#1  
Old 12-01-2012, 11:15 PM
2012 Fiscal Cliff

OK. Let's talk about the so called 2012 Fiscal Cliff.

I for one, do not like all this doom and gloom talk. I seriously doubt we can not bounce back from anything that anyone in Congress or the President will do. I do not believe in cliffs like this. Let's not increase taxes on the rich and just clean up the tax codes that allow them to pay less. Let's stop borrowing. Let's decrease the defense budget. Do those three things and that will be a good start for me.

Until then, we have to deal with all the media crap from both sides. It would be nice if both sides would do the deal now and not wait until zero hour. The only ones that win are the media outlets that way
  #2  
Old 12-02-2012, 03:26 AM
Nobody can say Democrats don't use fear tactics too.
  #3  
Old 12-02-2012, 06:30 AM
I just hope both sides come to some sort of bipartisan agreement as opposed to waiting until next year and realizing now it's time to compromise.
  #4  
Old 12-02-2012, 11:01 PM
I'm am so fed up with the drama that has to be created around these situations by the media. No one on either side acts or speaks like an adult. Its always the same "Their side is doing this. Oh but they are doing that". And to exacerbate the problem we have the same complaints echoed in each side's respective ideological media outlet.

Someone needs to shout in some resounding voice "I don't care who did what, knock it the fuck off and get this shit done!"
  #5  
Old 12-05-2012, 09:48 PM
Quote:
The following is a breakdown of what happens next month if lawmakers fail to reach a deal -- as well as the Democratic and Republican proposals.

1 Bush-era tax rates
Without a deal, these tax rates will rise for everybody on Jan. 1. That means a $2,000-a-year hit for a middle-income household, but the rate for every income tax bracket would rise. Taxes would also go up on investment income like capital gains, with that rate rising from 15 percent to 20 percent for most earners. Dividends would be taxed like regular income, as opposed to a flat rate of 15 percent.
Under the Obama administration alternative plan, the current tax rates would stand for all but the top 2 percent of earners. For households making over $250,000, though, rates would rise, with the top rate going from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The plan would also raise capital gains and dividends rates -- all told, the administration is looking to raise $960 billion over 10 years this way.
Under the House Republicans' plan, the current tax rates would be preserved for everybody. However, Republicans propose raising $800 billion over 10 years by limiting deductions for top earners and other tax reform measures.

2 Payroll tax cut
Without a deal, the Social Security tax rate will rise on Jan. 1 from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent.
The Obama administration plan calls for extending this tax holiday once again, or finding an alternative policy.
The Republican plan does not mention the payroll tax holiday

3 Unemployment aid
Without a deal, jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed will end on Jan. 1. The maximum 73 weeks in state and federal benefits will fall to 26 weeks.
The Obama administration plan calls for extending this aid again.
The Republican plan does not mention it.

4 Budget cuts
Without a deal, the first round of automatic spending cuts will hit starting Jan. 2. In the first year, this includes roughly $55 billion from defense spending and $55 billion from domestic programs.
The Obama administration plan calls for deferring these cuts for a year, while seeking $400 billion in entitlement cuts.
The Republican plan does not specify how it would treat the so-called "sequester," but appears to offer as an alternative roughly $900 billion in cuts to entitlements over the next decade, and $300 billion in other discretionary budget cuts.

5 Medicare "doc fix"
Without a deal, Medicare rates paid to physicians will fall nearly 30 percent starting Jan. 1.

6 ObamaCare tax hikes
Regardless of whether a deal is struck, a 3.8 percent surtax is still expected to be imposed on Jan. 1 on investment income for top earners, as part of the federal health care overhaul. Further, Medicare Part A taxes will increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for households making over $250,000.
I agree with the Republicans on the first 4 points
1. I like the idea of eliminating deductions better than tax cuts that are used as political capital.
2. I never liked the idea of stealing from SS. That 2% cut to SS really does not hurt people and hurts the long term effects of the loss to SS with all the baby boomers retiring early
3. I always felt that the period was to long and many (not all or not most) , but many do not seriously look for work or do not take just any job and chose to stay on unemployment.
4. I do not like the idea of delaying this again. I do not like the games and I do not think enough cuts are being proposed by the Obama admin
  #6  
Old 12-05-2012, 10:13 PM
The sad thing is, there is just so many different ways to reach a compromise on this.

Just split the bitch 50/50. Each side wins, both sides lose. Get this shit over with already.

