Let's Jump Off the Fiscal Cliff!

[mundame]

The "fiscal cliff" was designed to force Congress and the administration to do SOMETHING to fix our horrible deficit, at the point when we lost America's triple-A credit rating. Either the government did something to improve the deficit problem, or a whole lot of money would be sequestered to pay it down. Guess what!! They did nothing!! Is anyone surprised??

Now Treasury Secretary Geithner is saying that as of Monday, the USA has to raise the debt ceiling so it can borrow more, more, more, more! Excuse me? Wasn't debt what we were supposed to be paying OFF?

So let's jump over the fiscal cliff and pay down some of this obscene borrowing for current expenses before we end up exactly like Greece: starvation, no employment, everyone's social security much reduced, nobody will lend to our country, riots, firebombings daily, right-wing Nazi parties springing up, the whole Greek experience.

I think it's time to pay off. I think we should just go on with the fiscal cliff as written.

Obama hates and fears it because he wants to borrow more, more, more, more, so that alone is reason enough, but it would be good to try to stop this race to the bottom with Greece and the other PIIGS countries.

So am I wrong? Why am I wrong?

[jimnyc]

He is on record, Geithner, stating that he believes the debt ceiling should be unlimited. I would have thought these things were in place to protect the debt in a manner of speaking, to keep these twits from spending in excess. What's the point if these set of Dems in office right now think creating money and tossing it at a problem will fix it. If Obama has a repeat term, of spending $6+ trillion and really no fixes to show for it, we're in deep doo doo.

[mundame]

He is on record, Geithner, stating that he believes the debt ceiling should be unlimited.


Yes! I remember when he said that! He just wants to spend and spend and borrow and borrow ---

We are going down just like Greece, IMO.

[fj1200]

The "fiscal cliff" was designed to force Congress and the administration to do SOMETHING...

So am I wrong? Why am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. Because tax rates have little bearing on tax revenues. Unemployment rates are more correlated to deficits.

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/50cdd316eab8ea0e1200001b-612-460/screen%20shot%202012-12-13%20at%202.51.31%20pm-1.jpg


We ran this chart earlier this week to show how nicely deficit/GDP and the unemployment rate correlated with each other. Throughout these decades tax and spending policies have changed a lot, but it clearly hasn't mattered. When unemployment drops, deficit/GDP drops. When unemployment rises, deficit/GDP rises.Growth is the only deficit reduction policy that matters.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/closi...#ixzz2GAv4hskx (http://www.businessinsider.com/closing-the-deficit-2012-12#ixzz2GAv4hskx)

[mundame]

Yes, you're wrong. Because tax rates have little bearing on tax revenues. Unemployment rates are more correlated to deficits.




So if I understand you, you are saying that no matter how much they raise taxes, they won't collect anymore money from taxes?

And that high deficit is correlated to high unemployment. Well, in the latter case, I would think if we paid down some of the deficit, maybe unemployment would decrease, too, if the correlation holds.

[Robert A Whit]

While at times, CSPAN makes me want to give them the finger, there are so many excellent programs that I would not be without it. I don't really need the ABC, CBS of the airwaves.

Yahoo gives me a lot of news. I used to rely on AOL. I still use google news.

Today and yesterday, an economist from Greece gave a good lecture. He speaks of the USA as the Minataur. Some of you ought to look up CSPAN on your system and look at the wonderful videos they have. It is not often I get to hear some Greek offering lessons in economics.

Can I summarize up his claims made in a hour perhaps? I don't think I can. He offers insights into Greece and Europe and tells us some "dirty secrets" about this country. Give it a shot if you care.

[fj1200]

So if I understand you, you are saying that no matter how much they raise taxes, they won't collect anymore money from taxes?

And that high deficit is correlated to high unemployment. Well, in the latter case, I would think if we paid down some of the deficit, maybe unemployment would decrease, too, if the correlation holds.

