Fiscal Cliff?

[Ibanez]

How about SS reform. Say, when a person retires, they submit their planned retirement income (401(k), investments,etc...) a process similar to getting a loan but without the credit score. Submit that info and then we can gauge how much they should receive. This will help the wealthy and people that will be doing fine from getting the max. It sucks but wealthy people don't need S.S.

Or privatize it. I dunno, i'm just spit balling here.

The problem with SS, IMO is the forced contributions. You either have to force contributions and guarantee payouts or you need to allow for optional contributions.

Its true bait and switch if you force people to pay in and you arbitrarily change what they are paid out.

True. And I'm not for punishing the successful. My comment was more devils advocate.

[AZGrizFan]

How about SS reform. Say, when a person retires, they submit their planned retirement income (401(k), investments,etc...) a process similar to getting a loan but without the credit score. Submit that info and then we can gauge how much they should receive. This will help the wealthy and people that will be doing fine from getting the max. It sucks but wealthy people don't need S.S.

Or privatize it. I dunno, i'm just spit balling here.

So, if I do a good job, scrimp and save, and am able to put away some of my hard-earned money into a 401k and retirement, I somehow am not entitled to the money that I put into the system? All your proposal would do would be to make everybody say "fuck it" and spend like drunken sailors, especially if they're going to get penalized for saving later.

[89Hen]

Coincidence? I think not.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRUuSzhNigo[/youtube]

[BDKJMU]

The poor don't pay income tax. We're only talking about 53% here.

No one is talking about a tax cut for people making 250k-1 mil. Keeping tax rates the same doesN't equal a tax cut. The choice is either keeping taxes the same or a huge tax increase.

Extending the Bush tax cuts does equal a tax cut. By operation of current law those cuts will expire. The 10-year deficit is determined as if those cuts expire. If you do nothing but extend those cuts there would be a deficit cost.

And neither plan is really balanced. Boehner's tax plan is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost $4.1 trillion over the next 10 years.

That sounds like donk speak:
Failing to raise taxes = "spending"
Keeping tax rates the same = "a cut"

Slowing the rate of spending increases = a cut.

No wonder we are screwed with that attitude.....

[BDKJMU]

Extending the Bush tax cuts does equal a tax cut. By operation of current law those cuts will expire. The 10-year deficit is determined as if those cuts expire. If you do nothing but extend those cuts there would be a deficit cost.

And neither plan is really balanced. Boehner's tax plan is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost $4.1 trillion over the next 10 years.

So does the opposite hold true as well then? And all the talk from the left about how the GOP wants to raise taxes on the middle class is just hot air?

Exactly.

[SDHornet]

Extending the Bush tax cuts does equal a tax cut. By operation of current law those cuts will expire. The 10-year deficit is determined as if those cuts expire. If you do nothing but extend those cuts there would be a deficit cost.

And neither plan is really balanced. Boehner's tax plan is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost $4.1 trillion over the next 10 years.

That sounds like donk speak:
Failing to raise taxes = "spending"
Keeping tax rates the same = "a cut"

Slowing the rate of spending increases = a cut.

No wonder we are screwed with that attitude.....

Last I recall both sides are claiming this.

[BDKJMU]

That sounds like donk speak:
Failing to raise taxes = "spending"
Keeping tax rates the same = "a cut"

Slowing the rate of spending increases = a cut.

No wonder we are screwed with that attitude.....

Last I recall both sides are claiming this.

Shame on both of them then. And another reason why we are screwed.

[D1B]

BDICKM = The next school rampage shooter

[Baldy]

BDICKM = The next school rampage shooter

One problem with that...he's not a Donk.

[UNI88]

The Chicago Tribune shares my concerns

Beware puny ambitions: Will Congress and the president, wary of 'Cliffmas,' reach a menacingly small bargain — and then claim victory?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... 9238.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The "fiscal cliff" threatens recession, more unemployment and, for those who have jobs, less take-home pay. But if a book titled "Perils at Fiscal Cliff" sounds scary, the real horror story would be "Catastrophe at Debt Mountain."

