Fiscal Cliff ... Who is Compromising? (Guess who is NOT)

Posted 496 day(s) ago by ltsooner9222 Views 273 Replies
Results 51 to 100 of 274
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4
  1. #51

    Re: Fiscal Cliff ... Who is Compromising? (Guess who is NOT)

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    They've passed several plans the Senate wouldn't even debate. Passing something the Pres won't sign is pointless at this stage. Perhaps the question to be asked is what compromise the Pres would sign.
    The president has been hard at work negotiating with Boehner. He has made concessions already in revenue and cuts. The republicans in the house are just being little shits who don't give a flying **** about anyone but the wealthiest of Americans.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

  2. #52
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,434
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Bring on The cliff!!!!

    The government is gonna get this year's raise, but at least we will see meaningful cuts.

  3. #53
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    10,517
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    It is on the heads of all our DC leadership....

    They just kept putting it off, even though they all knew what was going to happen Jan 1...

    Everything took priority over the budget and fiscal clifrf...getting reelected...vacations...
    2 users like pphilfran's post: oucub23, SpankyNek


  4. #54
    Tundra's Avatar
    Posts
    2,535
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Indian Territory

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    The president has been hard at work negotiating with Boehner. He has made concessions already in revenue and cuts. The republicans in the house are just being little shits who don't give a flying **** about anyone but the wealthiest of Americans.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    You really have bought the democratic line; hook, line and sinker.

  5. #55
    Dammit.

    Boehner is compromising. Obama, I think, is compromising (confusing at this point). It's the Reid cronies in the Senate and the Tea Partiers in the House who appear to be holding things up.

    Dammit, people ... COMPROMISE!

    Boehner is being weakened because he is doing what's best for the country, not his party... and the Tea Partiers won't give him the support he needs. This is the first time I've railed on them because I believe in what they fought for in 2009-10 when they stood up against Obamacare. But they and the Senate liberals MUST get out of their trenches and find some middle ground.

    There's too much at stake here.

  6. #56

    Re: Fiscal Cliff ... Who is Compromising? (Guess who is NOT)

    Originally Posted by ltsooner View Post
    Dammit.

    Boehner is compromising. Obama, I think, is compromising (confusing at this point). It's the Reid cronies in the Senate and the Tea Partiers in the House who appear to be holding things up.

    Dammit, people ... COMPROMISE!

    Boehner is being weakened because he is doing what's best for the country, not his party... and the Tea Partiers won't give him the support he needs. This is the first time I've railed on them because I believe in what they fought for in 2009-10 when they stood up against Obamacare. But they and the Senate liberals MUST get out of their trenches and find some middle ground.

    There's too much at stake here.
    Yep.

    Boehner attempted to punt the ball to Obama and Reid since he can't whip his caucus into shape. I can guarantee a negotiated deal between Boehner and Obama would have a better chance of clearing both houses and getting the presidents signature than a deal by Reid and Obama.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

  7. #57
    zevogolf's Avatar
    Posts
    4,687
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Florida

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    The president has been hard at work negotiating with Boehner. He has made concessions already in revenue and cuts. The republicans in the house are just being little shits who don't give a flying **** about anyone but the wealthiest of Americans.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    They are all, including his royal highness, ****S!!!!

  8. #58
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    10,517
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Bring on The cliff!!!!

    The government is gonna get this year's raise, but at least we will see meaningful cuts.
    We are spending about 50% more than we take in...

    But we will be happy to increase revenue by 3%(raising taxes) and making cuts around the same range...

    Who are we kidding? It is a token attempt to pacify the public...we are going to be in the same mess next year unless we wave our magic legislative wand...poof...forget the limit and let the prez take on the responsibility....right...

    I don't want them to cut anything...
    I don't want them to raise taxes on anyone...

    The focus must be on the economy...if we don't get to 4% growth we are sunk...you don't put in place anything....I repeat...anything... that can have an adverse effect on the economy...

