Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:14 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: What is the Fiscal Cliff? What Can/Should be Done About It? Back to Topics
teacher_tim

Champion Author
Maryland

Posts:18,746
Points:814,100
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2012 11:02:33 AM

"What's a Fiscal Cliff?
The fiscal cliff is a term coined by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in reference to a set of laws that will change in January 2013; some will expire and others will go into effect. The combined effect of these changes in law will have a significant impact on income taxes and on federal government spending. The overall goal is to increase tax revenues collected from consumers and business while also reducing government spending.

Conservatives are concerned about the fiscal cliff because it will cause hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes. Liberals are concerned because it will lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in reduced government expenditures.

Economists and financial experts across the political spectrum are worried because the net impact will be a jarring and almost immediate reduction in economic growth. In other words the fiscal cliff will throw our economy into a recession by early- to mid-2013, increasing unemployment and making our current situation even worse. The goal of some of the laws included in the fiscal cliff is to reduce government deficits and this would be achieved, but at what price?"
*******************

"What Can Be Done?
The only way to address the fiscal cliff is through bipartisan cooperation. Congress would have to pass new bills and the president would have to sign them into law in order to change the underlying terms of the existing laws. Given the limited track record of bipartisan cooperation in recent times, the best we can hope for is a temporary delay in the implementation of new laws and a temporary extension to expiring laws to delay going over the fiscal cliff."

It doesn't seem to matter WHO wins the election for this one...

link to source
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,746
Points:814,100
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2013 3:47:04 PM

Link to video on what the Sequester really DOESN'T mean

The cuts are to an increase, NOT to anything already existing

Most Federal agency heads haven't actually made any plans for it, thinking it wouldn't happen

The biggest federal agencies are NOT included in it
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,746
Points:814,100
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2013 11:45:11 AM

"
"So, as the president's outrage about the sequester grows in coming days, Republicans have a simple response: Mr. President, we agree that your sequester is bad policy. What spending are you willing to cut to replace it?" Boehner asked.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer rejected what he described as "revisionist history." The White House acknowledges the "sequester" came from their office, but argues that Congress was on board at the time. The original plan was to tee up cuts so Draconian that Congress would be compelled to strike a deal to replace them -- Congress, though, failed to do so.

While Boehner blames Democratic resistance to spending and entitlement cuts, Obama blames GOP resistance to closing tax loopholes.

"(Obama) is willing to make tough choices. Now it's time for the speaker to do the same. The speaker has yet to name one tax loophole he's willing to close. Not one," Pfeiffer said.

The back-and-forth was further evidence that the two sides are drifting further apart as the deadline nears, and that chances of a deal in the near-term are fading."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/20/boehner-to-obama-created-spending-cut-crisis-fix-it/#ixzz2LSUSFDGm

Looks like the solution most likely is to let it ride.
Profile Pic
xrdc
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:6,990
Points:668,175
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 3:19:14 PM


Breitbart reports:

"Section 317 of the freshly approved legislation includes an extension for “special expensing rules for certain film and television productions.” Congress first enacted production tax incentives favorable to the domestic entertainment industry in 2004, and extended them in 2008, but the deal was meant to expire in 2011."

Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,746
Points:814,100
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 10:05:14 AM

What COULD Happen?
"We're now one step closer to America's coming civil war"
"who really suffers when those who create a nation’s wealth get mugged by those who spend it–as just happened this week in Washington.

It’s the poor and the middle class, the very ones big government says it’s trying to protect.

And sadly that’s where Mitt Romney had it wrong.

That 47 percent of Americans who get unemployment benefits, Social Security disability checks, Medicare and Medicaid, and government student loans, aren’t the real takers. Like the rioters in Rosario, they’re just pawns in a perennial battle between those who see wealth and prosperity as something created by hard work, ingenuity, and innovation in a free market system–or something to be doled out by government.

Experience teaches that those who believe in free markets are right. The November election and the budget deal, however, show that the other side is winning, and winning big.

