Fiscal Cliff Thread

[Danny]

If Fiscal Cliff ends in Jan, 1 2013.

What does it mean to the Republicans in power in the House and in U.S. Congress?

1. They will have to deal with serious tax hikes.

2. They will lose their ability to gain their trust in the large liberal demographic. They won't be trusted any more. Even next presidential elections and midterm elections. Fewer Republicans might go independent, going democratic or go with the failing Tea Party.

What does it mean to the Democrats in power in the House and in U.S. Congress?

1. They will have to deal with serious tax hikes and blame Republicans. The taxation problem is not a democratic proposal. The Republicans [[under George Bush) planned it. They will have to fix it.

2. They will lauch serious media propaganda commercials to the American people telling them to vote straight democratic. If so by 2016 the Democrats can take back both houses of congress and control the executive powers in the United States.

So the fiscal cliff is a lose lose situation for the Republican
and win win for the democrats. President Obama don't have to come up with a plan to end fiscal cliff. He is not a lawmaker. He can only wait for both Democrats and Republicans to cooperate a bipartisan solution to end fiscal cliff. Just like they did to raise the Debt Ceiling.

[Papasito]

They keep talking about bringing taxes to the "Clinton Era" levels, as if that is some kind of "good thing" reflective of the "good times" America enjoyed when Clinton was President.
But this is not the 90's. There is no tech boom, housing boom, and vibrant economy to support high taxing levels. There is no relation between revenue intake and spending levels.

2012-2013 has absolutely NOTHING in common with the 1990's.

The way out of this mess is growth. We need more poor & middle class people becoming rich, and that's not happening. America simply does not have enough rich people to pay for the Government's spending.
Go ahead and raise taxes. It doesn't matter if you do or you don't, because in 4 years, the national debt will be $20T, the economy will STILL suck, and your home's value will still be flatlined.

[Papasito]

What we should be asking is not whether we need a big government or small government, but how we can create a smarter and better government.

Barack Obama, University of Michigan Commencement, 2010
44th President of United States

Mr. Obama wants to tell us how much taxes we should pay, that we are not paying enough, we are not paying our fair share, that we are not responsible enough as American citizens to pay the Government's operating costs.
But what is he doing with our money?

Is Mr. Obama being frugal with our money? Watching every dollar, and not being wasteful? He he creating a "smarter and better Government" like he promised? Is he holding himself and his Administration to a higher standard than his predecessors as he had promised?

Of course, if Mr. Obama is NOT being wasteful of our tax dollars, then he would have a moral authority to tell US what we should be doing with the MONEY WE EARN, and that based on HIS established behavior, we peasants CAN and SHOULD be permitted to surrender MORE of OUR EARNINGS to the GOVERNMENT and keep LESS FOR OURSELVES, right?

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

http://www.amazon.com/The-1-4-Billio.../dp/B009DQLKQU

Giving the Pro-Obama Crowd credit for attempting to defend this waste, Little Green Footballs points out George Bush spent a little more than Obama did :
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...r_Fake_Outrage
But if Hitler kills 6 million Jews, does that make it OK for the next German leader?
Does that make it right?
Because one person does something blatantly wrong does not give the next person an OK to do something wasteful, damaging or wrong as well.
Obama said he would operate our Government at a higher standard!

Instead, he [[like his predecessors) spends our tax dollars living the life of a Monarch or a King, living lavish lifestyles and enjoying the finest foods and entertainment, while the rest of us are told we are not paying enough.

If HE can't spend our money frugally, he's talking the talk and not walking the walk.

Barack Obama : DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.

LET'S PUT THIS ON A SCALE WE CAN RELATE TO:
IF BARACK OBAMA THINKS A "RICH" PERSON MAKES $250,000 A YEAR, THAT PERSON WOULD HAVE TO GIVE EVERY SINGLE PENNY THEY EARN TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR 5,600 YEARS TO COVER THE 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS HE SPENT ON PERSONAL EXPENSES.

[oladub]

As it stands, it looks like President Obama's Mugabe-like plan to address the last increase in the debt ceiling is to raise taxes, particularly on the rich, spend more money, and have Congress grant him its responsibility to raise the debt ceiling as much as he wants. Rep. Boehner has responded by agreeing to $800B of new revenue over 10 years and sacking fiscal conservatives on the House finance committee.

Rand Paul offered a different spin. I am not sure if it was sarcasm in that he has also suggested filibustering tax hikes.

SEN. RAND PAUL: "I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes. Let's don't be the party of just almost as high taxes."

"In the Senate, I'm happy not to filibuster it, and I will announce tonight on your show that I will work with Harry Reid to let him pass his big old tax hike with a simple majority if that's what Harry Reid wants, because then they will become the party of high taxes and they can own it."

Sort of related; below is a chart of our present recovery such as it is. As I read it, there are about 3.7% more jobs than a year ago and hourly earnings are about 3.4% lower than a year ago.

[rb336]

if Groom's numbers are right, it's still about 13% LOWER than what was being payed for Dubya, and we never heard ya bitch about that, did we?

