• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Embrace the Fiscal Cliff?

Shouldn't we embrace Obama's fiscal cliff?

  • Yes, it is more revenue, less spending, so long Bush, hello Obama.

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • Yes, we need to take our medicine, only when it really hurts can we start to recover

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • No! We can't recover without economic growth.

    Votes: 4 40.0%

  • I got an Obama phone! This is all Bush's and Congress's fault anyway.

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Total voters
    10
F

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Fiscal Cliff happens on January 1, 2013. It is when the policies of the Bush administration expire and the policies of the Obama administration become more fully implemented. It is also when the Obama sequestration compromise goes into effect. It is a balanced approach of tax hikes and spending cuts.

So shouldn't we embrace it? Didn't we embrace it on November 6th? End of Bush era policies, implementation of Obama era policies, tax hikes and spending cuts, especially on the military. Isn't that exactly what Obama ran on? So why are we afraid of it?

It could be because nearly every reputable economist is predicting that it would cause another recession and shoot unemployment back up over 9%. So is that what "Forward" really gets us?

The Fiscal Cliff is Obama's policy in action. Shouldn't we embrace it?
 
friday said:
The Fiscal Cliff happens on January 1, 2013. It is when the policies of the Bush administration expire and the policies of the Obama administration become more fully implemented. It is also when the Obama sequestration compromise goes into effect. It is a balanced approach of tax hikes and spending cuts.

So shouldn't we embrace it? Didn't we embrace it on November 6th? End of Bush era policies, implementation of Obama era policies, tax hikes and spending cuts, especially on the military. Isn't that exactly what Obama ran on? So why are we afraid of it?

It could be because nearly every reputable economist is predicting that it would cause another recession and shoot unemployment back up over 9%. So is that what "Forward" really gets us?

The Fiscal Cliff is Obama's policy in action. Shouldn't we embrace it?
Click to expand...

The idea was not for that to take place, and if it does, it won't be anyone's idea of what was desired. not Obama's or republican's. The idea was to try and encourage them to actually do something. If we fall off the cliff, congress failed.
 
And yet, here we are. The compromise was "let's shoot ourselves in the foot, and if we don't heal by January, 2013 we'll shoot ourselves in the head too." And blame Congress all you want, Obama signed it.
 
I just like how liberals are claiming republicans are holding it hostage when they don't want to increase anyones taxes and the liberals refuse to let go of the rich. Then they turn around and say the republicans are protecting rich people. Well you know, they wouldn't need protection if someone wasn't attacking them. Just sayin'...
 
Henrin said:
I just like how liberals are claiming republicans are holding it hostage when they don't want to increase anyones taxes and the liberals refuse to let go of the rich. Then they turn around and say the republicans are protecting rich people. Well you know, they wouldn't need protection if someone wasn't attacking them. Just sayin'...
Click to expand...

If your oversimplication is true, then liberals have the more logical claim. A slight increase, back to pre-Bush tax rates (hardly a devastating addition), for the wealthy would be the best, most effective place for an increase. The middle class spends their money. And we need that spending.
 
Boo Radley said:
The idea was not for that to take place, and if it does, it won't be anyone's idea of what was desired. not Obama's or republican's. The idea was to try and encourage them to actually do something. If we fall off the cliff, congress failed.
Click to expand...

You forget, it is the law that Obama signed. Sure Obama hoped for change but that does not change the fact that he signed onto this "cliff". Just what is the great Obama defict reduction plan, other than to hope for change?
 
the tax cuts need to expire for every margin, not just the top. however, letting it all happen at once is stupid. the rates should go up by about a point a year until each hits its 1990s level.

similarly, the spending cuts need to phase in year by year. in this way, we get the benefits for more revenue / less spending without causing the economy to tank back into recession.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You forget, it is the law that Obama signed. Sure Obama hoped for change but that does not change the fact that he signed onto this "cliff". Just what is the great Obama defict reduction plan, other than to hope for change?
Click to expand...

Yes, he signed it. But that changes nothing I said.

And his plan overall is rather simple: Increase taxes where we can best afford it and reduce spending where it causes the least pain. Now, the devil is in the details, and something congress needs to battle. And if they choose to close some loopholes as well? Better still.
 
Boo Radley said:
If your oversimplication is true, then liberals have the more logical claim. A slight increase, back to pre-Bush tax rates (hardly a devastating addition), for the wealthy would be the best, most effective place for an increase. The middle class spends their money. And we need that spending.
Click to expand...

All that is happening is an attack on the rich and its hardly effective. If you really want to do this tax increase plus spending cuts plan you need to increase taxes all across the board and not just on the rich.

You are also making a failure in your train of thought that basically says that if one can afford it than they obligated to pay it. That argument is a failure on its face as there is no such obligation.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, he signed it. But that changes nothing I said.

And his plan overall is rather simple: Increase taxes where we can best afford it and reduce spending where it causes the least pain. Now, the devil is in the details, and something congress needs to battle. And if they choose to close some loopholes as well? Better still.
Click to expand...

Tax "reform" is not going to happen in a lame duck session and we all know that. Just what are the Obama porposed spending reductions other than ending the Afghan war and accounting tricks with Medicaid/Medicare? How temporary are the SS withholding cuts? Congress has had many battles and the "cliff" was the result of the brainy "super committee" and accepted by Obama.
 