    We will have more revenue and lower spending when we get people back to work...nobody would have to see a tax increase....no one would lose one penny of benefits...

    This slow growth is just sucking the life out of us...it is like we are in that Sleeper Hold that some professional wrestlers use...we can flop around and kick and spit all we want but if we don't break the 4% economic Sleeper Hold we are just slowing going to sleep...

    Don't make any changes to anything...staying were we are on taxes through 2014...all of the projection are showing the world economy is going to suck wind next year and only slightly better in 2014...announce it and watch the big sigh of relief from the markets...

    Freeze government spending at current levels. with a few exception - my two primary
    - Unemployment and welfare benefits should decline due to improved economic conditions and should expect lower budget
    - Military cuts in overseas spending due to wind down of various wars and conflicts

  9. #59
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    10,517
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    Yes, I know my thinking is far different than most....

  10. #60
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,434
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    Yes, I know my thinking is far different than most....
    I think your plan can work, but no one is going to offer it. The congress knows that they can retroactively install their legislation...they are waiting it out.

    As it stands, the automatic implementations of the cliff reduce our operating deficit by over one half of a trillion dollars. At some point, people thought this would be a good thing, or hey would have never agreed to these timetables.

  11. #61
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    I think your plan can work, but no one is going to offer it. The congress knows that they can retroactively install their legislation...they are waiting it out.

    As it stands, the automatic implementations of the cliff reduce our operating deficit by over one half of a trillion dollars. At some point, people thought this would be a good thing, or hey would have never agreed to these timetables.
    our operating deficit over a 10 year period*.

  12. #62
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,434
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by Teo9969 View Post
    our operating deficit over a 10 year period*.
    Over the next 10 years, the debt is expected to be reduced by 7.1 trillion dollars.

  13. #63
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Over the next 10 years, the debt is expected to be reduced by 7.1 trillion dollars.
    Uhhh...definitely gonna need a link on that one...like several of them.

    We're not even close to reducing the deficit, let alone the debt.

    Furthermore, we've acquired >$11T in debt since 2000 (~$8T in the last 5 years) and this may be my ignorance speaking, but I'm pretty sure the treasury bonds by which we measure our debt are longer than 10 year notes. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that it's literally impossible for us to reduce the debt by $7.1T if we asked the FED to print us $7.1T for the express purpose of "paying off debt".

  14. #64
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,434
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by Teo9969 View Post
    Uhhh...definitely gonna need a link on that one...like several of them.

    We're not even close to reducing the deficit, let alone the debt.

    Furthermore, we've acquired >$11T in debt since 2000 (~$8T in the last 5 years) and this may be my ignorance speaking, but I'm pretty sure the treasury bonds by which we measure our debt are longer than 10 year notes. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that it's literally impossible for us to reduce the debt by $7.1T if we asked the FED to print us $7.1T for the express purpose of "paying off debt".
    It is a reduction in debt compared to current spending and revenues over the same timeframe.

    Under current law, the federal budget deficit will fall dra- matically between 2012 and 2013 owing to scheduled increases in taxes and, to a lesser extent, scheduled reduc- tions in spending—a development that some observers have referred to as a “fiscal cliff.” The recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower income and payroll tax rates and limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), will boost tax revenues considerably in 2013 compared with the sums that will be collected in 2012. The automatic enforcement proce- dures established in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) will lower spending in 2013 compared with outlays in 2012. And other provisions of law will generate additional deficit reduction in 2013.
    Taken together, CBO estimates, those policies will reduce the federal budget deficit by $607 billion, or 4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), between fiscal years 2012 and 2013. The resulting weakening of the economy will lower taxable incomes and raise unemployment, gen- erating a reduction in tax revenues and an increase in spending on such items as unemployment insurance. With that economic feedback incorporated, the deficit will drop by $560 billion between fiscal years 2012 and 2013, CBO projects.1
    If measured for calendar years 2012 and 2013, the amount of fiscal restraint is even larger. Most of the pol- icy changes that reduce the deficit are scheduled to take effect at the beginning of calendar year 2013, so budget figures for fiscal year 2013—which begins in October 2012—reflect only about three-quarters of the effects of those policies on an annual basis. According to CBO’s estimates, the tax and spending policies that will be in effect under current law will reduce the federal budget deficit by 5.1 percent of GDP between calendar years 2012 and 2013 (with the resulting economic feedback included, the reduction will be smaller).
    Under those fiscal conditions, which will occur under current law, growth in real (inflation-adjusted) GDP in calendar year 2013 will be just 0.5 percent, CBO expects—with the economy projected to contract at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the first half of the year and expand at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in the second half. Given the pattern of past recessions as identified
    by the National Bureau of Economic Research, such a contraction in output in the first half of 2013 would probably be judged to be a recession.
    Economic Effects in the Longer Run ofReducing Fiscal Restraint

