Republicans: Let’s go over the fiscal cliff!

By Liberal Anthropologist

There has been much talk recently about how one side or another should deal with the fiscal cliff. The Democrats are a lost cause (at the moment) when it comes to fiscal matters. This is most evidenced by the absolutely ridiculous proposal made by Obama’s team.

So this is my suggestion to the Republicans. Just announce now that if the president’s people do not put forward a serious proposal that involves massive spending cuts that the fiscal cliff will be gone over.

And it is a good thing.

Why? Because we need to cut all of that spending anyway. It is not even enough. It is a down payment on the spending cuts that are really needed. So the automatic spending cuts are a good thing. Then what about the taxes?

Well, the Republicans should announce now a tax cutting bill they plan to put on the president’s desk that lowers middle class taxes further than they are today. Not the “rich”. Leave them to a separate debate at that point. Furthermore it should massively simplify the tax code. The president will not be able to resist a further cut on the middle class.

The result? The taxes that need cutting will be at least partially cut. The spending which needs cutting will be at least partially cut. A step will have been made in the right direction. Raising tax rates on anyone is foolish and far from “fair”, but if the President is insistent on this point, the Republicans can just let it happen through the automatic mechanism without giving ground on an important principle.

We need taxes cut and we need spending cut. Going over the fiscal cliff and immediately putting a Republican bill to the Senate that lowers tax rates for middle class will achieve positive steps we so desperately need.


Comments

  • I also like the plan in here:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/03/fiscal-cliff-obama-debt/1741339/

    I especially like raising taxes on entertainment revenues specifically. My Hollywood friends will have to accept lower net incomes or raise the prices on the poor and middle class. I wonder which they will pick. :-)

  • Why we will probably go over the fiscal cliff, and why it isn’t a big deal.

    http://www.the-richmonder.com/2012/12/why-we-will-probably-go-over-fiscal.html

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    You plan sounds alot like the plan Mark Levin has been espousing for about a week now on his radio show. I agree. The only problem I have is the disproportionate cuts to defense spending. However, that too could be fixed after we go over the cliff.

    A bill could be presented early in the next congress to correct the cuts to Defense (which by the way the President promised “would not happen” in one of his debates earlier this fall) and propose plans for a flattening of the tax rate structure that will increase revenues through increased economic activity. Add to that entitlement reform and we are off to the races.

    I am still miffed that my congressman voted for the sequestration last year, but that’s water under the bridge at this point. It was a very stupid thing to do and the GOP should have seen they were being set up, but not everyone there has common sense enough to see it.

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    By the way, the Obama Administration’s response to the GOP proposal is it’s “Magic beans and fairy dust”. I think that applies more to Mr. Obama’s so-called proposal than it does to the GOP. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334815/carney-gop-fiscal-cliff-proposal-magic-beans-and-fairy-dust-nathaniel-botwinick#

  • Dan says:

    LI, Nancy Pelosi is way ahead of you on this. There is a bill that has passed the Senate already that would make permanent the temporary tax cut (commonly referred to as the Bush tax cuts) on the first $250,000 of income. That represents a tax cut for 100% of American taxpayers over what they would pay if the Bush temporary tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled at the end of the year. The question is why won’t Speaker Boehner bring that bill to the House floor for a vote? That is why Pelosi is attempting to use a discharge petition to force a vote on the bill.

    My suggestion is that you encourage everyone you know to contact Congressman Wolf and urge him to sign the discharge petition so that a vote will be taken and then vote aye on the bill. This would accomplish the one thing there seems to be wide agreement on which is extending the cuts for incomes below $250,000.

    Being a fiscal conservative I can’t agree with your notion of cutting rates further. That, in my opinion, would be irresponsible. We must work toward balancing revenues with expenditures. This was done as recently as the 1990s. And it was done with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. We managed to have a healthy economy at the same time. I would note that the tax rates involved in bringing us to surplus in the 90s were enacted in 1993 without a single Republican vote. The Democrats did the responsible thing, the fiscally conservative thing and the country benefited. They paid a heavy political price at the next election but we actually had surpluses and were beginning to chip away at the national debt. And then we elected Bush who blew the whole thing up with the help of a supine Republican Congress. A very credible case can be made that the Democrats are the fiscally conservative party in this country. Voting to continually cut taxes does not equate with fiscal conservatism. No matter how much modern Republicans want to pretend it does.

    I realize you personally don’t want to see the tax rate on incomes over $250,000 go up 4 points as they would if that portion of the temporary tax cut were allowed to expire (although those folks would continue to enjoy the lower rate on the first $250,000 of their income). But it is impossible to deny that allowing the temporary rate on incomes over $250,000 to expire was an issue that was the subject of a full throated debate during this year’s election campaign. And the American people spoke pretty clearly. They re-elected the president who ran quite specifically on this tax policy. They added two Democrats to the Senate in a year when 23 Democrats were up and only 10 Republicans were up and not a single Democratic incumbent lost. They added 8 Democrats to the House and more Americans voted for a Democrat in House races nationwide than voted for Republicans. The only reason the Republicans retained the majority in the House was because of highly gerrrymandered districts. The election results were not ambiguous. They were clear and unequivocal.

    Now, an increase from 35% to 39.6% in the top marginal rate is hardly confiscatory nor is it the Marxist hell that some of our more unspooled friends are foaming at the mouth about. And disagreements on tax policy don’t represent an existential threat to the republic. But I do believe we ought to respect the results of an election on an issue that was front and center throughout the campaign and on which the American people were quite clear in their judgement.

    You characterize Obama’s proposal as “absolutely ridiculous”. Really? Then how, pray tell, would you characterize the Republicans proposal?

    If we go off the ridiculously misnamed “fiscal cliff” then all the temporary tax cuts expire and 1.2 trillion dollars of automatic spending cuts take place. Half of that 1.2 trillion in cuts come from defense. This is what happens if Congress does nothing.

    So what does the Republican proposal call for?

    -No increase in tax rates at any level.

    -Vague allusions to some sort of increased tax revenue based on unspecified smoke and mirrors that will be worked out at some time later in the year.

    -Keep the 1.2 trillion dollars in cuts but not a penny of it from defense. All of it from domestic spending.

    -Throw in a little rhetoric about putting Social Security benefits on the chopping block (rather than raising the income level subject to Social Security taxation which would keep the system solvent through the bubble of baby boomers and well beyond. Also ignoring the fact that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit).

    -Talk about raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67 (which does nothing to rein in healthcare costs and merely shifts costs onto seniors).

    So that is basically the Republican proposal. They are saying “Hey, we know we got our clocks cleaned in the election but we are willing to agree to get everything we want and give in on absolutely nothing that the guys who won the election want. We want to only cut things that conflict with our ideology and to hold sacrosanct the things we want to spend tax dollars on. And we insist on maintaining our fealty to Grover Norquist’s clients. Screw the voters and what they said they want.”

    Tell me again who is being ridiculous?

  • Dan says:

    “correct the cuts to Defense”

    If by “correct” you mean to not cut the defense budget at all then that is, frankly, just plain nuts. Defense spending is at ludicrously high levels and, particularly in light of our current fiscal situation, must be brought under control.

    If by “correct” you mean eliminate the meat ax approach of sequestration and make cuts based on a hard headed assessment of defense priorities and building force structures to meet those priorities in a thoughtful and intelligent way then I agree.

    It’s going to be a tough slog trying to do it the right way though. There will be a massive lobbying effort to keep the gravy train rolling.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    I would agree that spending cuts need to be a greater priority, and that includes defense. There are millions of taxpayer dollars that are spent each year on defunct programs and weapon systems that could be eliminated (but are not due to the influence of key contractors and other political connections, etc.) I think that there are loopholes and deductions that could be reduced or eliminated as well. No one (and I mean no one) seems willing to go through the programs and make a hard assessment as to what is really needed, what is really something that the Government should be spending money on and whether it can be cut back or eliminated alltogether. Untill we actually do this in a way that is serious (and hopefully bipartisan) all the revenue in the world from the “rich” (how do we define rich these days?) is not going to solve the out of control defecit spending.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “Well, the Republicans should announce now a tax cutting bill they plan to put on the president’s desk that lowers middle class taxes further than they are today. Not the “rich”. Leave them to a separate debate at that point. Furthermore it should massively simplify the tax code. The president will not be able to resist a further cut on the middle class.”

    Frankly at this point, I would be perfectly happy to keep the rates as they are and not raise or lower the middle class rates. The President has to know that you could tax the “rich” at 100% and that wouldn’t solve the deficit spending. It seems to me that he’s acting on his own principle (or perhaps obsession) that its just unfair that there are people at the very top who have more than those at the bottom. Yes, there is an income inequality gap — its been that way for decades — and it’s only gotten worse during his time in office. One of my concerns is that if they raise the rates on the top 1% — and that doesn’t cut it — then they’ll look to raise the rates on people who are in the middle class (such as myself) and we’ll get squeezed even more than we are now.

    I would also argue that the Democrats seen an advantage to going over the cliff. They look at the polls and see that the GOP will get the blame (not quite sure why that is exactly, but there it is). So I think that he would be perfectly content to go over the cliff, let everyone get whacked with a tax hike, and then he can sit back and point the finger at the House. The media will continue to aid him with the talking points, and the GOP will remain in a no-win situation. Simply amazing what this guy is able to get away with. But it helps when you have the media in your back pocket and a populace that thinks you’re “cool.”

  • David Dickinson says:

    I think it was all a set up from the get-go and both parties plan to go over the cliff, with each having ample ammunition to blame the other.

    Right or wrong, it will strengthen the country’s balance sheet by increasing revenue and cutting expenses.

    They both get what they want and lose something in return without having to vote on it. Perfect political theater.

    But Northern Virginia will be ground zero for the effects. We will both be paying higher taxes and losing our jobs since we have a disproportianate amount of employees directly and indirectly dependent on the defense sector.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “But Northern Virginia will be ground zero for the effects. We will both be paying higher taxes and losing our jobs since we have a disproportianate amount of employees directly and indirectly dependent on the defense sector.”

    Wouldn’t be surprised. Again, if folks who voted for Obama end up losing their jobs, they are not getting any sympathy from me (although I’m not going to go around saying “Told you so!” either).

  • David Dickinson says:

    NateDogg614, I envision a Thelma & Louise cartoon for NOVA in which one NOVA Democrat and one NOVA Republican hold each other’s hand while going over the fiscal cliff and, on the way down, passing “higher taxes” and “job cuts” and “municipal debt” etc with the caption saying “We voted for this?”

  • edmundburkenator says:

    From someone that has been watching Republicans play and mostly win total raw political battles for twenty years, it’s interesting seeing them react to someone who is equally willing to engage in a totally raw political battle with them.

    I think Obama is making “conservative” House Rs own their positions on entitlements (to the extent he can) because he wants a 2014 mid-term election that is very different from the 2010 mid-term. Election.

    We’ll probably see some Rs boil over as the deadline nears and Boehner moves closer to the middle. It’s going to be a tough road for House Rs within their own party with the threat of getting primaried from Grover.

    There is a lot of upside for Ds if you are running moderate looking candidates against guys that are on tape wanting Medicare scorched.

    Part of me thinks we go over the cliff only until the new Congress is seated and on the first week there is a vote on a compromise that everyone can claim is for lowering taxes. I suppose it will then be claimed no pledges got “broken”.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “From someone that has been watching Republicans play and mostly win total raw political battles for twenty years”

    I’m curious as to why you make that arguement when we are still on the long hard slog towards a socialistic nanny-state. Republicans may be winning some battles, but they also seem to be losing the war as more and more people become conditioned and dependent on some kind of handout (of course that’s just my perspective on it).

    “I think Obama is making “conservative” House Rs own their positions on entitlements (to the extent he can) because he wants a 2014 mid-term election that is very different from the 2010 mid-term. Election.”

