The Fiscal Cliff

[rufuspaul]

Taxes are lower for the rich than at any time in our history? Does that include the first 125 years, when we didn't have an income tax at all?

Good point. The sad thing about vilifying the rich and essentially holding them responsible for the deficit is that it won't solve anything. Even if you took 100% of the income of all the millionaires and billionaires in this country (something all the Karl Marx clones on this board probably want) it wouldn't make a significant dent in the deficit.

[Droid101]

Taxes are lower for the rich than at any time in our history? Does that include the first 125 years, when we didn't have an income tax at all?

Yeah, because the 1800's are totally relevant and comparable to the past 112 years of existing in this country.

[Godzuki]

Taxes are lower for the rich than at any time in our history? Does that include the first 125 years, when we didn't have an income tax at all?

lol are you really going to talk about times when people were riding horses through towns, playign cowboys and indians, and our government or infrastructure was nowhere near what its at today? never mind how much more of a civilized society we are today thanks to government programs and law enforcement to create order from the chaos of earlier civilizations.

i swear you independents always hearken back to some unrealistic stuff to constantly use as examples for us to live by today

[rufuspaul]

Yeah, because the 1800's are totally relevant and comparable to the past 112 years of existing in this country.

True. I don't think they had a shot clock back then.

[Godzuki]

Good point. The sad thing about vilifying the rich and essentially holding them responsible for the deficit is that it won't solve anything. Even if you took 100% of the income of all the millionaires and billionaires in this country (something all the Karl Marx clones on this board probably want) it wouldn't make a significant dent in the deficit.

how wouldn't it solve anything? the more money the government collects the more goes towards paying off our deficit....

one things for sure, they aren't going to pay the deficit off by not taxing anyone.

[rufuspaul]

lol are you really going to talk about times when people were riding horses through towns, playign cowboys and indians, and our government or infrastructure was nowhere near what its at today? never mind how much more of a civilized society we are today thanks to government programs and law enforcement to create order from the chaos of earlier civilizations.

i swear you independents always hearken back to some unrealistic stuff to constantly use as examples for us to live by today

I think his point was a little tongue-in-cheek jab. Still the US was able to win wars and provide mail service, etc. without taxing what the citizens earned. Totally unsustainable in today's world but worth remembering, especially since "government" and "efficiency" are 2 words that don't go hand in hand nowadays.

[rufuspaul]

how wouldn't it solve anything? the more money the government collects the more goes towards paying off our deficit....

one things for sure, they aren't going to pay the deficit off by not taxing anyone.

No. The way to raise revenue is to get people back to work. Specifically promote policies that are favorable to small business and encourage investment. You can raise taxes to a degree and certainly reform the idiotic code, but that alone won't really solve the problem.

Spending is another issue and sadly I don't think congress will ever get it right. There's such an entrenched habit of attaching pork projects to bills on both sides of the aisle that I don't see it ever getting any better. I hope I'm wrong.

[Godzuki]

I think his point was a little tongue-in-cheek jab. Still the US was able to win wars and provide mail service, etc. without taxing what the citizens earned. Totally unsustainable in today's world but worth remembering, especially since "government" and "efficiency" are 2 words that don't go hand in hand nowadays.

nah its consistent with a lot of stuff Joe says that aren't very applicable to the current reality, but its the same with some of the stuff Ron Paul says as well. i don't think its tongue n cheek more than what they believe.

there is a lot more infrastructure to upkeep now, a much larger population, way more civil/domestic issues where comparing old times to now isn't realistic. our government isn't efficient and bloated which i think both parties know, but its not like there aren't issues everywhere else as well, like the rich vs poor gap constantly widening.

[DonDadda59]

lol are you really going to talk about times when people were riding horses through towns, playign cowboys and indians, and our government or infrastructure was nowhere near what its at today? never mind how much more of a civilized society we are today thanks to government programs and law enforcement to create order from the chaos of earlier civilizations.

i swear you independents always hearken back to some unrealistic stuff to constantly use as examples for us to live by today

Yeah it's the same faulty reasoning some use to justify our antiquated gun laws. 'I need these guns to fight against tyranny' like they're going to gather muskets to join a militia to fight against the King of England and it's the 18th century

Times change and society has to adapt accordingly.

No. The way to raise revenue is to get people back to work. Specifically promote policies that are favorable to small business and encourage investment. You can raise taxes to a degree and certainly reform the idiotic code, but that alone won't really solve the problem.

But the President has made it clear that tax reform/increase is just the first step, a necessary step. He laid out his spending reduction plan which included less borrowing, entitlements, etc. The idea is that the House approves the Senate bill that would raise taxes on 2% of the population, the President signs it into law, then the two sides get together to hammer out a spending reduction deal.

[DonDadda59]

And right on cue, the weeper of the house throws a ridiculous wrench into the game

[INDENT]Boehner: Obamacare on table for 'fiscal cliff' talks



(CNN)

[DonDadda59]

Finally, some real progress

White House says Boehner offered tax increase for entitlement cuts

(Reuters) - U.S. House Speaker John Boehner has offered to raise tax rates on high earners to break the "fiscal cliff" deadlock in exchange for major cuts in entitlement programs, but President Barack Obama is not ready to accept, a source said late Saturday.

While the White House considers Boehner's offer "progress," the source said more remained to be worked out between the two.

Tax rates are a major sticking point in negotiations to avert steep automatic tax hikes and budget cuts set for the end of the year if a deal isn't reached. Republicans have resisted Obama's demand to extend lower tax rates for everyone except top earners, preferring to extend them for all taxpayers.

The Boehner offer was the first departure from the position the House speaker has held for months.

(Editing by Fred Barbash and Todd Eastham)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8BF01I20121216

*Obama is 'not ready to accept' because Boehner wants the cut off to be those earning $1 mil+ instead of $250K and they haven't released info on the rate increase proposed. But the fact the Boehner is willing to go against the Norquist pledge is a major breakthrough IMO. Now it's just about the details since the House Republican leader has agreed to rate increases and the President has put entitlements on the table.

[Jailblazers7]

Haven't been following the fiscal cliff stuff lately but raising the Medicare age to 67 would be a really bad idea imo. That's the only policy change that I've seen discussed heavily.

[raiderfan19]

Haven't been following the fiscal cliff stuff lately but raising the Medicare age to 67 would be a really bad idea imo. That's the only policy change that I've seen discussed heavily.

Why?

[Jailblazers7]

Why?

Because all it would really do is shift the burden of that cost onto seniors age 65-67 by forcing them to pay for private (and more expensive) health insurance. It would be a way for the federal government to cut spending but is that really the spending that should be cut? If anything, that spending is the most social beneficial thing the government does.

[knickballer]

We all know what spending needs to be cut, it's the big elephant standing in the corner of the room but yet none of them will even mention it.. But instead we have clowns debating on cutting welfare programs or education to cut spending