    Although removing or reducing the fiscal restraint sched- uled to occur next year would boost the economy in the short run, doing so would reduce output and income in the longer run relative to what would otherwise occur. The fiscal restraint embodied in current law will reduce deficits markedly in the next few years, to an average of 1.4 percent of GDP over the 2013–2022 period. With deficits small relative to the size of the economy, federal debt held by the public will fall from 73 percent of GDP in 2012 to 61 percent in 2022, according to CBO’s latest baseline budget projections.9 That decline in debt relative to the size of the economy will induce additional private investment, raising the stock of productive capital and boosting output and wages.
    By contrast, if the scheduled fiscal restraint was elimi- nated by extending all current policies—not just in the short run, but for a prolonged period—debt would con- tinue to rise much faster than GDP. For example, under the alternative fiscal scenario, which includes the exten- sion of some but not all current policies, federal debt held by the public would reach 93 percent of GDP by 2022.1
    CBO Link

  15. #65
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    10,517
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Over the next 10 years, the debt is expected to be reduced by 7.1 trillion dollars.
    The debt is going to be higher..it will just be 7.1 trillion less high...
    The following users like this post: zevogolf


  16. #66
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,434
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    The debt is going to be higher..it will just be 7.1 trillion less high...
    Correct.

  17. #67
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    10,517
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    From your link

    Fiscal restraint will have a much larger impact on the
    economy in 2013. The increases in taxes and decreases in
    government benefits will lead households to cut back
    their purchases of goods and services, and the decline in
    funding for government programs will lead to further
    cuts in purchases. That drop in demand will, in turn, lead
    businesses to lower their production, employment, and
    investment. The magnitude of those responses is hard to
    judge. On the one hand, households generally respond
    to declines in income by reducing both spending and saving,
    thereby generating changes in spending that are
    smaller than the changes in income. And the effects on
    income of some of the tax increases—for example, the
    reductions in the refundable child tax credit—might not
    be recognized by households until they file their tax
    returns in 2014. On the other hand, initial cutbacks in
    spending have so-called multiplier effects on the economy,
    because reductions in employment, for example,
    cause households to cut back on their purchases further
    in a reinforcing fashion.


    Incorporating the effects of the legislation enacted since
    January, CBO now projects that real GDP will increase
    by just 0.5 percent next year under current law. That
    small gain for the year as a whole reflects a contraction in
    output at an annual rate of 1.3 percent during the first
    half of 2013 (measured as growth between the fourth
    quarter of 2012 and the second quarter of 2013) as the
    fiscal restraint takes effect and then a renewed expansion
    in output at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in the second
    half of 2013 (measured as growth between the second
    and fourth quarters of 2013).

  18. #68
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,434
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    From your link

    Fiscal restraint will have a much larger impact on the
    economy in 2013. The increases in taxes and decreases in
    government benefits will lead households to cut back
    their purchases of goods and services, and the decline in
    funding for government programs will lead to further
    cuts in purchases. That drop in demand will, in turn, lead
    businesses to lower their production, employment, and
    investment. The magnitude of those responses is hard to
    judge. On the one hand, households generally respond
    to declines in income by reducing both spending and saving,
    thereby generating changes in spending that are
    smaller than the changes in income. And the effects on
    income of some of the tax increases—for example, the
    reductions in the refundable child tax credit—might not
    be recognized by households until they file their tax
    returns in 2014. On the other hand, initial cutbacks in
    spending have so-called multiplier effects on the economy,
    because reductions in employment, for example,
    cause households to cut back on their purchases further
    in a reinforcing fashion.


