Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Taxmageddon Fiscal Cliff Tonight

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 10:00:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At midnight tonight we will be bombarded with 20 new taxes plus Obamacare taxes. The Senate and Obama have not struck a deal.

The Obama administration is so diabolical he's going to add a new tax on medical equipment including things like syringes, even if there is no profit.

Is he trying to cripple the economy or are we just stupid and the Keynesian economists know what their doing?

Actually I had some doubts that maybe I'm wrong, but then I realized Greece and France have already been crippled using Keynesian theory. Is Obama blind to the economic collapse of Europe? Why can't he see he's taking us down that road.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:01:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

Is he trying to cripple the economy or are we just stupid and the Keynesian economists know what their doing?

Actually I had some doubts that maybe I'm wrong, but then I realized Greece and France have already been crippled using Keynesian theory. Is Obama blind to the economic collapse of Europe? Why can't he see he's taking us down that road.

Obama wants to extend tax cuts to everyone making less than $400,000. Greece and France have done the opposite of Keynesian Economics by implementing high taxes in a recession and limiting government spending. Obama, as a Keynesian, understands that tax breaks and government spending are needed to stimulate the economy. However, because Obama is very fiscally responsible, he will ask the rich to pay more, so the government can spend.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:24:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:01:11 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Obama wants to extend tax cuts to everyone making less than $400,000. Greece and France have done the opposite of Keynesian Economics by implementing high taxes in a recession and limiting government spending. Obama, as a Keynesian, understands that tax breaks and government spending are needed to stimulate the economy.

No, you leave money in the economy, you don't take money out of the already struggling economy. The private sector is the productive sector. Having the government just leech money out of the people and then spending it on more nonsense even through the government has a ridiculously high debt is patently absurd.

However, because Obama is very fiscally responsible, he will ask the rich to pay more, so the government can spend.

That is absurd. The rich already pay progressively high taxes. He could tax the rich 100% and it still wouldn't have any meaningful impact on putting any dent whatsoever on the debt. Taxing the rich to allow them to spend is like taking pennies to fund a ten thousand dollar project.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:34:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

No, you leave money in the economy, you don't take money out of the already struggling economy. The private sector is the productive sector. Having the government just leech money out of the people and then spending it on more nonsense even through the government has a ridiculously high debt is patently absurd.

All else being equal government spending is a more effective stimulus than tax breaks, because some money earned by individuals is saved, whereas all of government expenditure is spent. The rich save more than the poor so it makes sense to tax the rich more, to stimulate the economy. For example is some spends 75% there money, the government can take it and spend 100% of it, which increases aggregate demand.


That is absurd. The rich already pay progressively high taxes. He could tax the rich 100% and it still wouldn't have any meaningful impact on putting any dent whatsoever on the debt. Taxing the rich to allow them to spend is like taking pennies to fund a ten thousand dollar project.

Taxing the rich allows for more government programs which will boost GDP. Taxing the rich allows the USA to decrease the burden on the middle class and/or borrow more, which they can spend to stimulate the economy.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:55:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:24:58 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/31/2012 11:01:11 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Obama wants to extend tax cuts to everyone making less than $400,000. Greece and France have done the opposite of Keynesian Economics by implementing high taxes in a recession and limiting government spending. Obama, as a Keynesian, understands that tax breaks and government spending are needed to stimulate the economy.

No, you leave money in the economy, you don't take money out of the already struggling economy. The private sector is the productive sector. Having the government just leech money out of the people and then spending it on more nonsense even through the government has a ridiculously high debt is patently absurd.
So, if the private sector spends the money, it is productive, but if the government spends it, it is not?

Come on, they both act to stimulate the economy, but the profit motive of the private sector is generally more efficiient, while government is more "necessary".

However, because Obama is very fiscally responsible, he will ask the rich to pay more, so the government can spend.