[oladub]

if Groom's numbers are right, it's still about 13% LOWER than what was being payed for Dubya, and we never heard ya bitch about that, did we?

Sorry, What does the pronoun "it" refer to? Who is Groom? Whom were you addressing? If me, former Bush was a lousy spendthrift President too.
___

Yahoo News is reporting that President Obama is announcing a new student default program. The "pay as you earn" program will allow eligible student loan borrowers to cap monthly payments to 10% of discretionary income, and have their loans forgiven after 20 years. Never mind that the fiscal cliff is approaching if Congress and the President cannot negotiate a solution to the previous debt ceiling increase, 46% of the federal budget is borrowed, he has raised the national debt $6T already, and only Congress is empowered to legislate spending. The President has seen fit to bill our children with more debt. I sometimes wonder if President Obama isn't trying to destroy our currency and economy but don't want to believe that he is and can't figure out a motive for doing so.

[Zacha341]

Yes, but during the ensuing years it would make some 'feel' good - applying this form of 'social justice'! Get those rich folk! NOW!

Wait!! The definition [[annual income) of who IS Rich keeps going downward!

And the jackass thief climbing thru my window to steal my stuff [[riches) feels I am rich too as I trudge off to work three jobs to make it!

LET'S PUT THIS ON A SCALE WE CAN RELATE TO:
IF BARACK OBAMA THINKS A "RICH" PERSON MAKES $250,000 A YEAR, THAT PERSON WOULD HAVE TO GIVE EVERY SINGLE PENNY THEY EARN TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR 5,600 YEARS TO COVER THE 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS HE SPENT ON PERSONAL EXPENSES.

[oladub]

Congress is back in session this Sunday, President Obama has cut short his most recent vacation, Timothy Geithner says we hit the fiscal ceiling again Monday, and at this point, things look gloomy for avoiding the fiscal cliff.

[TKshreve]

Congress is back in session this Sunday, President Obama has cut short his most recent vacation, Timothy Geithner says we hit the fiscal ceiling again Monday, and at this point, things look gloomy for avoiding the fiscal cliff.

Why don't the Republicans just give in to the demands of the Democrats? Let the Dems own the economic legislation of this Presidential term. If things really end up that bad after it's all been said and done, they would enjoy a swift return to majority and a prolific rejuvenation of the economy.

Right?

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Republicans will attempt to clean up the mess that Democrats created, then when a Democrat gets elected, they will attempt to clean up the Republicans mess. Sounds like one vicious repetitive cycle to me. BTW, I heard if the Fiscal Cliff isn't reached, Milk will cost $7 dollars a gallon. "Looks like I may have to eat my Cheerios dry".

[rb336]

Why don't the Republicans just give in to the demands of the Democrats? Let the Dems own the economic legislation of this Presidential term. If things really end up that bad after it's all been said and done, they would enjoy a swift return to majority and a prolific rejuvenation of the economy.

Right?

The problem is that they KNOW the President's policies will succeed and preventing that is more important than doing right for the country. daddy accidentally cc'd me a tea party briefing saying they can't take the chance that Obama's policies will succeed.

[oladub]

Cincinnati_Kid, Milk will not double in price if we hit the fiscal cliff. That mis-info is from a NYTimes piece presumably written to scare the sheeple. At worst, only the farmers' share of the milk price would double. Farmers get about $20/hundred weight so a gallon of milk would go up about $1.64. So unless you now pay $1.64/gal. and all the middlemen already work for free, milk will not double in price. A separate piece of legislation could remedy that anyway. There is no reason that what farmers get paid for milk is dependent on fiscal cliff or farm bill legislation.

TKShreve, Rand Paul already suggested that Republicans should just vote 'present' so Democrats will take the heat for the failure of their plan. My guess is that Republican leadership is as corrupt as the administration and will cooperate to keep profiting the 1%. For all their talk, the Republican leadership profits from overspending too.

The latest from the President is that
"If Senate majority leader Harry Reid and minority leader Mitch McConnell do not work out a deal, Mr Obama is seeking a vote to prevent tax rises on incomes up to $250,000 [[£150,000).
He described that as the "bare minimum" Congress should get done before 1 January.
"The hour for immediate action is here, it is now," Mr Obama said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20862716

Say what? The President must mean "the hour for immediate inaction" as not raising taxes would essentially be overturning the fiscal cliff legislation which was put in place to get Republicans to support the last debt ceiling increase.

Whatever happened to the Bowles-Simpson Plan the President agree to support? Sounds like he is now supporting the Cloward Priven plan instead.

My first choice is the Bowles Simpson plan and my second is going over the fiscal cliff. The alternatives, to date, do not address the lack of federal revenue and overspending. The fiscal cliff, at least, would be a crude effort in the right direction.

rb: The problem is that they KNOW the President's policies will succeed and preventing that is more important than doing right for the country. daddy accidentally cc'd me a tea party briefing saying they can't take the chance that Obama's policies will succeed.

Good one rb! Anything is possible; even the President's policies working for a change.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

So a deal is in place, what does that mean for us "common folk"?