Tax revenues as percent of GDP have averaged about 19% post war, the Big One you know, with little deviation with varying tax rates and structures. To claim that increasing taxes on The Rich will solve the deficit issue is a non-starter.

And no, paying down the debt will not lead to lower unemployment. It doesn't work that way, we need policies that encourage economic growth so that unemployment and deficits will take care of themselves.

[aboutime]

So if I understand you, you are saying that no matter how much they raise taxes, they won't collect anymore money from taxes?

And that high deficit is correlated to high unemployment. Well, in the latter case, I would think if we paid down some of the deficit, maybe unemployment would decrease, too, if the correlation holds.


mundame. Let's say....You have your own nation, and you need revenue to survive, and stay viable. You raise taxes on only the Rich, and provide Services like S.S., welfare, food stamps, medicare, and medicaid to a growing number of UNEMPLOYED citizens of yours.
In fact. The number of unemployed keeps growing, while the number of Rich declines because they are no longer making a profit from their shrinking businesses that used to employ those who are now Unemployed.

If fewer people are paying taxes due to being unemployed. How long do you expect the shrinking RICH to keep paying something they no longer have?
And....how will that increase your Revenues if THERE ARE NONE?

[mundame]

It is not often I get to hear some Greek offering lessons in economics.




Greeks bearing lessons in economics....................

Why am I thinking of large, hollow, wooden horses?

[mundame]

Tax revenues as percent of GDP have averaged about 19% post war, the Big One you know, with little deviation with varying tax rates and structures. To claim that increasing taxes on The Rich will solve the deficit issue is a non-starter.

And no, paying down the debt will not lead to lower unemployment. It doesn't work that way, we need policies that encourage economic growth so that unemployment and deficits will take care of themselves.


Okay, these are good arguments and you may be right, but I am still very worried about the deficit!! I mean, darn, look at the nations of Europe with their desperate attempts to borrow money at 7% interest just to make the next government payroll! That could be us soon.

I take it you are no fan of "austerity" as a way to eliminate deficits, and it has not been going well as a strategy in Europe, true, but borrowing trillions hasn't been working out real great either.

I want the deficit paid down. Obama won't do it. He and his Treasure Secretary want to borrow lots MORE!

So what have we got besides the fiscal cliff to pay down the deficit?

[Robert A Whit]

Tax revenues as percent of GDP have averaged about 19% post war, the Big One you know, with little deviation with varying tax rates and structures. To claim that increasing taxes on The Rich will solve the deficit issue is a non-starter.

And no, paying down the debt will not lead to lower unemployment. It doesn't work that way, we need policies that encourage economic growth so that unemployment and deficits will take care of themselves.

I keep reading your words and remarking to myself, now there is a poster that accepts the theory that the economy is managed by government.

I believe Government can harm the economy. But to improve it? That I tend to not believe.

We give the free market far too little credit and far too much to the Feds.

Democrats persist in alleging the Feds manage the economy. I still am not persuaded.

[Robert A Whit]

Greeks bearing lessons in economics....................

Why am I thinking of large, hollow, wooden horses?

Correction Mundame, a Greek.

And I call your comment a huge dose of prejudice.

Trying to explain economics to most posters is like trying to get a crew to explain an elephant only all are blindfolded. A poster has his hands on the tail and explains that the elephant is skinny and flexible. The poster holding to the leg says it is not too huge but strong. Touching the belly it is likened to a whale.

Anyway, we are all part of economics. When somebody tells me taking cash from a person's pocket is good for them, I smile and say they must have their hands on the tail of the elephant.

[mundame]

Correction Mundame, a Greek.

And I call your comment a huge dose of prejudice.


Yes, since Greeks have totally ruined their own economy by lies and corruption and overspending and government featherbedding to the point that they are now in a state of destitution and rebellion, yes, I am prejudiced against listening to Greek economists give the rest of us advice. Let them get out of their killing deficit financing and gross impoverishment and then maybe they'll have something to say. Right now it's like listening to the government of Zimbabwe tell us how to achieve sound currency.



