347 replies to this topic

[TakeAStepBack]

You know, I don't get it with this highly manufactured crisis. Here the two sides are bickering over negotiations on tax increases and spending cuts. It sounds like this:

Reps "We will do revenue increases with spending cuts"
Dems "WE will do revenue increases and promise to but not guarantee spending cuts"
Reps "We wont do anything on revenue without spending cuts guaranteed"
Dems "Reps wont negotiate"

Then we're told that if we go over the so called fiscal cliff, the countries economy will go to the shitter ( It's been there for years)

Then we're told that if we don't do something about the deficit, the countries economy will go to the shitter.

Which one is it? The fiscal cliff offers tax increases on everyone and real spending cuts. The deal was for the sequestration. That WAS the negotiation. Now, that deal is no longer good ansd we need a new one to avoid this one. Am I the only one who isn't getting caught in this manufactured crisis with either red or blue eyewear?

[TakeAStepBack]

I say we go over the "fiscal cliff". it's exactly what both sides want and no one has to do anything except sit back and let it happen.

[Joker]

[hoagie]

its in Fantasyland!

[concert andy]

I say we go over the "fiscal cliff". it's exactly what both sides want and no one has to do anything except sit back and let it happen.

Reps are saying that Obama is forcing their hand and almost wants this too happen so he can blame them for not compromising/

Everyone should care about this. If we do go into 1/1/13 without an agreement, I expect to start to see unemployment to spike by the third quarter of next year because of less money being in the economy, with each middle class family paying almost $2K extra in taxes.

Problem, is Obama can come back in the spring and get the Cliff fixed with negotiations and Obama blasting the Reps for not doing anything to help the american people.

[Joker]

Daily Show sums it up




Cliffpocalypsemageddonacaust - Totally Solvable Budget Problem

To force themselves to work together and compromise, Congress and the White House concocted a catastrophic, economy-crashing penalty for fiscal inaction.


http://www.thedailys...al-cliff/421656

[Tim the Beek]

it's exactly what both sides want...

I don't think it is...not saying I agree with the man on the street, but if people see their taxes go up and services get cut sharply, they're gonna be pissed that they've been yanked out of Magical Fairyland. And if there's anything Congresspeople value, it's being congresspeople. That's generally the reason they keep fuckin' the little guy...the big guys give 'em the dough to get reelected. But if the populace gets pissed off enough, no amount of money will help...

in my opinion. And qualified with a, "if one side could lay all of the blame on the other, they'd gladly put the pedal to the floor."

[concert andy]

http://politicaltick...rage/?hpt=po_c2


CNN) - Rep. Lee Terry, R-Nebraska, says it would be politically advantageous for President Obama if no deal on the fiscal cliff is met by the end of the year, calling the administration’s proposals to tame the nation’s debt “disingenuous.”


If no deal is reached by the end of the year, automatic federal spending cuts and tax rate increases will go into effect, a situation economists warn could slow economic growth and push the country back into a recession.

If the U.S. economy goes over the cliff, Terry says, Obama could come back to Congress a couple months later with a bill to lower taxes on the middle class. The Republicans would feel pressure to vote in favor of it because the GOP supports lower taxes, he says.

"Many of us feared the president's real plan was to let us go over the fiscal cliff and blame the Republicans," Terry said. "That's what it looks like we're being set up to do."

Obama held a campaign-style event at a Pennsylvania toy manufacturing plant on Friday, attempting to shore up public support for his approach to debt and deficit negotiations.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner laid out the White House's plan to congressional Republican leaders earlier this week and reiterated the Obama administration’s long-held stance that upper-income tax cuts should expire and include additional tax measures that would generate a total of $1.6 trillion in new revenue. The plan added $50 billion for a stimulus program and automatic increases in the debt ceiling.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he won't support another increase in the debt ceiling without spending cuts and reforms to match.

Terry said the debt ceiling is "about the only level of leverage we have."

A CNN Poll released this week shows 45% of Americans would blame Republicans if a deal isn’t reached, compared with 34% who say it would be Obama’s fault. Nearly half say Obama is not doing enough to cooperate with the Republicans, and seven in 10 want him to compromise with the GOP even if he has to sacrifice some of his beliefs.
"We come back from the election; we want to get the fiscal cliff resolved,” Terry told CNN on Friday. “But yet we aren't seeing anything from the White House.”

