The Fiscal cliff

[rwh11385]

Well, if you don't like what your leadership is doing, apparently you should just quit and then start writing opinion pieces about why everyone else is dumb:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323501404578161613763222762.html

DeMint’s decision, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was a surprise. The South Carolinian coasted to a second term in 2010, and while he had said he didn’t intend to stand for re-election again, his abrupt retirement sent shock waves around Capitol Hill and stripped the Senate of one of its most powerful Tea Party members. DeMint quickly emerged as a general in the conservative insurgency that rose up during Barack Obama’s first term. He became a hero to anti-tax conservatives, crusading against earmarks, helping to foment the Tea Party rebellion and bucking Republican leaders who wavered from the party’s small-government principles.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/12/06...#ixzz2EJJ4DTwn

He became the Senate’s conservative scourge, prompting many Republicans to warn that his hard-right ideology and uncompromising approach could alienate many voters and consign the party to perpetual minority status. DeMint was undeterred by such criticisms.”I’m blasting rock, and it’s hard to be graceful,” he told TIME in 2010.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/12/06...#ixzz2EJJNva00

This is amazing.

[naplesE30]

Interesting that the senate wont even vote on Obamas plan, when repubs call for it.

http://thehill.com/video/senate/2712...reduction-plan

[mrsleeve]

no one wants to go on record 1st


All though (I cant believe I am gong to say this) I agree with Harry, that it should be brought up on its own merits and not attached as and amendment to something else that has little to do with it.

We all hate it when they ram shit though under the cover of something totally unrelated because its the only way they can get something to pass. This really would be no different

[naplesE30]

Not a fan of attaching amendments to bills either but MM also offered a stand alone vote on the fiscal proposal.

This proposal has about as much support as BO's 2011 budget proposal.

One two three jump.

[tjts1]

Its over kids. The teabaggers caved and the rich are going to get taxed whether you like it or not. You can't win elections by only representing the interests of the top 2% of the country even if they bankroll your campaign.

[z31maniac]

Its over kids. The teabaggers caved and the rich are going to get taxed whether you like it or not. You can't win elections by only representing the interests of the top 2% of the country even if they bankroll your campaign.

It's been over for a long time.

As long as we have the Federal Reserve system, where ALL money that goes into circulation is debt backed, we will never get out of this mess.

And Ron Paul is an idiot because a gold standard would be far worse.

[gwb72tii]

It's called Zealotry. It's on both sides of the aisle and negatively effects everyone.

Much like the shit flinging a lot of people here have done ;)

GWB, where are your answers? You do a lot of martyr'ing but not a lot of answering.

Heeter, you realize you do come off like a prick? Right? I mean, I get what you're saying and appreciate the education but that's one side of the coin when trying to talk/educate/debate with a person(s).

Corvallis, TJT, etc... stop letting Heeter do all your heavy lifting.

Now me personally? I think the conflict resides in economics being stuffed into a bag of philosophy and massive knuckle headedness. That's my take on a lot of it. Less crying from the Administration about how bum a deal they got when they got the office they wanted (ironic) and waaay less white Knighting to the point of extremist zeal when it comes to a philosophical stand point.

my solution?
1. no more baseline budgeting. no carryovers from year to year. do you realize the $800 billion stimulus was not a one time event, it is part of the baseline and has been included every fucking year. we've spent 3.2 trillion on stimulus.
2. constitutional amendment limiting government spending to 20% of GDP, with exceptions such as wartime (actually declared war), etc.
3. incentives to save budgeted money at the federal level at the agency level, instead of spend it or lose it as it is today.
4. GO OVER THE FISCALL CLIFF. get it over/done with. the issues has never been revenues, it has always been spending.

also, if you're going to argue that the 2% reduction on Social Security withholding is a benefit to the economy, you cannot argue taxing an additional 2% on the wealthy won't harm the economy. money out of the private sector dampens economic activity, period. the king wanting another 2% from the "wealthy" is politics, and the king will get what he wants or he's going over the cliff.

and corvallis, the cbo estimates the tax increase the pres wants will raise $70 billion/year. its a rounding error. and it assume those being taxed will not hide income or change behavior, which is silly

[MattBimmer]

This is a bit ignorant to ask, but I am pretty uneducated to the situation of things at the present moment.
I realize those earning 250k or more are going to be taxed more heavily. I realize also that Obama is asking for another stimulus package of money, but I dont know much beyond that. I realize it has been a battle over taxes, but will there be any significant spending cuts or reforms to government pay programs? (Decreasing the size of the military as one of those)
Also after perusing some of the previous post I do have to agree that the top money earners are not likely to bow down and take a tax increase. They will likely restructure companies, cut workers, and do what is necessary to maintain the same amount of money in their pocket they are recieving now.

[mrsleeve]

^

The cliff involves the expiring of the bush tax cuts, SO ALL OF OUR TAXES GO UP.

The O man wants to raise them on those evil RICH SOBs (you have handle on it, the ones that sign most of our pay checks). We can take every dime from them that they have in combined and will earn this year and still not even fund the govt for the year 2013, let alone touch the national debt..................
edit watch this

there is a thread on here about this too

You see the Administration wishes to raise revenue (AKA taxes) NOW and then worry about the spending cuts latter. Ummm we all know where that goes, since we have done that very thing several times over now, the CUTS NEVER COME, just the taxes.

The O man wants this to happen........................its class warfare at its best



But I am a crazy tinfoil hat wearing conservative that knows little to nothing about about how things work according the plethora of "moderate" and leftists around here. SO just ignore what ever I have just said they will be along shortly to educate you and tell you and me how wrong I am

[rwh11385]

^

The cliff involves the expiring of the bush tax cuts, SO ALL OF OUR TAXES GO UP.

