Other (please elaborate)
Republicans will get the blame, Obama will use his inaugural and SOTU Address to blame them, the media can't wait to run that story 24/7, and Republicans will be left in the unenviable position of being unable to even defend themselves without looking like whiners......
......for about..... 9 months. Remember how incredibly unpopular Obamacare was? How it was a tidal wave, a shellacking, and Obama was sure to lose over it? Yeah. People move on.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
Of course its both. Remember...this was all set in motion when the 'super-committee' failed to come up with an greed upon set of budget cuts. Congress cant pass a basic operating budget and what spending legislation they DO manage to pass always heaps on more debt and deficit spending. Oh...and lets not forget...back in November a whole lot of people in this country reelected the same crop of clowns as their 'representatives'. Lets not ignore their responsibility as well.
As for your 2034 number, it's bunk. First of all, the offcial number is 2035, and second of all, it is based on severey pessimistic assumptions. It has only been during the "bad years" of the Great Bush Recession that the projections of the SS trustees have been even close to realistic. Consider that in 1997, they projected the SSTF would be exhausted in 2029. In 2007, they projected it would be exhausted in 2042. So ten years went by (about evenly divided between strong years under Clinton and weaker ones under Bush), but not only did exhaustion fail to get ten years closer, it got three years further away, 35 years to 32. That's a good measure of how distorted the SS trustees reports are. To be sure, all projections are and should be done to the pessimistic side, but SS (and Medicare) have taken things to unjustified extremes.
As for allegations of a looming public sector pension crisis, the whole idea is a corporate, hard-right invention aimed at the trained seals. The argument here is basically that since lack of union protections among other things allowed corporations to plunder and then destroy private sector pension systems, public sector systems now seem attractive by comparison, so to be fair, we'd really better destroy those as well.
Republicans will get more of the blame, because they've done a worse job at pushing their spin of the message in recent times and because by and large the media's template on this issue is that it's the Republicans.
In reality, it's both. While increasing revenues through taxes, and even flat out raising taxes on some people, may very well be PART of the solution it absolutely isn't the first part of the solution nor is it the most important part of the solution. History tells us that increases in taxes simply corresponds with increases in spending, and there's no reason to believe that won't be the case here. Especially considering the fact that it's now being focused singularly on tax hikes. As pointed out by the OP, increasing the taxes on those over $250k will fail to deal with 90% of our deficit spending.
We may arguably have a revenue problem, but that problem is miniscule next to our psending problem. However, this isn't ABOUT solving problems...it's about playing politics, and hte Democrats see a political advantage here so they're pushing it not because it's what's "best for the country" but because they believe it's what's best for Democratic electoral efforts. Unfortunatley, what ACTUALLY needs to happen isn't good for either sides electoral efforts, which is whyu it won't get done and we will continue to have this BS
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
However, my answer is simple: NOBODY will take responsibility for the 'fiscal cliff' and it will be the American citizens - taxpayers - in our entirety that will PAY THE PRICE for our collective governments irresponsibility in managing funds.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice....shame on me.
However, a President alone does not pass a law or even a treaty. Check the record of who had majorities in congress at the times. Your corrections only add a share of the blame, it doesn't let the Dems entirely off the hook. Since I had already laid some of the blame on Reps, this just adds to their list and their share.
It does not however, in any way, change my argument/stance that both parties had a role in it, not just one. Thank you for the factual corrections and helping to strengthen/clarify my stance.
Be sure to work hard and get lots of overtime. People on welfare want more steaks and free upgrades to smart phones with unlimited data packages.
The Tax Cuts for the Rich were meanwhile the economic centerpiece of Bush's domestic policies. They were also a dismal failure, leading the Fed to rush in as backstop in 2002, promising to keep interest rates at 1% or below until economic activity eventually picked up. These of course were important early steps toward the credit crisis and the resulting Great Bush Recession. The tax cuts were passed under reconciliation in June 2001. They passed the House by a margin of 240-154, with all 211 Republicans who voted being in favor. They passed the Senate by a margin of 58-33 with all Republicans voting except McCain and Chaffee being in favor.
That red line is simply the Great Bush Recession happening.