this "deal" is hardly a deal. there are virtually NO cuts with massive tax increases. I don't understand how anyone (even the most die hard liberals out there) think that this is a good idea.

and yes, just because the alternative is "worse" doesn't make this deal "good"

[Edited on January 1, 2013 at 6:19 PM. Reason : ]

1/1/2013 6:18:27 PM

Quote :

"It passed the Senate with 89 votes but Boehner/Cantor wouldn't even bring it up for a vote in the House"

Even more funny since Boehner promised to bring anything to the floor at this point.

Quote :

"I don't understand how anyone (even the most die hard liberals out there) think that this is a good idea."

It's definitely not good. I think it's just Obama telling the repubs to fuck off at this point. Don't like it, but it's not like they didn't have a chance. They can't even get their shit together as a party ffs.

1/1/2013 6:41:42 PM

It's $12B in cuts and $12B in revenue and postponing the discussion 2 months

1/1/2013 6:44:59 PM

no it is $620 billion in tax hikes and $15 billion is "spending cuts." (actually a slight reduction in the rate of spending increases)

1/1/2013 6:49:41 PM

Well revenue increase should be a lot more than spending cuts, but I thought they were voting on the 2 month delay. Did that change?

1/1/2013 8:21:13 PM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2013/01/01/senate-bill-averts-fiscal-cliff-for-now-while-ignoring-our-short-and-long-term-fiscal-problems/

The bill would defer the across-the-board cuts for two months. Meaning that we have another cliff coming up on March 1. And possible default and government shutdown before that when the debt limit is reached.

So they are postponing the sequester for 2 months, paid for by the $24B half in spending cuts and half in revenue, so how do we know what e spending cuts are? We don't know it's 620 to 15, we know its 620 to something that will be decided in another clusterfuck in 2 months.

[Edited on January 1, 2013 at 8:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/1/2013 8:24:02 PM

^exactly, I really don't hate this bill except that the next two months are going to be the same budget argument shit that we just came through

1/1/2013 9:22:26 PM

Fuck a payroll tax increase. Keep the lower payroll tax and cut the difference from defense, SS, and medicare.

1/2/2013 12:08:49 AM

The bad idea is focusing on deficits at all during a (post-)recession slump, when the top priority should be creating more jobs. Reducing the cash that the lower and middle classes have to spend, ie raising the payroll tax, at a time like this, accomplishes exactly the opposite by constricting demand.

Stop giving a shit about the deficit. The private sector doesn't care whether your money comes from a private or public employer. When you cut a trillion dollars from government spending you're cutting a trillion dollars from the economy. Less spending, less demand, less jobs. Fix the deficit during the next upswing, like Clinton did. Especially because this crisis is worldwide, there's never been a better time to deficit-spend, unless you guys think Iceland is poised to overtake us.

[Edited on January 2, 2013 at 11:11 AM. Reason : .]

1/2/2013 11:07:09 AM

Unfortunately a further extension of the payroll tax cut was never on the table. Neither Reid or Pelosi liked it in the first place and Dems in general are averse to messing with SS's accounting. Of course, it's really stupid in the first place that SS and Medicare are paid for with a regressive tax, but what are you gonna do. Someone should introduce a bill that lowers the rate but removes the income cap.

1/2/2013 11:13:20 AM

You can't just do flat cuts to medicare and social security. The former is so under-funded and broken that health care providers are opting out. Further cuts would just collapse the system entirely. The latter has started paying out less than people put in. You could probably cut some disability wages, but very few Republicans, let alone democrats, will touch disability. Too much fuel for opposing SuperPacs in the next campaign season.

1/2/2013 11:14:12 AM

Why are we arguing about lack of cuts when we won't even discuss them till March?

1/2/2013 12:47:12 PM

I love how the right-wing talking point of the day is "Fiscal cliff deal add $4 trillion to deficit over 10 years according to the CBO." The Bush-denial process is complete. Obama is now a reckless tax-cutter for making permanent the majority of tax cuts his predecessor put in place and the GOP intended to keep renewing indefinitely.

Note also that if he hadn't done so he'd be of course perpetrating the biggest tax RAISE in history.

[Edited on January 2, 2013 at 1:48 PM. Reason : Cake status: Haved and Eaten]

1/2/2013 1:47:31 PM

Phase out social security. Cut military spending by 1/3. Reform Medicare. Invest in fusion power with a seriousness. Dissolve Homeland Security and privatize the TSA. Tackle our debt and deficit and then cut everyone's taxes. Naive?

1/2/2013 3:37:34 PM

not gonna happen until the fucking baby boomers die off

1/2/2013 4:40:15 PM

not going to happen until no one will let us borrow anymore money

1/2/2013 6:36:46 PM

Military spending and homeland security are necessities. The other programs and entitlements can dissolve.

1/2/2013 6:50:35 PM

Serious or trolling?

1/2/2013 7:15:56 PM

Not trolling. If you can't understand why military is a necessity, I'm at a loss of words.

The edit was because I was half-assing the response and quite frankly, I don't care to type a dissertation with references explaining reasons why while covering my wording so you don't twist my statements to fit an opposing agenda.

And how dare you call me an asshole. What was that insult for? I didn't insult you.



[Edited on January 2, 2013 at 7:37 PM. Reason : Jerk.]

1/2/2013 7:29:57 PM

Are you just against cutting military spending entirely or against cutting it some? Do you understand what percentage of federal outlays are from military spending, or how much more we spend on our military than the rest of the world?

[Edited on January 2, 2013 at 7:32 PM. Reason : Because if you're this dumb I'm at a loss for words. Nice edit, dumb ass. ]

1/2/2013 7:31:44 PM

Depends on what is being cut. I don't mind cutting a lot of the overseas stuff. For example, our protection acts/policies for Japan are outdated and need reformation; they deserve to have their own military.

