Shared publicly  - 
 
One House Republican appears to step away from the party line, saying tax hikes could be on the table to resolve 'fiscal cliff,' while Senate Democrats add to their wish list while balking at cuts to entitlement programs:
12
1
LOVE MUJAHIDEEN's profile photoTravis Augustine's profile photoSteve Wahl's profile photojohn splater's profile photo
43 comments
 
Look another rhino republican.  And people wonder why I have had enough with the GOP
 
If we don't cut entitlements then there's no point in trying to avoid the "fiscal cliff".  You can double all corporate taxes and take all CEO pay from all S&P 500 companies and still not even make a dent in the deficit. 

Taxing everyone over $250k a year brings a total of $85 billion a year if you do static budgeting.  That's it.  How are they going to lower the other $1 trillion that's part of the deficit?
 
Roosevelt and the Great Depression is only a mild example of what happens during severe economic stress.  Think about Germany during the Weimar Republic hyperinflation.  What did that give the world?  Look at Argentina, at one time in the twentieth century more prosperous than the United States.  Cristina Fernandez easily won re-election after she nationalized retirement accounts.  Do you really think that no one views your 401(k) as unfair?  What could be fairer than making sure it is kept protected from the greedy Wall Street bankers?  Look at what is happening in Greece, with a quazi-Nazi party gaining ground.  Look at France, who elected a socialist government to solve problems caused by socialism
 
It's the republican's stupid!! They are a bunch of spineless gutless manginas
 
We don't need to ride taxes, there high enough already. 
 
We need Newt Gingrich as "Speaker of the House"
 
If spending isn't cut by over a trillion dollars a year Congress is wasting our time.

+Ron Coleman Gingrich reformed Welfare and balanced the federal budget. Clinton merely takes the credit for being dragged, kicking and screaming, to the center.
 
It's going to take both, no one is suggesting that it's only tax increases.  Obama is recommending $2.50 cuts to $1 in taxes.  Republicans had been insisting that only cuts be included with absolutely no tax increases and not one single respectable economist agrees.  They played chicken and lost, time to compromise.  Take the $2.50/$1 deal or negotiate for a $3/$1 and let's all move on.
 
Settle for nothing less than 1000 to 1
 
Because sequestration will kick in a well get chainsaw surgery instead of scalpel surgery in regards to budget cuts.  This "cliff" such that it is, was voted on and passed by both parties and if one side is not seen to be willing to work with the other, the voters will respond...again.
 
+Travis Cobb OK. Let's say that the Republicans agree to the $1 tax to $2.50 reduction. The tax increases on the vile, evil rich will generate $85 billion a year according to the CBO. That would then require cuts of $212.5 billion, which would reduce the deficit by $297.5 billion. What about the next $800 billion?

This is why taxing those making $250k a year doesn't do anything to reduce the deficit, let alone the debt. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
 
I think we have a spending AND a revenue problem. Look for way to cut spending but at the same time figure out a way to make taxes fair for everyone.
 
+Casey Coleman Taxes are never fair. Make taxes voluntary and you'll see how fair they are.

The government claims to want to make the tax system fair but every member of Congress wants some manner of exemption for their constituents and add more each year. It doesn't matter how fair taxes may start out to be, fairness never lasts because nobody really considers taxes fair in practice.
 
+Casey Coleman Define fair.  The top 1% of earners earn 18% of all the income and pay 38% of all income taxes.  Is that fair?  Should they pay even more?  Almost 50% of the nation pay no federal income taxes.  Is that fair?  

You can increase revenues by lowering rates.  Even Obama himself knows this when he was informed by Charlie Gibson during a 2008 debate.  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=1&singlePage=true#.UKZLpIc8B8E

Obama doesn't want to raise revenues.  He wants to "punish" those who make more.  
 
+Robert Soyars pretty sure that in order to get past this fiscal cliff business they only need to cut 1.5 trillion over 10 years, so just the deal you described would be fine for the short term. 
 
I say fall off the cliff, these spineless losers we hire won't fix it right. If we fall most of the "hard" decisions will be made automatically. 
 
We need responsible cuts though, not across the board. For example regarding defense we could stop buying jets designed for a cold war conflict and decommission more of our 5000 nukes, but we don't want cuts to go towards counter insurgency efforts or veteran benefits. That's perhaps an over simplification of the problem, but that's why just letting sequestration run is course would be less desirable than targeted cuts.
 
+Travis Cobb Where do you get your numbers? Cutting 1.5 trillion means at least balancing the budget -You cannot cut when you are bleeding out over one trillion each year, and that's without even voting on a budget.

Let the US government default -It has done it in the past. Maybe other countries will learn not to lend the US money until they get their act together.
 
Well, the best way to fix our problem would be to lift thousands of job killing regulations, get people back to work. More people working equals more revenue.
Taking away from our defenses won't solve anything except leave us unprotected. And so what we have 5000 nukes. I'm sure they have already been paid for and I doubt they are pulling in welfare checks.
 
They are paid for, we spent 8 trillion dollars (in todays money) from 1950 - 2000 on nukes and nuclear technology. We have to maintain them and guard them which isn't cheap.

Also eliminating fighter jets that we've never used and have no relevant enemy to use them on would not make us less safe.

The pentagon always wants a new weapon, manufacturers always want to sell one, and Congress is increasingly willing to approve any weapons project because it creates jobs in many districts. That's why we have F-22's and F-35's, not because we need them.

Defense certainly isn't the only problem with the federal budget but it sure is part of the problem.
 
+Troy Rice Lol, half brained generation. Stop listening to Rush and Levin and read some books..... 
 
+Troy Rice  To fix our problems we need to educate people, something that conservatives hate.... Because those evil schools indoctrinate good christians into non-believing liberals.... 
 
If you are actually interested in reading about how the scope of our military today is way way beyond just keeping us safe i recommend
The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson, you can probably get it at the public library.
 
Look who it is guys! +Charles Wierzbicki, he's back.  Under a different profile (same name).  

How's it feel to have +Barack Obama as your president for four more years Charles?

Also, it seems you are from California.  How's it feel your vote for anyone else (especially the GOP) for president is entirely pointless?  :)
 
+Travis Cobb Cutting $1.5 trillion over ten years is $150 billion a year.  We are over spending by $1.2 trillion every year.  If we don't cut down the spending, then in ten years we will have overspent by $10.5 trillion instead of $12 trillion.  Your math doesn't work.

The cuts must be much larger.  Why can't we go back to 2007 level spending?  What is so important that has been added to the federal government that requires us to spend $1 trillion a year more than in 2007?
 
+Robert Soyars By fair I mean free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.

As far as what's been added to increase spending I was curious myself. I'm working from 2004 figures here however it appears that the amount of retired people and SSI recipients has increased about 45%, however our SS spending has increased 60%, so has medicare/medicaid. Does that mean we should cut them by 15%? I'm not sure. It's something to be aware of however.

What I'd like to see is more focus on using technology to reduce medical costs. All seniors should get a little device that measures basic vitals and allows them to video chat with their doctor so they can avoid the office visit. If I were a doctor this is what I would try to be doing. Kind of like doing house calls in a Ferrari.

Then we have defense. From 2004, Three years after 9/11, to 2012 we have increased our defense spending by about 47%. I think it's time to wind down or at least invest it in local assets instead of external operations. Go ahead and make the drones, SWORDs, MULEs, and exo-skelatons but keep them here. At least until we get the budget under control.

As far as increase in revenue since 2004 we're at about 30%. Spending 56%. Our Revenue to GDP percentage has gone down 1.1% and spending up 2.1%. A lot of numbers, I know but they are very useful. My source is http://www.usdebtclock.org.
 
+Robert Soyars ok, so let's bump capital gains tax to 25% for those that use it as income, I'm not sure how much revenue that generates, but a I'm willing to bet it isn't chump change.  Then about triple that amount in cuts get included.

There is quite a bit of money to be saved from the Department of Defense if anyone has the political chutzpah to go for it.

I'm certainly not saying that we don't need cuts, just that a 3:1 ratio is pretty damn good and a helluva lot better than sequestration.
 
+Travis Cobb Increasing capital gains will lower the amount of revenue gained. Even Obama admitted that during a 2008 debate with Charlie Gibson.
 
A group of Palestinian women were detained Thursday after attempting to break into an Israeli military outpost in the West Bank. The protest was in response to Israel's ongoing assault on the #Gaza Strip. #OccupyBeitEl

More here: http://ow.ly/flP67
 
i say no tax hike, but do stop the entitlements for the people that do not deserve them, like illegals and Americans that can work. round up the illegals and send them back home.
 
+Robert Soyars ok, so the revenue goes down because people avoid paying the taxes, sounds like something else to fix.
 
the republican woman that is getting in bed with obama needs to branded democrat. how was she elected as a republican? None of our elected republican leaders should change sides to raise tax's on anyone. 
 
+Graden Guynn I'd love to see an example of a nation leader sending a bill for the cost of the immigrants from another country.

I think you have literally no idea what you are talking about.  Bash Obama.  Logic and reason, what are those?
 
+Travis Cobb Raising the capital gains tax will hurt the economy while also depleting the government of revenues. This is historical fact that even the democrats admit, including Obama himself.

If you want to fix the deficit, you can't raise the capital gains rate. If you want to use the tax code as a policy tool then raising the capital gains tax will work toward "punishing" the so called rich.
 
Tax the rich.  This is all smokescreen to hide other issues.  Who gives a darn about a hike on the rich.  The basic premise is being missed.  Libs believe that they have the right to take anything that you or I have.  Nothing you have is truly yours, it all belongs to them and they will give you back what they feel you need as long as you kiss their ... .  They own you.  How does it feel to be a willing slave?
 
+Robert Soyars i don't know if you read that Forbes article it but he addresses the claim that it would hurt the economy. Fact is, people all over the world want to invest in America and not because we have low rates but because the American economy is a solid bet...even at a 25% cg rate.
 
I like how we have a white guy throwing around the word "slave" as if he understands what it means. +Norman Black 

sad
Add a comment...