Since 1970, America’s public sector has exploded as a percentage of GDP, rising to almost 25% last year. While the national unemployment rate hovers at the 8% mark, government worker unemployment rate is a cozy 3.8%. Sixteen percent of America’s workforce now work for government. By the time the Obama administration ends, we won’t be that far away from Argentina’s 21 percent.

Yet as an economic and social enterprise, government creates nothing.

Far from adding to people’s standard of living, government is the number one cause of poverty in this country. It forces those who depend on its largesse to live hand to mouth, with no time or money to plan for the future. They become unable to fend for themselves---and increasingly resentful of those who can.

When the economy tanks and the government checks have to shrink, their only alternative is to take to the streets. That’s what happening in Argentina, and in Greece; and that’s where the growth of government is taking us here, as this current budget deal increases handouts–and more and more Americans are finding that an unemployment or Social Security disability check is their only life line."
Read more: link to source

[Edited by: teacher_tim at 1/4/2013 10:06:16 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,437
Points:1,781,340
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 12:27:01 PM

I75: "The market prefers certainty, even if it is not sanity."


It's a knee jerk reaction and after a couple of days it will start back down again. Also, at the beginning of the year initially a lot of money enters the stock market as companies put the previous year's contributions into their employees' 401K accounts and it's automatically invested. That effect wears off pretty quickly as well.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/3/2013 12:28:36 PM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,039
Points:2,936,320
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 10:02:12 AM

It's A Spending Problem
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,746
Points:814,100
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 5:19:42 PM

The NYSE is notoriously myopic.
All that was done with this was to delay the inevitable spending cuts and make them that much worse by increasing the deficit with even MORE SPENDING. Talk about unclear on the concept!
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 10:05:18 AM

This is how the markets would have reacted the day after a Romney win.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,039
Points:2,936,320
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 9:36:55 AM

Well, in spite of the lackluster scope of "the deal", the stock markets likes it:
Wall Street jumps at open on fiscal deal Dow opens up 149 points, and now the Dow is up 232 points.

The market prefers certainty, even if it is not sanity.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,437
Points:1,781,340
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 7:41:30 AM

flyboy: "What will happen to discretionary spending when the rate of interest goes up to historically normal levels? "


At 5% interest the debt will cause the money printing presses to go into overdrive and we are on our way into the abyss.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,039
Points:2,936,320
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 7:37:30 AM

With zero spending cuts in the deal, and revenue increase (proposed and assumed, not assured) of $680 Billion over ten years ($68 Billion per year), Congress has addressed a whopping 5.6% of the average annual deficit of $1.2 Trillion.

Nice work Congress. (Nice work if you can get it.....)

The can has been kicked again. Where will it land this time? And when?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 11:18:50 PM

Shock: "But 110 isn't what is spent on defense 680 is..."

Stop trying to confuse and distort the facts, Shock. $110 trillion a year is the total amount of cuts per year.

Shock: "The cuts to defense amounted to $55 Billion"

>>What government programs would be affected by spending cuts? About $1.2 trillion in federal spending cuts are scheduled to kick in next year, or roughly $110 billion a year for 10 years.<<

You should work in government, Shock.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,403
Points:1,423,485
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 7:52:41 PM

People can discuss this subject to death. The bottom line to me is we are borrowing slightly more than 40% of every dollar we spend. That is not sustainable for any length of tiem.

Based on almost any estimates one wishes to find the rate of spending is going up on an increasingly steep slope. That also is not realistic.

Everyone is arguing like a bunch of 'not the smartest folks' about cutting in a small way if at all the RATE OF INCREASE in spending. None of the congress critters is talking about reeal honest cuts in spending - as in spend less this time period than the last time period.

None of the people who post here seem to be really willing to take less in the future. Yet how many really beleive we can continue on this budget/spending/taxing curve.

Really - seriously folks what do you see will come in the near of slightly more distant future.