What's sickening is that we spend over 300% more on welfare than we do on education. Perhaps if we shifted our priorities, we'd have more productive people who wouldn't NEED welfare to live.




[Edited on January 2, 2013 at 7:55 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2013 7:51:37 PM

More federal spending on education?

1/2/2013 8:14:53 PM

lol, dtownral has been MAD lately, bros!

also, "dumbass" is actually a compound word. not that we haven't been enjoying the irony of you misspelling it a hundred times.

1/2/2013 8:26:23 PM

Tell that to my autocorrect, but I added that because of the snark he needlessly added to his post when he edited. I'm sorry that so many of you have problems.

Also, my post stand on their own. My question clarifying that he wants more federal spending for education is relevant, especially since most who oppose military cuts are against it. (I'm not saying you can't be against military cuts and for federal education spending increases, just that this is not a common position)

1/2/2013 8:32:53 PM

It wasn't meant as a snark comment, though I can see now how it came off as one.

I go back and forth on my stance with privatized and federal education systems. However, I find it intriguing that we spend so much more on welfare and other entitlements versus investing in the future America through education. That's all I meant by my comment. So given $X funding to be spent, I'd rather see it go to education before any entitlement program.

1/2/2013 9:01:37 PM

Here's the chart that I always find handy. Until the large things get addressed, nothing else is going to matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/index.html

1/2/2013 9:25:20 PM

^^because hungry, homeless, or sick kids don't learn well. We need to address both the long term issues, education; and the short term issues that kids and families face.

1/2/2013 10:51:08 PM

so my paycheck took a hit. about $200 a month more in taxes.

1/3/2013 8:29:52 AM

everybody's paycheck took a hit, assuming you are on payroll.

1/3/2013 8:51:26 AM

Im sure Obama will come rescue us little guys after the fact as soon as Republicans get out of the way amirite?

New congress convenes and we will be saved. Checks in the mail for all of us!

1/3/2013 9:57:05 AM

a republican criticizing Obama for not protecting the middle class enough is definitely bizarro world

1/3/2013 10:17:46 AM

That is hardly criticism-

...and since he won why shouldnt I embrace glorious leader?

1/3/2013 10:18:44 AM

(i know it was already discussed, and is obvious, but I'm kinda surprised they just straight out explicitly justified it with this)

1/3/2013 12:32:16 PM

You can't triple stamp a double stamp, Grover! Grover!

1/3/2013 1:08:44 PM

Quote :

"so my paycheck took a hit. about $200 a month more in taxes."

2% of your check is $200?

1/3/2013 3:43:53 PM

Depends on how your company took out normal taxes as well. Everyone got the extra 2% for SS, some companies went ahead and worked on adjusted rates as well working under the assumption that the Bush tax cuts that had been allowed to expire wouldn't be reinstated.

1/3/2013 3:46:46 PM

Hooray for permanent tax cuts to those who make $35,000 a month!

1/3/2013 5:26:06 PM

What if he just gets paid once a month?

1/3/2013 5:36:12 PM

Savings compared to if we had gone over the cliff and done nothing, also doesn't include expiration of payroll tax holiday, stimulus tax cuts, or Obamacare taxes.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/near-rich-did-really-well-fiscal-cliff-deal

1/3/2013 6:07:21 PM

$200-500k is "near rich"?

This country has some seriously fucked up perceptions of income strata and living standards.

1/3/2013 10:38:19 PM

^^^
I'm not sure I follow. What's the significance of only once a month?

1/3/2013 10:45:41 PM

hahaha, I love the idiots on facebook saying things like "MY TAXES WENT UP - I HOPE ALL YOU OBAMA LOVERS ARE HAPPY"

And I'm like, "Well, thankfully he's the one who lowered your payroll tax by 2% in the first place so that you'd have something to bitch about when that temporary break finally went away"

1/3/2013 11:56:06 PM

Quote :

"$200-500k is "near rich"? "

Yeah, this really caught me off guard when people are trying to justify that 250 K is not getting close to rich. Their point was that in this price range you have to pay for:

-college for two kids @ 30 K/year. An old parent living with you at 10 k/year.

That still leaves 180K/year. Maybe Americans shouldn't rush to spend 450-600 K on their first house and then turn around lecturing somebody making 30 K/year on "living within their means".

[Edited on January 4, 2013 at 1:06 AM. Reason : dp]

1/4/2013 1:01:26 AM

Quote :

"a republican criticizing Obama for not protecting the middle class enough is definitely bizarro world"

almost every single thing obama has done has hurt the middle class, especially this crippling health care crap... my health care has never cost so much and paid for so little. my copays are soaring and coverage is declining. My wife got her new insurance info the other day... it would cost us about 5500 out of pocket to have a kid this year vs 4000 last year. (and it's expected to go up significantly next year.

1/4/2013 5:45:18 AM

^that's been the basic trend in healthcare since well before Obama was elected. I'm also not convinced Obamacare will do anything to buck that trend, but you can't really expect it to flip a trend overnight either.

1/4/2013 8:00:50 AM

obamacare is a conservative plan created by conservatives, but what ^ said

1/4/2013 8:03:48 AM

Quote :

"2% of your check is $200?"

it's not uncommon for a senior engineer to make $120k

1/4/2013 8:58:27 AM

Quote :

"obamacare is a conservative plan created by conservatives, but what ^ said"

absolutely false.

1/4/2013 9:21:39 AM

^^ oh ok damn, carry on then.

1/4/2013 9:26:12 AM

Here is what our deficit reduction activities look like over the past couple of years:
$1.8 Trillion in cuts and $600 billion in revenue increases ($2.4 trillion total)

now who to give credit too, hmm . . . . .

1/9/2013 8:35:24 AM