Fiscal Cliff Thread

[Zacha341]

...So much for your "useful" dialogue.

With you that is.... quite correct. [[My initial point)

[oladub]

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?

I'm not responding for Zacha but I'd like to ask you about your take on the Plan which President Obama promised to support before he shelved it. He not only promised to support it, he commissioned the report in 2010. It wouldn't even get us anywhere near balancing the annual federal budget but it seems to be the best idea around that could garner support.

If we did want to get serious about fixing the problem, Sen. Paul laid out a plan which would cut military spending, waste, and bureaucracies without effecting the viability of Social security for seniors. His plan would end federal deficits within five years.
http://paul.senate.gov/files/documen...%20America.pdf

I don't think Paul's plan has any chance of passing because too many special interests would be threatened. That is why I'm asking you your opinion of the far less ambitious Bowles-Simpson Plan. If you oppose it, why?

[Danny]

Shoo! that was close. Next proposal raise the Debt Ceiling before Feburary 1st, 2013.

[Jimaz]

Anyone wanna buy a parachute? One owner. Never used.

[rb336]

It was nothing more than an excuse for more giveaways to corporations

[Jimaz]

DetroitYES Home » Non Detroit Issues » Thom Hartmann » Just Who Won The Fiscal Cliff Fight?

[Papasito]

Seriously speaking, in a bi partisan way, and void of finger pointing, it is obvious that the debt is crushing this country, and to continue to operate the same way is unsustainable. Both parties are not willing to take the necessary steps to save this country from hyperinflation, the collapse of the dollar, and the bankruptcy of the country.

Government spending has no relation to tax revenue taken in.

It used to be Country first, politics second. Those days are over.

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, you can't possibly look at our Government's spending and money printing habits and think it's OK. They can't tax us out of this, you simply can't raise enough tax money from the "rich" to pay for the spending AND pay the debt off. This so called "Fiscal Cliff Deal" does nothing to fix any of the issues in the grand scheme of things.

Not only does the spending need to be cut, but the debt needs PAID OFF.

Does anyone see anyone in Government who wants to do this, is doing this, and intends to save this country?

The answer is clearly: NO.

[TKshreve]

Seriously speaking, in a bi partisan way, and void of finger pointing, it is obvious that the debt is crushing this country, and to continue to operate the same way is unsustainable. Both parties are not willing to take the necessary steps to save this country from hyperinflation, the collapse of the dollar, and the bankruptcy of the country.

Government spending has no relation to tax revenue taken in.

It used to be Country first, politics second. Those days are over.

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, you can't possibly look at our Government's spending and money printing habits and think it's OK. They can't tax us out of this, you simply can't raise enough tax money from the "rich" to pay for the spending AND pay the debt off. This so called "Fiscal Cliff Deal" does nothing to fix any of the issues in the grand scheme of things.

Not only does the spending need to be cut, but the debt needs PAID OFF.

Does anyone see anyone in Government who wants to do this, is doing this, and intends to save this country?

The answer is clearly: NO.

I hear your plea papa. It is obvious that the people leading this country are doing everything but that. However, "seriously speaking" .... how can you not acknowledge that we have slid into a plutocracy [[probably exactly what our founding fathers feared) and the system is not working for the masses.

Two links with raw data.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib331...top-1-percent/

Look, we get it....... taxing the top X% will not cover the entire debt. We also cannot continue to provide for and reward the people who lack any effort to even try. Riddle me this though...... as the worlds population explodes and technology continues to replace the productivity of man....... how can we continue to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands? How long can we continue to ship American jobs overseas and still expect to have enough revenue to run the country?

A friend of mine continues to post something on FB that is funny and totally true.

Warren Buffet's solution to the national deficit and debt: If ever the deficit is more that 3% of the GDP, all sitting members of congress are ineligible for re-election.

As I'm sure everyone breathed a sigh of relief when it was realized that Communism was not a sustainable economic way of life, I think that I am drawing a similar conclusion with unregulated capitalism. It has bred itself into a monster which puts Americans out of work, promotes a revolving door between Washington and big business, and thrives upon wage suppression. Make good education affordable, and put Americans back to work in full-time jobs with adequate pay. Boom! Just fixed the debt problem.

[oladub]

Does anyone see anyone in Government who wants to do this, is doing this, and intends to save this country?

The answer is clearly: NO.

Au contraire. See link post 127. Senator Mike Lee of Utah would also support Sen. Paul's budget plan. All it takes is another 49 senators to put this on President Obama's desk. The President has already stated that he wants to cut spending.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Wifey got her first paycheck since the Cliff Deal, it was $40.00 less due to increased taxes.

[Papasito]

"No increased taxes on middle class and poor" = Lie

Of the estimated 161 million workers who will pay Social Security taxes in 2012, about 10 million will pay higher taxes as a result of the increase in the taxable maximum, according to the Social Security Administration [[SSA).
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/co...alSec2012.aspx

Is Social Security a tax? Hell yes, it is. The money is not put in a special fund for Social Security. It's put in the general spending fund. Your Social Security money is spent as soon as they get it.

The fiscal cliff deal reached by the White House and Senate Republicans wouldn’t extend the payroll-tax holiday. The biggest hit to 2013 growth appears likely to come from this tax break’s expiration on Monday.
The workers’ share of the Social Security payroll tax had been lowered by two percentage points for the past two years, to 4.2% from 6.2%, amounting to an annual income boost of $1,000 for a typical U.S. family earning $50,000 a year.
It provided an increase of as much as $2,202 this year for a worker earning $110,100, the maximum wage subject to the payroll tax.