What will happen to discretionary spending when the rate of interest goes up to historically normal levels?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,437
Points:1,781,340
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 7:13:04 PM

101: "The negotiation for this fiscal cliff deal is a battle between the taxpayers and the takers. "


Virtually everything that's happened in politics in the past several years, has been skirmishes in this battle. This will also be true going forward until the economy collapses. The takers have the upper hand now in the battle, but they are basically pursuing an economic scorched earth policy (ever accelerating government spending far out of the realm of what the economy is capable of providing), and it's the earth under them that will be scorched first when the economy finally collapses. Most of the producers will be hurt too, but in the aftermath they will be the ones to pick up the pieces.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,357
Points:2,683,690
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 6:21:27 PM

"Let me see. Last I checked, Shock, 55 is 50% of 110."

But 110 isn't what is spent on defense 680 is...
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 4:13:12 PM

Next thing is the debt ceiling debates. Should we give Obama a blank check for new spending?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 3:55:22 PM

>>What government programs would be affected by spending cuts? About $1.2 trillion in federal spending cuts are scheduled to kick in next year, or roughly $110 billion a year for 10 years.<<

Let me see. Last I checked, Shock, 55 is 50% of 110.

In any case, grandpa, I am bored with you. Go complain to someone else.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 3:52:38 PM

The negotiation for this fiscal cliff deal is a battle between the taxpayers and the takers.
Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:22,011
Points:2,116,300
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 9:36:11 AM

Ah, Lemmings, gotta love them...think of it being the another one of God's way of "thinning out the herd".
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,357
Points:2,683,690
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 9:24:24 AM

The defense budget is $680 billion Speeedy. Get out your calculator and you will find that 55 is 8% of 680, presuming you know how to use a calculator that is...

""If we go off the fiscal cliff, what affect will a 50% cut in defense have on the wars in the Middle East?"

A 50% budget cut on a $680 billion budget is $340 Billion...
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 6:57:56 PM

Get our your calculator, Shock, and see what 50% of 110 is. Let me know what your answer is.

Shock: "The cuts to defense amounted to $55 Billion"
Profile Pic
djvang
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:32,927
Points:4,729,465
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 6:51:47 PM

"The cuts to defense amounted to $55 Billion, which is 8% of the defense expenditures. Doesn't sound like that much to me..."

Try cutting 8% from those receiving benefits from the govt and listen to the screaming and sob stories. And it's not just those collecting benefits who would scream. It's also the millions of govt bureaucrats who administer those programs. Their jobs, promotions and raises depend on the EXPANSION of those programs. The voting bloc of those dependent on the never-ending growth of govt increases every day. See why it's become politically impossible to cut anything? We're getting closer to Greece evey day.

[Edited by: djvang at 12/31/2012 6:54:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 6:42:30 PM

>>Also, starting in 2013, the Feds aren't paying for new claims anymore. That's right - you have to deal with your state's 52 week policy. They may be tapering it off first to 75 weeks, then back to 52 from the current 99.<<

Is it that long, AC-302. Other people on this website have said that unemployment used to be 26 weeks.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,331
Points:3,074,720
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 2:26:59 PM

Well, there's less than 10 hours until we hit the fiscal cliff. Since neither party wants to be blamed for any short-term hardships (including a possible recession) that would be created by this fiscal cliff, I'm sure they'll come to some last-minute deal that will avoid the cliff but do very little to reduce the deficit.

After dicking around for months, like always, something that no one will be truly happy about will be agreed upon and everyone will breathe a sigh of relief. Then, after the 10 minutes of actual cooperation it took to complete this monumental yet insignificant task, it will be back to business as usual, with all of the requisite bickering and blaming.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,522
Points:692,510
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 1:08:30 PM

Our government doesn't get it. It never has got it and it most likely never will. The worst part isn't that we are looking at kicking this can down the road, but that no one is really looking at cutting any spending at all. All of the proposed spending cuts are cuts in future increases in spending. When I have to budget at home or at my job, I budget based upon the current levels of spending not based upon future increases. We call this baseline budgeting. Why can't our government give this a try?