Trying to explain economics to most posters is like trying to get a crew to explain an elephant only all are blindfolded. A poster has his hands on the tail and explains that the elephant is skinny and flexible. The poster holding to the leg says it is not too huge but strong. Touching the belly it is likened to a whale.

Anyway, we are all part of economics. When somebody tells me taking cash from a person's pocket is good for them, I smile and say they must have their hands on the tail of the elephant.

Go ahead, then, and explain the economics of the fiscal cliff to us and whether we should jump off it or not, if you like. Preferably without bringing either elephants or Trojan horses into it.

[Robert A Whit]

Yes, since Greeks have totally ruined their own economy by lies and corruption and overspending and government featherbedding to the point that they are now in a state of destitution and rebellion, yes, I am prejudiced against listening to Greek economists give the rest of us advice. Let them get out of their killing deficit financing and gross impoverishment and then maybe they'll have something to say. Right now it's like listening to the government of Zimbabwe tell us how to achieve sound currency.




Go ahead, then, and explain the economics of the fiscal cliff to us and whether we should jump off it or not, if you like. Preferably without bringing either elephants or Trojan horses into it.


Bear in mind, what we know of the Greek economy comes at us via the tube. Could be the TV or your computer.
Since you failed to watch the Greek on CSPAN, you should not pass judgment. That is prejudice and your reasons make no sense given you have no clue at all what the economist says. You may think he excused the Greeks. Well, he did not excuse them.

The so called Cliff reminds me of an imaginary war on drugs. Do you think Obama would have rushed off to Hawaii were it a real cliff?

As to explaining the system to you, it takes a fair number of text books to get the job done and this assumes the reader is open to ideas. Many readers select from what is comfortable. Trying to persuade them is like being pissed off at the tail of the elephant for swatting flies.

If one picks up a dozen economics books and studies them carefully, even then one can't really predict the economy.

Bush would have were it possible. By this time, Obama would have cured all that ails us were it possible.

I note they speak with the forked tougue of the political party. If they are democrats, they lean socialist. I am in awe that by your actions you actually aided Obama to win. I was in awe that you refused to vote for Romney merely out of some snit with some long ago dead man.

It would be different were the leaders of my church like Joseph Smith was. We don't marry over one woman.

[fj1200]

I keep reading your words and remarking to myself, now there is a poster that accepts the theory that the economy is managed by government.

I believe Government can harm the economy. But to improve it? That I tend to not believe.

We give the free market far too little credit and far too much to the Feds.

Democrats persist in alleging the Feds manage the economy. I still am not persuaded.

That is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR from an accurate reading of my words. Anything that government does is likely to do more harm than good is a better reading but I'll admit that there are exceptions to that rule. Taxes and regulations have been having a slow-drip effect of making it more expensive to do business in this country while plenty of other countries have been making strides in becoming more competitive.

[fj1200]

Okay, these are good arguments and you may be right, but I am still very worried about the deficit!! I mean, darn, look at the nations of Europe with their desperate attempts to borrow money at 7% interest just to make the next government payroll! That could be us soon.

I take it you are no fan of "austerity" as a way to eliminate deficits, and it has not been going well as a strategy in Europe, true, but borrowing trillions hasn't been working out real great either.

I want the deficit paid down. Obama won't do it. He and his Treasure Secretary want to borrow lots MORE!

So what have we got besides the fiscal cliff to pay down the deficit?

I'm not sure you know the difference between the deficit and the debt. Nevertheless you're correct, I'm no fan of austerity. I am worried about the deficit but not for the deficits sake but rather for what it means and why it is so large currently. If it were me I would hold spending constant while massively reforming the tax code to encourage growth. I think even holding spending to inflation + population growth would result in a balanced budget in a relatively short period of time (5? years). That presumes that we need to do something with Medicare and Social Security I think.

