At edge of fiscal cliff, most say they’re not afraid
December 28, 2012 at 6:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Dick Laumeyer hasn’t figured out exactly what the looming fiscal cliff could mean for him and his wife, because he is confident an agreement will be reached by Monday’s deadline.
Continue Reading
How can returning to the tax rates under Clinton be a bad thing, right? Going over the cliff isn’t a worst case scenario – it’s the only scenario available, for to do nothing would be shear madness! What Congressman ever won by saying he would raise taxes? None, so it’s over the cliff we go and 2013 will be spent playing the blame game. By the time 2014 elections roll up we will all be the forgetful fool and elect the same bozos and policies that got us into this mess.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
20
I’d like to see everyone that gets a regular paycheck to keep a pay stub from 2012 and one from after the push from the cliff in 2013 and keep them in a safe place. Don’t waste your time in 2013 playing the blame game (that’s a no win situation), just love your family and neighbors, maybe treat yourself because there’s really nothing you can do. Then when the 2014 calendars come out tape the stubs to the first Tuesday in November as a reminder to ask yourself “would I rather have my current reduced pay and more government spending that I likely receive no direct benefit from OR would I rather revert to the increased pay I was bringing home in 2012 and have the government massively reduce its spending”? Listen to every candidate, research what the incumbent did, and the choice should be amazingly clear. It really is that easy – this Republican/Democrat thing is getting quite old, don’t ya think?
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
14
How else do you think they get away with some of the shenanigans they pull?
They pit us against each other, they bring hot-button issues like Abortion to the forefront of the battle with no intent on actually passing legislation one way or another. All while they lie in the background passing legislation that actually affects each and every one of us.
I can’t fault them all. Many of them get in to politics because they really want to make a difference. Then they get into the system and become disenfranchised with the whole deal and eventually become one of “them”.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
From the latest information, the social security payroll tax break will not be extended and that affects just about everyone who works for a paycheck. As to the farm bill, that is going nowhere. If they reach some compromise, that will increase the debt and deficit. I would prefer to fall off the cliff, make the mandatory spending cuts and return taxes to the rates we had in 2000. Isn’t that the ultimate plan, to cut spending and reduce the deficit?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
23 
33
Most people have no idea what the fiscal cliff is. Just like lots of people voted for Obama because he has a nice smile.
Low information voters are growing like a cancer in America.
Hot debate. What do you think?
57 
47
Most people have no idea that the tax cuts passed in 2003 by a republican house, republican senate and signed by a republican president were supposed to expire on Jan 1, 2013. That is a major part of the cliff and I am waiting to see if the Republicans keep their promise.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
22
Low information voter partisan fish on!
Fisherperson, the so-called Bush tax cuts were extended by a Dem majority House, Dem majority Senate, and Dem President on December 16, 2010 in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. The Dems are responsible for extending the Bush tax cuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Relief,_Unemployment_Insurance_Reauthorization,_and_Job_Creation_Act_of_2010
Hot debate. What do you think?
39 
26
Partial information half truth partisan fish on. yes, the bill passed the House to extend the Bush tax cuts with republicans voting in favor of the extension (138 to 36) and democrats almost even (139 to 112). http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll647.xml
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
24
DFL- The Bush tax cuts were extended because the Repubs stonewalled and refused to give anything in what Obama wanted in helping economy. Extending the tax cuts became the Repubs big issue to defend even despite they were throwing the unemployed and others under the bus to defend them so Obama had no choice to protect everyone else but to give them the extension they wanted to get the help needed to others suffering. Nothing was going to get passed if he didn’t concede on extension, so Obama may have signed it but was under duress from Repubs.
Get it straight…not twisted. Let’s not forget these tax cuts were on promise by Repubs would create jobs, spur the economy and lower the deficit. Bush had worst job creation record since WWII, the economy tanked, we lost over 1.5 trillion in revenue and the highest deficit in budget in our history. Since Reagan that’s the only thing these tax cuts do, is cut revenue which with less revenue increases the deficit and 35 years later Repubs still haven’t figured that out.
“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true. ”
Bertrand Russell
Hot debate. What do you think?
31 
28
My mistake, they were supposed to expire in 2011.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
18
Or like the people that voted for crazy Michelle Bachmann because she talks to God? Or like the people that voted for Mitt Romney because he was the “white guy”?
Hot debate. What do you think?
34 
37
Well let’s start with people calling it the “fiscal cliff”. That name was created by people that wanted the masses to fear the day when the Bush tax cuts expire.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
9
Fed Reserve Pres Bernanke coined the term “fiscal cliff” and then went out to print more money to buy up Treasury notes.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
It’s not the low information voter I’m worried about, it’s the no information voter that is an embarassment to themselves and this country.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
12
The low information voter… like the single issue voter? Like the only-vote-because-my-church-tells-me-to voter? I fully agree. As for the other “informed” voters… just because you bombard yourself with commercial media which fuels a commercially driven discussion, none of which ever addresses any of the real problems this world is faced with, doesn’t mean your views are in any way legitimate. You can be informed in palm reading, tarot cards, and witchcraft too… doesn’t mean any of that information makes you a better citizen.
Like or Dislike:
14 
8
The fiscal cliff is nothing compared to what is economically to come. This problem dates back decades with severe deficit spending all but a few years. You borrow money….you eventually have to pay it back. Putting band-aids on a severed artery only works for so long…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
56 
10
Correct in part, so why are Republicans unwilling to let the tax cuts they passed in 2001 and 2003 expire after 10 years like they promised in 2003?
