The Fiscal Cliff: Will House Republicans cave on taxes? Will anyone actually cut spending? Have... - Page 3

Connected, but not parallel. You can reduce the size of government without reducing the role of government, by improving efficiency. You are right and wrong. We, the people are responsible for citizens' prosperity, correct. Not by any decree, but by the simple concept of right and wrong, it's our responsibility. How do we do that? Two ways. Through management of business or through government. Management of business has the inherent goal of profit for shareholders, leaving out charity. Non-shareholders also have zero power in controlling the actions of business. Private charity is also a business, and has the inherent goal of targeted groups, leaving other groups out. Private charity has never and will never be enough to encourage prosperity. This is why every society has a system of government. Alternatively, you can blow a raspberry at people who are disadvantaged, make mistakes, or aren't smart enough to ensure their own prosperity. Sounds like you think that's what they deserve. Seriously, you need to get out. The US is not the world. There are small (per capita) successful governments all around the world that do a better job than the US, providing more with less. Why? That's bullshit. Unless you mean by less regulation you mean more efficient regulation. We cannot allow untested food and medicine products, unlicensed practitioners, unbridled collusion, and we need a social safety net. So. It's the right thing to do. And we have the right to vote for things that make humanism part of our government. Let the individual be concerned about it. It is absolutely vital to society. However, it is a second priority. Compassion comes morally before greed, and that's all there is to it. No. I am claiming that economic growth for the sake of growth ignores, and often even hinders, the social health of workers, the underpeivileged and those left behind.

So...The "Bush tax cuts" were tax cuts for the rich, but NOW their tax cuts across the board. 

 

That has not been the case in practice...at least not here.  

 

 

 

I see.  So we are our brother's keeper.  Got it.  

 

 

False dichotomy.  We do that by allowing people to live their lives, free to pursue their own innate talents and ambitions.  

 

 

 

Business does more that just collect profit for shareholders.  It also produces needed goods and services, provides jobs and gives back to the community in many cases.  Also, charity does not encourage prosperity.  It helps mitigate the lack of prosperity.  

 

 

There are many other reasons.  And I'm not arguing against the existence of government.  

 

 

 

 

Barring physical or mental disability and assuming equal opportunity in terms of education, that's exactly what they deserve.  By the way...please define "disadvantaged."   

 

 

1.  I live in the United States, and I'm addressing our governmental societal issues.  I understand that the U.S. is not the world.  

 

2.  I know there are smaller governments who do a better job.  But what you mean is that there are smaller government who give more free shit to people, which is not what I'd call "better."  

 

 

I mean both.  We have too much regulation in most industries.  We also need more efficient regulation.  As for food, medicine, licenses, etc...I tend to agree.  That being said, there is an argument to be made that companies who bring unsafe products to market wouldn't be in business very long, and that the market would ensure safety.  

 

 

It's not the right thing to do, and we definitely don't need it to be part of our government.  The results of such humanistic-llike policies (i.e. The Great Society) have been economically and socially disastrous in the United States.  We've spent over $5 Trillion on poverty.  We spend hundreds of billions on welfare.  We spend more than just about anyone on government-run education...and things continue to get worse, including the lives of people we are supposed to be helping.  

.

 

Rarely do I see someone so openly state that he is, in essence, a collectivist.  tonton, your views are completely antithetical to what the United States is, and to principles upon which it was founded.  The entire concept of our founding is that the individual comes before the State.  Individual liberty is the cornerstone of our nation.  It is not merely "vital" to society.  It is not a second priority.  It is the first priority, because our society is comprised of individuals following their own dreams, talents and gifts, as well as overcoming their challenges.  That is what made America the economic powerhouse it is, or was.  That is what led to a rapidly increasing standard of living compared to most other nations.  That is what enabled us to develop a thriving middle class.  The State comes second.

 

 

You use these terms as if they make any sense.  What is the "social health" of workers, and who are "the underprivileged?"  Why are they underprivileged?  How do we help them?  The problem here is that you view the "underprivileged" as a constant.  Your solution is to continue and expand the notion of giving people cash assistance based on financial "need."   Other than short-term assistance, food and clothing, etc, we should change our system to one where people only get help based on ability.  People who are mentally and physically firm should not be on long term assistance.  This teaches nothing, and only destroys the work incentive.  We should not be giving cash to single mothers every time they have another child.  This "compassion" is the kind that results in fatherless households, massive expenditures, and more poor children, not less.  We've already created a system where we literally punish success and self-reliance, and reward poor decisions, lack of work ethic, and destructive behavior.  And you want to expand that system.  

