OK, I am a little confused over this Fiscal cliff

[Imnukingfutz]

January 1, 2013....the "Fiscal Cliff" ....something doesnt make sense.

President Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone making $250K a year or more but is refusing to cut spending as agreed upon in the last debt ceiling raise deal and accept removing deductions...AKA Tax loopholes...from the system.

Isnt this whole thing about raising revenue to the Federal governments coffers?

If they only raise the income tax of those earning $250K or more the 5% they want, it will garner an estimated $85 Billion a year additional revenue...thats enough to run this government for approximately 3 days. We are $1.3 Trillion OVER budget for each year (approximately)....That wont do squat to deal with the situation we are facing...raising the taxes on those select few is merely a symbolic gesture to the base and to fan the flames of class envy and class warfare.

Now I am no economist but even I realize that raising the taxes on a select few is not going to raise enough money to cover the out of control spending our government is enjoying the past 6 or so years.

After all, 5% of X is less than 35% of Y. Removing the "tax loopholes" would generate more revenue overall than just raising the taxes on a select few.

So why is the President so animate about not removing the tax deductions (Loopholes) he so long touted were loosing the government much needed revenue?

Is he not serious about getting under control the massive debt we have accrued?
Is he that ignorant of how math works that he thinks the 5% additional tax on the select few will cure the woes and allow the government to keep spending like drunken sailors on leave?


We are still waiting to hear the Presidents tax plan, so far we have only heard him campaigning at rally's (even after the election) to garner support for his plan....without revealing his plan to anyone.
We are supposed to be blessed enough this Friday...he is supposed to reveal his plan at a rally in Philadelphia.

He still hasnt sat down and talked with members of Congress to work out a deal....or even bother to reveal it to them...they have to vote on it in the next 30 days.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Don't you realize that when the GDP is $20 Trillion/year that we will have plenty of money in revenues coming in and the deficit will vanish, but we need the wealthy to pay a little more now.

Of course, if spending keeps increasing, we will need GDP to be $50 Trillion/year, etc.

 

[Fisher]

Don't you realize that when the GDP is $20 Trillion/year that we will have plenty of money in revenues coming in and the deficit will vanish, but we need the wealthy to pay a little more now.

Of course, if spending keeps increasing, we will need GDP to be $50 Trillion/year, etc.

Yeah that is the same line of thinking that has brought us to this point--"Spend more now and we will be rich later". Hasn't happened yet, and the democrats were critical of Ryan's plan that wouldn't even have balanced the budget until 2040 but have yet to come up with a plan that shows they have any plan other than stall and spend.

We need to go over the fiscal cliff, even though that is a misnomer, if there are no agreed upon spending cuts to accompany tax increases because the dems in the Senate will never agree to do the cuts without exacting some even greater tax increases on the wealthy as part of the deal.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Don't you realize that when the GDP is $20 Trillion/year that we will have plenty of money in revenues coming in and the deficit will vanish, but we need the wealthy to pay a little more now.

Of course, if spending keeps increasing, we will need GDP to be $50 Trillion/year, etc.

Even raising the taxes on those select few will only generate $85 billion a year in additional revenue....thats paying for about 3 or 4 days of government spending....We are $1.3 Trillion in deficit spending....$85 Billion is mearly a minor scratch in the surface and wont amount to a hill of beans.

GDP really is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what our government is over spending or revenue generation...some clueless idiot tied them together as if they both coincide with one another...which is hog wash.

I say we keep the current tax system in place until a complete overhaul of the tax code can be completed because we have to overhaul the tax code, thats the simple plain truth. But our elected officials are too engrossed in the status quo...how else could they keep their jobs if it werent for the appeasement of their donors at the expense of the people.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The "fiscal cliff" is no more than following through on the last "congressional deal" (what we used to call law/budget) that resulted from raising the national debt ceiling to keep the Obama spending machine funded. Since no "super committee" deal was reached/accepted the agreed upon "sequestration" spending cuts take affect and the "Bush" FIT rates revert to the "Clinton" FIT rates. This is no surprise since it has been the "law" (signed by Obama) since August.

Obama now wants to forget all of that and raise taxes only on those making $200K ($250K on a joint return) - what he calls a "middle class tax cut". Although Obama always refers to a "balanced approach" he never mentions any proposed spending cuts - he only talks of more tax revenue (from "the rich"), varying between $80 billion and $160 billion in "predicted" more annual federal revenue. Obama, and demorats in congress, will never talk about the "balance" (e.g. spending cuts/reductions) or even mention a number (or ratio) that is their "target" for these phantom "future" spending cuts.