Hot debate. What do you think?
29 
22
because the democrats insisted on it or they wouldn’t agree to them.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
17
And who is in charge of the house since 2010? The Dems are the minority, try again.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
13
democrats did not want the bush ‘tax cuts’ permanant so the only way the bill could get passed was to put a 10 year sunset clause on. democrats controlled the senate, house and presidency for 2 years and did NOTHING to address the issue.
Like or Dislike:
14 
14
Actually, its a bit more complicated than that the Dems did not want it. The Bush administration passed both bills as budget reconciliation measures (which cannot filibustered). But, in order for them to be considered simple reconciliation measures they have to be considered revenue neutral into the future, which in the Washington world means that it does not last perhaps a fairly long term (10 years in this case). Unfortunately, the 10 years of tax cuts and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars account for roughly half of the current debt (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/bush-tax-cuts-debt_n_864812.html) — though some of that is, as noted by others, on the Obama administration because they did not let the tax cuts expire and continue the war in Afghanistan. Still while GW did almost double the debt over his 8 years (89% as % of GDP) and President Obama had a high rate for his first 4 years (41%, though the rate is slowing quickly now, so he won’t come close to Bush), neither can touch Ronald Reagan for creating debt (188% increase over his 8 years). http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
As to the notion that the Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency for 2 years, its actually factually wrong. To successfully control the Senate you need 60 votes in the Senate. Due to various things the Dems only had 58 or 59 votes for most of those 2 years (Arlen Specter had to change parties, then Al Franken was only sworn in on July 7 of 2009, then Sen Byrd passed and a replacement had to be named, then Sen Kennedy passed and a replacement had to be named, and then Scott Brown won election and was sworn in on February 4 of 2010, thus running out the last 11 months of the filibuster-proof majority). As it turned out, the Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency for just less than 6 months over the period from July 7 of 2009 to February 4 of 2010. That was it. If it *had* been two years then yes, some of these other issues would likely have been resolved. Unfortunately, with the time they had they were only able to do healthcare and a tepid stimulus, leaving us with a weak recovery.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
I am not sure why anyone would want the existing tax cut related to the reduction in Social Security taxes to continue. That money is coming right out of the future pockets of those who will need it to retire. And the argument that “Social Security/Medicare may not be there in the future” for many of us just doesn’t hold water. The trust fund monies are now being affected, and the accounts of every working person who might draw payments when eligible are being reduced.
I can’t believe people are not up in arms about this politically-based fact twisting being foisted upon them. I also can’t believe our elected representatives aren’t talking more openly about this, and the media providing better education about what is really going to impact us in the future as we approach retirement.
There are other ways to save money for elder folks in the programs they may come to depend upon: Allow Medicare/Medicaid to competiively bid drug pricing like the VA; raise the SS wage tax applicability cutoff; cut the waste, overcharging and outright theft from the programs; and start vigorously prosecuting those individuals, doctors and hospitals who abuse the system. People’s health issues are about reasonable levels of profitabilty for the healthcare industry, not greed, outrageous compensation and undue focus on stock price growth
As for the rest of the excessive pork in our federal budget, cut it out for good and work on readjusting our economy to more realistically reflect job and economic growth where it is truly beneficial to us all—and for the right reasons. This shipping of jobs and production out of the country for a buck more in profits doesn’t work for us. We are an advanced society, with the attendant overhead associated with the benefits we have worked so hard for and which we all should enjoy. We cannot compete with third-world countries that do not have decent standards of living, health care, transportation and utilities infrastructure, clean water and air, reasonable systems of law and human decency, and all the other attendant overhead costs a modern society has to incur.
I agree with Warren Buffet: if our politicians cannot run this country for the benefit of its people (and the ultimate benefit of the all the rest of the people in the world), and within a reasonable budget every year, throw them out! I don’t care if they be Democrats or Republicans or Independents or whatever.
How did we, the voting public, ever allow things to get this twisted?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
12
Actually, as part of the bill that included the reduction in payroll taxes there was an accounting note that the corresponding amount of money would be transferred from the general fund into the trust funds. Thus the cut really was a discretionary cut rather than one affecting the SS or Medicare trust funds.
The payroll tax was simply a convenient way to do the distribution of money in a way that people would not pay down debt with. This gets back to the theory of how to do basic stimulus, which economists still discuss. With their stimulus the Bushies tried the notion of sending people big checks and the economic effects were pretty bad (people mostly paid down debt). The idea behind a stimulus is to get people to buy, thus the dollars go to other people and increase the impact of the money. The idea behind cutting the payroll tax was that people would see a small amount in each paycheck and spend that money, thus goosing the economy. There are a lot of research papers about how to do stimulus talking about how much an impact you can get from each dollar.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Let’s go over the fiscal cliff. There will NEVER be spending cuts otherwise. All those who voted for Obama and all his giveaway programs can now enjoy the tax increases that will be necessary to pay for them.
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
29
Which giveaway programs?
Social Security and Medicare came before Pres. Obama (though he does want to keep them, is that what you mean)?
Obamacare’s effect is tricky to estimate, the government will have to spend more (1.7 trillion over 10 years), but the rest of us with insurance will not be paying for the uninsured nearly as much (emergency rooms have to pay for people regardless of their ability to pay — they pass on the costs to the rest of us — have you ever wondered why simple medicines cost so much in a hospital). The cost of universal healthcare would drop if we went to Medicare for all, but that will likely take a while.