 

Perhaps you should try again.

I say let's go over the "fiscal cliff".

 

Obama is still an amateur that is out of his league. Him getting re-elected doesn't change that.

 

You know, I'm not sure.  I actually hadn't given that any real thought.  You may be right.  Then again, I think it may just be that they are stuck in permanent campaign mode.  Obama for America, INC has not shut down and is still asking for contributions, after all.  He's a bit of a sadist in this respect...he almost seems to enjoy torturing Republicans with ridiculous policy proposals, "war on...." analogies, etc.   I think it's more likely that he simply thinks they have no choice but to cave.  

 

 

 

I completely agree, though it's going to cost me thousands.  I think you're right about people understanding the effects of Obamanomics.  Obama is banking on the GOP getting the blame (even if he does want all taxes to go up), but I'm not sure it will come out that way.  In the end, the GOP may have to ride the car right over the cliff in order to prove they are willing to go all the way.  I suspect that Dems will panic once it actually happens, and a retroactive deal will get done.  

 

That is an excellent article.  I see no way the GOP can vote against middle class tax cuts standing on their own.  That said, I also don't think the Dems want the kind of cuts sequestration brings.  The GOP could probably turn around and demand that defense spending be restored, for example.  Then the Dems would have to vote against that on its own.  

Of all first-world nations...

 

• We have the fewest vacations days.  
• We rank low in health outcomes.  
• We have the most income disparity.  
• We have the most wealth disparity.
• We have the lowest happiness index.

 

But hey, we have a heck of a lot of economic growth historically!  Are they inversely proportional?  Well, maybe...maybe not.  Of course, you changed the meaning of tonton's statement (you are really good at coming up with replies to statements that no one actually made).  

 

A focus on economic growth above and beyond the rest certainly can be a significant factor in a decrease in health, happiness, and well-being.  

Well I will say one thing the Republicans still know how to ramp up their popularity index.

 

They really need to be over Grover and think about the big picture which they aren't seeing at all.

Obama is a %#%#@% LIAR.  

 

 

 

 

 

This is baldfaced LIE.  The mortgage deduction and other deductions for the middle class will NOT be in danger.  It would take an act of Congress to remove those deductions, and neither party will support such a change (certainly not both houses).  Obama's permanent, dishonest campaign continues.  

 

The GOP should walk away right now.  They should hold a news conference and say the following:  

 

After trying to negotiate with President Obama over the coming "fiscal cliff" for many months, we have reached the conclusion that the President is simply not interested in reaching an agreement.  He is clearly more interested in using this serious situation for political gain, as if the recent election had not yet happened.  If no agreement is reached, all taxpayers will pay more--not just the so-called "rich."  In addition, draconian budget cuts will take place automatically, including $500 billion in defense cuts.  It is clear to us now that, given the President's completely unserious and insulting proposals, he wants all taxes to go up, including on the middle class and lower income earners.  The President is clearly more interested in damaging the Republican Party than solving our nation's problems and helping our citizens live better lives.  Negotiations take two parties who are willing to work towards a common goal.  Sadly, we have determined that we no longer have an honest partner with which to deal.  We cannot in good conscience continue to negotiate as a result.  Our latest proposal raises revenue without raising tax rates...on anyone.  It also contains cuts that will not harm our economy, citizens, nor military.  Today, we stand here to explain to the American people that this is our final proposal.  The ball is now in the President's court.  Either he and his party can pass this solution, or we will plunge over the fiscal cliff, and likely into a recession as a result.  We sincerely hope they make the right choice.  Thank you, and God Bless America.  

 

I understand, I'm simply putting it in political terms.  That's what they should say.  I agree that these cuts are not draconian in reality.  Not even close.  

Since you don't believe in any taxes why should your comments matter to me on this issue? Also I was talking about the GOP's waining popularity over this and other matters like it. Personally I think it's the Republicans who are throwing caution to the wind. Being sort of on their side I'm sure you disagree.

 

Did he state that?  I don't know if that's true.  

 

 

 

 

As he said, ignore them then.  

 

 

 

If that's true, then I would simply say:  You can't fix stupid.  

 

 

 

 

How so?  They think that raising rates is bad for the economy (they are right).  They note that even with rate increases on the so-called "wealthy," the problem won't get close to being fixed.  They oppose a new stimulus, which (unbelievably) Obama has proposed without any spending reductions.  They oppose counting "war savings" as cuts.   They want a plan that cuts spending and keeps rates stable while eliminating loopholes and deductions for the upper income brackets.  This will not harm small business, but will bring in more revenue from the wealthy.  What is unreasonable about their plan?  Why is it reckless?  

 

 

I think he knows exactly what he's doing long-term.  Obama believes that it is government's role to ensure equality of outcome.  He believes we live in a fundamentally unfair country where people are stuck in their current economic class forever.  He wishes to raise taxes on the wealthy (defined as anyone making more than $200,000 a year!) and quite literally spread the wealth around.  He's also apparently a egomaniacal narcissist who revels in torturing his political opposition and enjoys creating constant crises.  Put those together and it explains his current actions perfectly.  

Obama: "I'll cut these programs here, and here, and here, and extend all tax cuts for the middle class, if you give up tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans."

Republicans: "We'll give up the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans if you... **** YOU! You refuse to compromise!!!"

Now you explain how what Obama offered wasn't a compromise, and what the Republicans asked for in exchange for letting the top tax cuts expire.

For someone who claims to be so independent and unaffiliated with the Republican party, MJ sure seems to toe shit out of the GOP line here.  The Republicans have not offered specifics--they've just cried about Obama not negotiating with himself and proposing what he ran on and received a mandate from the people on.

Well, now the Republicans have offered specifics. A massive tax hike for the middle class, while keeping the tax cuts for the rich intact. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

I thought they were still being vague about which loopholes to cut.  But, surprise indeed. 

Funny how for trumpy and SDW, (most likely) the republican proposal would actually mean less money in their pocket than the Obama proposal.

Nothing is a surprise with the GOP Party. The same old saying rich get richer and poor suffer more and middle class that is their strategy.Nothing changes with them.
 

It IS their strategy to make the poor poorer and to make more of the middle class poor. A huge supply of a cheap labor force means more profit. More productivity too, higher per-capita GDP when the Wal•Marts of the country have plenty of people "thankful" for their minimum-wage part-time jobs with no benefits. The MJs of the nation deny this simple economic fact.

The scariest part is people who dismiss it as a possibility, and fail to recognize it as a valid motivation for opposition to a) minimum wage and b) welfare programs.

 

Sadly, this is the most likely course of action. 2013 is where we see China start to slowly surpass the USA to eventually become the world superpower of the mid-21st-Century.

The USA in 2060 will be like the UK now, in terms of Empire lost.

It's sad.

Every time they kick the can down the road, they draw more attention to the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.

 

Watch DeSouza's documentary "Obama 2016"... Obama is single-handedly dismantling the USA...

Obama's not "Left"... He's... insane.

Eliminate the Debt Ceiling? Hah. Guess why. To bankrupt the USA himself.

Obama's doublespeak is even more insidious than GWBush's.

Bingo Bingo Bingo. EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING.

The government, corporations, China, Obama, whoever...

No limit to bankrupting the USA (even more).

Default replaced with Inflation... but no difference.

Federal Reserve... A private corporation, not "federal".

Fiat Currency... The time has come to pay the piper.

My Dad still thinks they use gold/foreign reserves or something for the USD. Nice sentiment, and he's a smart guy and great father, but as I understand that time has long, long gone.

 

Obama has proposed no real cuts whatsoever.  Let's get that straight right away.  What he has said is that there will be no deal under any circumstances where tax rates on the "rich" don't go up.  Republicans have offered equal and greater revenue additions without raising rates, which they feel will harm the economy.  Now you tell me..who is being unreasonable?  

 

 

 

Please describe this "massive tax hike" for the middle class they want.  And by the way, please stop calling it "tax cuts" for the rich.  We are talking about rates that have been in place for over a decade.  There is no "tax cut" being proposed for anyone.  There is no "paying for" said "tax cut."  The rates are the rates, and they are more fair in terms of how much the rich pay then they were prior.   The rich pay more of the total tax bill than they did, and millions of low income people don't pay taxes at all, where they once did.  

 

 

1. That's not true, not from what I've seen.  

2. If it was true, I might still support it given I thought it made sense.  

 

 

Yes, it is the Democrats strategy to do that.  

 

 

 

 

And your President wishes to have as many people dependent on government as possible.  And he thinks you're "rich" if you make $200,000 a year.  

 

Well, you tend to oppose not just taxes but all government too, right?  So I suppose that's not a surprise.  That said, would you support ANY taxation to support even a minimal government of some kind?