Getting Closer To A Fiscal Cliff Deal

[JayHawk]

they're not mutually exclusive

doing a s/t $250k or 400K or 500k deal now doesn't meant the other doesn't happen

plus it would be put people's minds at ease as it relates to their s/t paycheck

I agree technically they are not mutually exclusive. The only reason the republicans are at the table is because of the massively bad implications of the so called cliff. Once it is kicked down the road so will any desire to act. On both sides.

 

[JayHawk]

^ what is "absolute" agreement ?

When one party rules and the other refuses to take up legislation with out a majority or the majority then there can be no absolute agreement... so then we will kick the can until republicans are defeated in 2014. OR republicans gain more ground and the obstruction reaches unprecedented levels

 

[chance1]

When one party rules and the other refuses to take up legislation with out a majority or the majority then there can be no absolute agreement... so then we will kick the can until republicans are defeated in 2014. OR republicans gain more ground and the obstruction reaches unprecedented levels

you seem to be of the opinion that democratic control of the house and senate would be a very good thing

i fear that what worries us now about lack of consensus/inertia could be far worse

democratic stated unwillingness to deal with entitlements - democratic blind support of unions - democrat willingness to use tax rates as a means of revenue generation in lieu of economic growth

scares the shit out of me

and the reality is the dems have just done a better sales job on their incompetence than the repubs

 

[xbuzzerx]

your context of black and socialist isn't worth answering

Let me rephrase it. "People who actually know what's up already agree with me and don't need it explained" isn't a valid reason. So get one or take a seat.

 

[chance1]

Let me rephrase it. "People who actually know what's up already agree with me and don't need it explained" isn't a valid reason. So get one or take a seat.

that was a sweet rephrase

thanks

 

[xbuzzerx]

that was a sweet rephrase

thanks

I'll take that as conceding your point.

 

[JayHawk]

you seem to be of the opinion that democratic control of the house and senate would be a very good thing

i fear that what worries us now about lack of consensus/inertia could be far worse

democratic stated unwillingness to deal with entitlements - democratic blind support of unions - democrat willingness to use tax rates as a means of revenue generation in lieu of economic growth

scares the shit out of me

and the reality is the dems have just done a better sales job on their incompetence than the repubs

See the problem is that is not what the democratic position is and it hasn't been said as such except in screeching tone on fox news and perhaps the odd entertainment on MSNBC...

The greatest inequity between classes since just prior to the great depression. WHAT is possibly confusing about that?

Entitlements should not altered to remove capability which is all republicans appear to offer. The best method would be doing what the 70's congress had the foresight to do and adjust it to meet the need. It is not the problem. Doubling our defense budget for two barely useful wars IS the problem.

 

[chance1]

I'll take that as conceding your point.

i imagine u would

 

[xbuzzerx]

Doubling our defense budget for two barely useful wars IS the problem.

I honestly and sincerely believe from everything I've ever seen, read, heard and experienced of the conservative worldview that they would say even two totally wasted wars are a better investment than seeing any of that money go to "parasites" here at home who are part of our economy. Or for services, infrastructure or jobs that help or service them.

 

[Benvolio]

You cannot say the wars were wasted. Without them the terrotist would have had a free rein to bomb us at will. Both parties agreed about the necessity of the for the Afghan war and Obama is apparently not going to withdraw in2014.

 

[Benvolio]

See the problem is that is not what the democratic position is and it hasn't been said as such except in screeching tone on fox news and perhaps the odd entertainment on MSNBC...

The greatest inequity between classes since just prior to the great depression. WHAT is possibly confusing about that?

Entitlements should not altered to remove capability which is all republicans appear to offer. The best method would be doing what the 70's congress had the foresight to do and adjust it to meet the need. It is not the problem. Doubling our defense budget for two barely useful wars IS the problem.

What inequity? Perhaps you mean inequality, which is not the same thing. Or perhaps you are revealing the Democrat intention to pull down the rich to a position of equality in the name of equity. If the Democrats were really concerned about inequality they would be willing to stop creating more poverty. Alas, poor people tend to vote Democrat so they need more.

 

[bankside]

I think your country would do very well on Bill Clinton's tax rates and Bill Clinton's economic growth rates. Taxing people enough to pay for the cost of government services does not mean turning your back on growth. It does mean that billionaires and millionaires would get richer a little bit slower than they had hoped. Oh well.