The president has resisted reducing the defense budget and kept the war going in Afghanistan. As defense is the largest portion of the federal budget (25%) and 60% of discretionary spending, maybe this is what you mean. Clearly much of our defense spending is a big jobs program for defense contractors, thus a huge giveaway. Certainly, you can bang on the president for not cutting that.
Anything else??
Like or Dislike:
10 
9
And, let’s please cut this misinformation about “Obamacare”: I do some consulting work in the healthcare industry, and the efforts of the current administration in that area will be beneficial to all. Also, members of my family work in the health insurance industry, and their tales of waste, fraud and theft by doctors, hospitals and providers make me sick to my stomach. It’s not many, but there are enough of these abusers and crooks to significantly reduce the system’s ability to provide quality care to all.
My god, the $700+ billion claimed by the Republican party to be taken from beneficiaries of Medicare/Medicaid was the the biggest distortion of fact in the election. Yes, it was taken from the programs, but was used to provide basic coverage under “Obamacare” for millions who may have had access to none before, and those folks were an seriously expensive uninsured burden on us all.
And, more to the point, the $700+ billion was cut based upon the concensus of a panel of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and administrators who all agreed upon the fundamental reasoning for doing so: waste, overbilling and the like. Not one existing benefit was cut for any recipient on the programs.
Talk about the need for honest education and decent news media investigative reporting, the problem is prettyl evident in the way the last election was conducted. This includes one major issue I am upset with the Obama administration about: identifying why more of the members of the financial industry are not out of jobs and/or in jail. I can’t understand, for example, why we expend so much effort and money to put a person in jail for carrying some small portion of drugs, but let these thieves of millions walk away scott-free. Meanwhile, many of their victims have lost everything.
Some of the folks on this forum, regardless of party or philosophical affiliation, clearly need to get off their partisan bandwagons and learn the facts. Then, let’s all focus our energies on making this society better for all of us!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
23
How about cutting the waste that you claim and leaving the federal goverment out of the health care industry all together (where it has no business being in) ???
Hot debate. What do you think?
30 
31
Private US for profit health insurance administration costs: 20%
Medicare and VA non-profit government run healthcare administration costs: 3%
Looks like the government has a huge claim to being the better choice for healthcare.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
15
Mark B. posted “My god, the $700+ billion claimed by the Republican party to be taken from beneficiaries of Medicare/Medicaid was the the biggest distortion of fact in the election. Yes, it was taken from the programs, but was used to provide basic coverage under “Obamacare” for millions who may have had access to none before, and those folks were an seriously expensive uninsured burden on us all.”
You state it was a distortion, then agree it was taken out to provide coverage , “not for those under Medicard/Medicaid”(sorry the money was taken from Medicare, Medicaid has a complely different source of funding), but will be used for those who will be given subsidized premiums for health insurance coverage is more the explanation.
If you were involved in the healthcare field as you say you were, you should know by now — NO ONE, NO ONE, can be denied access to health care. Its law.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
bobk: “If you were involved in the healthcare field as you say you were, you should know by now — NO ONE, NO ONE, can be denied access to health care. Its law.”
Thats not really fair. People cannot be denied care in emergency rooms if they have a condition which requires treatment (Mitt Romney famously suggested this as universal healthcare access). Unfortunately, if you have a chronic condition (diabetes, early stages of cancer, etc.) emergency rooms are only required to stabilize you before releasing you. There are various programs that help in obtaining medications, etc., but the estimate is that 45,000 people die in the US each year from lack of health insurance. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917
Now, if you are saying that no one can be denied a chance to purchase healthcare, starting one year from tomorrow, you will be correct.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
RickM, you seem to be confused. I was refuting your statement of people being denied access to healthcare. You turn around making a statement of “that 45,000 people die in the US each year from lack of health insurance.” has nothing to do with access to healthcare. There are many programs out there which subsidize health premiums but you have to makle the effort to make yourself available to join them. What the ACA will be doing is taking the Medicare money and subsidizing those who will now be required to enroll in health insurance plans. Lack of health insurance causing lack of health care access is nothing but a liberal scare tactic for low information voters.
As far as you comment of diabetes, chronic illnesse, if they are advanced after treatment in the ER and require hospitalization, they will be admitted – period. Unless you want to bring up the example of one Chicago hospital who transferred the patients(referred to as patient dumping), after ER treatment, off to another hospital or to other clinics and happens quite frequently in larger metro areas..
Like or Dislike:
3 
11
I did not mean to suggest that it is not possible to find ways to obtain healthcare (in most cases, but alas, not all), but it is not easy, and as many folks have commented (lots of them doctors and other healthcare professionals), it often takes someone with knowledge of the system (often social workers) to find the resources available in your area.
My comment with regards to chronic illnesses is that emergency rooms are not responsible for helping people manage chronic illnesses such as diabetes (they do not, for example, obtain your insulin and make sure you take it). They will get you in balance and even develop a plan for you as best they can (in most cases), but that is not what I am talking about. Again, some private programs exist to help out patients, but they are very hard to manage, and many of the folks affected are the least able to cope (groups such as veterans dealing with mental illness).
As to the notion that just one hospital from Chicago dumps patients, apparently you haven’t followed the news for many, many years. Stories about dumping reappear at least once a month in different locations. The most famous are the ones about Los Angeles hospitals dumping patients to the perhaps the most famous Skid Row in the country. You can watch a sample story about it at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-2823079.html . I think the stories about LA have gotten a lot of press because the have video. But it occurs in all major cities.