The bottom line is that the "fiscal cliff" is real (current law) contains real spending cuts/tax increases, and it can be seen as extremely likely to cause a recession and increased unemployment, while the "balanced" approach, often refered to by Obama, is fiction (except for tax law "modifications") and contains only inferences of "possible future" federal spending cuts. Yes he did!

 

[jonny5]

Don't you realize that when the GDP is $20 Trillion/year that we will have plenty of money in revenues coming in and the deficit will vanish, but we need the wealthy to pay a little more now.

Of course, if spending keeps increasing, we will need GDP to be $50 Trillion/year, etc.

Your second statement pointed out the problem in your first. 18% tax on 20T GDP is still less than 25% spending of 20T GDP. The deficit will still be a trillion.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

The "fiscal cliff" is no more than following through on the last "congressional deal" (what we used to call law/budget) that resulted from raising the national debt ceiling to keep the Obama spending machine funded. Since no "super committee" deal was reached/accepted the agreed upon "sequestration" spending cuts take affect and the "Bush" FIT rates revert to the "Clinton" FIT rates. This is no surprise since it has been the "law" (signed by Obama) since August.

Obama now wants to forget all of that and raise taxes only on those making $200K ($250K on a joint return) - what he calls a "middle class tax cut". Although Obama always refers to a "balanced approach" he never mentions any proposed spending cuts - he only talks of more tax revenue (from "the rich"), varying between $80 billion and $160 billion in "predicted" more annual federal revenue. Obama, and demorats in congress, will never talk about the "balance" (e.g. spending cuts/reductions) or even mention a number (or ratio) that is their "target" for these phantom "future" spending cuts.

The bottom line is that the "fiscal cliff" is real (current law) contains real spending cuts/tax increases, and it can be seen as extremely likely to cause a recession and increased unemployment, while the "balanced" approach, often refered to by Obama, is fiction (except for tax law "modifications") and contains only inferences of "possible future" federal spending cuts. Yes he did!

I'm confused. If the fiscal cliff will cause spending cuts and tax increases, how will negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff that include spending cuts and tax increases be different? Seems like Congress could focus on more harmless things like naming Post Offices than worrying about a cliff that is coming anyway.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm confused. If the fiscal cliff will cause spending cuts and tax increases, how will negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff that include spending cuts and tax increases be different? Seems like Congress could focus on more harmless things like naming Post Offices than worrying about a cliff that is coming anyway.

The "negotiations" will basically avoid most of both, i.e. kick the can down the road. Can you name any of the Obama "balanced approach" proposed spending cuts? Obama simply wants to "fully fund" about one week of federal spending (by taxing "the rich" a bit more) and "allow" congress to fight over spending cuts "later". Yes he can!

 

[AliHajiSheik]

The "negotiations" will basically avoid most of both, i.e. kick the can down the road. Can you name any of the Obama "balanced approach" proposed spending cuts? Obama simply wants to "fully fund" about one week of federal spending (by taxing "the rich" a bit more) and "allow" congress to fight over spending cuts "later". Yes he can!

I just don't get the big deal. If it were such a big deal, clearly it would have been discussed during the election.

 

[jonny5]

The "negotiations" will basically avoid most of both, i.e. kick the can down the road. Can you name any of the Obama "balanced approach" proposed spending cuts? Obama simply wants to "fully fund" about one week of federal spending (by taxing "the rich" a bit more) and "allow" congress to fight over spending cuts "later". Yes he can!

Yes!

"Now remember, we’ve already done more than a billion dollars worth of cuts. We’ve already done that. So we need to get some credit for that.” - Harry Reid

Theres youre balance.

 

[Born Free]

When have you ever seen a liberal want to cut anything. Oh yeah they float out cutting this and that but it never happens. Liberals are spenders not cutters, liberals are into freebees and the more freebee stuff they give the more they get elected. This is why we've become a Welfare State. Obama and his liberal clan have no intention on cutting a dime in spending.

The only thing a liberal wants to cut is the amount of money you take home.

 

[blaxshep]

I just don't get the big deal. If it were such a big deal, clearly it would have been discussed during the election.

You think Santa Clause would run on a disscussion of the naughty list?

 

[blaxshep]

Yes!

"Now remember, we’ve already done more than a billion dollars worth of cuts. We’ve already done that. So we need to get some credit for that.” - Harry Reid


Theres youre balance.

This is an old clip but it is still a very good way to get some perspective on the liberal cuts.

BTW - The tax increase they claim will fix the problem is only 800 of those pennies or 160 stacks out of 8880 pennies of which 3552 or 710 stacks is the deficit they will spend.

Obama Budget Cuts Visualization - YouTube

 

[grip]

The "fiscal cliff" is a misnomer as Fisher said. It's simply an imaginary line drawn in the sand by the gov saying we'll go no further in spending without taking some serious actions to makes cuts and increase revenue. The problem is that they can keep redrawing that line, until another situation occurs like the bank failures. It's only a matter of time before something (bonds, dollars, stocks) takes another hit in confidence from the markets and nosedives. Then the gov will be scrambling again to put the brakes on, unfortunately that won't work indefinitely. You can only juggle the figures so many times before the books are a mess.

They've gotten us so deep in a hole that for either side to unilaterally take strong measures to financially correct the deficit will make them unpopular in the next election cycle because of the pain to everyone it will cause. And that's why they both keep blaming each other and kicking the can down the road. They're going to continue to slip and slide and talk a bunch of crap to the American people, until the markets force their hand again. Bet on it.

 

[blaxshep]

The problem is once you have created the dependancy people will suffer and die without it. They have no choice but to kick the can.
Any President that actually does what needs to be done will be the next Hitler in a populatrity contest.
It is only a matter of time before the house of cards collapses and then there will be bloodshed. To be honest I can't wait.

 

[CalGun]

The pending issue called a fiscal cliff by a lame stream media eager for a story until they can have their coronation party is more than about a tax increase on those making $250k plus. That is obama's demand, and he's placating any cut in spending. If ignored to Dec.31 the social security tax of 2% that was cut several years ago is restored, Bush era tax cuts on everyone expire (and the left wont tell you but that increases rates on the lowest taxable incomes too). These changes will likely increase taxes $300 billion some say $400 billion. There are also some cuts in the plan but other than defense cuts I don't know what they are, but I heard it was a $300 billion reduction in spending? Together it could reduce our annual deficit to $500 billion from $1.2, but that dramatic of a change probably will never happen. If a 1 billion cut was draconian last time they'd literally have a coronary over this one. I mean my God man....obama might only be able to golf once a week.

 

[CalGun]

That " I can't wait" attitude is why I can never support that libertarian point of view.

The problem is once you have created the dependancy people will suffer and die without it. They have no choice but to kick the can.
Any President that actually does what needs to be done will be the next Hitler in a populatrity contest.
It is only a matter of time before the house of cards collapses and then there will be bloodshed. To be honest I can't wait.

 

[blaxshep]

Don't attribute my militant views with the views of the entire libertarian movement, I just see no other way to resolve the problem.
I don't want a civil war but since there is no other solution why wait?
This is not something we are going to vote our way out of. The re-election of Obama it testament to that fact.

 

[Carleen]

January 1, 2013....the "Fiscal Cliff" ....something doesnt make sense.

President Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone making $250K a year or more but is refusing to cut spending as agreed upon in the last debt ceiling raise deal and accept removing deductions...AKA Tax loopholes...from the system.

Isnt this whole thing about raising revenue to the Federal governments coffers?

If they only raise the income tax of those earning $250K or more the 5% they want, it will garner an estimated $85 Billion a year additional revenue...thats enough to run this government for approximately 3 days. We are $1.3 Trillion OVER budget for each year (approximately)....That wont do squat to deal with the situation we are facing...raising the taxes on those select few is merely a symbolic gesture to the base and to fan the flames of class envy and class warfare.

Now I am no economist but even I realize that raising the taxes on a select few is not going to raise enough money to cover the out of control spending our government is enjoying the past 6 or so years.

After all, 5% of X is less than 35% of Y. Removing the "tax loopholes" would generate more revenue overall than just raising the taxes on a select few.

So why is the President so animate about not removing the tax deductions (Loopholes) he so long touted were loosing the government much needed revenue?

Is he not serious about getting under control the massive debt we have accrued?
Is he that ignorant of how math works that he thinks the 5% additional tax on the select few will cure the woes and allow the government to keep spending like drunken sailors on leave?