On top of it all, this isn't even the REAL issue to begin with... it's just the bandaid.
  #7  
Old 12-06-2012, 03:49 AM
I'm glad they seem to be starting to compromising a bit and there is, at least, some conceding that the top earners will be paying more. Cutting deductions seems fine. I've never agreed with the idea that everyone getting the deductions is an equal benefit. Lower earners appear to typically put those deductions back into the economy whereas upper earners appear more likely to, more-or-less, just hoard the money.
  #8  
Old 12-06-2012, 06:59 AM
Appearances can be deceiving. And again the economy as a whole isn't a static pie this lesson can be learned in Economics 101.
  #9  
Old 12-06-2012, 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Appearances can be deceiving. And again the economy as a whole isn't a static pie this lesson can be learned in Economics 101.
Oh, I'm familiar with your Magic Bag of Unlimited Resources Theory but it doesn't really have much to do with what I said.

And right, straight out of 101 economics. I'm sure that's what you heard.
  #10  
Old 12-07-2012, 08:44 AM
So how is someone "hoarding" (or whatever that means) their money causing harm or being unjust to others?

Last edited by creekin111; 12-07-2012 at 09:53 AM..
  #11  
Old 12-07-2012, 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
So how is someone "hoarding" (or whatever that means) their money causing harm or being unjust to others?
I didn't say it was an injustice. The Bush-era tax cuts, which are a centrical part of this topic, were explicitly referred to in my post and in the Washington debate, were designed to stimulate the economy.

Context!
  #12  
Old 12-07-2012, 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jolanar View Post
The sad thing is, there is just so many different ways to reach a compromise on this.

Just split the bitch 50/50. Each side wins, both sides lose. Get this shit over with already.

On top of it all, this isn't even the REAL issue to begin with... it's just the bandaid.
The best compromises are the ones where no one is happy.
  #13  
Old 12-08-2012, 02:38 AM
^perhaps more succinctly, I think it's when no one feels like they are the reigning champion.
  #14  
Old 12-08-2012, 07:47 PM
^ What are you talking about?


All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.
-- Mohandas K. Gandhi




"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses, and waste of time."
-- Abraham Lincoln


To obtain a just compromise, concession must not only mutual--it must be equal also....
There can be no hope that either will yield more than it gets in return.
-- Supreme Court Justice John Marshall
  #15  
Old 12-08-2012, 07:48 PM
.

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 05:54 PM..
  #16  
Old 12-08-2012, 07:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
^ What are you talking about?
Sorry, I meant specifically, not succinctly. I was basically agreeing with you but it was perhaps superfluous on my part, even if not misstated.
  #17  
Old 12-08-2012, 08:39 PM
Suppose the Republicans roll over on taxes. Suppose they give Obama what he wants. Suppose they vote to allow the top rate to go up keeping all other rates where they are; suppose they vote to increase estate taxes. According to the Washington Post, that would come to $1.6 trillion over the next decade (assuming that all assumptions about the relationship between taxes and economic growth and the ability to avoid new taxes hold true). That's $160 billion per year. During the first three years of Obama's presidency, the federal deficit averaged about $1.33 trillion. In 2011, it was $1.3 trillion. In 2012 the first of the baby boomers turned 67. In every year until 2032, a new wave of boomers will start to tap Social Security and Medicare. Given the lifespans that people are living and the general tendency for lifespans to continue to increase, it is entirely possible that by 2032 70, 80, or 90% of the boomers may be tapping Social Security and Medicare. Absent any changes, pressure on spending will be upward, not downward in the next twenty years.

So we have
1) a proposal for $0.16 trillion in annual solutions to a $1.33 trillion annual problem (assuming that this is all about the deficit)
2) a high probability (virtually certainty?) that spending will increase over the next twenty years

What's the rest of the plan?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...02a_story.html
  #18  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:08 PM
.

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 05:53 PM..
  #19  
Old 12-09-2012, 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Sorry, I meant specifically, not succinctly. I was basically agreeing with you but it was perhaps superfluous on my part, even if not misstated.
I meant the reigning champion part. I wonder how that fits in.
  #20  
Old 12-11-2012, 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS-Block View Post
Cuts will inevitably be implemented, but its all in the timing. Cut now, and you'll have a hell of an unemployment situation.

How does America's debt break down? what are the conditions of each type of debt?

How much money is owed to America?

The devil will be in the detail.
Reminds me of that cliche in movies:

-Do you know how to fly this plane?

-Of course but landing is another story.
  #21  
Old 01-01-2013, 08:57 PM
.

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 05:41 PM..
  #22  
Old 01-01-2013, 10:55 PM
Funny how the so called fiscal cliff which was created to stem the national debt will do almost nothing to help the debt. We are are pretty much back in the same boat as before less higher taxes for the rich. Now we will have a national debt cliff as it will be needed to go higher again. Stop the madness. Out of control spending is not the answer. It is not working.
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump