Tax hike before "fiscal cliff" deal - page 2

by Joe V Admin

1,760 Views | 26 Comments

President Barack Obama said on Wednesday that Republicans would have to agree to raise taxes on the wealthy as the first step in a budget deal that would prevent a dysfunctional Washington from pushing the economy into recession.... Read More


  1. 1
    Quote from tntrn
    Listening to Michael Medved correct screeching liberals today on the revenue/spending issue. He indicated that the revenues today are close to what they were in the good Bush years, because business is improving somewhat. So if revenues are improving, the cliff has to be the result of out of control spending.......which this government is just not going to do.

    ...snip...
    Unfortunately, acknowledging that the US is spending beyond its means is not politically correct. Gotta keep pumping up the excitement, "growing the economy", buy-buy-buy, spend-spend-spend.

    As Ron Paul said a few days ago in his farewell speech to Congress ( Congressman Ron Paul's Farewell Speech to Congress - YouTube ), politicians want to gain/retain power.

    This is their primary goal. NOT the good of the nation and its citizens. To dare to speak the truth might result in unrest. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. We're going to tax/spend our way to prosperity, while acting as the global cop and conducting foreign war after war after war after war after....

    We're going down. It's just a matter of time. US politicians have neither the honesty nor the guts to face up to reality. They will just keep placating the sheeple, promising entitlement after entitlement after entitlement, paid for with NOTHING other than the "full faith and credit of the US Government". Change will occur only when a series of unpleasant events occur, outside the realm of the currently accepted societal norms.

    Color me Mr. Cheerful!
    tntrn likes this.
  2. 1
    We, as a country MUST spend money.
    The difference of opinion is HOW we spend it.
    And, how we keep the cash flowing INTO the government so that the essential programs are funded.
    Many (most per vote) believe that the rich should return to previous tax responsibilities and tax cuts should be extended to the middle class.
    We have a right to expect that our POTUS and Congress will take care of that bit of business, as well as a list of other important cans that they have been kicking down the proverbial road for some time now.

    I'm sorry that you are so "depressed" CrufflerJJ.
    herring_RN likes this.
  3. 0
    Quote from tewdles
    We, as a country MUST spend money.
    The difference of opinion is HOW we spend it.
    And, how we keep the cash flowing INTO the government so that the essential programs are funded.
    Many (most per vote) believe that the rich should return to previous tax responsibilities and tax cuts should be extended to the middle class.
    We have a right to expect that our POTUS and Congress will take care of that bit of business, as well as a list of other important cans that they have been kicking down the proverbial road for some time now.

    I'm sorry that you are so "depressed" CrufflerJJ.
    Depressed? Moi?

    Not so much depressed as pessimistic/sarcastic.

    Yes, my country should spend money. My country should spend no more money than we bring in from investments/taxes. If you overspent as an individual, you'd be bankrupted, your possessions seized & sold to pay off your debts, and you'd likely be thrown out of your home. Why should our government see its fiscal responsibilities any differently?

    Unfortunately, TRUE fiscal responsibility is not Politically Correct, nor is it rewarding on an individual basis to our elected officials. Their primary job is to get re-elected, rather than address our nation's problems.

    Even if we were to establish a 100% tax on those earning $1 Million/yr and up (by this, I mean take every single dollar they earn, leaving them penniless), it would not match our nation's penchant for spending beyond its means.

    See: Fox Wins Straw-Man Argument Against Taxing Millionaires At 100 Percent | Research | Media Matters for America

    If I, as a nurse, tended to spend my annual income in the first 3-4-5 months of the year, wouldn't that suggest that I have a spending problem?

    My government seems to believe that it doesn't have a spending problem, instead, we merely have an income problem.

    As to "We have a right to expect that our POTUS and Congress will take care of that bit of business...", maybe in a perfect world. Having seen political reality, however, I have almost no hope (there I go again, Mr. Cheerful!) that my government officials will do what is right for the nation.
  4. 4
    Name:  fiscalcliff.jpg
Views: 41
Size:  181.2 KB
    Jolie, Medic2RN, CrufflerJJ, and 1 other like this.
  5. 2
    I signed a petition for members of Congress to make $75,000. I also suggested they work more, vacation less, and do not get the retirement they currently have. With 535 people that can add up.
    tewdles and CrufflerJJ like this.
  6. 2
    Quote from CrufflerJJ
    Depressed? Moi?