That is absurd. The rich already pay progressively high taxes. He could tax the rich 100% and it still wouldn't have any meaningful impact on putting any dent whatsoever on the debt. Taxing the rich to allow them to spend is like taking pennies to fund a ten thousand dollar project.
My work here is, finally, done.
WW
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:04:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I love how Democrats and people of similar identification see no moral evil (yes, evil) in taking peoples' money by force. Oh, taxing the rich will stimulate the economy more efficiently and bla bla bla, lol, f!ck you if you think that. THAT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!

My rant is over, thank you for reading :D
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:07:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:34:16 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

No, you leave money in the economy, you don't take money out of the already struggling economy. The private sector is the productive sector. Having the government just leech money out of the people and then spending it on more nonsense even through the government has a ridiculously high debt is patently absurd.

All else being equal government spending is a more effective stimulus than tax breaks, because some money earned by individuals is saved, whereas all of government expenditure is spent. The rich save more than the poor so it makes sense to tax the rich more, to stimulate the economy. For example is some spends 75% there money, the government can take it and spend 100% of it, which increases aggregate demand.

A misconception.
The government spends its money, this is true. However, if the citizenry were to save some of its money, it would likely be in the bank, which can then lend it out, which stimulates the economy. I would say both are effective (probably equally) in their effect on the economy, but the government spending is less effective in spending wisely, as they may just be "wasting" money to buy votes.



That is absurd. The rich already pay progressively high taxes. He could tax the rich 100% and it still wouldn't have any meaningful impact on putting any dent whatsoever on the debt. Taxing the rich to allow them to spend is like taking pennies to fund a ten thousand dollar project.

Taxing the rich allows for more government programs which will boost GDP. Taxing the rich allows the USA to decrease the burden on the middle class and/or borrow more, which they can spend to stimulate the economy.

If the increased tax revenue was instead invested, it would increase GDP by an equal amount. However, since the private sector is more concerned with profits, these investments would likely last longer and theoretically employ more people long-term. This increased employment would generate more tax revenue.

I cited this in my thread called "Fair Share Nonsense", the bottom 48% of taxfilers pay a total of 2.3% of taxes collected, with no one paying (on average) more than 6.5%. These number reflect those making $30K or less.
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:08:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:04:19 PM, WW wrote:
I love how Democrats and people of similar identification see no moral evil (yes, evil) in taking peoples' money by force. Oh, taxing the rich will stimulate the economy more efficiently and bla bla bla, lol, f!ck you if you think that. THAT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!

My rant is over, thank you for reading :D

In a democracy, where laws are made by the people, it is not taking by "force". It is developing a society by democratic means. Taxes are needed to run the country, and in the USA, they are made by democratic means. If you do not want to pay any taxes leave your country and start your own.
WW
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:23:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:08:11 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:04:19 PM, WW wrote:
I love how Democrats and people of similar identification see no moral evil (yes, evil) in taking peoples' money by force. Oh, taxing the rich will stimulate the economy more efficiently and bla bla bla, lol, f!ck you if you think that. THAT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!

My rant is over, thank you for reading :D

In a democracy, where laws are made by the people, it is not taking by "force". It is developing a society by democratic means. Taxes are needed to run the country, and in the USA, they are made by democratic means. If you do not want to pay any taxes leave your country and start your own.

I'm relative wealthy, the ups and downs of economy do not effect me significantly. So, nah, I ain't leaving.

There's a BIG difference between using money to build roads, employ police and military, etc. and what I'm talking.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:31:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:08:11 PM, twocupcakes wro
In a democracy, where laws are made by the people, it is not taking by "force". It is developing a society by democratic means. Taxes are needed to run the country, and in the USA, they are made by democratic means. If you do not want to pay any taxes leave your country and start your own.