The only person that I've heard propose anything like this was Connie Mack. He proposed freezing all spending at current levels. Then reducing it by 1% each year for six years. End result? Balanced Budget. Wow!!! Novel concept.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,393
Points:3,360,820
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 11:17:09 AM

btc1 stated: "The robbery of "entitlements", money paid by employers and employees for their own welfare, is where the spending problem is. Not unemployment benefit spending."

--And exactly whom would you say is "robbing" the entitlements? And if unemployment benefit spending isn't significant, then why did Obama cut it off at 99 weeks? Also, starting in 2013, the Feds aren't paying for new claims anymore. That's right - you have to deal with your state's 52 week policy. They may be tapering it off first to 75 weeks, then back to 52 from the current 99.

You want to end the "robbery" of entitlements? There is a very, very easy way, but I'm sure you don't want to hear it. Privatize or partially privatize SSI. In that case, you have government trustees looking over some of all of SSI that gets deposited into individual accounts, much like a 401K. We allow the worker to invest in a limited number of funds that are approved by the oversight committee. Maybe they're index funds. Maybe they're blue chips? Who knows. But doing this would provide capital for the markets, and a guaranteed long term growth investment that would be far greater than what the government is offering. And then if you REALLY want to make it good, if there's any leftover when the person dies, allow it to be turned over to his children or other heirs, if any.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,437
Points:1,781,340
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 11:09:18 AM

btc: "Entitlements are there because they have paid into these funds and they were robbed of them. We are entitled to them because we paid for them. Not to have them taken from us."


Welcome to ponzi scheme 101 btc. You didn't pay for anything for your future. You paid for goods and services for people higher on the pyramid than you. Now the pyramid is getting top heavy because the number of suckers at the bottom can't keep up with the outflows at the top, which is the way every ponzi scheme ends. It can't continue with only two people paying in for every one collecting. Sorry about your luck, but that's what happens when you get involved in ponzi schemes. FDR and LBJ knew that they wouldn't be around by the time this point was reached.

Better hope that you worked hard and put your own money away for your golden years, because you aren't going to be able to get blood out of a toppled pyramid. ROFL!


mudtoe



[Edited by: mudtoe at 12/31/2012 11:13:34 AM EST]
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,239
Points:149,355
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 10:10:39 AM

BELL30012

You have hit the nail on the head, any body that dosn't vote for what ever is popular is demonized.especially if you come up with a really good name like patroit act.

This is why Washington is disfunctional, All these bills should be given a number and that is it.

This way maybe some will read it.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,357
Points:2,683,690
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 10:05:20 AM

Well this is what you originally posted speedy:

"If we go off the fiscal cliff, what affect will a 50% cut in defense have on the wars in the Middle East?"

This statement is the one I pointed out as being untrue, since they are not cutting the defense budget in half...
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,522
Points:692,510
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 10:02:16 AM

What I find incredibly hard to believe is that our government can't seem to understand that we need to STOP the spending. Do we need to be funding Big Bird? Do we need to be giving money to foreign countries? They need to go down the list of everything paid out of the federal budget with a red pen. Then decide what absolutely has to be funded. The problem is that everyone in the House and Senate has their own projects that they don't want to cut.

A bill just passed the Senate to help the Hurricane Sandy victims. Sounds like a great bill, right? Why would anyone vote against it? The bill should be stopped. It should be voted down, re-written with the pork removed and then voted on again. This is a $60.4 Billion bill that is supposed to be for New York, New Jersey and Connecticut storm damage. Anyone voting against it would of course, be demonized as a horrible person that wants to hurt storm victims. This bill isn't paid for and includes a few gems such as these...