    Incorporating the effects of the legislation enacted since
    January, CBO now projects that real GDP will increase
    by just 0.5 percent next year under current law. That
    small gain for the year as a whole reflects a contraction in
    output at an annual rate of 1.3 percent during the first
    half of 2013 (measured as growth between the fourth
    quarter of 2012 and the second quarter of 2013) as the
    fiscal restraint takes effect and then a renewed expansion
    in output at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in the second
    half of 2013 (measured as growth between the second
    and fourth quarters of 2013).
    It's gonna be rough for quite a few folks. It looks as though a recession is inevitable at this point, no matter what we do. We have to look long term, and this kicks the can a bit.

  19. #69
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    10,517
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    We can't have another recession...we can't...

    The lower gas prices do help a little

  20. #70
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    4,756
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    We can't have another recession...we can't...

    The lower gas prices do help a little
    I'd love to see the price drop another 50 cents or so . . .

  21. #71
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    10,517
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    We use 130 billion gallons a year....a drop of fifty cents is 65 billion in stimulus...

  22. #72
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    4,756
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    We use 130 billion gallons a year....a drop of fifty cents is 65 billion in stimulus...
    I really miss the days of 96 cent gas . . . . doesn't really seem like it was all that long ago.

  23. #73
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    11,434
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    I really miss the days of 96 cent gas . . . . doesn't really seem like it was all that long ago.
    Last time I paid under a dollar was summer 2002.

  24. #74
    I just paid 2.18....after an .81 cent discount with my QT rewards card...

  25. #75
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    36,725
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    0
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    We use 130 billion gallons a year....a drop of fifty cents is 65 billion in stimulus...
    And by stimulus do you mean for money for teacher's and other unions?

  26. #76
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    36,725
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    0
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    I really miss the days of 96 cent gas . . . . doesn't really seem like it was all that long ago.
    I miss the days that for 50$ you could get BBMSOG.

  27. #77
    zevogolf's Avatar
    Posts
    4,687
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Florida

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    The debt is going to be higher..it will just be 7.1 trillion less high...
    That's the way the ****ing ****s and accountants put it in D.C.!!!

  28. #78
    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    The president has been hard at work negotiating with Boehner. He has made concessions already in revenue and cuts. The republicans in the house are just being little shits who don't give a flying **** about anyone but the wealthiest of Americans.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn't reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

    At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?"

    "You get nothing," the president said. "I get that for free."

    After the election, Boehner aides tried to shape the debate by offering early concessions, including that the GOP would agree to raise new tax revenue. A speech Mr. Boehner planned to give was rewritten 18 times and included input from top Republican leaders.

    He and Mr. Obama didn't sit down together for another 10 days. The session began genially. But tension quickly emerged over the president's call to include increasing the U.S.'s borrowing limit in any final package.

    Responded Mr. Boehner: "I've found in my life that everything I've ever wanted has come with price."

    Mr. Obama told the speaker he wasn't willing to play games with the debt ceiling.



    Doesn't sound like it's the Tea Party that's behaving like little shits.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...576333616.html
    2 users like oucub23's post: KCRuf/Nek, wheelihan


  29. #79
    A few thoughts on this. Right now we're lamenting kicking the ball down the field instead of getting real solutions. We're also blaming the Tea Party caucus for holding up progress on talks--all of which would basically just kick the ball down the field. I'm to the point now that I want a contingent to dig in their heels and tell both sides to go pound sand until they give us a real, workable plan that will fix the mess we're facing--in the long term. Stop jacking around with these short term fixes--we have serious problems, and until our 'leadership' quits trying to score points and actually takes on the hard problems, we're still facing the same problems.
    2 users like oucub23's post: IcanzIIravor, KCRuf/Nek


  30. #80
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    10,517
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    A few thoughts on this. Right now we're lamenting kicking the ball down the field instead of getting real solutions. We're also blaming the Tea Party caucus for holding up progress on talks--all of which would basically just kick the ball down the field. I'm to the point now that I want a contingent to dig in their heels and tell both sides to go pound sand until they give us a real, workable plan that will fix the mess we're facing--in the long term. Stop jacking around with these short term fixes--we have serious problems, and until our 'leadership' quits trying to score points and actually takes on the hard problems, we're still facing the same problems.
    No shit

  31. #81
    Tundra's Avatar
    Posts
    2,535
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Indian Territory

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn't reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

    At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?"

    "You get nothing," the president said. "I get that for free."

    After the election, Boehner aides tried to shape the debate by offering early concessions, including that the GOP would agree to raise new tax revenue. A speech Mr. Boehner planned to give was rewritten 18 times and included input from top Republican leaders.

    He and Mr. Obama didn't sit down together for another 10 days. The session began genially. But tension quickly emerged over the president's call to include increasing the U.S.'s borrowing limit in any final package.

    Responded Mr. Boehner: "I've found in my life that everything I've ever wanted has come with price."

    Mr. Obama told the speaker he wasn't willing to play games with the debt ceiling.



    Doesn't sound like it's the Tea Party that's behaving like little shits.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...576333616.html
    Most unpresidential president ever.
    The following users like this post: ltsooner


  32. #82
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn't reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

    At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?"

    "You get nothing," the president said. "I get that for free."

    After the election, Boehner aides tried to shape the debate by offering early concessions, including that the GOP would agree to raise new tax revenue. A speech Mr. Boehner planned to give was rewritten 18 times and included input from top Republican leaders.

    He and Mr. Obama didn't sit down together for another 10 days. The session began genially. But tension quickly emerged over the president's call to include increasing the U.S.'s borrowing limit in any final package.

    Responded Mr. Boehner: "I've found in my life that everything I've ever wanted has come with price."

    Mr. Obama told the speaker he wasn't willing to play games with the debt ceiling.



    Doesn't sound like it's the Tea Party that's behaving like little shits.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...576333616.html
    Wow... just wow. What a tremendous a-hole. Obama is feeling overconfident and even more arrogant after his re-election, and it shows in this article. Amazing.

    This article is a must-read.

    Thank you for posting!

  33. #83
    Originally Posted by Tundra View Post
    Most unpresidential president ever.
    Couldn't agree more.

  34. #84
    ATMsooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,282
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Check your six...

    Did someone say raises? How bout an executive order?!!

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...rs_692223.html

    President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.

  35. #85
    Al Qaeda Disbands; Says Job of Destroying U.S. Economy Now in Congress’s Hands



    WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The international terror group known as Al Qaeda announced its dissolution today, saying that “our mission of destroying the American economy is now in the capable hands of the U.S. Congress.”

    In an official statement published on the group’s website, the current leader of Al Qaeda said that Congress’s conduct during the so-called “fiscal-cliff” showdown convinced the terrorists that they had been outdone.

    “We’ve been working overtime trying to come up with ways to terrorize the American people and wreck their economy,” said the statement from Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. “But even we couldn’t come up with something like this.”

    Mr. al-Zawhiri said that the idea of holding the entire nation hostage with a clock ticking down to the end of the year “is completely insane and worthy of a Bond villain.”

    “As terrorists, every now and then you have to step back and admire when someone else has beaten you at your own game,” he said. “This is one of those times.”

    The Al Qaeda leader was fulsome in his praise for congressional leaders, saying, “We have made many scary videos in our time but none of them were as terrifying as Mitch McConnell.”

    As for the future of Al Qaeda, the statement said that it would no longer be a terror network but would become “more of a social network,” offering reviews of new music, movies and video games.