Henrin said:
All that is happening is an attack on the rich and its hardly effective. If you really want to do this tax increase plus spending cuts plan you need increase taxes all across the board, not just on the rich.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what is happening. The Fox class warfare effort makes you think that. Try put that aside and embrace reason. The is a sound reason to allow the middle class more leeway. Like I said, they spend. And nothing will help more than that spending.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Tax "reform" is not going to happen in a lame duck session and we all know that. Just what are the Obama porposed spending reductions other than ending the Afghan war and accounting tricks with Medicaid/Medicare? How temporary are the SS withholding cuts? Congress has had many battles and the "cliff" was the result of the brainy "super committee" and accepted by Obama.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but if you're correct, it will be a failure of congress.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, that is not what is happening. The Fox class warfare effort makes you think that. Try put that aside and embrace reason. The is a sound reason to allow the middle class more leeway. Like I said, they spend. And nothing will help more than that spending.
Click to expand...

Fox News? Anyway, its blatantly transparent what you are doing here. In reality, what I said is exactly correct. Your plan if at all believable would call for tax increases all across the board and if you were worried about market spending you would put them in place slowly. I'm sorry you are so transparent, but its either just class warfare or ignorance on your part. You can pick.
 
Henrin said:
Fox News? Anyway, its blatantly transparent what you are doing here. In reality, what I said is exactly correct. Your plan if at all believable would call for tax increases all across the board and if you were worried about spending you would put them in place slowly. I'm sorry you are so transparent, but its all just class warfare or ignorance. You can pick.
Click to expand...

No, what you said is not correct, but another exaggeration with no consideration of the logic.

ANd no, that is not my plan. That is what will happen if the tactic to make congress act fails. As I said, that is no one's "PLAN."
 
Boo Radley said:
Maybe, but if you're correct, it will be a failure of congress.
Click to expand...

How was congress producing a bill that passed both houses and was signed into law by the mighty Obama a faliure? What we are seeing is that Obama simply has no clue and will have to accept what he signed unless he can better it. Surely you do not expect Reid to suddenly start passing magical "bipartisan" budgets.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How was congress producing a bill that passed both houses and was signed into law by the mighty Obama a faliure? What we are seeing is that Obama simply has no clue and will have to accept what he signed unless he can better it. Surely you do not expect Reid to suddenly start passing magical "bipartisan" budgets.
Click to expand...

Because to avoid the cliff, they have to present a bill, a compromise. If they don't they fail. This is not difficult, or even controversial. And BTW, Ried is congress.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, what you said is not correct, but another exaggeration with no consideration of the logic.

ANd no, that is not my plan. That is what will happen if the tactic to make congress act fails. As I said, that is no one's "PLAN."
Click to expand...

No, you see a tax increase on just rich would do little to nothing to resolve the problem and if your belief in a tax increase plus spending cuts is to be believed than tax increases across the board must be included. It is essential. Otherwise, all you are doing is either class warfare or ignorance.
 
"nothing will help more than spending"

That was the Obama doctrine for the last four years. That's why he spent a trillion dollars on failed stimulus programs. We don't need government funded consumerism, we need actual, sustainable growth. You don't get that with shock spending cuts and tax increases on small businesses.
 
Henrin said:
No, you see a tax increase on just rich would do little to nothing to resolve the problem and if your belief in a tax increase plus spending cuts is to be believed than tax increases across the board must be included. It is essential. Otherwise, all you are doing is either class warfare or ignorance.
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe that. At least not all at once. Often, you start at the upper end, and then as things improve, move down a bit. That said, the idea should be to move people below upward. The loss in wages of the years, even before the recession, has led to less people making enough to be taxed. Instead of deomonizing them, we'd be better off helping workers get back to some prominence. While I can think of no law that would do the trick, but moving money form those exsorbanant CEO salaries to higher worker salaries would help the country, and more more people into an income bracket that can more readily be taxed.

Also, now that the election is over, closing some loopholes would be prudent. As Obama has asked, and suggested openness to, republicans should bring this to the president, . . .I mean . . .if they really support that.
 
That impending "cliff" is a real test of whether the Republicans and Democrats can actually work together or not. If they can't even come up with a reasonable action in the face of impending disaster, then the federal government is so dysfunctional that the only solution is to toss out every incumbent and start over.
 
friday said:
"nothing will help more than spending"

That was the Obama doctrine for the last four years. That's why he spent a trillion dollars on failed stimulus programs. We don't need government funded consumerism, we need actual, sustainable growth. You don't get that with shock spending cuts and tax increases on small businesses.
Click to expand...

Oh but you see, if you use spending programs during bad times and then you cut spending during full employment to deal with the debt everything will work out just fine. No amount of fairy dust involved either. :lamo
 
friday said:
"nothing will help more than spending"

That was the Obama doctrine for the last four years. That's why he spent a trillion dollars on failed stimulus programs. We don't need government funded consumerism, we need actual, sustainable growth. You don't get that with shock spending cuts and tax increases on small businesses.
Click to expand...

NO, not really. It is true, that the short term effort rerquired more spending. This isn't new or anything that was done by presidents before him in the past. I remember years ago when we talked on these forms about hsi short term plan and long term plan. He need both and at one time articulated both.

And on the whole, small businesses are a protected group, even under Obama. So, we should tone down the exaggerations.
 
I've a counter-proposal: Let's just let the old people die.

1. Cliff
2. Old people gotta go.

Nice options.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That impending "cliff" is a real test of whether the Republicans and Democrats can actually work together or not. If they can't even come up with a reasonable action in the face of impending disaster, then the federal government is so dysfunctional that the only solution is to toss out every incumbent and start over.
Click to expand...

Quite so. Partisan ideology needs to be tempered, and doing the people's work encouraged.
 
ecofarm said:
I've a counter-proposal: Let's just let the old people die.

1. Cliff
2. Old people gotta go.

Nice options.
Click to expand...

I love the smell of sarcasim early in the morning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom