The plan includes "$1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits." and in exchange "embraced the goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees."
So for anyone who's been following the fiscal cliffs talks lately, I think this was a really stupid decision by the White House. There was the beginnings of some real good will there, with some Republicans abandoning Grover Norquists Anti-Tax pledge.
But seriously, Obama has been trumpeting a "balanced" approach to reducing the deficit without guaranteeing any spending cuts at all. WTF!? I voted for this guy (twice) because I saw the derailing of the Tea Party before my eyes this summer. Knowing the repubs were going to be more docile, this would be the perfect opportunity for compromise, and having our government not slack.
Our problem, in my eyes, is both not enough tax revenue AND too much spending.
WE HAVE TO MEET SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE!
At 11/29/12 09:13 PM, EKublai wrote:
Our problem, in my eyes, is both not enough tax revenue AND too much spending.
WE HAVE TO MEET SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE!
If we could meet somewhere in the middle, we wouldn't be having this fiscal cliff stuff in the first place!
And even if a deal DOES get put in place, we are knocking off only a miniscule portion of our deficits.
Prior to the Great Recession, we NEVER, EVER, EVER had deficits above $500 BILLION. That's billion with a "B" for those who forgot that such a thing existed. Now, we have annual deficits in excess of a TRILLION dollars!
As I see it, every deficit dollar above $500 billion is a bailout of the Federal Government. As I see it, we have spent $3.554 Trillion dollars bailing out the federal government, and another massive bailout will come for 2013 and many years afterwards.
Bush may have been responsible for the first and maybe second trillion+ dollar deficits, but these continued mega-deficits belong to Obama (how the **** did he convince people to vote for him again???).
We need real solutions, not just fiscal cliff solutions.
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
And even then, I predict one of these two things will happen with regards to the fiscal cliff.
1. We go over the cliff, face its cuts full force, and the economy goes back into recession. The majority of people will blame Republicans, and the GOP will become even weaker than it is now.
2. Republicans will cave in to the Dems at the last minute. We get what the Left wants. If things get better, the Democrats get praised for their actions and become stronger. If things get worse, the majority of people will blame Republicans for preventing the Democrats from doing more to fix our economy, even if the Democrats were responsible for making things worse.
Either way, the Democrats will win, so they can manipulate the fiscal cliff results to their wills.
OK, maybe I am overreacting and exaggerating with this...a lot...but it feels that way to me.
Feel no mercy for me. It will only cause you to suffer as well.
There's a lot of hysteria for no reason. Rhe relative dollar amount of a deficit is meaningless, it is about the deficit as a percentage of GDP and GDP growth. There's plenty of studies done that show that modest deficits are actually a good thing. Deficits are in some sense the way that the economy grows, by introducing more currency into the market in a way that's always stimulative: the government hires to build stuff. As long as you running modest deficits over the long term - say 3% - inflation means you're treading water.
The absolute worst time to try to reduce deficits is in a recession/recovery, because that is when you need federal spending the most. A 1.08 trillion deficit (which is where it stands as of today) is sustainable with some revenue generation. What many people don't realize (in particular the ones who are constantly freaking out about the deficit) is a) the deficit is already going down (it was 1.4 trillion before) and b) the economy is actually growing a respectable pace (2.7% in Q3).
Krugman has a good article if you want to read more.
Except that now, having won re-election, the impetus for President Obama to seek the middle has gone down. Think of it like this:
Option 1: Obama presses his case and wins. How does this happen, you ask? Sweeteners like the mortgage refinancing scheme are widely popular among the public and both parties, who see it as a means of reducing foreclosures and distressed mortgages in their districts through principal reduction and deed-in-lieu agreements. These will mostly be done through Fannie Mae, which will also reduce the total spending FNM requires to police heavily delinquent mortgages (90+ days). Many of these mortgages are in conservative-leaning districts of conservative-leaning states like Arizona and Florida.
In this scenario, the White House claims a big win by getting Republicans on the Hill to fold while also giving middle class voters a nice gift. The stimulus spending addendum will be a nice little sop to small businesses in key swing areas, shoring up Democratic support ahead of the 2014 midterm elections.
Option 2: Obama presses his case and loses. In this case, mandatory sequestration comes into effect, slashing government spending in the conservative-favored defense industry and the Pentagon, as well as slashing down popular social programs. Looking at both of these, the idea stands to damage Republicans far more than Democrats, as they are both symbolically in control of the legislative process through the House, and Republican-leaning states have higher proportions of citizens using social programs. Some of the key Republican congressional areas of Virginia, Las Vegas, Florida, and the Midwest also have substantial military presences that stand to be cut in a sequestration.