    In its first movie review, Al Qaeda gave the film “Zero Dark Thirty” two thumbs down.

    Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz2GOAAT6oi

  36. #86
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    36,725
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    0
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Originally Posted by ATMsooner View Post
    Did someone say raises? How bout an executive order?!!

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...rs_692223.html

    President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.
    Once again, congrats to the 51% who thought this dumb **** was the solution. Spread those cheeks wide as it's going to be a long four years.

  37. #87
    How about 4 day work week for the govt workers, eliminate tax refunds for ALL taxpayers for 2-3 years and kick all elected officials out of office at 4 years, unless elected unanimously.

  38. #88
    Originally Posted by oughostpilot View Post
    How about 4 day work week for the govt workers, eliminate tax refunds for ALL taxpayers for 2-3 years and kick all elected officials out of office at 4 years, unless elected unanimously.
    Creates problems for those elected officials that have longer than a 4 year term.

  39. #89
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Creates problems for those elected officials that have longer than a 4 year term.
    And this is why we have problems, no one that is elected by the people for the people should be allowed to have a comfort zone automatically built in to their term.

  40. #90
    Originally Posted by oughostpilot View Post
    And this is why we have problems, no one that is elected by the people for the people should be allowed to have a comfort zone automatically built in to their term.
    Nah. The reason we have problems is b/c we have an uninformed electorate that votes on a cult of personality rather than on real, cogent though processes.
    5 users like oucub23's post: Irish_Sooner, jdmt37, KCRuf/Nek, oughostpilot, ThievingMagpie


  41. #91
    KumquatOne's Avatar
    Posts
    205
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Memphis

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Creates problems for those elected officials that have longer than a 4 year term.
    Yeah, **** that whole Constitution thing that sets the term for Senators at six years.

  42. #92
    Originally Posted by KumquatOne View Post
    Yeah, **** that whole Constitution thing that sets the term for Senators at six years.
    Well, we did kind of toss aside how Senators get into office, so there is a bit of precedent
    The following users like this post: oughostpilot


  43. #93
    Constitution was written when folks didn't live as long as we do now, and certainly not for the country we have evolved into.

  44. #94
    KumquatOne's Avatar
    Posts
    205
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Memphis

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Well, we did kind of toss aside how Senators get into office, so there is a bit of precedent
    Sure, if people want to pass a constitutional amendment, which is how we got direct election of senators in the first place.

  45. #95
    nice to see those racist tea partiers are still alive and well...

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ld-key-fiscal/

  46. #96
    Interesting take on the issue. Didn't think about them selling it as a tax cut if the comprise isn't reached by midnight but you know those shady ****s would.
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...f-a-love-story
    America, if you're scared by all the talk you've been hearing about the fiscal cliff, take heart: There are reasons for people across the political spectrum to love the cliff.

    There's a lot for liberals to like in the fiscal cliff, says Matthew Yglesias, who writes wonky articles about economics for Slate.

    Take the spending cuts. Entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicaid that liberals generally support are left unaffected, while a large share of the cuts fall on the military, which many liberals would be happy to reduce anyway.

    The combination of tax hikes and spending cuts could eventually send the country into recession. But that probably won't happen, Yglesias says, because at some point in the next few weeks Congress will probably agree on a compromise.

    That's partly because going off the cliff will let Congress sell a tax increase as a tax cut. Simon Johnson, an economist at MIT, walked me through how that works.

    A big part of the fiscal cliff is the expiration of temporary tax cuts. So, for example, the 33 percent tax bracket will rise to 36 percent on Jan. 1.

    Say you think the ideal rate for income in this bracket should be higher than 33 percent. Say you think it should be 34 percent. On Monday, Dec. 31, 34 percent is a tax increase. On Tuesday, Jan. 1, it's a tax cut.


    Conservatives who worry that the government is borrowing too much money should love the cliff for a simple reason: It will cut the deficit.