The O man wants to raise them on those evil RICH SOBs (you have handle on it, the ones that sign most of our pay checks). We can take every dime from them that they have in combined and will earn this year and still not even fund the govt for the year 2013, let alone touch the national debt..................
edit watch this

there is a thread on here about this too

You see the Administration wishes to raise revenue (AKA taxes) NOW and then worry about the spending cuts latter. Ummm we all know where that goes, since we have done that very thing several times over now, the CUTS NEVER COME, just the taxes.

The O man wants this to happen........................its class warfare at its best



But I am a crazy tinfoil hat wearing conservative that knows little to nothing about about how things work according the plethora of "moderate" and leftists around here. SO just ignore what ever I have just said they will be along shortly to educate you and tell you and me how wrong I am

Haha, I mean you do play the part. But the vid is good at pointing out that the revenue solution can't come from richers alone. And Obama's main reason for pumping the top rates is "fairness", which is class warfare. The problem of Bush vs. Reagan is the spin was better that everyone got an equal drop in rates across the board, and seemed fair. The left villianized Bush's cuts, even if the poor and middle class benefited the most.

The 2% payroll tax extension was sold on a $20/week slogan, which completely ignored the fact that it cut money from going into social security which really needs the money... But that's the real problem - decades old mandatory spending programs which have significantly increased in cost and are only bound to grow as the baby boomers retire and with stagnant immigration and population growth, it'll be challenging to have tax revenues of those working age pay for the elderly. It's only going to get much worse, especially if kids these days have a skill/training/education mismatch with what we need in the economy. All the talk about discretionary spending is a red herring for the most part since politicians have a hard time attacking the spending that takes care of old people since they turn out to vote.

Although you can't juice all of the needed tax revenues from the rich, they are already the a good source of current tax revenues. However, the base is crucial, even if it may be a small amount from a lot of people. Too bad few politcians have the guts to take away people's mortgage interest tax deduction even if it is moronic. And raising tax rates cools economic growth according to the Laffer Curve, which results in lower revenues. So we need a method to raise tax revenue while not hurting the economy, like fair tax wants to go for. But speaking of tax revenue and economic growth, the huge part of deficit is the financial crisis's effect on GDP while revenue got torpedoed while spending kept going. Not only did it tank the GDP, this resulted in tanked tax revenue. And obviously stimulus spending.

Ultimately, we need to have an efficient tax code without as many loopholes, bringing in revenue without dragging down the economy too much, and control mandatory spending - while ensuring that tomorrow's workforce has the skills and the spirit to provide enough foundation and base to tax to pay for old people.



Sadly, you can't really resolve these issues if the sides are spending more time fighting than thinking. Blaming each other instead of finding solutions. Even Thomas L. Friedman (pretty sure at least it was him) wish the GOP would get away from the loonies and provide free market incentive solutions to the problems facing America.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I for one welcome our taxation overlords.

I look forward to hearing about the 'Obama Tax Cuts' potentially expiring and the 'Fiscal Grand Canyon' around the 2024 Presidential Elections.

[z31maniac]

Fair Tax and the abolishment of the Federal Reserve are the two most important things that need to happen.

Thusly, they will not happen.

[rwh11385]

This was fun, if anyone else wants to play Fix the Deficit:

http://projects.wsj.com/my-deficit-plan/#sel=0-0-0

[MattBimmer]

Well I mean I have been really busy with school lately, and I was able to research a little better about stances etc. during the election cause I had more free time. I was also able to talk to very very left wing people within my family tree about the issues and stances. With this I havent had as much time to fully understand everything. When I DO watch tv and look around for information I try and balance it out as best as possible to avoid B.S. biased. e.g. (I don't watch Bill O'Reilly, and I don't watch Chris Matthews) however I will flip between channels on CNN and Fox, and I will say CNN seems pretty good about balance on biased, and Fox is definitely right wing, but I feel watching both draws a pretty good picture.
From what I have seen, both channels etc. is that it really does seem as if the President is just trying to let this tick down to the final minutes in order to achieve what he wants. It seems that he feels since he was re-elected by a little over 1/2 of America that everything he wanted was 100% a-okay with Americans. Now I am saying this as how it SEEMS. It seems he is going to get those high taxes and he is gonna "grow the economy by putting a few extra dollars in the middle class pockets". BUT I think it also seems Boehner has tried to compromise asking for spending cuts etc. and the President stuck his nose up at it. The stimulus in 08 didn't seem to do much and raising the debt ceiling hasn't proven to be that fruitful either, (which I am sure someone will bash me on that, but like I said this is how it feels as a lower-middle class person IMO) and he is asking for the same this go around. It just doesn't seem right when he was talking about bi-partisan work together to get things done and now he SEEMS to not be willing to budge on spending.
And like I said in my previous post, I work under a lot of people who make 250k or more a year. I work at a private golf club, and the members and I have had quick chats (nothing major) about the future 4 years and 1 member in particular told me he is laying off 25 people from his insurance company because the increases on he and his business. I would say that it is probably not a necessity, and that his company would not go under if he didn't, but I do think that by doing so he is guarenteeing the money directly in his pocket will not change.

[MattBimmer]

Also is it absolutely idiotic to try a taxation system where individuals are taxed say, 20% across the board? With reasonable deductions for very low income families? I mean I for example get 1/5 of my paycheck taken for taxes. I think that I am missing a few deductions myself as I have never filed the money I pay for school as a deduction (is that one?) I am only making 9-10k a year, with working full time in the summer.