What we've seen in polling both before and after the election is that Congress has become the main target of voter frustration, and their inability to come to terms on a debt reduction deal stands to be a major issue in 2014. Republicans can choose to cut their losses and put up a strong challenge in 2014 by agreeing to the White House deal (or some slight modification of it), or they can stand by their principles and face a tough fight in the face of economic headwinds and disgruntled constituents.
Either way, it's not difficult to play this issue to an already receptive public who will see the failure to pass a debt deal as Republican unwillingness to acknowledge their defeat in November. I'm making no comment on the wisdom of the policy proposals put forward by the White House, merely on their efficacy as political cudgels to alternately demoralize Republican regions while tossing broad, across-the-board treats to voters in key electoral regions.
At 11/30/12 12:18 PM, JMHX wrote: Either way, it's not difficult to play this issue to an already receptive public who will see the failure to pass a debt deal as Republican unwillingness to acknowledge their defeat in November. I'm making no comment on the wisdom of the policy proposals put forward by the White House, merely on their efficacy as political cudgels to alternately demoralize Republican regions while tossing broad, across-the-board treats to voters in key electoral regions.
Not only that, but this proposal fixes what has been Obama's main error in negotiating with the Reps. He has been opening with proposals that mirror what he (and Reps, for that matter... see: Simpson-Bowles) saw as the eventual end-point of negotiations, in order to sidestep around a lot of the bullshit that normally surrounds controversial content, and show the right that he is serious about compromising. However, the right saw this as a weakness, and mirrored Obama's overplay with more extreme positions, in order to force the negotiation further to the right.
Now that Obama has put up a plan that is very strongly left-of-center, the corresponding Republican offer is bound to be closer to the center than they have been used to doing of late. The eventual negotiation should land them in a place where neither side is happy, but both can trumpet success and victories.
Or, the Reps will continue to bury their heads up their ass, send us off the cliff, and then Dems will chortle, propose sweeping tax cuts (the no Republican would dare vote against) tied to new spending (that they'll be powerless to stop as the adding of public-sector and infrastructure jobs (new-new deal, ahoy!) will be necessary to avoid more recession) that will let them dance towards re-taking the house in 2014.
Half of my family will lose unemployment benefits if we cliff it, but I'm kind of fascinated to see what might happen in Washington if we do.
Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
one side will cave. This is really a decision of forcing Americans to pay off the credit card that the government is maxing out against their will, and putting even more money on the credit card first. lose lose.
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
At 11/30/12 09:51 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: one side will cave. This is really a decision of forcing Americans to pay off the credit card that the government is maxing out against their will, and putting even more money on the credit card first. lose lose.
We don't have a credit card. We can print our own money.
If the republicans were true ideologues who cared more about upholding their nominal positions instead of scoring short term political points, they would realize the incredible advantage in basically telling the president and his party "We agree to let you do whatever you want with the budget, we will take no credit for it's successes and bear no blame for it's failures."
They will take the blame for whatever happens to the extent that they try to obstruct the course of the federal government, in spite of likely being able to *achieve* nothing in the long term. If, on the other hand, an unimpeded president and congress plunge the economy into the abyss at time-lapse speed, the issue of who is to blame will be settled.
A shame really.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 11/30/12 10:06 PM, Feoric wrote:At 11/30/12 09:51 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: one side will cave. This is really a decision of forcing Americans to pay off the credit card that the government is maxing out against their will, and putting even more money on the credit card first. lose lose.We don't have a credit card. We can print our own money.
You can't print money but your profligate's and slave masters do and here in lye the problem.
At 11/30/12 10:06 PM, Feoric wrote:At 11/30/12 09:51 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: one side will cave. This is really a decision of forcing Americans to pay off the credit card that the government is maxing out against their will, and putting even more money on the credit card first. lose lose.We don't have a credit card. We can print our own money.
;;;;
AH , yes ...,but a HUGE PART OF THE PROBLEM
IS that you do not print yer own money !
You allow a privately owned & controled for profit company to print your money, loan it to you at interest !
THat's the scam dud....that's the why your own government cannot actually be in control, someone outside your government controls your money supply !
Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More
At 12/1/12 09:01 AM, morefngdbs wrote:
IS that you do not print yer own money ! You allow a privately owned & controled for profit company to print your money, loan it to you at interest THat's the scam dud....that's the why your own government cannot actually be in control, someone outside your government controls your money supply !
Not to mention "Fractional Reserve Lending"
Hey, why don't you all go make a thread in which you can complain about the Fed, fiat currency, and all the eeeeeeeevils of government, and let the rest of us discuss the actual matter posted originally in the OP. This is getting ridiculous.
Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
At 12/1/12 11:47 AM, Ravariel wrote: Hey, why don't you all go make a thread in which you can complain about the Fed, fiat currency, and all the eeeeeeeevils of government, and let the rest of us discuss the actual matter posted originally in the OP. This is getting ridiculous.
Cause the OP/thread is akin to debating on what color to paint a sinking ship !
At 12/1/12 11:53 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Cause the OP/thread is akin to debating on what color to paint a sinking ship !
Are you a bot? I swear you have 900 posts and all of them say the same thing, all the time.
At 12/1/12 12:16 PM, Feoric wrote:At 12/1/12 11:53 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Cause the OP/thread is akin to debating on what color to paint a sinking ship !I swear you have 900 posts and all of them say the same thing, all the time.
The problems in society have not changed for years let alone the short time I have been hear.
2 things here.
1. can we all agree to simply never reply to leanlifter? ever? He might go away if we simply NEVER respond to him.
2. Obama knows he's in one hell of a GREAT position here. He has no reason to negotiate. IF we go over the cliff, the media will blame republicans for being the party of "no" and a party of racists so bent on harming obama that they would see the common man destroyed before Obama gets a political win with them (as they have been the last 4 years). if the republicans cave, the media will bill the republicans as a weak party will massive rifts in their ranks (as they have been the last 4 years) and of course, the sheep will fall for it every time because their brains have been rotted out by yellow journalism and prime time TV.
so yeah, either way Obama wins. Tax and Waste politics wins. Pork Barrel spending wins, and the common man loses. again and cheers for their loss. Eventually the "rich" will be either be tapped dry or flee the country, as many have been. and that link is just to show it's just not America, it's worldwide that the rich are fleeing from tax and waste government philosophy. I wouldn't stay in America if I faced the eventual possibility of being forced back into poverty to sate the government's gluttony for wasting money.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 12/1/12 01:26 PM, Korriken wrote:
2. Obama knows he's in one hell of a GREAT position here. He has no reason to negotiate. IF we go over the cliff, the media will blame republicans for being the party of "no" and a party of racists so bent on harming obama that they would see the common man destroyed before Obama gets a political win with them (as they have been the last 4 years). if the republicans cave, the media will bill the republicans as a weak party will massive rifts in their ranks (as they have been the last 4 years) and of course, the sheep will fall for it every time because their brains have been rotted out by yellow journalism and prime time TV.
Didn't I just point out this exact same thing a few posts above?
I wouldn't stay in America if I faced the eventual possibility of being forced back into poverty to sate the government's gluttony for wasting money.
A tax rate closer to 1980 than 2007 is forcing the super-rich back into poverty? JESUS CHRIST GET ON THE BOATS GUYS. I think I saw Jeff Bezos panhandling with the shattered remains of his multibillion dollar company.
At 12/1/12 01:26 PM, Korriken wrote:
1. can we all agree to simply never reply to leanlifter? ever? He might go away if we simply NEVER respond to him.
Cause that will make the Fed dissolve and bring back the power and freedoms to the people.
I don't think Korriken understands the concept of marginal tax rates or knows about the income inequality in the United States.
Why won't anyone think of the struggling millionaires?!
At 11/30/12 10:06 PM, Feoric wrote:
We don't have a credit card. We can print our own money.
I hope that's just some form of sarcasm.
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
At 12/1/12 02:26 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I hope that's just some form of sarcasm.
No. It's not. It's literally how the federal government handles finances.
At 12/1/12 02:27 PM, Feoric wrote:At 12/1/12 02:26 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I hope that's just some form of sarcasm.No. It's not. It's literally how the federal government handles finances.
^ This
At 12/1/12 02:27 PM, Feoric wrote:At 12/1/12 02:26 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I hope that's just some form of sarcasm.No. It's not. It's literally how the federal government handles finances.
You mean the IOUs the government writes up to "The Fed" with the onus essentially being placed onto the tax paying, voting, working public ?