No one who has ever spent time working in a large public hospital in a urban area ever suggests that we have universal coverage. I understand your point that we have emergency medicine for everyone. But here’s my problems with that approach: 1) emergency medicine is extremely expensive and relatively ineffective (for example, by the time diabetes becomes an ER problem it has started to cause damage that lead to more health care problems which lead to more healthcare needs) and 2) its not like the rest of us don’t end up paying for it anyways (the lost revenue is made up by overcharging paying customers). The only positive (from a money point of view) is that lots of poor people with chronic illnesses die quickly, thus reducing costs.
Add to the problems with the current system that healthcare costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy and that small businesses regularly struggle to compete with large businesses when offering healthcare and the only conclusion is simple:
Yes, we have a form of universal healthcare coverage, and it is the worst coverage we could achieve for the most money.
Want to disagree? According to statistics from WHO, OECD and my favorite, the CIA, the US spends by far the largest percentage of its GDP on healthcare (17.4% according to OECD, with the next closest being the Netherlands at 12%, 15.2% according to WHO with Nauru at 14%, Timor at 13.9, etc.). And what do we get for it: the US is tied for 29th in Life Expectancy, 51st in infant mortality, etc. This system is broken, and needs a fix. And we could save a *lot* of money by going to a national plan like Medicare for all.
If you google “sick around the world” you can find an excellent documentary on the topic of how to deliver healthcare.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
Going over the fiscal cliff is not only lawmakers ineptness but the voters of America too. Ask anybody 30 or younger and they couldn’t tell you what the deficit number is right now, but they will, when milk goes to $8 a gallon, their paycheck is smaller and everything cost way more to do. We are now at a crossroads, stop spending money we don’t have,fix entitlements and the tax rates or end up like Greece with people losing their jobs and their pensions. This country is more divided than Civil War times and that can’t be good for the country. I don’t trust the government with my money anymore. I don’t trust the people of America to understand what is really at stake. We are going over and I am worried.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
14
Obama ran and won on a platform clearly stating we should extend the tax cuts only for individuals making less than $250,000.00 a year. If the Republicans block this they are clearly going against the will of the majority of Americans. Simple as that. Called representation.
The beauty of the Presidents position is the so called “fiscal cliff”, because if no deal is reached the rich will lose their tax cuts anyway and there is nothing their bought and paid for Repub reps can do about it!
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
26
House of Representatives was clearly won by the republicans that campaigned against raising of anybody’s taxes and we wouldn’t be in this position had Harry Reid and the senate democrats followed the consitutiton and passed budgets as by law they’re supposed to do; won’t even allow Obama’s budget to be voted on and won’t submit their own.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
25
The democrats demonized the Bush tax cuts as benefiting only the rich. Now they are defending them as being essential to the middle class and recovery. Which is a lie, one of them is?
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
20
The redistricting of 2010 after the Tea Party surge has allowed republicans to gain power without having to actually gain the votes. The overall will of the people was expressed by the presidential election which wasn’t effected by this ridiculous redistricting.
Another clear example of how the rich rig the system to gain an unfair share or advantage. The spirit of our founding is completely disregarded here making the words of our constitution ring hollow.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
23
Please. Redistricting happens every ten years regardless of which party controls the state legislature. It wasn’t a Republican or Democrat scheme. They both participated and they’ll do it again in 2020.
Like or Dislike:
17 
11
Most redistricting is done by the state legislature with veto power for the Governor. If one party is in control of these offices, they have control of the process. So I would say PLEASE pay more attention. There are many ways that your voice is silenced.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-republicans-bought-the-election-2012-12
Like or Dislike:
14 
14
1 million more Americans voted Democrat for the House of Representatives yet because the way the district lines are drawn the Republicans have a large majority. That is where we lose our status as a representational democracy.
Like or Dislike:
15 
13
And Mark Dayton is the governor. Last I heard, he was DFL. If he has veto power and you’re not happy with the redistricting results, how is it a Republican grand conspiracy?
Like or Dislike:
15 
11
middleman,yes Obama won but so did all the house members whose constituients want them do be fiscally responsible. They are not going to throw away their principals just because we have a President that won’t offer a budget or work to pass one. The President is a politician, the members of the House are statesman like Washington and Jefferson. I don’t think you know the difference.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
23
Those house members were elected because of the redistricting done by the repubs in 2010. It is something that needs to be changed, in my opinion. The house members don’t truly represent the majority of Americans as they are there because of a rigged system. There are those in that same party that would see the system extended to the presidential election. I am against this because I just want fairness. Most people want tax cuts ended for those making over 250k and extended for the rest. Makes sense because it would benefit most of us. So those representing the rich figure out old tricks like redistricting to gain an advantage that public opinion wouldn’t support.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
24
Ok I got a lot of thumbs down even though what I said is true. Here is an example from our lovely neighbor:
5 out of 8 Wisconsin house seats went to Repubs. That is 62.5%. 45.9% of Wisconsinites voted for Romney. That is a gain of 16.6% over a true representation of the voter’s will.
Meanwhile 3 out of 8 seats went to democrats. 37.5% while 52.8% voted for Obama. A loss of 15.3%.
Ok the flaw with this reasoning is not everybody votes the party line and some may prefer, say, Obama for president, but a particular Repub rep for their house rep. I get it. That doesn’t change my belief that it is a flawed system. When the Repubs swept so many seats on the fluke chance it was time for the every ten years redistricting, they got the chance to draw the districts to their advantage. How does this seem like it lends itself in anyway to a representative democracy? All I want is a fair system. Every vote counting the same. If we had that I would not complain.
