Súrvêy: Ís Compromise Even Possible?

[Virgil Showlion]

In viewing this thread, you will observe an embedded survey in the page header. It consists of ten questions identifying five key contentious issues in US politics.

If you have the time, please fill it out and post any relevant questions, comments, or observations.

I will leave the survey open for a few days and bump it occasionally, then compile the data and present it. What I'm hoping to get an idea of (from NMSNM, at least) is if compromise between the two major US parties is even possible.

Anybody with knowledge of the two parties and US politics in general is welcome to participate. You don't have to have voted for either party, or even be an American. All questions have "Don't Know" as an answer if you can't think of an answer or you aren't sure.

If you find any questions extremely unclear or unfair, please let me know and I'll add an FAQ list to this OP.

DISCLAIMER:

The two party's positions are self-evident for the last three issues (last six questions), but for the first two issues (regarding tax increases and spending cuts), I will ask you to assume that the Democratic party would take the "pro" side on the tax increases in order to prevent cuts to major social programs, and that the Republican party would take the "pro" side on the spending cuts in order to avoid raising taxes. In both cases, the "con" side is simply that the increases (or cuts) should not occur.

Consider these the two extremes from which a compromise may possibly be reached.

[sgtjer]

?? How to access the survey??

[Virgil Showlion]

Ugh. OK. Survey is up now.

[weltschmerz]

Nov 8, 2012 17:53:03 GMT -5 sgtjer said:

?? How to access the survey??

I was going to ask the same question, but then I figured he'd mock me and print up tee shirts.

[sgtjer]

No, it appeared shortly after I asked ... I assume Virgil did his magic immediately upon request.

[weltschmerz]

I looked a few times, but there were no questions and there was no survey. I said nothing. Virgil knows why.

[mwcpa]

While compromise is needed, both sides need to give in on certain issues, and given the loyalty oaths (I though loyalty was to uphold the constitution, not to a pundit) a few gave to a hack or two I do not expect it....

We need to raise revenue and cut spending... not just cut spending, and not just raise revenue... yet the extremists in both parties won't give an inch here (they fear what Grover may say, or the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ed Shultz types...)

[bean29]

A tax increase of 8-18% of gross income...that is a lot given taxes paid now are on AGI. I didn't think the tax increase amount was realistic.

I don't support throwing out ACA, but I could support modifications to it.

I don't know how much of a threat I think IRAN Poses, but I do think we need to drastically reduce our defense budget.

ETA, the cuts in Social Security seemed pretty drastic too. As MWCPA noted, maybe increasing the tax rate and reducing the benefits paid might be more realistic. Also I think some sort of needs analysis might be tossed in there. The lowest income people might not be subject to a haircut, while those with a certain level of pension or investment income might see a reduction.

[Sum Dum Gai]

That was fun. When do we get to see the results?

To the larger question, I do believe compromises will be reached on a lot of those issues. That meaningful word will be the real sticking point.

The only ones I answered don't know on were allocating military resources (or however that was worded) to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. To me that whole situation has way too many variables to predict right now. My gut says however it turns out, we won't be taking the lead. The powers within short and medium ballistic missile range will probably have much stronger feelings on that whole situation than we will, and will probably act one way or another before we would. I could be totally wrong on that though. It's not an issue I've studied much and is purely a gut feeling.

[mwcpa]

"that is a lot given taxes paid now are on AGI"

Taxes are not paid on AGI.... from AGI people, today, can deduct itemized deduction or take a standard deduction and claim personal exemptions... that is what equals taxable income... from there tax is applied...

[Virgil Showlion]

A tax increase of 8-18% of gross income...that is a lot given taxes paid now are on AGI. I didn't think the tax increase amount was realistic.

I made it sting quite a bit so that a fair bit of compromise would be necessary in order to get everyone to agree with it.

It's worth noting that a tax increase of this kind and this magnitude, by itself, would nowhere near balance the budget.