    Not so much depressed as pessimistic/sarcastic.

    Yes, my country should spend money. My country should spend no more money than we bring in from investments/taxes. If you overspent as an individual, you'd be bankrupted, your possessions seized & sold to pay off your debts, and you'd likely be thrown out of your home. Why should our government see its fiscal responsibilities any differently?

    Unfortunately, TRUE fiscal responsibility is not Politically Correct, nor is it rewarding on an individual basis to our elected officials. Their primary job is to get re-elected, rather than address our nation's problems.

    Even if we were to establish a 100% tax on those earning $1 Million/yr and up (by this, I mean take every single dollar they earn, leaving them penniless), it would not match our nation's penchant for spending beyond its means.

    See: Fox Wins Straw-Man Argument Against Taxing Millionaires At 100 Percent | Research | Media Matters for America

    If I, as a nurse, tended to spend my annual income in the first 3-4-5 months of the year, wouldn't that suggest that I have a spending problem?

    My government seems to believe that it doesn't have a spending problem, instead, we merely have an income problem.

    As to "We have a right to expect that our POTUS and Congress will take care of that bit of business...", maybe in a perfect world. Having seen political reality, however, I have almost no hope (there I go again, Mr. Cheerful!) that my government officials will do what is right for the nation.
    I'm all for spending less, and so is the President. Obama proposed $800 Billion in cuts to Boehner in his last proposal to Congress. Boehner on the other hand has not seriously proposed any cuts. The only thing that came close to making to the floor, his plan B, had no spending cuts, none, zilch.
    tewdles and herring_RN like this.
  7. 2
    Quote from Spidey's mom
    Name:  fiscalcliff.jpg
Views: 41
Size:  181.2 KB
    Considering how long the topic of the debt ceiling has been around, I'm surprised how poorly we understand it even now. The debt ceiling does not limit our ability spend, what it does is allow us to pay off what we've already spent. It has nothing to do with the sh$t that's already piled up, it's actually what helps us shovel out the sh$t that's already there.
    herring_RN and aknottedyarn like this.
  8. 2
    I guess that I don't understand the argument that the democrats want taxes only when we need spending cuts...
    It seems to me that what has been proposed by the POTUS is a mix of revenue and cuts.
    aknottedyarn and herring_RN like this.
  9. 2
    Quote from MunoRN
    I'm all for spending less, and so is the President. Obama proposed $800 Billion in cuts to Boehner in his last proposal to Congress.
    "Spending cuts" proposed for 3,4...9 or 10 years down the road are not spending cuts at all. The President knows this. Unfortunately, the masses of ill-informed Americans do not. Those cuts will be revised in future budgets, never to take effect. The only true cuts are those that are immediately (this year) put into place. Not only is the President not proposing any immediate meaningful cuts, he is continuing to increase spending, to the great detriment of this nation.
    CrufflerJJ and tntrn like this.
  10. 1
    from: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/politi...iff/?hpt=hp_t1

    ...It doesn't mention the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling that the United States reached Monday.

    It also temporarily delays for two months the so-called sequester, a series of automatic cuts in federal spending...
    ...
    Obama warned Congress that he will not tolerate another act of prolonged brinksmanship.
    "While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they've passed," he said after the Tuesday night vote.

    "We can't not pay bills that we've already incurred. If Congress refuses to give the United States government the ability to pay these bills in time..."

    It's obvious to me that President Obama is looking to use this most recent "crisis" as a tool to distance himself (and past presidents, for that matter) from responsibility for spending...spending...spending. Don'cha know, it's all the fault of that eeeeevil Congress.

    Our politicians have taken a year and a half to merely delay action another two months.

    Gutless incompetents.
    tewdles likes this.


Top