    I have not doubt that he does. The 6th year itch is often scratched by the opposition. One need only look at 1938, 1974, 1986, and 2006 to see this as the case.

    “We’ll probably see some Rs boil over as the deadline nears and Boehner moves closer to the middle. It’s going to be a tough road for House Rs within their own party with the threat of getting primaried from Grover.”

    That is also quite possible. Or you may see some retirements.

    “There is a lot of upside for Ds if you are running moderate looking candidates against guys that are on tape wanting Medicare scorched.”

    The program is not sustainable in its current form. It will either go bankrupt or be reformed. As an aside, the key phrase is “moderate looking.” May of those so-called moderate Democrats who were elected in 2006 and 2008 were tossed out on their ears in 2010, particularly after they voted for Obama’s priorities in the 111th Congress.

    “Part of me thinks we go over the cliff only until the new Congress is seated and on the first week there is a vote on a compromise that everyone can claim is for lowering taxes. I suppose it will then be claimed no pledges got “broken”.

    Certainly possible. We’ll know in about a month.

  • David Dickinson says:

    “Republicans may be winning some battles”

    Technically correct. The issue is that all Rs aren’t conservatives. Republicans are winning but conservatives haven’t. Big government cheaper (establishment Rs) is still big government.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    David,

    I do agree with that. I think there is also a case to be made that says actual conservatism hasn’t been fully tried yet (any moreso that full blown socialism — which I think some Democrats REALLY want) hasn’t been tried either. Obama, based on his own principles, believes that government can solve or at least help people’s problems. The problem is, the weakness of the economy that we have been seeing for the past several years is resulting (either by accident or by design) in MORE people getting on disability, on food stamps, on wellfare, and receiving unemployment benefits. The other problem is the “rich” and the small business owners (the ones that make up a large chunk of the middle class and upper-middle class) are demonized by this president with the class warfare rhetoric that we have experienced during the elections and prior and yet they are the ones who make the investments to help create the jobs that we would all like to see. In my view, the president just doesn’t get it (or if he does, he has a funny way of showing it).

  • David Dickinson says:

    Agreed. Both Democrats and establishment Republicans are hurling the US of A towards the abyss. Math is math. The numbers don’t lie.

    But they have both promised “stuff” to the electorate that they won’t be able to produce. As was said, soon or later you run out of other people’s money.

    And then you rack up debt.

    And then you can’t pay your bills.

    Adn then you print money (or have the Fed purchase MBS with fiat money).

    And the house of cards fall.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    What are you guys calling “conservatism”? Do you really think the actions of the Tea Party are conservative?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “I think there is also a case to be made that says actual conservatism hasn’t been fully tried yet…”

    This tickled me.

  • David Dickinson says:

    I call it free markets.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “This tickled me.”

    Well, has it or not?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Nate, you seem to think “conservatism” has some set of policy requirements assigned to it, a dogma or a platform like a political party.

    It’s the ABSENCE of ideological dogma. It’s a way of living a life and a temperament to addressing problem-solving.

    You don’t start from some “a priori” or preconceived set of doctrines if you are conservative, you start with the society you live in.

    The liberal/conservative juxtaposition has always been a lame bit of shorthand fomented by political laziness.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    DD, you might as well wish for Nate’s unicorns to fertilize your yard. Markets have never and can never be totally “free”. It’s the cold fusion of the political right.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    I agree that is a way of life, but I will ask again, has conservatism ever been a governing philosophy that has had a chance to really be applied to policy? I would suggest that Reagan had a chance (but was consistantly checked by a Democrat(ic) controlled House) and while George W. Bush had a GOP controlled Congress for much of his time in office, opportunities to govern as a conservative were missed. I don’t think anyone has been able to REALLY hone in the amount of government spending in a long time, certainly for much of the 20th centry and none of the 21st so far.

