax code, a lowering of tax rates and a decrease in DC spending is precisely what the TEA Party has been calling for all along. Why wouldn't they support such a measure? Now, if Democrats continue to insist on targeting certain industries or certain citizens, the resistance will continue. The mortgage deduction on second homes for instance. If it is taken away on every second home and not just some second homes, then it is an equitable change to the code that can be supported. Allowing the deduction for a $495K second home to continue and ending the deduction for a $505K second home makes no sense at all and would actually impact how much money the homeowners whose property value falls close to the cutoff point can sell their home for. They would be forced into taking less for their home so that the buyer would qualify for the mortgage deduction. Is it a function of government to artificially set home prices now as well as tell a farmer that they can't grow wheat for their own family to consume?

neptunechimney wrote: Just a bunch of people who care about their country.

Uh oh. Hope you're wrong about that one. Their patron saint Ayn Rand doesn't approve of doing things for "love of country" only for "love of self". Or possibley "love of money".

Caring to preserve their individual liberty is an expression of self love AV. Preventing the rise of a central government with unlimited power and authority over not only their persons, but also fruits of their labor would fall into that category as well.

Its not just down to one thing. Since the Democrats had control of Congress (both House and Senate) since 2006, and since this is where spending bills, budget, etc. come from, the blame thrower of it's Bush's fault is utter BS. Now the Republicans have the majority in the House only, and its all their fault. The hypocrisy of the Left is starting to be known by all that can think. Socialism has always been a path to destruction and ultimately to a dictatorship or totalitarian government. Please help Bury Obama in 2012.