$2 million roof repairs for Smithsonian Institution museums
$150 million for Alaskan fisheries disasters
$58 million in taxpayer dollars to plant trees on private property in areas where Sandy never touched down.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,267
Points:878,570
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 9:27:17 AM

I do not think the Republicans understand this point. The robbery of "entitlements", money paid by employers and employees for their own welfare, is where the spending problem is. Not unemployment benefit spending.

It is the robbery by all of Congress of these funds paid into by employees and their employers, over the years that has brought this on.

Entitlements are there because they have paid into these funds and they were robbed of them. We are entitled to them because we paid for them. Not to have them taken from us.

Now the Republicans continue to see them as booty!



[Edited by: btc1 at 12/31/2012 9:29:40 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:22,669
Points:3,668,765
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 9:06:32 AM

The problem:
Total federal spending: $3,800,000,000,000. $200 billion higher than the previous year (FY 2011)
New debt this fiscal year: $ 1,600,000,000,000. ($1.3 billion deficit plus $300 million other borrowing)
Total national debt as of December 27: $16,310,995,196,706.

Understanding the Problem:
Remove 8 zeros from all the numbers above and pretend it's your budget.
Your income this year: $24,690.
Money you spent: $37,960 - No cuts, but you spent $2,000 more than the previous year.
New debt on your credit card just this year: $16,000
Total balance owed on your credit card: $163,110
Total budget cuts so far: $0.

Get it?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 10:19:49 PM

>>What government programs would be affected by spending cuts? About $1.2 trillion in federal spending cuts are scheduled to kick in next year, or roughly $110 billion a year for 10 years.<<

Let me see. Last I checked, 55 is about 50% of 110.

Is the light bulb coming on yet, grandpa?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 10:13:09 PM

Shock, do you have a reading comprehension problem? Read again what I wrote.
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:15,565
Points:1,693,015
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 8:20:00 PM

i heard that bho wants a name change to - obamacliff
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,357
Points:2,683,690
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 8:05:26 PM

"It doesn't seem fair that half of all the cuts will come from defense. What do democrats have against defending our country?"

The cuts to defense amounted to $55 Billion, which is 8% of the defense expenditures. Doesn't sound like that much to me...
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 5:23:19 PM

It doesn't seem fair that half of all the cuts will come from defense. What do democrats have against defending our country?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,403
Points:1,423,485
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 3:11:44 PM

When the entire arrgument on spending cuts is just arguing about how much of a mythical cut will be made in a mythical palnned increase in existing spending at some time in the future its time to just say NO MAS.

Take last years spending (note I didnt say budget because we didnt have a budget really) and that is the new base. The base doesnt change until 75% of congress in both houses votes it in.

Anyhow take the actual amount spent last year. The total from any area of income on anything. YOu know how to do it people. The TOTAL spending an anything by the federal govt..

Then take that figure and reduce it by 1%. hat is the new maximum spending that will be allowed on ANYTHING in FY2013. Now what the individual line items are - thats up to congress and the prez to determine. But the bottom line is that the total sopending will go down by 1%.

Now do that each and every year - that is one more percent spending off of the baseline. Continue doing that until income equals outgo and then continue until the debt wil be paid off in an agreed on period of years.

Just do it and let the howls commence.
Profile Pic
djvang
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:32,927
Points:4,729,465
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 2:55:35 PM

"Except for one thing. President Obama has offered over a trillion dollars in spending cuts and all he is asking in return is a 4% increase in taxes of the 1%, so called job creators."

$1T is proposed cuts OVER 10 YEARS. That's only comes to $100B per year. That still leaves over $1T deficit PER YEAR. Even if he gets all the tax increases he wants it barely puts a dent in the yearly deficit. The total debt will continue to skyrocket. They keep talking as if the numbers they're throwing out are meaningful. They're not. People simply don't understand how a deep a hole we've dug.

No one has the courage to address out-of-control govt spending because that spending buys votes and political power, and that's what the real issue is.