As far as the fiscal cliff goes, it's nothing but more example of the wrong-headed policies we've been following for decades.

[mundame]

Bear in mind, what we know of the Greek economy comes at us via the tube. Could be the TV or your computer.
Since you failed to watch the Greek on CSPAN, you should not pass judgment. That is prejudice and your reasons make no sense given you have no clue at all what the economist says. You may think he excused the Greeks. Well, he did not excuse them.

The so called Cliff reminds me of an imaginary war on drugs. Do you think Obama would have rushed off to Hawaii were it a real cliff?

As to explaining the system to you, it takes a fair number of text books to get the job done and this assumes the reader is open to ideas. Many readers select from what is comfortable. Trying to persuade them is like being pissed off at the tail of the elephant for swatting flies.

If one picks up a dozen economics books and studies them carefully, even then one can't really predict the economy.

Bush would have were it possible. By this time, Obama would have cured all that ails us were it possible.

I note they speak with the forked tougue of the political party. If they are democrats, they lean socialist. I am in awe that by your actions you actually aided Obama to win. I was in awe that you refused to vote for Romney merely out of some snit with some long ago dead man.

It would be different were the leaders of my church like Joseph Smith was. We don't marry over one woman.


None of this refers to the fiscal cliff, Robert......and the current economic problems with our national deficit. Can you discuss that?

No, never mind, I know you aren't into that at this time. Don't worry about it.

[mundame]

I'm not sure you know the difference between the deficit and the debt. Nevertheless you're correct, I'm no fan of austerity. I am worried about the deficit but not for the deficits sake but rather for what it means and why it is so large currently. If it were me I would hold spending constant while massively reforming the tax code to encourage growth. I think even holding spending to inflation + population growth would result in a balanced budget in a relatively short period of time (5? years). That presumes that we need to do something with Medicare and Social Security I think.

As far as the fiscal cliff goes, it's nothing but more example of the wrong-headed policies we've been following for decades.


Well, I think I know, I hope ---- debt is simply borrowing money that you owe but can pay.

The deficit is the excess of the federal government's spending over its revenue -- that is, we can't pay it, we don't have the money and can't get it. We owe more than we take in in taxes. A house loan is usually a private deficit: we may hope to earn enough to make the payments, but at any time we may not: the amount owed is too much. Then our credit rating goes down, like the US lost our triple-A rating because the country cannot pay our debts. Many countries in Europe now owe far more than they can collect in taxes, just to be able to pay current monthly expenses --- a dire situation.
<tbody>


</tbody>

Yes, I agree with your solutions generally. But why do you say the fiscal cliff is an example of our long-term wrong-headed policies? For instance?

[Robert A Whit]

That is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR from an accurate reading of my words. Anything that government does is likely to do more harm than good is a better reading but I'll admit that there are exceptions to that rule. Taxes and regulations have been having a slow-drip effect of making it more expensive to do business in this country while plenty of other countries have been making strides in becoming more competitive.

I am happy to read you cleared up what appears to be my confusion. Need i say that I do agree with you? I do of course.

[Robert A Whit]

None of this refers to the fiscal cliff, Robert......and the current economic problems with our national deficit. Can you discuss that?

No, never mind, I know you aren't into that at this time. Don't worry about it.

What Fiscal cliff?

I will discuss that which is real.


Since taxes will go up immensely, and spending will be cut, what makes it a cliff?

I see it for the Govt side as a bonus for them.

They will use the increases in revenues as reason to not stop spending. These clowns play a lot of games.

[mundame]

Since taxes will go up immensely, and spending will be cut, what makes it a cliff?


I think the metaphor is that the economy will plunge off a cliff and fall. I don't know if that is true, since we can't see the future.

I believe the popular propaganda or idea is that the big spending cuts will discourage the economy and the big tax rises will discourage the consumers, and so it will harm the economy, like going off a cliff, by a good 4% decrease in GDP, if I understand correctly.