Another example is Virginia:
8 of 11 house seats went to Repubs for 72.7%. 47.3 voted for Romney a gain of 25.4%.
3 of 11 seats went to Dems for 27.3%. 51.2% voted for Obama a loss of 23.9%
Ohio is worse:
12 of 16 seats went to Repubs for 75%. 47.7% voted for Romney a gain of 27.3%.
4 of 16 seats went to Dems for 25%. 50.7% voted for Obama a loss of 25.7%.
The list goes on and on. We are not represented.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
15
Of course the year when the Repubs swept so many seats was 2010. The redistricting year.
Like or Dislike:
15 
14
Republicans didn’t take control of the legislature until January of 2011. And though I’m not sure I want to know, how does your brain turn the 2010 election results into some grand Republican conspiracy tied to redistricting? (By the way, the legislature and Dayton couldn’t agree on a redistricting plan, so the state Supreme Court, hardly a group of conservatives, set up a panel that did it. This year. Not in 2010.)
Like or Dislike:
15 
10
You are trying to discredit me because you say my dates are off? Our Gov is a democrat? Look there is no conspiracy. If the Dems have a state they will try to do the same thing. Here in Minnesota we have 4 Dem reps and 4 Repub reps. That is what it should be. We are represented. What I am saying is there are many states where this is not true as I have illustrated and there are more states that I did not mention. This bring us to the total of 1 million more Americans voting Democratic for the house with the result a large Repub majority in that house. I consider it a flawed system. The election of 2010 and redistricting of 2010 contributed to this outcome. These are facts. The dates are correct. Your argument is weak.
Give it a rest.
Like or Dislike:
8 
13
Maybe Wisconsin in more Republican than you think. Lets look at the election of Scott Walker, and in his during a recall.
Like or Dislike:
18 
11
62.5% did not vote for Walker. You helped make my point.
Like or Dislike:
6 
14
Oh and Polly, a vote for Obama when he clearly stated his views is a vote for those views regardless of anything else. He then has the mandate to raise taxes on the rich. If it doesn’t happen it is just politics and the people’s voice ignored.
Like or Dislike:
12 
14
It is fine going off the cliff, just as Obama ordered a pay increase for members of Congress, Biden, and federal workers. Brilliant!!!!
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
15
The wage freeze was first implemented by the President. In 2009 the Average Wage dropped, but has risen by over 2% in 2010 and by 3% in 2011. Keeping federal wages frozen was not a permanent option.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Yes they are getting raises however its also because of the pay freeze. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will see his salary increased to $224,500 and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will take home an annual pay of $194,400 after his raise.Biden’s pay will increase from $225,521 to $231,900 a year..
Like or Dislike:
9 
7
People are unafraid because they choose to be ignorant of Obumma’s fiscal irresponsibility!
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
20
Yet Once again the fear peddlers are able to manipulate everyone’s fear to get their way. Just because economics has multiple vowels in it doesn’t mean it’s that complex folks.
Below is link to article by Paul Krugman who not only is a Nobel Prize Economist, head of economics at Princeton but has been spot on since followed him for 10 years. He predicted the meltdown years before happened, even warned Bush years and in advance with petition signed by 450 world economists to no avail. I would suggest with all the fear mongering over this that if interested in what this really means, to read whole article. I’ve only put up the last two paragraphs…
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/krugman-fighting-fiscal-phantoms.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&
“So let’s step back for a minute, and consider what’s going on here. For years, deficit scolds have held Washington in thrall with warnings of an imminent debt crisis, even though investors, who continue to buy U.S. bonds, clearly believe that such a crisis won’t happen; economic analysis says that such a crisis can’t happen; and the historical record shows no examples bearing any resemblance to our current situation in which such a crisis actually did happen.
If you ask me, it’s time for Washington to stop worrying about this phantom menace — and to stop listening to the people who have been peddling this scare story in an attempt to get their way. ”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Knowledge makes one unfit to be a slave”…Plato
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
17
Princeton Nobel prizer winner published in the NY Times, well shoot – everything he must say must be right, right? At least your giving your sources credit this time; I hope it’s a New Year resolution.
Look people, it’s not that hard to understand – our government borrows 40+% of what it spends. That means the solution must include a combination of options with big type of painful sizable numbers, otherwise it isn’t a solution. I haven’t read any proposal yet that exceeds a 20% reduction of our problems, which means they aren’t anywhere close to having a solution! You and your family could never survive with such a financial strategy, neither could your local, county, or state government continue under such outrageous circumstances. So why, oh why, would anyone believe that our country will be fine even though all the parts that make up the whole simiply cannot survive under the same conditions. It cannot!
Like or Dislike:
13 
10
I value Krugman’s Nobel Prize much like Obama’s Nobel Peace prize. Something to put upon the wall but nothing to back it up. If what you say is true, then why didn’t the Dems practice what Krugman was preaching and predicting rather than getting us into the current predicament we are in? Princeton is a very liberal university and has no idea what conservatism is.
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
Nothing trumps a Nobel Prize, Yale grad, MIT Doctorate and renown world economist and Professor emeritus of Princeton and ex-Harvard professor of course better then an anonymous poster in an on line message board saying that it means nothing and they can’t back it up…..priceless…..ROFLMAO.