[TakeAStepBack]

I don't think it is...not saying I agree with the man on the street, but if people see their taxes go up and services get cut sharply, they're gonna be pissed that they've been yanked out of Magical Fairyland. And if there's anything Congresspeople value, it's being congresspeople. That's generally the reason they keep fuckin' the little guy...the big guys give 'em the dough to get reelected. But if the populace gets pissed off enough, no amount of money will help...

in my opinion. And qualified with a, "if one side could lay all of the blame on the other, they'd gladly put the pedal to the floor."

Right. But the rub is that neither side plans to make any cuts to their sacred cows. Reps - pentagon budget. Dems - Entitlement programs. Which is why we spent decades cutting future spending proposals and have never cut a single dollar on current spending. So this is the way it has to get done. Whatever is on the current table, let it happen. It's time to rip the last 80 years worth of band aid layers off this fiscal pimple and pop it.

The reps say they want cuts, but only to items they deem worth cutting. They refuse to touch their sacred cow. The dems really have no plan of cuts (think the Reagan years) but are happy to get their tax increase. Except, they promised their constituency that it was someone elses taxes that would increase, not their taxes. So they dont like this plan either.

[TakeAStepBack]

And yes, Andy. Of course Obama will not bare any blame should the fiscal cliff materialize. That's been the deal since day 1. It's Bush, obstructionists, etc..etc..etc..

But I will say, his offer to have the debt ceiling become a presidential power and put congress in ceremonial status on it is laughable. And to hear others try to defend such a move is laughable.

[concert andy]

And yes, Andy. Of course Obama will not bare any blame should the fiscal cliff materialize. That's been the deal since day 1. It's Bush, obstructionists, etc..etc..etc..

But I will say, his offer to have the debt ceiling become a presidential power and put congress in ceremonial status on it is laughable. And to hear others try to defend such a move is laughable.

I am not saying he is right, I am just stating the scuttlebutt.

I agree with that part, and I am ok with the tax increases for people making over 250K.

[TakeAStepBack]

Let the tax increases happen on everyone. If revenues are the problem, then this fiscal cliff will raise revenues and also lower spending. Everyone loses, and everyone wins. There is no magical pill or legislation that will fix our fiscal mess without making deep cuts and tax increases.

I also don't think that demonizing the so called "rich", is a fair or equal way (both democrat mantras) of going about raising taxes. if the federal government needs yet more money, then everyone should pay in more. Not some target scapegoat group to blame all teh nations fiscal problems on. Especially considering around half of the country isn't paying any thing at all in federal income tax.

[TakeAStepBack]

I am not saying he is right, I am just stating the scuttlebutt.

I agree with that part, and I am ok with the tax increases for people making over 250K.

Are you OK with having a tax increase happen to everyone back to before the Bush tax cuts? Because that would be a fair and equal approach.

[PeaceFrog]

"The Fiscal Cliff" is just another scare tactic perpetuated by Republicans trying to get their way using fear.

Congress can backdate their legislation if the negotiations go past 1/1/13...

so... really, it's all just BS and hype.

[PeaceFrog]

Are you OK with having a tax increase happen to everyone back to before the Bush tax cuts? Because that would be a fair and equal approach.

Do you make over $250,000 a year?

Because, the first $250,000 of EVERYONE's income gets taxed at the lower rate. It's a MARGINAL tax rate.

If you make less that $250,000 and want tax rates to go up, then you're working against your own interests and personally I find it absurd coming from you.

Fairness is relative, and what the majority agrees on it what is fair. I know you're all for the minority. And don't give me the 2 wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner. The lamb is heavily armed so there's really no contest.

I believe a progressive tax is fair, not because I'm greedy, but because in the past it is what has worked best for the country.

If and when I make over $250,000 per year, I will gladly pay the extra tax with a shit-eating grin because I just made over $250k. What asshole scowls at that?

[TakeAStepBack]

How incredibly enlightening. And here I thought both dems and reps are avoiding the fiscal cliff. Now it's just reps. One point for the blue colored eyewear.

[PeaceFrog]

do you even think before you post? I mean... I just hit the post button 7 minutes ago.

Anyway, which Democrats are using this as a scare tactic? I'm sincerely curious. I won't be surprised if there's a couple or a few. Democrats aren't perfect, and I'd like to know which ones to watch out for.