 

[Benvolio]

I think your country would do very well on Bill Clinton's tax rates and Bill Clinton's economic growth rates. Taxing people enough to pay for the cost of government services does not mean turning your back on growth. It does mean that billionaires and millionaires would get richer a little bit slower than they had hoped. Oh well.

The growth you are referring to occurred when the Republicans controlled both houses and limited Clinton's spending, and you are giving Clinton credit for the peace dividend after Reagan and Bush ended the cold war. I agree that we should go back to the Clinton rates, and, indeed, it may happen tomorrow. But you are wrong if you think we can tax people enough to elinimate Obama's deficits without stifling growth here and world wide. Merely ending the Bush tax cuts tomorrow will likely send us back into recession, but that is better than the alternative.

 

[Jack Springer]

How exactly is the inability of the Republican Congress to budge or compromise even when it's in their own best interest his fault exactly?

I get that he's a black socialist Democrat and all that, but beyond that an actual reason would be nice.

Why are you obsessed with the color of a person's skin? Get over it man.

 

[Jack Springer]

If our leadership in DC can't get together to solve this little problem, how will they ever solve the big problem of the the 16 trillion dollars.

We need leadership .... another Ronald Reagan, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln who all understood what it was to be a leader.

 

[bankside]

The delusion you are labouring under is that republicans are responsible with money. They just aren't. Gingrich was nothing special. And Bush Junior took the peace dividend and spent it on war as his personal pastime with no plan to ever pay for it. Bush took Clinton's legacy and flew it into the ground. Obama inherited a Bush economic disaster, and he has spent four years artfully preventing economic collapse, which costs a lot of money. It's clear that spending has to climb down, but don't kid yourself about why it was necessary. Or at least the rest of us shouldn't be fooled: Obama has been fighting a war just as expensive as the Cold War, the war against economic collapse brought about by Bush Junior's ineptitude, failure to plan, and his false promise that you can fight wars for nothing and get someone else to pick up the tab.

I tell you what; here's a better constitutional amendment to replace the Second: No US military action will occur without a sales tax rate sufficient to pay the full cost of all operations, matériel, salaries, and veterans medical costs, and any related research and development.

With an amendment like that, Bush Junior would have been impeached in his first term and the Bush Junior Republican Financial Collapse of 2008 would have never happened.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You cannot say the wars were wasted. Without them the terrotist would have had a free rein to bomb us at will. Both parties agreed about the necessity of the for the Afghan war and Obama is apparently not going to withdraw in2014.

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with anything. It could have just as easily been invading Denmark as far as accomplishing the goal you mention.

Why are you obsessed with the color of a person's skin? Get over it man.

I see you also have no answer. Just blame blame blame.

 

[JayHawk]

What inequity? Perhaps you mean inequality, which is not the same thing. Or perhaps you are revealing the Democrat intention to pull down the rich to a position of equality in the name of equity. If the Democrats were really concerned about inequality they would be willing to stop creating more poverty. Alas, poor people tend to vote Democrat so they need more.

No I mean inequity... feel free to look it up. I wont explain it to you because you will deny it anyhow.

 

[JayHawk]

The growth you are referring to occurred when the Republicans controlled both houses and limited Clinton's spending, and you are giving Clinton credit for the peace dividend after Reagan and Bush ended the cold war. I agree that we should go back to the Clinton rates, and, indeed, it may happen tomorrow. But you are wrong if you think we can tax people enough to elinimate Obama's deficits without stifling growth here and world wide. Merely ending the Bush tax cuts tomorrow will likely send us back into recession, but that is better than the alternative.

Wait a minute your entire argument is that republicans wont raise rates until dems cuts because last time they promised cuts and didnt deliver... so now your trying to assume both sides of the street to make your arguments work.... it is a sickness buddy? A sickness.

 

[JB3]

Ok so same goes for you as for chance... go ahead and give your plan other than government spending for recovery from a recession. We'll wait.

What's with your attitude lately? Behave like an adult if you want to discuss adult topics.

I said nothing of any plan. All I did was respond to another poster that implied this president has no hand in increasing our debt.