We’re in this mess because in 2005 Krugman sent George W. a petition signed by 450 world economists, several other also Nobel Prize economists, predicting our economic collapse and that we had to change course. So to answer your question, we’re in this mess because the Republicans refused to listen and acknowledge the total mess in until all the major corporations that been raking in obscene profits with Repubs tax breaks and deregulations were on verge of all going under BEFORE Obama EVER EVEN ELECTED. The caps are because Repubs seem to constantly denying and forgetting that as well as fact Obama didn’t create a 1.2 Trillion budget deficit, the Republicans did. Obama had to spend trillions on bailouts when first took office because Repubs messed up the economy so badly.
So to also answer your question, the Dems are and have been trying to do something but Republicans who have not a clue how economy or budgets work keep screwing it up with their clueless agenda’s of protect the wealthy and throw everyone and the economy under the bus to do so.
BUSH: “Those of you who have followed my career know I’m a Free Market person until you’re told that if you don’t take decisive measures then it’s conceivable that our country could go into a Depression greater than the Great Depression.”
~Bush 2008 on how 8 years of Bush Economic Policies melted down & destroyed the US Economy
Like or Dislike:
8 
12
fastone, Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004 and started serving in 2005. If he was such a leader, as you say, why did he not keep bringing up Krugman’s ideas to the Senate? While the Dems had control of the Senate inbeginning in 2007, why didn’t Obama, who you say is a leader, bring up Krugman’s ideas or solutions s you call them? He was as much of the problem as the rest of the Senators. His request for earmarks state probably overshadowed his leadership but was more interested in developing “buying” the votes program. Remember his promise(lie) he would never sign any bill that contained earmarks – well just look at the earmarks in the current tax bill increase. Better yet, maybe you can tell me why they extended the Samoa Economic Development program for 24 months. Doesn’t Representaive Pelosi’s husband have operations in that country? http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/top-10-tax-sweeteners-in-the-bailout-bill
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
Oops,disregard the link, I picked the wrong one. That was the origination of the American Samoa Development Act in the 2008 Bailout bill but the current tax bill continues tax breaks for American companies for another two years.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
And disregard your whole premise to me also. There was no point in Obama bringing up the Krugman petition to Bush…Krugman started the petition for Bush and sent to him and he ignored it. Yet you’re going to try to spin now our whole economic meltdown in 2008 on that Obama should have done something in 2005 as jr. senator…you can’t be serious…desperate obviously to spin this…but not really to be taken seriously.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
Bob….Here read this, it was before the election but it explains clearly that Repubs not a clue what talking about, it’s just a bunch of sounds good bragado rhetoric but is nonsense and it’s then spoonfed to conservatives via their news sources and continually repeated and then the conservatives believing is true just repeat the same things..but is nonsense…
Mmmm…that was my take on it…what it actually does is explains all on economics and budgets Repubs have it all azzbackwards…another Krugman…
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/opinion/krugman-this-republican-economy.html?_r=1&
“If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing” Anatole France
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
Don~ “At least your giving your sources credit this time;”
You know anytime you or anyone wants to PROVE me wrong with verifiable sources…it’s not ME that’s preventing you from doing so….folks know I post lots of links backing up what say…who you think fooling Don? Ironic you played harpie on me about sources when I provided one and you didn’t…SMH!
LMAO…world renown Nobel Prize economist, respected by all the worlds economists, head of economics at Princeton, past economic advisor to Clinton, predicted our economic meltdown years in advance and warned of it,…yeah, I think he just might…just maybe…knows a little about economics…despite that you don’t like his column printed in the Times…LOL.
Don~~It’s ok if you disagree with me. I can’t make you right.
Like or Dislike:
7 
13
Quoting a Liberal carries no water and you know it. Why not just quote world renowned business entrepreneur George Soros or Warren Buffet while your at it. Just to trump your love affair with Krugman, Ron Paul was on this spending crisis from the get go – go youtube him you’ll find plently of House floor appearances from 10 or more years ago were he warns of economic catastrophe.
This fiscal cliff is a bipartisan masterpiece. We don’t want to go over it, we have to. Let’s face the facts, people are stupid and they only will get it when their take home pay is slashed a couple of grand next year. That’s when guys like my union buddys and other working class stiffs say WTF, this is BS. Well, deal with it and decide to vote for some guy next time take talks about the massive spending cuts that are needed and not the guy that chirps about hiring 100,000 teachers or investing in infrastructure.
Like or Dislike:
13 
9
Don~”Quoting a Liberal carries no water and you know it”
Ahhh…Conservative Classic ~~the tried and true conservative non-rebuttal….don’t argue against statements or facts just attack the messenger with name calling label…ie.….he must be a liberal so must be wrong and then conservatives can dismiss reasonable debates and in some delusional mental state actually believe can dismiss facts and people by shouting the word Liberal…awesome…wouldn’t hold a drop of water on a junior high debate team of course…but understand that’s all conservatives have to defend their nonsense.
Of course then turning right around and quoting an ex-John Bircher Republican…why…then that’s of course just fine and makes complete sense….except you didn’t quote him of course…
Forget that it’s Repubs hairbrained nonsense that created the massive budget deficit and collapsed economy…I just don’t understand after what gone through why anyone would listen to them …. but why Ron Paul and the Repubs are wrong= Massive spending cuts will create a double dip recession at time we need economic recovery and jobs. Two things conservatives not a clue how to do…the proof is their 8 years alone of George W. but the failure of their economics goes back to Reagan.