The end of the tax break would effectively raise taxes for all wage earners next year, a potential surprise for many despite the expected extension of most individual income-tax rates. That would mean the highest tax burdens since 2008
for most U.S. households, before the Obama administration pushed a tax credit in the 2009 stimulus law and the payroll-tax break.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/...-will-you-pay/

Everyone's check will be lighter at the end of the week in 2013.
The working class is taking it in the shorts.
Taxes staying the same unless you make over $400k? Lie.

Punch in your income on the tax increase calculator at http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/...-will-you-pay/ to see how much more you'll be paying, then thank your politicians and President. If you make about $60,000 a year, you'll be paying about $1200.00 more in taxes in 2013.

[Zacha341]

Yep. With more lies and 'shape-shifting' forthcoming. Which will be harder to ignore even if they are coming from ones party of favor over time.

It was easier to take so long it was just the rich folks [[or someone else in general) getting ganked. The rich 'definition' is heading downward!

"No increased taxes on middle class and poor" = Lie

[rb336]

"No increased taxes on middle class and poor" = Lie

Is Social Security a tax? Hell yes, it is. The money is not put in a special fund for Social Security. It's put in the general spending fund. Your Social Security money is spent as soon as they get it.

Social Security is not part of the general budget. The general fund BORROWS from SSA, and it is THE SINGLE LARGEST CREDITOR. Want to make an immediate impact on US debt? Have the SSA forgive its portion and remove the upper limit

[Cincinnati_Kid]

http://www.freep.com/article/2013011...xt|FRONTPAGE|s

This sucks. The middle class squeeze has begun.

[Papasito]

Remember when he said THIS about Dubya?

[noise]

Remember when he said THIS about Dubya?

A cool internet meme is always the best form of conveying context.

[Papasito]

^^ The "Cool Internet Meme" is factual and based on real quotes.


The "Fiscal Cliff" is set to take effect March 1st, and the "Debt Limit" will have to be increased again. If you recall, the Republicans told the Obama administration back on December 31st that they would cooperate in a deal to avoid the cuts on March 1st if Obama passed a budget.

Well, no budget has been passed.

The scare tactics of the media and the left will be hot and heavy in the next 2 weeks. Republicans will be to blame for everything.

But just remember the truth :
OBAMA DID NOT PASS A BUDGET AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT!!

[Zacha341]

What? "Republicans told the Obama administration back on December 31st that they would cooperate in a deal to avoid the cuts on March 1st if Obama passed a budget."

Repubs said so, so need to worry - Just partisan hystrics ......

Rule of the day: "it's our turn now" buffeted by "they spend money too" hubris... onward the hi-jinks carnival ride proceeds. So long as the machinery continues to work. And or the mechanics are nearby.

[Zacha341]

Poli-tricks and politics, and promises - like pie crusts: made to be broken.

Ignore what the president said then on record. That was for the stupid repubs...

New day, our party. Same money, or lacking therein as we go forward. Yep.

Remember when he said THIS about Dubya?

[Zacha341]

Yep! As 'not' promised. The rich [[as redefined as needed, downward) were suppose to be getting 'theirs' - sparing us. Um, oops, something went wrong....

http://www.freep.com/article/2013011...xt|FRONTPAGE|s

This sucks. The middle class squeeze has begun.

[Papasito]

Repubs said so, so need to worry - Just partisan hystrics ......

MY POINT is that Democrats need to pass a budget. They didn't.
We have to operate on a budget, and the Government should, too.

I do think that if the Democrats passed a budget [[for the first time in 4 years), it would show a true "willingness to work with those across the isle" and not just the smoke and mirror rhetoric we typically get from Washington. This is an opportunity to take the "Cliff" and make the Republicans own it. All they have to do is pass a budget. Doesn't seem so hard, does it?

[Zacha341]

^^^ I agree fully!! Just a bit of sarcasm...

[oladub]

President Obama explaining that he supported sequestration and, more recently, that he opposes sequestration.

[oladub]

[[see previous post)
Now that the election is over, President Obama is trying to stop sequestration cuts. He warned,

“Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks,which means more delays at airports across the country. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings." http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2521931

Senator Rand Paul, on the other hand welcomes sequestration just like the pre-election Obama. Senator Paul is introducing legislation which would allow a sequestration without any layoffs. Its provisions are:

The Sequester Without Layoffs
•·Stop Hiring New Federal Employees: $6.5 billion saved annually
•·Bring Federal Employee Pay in Line With Private Jobs: $32 billion saved annually
•·Reduce Federal Employee Travel by 25 Percent: $2.25 billion saved annually
•·Focus Military Research on Military Needs: $6 billion saved annually
•·Require Competitive Bidding for Government Contracts: $19 billion saved annually
•·Cut 50 Percent of Foreign Aid: $20 billion saved annually

If I were a federal employee, I wouldn't like the pay cut but otherwise this seems like a positive alternative to holding Americans hostage to the mayhem and blackmail President Obama is threatening if he doesn't get his new taxes fix.

[Zacha341]

Just more partisan wiffle-waffling of the lawmakers and the admin withstanding whatever and what level of fiscal issue or crisis at hand or pending. And we'll be the fodder as usual - rank-and-file, marching or crawling forward... temporarily salved by knowing at least we're on the correct side of the 'er party!

The president must by obligation respond in this manner after agreeing with it in 2011 as the repubs are an integral part of the sequester at this point... expected response.

President Obama explaining that he supported sequestration and, more recently, that he opposes sequestration.