[Robert A Whit]

I think the metaphor is that the economy will plunge off a cliff and fall. I don't know if that is true, since we can't see the future.

I believe the popular propaganda or idea is that the big spending cuts will discourage the economy and the big tax rises will discourage the consumers, and so it will harm the economy, like going off a cliff, by a good 4% decrease in GDP, if I understand correctly.

I don't know either. I am not one that believes in the theory that the Government makes the economy. I think it can harm though.

It is like a rock as I see it. Rocks can sure hurt you when they hit your body. But rocks in and of themselves don't help your body.

This means of course that to me, the damage done by the Feds is a one way proposition.

Even the housing crisis was created by government action.

[mundame]

I don't know either. I am not one that believes in the theory that the Government makes the economy. I think it can harm though.

It is like a rock as I see it. Rocks can sure hurt you when they hit your body. But rocks in and of themselves don't help your body.

This means of course that to me, the damage done by the Feds is a one way proposition.

Even the housing crisis was created by government action.


Nice metaphor with the rocks.

[fj1200]

Well, I think I know, I hope ---- debt is simply borrowing money that you owe but can pay.

The deficit is the excess of the federal government's spending over its revenue -- that is, we can't pay it, we don't have the money and can't get it. We owe more than we take in in taxes. A house loan is usually a private deficit: we may hope to earn enough to make the payments, but at any time we may not: the amount owed is too much. Then our credit rating goes down, like the US lost our triple-A rating because the country cannot pay our debts. Many countries in Europe now owe far more than they can collect in taxes, just to be able to pay current monthly expenses --- a dire situation.
<tbody>


</tbody>

Yes, I agree with your solutions generally. But why do you say the fiscal cliff is an example of our long-term wrong-headed policies? For instance?

Simply, the deficit is what you borrow annually and the debt is the cumulative total of what you have borrowed. The current deficit is 1.xx TT dollars for this year while our total debt is 16.xx TT dollars. The interest rate is determined by our ability to pay.

An example of wrong policies? Continually making labor more expensive via regulations and payroll taxes which hit the lowest paid workers the most, keeping our corporate tax rate high while every other country has been lowering theirs (The US statutory rate is now the highest after Japan lowered theirs), retaining a corporate tax structure that encourages US firms to keep profits overseas that no other OECD nation has. Part of what's wrapped up in the "cliff" is more of the same.


I am happy to read you cleared up what appears to be my confusion. Need i say that I do agree with you? I do of course.

I didn't think we were that far apart on the issue. :beer:

[mundame]

Simply, the deficit is what you borrow annually and the debt is the cumulative total of what you have borrowed. The current deficit is 1.xx TT dollars for this year while our total debt is 16.xx TT dollars. The interest rate is determined by our ability to pay.

An example of wrong policies? Continually making labor more expensive via regulations and payroll taxes which hit the lowest paid workers the most, keeping our corporate tax rate high while every other country has been lowering theirs (The US statutory rate is now the highest after Japan lowered theirs), retaining a corporate tax structure that encourages US firms to keep profits overseas that no other OECD nation has. Part of what's wrapped up in the "cliff" is more of the same.



I took advice on the subject, let me see if I can recapitulate it with help from your notes above: We owe about 16 trillion. We can pay from taxes on what we owe according to the terms of the loans each year ------- except for about one trillion dollars. That one trillion is our deficit. Unluckily, it is additive. So if we owe $16 trillion next year, we'll owe $17 trillion the following and $18 trillion the year after that, if everything continues the same. To pay this on time, we borrow the trillion dollars. So we are borrowing to pay off some of what we borrowed, and that is also the problem the European countries in trouble have.

So you are saying the fiscal cliff is just one of many wrong-headed economic policies, like the high level of useless regulations and paperwork. Still, my impression is that a lot of people are viewing it like the Mayan Apocalypse, a sudden plunge off the edge into darkness.