As a result: Distrust any deal that doesn't deliver new reductions in spending growth, and new revenues, of at least $4 trillion over 10 years. The agreement that appears to be emerging instead would fall between $2 trillion and $3 trillion. Not that both sides wouldn't want to inflate those numbers. So if anybody tries to sell you on a deal that gets to $4 trillion by counting the $1 trillion in savings that was legislated in 2011, or an $800 billion "peace dividend" of reductions from yesteryear's level of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, don't believe it.

[kalm]

The Chicago Tribune shares my concerns

Beware puny ambitions: Will Congress and the president, wary of 'Cliffmas,' reach a menacingly small bargain — and then claim victory?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... 9238.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The "fiscal cliff" threatens recession, more unemployment and, for those who have jobs, less take-home pay. But if a book titled "Perils at Fiscal Cliff" sounds scary, the real horror story would be "Catastrophe at Debt Mountain."

As a result: Distrust any deal that doesn't deliver new reductions in spending growth, and new revenues, of at least $4 trillion over 10 years. The agreement that appears to be emerging instead would fall between $2 trillion and $3 trillion. Not that both sides wouldn't want to inflate those numbers. So if anybody tries to sell you on a deal that gets to $4 trillion by counting the $1 trillion in savings that was legislated in 2011, or an $800 billion "peace dividend" of reductions from yesteryear's level of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, don't believe it.

This has probably been mentioned before, but if we go over the cliff we would see debt reductions of $7.1 trillion. Taxes would go up across the board including the SS tax holiday, there would be broad spending cuts, and it seems like most americans would have at least a little skin in the game.

So what if there's a minor recession - it's probably unavoidable without government stimulus. So the donks sacrifice what they believe is lifting the economy up and the conks sacrifice a return to Clinton era tax rates that seemed reasonable, and their assault on entitlements...at least for now.

[UNI88]

The Chicago Tribune shares my concerns

Beware puny ambitions: Will Congress and the president, wary of 'Cliffmas,' reach a menacingly small bargain — and then claim victory?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... 9238.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This has probably been mentioned before, but if we go over the cliff we would see debt reductions of $7.1 trillion. Taxes would go up across the board including the SS tax holiday, there would be broad spending cuts, and it seems like most americans would have at least a little skin in the game.

So what if there's a minor recession - it's probably unavoidable without government stimulus. So the donks sacrifice what they believe is lifting the economy up and the conks sacrifice a return to Clinton era tax rates that seemed reasonable, and their assault on entitlements...at least for now.

I think going over the cliff will be better for the country in the long-term than some half-way solution that the politicians come up with to avoid it if the politicians don't follow up with real solutions early in 2013. Sometimes you have to sacrifice and deal with the short-term pain in order to achieve a better future outcome. This would certainly appear to be one of those times.

[DSUrocks07]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... V3LBiivTxw[/youtube]

[SDHornet]

This has probably been mentioned before, but if we go over the cliff we would see debt reductions of $7.1 trillion. Taxes would go up across the board including the SS tax holiday, there would be broad spending cuts, and it seems like most americans would have at least a little skin in the game.

So what if there's a minor recession - it's probably unavoidable without government stimulus. So the donks sacrifice what they believe is lifting the economy up and the conks sacrifice a return to Clinton era tax rates that seemed reasonable, and their assault on entitlements...at least for now.

I think going over the cliff will be better for the country in the long-term than some half-way solution that the politicians come up with to avoid it if the politicians don't follow up with real solutions early in 2013. Sometimes you have to sacrifice and deal with the short-term pain in order to achieve a better future outcome. This would certainly appear to be one of those times.

I agree. The way things have fallen apart and now everyone is on vacation for Christmas, I have a hard time seeing a meaningful deal getting pulled off.

[Ibanez]

This has probably been mentioned before, but if we go over the cliff we would see debt reductions of $7.1 trillion. Taxes would go up across the board including the SS tax holiday, there would be broad spending cuts, and it seems like most americans would have at least a little skin in the game.