    And to your point, yes, it’s a way of living a life, one that I apply in my own life, particularly in terms of fiscal matters and in some cases social ones (family unit and spiritual life). It’s worked well for me and I really have no desire to change it.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    Not my unicorns. I would say that its the liberals who have the sherbert s****ing unicorns, as they seem to think that MORE government intervention into every aspect of our lives will somehow make things better and usher in some kind of utopia. Kinda like what the had in the USSR and what they’ve had in North Korea for the past few decades.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “I agree that is a way of life, but I will ask again, has conservatism ever been a governing philosophy that has had a chance to really be applied to policy?”

    I give up.

  • David Dickinson says:

    I welcome any unicorns, liberal or conservative, that will do that weekend work for me.

    “Markets have never and can never be totally “free”. It’s the cold fusion of the political right.”

    First, I love the analogy and word choice, “Its the cold fusion of the political right.”

    I suppose “social justice” would be the equivalent on the Left.

    I don’t think there is anything economist Milton Friedman said that I don’t agree with. I suppose there must be something, but, the short answer is, whatever Milton said I agree with.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the “rule of the game” and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on.”

  • David Dickinson says:

    Agreed.

    Conservatives aren’t anarchists. We are for limited government.

    “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

  • David Dickinson says:

    A free market is one in which the government does not determine the outcome.

    That is the core problem we have right now. Under the banner of “social justice” the government has inserted itself into the contest to be the arbiter of who gets what. Controlling both the process and the outcomes, we will get tyranny. The Leviathan will become uncontrollable.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “That is the core problem we have right now. Under the banner of “social justice” the government has inserted itself into the contest to be the arbiter of who gets what.”

    Sounds a little like a courthouse lawn I know about…

  • Malcolm Baldwin says:

    Conservatism is not 19th century liberalism. That’s the first mindset for folks to eliminate. It focuses on maintaining the forms and institutions that conserve a way of life, including, of course, family. It values economic freedom but not without government oversight that Adam Smith recognized and accepted.

    It has been practiced in many places at many times. The English Tories practiced it under Disraeli, and Bismark practiced it in Germany. In both cases they valued social justice. The Tories supported unions in the late 19th century and Bismark established a health care system. They understood Adam Smith’s view that the rich should be taxed for their luxuries and the poor relieved of taxes.

    One could certainly say that Eisenhower practiced conservatism. And it’s frankly, by no means clear that Obama is not, in fact, a conservative in the face of Republican radicals. But that’s another argument.

  • FedUp says:

    Definitely go over the cliff, if Obama does not put forth a serious proposal. Obama may try to pin the blame on the House Republicans, but Obama will be the only one getting what he wanted – tax hikes on the rich – while Republicans will not get anything they wanted. Who would you blame?

    It’s best to let the new Congress start from scratch. It’s a rare opportunity at really getting the nation’s fiscal house in order. Priorities should be:

    1 – Reforming tax code,
    2 – Implementing substantial spending cuts (at least $400 billion per year and effective immediately, not phased in long after current officials terms expire! ),
    3 – Determine which Obama tax cuts – formerly know as the Bush tax cuts before Obama extended them 2 years ago – are worth preserving.

    If this can be accomplished in a few months, and there is no reason why it cannot be, there should be no serious harm to the economy.

  • Glen Bayless says:

    OK, I’ll bite (regretfully, I’m thinking)…what is “not serious” about the administration’s proposals?

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    $900B in increased revenue from “the rich” over 10 years while he continues to propose his insane deficit spending of over trillions a year over the same period. That’s insane!

    Giving the President the unilateral power to raise the debt ceiling on his own. That also is insane.

    Just 2…

  • Let's Be Free says:

    Mr. Dickinson, I recall hearing Milton Friedman say back in the day that he’d just as soon not be called a conservative — if a single word were to be used he would prefer libertarian. Friedman never argued that government shouldn’t play a role in facilitating free markets, such as in prosecuting theft and fraud and enforcing contracts. One of Friedman’s argurments was the best government is the government that is closest to the people because it would held more accountable and local government couldn’t use printing presses and inflation to transfer income and wealth to the government by undercutting the value of the currency.

  • Smith says:

    And why wouldn’t he want power to raise the debt ceiling. You want every year to have the GOP put a gun to the head of our economy and credit rating so they can satisfy the Teabaggers. And this is the party of business? Thats bad for business.