But I wonder if starting to get a handle on the deficit via the fiscal cliff might not reassure the Market and business. I'd be interested to see the experiment tried. I guess I had better not say, "Roll the dice"........ ;)

[Robert A Whit]

Nice metaphor with the rocks.

:clap::salute:

[fj1200]

So you are saying the fiscal cliff is just one of many wrong-headed economic policies, like the high level of useless regulations and paperwork. Still, my impression is that a lot of people are viewing it like the Mayan Apocalypse, a sudden plunge off the edge into darkness.

But I wonder if starting to get a handle on the deficit via the fiscal cliff might not reassure the Market and business. I'd be interested to see the experiment tried. I guess I had better not say, "Roll the dice"........ ;)

Well, let's see... politicians creating a scenario and then claiming the scenario that they created is now of apocalyptic proportions... And we see the dud of the most recent apocalypse don't we. But sure, roll the dice. It's not like austerity has a positive track record or anything.

[Kathianne]

Well, let's see... politicians creating a scenario and then claiming the scenario that they created is now of apocalyptic proportions... And we see the dud of the most recent apocalypse don't we. But sure, roll the dice. It's not like austerity has a positive track record or anything.

I doubt that much that happens will effect me, I just make too little. However, I don't see this being without consequences:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57560835/the-fiscal-cliff-what-to-expect-if-theres-no-deal/


...What happens if the country is forced over the "fiscal cliff" on January 1?
Various federal tax cuts and breaks enacted under President George W. Bush expire as well as the payroll tax holiday enacted under President Obama.


About $1.2 trillion in federal spending cuts begin to kick in (approximately $110 billion a year for 10 years), divided equally between the Pentagon and most other federal agencies.
And federal jobless benefits expire for 2 million unemployed Americans.

...

If lawmakers fail to work out any sort of deal, there will be severe long-term consequences for the economy: According to the Tax Policy Center, going off the "cliff" would affect 88 percent of U.S. taxpayers, with their taxes rising by an average of $3,500 a year; taxes would jump $2,400 on average for families with incomes of $50,000 to $75,000. Because consumers would get less of their paychecks to spend, businesses and jobs would suffer.

...


If the nation goes over the fiscal cliff, budget cuts of 8 percent or 9 percent would hit most of the federal government, touching all sorts of things from agriculture to law enforcement and the military to weather forecasting. A few areas, such as Social Security benefits, Veterans Affairs and some programs for the poor, are exempt.


The spending cuts, meanwhile, are phased in gradually. It's not as though $1.2 trillion would suddenly disappear from the economy at the end of the year: The cuts, while undeniably significant, are set to be phased in over a decade. In addition, there are budgetary maneuvers that can be taken to at least somewhat soften the blow of both the tax hikes and spending cuts. (The Treasury Department could, for instance, freeze paycheck withholding levels.) Certainly, total inaction on the "fiscal cliff" over the long term would likely have a deeply negative impact on the economy. But if a deal comes in January or February, after the deadline - as it well could - the structural damage could be relatively small.


...

[fj1200]

I doubt that much that happens will effect me, I just make too little. However, I don't see this being without consequences:

Consequences, sure. But I think it's more just fiscal quicksand.

[Kathianne]

Consequences, sure. But I think it's more just fiscal quicksand.

The question though, if I'm not mistaken, how much more 'fiscal quicksand' can be tolerated before our economy can't recover?

[mundame]

I think the pols are demonizing the fiscal cliff because they so much want big government. They want to borrow, borrow, borrow, and spend, spend, spend, just like so many governments in Europe did.

The fiscal cliff would require government to spend less and collect the taxes to pay for what they do spend.

Well, darn, why not? That's what Greece did NOT do and why it is now in a state of fire-bombing chaotic poverty.

