The fiscal cliff will be solved, IMO

The new goal is 1 Trillion(spending) for 1 Trillion for(Revenues) With less then 14 days left -the days congress goes on vacation for December holidays

The latest information from the "Republican" side claims that we are at 1.4 Trillion in taxes vs 0.8 Trillion in spending cuts.

After today's onslaught of republican speakers ,ever majority and whip from congress president Obama will have to give a public speech either today or tomorrow.

Obama was the one who asked for a balanced deal and the republicans are now holding this over his head to find more spending cuts. With the republicans holding ready to swipe their credit card for 1.4 trillion all Obama has to do is come up with just 200 Billion more cuts. A drop in the pan compared to our entire budget.


I feel the cliff will be solved to the tune of

1.2 Trillion(revenues) vs 1 Trillion (budget cuts)

200 billion move on each side for a final compromise. With the Republicans also getting an extend bush tax cuts for those with $250,000 incomes and less. Which will help blur the RICH-NotRich border


whats your take?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........

The government borrows 43 cents for every dollar we spend, we need to cut spending quite a bit. As far as revenues are concerned "the rich" already pay a top rate of around 35 percent, plus property, state, local, and sales tax-so you could imagine they mostly pay over 50 percent of their income in taxes. As far as the 15% capitol gains tax and the Corporate tax rate, the problems with raising the corporate tax is that America currently has the highest corporate tax rate. therefore if one opens a corporation why not headquarter in Canada or someplace anywhere but here, Im close to Canada border this is what i did with my business. As far as Capital Gains-iv never been hired by a poor person loosing money, its usually a rich person making money, me and other employess being a part of that. If that gets taxed higher then I in turn get taxed higher through my paycheck-iv seen this happen that what business owners need to do. Government spends o nbloated military budgets and keeps people dependent through medicade medicare SSI, food stampts, Student Loans-which causes massive inflation and forces everyone else to pay more for products. Gas and food isnt double what it was five years ago, Food and gas is actually cheaper relative to gold. There double and even triple the price because the money we are buying them with is worth less. My parents will get 100 dollars worth of medicare for every 40 dollars they put in, this is simply not sustainable

SSHZ said:

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........

Click to expand...

thanks for your input, that is what it would look like in zimbabwean dollars,

I had a longer response typed out but hitting the reply to thread button wiped it out...


Basically, we are fucked...

one step at a time. unless we have a beefed up motorcycle and a well built ramp I would rather shimmy across a tight rope.

And our economy is no evil kenevil

Ur Welcome, Look into Ron Paul or Gary Johnson and LIbertarian Politics if your not familiar-brief summary- There beleif if government only should get involved is providing infrastructure, domestic tranquility, common defense, and thats it,- no government intervention in personal decisions like marijuana, marriage, or anything for that matter as far as no harm is being done to anyone else from ones actions( things like rape murder, and even speed limits)-many people call it "fiscally conservative, socially liberal"

And sry for being such a nerd on the subject, but my Minor is Political Science so i dont have a choice ha

Tomatosrgr8t said:

Ur Welcome, Look into Ron Paul or Gary Johnson and LIbertarian Politics if your not familiar-brief summary- There beleif if government only should get involved is providing infrastructure, domestic tranquility, common defense, and thats it,- no government intervention in personal decisions like marijuana, marriage, or anything for that matter as far as no harm is being done to anyone else from ones actions( things like rape murder, and even speed limits)-many people call it "fiscally conservative, socially liberal"

And sry for being such a nerd on the subject, but my Minor is Political Science so i dont have a choice ha

Click to expand...

Trust me, I voted for Gary. But you are gonna get chewed up around these parts with a know it all attitude. Make your arguments and support them , but don't say i didn't warn you. That's why i like this section fireworks everywhere.

What I find hilarious is liberals say it's the Republican's job to stop Democrats from spending too much and taxing the poor too much. How does that work if Republicans are evil scum?

Canna Sylvan said:

What I find hilarious is liberals say it's the Republican's job to stop Democrats from spending too much and taxing the poor too much. How does that work if Republicans are evil scum?

Click to expand...

They both spend

Republicans on Defense
Democrats on Social welfare"extra"

what we need the most is SS, medicare, medicaid & making sure we can repay the US government bonds to the citizens and organizations who invested in our government

Our congressmen gets payed $175,000 per year with unbelievable benefits. If they where righteous they would take $100,000, which is still a very good life.

With 535 members that would save us over *Edited*400 Million in 10 years alone. but no that is not up for debate.

Umm Obama has used the military way more than Bush. He loves using it so much, he bombed Libya without congressional approval. Guy has to earn his Nobel peace prize after all.

RyanTheRhino said:

They both spend

Republicans on Defense
Democrats on Social welfare"extra"

what we need the most is SS, medicare, medicaid & making sure we can repay the US government bonds to the citizens and organizations who invested in our government

Our congressmen gets payed $175,000 per year with unbelievable benefits. If they where righteous they would take $100,000, which is still a very good life.