Is it ok for 51% percent to vote for sending the 49% into a meat grinder? Hitler got elected and the majority voted to put Jews into the gas chamber. Democracy yeah!
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:37:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:23:06 PM, WW wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:08:11 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:04:19 PM, WW wrote:
I love how Democrats and people of similar identification see no moral evil (yes, evil) in taking peoples' money by force. Oh, taxing the rich will stimulate the economy more efficiently and bla bla bla, lol, f!ck you if you think that. THAT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!

My rant is over, thank you for reading :D

In a democracy, where laws are made by the people, it is not taking by "force". It is developing a society by democratic means. Taxes are needed to run the country, and in the USA, they are made by democratic means. If you do not want to pay any taxes leave your country and start your own.

I'm relative wealthy, the ups and downs of economy do not effect me significantly. So, nah, I ain't leaving.

There's a BIG difference between using money to build roads, employ police and military, etc. and what I'm talking.

What are you talking about? Social programs or something, let me know? You say you are wealthy, so this country has allowed you to make a profit. Taxes allow the government to set up a fair society. If you do not like what the USA decides as "fair" you are free to go to a country you feel is "fair", but to say taxes is stealing/immoral is false.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:37:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:31:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:08:11 PM, twocupcakes wro
In a democracy, where laws are made by the people, it is not taking by "force". It is developing a society by democratic means. Taxes are needed to run the country, and in the USA, they are made by democratic means. If you do not want to pay any taxes leave your country and start your own.

Is it ok for 51% percent to vote for sending the 49% into a meat grinder? Hitler got elected and the majority voted to put Jews into the gas chamber. Democracy yeah!

If you are opposed to laws being made democratically, what system do you propose?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:39:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:37:58 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:31:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Is it ok for 51% percent to vote for sending the 49% into a meat grinder? Hitler got elected and the majority voted to put Jews into the gas chamber. Democracy yeah!

If you are opposed to laws being made democratically, what system do you propose?

Constitutional Republic.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:42:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:37:08 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:23:06 PM, WW wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:08:11 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:04:19 PM, WW wrote:
I love how Democrats and people of similar identification see no moral evil (yes, evil) in taking peoples' money by force. Oh, taxing the rich will stimulate the economy more efficiently and bla bla bla, lol, f!ck you if you think that. THAT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!

My rant is over, thank you for reading :D

In a democracy, where laws are made by the people, it is not taking by "force". It is developing a society by democratic means. Taxes are needed to run the country, and in the USA, they are made by democratic means. If you do not want to pay any taxes leave your country and start your own.

I'm relative wealthy, the ups and downs of economy do not effect me significantly. So, nah, I ain't leaving.

There's a BIG difference between using money to build roads, employ police and military, etc. and what I'm talking.

What are you talking about? Social programs or something, let me know? You say you are wealthy, so this country has allowed you to make a profit. Taxes allow the government to set up a fair society. If you do not like what the USA decides as "fair" you are free to go to a country you feel is "fair", but to say taxes is stealing/immoral is false.

The argument can be made that taxing one person to directly give to another is stealing, for example, those with negative tax liabilities who actually receive money come tax time. The earned income credit paid out (not to be confused with lowering taxes owed) some $54 billion in 2009; that money came from someone.

http://www.irs.gov...

However, taxes, in their proper uses of protection (military, courts, etc), should not be viewed as theft, as some rhetoric implies.
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 1:08:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

The argument can be made that taxing one person to directly give to another is stealing,

Often the rich say they are being stolen, from without any argument as to why the rate they want is the "fair rate". Maybe, the rich are stealing from the middle class?

The rich should pay more. The rich have the most riding on a strong economy and have benefited the most from the USA economy. The rich spend a lesser portion of there income, so can afford to pay more, without giving up necessities. The wealthy have been getting wealthier over the years, and the poor poorer. So the rich are stealing from the poor, not the other way around?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 1:39:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:23:06 PM, WW wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:08:11 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:04:19 PM, WW wrote:
I love how Democrats and people of similar identification see no moral evil (yes, evil) in taking peoples' money by force. Oh, taxing the rich will stimulate the economy more efficiently and bla bla bla, lol, f!ck you if you think that. THAT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!

