Who wants us to drive over the fiscal cliff?

[TakeAStepBack]

The numbers dont work you fact adverse fool.

Your one who will have to be kicked to the curb by the republican party if it wants to ever live in reality again

Please, tell me more...

Going for a full blown TM melt down?

 

[freedombecki]

The numbers dont work you fact adverse fool.

Your one who will have to be kicked to the curb by the republican party if it wants to ever live in reality again

Your party handed the middle class the highest tax hike to the middle class ever done by your Democrat controlled House and Senate to which Nancy Pelosi said "Don't read, just pass."

The Republicans didn't vote that tax hike in. It takes effect in January, when people will know Democrats like you are just lying their little heineys off to obfuscate THEIR HIGHEST TAX HIKE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

You've really outdone yourself preaching little fibbies today, TM. Go stand in the corner.

 

[Si modo]

All sides (taxers and spenders) need to put their big girl panties on and deal with it.

It's not going away.

 

[Newby]

Better question: Who put the cliff there?

No one ever asks that question.

This is a crisis that was manufactured by THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE FIGHTING ABOUT IT.

This is what happens when we constantly kicking the can down the road.

Now the can is too big to kick any further.

But good ol' Boehner is asking to kick it down the road for another year!

What a fucking asshole!

.

Who kicked it down the road for the first time in Obama's presidency? The left has demagogued the 'Bush tax cuts for the rich' ever since they've come about. So, let them expire, what's the problem, it's what the left has wanted for years now, right?

We've been kicking tax reform down the road since the last one in 1986. The tax code was corrupted before the ink was even dry.

We've been kicking a rising debt down the road since Bush II took office. The surplus was being spent before that ink was even dry.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire years ago. For EVERYONE. That expiration was built right into those cuts. Bush and the GOP put them there at the beginning of the millenium. The Republicans have been fighting that expiration ever since. Talk about being schizophrenic!

The payroll tax cuts were passed as an emergency measure. The emergency is passed.

Defense spending was increased to fight the wars. One is over, the other is winding down. It is time to wind down the spending.


Nothing is more totalitarian than the idea that a temporary measure should be continued indefinitely.

.

Yes, let them expire, problem solved. You really think the democrats want them to expire?? All I see is finger pointing in the 'R' direction, yet the 'Ds' had an opportunity to let them expire and they didn't, and they won't let them expire this time either. Is it your position that the dems want them to expire? No action needed?

 

[Truthmatters]

Yes we want the top tier tax cuts to expire.


Its the republicans who have fought for the wealthy like they owed them their lives

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Then let the "fiscal cliff" materialize.

Frankly, it isn't going to make any difference either way.

 

[sakinago]

Better question: Who put the cliff there?

No one ever asks that question.

This is a crisis that was manufactured by THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE FIGHTING ABOUT IT.

This is what happens when we constantly kicking the can down the road.

Now the can is too big to kick any further.

But good ol' Boehner is asking to kick it down the road for another year!

What a fucking asshole!

.

Who kicked it down the road for the first time in Obama's presidency? The left has demagogued the 'Bush tax cuts for the rich' ever since they've come about. So, let them expire, what's the problem, it's what the left has wanted for years now, right?

We've been kicking tax reform down the road since the last one in 1986. The tax code was corrupted before the ink was even dry.

We've been kicking a rising debt down the road since Bush II took office. The surplus was being spent before that ink was even dry.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire years ago. For EVERYONE. That expiration was built right into those cuts. Bush and the GOP put them there at the beginning of the millenium. The Republicans have been fighting that expiration ever since. Talk about being schizophrenic!

The payroll tax cuts were passed as an emergency measure. The emergency is passed.

Defense spending was increased to fight the wars. One is over, the other is winding down. It is time to wind down the spending.


Nothing is more totalitarian than the idea that a temporary measure should be continued indefinitely.

.

Which is the bigger problem, Revenue or Spending?

The Republicans are saying it is spending, the Democrats are saying revenue. In case of USMB, peoples opinions are strictly based on what their side says, which is stupid. The government debt is rising at a rate that taxing those extra who make 200,000 a year or more is not going to make a dent.