[Zacha341]

OK, so when do we go thru this again? The spend, SPEND mentality has gotten us here and is that going to change much? Or in a year are we back to the edge...?

[rb336]

yeah, look at how well Europe is doing with austerity

[oladub]

Cincinnati_Kid, The stock market will go up in the short run. AP has a copyrighted article:How the tax increases will affect households at different income levels

Longer run, kicking the can further down the road will eventually result in inflation. This plan did almost nothing to address the reasons the fiscal cliff legislation was enacted in the first place. The original fiscal cliff legislation was a trade off to gain Republican support for increasing the debt ceiling.

"The last time the debt ceiling had to be raised, in 2011, Republicans demanded major cuts in programes for the poor as well as Medicare and Social Security.They got some concessions from the White House but didn't get what they wanted - which led us to the fiscal cliff. So we've come full circle." -Robert Reich

Fiscal cliff spending cuts are still mostly delayed for two months. The debt ceiling has again been surpassed so the government is cannibalizing federal pension funds and taking other emergency measures until that issue is again addressed. We are far from out of the woods for all the upbeat spin coming from our political leaders and the press. The federal deficit is running at about $1T/year. The new tax on the rich only raises about $60B/year or 6% of $1T to close that gap. It does however extend tax breaks for Nascar race tracks.

[ghettopalmetto]

OK, so when do we go thru this again? The spend, SPEND mentality has gotten us here and is that going to change much? Or in a year are we back to the edge...?

The "spend mentality" got us WHERE, exactly? Into a recession? Into deficit spending? Into obstructionist politics?

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." --Dick Cheney [[R-Obviously), to then-Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill [[2002)

[Zacha341]

If you do not see our looming deficit as at least noteworthy [[as bequeath to us by Reagan, Bush, Bush 2X, Obama), I really have little further to say.

[ghettopalmetto]

If you do not see our looming deficit as at least noteworthy [[as bequeath to us by Reagan, Bush, Bush 2X, Obama), I really have little further to say.

It the deficit looming? Or does it already exist? And are you talking about the budget deficit? Or do you really mean the national debt?

How do you propose to address the problem, Zacha?

Funny how you ascribe budget deficits to only four of the five presidents to hold office since 1981. Yet, deficits and debt have only been a concern for the Republican party since 2009. Why is that?

[Zacha341]

I have no deference or loyalty to dems or repubs relative to bad policy and politics to personal. So, I omitted Clinton... add him to the pile too.

Just a typo. No need to read anything further into it - you dig?

[ghettopalmetto]

I have no deference or loyalty to dems or repubs relative to bad policy and politics to personal. So, I omitted Clinton... add him to the pile too.

Just a typo. No need to read anything further into it - you dig?

So what you're saying is that you'll complain, but you don't have any answers?

[Zacha341]

No need to guess or assume. THIS IS WHAT I'M TELLING YOU:

I am not getting into a 'PISSING' contest GP. One where no matter what I would say, offer or ANSWER you'd start in with your standard boiler-plate insults and name calling ad nauseum. Been there-done that, witness to that. No thank you.

My prerogative is make comments as I find interest or engage in useful dialogue with whom I choose to on this board; not be pulled into 'front-loaded' negative harangues by you! Dig?

If you do not like my comments, pre-supposing them too, too shallow for your expansive depth-of-knowledge and wisdom, put me on 'Ignore'!

Problem solved.

So what you're saying is that you'll complain, but you don't have any answers?

[ghettopalmetto]

No need to guess or assume. THIS IS WHAT I'M TELLING YOU:

I am not getting into a 'PISSING' contest GP, one where no matter what I would say, offer or ANSWER you'd start in with your standard boiler-plate insults and name calling ad nausuem. Been there-done that, witness to that. No thank you.

My prerogative is to engage in useful dialogue with whom I choose on this board; not be pulled into a 'front-loaded' negative harangues by you! Dig?

If you do not like my comments, presupposing them too, too shallow for your expansive depth of knowledge and wisdom, put me 'Ignore'!

Problem solved.

Who's calling names?

You keep writing that "the spending mentality" has caused some sort of problem. Well, how do you fix it?

It's real easy to say, "This is wrong." But if you know what's wrong, then certainly you know of some constructive solutions, or at least have ideas that can facilitate the constructive dialogue you purport to want?

[Zacha341]

^^^ RE-READ. I called you no name. I am stopping this before you START with the name calling!

I 'called' out the expectant behavior that I AND others have gone thru when starting what they thought was a dialogue with you. A stroll down this section of the site will prove my point FULLY valid.

We've had this chat before.

We're done here.

[ghettopalmetto]

^^^ RE-READ. I called you no name. I am stopping this before you START with the name calling!

I 'called' out the expectant behavior that others have gone thru when starting what they thought was a dialogue with you. A stroll down this this section of the site will prove my point FULLY valid.

We're done here.

So you have NO answers, is that correct? I'd like to provide reasoned comment, but I still can't figure out what you meant by "the spending mentality" and the problems it has allegedly caused. If that's the case, then there *is* no problem, since it can't be defined.

So much for your "useful" dialogue.