My rant is over, thank you for reading :D

In a democracy, where laws are made by the people, it is not taking by "force". It is developing a society by democratic means. Taxes are needed to run the country, and in the USA, they are made by democratic means. If you do not want to pay any taxes leave your country and start your own.

I'm relative wealthy, the ups and downs of economy do not effect me significantly. So, nah, I ain't leaving.

There's a BIG difference between using money to build roads, employ police and military, etc. and what I'm talking.

If taxes are "theft" then they are "theft" regardless of what the taxes are being spent on. You're just throwing out buzz words simply because you don't like what the money is being spent on.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 1:49:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
However, because Obama is very fiscally responsible, he will ask the rich to pay more, so the government can spend.

Why should the rich pay more? They work hard and I doubt someone like bill gates is using entitlements like unemployment, or food stamps.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 1:49:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:31:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:08:11 PM, twocupcakes wro
In a democracy, where laws are made by the people, it is not taking by "force". It is developing a society by democratic means. Taxes are needed to run the country, and in the USA, they are made by democratic means. If you do not want to pay any taxes leave your country and start your own.

Is it ok for 51% percent to vote for sending the 49% into a meat grinder? Hitler got elected and the majority voted to put Jews into the gas chamber. Democracy yeah!

1) Hitler was not elected into power, he was appointed. In 1932 he failed his election for presidency but was appointed chancellor. Of course, his party later won (since there were no elections for his position) because they made all opposing parties illegal. That's not democracy.

2) It is better for the 51% to oppress the 49% than it is for the 0.001% to oppress the 99.999% that can occur under your constitutional republic.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 1:57:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 1:49:39 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
However, because Obama is very fiscally responsible, he will ask the rich to pay more, so the government can spend.

Why should the rich pay more? They work hard and I doubt someone like bill gates is using entitlements like unemployment, or food stamps.

Because their businesses are far more dependent upon roads and infrastructure (for employees to get to work to make them money, as well as for their goods to ship out and around the world) as well as our courts to protect their property rights (both intellectual and physical).

Microsoft was born and thrived under a tax rate far higher than it is now. It was started in 1975, which had a high end personal tax of around 70% and a corporate tax rate of 50%, so any argument that companies cannot do well with slightly higher taxes is not represented by history. If companies want to pack up and leave because their taxes are going to go up a few percentage points, then new companies will fill the void, as they always have done.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 2:00:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Companies however can do better with lower tax rates, one of the reasons that our jobs can go overseas. Lower wages and taxes abroad offset the costs of things like moving call centers to India to save money.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 3:04:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 1:08:46 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

The argument can be made that taxing one person to directly give to another is stealing,

Often the rich say they are being stolen, from without any argument as to why the rate they want is the "fair rate". Maybe, the rich are stealing from the middle class?

Are you suggesting that, if the government takes my money and gives it to another person in need, that is not theft, but if a needy person takes my money on their own, that is theft? It is a little hard to defend, is it not? Again, I am only talking about these transfers, not government as a whole. Furthermore, do you really think it is fair that these people who get my money do not pay taxes on either their earnings or my money received?

The rich should pay more. The rich have the most riding on a strong economy and have benefited the most from the USA economy. The rich spend a lesser portion of there income, so can afford to pay more, without giving up necessities. The wealthy have been getting wealthier over the years, and the poor poorer. So the rich are stealing from the poor, not the other way around?

So, somehow, the rich are stealing from the poor because I pay a higher percent of my income in property taxes than my neighbor does (they make more than me yet we pay the same amount)? The fact that the rich have money after expenses, and put that money to work for them (stock, savings), is somehow stealing from the poor, who have made their own decisions in life (to have kids, not work, not educate)?