We are still waiting to hear the Presidents tax plan, so far we have only heard him campaigning at rally's (even after the election) to garner support for his plan....without revealing his plan to anyone.
We are supposed to be blessed enough this Friday...he is supposed to reveal his plan at a rally in Philadelphia.

He still hasnt sat down and talked with members of Congress to work out a deal....or even bother to reveal it to them...they have to vote on it in the next 30 days.

They are in the first round of talks today.

 

[What if...?]

January 1, 2013....the "Fiscal Cliff" ....something doesnt make sense.

President Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone making $250K a year or more but is refusing to cut spending as agreed upon in the last debt ceiling raise deal and accept removing deductions...AKA Tax loopholes...from the system.

Isnt this whole thing about raising revenue to the Federal governments coffers?

If they only raise the income tax of those earning $250K or more the 5% they want, it will garner an estimated $85 Billion a year additional revenue...thats enough to run this government for approximately 3 days. We are $1.3 Trillion OVER budget for each year (approximately)....That wont do squat to deal with the situation we are facing...raising the taxes on those select few is merely a symbolic gesture to the base and to fan the flames of class envy and class warfare.

Now I am no economist but even I realize that raising the taxes on a select few is not going to raise enough money to cover the out of control spending our government is enjoying the past 6 or so years.

After all, 5% of X is less than 35% of Y. Removing the "tax loopholes" would generate more revenue overall than just raising the taxes on a select few.

So why is the President so animate about not removing the tax deductions (Loopholes) he so long touted were loosing the government much needed revenue?

Is he not serious about getting under control the massive debt we have accrued?
Is he that ignorant of how math works that he thinks the 5% additional tax on the select few will cure the woes and allow the government to keep spending like drunken sailors on leave?


We are still waiting to hear the Presidents tax plan, so far we have only heard him campaigning at rally's (even after the election) to garner support for his plan....without revealing his plan to anyone.
We are supposed to be blessed enough this Friday...he is supposed to reveal his plan at a rally in Philadelphia.

He still hasnt sat down and talked with members of Congress to work out a deal....or even bother to reveal it to them...they have to vote on it in the next 30 days.

Jist want to point out a clever little trick in the information you're using.

The tax increase would only pay for 3 days of government.

Which means less than one hundredth of the budget.

But if the deficit is 1.3 trillion, then 85 billion is like 7% or so of the deficit.

Still small, but not the "nothing" the 3 day number makes it sound like.

These are the tricks they use to confuse and divide us.

 

[iguanaman]

Yes!

"Now remember, we’ve already done more than a billion dollars worth of cuts. We’ve already done that. So we need to get some credit for that.” - Harry Reid

Theres youre balance.

And the last Republican to cut the defcit was Eisenhower. Your point is?

 

[Born Free]

And the last Republican to cut the defcit was Eisenhower. Your point is?

The point is we are over 16 trillion in debt and under Obama he raised the debt by 6 trillion of that in just 4 yrs and is on the path to raising it by another trillion each yr for a grand total of 10 trillion added to the national debt in just 8 yrs. This trumps all the presidents before him.

Now it is the Republicans that want cuts, big cuts, yet it is once again the liberals that don't want to cut anything. Cutting is not a liberal thing. Tax, borrow and spend is the liberal way for giving freebees, and as long as liberals promise more freebees they will always get elected. Be damned the debt, thus we've become a welfare state, with a mountain of debt that is driving this country in a black hole of destruction.

 

[grip]

The problem is once you have created the dependancy people will suffer and die without it. They have no choice but to kick the can.
Any President that actually does what needs to be done will be the next Hitler in a populatrity contest.
It is only a matter of time before the house of cards collapses and then there will be bloodshed. To be honest I can't wait.

I agree but I hope there's no blood shed beyond controllable riots. I would not do well if society as we knew broke down because some stubborn dickheads couldn't stop being so prideful.

 

[Helix]

Don't attribute my militant views with the views of the entire libertarian movement, I just see no other way to resolve the problem.
I don't want a civil war but since there is no other solution why wait?

there is another solution. the solution is that we phase in tax increases and spending cuts over time. talk of civil war is hyperbolic.

 

[Born Free]

I agree but I hope there's no blood shed beyond controllable riots. I would not do well if society as we knew broke down because some stubborn dickheads couldn't stop being so prideful.

All one has to do is look at Greece and Spain to see what we're in for.