And I dont think there is a very simple answer to this problem, because our tax code is so freaking complicated. I think the best way to simplify this whole issue is do you want bigger government, or smaller government, this is what it all comes down to.

So is there a big revenue problem, or is there a big spending problem? Or in other words, do you want a bigger government or a smaller government?

 

[Newby]

Yes we want the top tier tax cuts to expire.


Its the republicans who have fought for the wealthy like they owed them their lives

No, no... . the 'Bush tax cuts for the rich' were only for the rich, that's what the left claimed for years, so there should be no action needed, all tax cuts expire. All of them.

 

[Truthmatters]

your right because then in mid January the NEW congress with fewer idiots will conviene and they can fix whats needs fixing with fewer tea party nutters standing in the way of sanity

 

[g5000]

Yes, let them expire, problem solved. You really think the democrats want them to expire?? All I see is finger pointing in the 'R' direction, yet the 'Ds' had an opportunity to let them expire and they didn't, and they won't let them expire this time either. Is it your position that the dems want them to expire? No action needed?

My position on the Bush tax cuts debate is that this is one giant smoke and mirrors misdirection.

We don't need the Bush tax cuts to expire. We don't need the Bush tax cuts NOT to expire.

We need tax reform. We need to eliminate all tax expenditures. All of them. Every last one. And ban them forevermore.


This solves several problems in one fell swoop.

First, it broadens the tax base to where you can lower tax rates on everyone. If you earn $50K and your neighbor earns $50K, you will both pay the exact same amount of tax. It does not get more fair than that.

And with lower tax rates, we can bring more people into the taxpayer tent. We will have more people with skin in the game.

Second, you can't bribe a Congressman with campaign cash to insert a loophole in the tax code if he isn't allowed to insert a loophole. So there goes your campaign finance problems.

Third, with the field leveled and Congressman unable to solicit bribes, their chances of re-election drop from 97 percent (that really is the current rate of re-election despite 7 or 8 major campaign finance reforms in the past 40 years).

If it becomes easier to defeat an incumbent who is not financed by wealthy people wanting gifts, then the turnover rate rises. So much for the need for term limits.


Tax reform. Not this cut or that cut or this increase or that increase. We are being seriously played by the shitheads on both sides of the aisle who are all desperate to cling onto their power.

.

 

[Truthmatters]

Who kicked it down the road for the first time in Obama's presidency? The left has demagogued the 'Bush tax cuts for the rich' ever since they've come about. So, let them expire, what's the problem, it's what the left has wanted for years now, right?

We've been kicking tax reform down the road since the last one in 1986. The tax code was corrupted before the ink was even dry.

We've been kicking a rising debt down the road since Bush II took office. The surplus was being spent before that ink was even dry.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire years ago. For EVERYONE. That expiration was built right into those cuts. Bush and the GOP put them there at the beginning of the millenium. The Republicans have been fighting that expiration ever since. Talk about being schizophrenic!

The payroll tax cuts were passed as an emergency measure. The emergency is passed.

Defense spending was increased to fight the wars. One is over, the other is winding down. It is time to wind down the spending.


Nothing is more totalitarian than the idea that a temporary measure should be continued indefinitely.

.

Which is the bigger problem, Revenue or Spending?

The Republicans are saying it is spending, the Democrats are saying revenue. In case of USMB, peoples opinions are strictly based on what their side says, which is stupid. The government debt is rising at a rate that taxing those extra who make 200,000 a year or more is not going to make a dent.

And I dont think there is a very simple answer to this problem, because our tax code is so freaking complicated. I think the best way to simplify this whole issue is do you want bigger government, or smaller government, this is what it all comes down to.

So is there a big revenue problem, or is there a big spending problem? Or in other words, do you want a bigger government or a smaller government?

Bla bla bla,


There is NO way to fix this problem by just cutting.


The numbers dont add up you fucking fact adverse idiot.


That means the problem is predomenately a revenue problem.


I know facts mean nothing to the likes of you who frequent libertarian blogs.

Do you realise that the Austrian school is considered the short bus school of economics by all other schools of economics?

 

[Newby]

Yes, let them expire, problem solved. You really think the democrats want them to expire?? All I see is finger pointing in the 'R' direction, yet the 'Ds' had an opportunity to let them expire and they didn't, and they won't let them expire this time either. Is it your position that the dems want them to expire? No action needed?