With 535 members that would save us over 400 Billion in 10 years alone. but no that is not up for debate.

Click to expand...

No, it amounts to 400 Million, with an M. not much at all. Nor is 100k a year much money these days especialy in Washington.

canndo said:

No, it amounts to 400 Million, with an M. not much at all. Nor is 100k a year much money these days especialy in Washington.

Click to expand...

yea you are right I missed a decimal place or 3 lol, maybe I should of check with a calculator

but it works, shhhh don't tell the congress they wouldn't even notice the difference of millions vs billions

Tomatosrgr8t said:

Ur Welcome, Look into Ron Paul or Gary Johnson and LIbertarian Politics if your not familiar-brief summary- There beleif if government only should get involved is providing infrastructure, domestic tranquility, common defense, and thats it,- no government intervention in personal decisions like marijuana, marriage, or anything for that matter as far as no harm is being done to anyone else from ones actions( things like rape murder, and even speed limits)-many people call it "fiscally conservative, socially liberal"

And sry for being such a nerd on the subject, but my Minor is Political Science so i dont have a choice ha

Click to expand...

It surprises me that someone who studies politics thinks it is even an option to separate economic policy from social policy. Do you really think free-market libertarianism has not been argued? You must not be learning much in class if you only came here to get schooled. Well I'll fill you in. The space created by removing the state from the equation of governing personal choice (social) will be immediately filled by business. For as you surely have been told, the philosophy you are representing includes the belief that the "free-market" ought to create order.

Just what do you think will happen if several million people who rely on tax dollars for sustenance are suddenly cut off?

How about naming a single example in history of austerity doing any good for a society. You can be "socially liberal" all fucking day and claim to believe in liberty, but in a "free-market" you only have liberty insofar as you can afford to fucking eat.

There is no liberty with out justice.

abandonconflict said:

It surprises me that someone who studies politics thinks it is even an option to separate economic policy from social policy. Do you really think free-market libertarianism has not been argued? You must not be learning much in class if you only came here to get schooled. Well I'll fill you in. The space created by removing the state from the equation of governing personal choice (social) will be immediately filled by business. For as you surely have been told, the philosophy you are representing includes the belief that the "free-market" ought to create order.

Just what do you think will happen if several million people who rely on tax dollars for sustenance are suddenly cut off?

How about naming a single example in history of austerity doing any good for a society. You can be "socially liberal" all fucking day and claim to believe in liberty, but in a "free-market" you only have liberty insofar as you can afford to fucking eat.

There is no liberty with out justice.

Click to expand...

its like philosophy, they teach why something is supposed to work but and later they tell you how those assumptions are wrong and why this new material is the best. Rinse and repeat until full circle.

However i do support libertarianism. Im in there between a social liberal and fiscial conservative

RyanTheRhino said:

its like philosophy, they teach why something is supposed to work but and later they tell you how those assumptions are wrong and why this new material is the best. Rinse and repeat until full circle.

However i do support libertarianism. Im in there between a social liberal and fiscial conservative

Click to expand...

Social = fiscal.

Are you liberal or conservative?

abandonconflict said:

It surprises me that someone who studies politics thinks it is even an option to separate economic policy from social policy. Do you really think free-market libertarianism has not been argued? You must not be learning much in class if you only came here to get schooled. Well I'll fill you in. The space created by removing the state from the equation of governing personal choice (social) will be immediately filled by business. For as you surely have been told, the philosophy you are representing includes the belief that the "free-market" ought to create order.

Just what do you think will happen if several million people who rely on tax dollars for sustenance are suddenly cut off?

How about naming a single example in history of austerity doing any good for a society. You can be "socially liberal" all fucking day and claim to believe in liberty, but in a "free-market" you only have liberty insofar as you can afford to fucking eat.

There is no liberty with out justice.

Click to expand...

I had never even once considered that. Remove any portion of our governing system and private industry will take it's place, perhaps not as quckly as you claim but inevitably. Thanks.

abandonconflict said:

Social = fiscal.

Are you liberal or conservative?

Click to expand...

I am more conservative, but not because I don't want to help people. It is because the government is doing it so inefficiently. I'd rather give money to the homeless guy on the street with no shoes on. Where is his/her help that taxes are said to be going to .Also why I have fallen into a libertarian small government mind set.

RyanTheRhino said:

I am more conservative, but not because I don't want to help people. It is because the government it doing it so inefficiently. I'd rather give money to the homeless guy on the street with no shoes on. Where is his/her help that my taxes are said to be going to .Also why i have fallen in to a libertarian small government mind set.

Click to expand...

Do you really suppose that those poor people would be adequately helped were there no government structures to help them? do you really believe that the simple generosity of men in a culture would be enough?