    The federal government spends over $3.5 trillion every year — on health care for the elderly, drones for the military, bridges, etc. But the government only brings $2.5 trillion in tax revenue. We borrow the remaining $1 trillion, and we're going to have to pay it back eventually.

    Going over the cliff — paying more taxes and getting fewer government services — means we borrow less. By the same token, it forces the country to pay up front for a bigger share of the government services we're consuming.

    "It forces taxpayers to realize what they're paying, and I think that's a good thing," Russ Roberts, a libertarian economist at Stanford's Hoover Institution, told me.

  47. #97
    Yuck Fu's Avatar
    Posts
    3,935
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Ah so, mutha fucka.

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    We use 130 billion gallons a year....a drop of fifty cents is 65 billion in stimulus...
    Where is that 50 cents going now? Can any of the oil guys on here speculate?

  48. #98
    Yasiel Puig's Avatar
    Posts
    1,645
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond

    Whatda**** is Obama wanting and demanding more spending for?

  49. #99
    Yasiel Puig's Avatar
    Posts
    1,645
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    The president has been hard at work negotiating with Boehner. He has made concessions already in revenue and cuts. The republicans in the house are just being little shits who don't give a flying **** about anyone but the wealthiest of Americans.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    You're flat ignorant if that is what you believe but I'm guessing you're just spewing your party's rhetoric

    Obama made it very clear in his interview with David Gregory today what his strategy is. He plans on blocking any last minute deals in favor of going after the fiscal cliff, and letting taxes rise on everyone. The next day, on January first, the democrats in the Senate will propose a bill to cut taxes for the 98%. His goal is to put the GOP in the position of denying tax cuts for the poor and middle class. Obama figures he'll win on all counts. He'll have manage to raise taxes. And he'll be able to blame the GOP for raising taxes on the middle class. Pure evil. But Obama does have the pulpit and media to back his claims and blames.

    That said, when looking back on a Presidency, one does not remember a Congress, but a President. If we go into another recession, it will be looked back upon it happening under the Obama Presidency. However, that would be history. It does nothing to try and solve our problems.



    Whether or not that number signifies RICH, to me, is not the point. To me, Obama is portraying the Reps as holding hostage the middle class, because raising revenues to help pay off our debts on the RICH is something they refuse.

    However, it seems more Reps are willing to put revenue on the table. All they want is a dollar for dollar way to offset the spending. This would avert a crisis and save tax hikes for the middle class. However, Reid and his group seem to want more than what the Reps are willing to give, without giving anything on their own. This means, no TRUE way to reduce spending!

    What the masses DO NOT UNDERSTAND is that raising taxes on a certain few does NOTHING to reduce our debt. It is a fly on the wall. But Obama would have us believe that raising taxes IS the key to this deficit reduction.

    Dems like pelosi have already come out and said spending cuts are off the table.....how is this compromise, and do these people not see what the true problem is?
    5 users like Yasiel Puig's post: fdubzou, ImTheDude, Jenn and tonic, nolesooner, Tundra


  50. #100
    nolesooner's Avatar
    Posts
    6,258
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Panama City, Fl

    Originally Posted by bruthaman View Post
    Its my business to know. I have to adjust accordingly and its going to happen. The President is going to cut spending and we have known it for over a year already. So, the republicans saying they want to cut spending may be saying they wont MORE than is already going to happen, but they cant say he isnt going to cut it and be truthful. Its just more political bullcrap.
    So is cutting $500 Million from lets say Military, and increasing $1 Billion to social welfare still considered spending less...or a cut in spending?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 100
    Last Post: January 4th, 2013, 10:30 AM
  2. White House offer on avoiding fiscal cliff
    By pphilfran in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: December 9th, 2012, 10:17 AM
  3. The Fiscal Cliff and the Grand Bargain
    By Sooner5030 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 28th, 2012, 11:40 PM
  4. Let's Get Fiscal
    By Julz in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 16th, 2012, 04:09 PM
  5. Replies: 30
    Last Post: August 25th, 2012, 12:21 AM