My position on the Bush tax cuts debate is that this is one giant smoke and mirrors misdirection.

We don't need the Bush tax cuts to expire. We don't need the Bush tax cuts NOT to expire.

We need tax reform. We need to eliminate all tax expenditures. All of them. Every last one. And ban them forevermore.


This solves several problems in one fell swoop.

First, it broadens the tax base to where you can lower tax rates on everyone. If you earn $50K and your neighbor earns $50K, you will both pay the exact same amount of tax. It does not get more fair than that.

And with lower tax rates, we can bring more people into the taxpayer tent. We will have more people with skin in the game.

Second, you can't bribe a Congressman with campaign cash to insert a loophole in the tax code if he isn't allowed to insert a loophole. So there goes your campaign finance problems.

Third, with the field leveled and Congressman unable to solicit bribes, their chances of re-election drop from 97 percent (that really is the current rate of re-election despite 7 or 8 major campaign finance reforms in the past 40 years).

If it becomes easier to defeat an incumbent who is not financed by wealthy people wanting gifts, then the turnover rate rises. So much for the need for term limits.


Tax reform. Not this cut or that cut or this increase or that increase. We are being seriously played by the shitheads on both sides of the aisle who are all desperate to cling onto their power.

.

That I can agree with, both parties are equally responsible for this situation, they're both responsible for the excessive spending and deficit out of control. The more we let them manipulate us and pit us against each other, the worse it's going to get. And it's obviously going to get a lot worse before it gets better based on the blind partisanship I see on here.

 

[Newby]

We've been kicking tax reform down the road since the last one in 1986. The tax code was corrupted before the ink was even dry.

We've been kicking a rising debt down the road since Bush II took office. The surplus was being spent before that ink was even dry.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire years ago. For EVERYONE. That expiration was built right into those cuts. Bush and the GOP put them there at the beginning of the millenium. The Republicans have been fighting that expiration ever since. Talk about being schizophrenic!

The payroll tax cuts were passed as an emergency measure. The emergency is passed.

Defense spending was increased to fight the wars. One is over, the other is winding down. It is time to wind down the spending.


Nothing is more totalitarian than the idea that a temporary measure should be continued indefinitely.

.

Which is the bigger problem, Revenue or Spending?

The Republicans are saying it is spending, the Democrats are saying revenue. In case of USMB, peoples opinions are strictly based on what their side says, which is stupid. The government debt is rising at a rate that taxing those extra who make 200,000 a year or more is not going to make a dent.

And I dont think there is a very simple answer to this problem, because our tax code is so freaking complicated. I think the best way to simplify this whole issue is do you want bigger government, or smaller government, this is what it all comes down to.

So is there a big revenue problem, or is there a big spending problem? Or in other words, do you want a bigger government or a smaller government?

Bla bla bla,


There is NO way to fix this problem by just cutting.


The numbers dont add up you fucking fact adverse idiot.


That means the problem is predomenately a revenue problem.


I know facts mean nothing to the likes of you who frequent libertarian blogs.

Do you realise that the Austrian school is considered the short bus school of economics by all other schools of economics?

So, you have a household income of $50,000, but you go out and spend $100,000 this year and borrow the other $50,000, and you see that as a 'revenue' problem. What should come first? Do you budget to spend 100,000 when you only have 50,000? Do you budget to spend more than what you take in? Is that how you run your household, and then call it a 'revenue problem' with the bill collectors call you for their money?

 

[Duped]

If they can kick the can down the road they will. We need significant spending cuts second - as more revenue is already on the table. You all know that the libs will never make any meaningful cuts to their beloved entitlements - to do so would enrage their constiuancy!
We also need a balanced budget amendment which we will never get.

 

[tjvh]

Whether someone wants or doesn't want the inevitable is pretty irrelevant.

Yeah... Sort of like who's for or against the Sun coming up tomorrow?

 

[sakinago]

We've been kicking tax reform down the road since the last one in 1986. The tax code was corrupted before the ink was even dry.

We've been kicking a rising debt down the road since Bush II took office. The surplus was being spent before that ink was even dry.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire years ago. For EVERYONE. That expiration was built right into those cuts. Bush and the GOP put them there at the beginning of the millenium. The Republicans have been fighting that expiration ever since. Talk about being schizophrenic!

The payroll tax cuts were passed as an emergency measure. The emergency is passed.

Defense spending was increased to fight the wars. One is over, the other is winding down. It is time to wind down the spending.


Nothing is more totalitarian than the idea that a temporary measure should be continued indefinitely.

.

Which is the bigger problem, Revenue or Spending?

The Republicans are saying it is spending, the Democrats are saying revenue. In case of USMB, peoples opinions are strictly based on what their side says, which is stupid. The government debt is rising at a rate that taxing those extra who make 200,000 a year or more is not going to make a dent.

And I dont think there is a very simple answer to this problem, because our tax code is so freaking complicated. I think the best way to simplify this whole issue is do you want bigger government, or smaller government, this is what it all comes down to.

So is there a big revenue problem, or is there a big spending problem? Or in other words, do you want a bigger government or a smaller government?

Bla bla bla,


There is NO way to fix this problem by just cutting.


The numbers dont add up you fucking fact adverse idiot.


That means the problem is predomenately a revenue problem.


I know facts mean nothing to the likes of you who frequent libertarian blogs.

Do you realise that the Austrian school is considered the short bus school of economics by all other schools of economics?

Really so your fine with ridiculous government spending, and being trillions in debt? Im not sure how you could say that the government clearly needs more money from us to spend. I dont see how you could look at all of the government programs out there, and say yea we need to spend millions more trying to get Chinese prostitutes to drink at little less on the Job. I think there is very clearly a need for spending reform.

I also agree that the bush tax cuts are just smoke and mirrors, because it doesn't really make a difference whether they stay or go. If they stay, nothing is going to change with the economy, if they go, we would be taking the equivalent of a lug-nut off a tractor trailer... if it actually works the way Democrats say it will. Our taxing on business's is what got us here in the first place. I dont know how you could look at it any other way.

What truth seeker is saying is that the government just needs more money. I think there is a revenue problem, but not in that sense. We need to change the way the government gets its revenue. By the way tard, I am not a libertarian, that should be pretty obvious if you actually listened to what my side believes, instead of strictly listening to what your side says about it.

Here what we should do, we should compare Texas and California, and see what practices are making its people better off.

 

[LAfrique]

Who wants or doesn't want it and why?

Most republicans want president Barack Obama to drive over the cliff. I however think only a very stupid person would want the president to drive the economy or anything over the cliff -

You see, if Barack Obama or any president crashes anything, you, too, would be affected. Therefore, it is wise and naturally logical (to a sane human, of course) to pray for God's guidance and the well being of the president.

 

[WillowTree]

Who wants or doesn't want it and why?

Most republicans want president Barack Obama to drive over the cliff. I however think only a very stupid person would want the president to drive the economy or anything over the cliff -

You see, if Barack Obama or any president crashes anything, you, too, would be affected. Therefore, it is wise and naturally logical (to a sane human, of course) to pray for God's guidance and the well being of the president.

He doesn't play nice in the sandbox.

 

[Spoonman]

Better question: Who put the cliff there?

No one ever asks that question.

This is a crisis that was manufactured by THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE FIGHTING ABOUT IT.

This is what happens when we constantly kicking the can down the road.

Now the can is too big to kick any further.

But good ol' Boehner is asking to kick it down the road for another year!

What a fucking asshole!

.

Who kicked it down the road for the first time in Obama's presidency? The left has demagogued the 'Bush tax cuts for the rich' ever since they've come about. So, let them expire, what's the problem, it's what the left has wanted for years now, right?

and what about the clinton tax cuts, which were even larger than the bush tax cuts?

 

[tjvh]

Who wants or doesn't want it and why?

Most republicans want president Barack Obama to drive over the cliff. I however think only a very stupid person would want the president to drive the economy or anything over the cliff -

You see, if Barack Obama or any president crashes anything, you, too, would be affected. Therefore, it is wise and naturally logical (to a sane human, of course) to pray for God's guidance and the well being of the president.

Nonsense... Why should people pray for the well being of those who are openly attempting to destroy their way of life? There will never come a day when I pray for a politician whose ideology is wrecking my own Country.