Obama's Fiscal Cliff

[Cruella]

McConnell 'Burst Into Laughter' as Geithner Outlined Obama's Plan

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, says he “burst into laughter” Thursday when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner outlined the administration proposal for averting the fiscal cliff. He wasn’t trying to embarrass Geithner, McConnell says, only responding candidly to his one-sided plan, explicit on tax increases, vague on spending cuts.

Geithner suggested $1.6 trillion in tax increases, McConnell says, but showed “minimal or no interest” in spending cuts. When congressional leaders went to the White House three days after the election, Obama talked of possible curbs on the explosive growth of food stamps and Social Security disability payments. But since Geithner didn’t mention them, those reductions appear to be off the table now, McConnell says.

 

[Cruella]

More unicorn brain farts

Pelosi says Obama should have power to unilaterally raise debt limit without congress

 

[dogtowner]

I guess NASA is working on that Warp Drive to more rapidly drive the country into oblivion

 

[cashmcall]

McConnell 'Burst Into Laughter' as Geithner Outlined Obama's Plan

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, says he burst into laughter last Thursday when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner outlined the administration proposal for averting the fiscal cliff. He wasn’t trying to embarrass Geithner, McConnell says, only responding to his one-sided plan, explicit on tax increases, vague on spending cuts.

Geithner suggested $1.6 trillion in tax increases, McConnell says, but showed “minimal or no interest” in spending cuts. When congressional leaders went to the White House three days after the election, Obama talked of possible curbs on the explosive growth of food stamps and Social Security disability payments. But since Geithner didn’t mention them, those reductions appear to be off the table now, McConnell says.

A couple of years back, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculated that, if Washington were to increase every single tax by 30 percent, it would be enough to balance the books in 25 years. If you were to raise taxes by 50 percent, it would be enough to fund our entitlement liabilities – just our current ones, not our future liabilities, which would require further increases. This is the scale of course correction needed.

If you don't want that, you need to cut spending .. like Harry Reid's been doing... Now remember, we've already done more than a billion dollars' worth of cuts, he bragged the other day. So we need to get some credit for that. Wow A billion dollars worth of cuts! Washington borrows $188 million every hour. So, if Reid took over five hours to negotiate those cuts," it was a complete waste of time. So are most of the plans. In fact, any debt reduction plan that doesn't address at least $1.3 trillion a year is, in fact, a debt-increase plan.

So, given that the ruling party will not permit spending cuts, what should Republicans do? If I were John Boehner, I'd say Clearly there's no mandate for small government in the election results. So, if you milquetoast pantywaist sad-sack excuses for the sorriest bunch of so-called Americans who ever lived want to vote for Swede-sized statism, it's time to pony up.OK, he might want to focus-group it first. But that fundamental dishonesty is the heart of the crisis.

Mark Steyn said.. "You cannot simultaneously enjoy American-sized taxes and European-sized government. One or the other has to go".

 

[Dr.Who]

McConnell 'Burst Into Laughter' as Geithner Outlined Obama's Plan

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, says he “burst into laughter” Thursday when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner outlined the administration proposal for averting the fiscal cliff.

Sadly this is just another part of the game. The dems are throwing out a wildly high asking price in the negotiation in hopes of actually negotiating a smaller increase in taxes. that does not negate the fact that the dems still want to increase taxes in a different wildly unreasonable way - unlike the pubs who would simply raise the taxes in an even more different unreasonable way.

In the end either one party of the other will win or claim winning when our taxes go up. So who really loses?

 

[Cruella]

Sadly this is just another part of the game. The dems are throwing out a wildly high asking price in the negotiation in hopes of actually negotiating a smaller increase in taxes. that does not negate the fact that the dems still want to increase taxes in a different wildly unreasonable way - unlike the pubs who would simply raise the taxes in an even more different unreasonable way.

In the end either one party of the other will win or claim winning when our taxes go up. So who really loses?

Who loses? Small businesses, the job creators. It's no wonder we have high unemployment and downturns in manufacturing and sales of machinery and equipment.

 

[Cruella]

If you want to know why the economy is in the toilet .....

MSNBC Hosts & Other ‘Influential Progressives’ Visit White House to Discuss Tax Policy

 

[Cruella]

CBO: Current Law Brings 55% Increase in Annual Spending, $4.25T in New Debt--And Record Taxation

In 2012, according to CBO, federal spending was $3.563 trillion. Under current law, it will climb to $5.509 trillion in 2022. That is a $1.946 trillion increase in annual federal spending—or a jump of 55 percent.

 

[Gipper]

Sadly this is just another part of the game. The dems are throwing out a wildly high asking price in the negotiation in hopes of actually negotiating a smaller increase in taxes. that does not negate the fact that the dems still want to increase taxes in a different wildly unreasonable way - unlike the pubs who would simply raise the taxes in an even more different unreasonable way.

In the end either one party of the other will win or claim winning when our taxes go up. So who really loses?

It would seem that our political class has no intention of doing the right thing. They are so corrupt that doing whats best for America, is not a consideration. Unfortunately many Americans do not see this and either side with the Ds or the Rs. They are just as partisan as the two political parties.

 

[dogtowner]

53% feel its ok to go over the cliff according to a key Nov poll

 

[Cruella]

53% feel its ok to go over the cliff according to a key Nov poll

That's what the Ds have intended all along. Obama doesn't want the revenue, which Boehner has said we can do with eliminating loopholes. Same money from the same people, but Obama wants it done through tax increases. By going over the cliff, he gets his tax increases, not just on the rich, but on everybody, and the Republicans get blamed either way it goes down.

 

[dogtowner]

That's what the Ds have intended all along. Obama doesn't want the revenue, which Boehner has said we can do with eliminating loopholes. Same money from the same people, but Obama wants it done through tax increases. By going over the cliff, he gets his tax increases, not just on the rich, but on everybody, and the Republicans get blamed either way it goes down.

yeah. those folks paying 10% noe wont ne happy seeing their rate jump 50% to 15%
but they will be foolish enough to think its the gop instad.of realizing bo needs as wide a tax base as pissible

 

[Dr.Who]

53% feel its ok to go over the cliff according to a key Nov poll

If the alternative is to have congress raise the tax rates in the way O wants to then it is better. Of course the better solution all along has been not only to not go over the hill but to roll back rates even further and make them even flatter, i.e. more fair, while simultaneously elliminating both loopholes and most deductions. This would make the system far more fair and far far simpler. the only losers would be the army of accountants who would lose their jobs.

 

[dogtowner]

If the alternative is to have congress raise the tax rates in the way O wants to then it is better. Of course the better solution all along has been not only to not go over the hill but to roll back rates even further and make them even flatter, i.e. more fair, while simultaneously elliminating both loopholes and most deductions. This would make the system far more fair and far far simpler. the only losers would be the army of accountants who would lose their jobs.

or how about this...

leave taxes exactly as they are and implement a hard freeze on spending at the level is it this day (no fake tax cuts that are only smaller increases) do that and the budget will balance in under 10 years.

of course that prevents further vote buying and crony capitalism (aka corruption) so it has no chance.

but it will work.

the side benefit is that Congress can become the part time job it is supposed to be and take the game away from lobbyists.

 

[Cruella]

The gov't is spending over a trillion more a year than it brings in. Freezing the current spending levels isn't enough. The spending has to be cut back.