[Edited by: djvang at 12/30/2012 2:57:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,437
Points:1,781,340
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 2:51:01 PM

Looks like the Republicans are starting to get some backbone. Apparently they are now insisting on demonstrable entitlement cuts in return for a tax increase (hurray!). They are asking for a change in the way social security benefits inflation adjustment is calculated in return for raising taxes. Our buddies on the left of course are apoplectic that they would be required to do even something that small about our out of control entitlement spending, and are refusing to discuss it.

I'm hoping this also means that, because it's really the only card the Republicans have to play to back this up, they are willing to play the Ace of Trump by refusing to raise the debt ceiling until real and significant entitlement reform occurs. Let's see Obama enact his socialist agenda with no more borrowing!!


mudtoe
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,437
Points:1,781,340
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 2:10:10 PM

btc: "And with the recovery still in infancy,...."


I'd say more like stillborn....


mudtoe
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,267
Points:878,570
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 1:27:29 PM

And with the recovery still in infancy, from the worst recession since the Great Depression, it is the best time to reduce that help from the government, eh, speedster?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,437
Points:1,781,340
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 1:08:51 PM

101: "Are you ready to admit yet, btc1, that our government's out of control spending needs to be cut? "


Why, if we just had even more welfare, more unemployment benefits, more taxes, more regulations, full implementation of Obamacare to make sure businesses pay even more taxes on their employees, no more right to work states, and a hefty carbon tax to save the planet, then the economy would bounce back like nobody's business and everyone would live happily ever after.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 12:21:03 PM

btc1,

What would you like the president and Congress to do? Are you aware yet that the president's war on the rich is not going to help our economy?

>>if we cut unemployment that will increase welfare as more people are broke needing food stamps.<<

Are you ready to admit yet, btc1, that our government's out of control spending needs to be cut?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,403
Points:1,423,485
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 12:12:37 PM

Hai So Des - we really do understand - well some of us.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,357
Points:2,683,690
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 11:03:38 AM

"Come on, mudtoe, the democrats know how to spend your money better than you do"

And speedy should know. After all he is a liberal who has been supporting these liberal spending sprees for some time...
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,267
Points:878,570
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 9:41:25 AM

Bell, "If we cut military spending, that causing an increase to unemployment and welfare programs as the formerly employed now qualify for food stamps. However, if we cut unemployment that will increase welfare as more people are broke needing food stamps. This is a rough spot. No wonder, everyone wants to tax those nasty rich."

A really good realization of the problem. Except for one thing. President Obama has offered over a trillion dollars in spending cuts and all he is asking in return is a 4% increase in taxes of the 1%, so called job creators. They are not creating jobs so that tax break should be removed in these economic times.
Profile Pic
therder
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:3,180
Points:2,097,670
Joined:Feb 2007
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 8:56:17 AM

Congress is definitely earning it's 9% approval rating this week.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 2:38:05 AM

Come on, mudtoe, the democrats know how to spend your money better than you do.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,437
Points:1,781,340
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 1:45:56 PM

SS: "They would rather pay slick accountants than to pay their taxes. "


The way government spends its money on paying people to do nothing, creating regulations to destroy the economy, and implementing the left's agenda, you are damn right. If I had the choice of paying my accountant $10,000 to save me $10,000 in taxes, I'd do it in a heartbeat. No doubt about it, as my accountant isn't trying to encourage sloth and dependency, and doesn't hand money to government unions who then give it back to democrats.

Actually, if it were my business taxes we are talking about here I could deduct the $10,000 I paid my accountant, so I'll have to amend my statement to read that if it were my business taxes I'd be willing to pay my accountant the grossed up amount, which would be about $13,000, to save $10,000 in taxes because then I'd also get an extra deduction on top of what the accountant saved me for the $13,000 and thus still come out even. Any penny deprived to any government entity is a penny well spent.

For once I agree with you lock, stock, and barrel semisteve.


mudtoe
Post a reply Back to Topics