The other thing wrong with Repubs is this shadow boxing type arguments with they create out of thin air. Nobody is arguing that we don’t need to cut spending, so stop arguing as if ONLY Repubs get that and maybe then Repubs shouldn’t have rung up the deficit to 1.2 Trillion if so gawdayum concerned over spending .SMH!!!. The issue cn triming spending is when and how. Repubs want to slash education and programs for needy and elderly while still strangling revenue and increasing spening for defense….it’s plan for a double recession.
Let’s look at Walker as example. He’s the perfect Republican model. He promised 250,000 new jobs, he cut taxes to corporations or in other words gave away revenue which increases a budget deficit, then attacked the largest employee consumer group in state and slashed their disposable income while forcing layoffs and almost his whole budget cut came out of education, both creating more unemployed and less jobs. The results…Wisconsin lags behind rest of nation in economic recovery, was in fact yet again in 2011 last in nation in job creation and his job creation after almost three years? Just turned to a positive since spring and has created 12,000 and something….
The point is massive, sweeping spending cuts hamstring an economic recovery and job creation and Wisconsin is perfect model for what Repubs are advocating.
Despite the failed economy and disaster and record 1.2 Trillion budget deficit Obama was handed by Repubs, he’s still passed legislation that put an end to all new spending and reduced the budget deficit and his 2013 budget is a 20% reduction over where Repubs had it. So stop hollering that only conservatives understand about cutting spending…actually regarding budgets and economy IMHO…conservatives would be best suited to sit in corner with their mouths closed.
Like or Dislike:
6 
12
Yet once again…Repubs have played games and stonewalled to defend the wealthiest getting their tax breaks at expense of us and deficit…and Repubs in their hubris threw us under the bus and walked out refusing to get this deal done…if we go over the cliff we’ll all have to pay more so they can continue to pay less….
Come 2014 let’s finish it and get these self serving clueless lying ninnies out of the house too…
Since the New Deal, Republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to ordinary Americans; Social Security, medicare, equal rights, civil liberties, church- state separation, womans rights, consumer issues and safety, public education, reproductive freedom, national health care, labor issues, gun policy, campaign-finance reform, the environment, the economy and tax fairness. No political party could remain so consistently wrong by accident.
The only rational conclusion is that, despite their cynical “family values” propaganda, the Republican Party is a criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people.
Like or Dislike:
8 
14
Actually, the ‘wealthiest’ will proportionately receive the greatest burden of income tax increases with the top bracket going from 35% to 39.6% and the median wage earners will general see an increase from 25% to 27%. I like when you use your own stuff because usually it’s just hate based rants and full of propagandistic errors. But we do have some common ground. Yes, let’s dump these white haired ‘self serving clueless lying ninnies’ and bring in some truely Conservative Congressmen that have the balls to risk being one termers and fix this mess if it isn’t already too late.
Like or Dislike:
11 
9
Now that congress fixed the fiscal cliff, they can get to more important stuff like taking our guns and those dreaded hi-cap magazines away.
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
No mechanism for taking guns (especially hanguns) would stand up to the SCOTUS ruling in DC v Heller. Plus there are roughly 300 million guns already in this country. We could stop selling guns for the next 100 years and we would still have a problem. What people do seem to want is to close the loopholes that allow people who are not supposed to have guns (felons, those with mental illness) to easily obtain them — end the gun show exception for the sale of guns. Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, I think states the argument best: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/23/cory-booker-guns_n_2356365.html
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
According to FBI statistics, hammers and clubs account for more murders each year than assault rifles, shotguns, and rifles. We need to ban hammers now!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Hmmm … you somehow conveniently left out handguns, wonder why, oh, because your notion falls apart if you include them, because handgun homicides are more than other guns, knives, blunt objects and other weapons put together. So, if you accept your logic above then it would be reasonable to ban handguns (not that I would do so, but by your logic).
As an aside, I have never understood why people assume that Fox News/Limbaugh tactics of telling a misleading part of the truth would fool anyone outside of a regular Fox viewer. Ignorance peddling works only on the gullible.
That having been said, I don’t get your objection. I said that I support Cory Booker’s approach. He notes that he does not want to ban guns, simply to do a better job of making sure they do not go to the wrong people. And polls show that such approaches have majority support of members of the NRA (if not the leadership of the NRA).
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Here it is in nutshell~~600 billion in savings thanks to President Obama.
Next on the list is Congressman Boehner’s “Plan B”, where he outlined quite nicely for the President the loopholes where the other 600 Billion in savings will come.
Grand total, 1.2 Trillion dollars.
Once again, this President has outsmarted and outclassed the HORs (House of Representatives).
America is coming back stronger than ever thanks to the Democrats and President Obama.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
Yes, yes, sing praise to Obama! We can all rest easy now that the almightly has saved us however many billion you think it is fastone, over 10 years. I was starting to worry about this country spending $1.3 trillion a year that it doesn’t have, but if the chosen one can knock off $60 billion or whatever number you want to pull out of you arse, then we certainly all can rest easy. We have averted the fiscal cliff because we are dumb enough to believe whatever they say.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
The fiscal “cliff” was a notion of our own creation, so averting it is not that surprising.