At 12/1/12 02:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: You mean the IOUs the government writes up to "The Fed" with the onus essentially being placed onto the tax paying, voting, working public ?
We call those Treasury Bonds, and they're amazing.
At 12/1/12 02:36 PM, JMHX wrote: We call those Treasury Bonds, and they're amazing.
@Iron-Hampster: I've gone more indepth about this here and the post directly below it.
At 12/1/12 02:36 PM, JMHX wrote:At 12/1/12 02:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: You mean the IOUs the government writes up to "The Fed" with the onus essentially being placed onto the tax paying, voting, working public ?We call those Treasury Bonds, and they're amazing.
They are as good as an IOU written on a napkin only on fancy paper. Also they are as good as economic enslavement of the masses but hey give a guy an iphone5, Car, roof over head, Cheeseburger and steak once and a while, a vacation, etc... and the illusion of freedom that all that entails and he will turn into a fairly highly productive slave for 30 to 40+ years.
At 12/1/12 02:41 PM, Feoric wrote:At 12/1/12 02:36 PM, JMHX wrote: We call those Treasury Bonds, and they're amazing.@Iron-Hampster: I've gone more indepth about this here and the post directly below it.
We will see how on point you are profligate !
At 12/1/12 01:45 PM, JMHX wrote:
Didn't I just point out this exact same thing a few posts above?
I was agreeing with you.
A tax rate closer to 1980 than 2007 is forcing the super-rich back into poverty? JESUS CHRIST GET ON THE BOATS GUYS. I think I saw Jeff Bezos panhandling with the shattered remains of his multibillion dollar company.
I said eventual, not immediate. Think about it. Deficits are climbing. as deficits climb, you either gotta raise taxes or cut spending. Government doesn't like to cut spending, it's much easier to demand the rich pay their 'fair share' which is a buzzword that gets used every time someone wants to raise taxes.
At 12/1/12 02:15 PM, Feoric wrote: I don't think Korriken understands the concept of marginal tax rates or knows about the income inequality in the United States.
I understand well enough that the rich are leaving for nations with much lower tax rates. Can't tax people who aren't here.
the way I see it. if the tax money was put to good use, I wouldn't mind paying a high tax rate. Problem is, when you got tax money being thrown around like monopoly money on things that are of no use to anyone,
As others have pointed out, the only way to rein i nthe deficit is a combination of tax hikes AND cutting spending where it's not needed. problem is, no one wants to cut THEIR spending. they have no problem cutting the spending that doesn't affect THEM. (Left doesn't want welfare reform, right doesn't want reduced military spending) so what's gonna happen in the next few weeks? we'll find out.
perhaps the fiscal cliff might be just the thing we need.
Let's go fiscal cliff diving!
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 12/1/12 04:09 PM, Korriken wrote: I understand well enough that the rich are leaving for nations with much lower tax rates. Can't tax people who aren't here.
Our marginal tax rates are already low. They're the third lowest rates they have ever been post WWII. Certainly you're not going to defend FYGM assholes that "flee" the United States because they somehow can't afford Clinton-era tax rates? Please.
the way I see it. if the tax money was put to good use, I wouldn't mind paying a high tax rate.
Are you making $250,000 a year or more? If not, you won't see a tax increase.
Problem is, when you got tax money being thrown around like monopoly money on things that are of no use to anyone,
Ha, Tom Coburn. I Remember one of his anti-pork amendments:
"None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available under this act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming pool, stadium, community park, museum, theater, arts center, or highway beautification project, including renovation, remodeling, construction, salaries, furniture, zero-gravity chairs, big-screen televisions, beautification, rotating pastel lights, and dry heat saunas."
Sure, pork is a problem, but unfortunately it's a bipartisan one. Democrats and Republicans both jam bullshit into bills to please their respective districts. But really, there's bigger fish to fry, like the Military and Defense budgets.
As others have pointed out, the only way to rein i nthe deficit is a combination of tax hikes AND cutting spending where it's not needed. problem is, no one wants to cut THEIR spending. they have no problem cutting the spending that doesn't affect THEM.
100% correct.
(Left doesn't want welfare reform, right doesn't want reduced military spending) so what's gonna happen in the next few weeks? we'll find out.
Because the budget can be reasonable without any cuts to Social Security or welfare programs.
perhaps the fiscal cliff might be just the thing we need.
Let's go fiscal cliff diving!
Who was responsible for it the last time that happened?
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.23 / 5.00 3,881 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.93 / 5.00 4,634 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