    And what happened after the last debt limit fight?

    Boehner said he got 90% of what he wanted, now all of DC is desperately trying to UNDO everything they did there.

    So they take our economy and debt to the limit for cuts, only to undo the cuts before they happen.

    Lets talk UN SERIOUS:
    -Not raising rates for income over 250k by FOUR PERCENTAGE points is UNSERIOUS.
    -Not fixing the Mortgage Interest Deduction so it doesnt benefit mostly people with multiple huge houses is UNSERIOUS
    -Not cutting Defense is UNSERIOUS. We live in a incredibly safe time in American history. Why do we need a 35 BILLION dollar fighter jet program? China is not invading us.
    -Not capping deductions is UNSERIOUS
    -Not letting Obamacare get implemented to actually see if is you know…it works is UNSERIOUS.
    -Not Fixing Medicare however you can is UNSERIOUS. Put it all on the table. But rule 1 for the GOP is: tax rates are OFF the table? Too bad you have no leverage.

    People in NoVa worry about defense cuts and its impact to this area and yet they complain that the government is too big and needs fixing.
    YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. The whole country has felt pain except NoVa and you again want to put our local economy ahead of the long term future of this countries finances.

    And lets not forget who is really UNSERIOUS, remember before the election the GOP was all DONT VOTE FOR OBAMA BC HE WILL CUT MEDICARE and now the GOP is VOTE FOR US WE WILL CUT MEDICARE.

    Boehner is a weak speaker with no control over his party therefore cannot compromise. We could have had a huge bargain in 2011, but Boehner got spooked by the TEA. Come to the middle, accept that rates will go up and our fantasy about defense budgets and deductions that rich people dont need, need to end.

    I say go over the cliff AND let the sequestration cuts go into affect. I am willing to accept a short recession if it helps our country in the long run. Anybody not willing to do this for the long term future of the country is a fiscal phony who cares only for themselves and that car they planned on buying this year.

    Are we supposed to think of the childrens future anyway?

  • Elder Berry says:

    Did you notice that there was an election? Did you notice that Democrats GAINED seats in the House and Senate?

    Right now (despite the best efforts of Fox News) the public is overwhelmingly blaming the cliff crisis on the Republicans about 3-1. If the crazies who call themselves Republicans on Capitol Hill want to make sure that Democrats dominate elections for the next decade or so they should just keep on with the “protect the rich” tactics they’ve been using and the same obstructionist rhetoric that lost them the presidential election this time.

    Wake up. The reason Obama won is that the Republicans championed the rich. Poor people vote. There are more poor people and middle class people than rich people. Got it yet?

    Let the country go over the cliff and the House Dems will just keep introducing bills in January to put through a middle class tax cut. Will the Republicans be stupid enough to keep on opposing those bills and thereby completely open their own jugulars? Does the Republican leadership really think that opposing middle class tax cuts and trying to hold the nation’s credit rating hostage (again!!!) will win over the electorate that voted for Obama? Or maybe there are a few House Republicans up for reelection in 2014 who will care enough about their country to jump ship on this and then other critical issues, leadership or no leadership. Boehner and McConnell have put the entire Republican party into a very tight corner. Not sure I see a good way out for them.

    And GOP obstruction in the House may also trigger a nuclear option in the Senate. That first day of the new Senate session could be a real eye-opener for Republicans if Reid gets pissed off enough. Liberal Senate Dems are pushing him hard.

    To recap: if Republicans now cave in December, at this point it gets spun that Obama wins. If they refuse to cave in December, and they try to oppose middle class tax cuts in January, then Obama still wins maybe even bigger. This is what the Tea Party, Fox News, and Karl Rove got you: a Congress full of Republicans with a death wish.

  • Glen Bayless says:

    Thanks Smith and ElderBerry…much better said than I could.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    “Did you notice that there was an election? Did you notice that Democrats GAINED seats in the House and Senate?”

    It is very interesting how the left seems to think the last election meant they won the debate. Minor shifts in seats that did not shift actual power in any part of government does not amount to any kind of mandate for anything. A small win in the popular vote and a comensurate non-landslide in the electoral is hardly exciting.