So what if there's a minor recession - it's probably unavoidable without government stimulus. So the donks sacrifice what they believe is lifting the economy up and the conks sacrifice a return to Clinton era tax rates that seemed reasonable, and their assault on entitlements...at least for now.

I think going over the cliff will be better for the country in the long-term than some half-way solution that the politicians come up with to avoid it if the politicians don't follow up with real solutions early in 2013. Sometimes you have to sacrifice and deal with the short-term pain in order to achieve a better future outcome. This would certainly appear to be one of those times.

I agree and have said it many times that we need to sacrifice and accept Short term pain for long term pleasure.

[BDKJMU]

"Spending to Increase 55 Percent Under Obama's Plan
Spending will increase 55 percent over the next decade, if President Barack Obama's budget plan goes into effect. The finding comes from the Republican-side of the Senate Budget Committee, which notes that Obama's "Proposal Would Spend $880 Billion Over Already Projected Increases."

Here's a chart, detailing how Obama's plan would bring spending from $3.62 trillion in 2013 to $5.63 trillion in 2022:

"The President's last fiscal cliff offer once again increased spending rather than reducing it," writes the minority-side of the Senate Budget Committee. "His plan does claim $800 billion in spending reductions over ten years, but these claims are more than offset by new spending increases: increasing spending above BCA limits ($1,200 billion); paying for the doc fix ($400 billion); new transportation stimulus spending ($50 billion), and; a one-year extension of unemployment insurance ($30 billion). After subtracting the president’s savings from his spending increases, over the next 10 years the President’s proposal actually spends $880 billion more - $44.368 trillion versus $43.488 trillion - than currently projected spending levels. In the next two years alone, the President’s plan would spend $255 billion over current projected spending levels ($156 billion higher in FY13 and $99 billion higher in FY14). Overall, spending would increase 55% under the President’s plan, from $3.6 trillion in FY13 to $ 5.6 trillion in FY22.""

[SDHornet]

How does this compare against the increases in spending by the Repub plan?

[houndawg]

The cliff will be the best medicine in the long run. You'll hear our conk brothers singing a whole new tune on government spending when the defense contractors start taking that medicine.

[SDHornet]

The cliff will be the best medicine in the long run. You'll hear our conk brothers singing a whole new tune on government spending when the defense contractors start taking that medicine.

Yuuuuuuppppp.

[kalm]

How does this compare against the increases in spending by the Repub plan?

Spending increases, costs of wars, cops in schools, and the cure for cancer will all be paid for with tax cuts.

[UNI88]

The cliff will be the best medicine in the long run. You'll hear our conk brothers singing a whole new tune on government spending when the defense contractors start taking that medicine.

I'm pretty sure that I've said several times that going over the cliff could be the best thing in the long-term. Regardless, all of government, including defense contractors need to share in the cuts.

[AZGrizFan]

The cliff will be the best medicine in the long run. You'll hear our conk brothers singing a whole new tune on government spending when the defense contractors start taking that medicine.

I'm pretty sure that I've said several times that going over the cliff could be the best thing in the long-term. Regardless, all of government, including defense contractors need to share in the cuts.

And I believe about 90% of the "conk brothers" have advocated for ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS, including Defense spending, for numerous months despite Houndawg's selective amnesia.

[SDHornet]

Bump. Supposedly a deal is close. Me thinks HI5UNI will be right that it will be a half asses "deal" and all the politicians on both sides will just circle jerk their way into the new year because of it.

[Rob Iola]

Bump. Supposedly a deal is close. Me thinks HI5UNI will be right that it will be a half asses "deal" and all the politicians on both sides will just circle jerk their way into the new year because of it.

Yet the president then went on national TV and basically gave the finger to the House conks, so no vote tonight. It's almost as if the president wants to go over the cliff...

[Ibanez]

They've had over a year to get a deal done. What makes us think anything of value will be done in a few days?