On Friday the White House announced that President Obama will veto any bill extending tax cuts for those making more than $250K.

read more here ...

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765615198/Obama-Americans-agree-with-my-approach-on-deficit.html

Nice

We are so porked...

I expected nothing less.. He's the Emperor, you see...

I never believed any of Hussein's BS about a new era of compromise, working together to solve the nation's problems, reaching across the aisle, blah, blah, blah ...

Nothing has changed.





edit: Something has changed. Hussein has the GOP by the nads and is emboldened with power.

Isn't it funny that "compromise" only works if it's the Repubs. that do the actual compromising?

Phouc Dim all

I say the R's need to vote "present" on every & all matters affecting the economy...some lessons are only learned the hard way...

The compromise will come in what size of increase, not if their is an increase. Obviously Obama wants to return those making over 250,000 to 39.6 percent, the republicans want to keep the the rate as is. It wouldn't be compromising if either party didn't move from their position.

Unfortunately the taxpayers position is "bent over".

Democracy is, in effect, dead in America now.

Not very hard to believe. We have seen his colors for 4 years. He will just get bolder.

Frankly, in return for the abysmal handling of F&F, Libya, and the election, the R's better jock up.

I hardly call the election a mandate, and they still have half the population to speak for.

Time to nut up - or let it all fail so we can get on with any crap before I'm too old to enjoy it.

Why do liberals always cry for 'bipartisanship' when they're in power, but fight against it in the nastiest way possible when they're in opposition?

The only reason to call it a fiscal cliff is to make people think that what will happen is terrible. The truth is that what will happen has to happen or the Feredral government will go bankrupt. Actually the Federal government is already bankrupt. They owe $16 trillion dollars and they have annual revenue of about $1.6 trillion. So they owe ten times what they earn annually. Any corporation or business would have declared bankruptcy a long time ago. Fourty percent (40%) of the Federal budget goes to paying the interest on the debt. Not paying on the principal mind you. Just to pay the interest. The debt keeps growing and the interest payments keep growing.

The truth is that we have to raise taxes on everyone and drastically lower expenditures so that we can start paying down the principal of the debt. If we don't do that then eventually the government will have to choose between paying interest and paying for essential programs. When they choose not to pay the interest then nobody will loan them any more money and they will be bankrupt. The value of U.S. currency will plummet and we won't be able to buy any foriegn products. When the world's largest consumer nation stops buying imported products because they are too expensive our trading partners go bankrupt because they are in the same situation as we are and they depend on cointinuing U.S. buying to keep their economies going. A world-wide depression will ensue that will make the 1930s look mild by comparison.

So it's not a fiscal cliff. It's what has to happen in order to survive financially. But I bet the sleezy politicians will come up with some gimmick to prolong the inevitable and avoid doing what has to be done from occuring automatically. They will claim it as a victory for bi-partisan compromise when actually they just continue to screw the Amercian public.

Actually they don't have to do anything. The tax increases (actually elimination of tax cuts) and reduction in expenditures will happen automatically if they do nothing and they can blame the other party. So the best thing that can happen is for grid-lock to continue.

KC

Gridlock the chit out of'm and starve the freeloaders out.

Kent

Damn right.

They have already taken for granted everything they have been given.

They need to get responsible with what they have and that is going to mean tough internal choices.

The R's better let � know he needs to fix "his" country with the status quo.

And if it can't be done, then I think it shows that the existing situation isn't tennable more than they need more money from the people.

honest sentiment but it won't just be the freeloaders that get starved out

gridlock or status quo will hurt good people

it cutting off your nose to prove a point

Repubs need to get serious about spending cuts. Until they do this is all theater anyways.

That's the premise of my post.

That's one of the reasons I was willing to support Romney.

He didn't need the Presidency, but he wanted it. And he was a businessman - not some puppet.

The government better get serious, both sides, about trimming their system, not finding more ways to sustain it.

And good people will get hurt. Hell they are already hurt. I'm hurting, friends are hurting, family is hurting.

But those hard choices need to be for everyone - not just the people, and as of yet, the government hasn't proved they are willing as a unit to make a sacrifice - unless its us on an alter.

Forgive the Old Testament innuendo.

Some of us have already went through the 'starved out' process with the construction bust... tighten your belt, pull on the boot straps, make yourself valuable in the market again. A lesson more will experience in the future.

My empathy equity for 'lifers' in the subsidy community has been depleted.

Kent

It's the perfect storm for surveyors.

Nobody buying, building, or selling.

And any of those shovel ready goobermint jobs, well, lets just say that a straight white male with no minority preference points has little chance on those.