The fact remains that even if negotiations go past the end of the year, it can all be fixed retroactively if congress fixes it. So, the whole deadline thing is ridiculous.

[TakeAStepBack]

OK...

[PeaceFrog]

The longer we wait, the closer we get to a new Congress and Senate with more Democrats... so who has the most to lose by extending negotiations?

[PeaceFrog]

OK...

So you're going to find Democrats using this as a scare tactic for me? Thank you.

[TakeAStepBack]

No, dude. i'm not entertaining your partisan hackery. Both the aisle sides are in negotiations to avoid this so called cliff. If you want to don your blue donkey goggles and start pointing fingers at one side or the other. Do it on your own.

[concert andy]

Are you OK with having a tax increase happen to everyone back to before the Bush tax cuts? Because that would be a fair and equal approach.

I am ok with it, but I prefer the wealthy to pay more.

I mean 2K a year extra in taxes is approx $77 less per pay check. = (2000/26 bi weekly pay checks)

I prefer a tiered tax system. Where the poorest people pay the least, and the richest people pay the most, and it climbs the ladder of tax as you make more money.

[PeaceFrog]

No, dude. i'm not entertaining your partisan hackery. Both the aisle sides are in negotiations to avoid this so called cliff. If you want to don your blue donkey goggles and start pointing fingers at one side or the other. Do it on your own.

uhh... well yeah they're in negotiations, because it's their job.

the "Fiscal Cliff" is a scare tactic perpetuated by Republicans, and unless you can show that I'm wrong, I see no reason to think otherwise.

[PeaceFrog]

and there's nothing partisan about it. The Republicans have more to lose by going past the end of the year than Democrats do. It's only a "cliff" for Republicans.

[PeaceFrog]

I am ok with it, but I prefer the wealthy to pay more.

I mean 2K a year extra in taxes is approx $77 less per pay check. = (2000/26 bi weekly pay checks)

I prefer a tiered tax system. Where the poorest people pay the least, and the richest people pay the most, and it climbs the ladder of tax as you make more money.



I prefer to go back to

these people refuse to acknowledge real facts. Instead they rely on Fox News and The Mises Institute for their "facts."

[concert andy]

I am ok with it, but I prefer the wealthy to pay more.

I mean 2K a year extra in taxes is approx $77 less per pay check. = (2000/26 bi weekly pay checks)

I prefer a tiered tax system. Where the poorest people pay the least, and the richest people pay the most, and it climbs the ladder of tax as you make more money.

Forget pre Bush. Looks like Clinton let them decrease too (1995-2000 portion of chart)

I would like to see the top 1% or even 2% tax rates return to pre 1980's tax rate of high 30%.

[TakeAStepBack]

So then it's not really an issue of fair and equal. Alright. But as for the fiscal cliff, which was warned of by economists, not either aisle as a fear tool,. the current sequestration seems like the best move to fiscal recovery.

[Joker]

This "fiscal cliff" is a result of the Budget Control Act that was apparently introduced by a Democrat, passed by both the House and Senate and signed into law by Obama. It has very real consequences and is hardly just a "Republican scare tactic"

http://en.wikipedia....rol_Act_of_2011

[TakeAStepBack]

If no other deal was reached before Dec. 31 — the committee agreed to implement by law massive government spending cuts as well as tax increases or a return to tax levels from previous year. These are the elements that make up the 'fiscal cliff.' ^[10] The now infamous phrase was coined by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in February 2012, during one of his required appearances before Congress on the state of the U.S. economy. He described ... "a massive fiscal cliff of large spending cuts and tax increases" on Jan. 1, 2013. (Fucking Derp never fails to look like a grade A, shit fed moran.)

From your link, Jack. I see this as a good thing. I think this is exactly the wake up call needed to peel people out of fantasy land.

[PeaceFrog]

So then it's not really an issue of fair and equal. Alright. But as for the fiscal cliff, which was warned of by economists, not either aisle as a fear tool,. the current sequestration seems like the best move to fiscal recovery.

I thought you were a devotee of "rational self-interest"

now you're all about "fairness"

why the change of heart?

[PeaceFrog]

The two people in this thread who are most concerned about the "fiscal cliff" are closet Republicans... coincidence?

