If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Congressional Budget Office: "Fiscal cliff" caused by the Congress, and the Administration, is worse for the economy than we thought   (reuters.com) divider line 8
    More: Fail, Congressional Budget Office, Medicare and Medicaid  
•       •       •

1155 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Aug 2012 at 1:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-22 12:30:04 PM
3 votes:
Obama offered the Rethuglicans a 10 to 1 deal. For each tax increase, he would offset it would ten spending cuts.

They rejected it out of hand, drove the country to the brink and the result was a lowered credit rating and a near default on our obligations.

Fark the GOP.

Today's GOP is the greatest threat the United States has ever faced.
2012-08-22 02:48:02 PM
1 votes:

karnal: johnryan51

Why are we broke? Romney paid his 13%


His 13 percent is more than you will pay in a life time.


Bullshiat, karnal.

My 15+ percent costs me more period than Mitt Romney's 13 percent costs him in disposable income. I'm sure Mitty can spare another million or two than middle class and the poor can afford another thousand or two.
2012-08-22 02:29:10 PM
1 votes:

johnryan51: karnal: johnryan51

Why are we broke? Romney paid his 13%


His 13 percent is more than you will pay in a life time.

Oh he's rich so its ok. I'll just sit here and wait for the crumbs to fall from the 1% table. I'll pay my 30% because I won't make as much as him in my lifetime. No wonder the country is going to hell with nitwits like you.


Have we forgotten that Kerry paid an even lower tax rate than Romney when he had to release his tax returns during his run for the White House?

It's almost as if the obscenely wealthy have managed to rig the system so that they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes.
2012-08-22 02:24:08 PM
1 votes:

karnal: johnryan51

Why are we broke? Romney paid his 13%


His 13 percent is more than you will pay in a life time.


Oh he's rich so its ok. I'll just sit here and wait for the crumbs to fall from the 1% table. I'll pay my 30% because I won't make as much as him in my lifetime. No wonder the country is going to hell with nitwits like you.
2012-08-22 02:14:46 PM
1 votes:
You mean austerity measures are bad? But I was told we have a spending problem...
2012-08-22 01:05:27 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: I don't have a clue how to stop this train.


Although there are still some rank and file Dems, especially in the House, who care about people who aren't rich, as a whole we have a choice between the Republicans and the other Republicans when it comes to serving the interests of the obscenely wealthy.

Just look at the results of President Obama's bipartisan Debt Commission which released it's report right before the last lame duck Congress went into session.

Big shock. They wanted to cut taxes yet farther for the rich, disallow the most useful tax deductions for the middle class and slice the hell out of the social safety net programs for the poor. Mind you, that was the bipartisan consensus.

How, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?

Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases - tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans - the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest - and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.

It will take time to crunch the numbers here, but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans. And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?

Let's turn next to Social Security. There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that's what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?

The answer is no, for a number of reasons - including the point that working until you're 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.

But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: while average life expectancy is indeed rising, it's doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers live to a ripe old age.


Just remember how popular talk of cutting Social Security was the last time a lame duck Congress was in session.

Both parties want to cut taxes for the rich and screw over everyone else. They just don't want to be held responsible for their actions, so they look for excuses like the "fiscal cliff" and then try to pass the legislation after the elections are safely past.
2012-08-22 12:10:11 PM
1 votes:
Why I'm sure this means that they will "have no choice" but to renew all the tax cuts for the rich yet again. Darn. They didn't want to do that sooooo bad.

Former President Bill Clinton told CNBC Tuesday that the US economy already is in a recession and urged Congress to extend all the tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year.

"What I think we need to do is find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now, and then deal with what's necessary in the long term debt-reduction plans as soon as they can, which presumably would be after the election," Clinton said.
 

Bill Clinton already spilled this year's excuse for extending tax cuts for the rich back at the beginning of June.

Then he very petulantly admitted that he screwed up by letting this bipartisan excuse for extending tax cuts for the rich slip before the election.

"I'm very sorry about what happened," Clinton said in an interview to air on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer." "I thought something had to be done on the 'fiscal cliff' before the election. Apparently nothing has to be done until the first of the year."

As far as the whole concept of the "fiscal cliff" goes. Our fiscal cliff is caused by the tax cuts. Extending the tax cuts will not fix them.

The term "fiscal cliff" sounds scary and implies a situation in which the budget deficit will dramatically worsen if no one intervenes. But the undeniable fact is it would dramatically improve if Congress simply does nothing - and stops extending the tax cuts!

In fact, the CBO has published yet another report indicating that the federal budget deficit would stabilize if not for the budget-busting legislation that most observers expect Congress to enact when it extends all kinds of tax breaks into 2013. And the report confirms that the measure that would add the most to the deficit would be an extension of the Bush tax cuts.
2012-08-22 12:01:55 PM
1 votes:
Arbitrarily cutting government spending 10% across the board has negative consequences?

You don't say.
 
Displayed 8 of 8 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report