Power

Truer words were never...

That minority bullschit is about to make me racist, our own company has to outsource surveying work to minority owned businesses in order to qualify for most public funded projects. Meanwhile I am laying off people in my department and cutting back hours. All because of a government mandate requiring the perpetuation of racism.

They'll kick the can down the road another 3 or 6 months.

Then both parties will fight to take credit for saving us from the abyss.

Nothing meaningful will be accomplished, nothing will change except the fact that we will go deeper and deeper in debt.

[bleep] 'em all.

Go back to being a gay Greek Spartan.

At one time you had that going for ya.

Add in an unwillingness to sell my soul to the Devil to join a union...

You got to admit, I look good.

I wonder about this. The Federal Reserve is already buying 70% of US Gov't bonds. What is to stop them from buying 100% of the Federal debt? They could keep this fiction going on for a long time.

wasn't Romney telling the country that he'd balance the budget in 8 years?

That isn't serious about spending cuts in my book - that is 7 years of deficit spending. (and telling me Obama would be worse is not an acceptable answer to this premise)

To balance the budget, you'd have to eliminate ALL SS, Medicare & Medicaid spending.
Even if you cut the Federal agencies 100%, we'd still have a deficit.

I'm not a big business man, nor a financial expert. I can only see things through my limited experience and that includes that continuing debt and extravagant luxuries don't last - and that is what the government is doing.

Hell, I don't care if Romney scuttled businesses to make a profit. Frankly, the best computer security expert I ever knew spent his college years hacking like hell. And the best trauma paramedic I knew (real well in fact) spent a number of years in the military killing people, so if Romney offered up a business solution, I trust him more than �bama.

But we have what we have, and no one in the government looks like the long term even exists, let alone being on the radar.

I'd like to see some numbers that put that in perspective

at any rate, the whole idea of "don't compromise" is just a platform position but it doesn't address the core issue

At the end of the day we're still on a path to see 20T in debt (or more) - it doesn't really matter if it happens in 2015 or 2017.

We're going to have to get spending in line with revenues.

Getting serious about it is going to mean some serious pain - and Romney being elected was like putting a band-aid on a compound fracture.

And ... leaving Hussein in charge is like amputating the limb rather than fix it.

http://youtu.be/EW5IdwltaAc

Basically, there is only one solution - unimaginable poverty in the USA.

No one can balance a budget on a depleting treasury. The production of wealth and profit in an economy produces an increasing treasury... that means business profitability and jobs, you can either tax a smaller profit more or tax a larger profit less to get to the same point... continuing to eat bigger pieces of a dwindling pie will have everyone starving eventually.

Kent

I agree except that we don't necessarily have to start paying on the principal - we just have to stop borrowing. If Congress was to balance the budget, we could let inflation take care of the principal over the next two or three generations. You did nail the problem, especially about how much we spend on interest and how that is crippling.

either way we had two guys telling us they plan on 4 more years of deficit spending against the largest deficit we've ever had when we can least afford it. Sure, Romney probably would have been less overall but significantly different? How much do you want to believe after watching the last 12 years unfold?

Not trying to highjack the thread or even offer an argument but I have a question: What exactly would compromise on this issue look like?

I'm not sure that there is that much common ground to be had. One side wants higher revenue and the other wants to keep taxes stable or even reduce them while slashing spending.

Where is a possible compromise position to be had?

Will

If Romney could have decreased regulatory restrictions on businesses that 'produce' product for profit, which would increase service industries, increasing wealth in the economy. Then the only question would be haw fast can we build wealth and reverse spending deficits.

Kent

There's not... one side wants to reduce wealth and increase spending... the other at least states it wants to increase wealth and reduce spending.

Kent

Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Revenue:

For the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget, the U.S. Federal government received $2.469 trillion in revenue. Income taxes contributed 47.2%, Social Security and Medicare taxes were 31.4%, corporate taxes were 9.6%, and the remaining 11.8% was to come from excise taxes, estate taxes and other miscellaneous sources. Here's the actual breakdown of tax amounts:

Income - $1.165 trillion.
Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes - $775 billion.
Corporate - $237 billion.
All other - $292 billion.

FY 2012 Budget Spending:

Spending came in at $3.793 trillion, more than the $3.7 trillion originally budgeted. Over half went towards Mandatory programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Military Retirement programs. These expenditures are mandated by law, and cannot be changed without an act from Congress. $225 billion, or 5.9% of spending, was budgeted for interest payments on the national debt.