As to the underlying problem, the info in your response demonstrates the key. You mention a $1.3 trillion deficit, which goes back 3 years. Deficit for this year is $900 billion, mostly because the economy is growing (though weakly) and receipts are up. Give us a roaring economy and the deficit would drop that much more (plus give us reductions in unemployment payments and food stamps as more people would be working). So the only thing we can do to derail that (as almost every economist points out) is to institute austerity. Not that we couldn’t also do some cutting, and the obvious place is our $1 trillion+ defense budget which accounts for a quarter of our federal budget. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of legislators who love defense but got religion (you can’t say got smart, as pretty much every *economist* disagrees with them) about deficits and debt on January 21, 2009.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
That could be the Republican slogan.
The GOP, fighting the deficit since January 21, 2009.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
fastone – this fiscal farce of the democrats has gained us $1 in cuts for every $41 in new spending. Only in your liberal mind does that equal a great deficit reduction plan. No one has put together a plan that addresses and stops the reckless and out of control spending by Obumma and the dems. Only in your socialist mind does saving $600 billion over 10 years put us in the black when we over spend $1.5 trillion every year. This is not meaningful legislation and everyone who signed it should be ashamed of themselves. I know you think Obumma is “sticking it to the man” but what you don’t realize is soon you will be “the man” because the math doesn’t add up. You couldn’t balance our budget even if you took every dime people from people earning over $250k per year so where do you think he’ll come to next with his hand out? Unfortunately for our Nation it will be too late when everyone wakes up and realize what this snake oil salesman has sold them.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
The 41 figure is the amount of increased tax dollars for every dollar cut in the bill from that particular opinion piece. Not new spending. Taxes to try and pay for *existing* spending. If you are going to carefully choose the worst editorial to quote from at least quote it accurately.
Oh, and any support whatsoever for misstating the deficit this year (no, its not $1.5 trillion, try $900 billion). I know, the fact that it keeps going down does not support your arguments, but as its easy to fact check you think you wouldn’t bother misstating.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
$900 billion is projected. Now let’s start adding the goodies that are an absolute must….$60 billion for NY and NJ for hurricane Sandy (that debate or negotiations, depends on how you look at it, starts tomorrow – check your C-Span schedule), and X amount of billions for new school safety (that’s next week kiddo). Where not even a week into 2013 and already we’re at $965 billion!
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
$900 billion was the projection before the current deal. We are going to need it to shake out, but the number will be lower, then Sandy will need to be worked in, then the sequester will kick in (or whatever replaces it). So, lets go back to last year, deficit of $1 trillion ($300 billion less than the $1.3 trillion you quote). Again, mostly because of increased receipts. If we get the revenue numbers back to where they were in 2000 (with the Clinton taxes) the figure would be closer to $600 billion. Get the economy humming and the number drops to $200 billion. Cut 20% of our ridiculously bloated $1+ trillion defense budget (60% of our discretionary spending) and you have a balanced budget. But we don’t make such changes all at once. Increasing revenues without hurting the economic recovery is paramount.
Robust economic growth solves most problems. Trying to instantaneously reduce the deficit has provably failed to deliver growth (this approach is what plunged us into the depression). Growth of the economy reduces the impact of the current debt (this should be a familiar argument, its the one of the ones the Reaganites and Bush(W) used in justifying their tax cuts).
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Ok Rick I’ll use your numbers to prove my point. The fiscal cliff deal saves us $600 billion over 10 years which only covers 2/3s of this past year’s $900 billion deficit. Like I said, only in your socialist mind does that math add up. We need to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to force our elected officials to live within “our” means.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Fox3, you really, really need to read some books on economics (heck, just one). First, no one, and I mean NO ONE asserted that the current deal was going to eliminate the deficit. But trying to eliminate the deficit was not the goal, reducing it without harming the rebound of the economy was the point. The growth of our economy is the most important issue, not the deficit, not the debt. I know the deficit and the debt is what the conservative entertainment complex wants you to focus on (ever since Jan 21, 2009), but it is not what matters. And, weirdly, in different times it is the conservatives who make this argument (for example, it is a big part of the notions underlying supply side economics).
The notion of the government of a country requiring a balanced budget is to put it bluntly, silly. During WWII we borrowed huge amounts of money in order to win the war and paid it back later. Are you saying we should have surrendered rather than borrow against the future? And we ended up having borrowed more of our GDP than we have now (by quite a bit). During the early part of the depression the folks who preached austerity screamed about not running federal deficits and forced a problem that was hugely bad to become catastrophic (literally hundreds of books have been written on this subject with the conclusion that no sane government would try balanced budget austerity again).
So, is there support for the current, incremental approach? Its what happened during the Clinton administration, and by the end, as seems to happen during Democrat administrations, the deficit had dropped significantly. Had Bush simply not passed his tax cuts and gone to war in Iraq we might have been able to weather the housing debacle. Certainly the debt would be less than half of its current size. (Yes, half, 6.5 trillion less or more, depending on the estimates used). Unfortunately, we get stupid and elect the ignorant (i.e., Republican legislators) periodically because they appeal to our jingoistic tendencies and then we have to elect adults (i.e., Democrats) to clean up the messes the ignorant leave (Clinton cleaned up after Reagan and Bush HW now Obama is cleaning up after Bush W).
So, lets see, did I think the current deal solved the deficit issue? No. Do I think getting the economy to grow while increasing revenues (taxes) and doing significant defense cuts will work? Well yes, because it has before. But hey, why do things that have evidence that they work when we could do things where we have evidence that they don’t work (but at least would get Republicans re-elected)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
What happens when there is no more money for politicians to steal in the form of taxation to buy votes and pay socialists welfare govt workers and all around lowlifes off with and the party ends, keep your ammo dry.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2