    By the way, glad to see we are all ok with going over the cliff. Needs to be done. And threats to have Pelosi introduce the middle class tax cut in Jan will not materialize as a problem since the Republicans will introduce a steeper middle class cut and more spending cuts that the dems will have to refuse or be seen as the party creating the problem for the middle class.

    The country as a whole voted for status quo. The President is responsible for only one branch of government. The liberal psychological tendencies towards cult of personality have gone too far again.

    “Bush – 62,028,285, Kerry – 59,028,109

    Obama – 60,602,103, Romney – 57,776,942 ”

    Please post all the quotes from 2004 from Democrats about how Bush had a “mandate” Or perhaps we can post some real quotes from 2004 about how the Dems worked to block Bush’s agenda.

    Elections have consequences. The Republicans control the house still.

  • Smith says:

    Dems didnt claim Bush had a mandate in 2004, but the GOP did!!!

    LOL!!!

    The Wall Street Journal said Bush had a mandate and now they say Obama doesnt- funny how that works.

    First of all, the House is gerrymandered and more people in this country cast votes for Dem House members than GOP. So lets not claim they won some victory.

    This election was a choice. One big one was taxing the rich, which Obama has won on twice! So its right to think the Dems believe they have a mandate to do this.

    Obama is proposing a far more balanced approach and he isnt negotiating with the GOP on the fiscal cliff hostage situation. He doesnt have another election to win.

    Another election consequence, the public believe the GOP is right to blame.

    And one more thing about the Dems blocking Bushs agenda. The Dems never slowed down government or the Senate like the GOP has in the past 4 years. The GOP blockage under Obama has been unprecedented and it backfired in 2012.

    And why wouldnt the Dems block Bush policies when he was the most unpopular President in modern history. We all know how long that list of fuck-ups could be.

  • FedUp says:

    “what is “not serious” about the administration’s proposals?”

    Basically, it focuses on tax increases and does not address the real problem, which is government spending above its means.

    The $1.6 trillion in proposed new taxes over the next decade, or $160 billion a year, is hardly enough to close a deficit that is now $1.1 trillion a year. Obama also wants to extend the payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits and add $50 billion in new stimulus spending. That would largely offset, in just one year, the paltry $400 billion in cuts he has proposed over the next 10 years!

    Then he wants to get rid of that pesky debt ceiling.

    It’s a complete joke of a proposal. It demonstrates once again that erasing the deficit is not one of his priorities. Obama will never buy into the kind of budget cuts that are necessary because the majority of people who voted for him want the big government spending to continue.

  • Smith says:

    So tax cuts dont work, Fed Up?

    Arent tax cuts and giving people their money supposed to spur the economy? Thats what Romney said?

    This Obama proposal isnt his debt deal proposal. This is just to end the fiscal cliff. Most sane people know rates have to go up for the rich.

    But as always, the GOP is not serious about the debt and never have been. They are serious about getting in power again and always want a Dem president to do the heavy lifting. How did Bushs debt reduction do?

    Obama’s propsal still cuts more than the GOPs? So how is he not serious?

    Obama is done negotiating with himself. Its time for the GOP to grow up and offer a balanced plan.

    Yes- he wants the pesky debt ceiling to go. Its useless. Do you want our economy and credit rating to crash because we need to borrow more. Make a point when the economy is still fragile. The GOP put a gun to the head of the economy and then when they get what they want – THEY CANCEL THE CUTS BECAUSE THEIR TOO MUCH. And Obama isnt serious? Boehner said he got 90 % of what he wanted last debt ceiling talk and yet all of it is being undone by the GOP. Seriously unserious.

    The Tea party are a bunch of nihilists.

    Time to grow up and come back to the middle GOP. But maybe you can keep stomping your feet

    I think a lot of Democrats say raise all the taxes. I’d say thats pretty serious.

  • Smith says:

    And lets look at how 2 programs add to the debt:

    Bush and Medicare Part D adds TRILLIONS and they never had a plan to pay for it.

    Obamacare pays for itself through taxes and regulating prices.

    Interesting how the 2 parties handle debt?

    One tries for a balanced approach. The other doesnt care about it in power and doesnt stop yelling about it when its out of power.

    If Romney had won. The debt ceiling would have already been raised and all the talk of debt from the right would have begun to subside.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “Obamacare pays for itself through taxes and regulating prices.”

    Take two and pass, bogart.

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    Smith, you are drinking the kool-aid by the gallons. Obama is not even proposing any specific cuts. The truth is when he gets his tax increase on the rich (no middle class tax cut is in his plan btw, just a continuation of the current tax rates for the “non-rich” that doesn’t amount to a cut), the spending cuts will likely never come, except for maybe defense. I am not against cuts in defense spending and I work in that industry. However, the stupidity of the sequestration cuts that are disproportionately large on the defense budget and irrational in their application, are indeed insane. Obama is all about power, he’s not interested in solving our fiscal crisis. He is interested in redistributing wealth. Unfortunately his policies will have us quickly on the road to 3rd worldism.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    “no middle class tax cut is in his plan btw, just a continuation of the current tax rates for the “non-rich” that doesn’t amount to a cut”

    It will come Jan 1.

    This ship has sailed. The two parties are quietly talking and a deal is in the works. Ten days or less before compromise wins and the rightwingers moan. The top tax rate will go up – to 37%, I predict. So will the debt ceiling.

  • liberal anthropologist says:

    Well that is not a hard prediction. If a deal occurs it will likely have those things.

    Now answer the harder part. What cuts that will allow the Republicans to agree?

  • liberal anthropologist says:

    Let me add that I predict Obama will never allow the deficit or debt to be dealt with the way that Clinton barely did. Thus we will have more debt at the end of Obama then before. It has been the failing of most presidents.

    And the defense budget needs to be cut. Massively. So do social programs and entitlements. All of them are out of proportion to need. All government spending is out of proportion to the needs of the country.

  • FedUp says:

    “Interesting how the 2 parties handle debt? One tries for a balanced approach.”

    You mean Republicans, right? The only way to get a balanced deal is to bundle everything into one bill, requiring one vote. If that means going over the cliff and getting the deal done next year, so be it. Will going over the fiscal cliff be so bad? Some economists think not and we all saw those campaign ads with Clinton saying how great things were during his years with the higher tax rates. Going over the cliff just means reverting back to those good ol’ days, right?

    “How did Bushs debt reduction do?”

    National debt always rises during presidential terms, including Clinton’s 8 years. Bush was able to keep the deficit manageable, despite a recession in his early years, until Dems took control of Congress in 2007. Compare Bushes first 6 years with the past 6 years:

    $5,727,776,738,304 – Debt when Bush takes office,
    $8,671,959,016,355 – Debt when Dems take control of Congress in 2007,
    $16,369,548,799,604 – Current national debt.

  • I say it’s time to rip the Band-aid off, let Harry Reid and Obama raise the taxes by as much as they want, let it pass the Senate by a simple majority, then send it to the House where the Republicans do an Obama and vote “present”. The Democrats will never propose a single dime of spending reduction, the tax rates will go up, the small business and investor class strike will continue, the economy and revenues will tank, the debt will continue to skyrocket and the Democrats will finally own it all… nobody to blame but themselves.

    Better the people learn their lesson quickly and decisively than what is going on now, where basically the Democrats through incremental Chinese water torture are getting all the big government they want, draining the private sector and blaming it all on Republicans. Fuck them. Give them all the rope they want and let them hang themselves… it’s primarily their own supporters who will suffer the most, the producers will be fine producing less, spending less and hiring less.

    You think the boss makes too much money and want to confiscate more of his money and give it to the government? Fine, wait until you see what happens to your own pay check. You think investors make too much money and you want to punish them? Great! See how things go for you when all that capital gets frozen in place or goes to China.

    I thought the American people needed a spanking in the first term, but obviously that was not enough… now they need a whipping.

Leave Comment