FY 2012 Mandatory Spending:

Mandatory spending was budgeted at $2.252 trillion, or 56% of the U.S. Federal budget. (now re-read this - the U.S. Federal government received $2.469 trillion in revenue.)

It included Social Security ($773 billion), and Medicare and Medicaid ($733 billion combined). Proposals enacted under the Economic Stimulus Act added $35 billion.(Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, FY 2013 Budget Summary Table S-5)

Making the tax cuts permanent, and reducing spending to balance the budget. That would be a compromise - and one that would get bipartisan support.

In 2006 revenue was 2.4 trillion and 58% was from income vs 47% in 2012.

Kent

Some tax reform package or agreements in principle will be put in place.

For Fiscal Year 2006, the Federal government received $2.407 trillion in revenue

For Fiscal Year 2007, the Federal government received $2.568 trillion in revenue.

The U.S. FY 2008 Budget, prepared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), predicted revenue would come in at $2.662 trillion. It actually received less, at $2.524 trillion in revenue.


2009 2.1 trillion
2010 2.165 trillion
2011 2.303 trillion

tax revenue is back to pre-crash levels. Of course with normal growth it should be around 3.1 trillion

If Reid, and Obama were to reach out with this type of proposal, Boehner, and the congress would accept it.

Compromise, bipartisanship, and avoiding the fiscal cliff in this scenario.

There will be no spending cuts that the Dems won't be able to renig on in the out years. That's why the deal failed the last time. Boehner wanted more up-front so they wouldn't magically disappear as they did in previous deals where Bush and even Reagan got blamed for the increases.

Obama said now is not the time to worry about these things. That is all - argument over.

The decreasing percentage from income is what reflects business and employment trends, which reflect wealth in the economy. Increase employment back to 58% in 2012, we would be much closer to a balanced budget.

Kent

Hopefully making the current rates permanent?

That, would be a compromise.

Some sort of tax increase. Of course, they can never raise taxes enough to avoid the inevitable crash.

I agree just vote present ,let him own the upcoming disaster.

The Rs are being set up to lose in 2014. If they don't give in they will be painted as obstructionst and blamed for all of the economic problems. If the give in they will lose their base support. Why donate and work for candidates that vote with the dims?
As long as the media is in bed with the left the right can not efectively get out its message, and the left can frame the argument.

Ernie

Seems to me that neither side wants to do what needs to be done to even slow the bus down.

Some think taxes need to be raised but without cutting back on the amount that is spent.

As for the Fed buying 100% of the debt,sounds like the old check kiting scheme to me.

They could let everyone in the US put something in the pot then slow down the increase in the rise of monies spent by all of these depts then slowly the debt would decrease.

The dems have already said they will not put any decrease's in the near years because they would look like they don't care about their base.

Make everybody pay at least 2% of their annual income in federal income tax - regardless of any deductions or credits, so that everybody pays at least 2 cents on every dollar in income in federal income tax. That would raise at least $65 billion (probably more because I based that number on the number of households not paying any federal income tax and assumed that the average income of those households is $25,000 - both of which are conservatively low in terms of the amount of tax revenue that would be generated). Reduce spending, too, and we would be a lot closer to stopping the borrowing that we can't afford.

Might also consider adding a 1% national sales tax on purchases across the country. That would generate another $112 billion in tax revenues, give or take. That's $177 billion from making sure that everybody pays at least 2% of their income in federal income tax and implementing a 1% national sales tax.

Furthermore, you tie any hope of illegals getting a path to legal residency or citizenship to paying income tax (as one component of the requirements).

We are -300 billion in income tax revenues this year than from 2006... we are +150 billion in social welfare programs spending (excluding SS) much directly related to unemployment rates... we are + 100 billion in illegal immigrant spending. We need to reduce the first two trends with by unhampering business/job growth and whittle away at the third best we can.

550 billion on the table in one year, start cut backs on federal agencies that duplicate state responsibilities...

tax surges will happen with prosperity, not increasing rates until there is no one working except .gov

Kent

Let him veto it when they get hungry enough they might have a change of heart if not they just ran out of other peoples money. That's my take.

Anybody want to bet that Obama will ever cut spending?

I belive that he will continue to spend money faster than it can be printed.

His intention for not extending the tax cuts have nothing to do with reducing debt.

He has no plan that is visisble to do so it's tax and spend full speed ahead damn the torpedeos.

A 1% sales tax would quickly grow to 10% with no cuts anywhere.

But say that would be just a sales tax for the rich right?

But say there isn't anything quite as rich as when the see the expression on a turds face as the hook is set.