This is why the rich are getting richer, because of money in the bank. And the reason the poor are getting poorer, if true as this is a subjective claim that is already expressed by the fact the rich are getting richer, is because they spend too much, like iPhones and cable and beer. I am where I am because I didn't spend anything except taking my girl out to dinner once a week for five years while working two jobs. Before I bought my house, I was out of debt except for the student loans which I was actively using. I was able to save money, which I used to buy wealth: my house.

For the record, I actually agree with the progressive tax code. I have issues with negative tax liabilities (i.e. receiving free money from the government).
My work here is, finally, done.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 9:28:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:24:58 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No, you leave money in the economy, you don't take money out of the already struggling economy. The private sector is the productive sector. Having the government just leech money out of the people and then spending it on more nonsense even through the government has a ridiculously high debt is patently absurd.

Although your ultimate conclusion is correct, your premises are crap. You can't take money "out" of an economy unless you burn it; it is always transferred from private to public or vice versa.

The private sector is the productive sector, but government spending on "nonsense" boosts demand nonetheless. It might not be what consumers want, but it is the creation of demand, and therefore government spending on "nonsense" is not the reason why the public sector is ineffective.

Also, high debt has nothing to do with spending effectivity.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 9:29:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 1:08:46 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

The argument can be made that taxing one person to directly give to another is stealing,

Often the rich say they are being stolen, from without any argument as to why the rate they want is the "fair rate". Maybe, the rich are stealing from the middle class?

The rich should pay more. The rich have the most riding on a strong economy and have benefited the most from the USA economy. The rich spend a lesser portion of there income, so can afford to pay more, without giving up necessities. The wealthy have been getting wealthier over the years, and the poor poorer. So the rich are stealing from the poor, not the other way around?

Omg. Stop being retarded.

This is a classic Is/Ought fallacy. Just because the rich can pay more, is in no way justification for them paying more.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 9:38:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 9:29:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/31/2012 1:08:46 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

The argument can be made that taxing one person to directly give to another is stealing,

Often the rich say they are being stolen, from without any argument as to why the rate they want is the "fair rate". Maybe, the rich are stealing from the middle class?

The rich should pay more. The rich have the most riding on a strong economy and have benefited the most from the USA economy. The rich spend a lesser portion of there income, so can afford to pay more, without giving up necessities. The wealthy have been getting wealthier over the years, and the poor poorer. So the rich are stealing from the poor, not the other way around?

Omg. Stop being retarded.

This is a classic Is/Ought fallacy. Just because the rich can pay more, is in no way justification for them paying more.

This is true
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 9:41:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So have they reached an agreement yet? Fingers crossed that they don't.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 10:13:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 9:41:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
So have they reached an agreement yet? Fingers crossed that they don't.

The House has the last word, but if the White House and Senate agree on something, the House will basically have to take it.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 10:14:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I hope we go over the cliff. Obama has doubled the national debt with frivolous spending, and anything we do to counteract that is the smart thing to do.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 10:17:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only thing going over the cliff will accomplish is destroying the market's confidence. Guess who gets blamed when the economy goes bad? Clinton was President during good times, so people say he was responsible for that. Bush Jr. was during good then bad times, so people say he is responsible for that.

If things get worse economically, Obama will ultimately be blamed, if not immediately than in the history books. Alternatively, Obama will get credit if things get noticeably better.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 10:23:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 10:17:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
The only thing going over the cliff will accomplish is destroying the market's confidence. Guess who gets blamed when the economy goes bad? Clinton was President during good times, so people say he was responsible for that. Bush Jr. was during good then bad times, so people say he is responsible for that.

If things get worse economically, Obama will ultimately be blamed, if not immediately than in the history books. Alternatively, Obama will get credit if things get noticeably better.

even w/ the fiscal cliff, intrade only predicts a 22% chance of a recession:

http://www.intrade.com...

i think the idea that it will be armagaddon if we go over the fiscal cliff to be media hype and nonsense as usual.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...