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm not concerned about it, you half-witted fucktard, I'm advocating it.

[TakeAStepBack]

Balanced Budget Amendment:

• Congress was required to vote on a balanced budget amendment between October 1, 2011, and the end of 2011,^[3] but is not required to pass it and send it to the states in order for the debt limit increases to occur. (This is unlike the previously proposed Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which was not enacted, which would have required Congress to actually pass such an amendment).^[4]

[PeaceFrog]

you're so civilized

[TakeAStepBack]

Not to you I'm not, no. You get what you put in, Derp.

[PeaceFrog]

so you're advocating a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everyone's pay, basically.

and you don't see any inconsistencies in your thinking? Now that's interesting.

[PeaceFrog]

Your hostility toward me does not change my convictions. In fact, it strengthens them.

But your whole philosophy is to never concede, right. You double down.

I'm watching the Republican party in a tailspin right now, and it's kinda ugly.

[MeOmYo]

Why do you even engage anymore TASB?

[PeaceFrog]

[concert andy]

So then it's not really an issue of fair and equal. Alright. But as for the fiscal cliff, which was warned of by economists, not either aisle as a fear tool,. the current sequestration seems like the best move to fiscal recovery.

No. The tax system is not fair and equal now, why should it be different for the rich?

I am not against the CLIFF, but I fear it will send us into another recession and unemployment gets worse, in reality, besides the rate produced by the government.

So solutions would be from either side would be great, while trying to reduce the deficit.

[TakeAStepBack]

Anyway you slice it, the economy is artificially inflated, and there will have to be a correction. There is no magic pill or legislation to aviod that reality. Thi scliff is where we need to go IMO.

[TakeAStepBack]

Why do you even engage anymore TASB?

It's a good question and one I wish I had an answer for beyond self defense.

[TakeAStepBack]

No. The tax system is not fair and equal now, why should it be different for the rich?

That doesn't sound like equal rights progress, it sounds like status quo. :Shiver:

[concert andy]

No. The tax system is not fair and equal now, why should it be different for the rich?

That doesn't sound like equal rights progress, it sounds like status quo. :Shiver:

I have empathy for the poor, and not so much for the rich.

I understand your :shivers: but only way to pay for healthcare is to ask to rich to pay a little more.

While I am also OK with going to a flat tax for everyone, that is so not happening any time soon, so I propose logical solutions to very complex convoluted issues that may or may not work,

[MeOmYo]

Not true. Obamacare is putting a good portion on medical manufacturers and healthcare suppliers.

[TakeAStepBack]

I have empathy for the poor, and not so much for the rich.

I understand your :shivers: but only way to pay for healthcare is to ask to rich to pay a little more.

While I am also OK with going to a flat tax for everyone, that is so not happening any time soon, so I propose logical solutions to very complex convoluted issues that may or may not work,

Alright. As long as we agree that progress comes in the form of equality for all. Not special interest for some over others. Since such, we're not doing anything progressive for everyone and are just repeating historical boundaries.

[PeaceFrog]

There's no doubt that there will be some negative repercussions for going off the "fiscal cliff"

The whole world is watching, and it doesn't look good if we can't get our act together.

but I see nothing unfair about a marginal nor a progressive tax rate.

Why is it unfair to tax earnings at one rate below a certain number, and then raise the rate on any earnings made thereafter? It seems fair to me, since the rule is being applied the same to everyone.

[concert andy]

Alright. As long as we agree that progress comes in the form of equality for all. Not special interest for some over others. Since such, we're not doing anything progressive for everyone and are just repeating historical boundaries.

That is the ultimate problem though, the special interest groups.

As the chart and an article I read recently, we are still living in the Reagan tax era. Just look at the tax rate of the rich from 1980 to 1990. Then we see the increase when H Bush raised those taxes after the infamous no new taxes quote.

If we could simply return to the pre reaganomics, we would be doing quite well and the rich would be paying the same taxes I am.

[TakeAStepBack]

And ~47% pay nothing. It's the same side of the same coin.

[MeOmYo]

To think that the wealth of this country lies in the pockets of republicans is partisan blindness beyond belief and only shows your agenda of, "if it hurts the republicans more, I'm for it.". Play your red vs blue politics but know that you add to the problem rather that help solve it.

Yes, I engaged, now I'm out.