The only ones I answered don't know on were allocating military resources (or however that was worded) to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. To me that whole situation has way too many variables to predict right now.

Fair enough. A lot of people are a lot more "certain" about the issue, one way or another.

[Deleted]

Heh, I believe that we will see compromise, but no one will admit to it. Both parties will continue to declare victory on every little niche they can carve out for themselves.

[Virgil Showlion]

Survey bump. Thanks to all who have taken it thus far.

For those of you who haven't: I promise you CAKE at the end.

[wyouser]

Without meaningful discussion on the issue of out of control spending ,tax increases only will NOT get our house in order. Personally, Id prefer raising revenue through reforming the tax code and not just by raising tax rates. Giving government more by increasing rates to get our house in order is akin to giving a heroin addict more heroin and expecting that to cure his addiction

[Virgil Showlion]

Survey bump. Thanks to all who have taken it thus far.

Every little bit of new data helps.

[resolution]

Nov 9, 2012 16:18:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Survey bump. Thanks to all who have taken it thus far.

For those of you who haven't: I promise you CAKE at the end.

I took the survey because I want some CAKE, but I was uncertain about a lot of the answers. For example I think the social security program needs some changes, but not necesarily a 35% cut. So I answered in the spirit that it needs to change, with the idea that it might not be that specific change.

[Virgil Showlion]

I took the survey because I want some CAKE, but I was uncertain about a lot of the answers.

I forgot to mention that CAKE is an acronym for Carefully Administered Karmic Exalt.

+1

For example I think the social security program needs some changes, but not necesarily a 35% cut. So I answered in the spirit that it needs to change, with the idea that it might not be that specific change.

I disagree on whether a cut of this magnitude is required, but this is not the thread to debate it.

I've made several of the issues stark so that compromise is (realistically) painful. I want there to be a significant enough difference between pro and con so that most people here can look at the issues and say "Whoa. I'm definitely for that." or "Who. I'm totally against that.", and then consider how much they'd be willing to compromise on the issue.

Also at issue: How much do you trust your government?

Suppose some of these tough decisions need to be made just a few years down the road. Do you believe they're even possible? Do you believe the parties will admit to working together? Will they try to hide their involvement, or try to hog the credit? When your back is up against the wall, do you trust your representatives will compromise on these issues? Do you want them to?

[resolution]

Nov 12, 2012 9:05:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I took the survey because I want some CAKE, but I was uncertain about a lot of the answers.

I forgot to mention that CAKE is an acronym for Carefully Administered Karmic Exalt.

+1

Does that mean you aren't going to bake for me?
*mopes*

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 12, 2012 9:16:30 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I disagree on whether a cut of this magnitude is required, but this is not the thread to debate it.

OK, fair enough, but I give you this link for a read on several ways that SSI can be stabilized:

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=fixing%20social%20security&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2012%2F08%2F19%2Fsocial-security-fixes_n_1808499.html&ei=zQOhUIiaK6bn0QGl2YGICA&usg=AFQjCNEx_WX1yj087R6B0uJ_MrLwiju5xA

They're quoting projections put out by the CBO that assume 7.8% GDP growth until 2020, and sustained 3.8% GDP growth over the subsequent decade, with unreasonably low estimates of inflation and the assumption of a workforce that grows proportionally to the US's population growth, even as the LFPR shrinks.

Furthermore, they're assuming between 3-6% interest on the SS endowment, when interest rates are currently at near zero. Even the slightest change in that would add hundreds of billions to the cost of servicing the US's massive public debt, and it's widely believed that the US Federal Reserve cannot and will not raise rates within the next decade for that reason.

In short, the article cites government analyses based on gravely flawed assumptions. The same reason that the estimated cost of the ACA is rising by a trillion per year with no end in sight.

Does this mean I don't think anything needs to be done? Absolutely not. In that respect, HuffPo and I agree.