They are propagandizing us that this would be an Awful Thing so they can keep Big Government going. Stopping Big Government would be an awful thing ----------- for the pols. But perhaps not for the people.

The Fiscal Cliff was deliberately designed to save us from wildly overspending welfare government spending us deeper and deeper in debt with our credit rating getting lower and lower and our debt limit rising out of sight. That was its whole point, to stop all that.

So let's try it.

[tailfins]

Isn't there an accountant nicknamed Fiscal Cliff? His real name would be Clifford.

[aboutime]

Isn't there an accountant nicknamed Fiscal Cliff? His real name would be Clifford.


tailfins. You may be on to something nobody see's here. I think the name Fiscal Cliff is the nickname of our Treasury Secretary.

At least. That's the best reason anyone could find to explain why OBAMA picked him to run the Big Monopoly Board with INVISIBLE pieces, and all of the Obama Bucks are BLANKS.

[Robert A Whit]

I doubt that much that happens will effect me, I just make too little. However, I don't see this being without consequences:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57560835/the-fiscal-cliff-what-to-expect-if-theres-no-deal/

bump

[Robert A Whit]

I doubt that much that happens will effect me, I just make too little. However, I don't see this being without consequences:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57560835/the-fiscal-cliff-what-to-expect-if-theres-no-deal/


I think the pols are demonizing the fiscal cliff because they so much want big government. They want to borrow, borrow, borrow, and spend, spend, spend, just like so many governments in Europe did.

The fiscal cliff would require government to spend less and collect the taxes to pay for what they do spend.

Well, darn, why not? That's what Greece did NOT do and why it is now in a state of fire-bombing chaotic poverty.

They are propagandizing us that this would be an Awful Thing so they can keep Big Government going. Stopping Big Government would be an awful thing ----------- for the pols. But perhaps not for the people.

The Fiscal Cliff was deliberately designed to save us from wildly overspending welfare government spending us deeper and deeper in debt with our credit rating getting lower and lower and our debt limit rising out of sight. That was its whole point, to stop all that.

So let's try it.

Yes, let's do try it.

If Democrats are correct, it will result in more money to the Feds. The key question here usually would be, suppose they don't cut the expenses?

This time that answer is, they must cut government.

Democrats despise cutting government. To them, the more goverment, the more they have us all by our throats.

They don't mind one bit raising taxes. That in no way bothers them.

So, yes, let's try it. The policies by the Democrats have failed and still fail, so hell yes, let's try it.

Tell Obama to eff himself.

He signed the law. Stop whining Obama.

[Kathianne]

Yes, let's do try it.

If Democrats are correct, it will result in more money to the Feds. The key question here usually would be, suppose they don't cut the expenses?

This time that answer is, they must cut government.

Democrats despise cutting government. To them, the more goverment, the more they have us all by our throats.

They don't mind one bit raising taxes. That in no way bothers them.

So, yes, let's try it. The policies by the Democrats have failed and still fail, so hell yes, let's try it.

Tell Obama to eff himself.

He signed the law. Stop whining Obama.



You are not getting the *bump* thing. Sorry. LOL!

[mundame]

This time that answer is, they must cut government.

Democrats despise cutting government. To them, the more goverment, the more they have us all by our throats.

They don't mind one bit raising taxes. That in no way bothers them.

So, yes, let's try it. The policies by the Democrats have failed and still fail, so hell yes, let's try it.

Tell Obama to eff himself.

He signed the law. Stop whining Obama.




Good point, Obama signed the sequester, why call it a national disaster now?

According to a link above, the federal government would be cut 8 to 9 % ------ over a decade. That would be great; I'd like to see it cut 25% or more over that same decade.

And the long, long forever unemployment benefits which are known to keep people from working because they get paid NOT to work would finally stop.

It all sounds good to me -- it's our chance to get out of European-type deficits. If we don't take this chance, it's because the goverment wants to borrow and spend, borrow and spend, until our economy collapses again.