The fiscal cliff

[gourimoko]

They should vote on the entire package. They will lose some democrats, but I think enough people from both sides would see it as the best compromise they are going to get to pass it. You lose republican votes without the CPI change being part of it. Compromise means both sides voting for something they don't want to get something they do want.

I don't think you get the compromise deal through the House, I think you lose too many Democrats. The Administration's proposal might get 2/3rds of the House Democrats, but only 50-60 House Republicans. That's not simply not enough. Many Democrats would want to wait until the next session to restart negotiations, especially if a concession is not made that grants the President authority to exceed the Debt Ceiling for at least another 12-18 months. From their perspective, it is much easier to pass an effective Obama tax cut than to pass a lame duck tax increase. Many Republicans feel the same way.

We're likely going over the cliff for that reason alone.

 

[gourimoko]

None of these guys know what they want to do. All their accounts should be frozen until they come up with a compromise.

To be honest, I'm of the mind that so soon after an election (the President hasn't even been inaugurated for his second term yet), that elected representatives should adhere to their campaign promises. Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth, blasting Mitt Romney for wanting to raid Social Security and demonizing him for it. Then, within 45 days of the election, his office proposes raiding Social Security.

Quite frankly, Obama doesn't seem to give a damn about commitments he made to voters.

I would rather politicians vote based on their promises. Compromise should be created in committees, panels, and conferences, not 6-8 weeks out from a national referendum by two very recently re-elected representatives.

 

[Lee]

To be honest, I'm of the mind that so soon after an election (the President hasn't even been inaugurated for his second term yet), that elected representatives should adhere to their campaign promises. Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth, blasting Mitt Romney for wanting to raid Social Security and demonizing him for it. Then, within 45 days of the election, his office proposes raiding Social Security.

Quite frankly, Obama doesn't seem to give a damn about commitments he made to voters.

I would rather politicians vote based on their promises. Compromise should be created in committees, panels, and conferences, not 6-8 weeks out from a national referendum by two very recently re-elected representatives.

Now you see why I didnt vote for Obama. Its not the campaign he was running, it was the one he wasnt. He was a say anything to get elected type and was accusing Mitt the whole time of doing things he himself was guilty of.

 

[KI4MVP]

the democrats didn't win the house, Obama has to compromise some. The pending fiscal cliff makes this anything but a normal election cycle.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Now you see why I didnt vote for Obama. Its not the campaign he was running, it was the one he wasnt. He was a say anything to get elected type and was accusing Mitt the whole time of doing things he himself was guilty of.

Unfortunately, that's the name of the game come November.

I wonder what it would be like if people only got their information from newspapers and radio broadcasts..........sucks I wasn't born in the 40's.

 

[Damage]

the democrats didn't win the house, Obama has to compromise some. The pending fiscal cliff makes this anything but a normal election cycle.

So going from 250k to 450k isn't compromising?

Look, this is 100% political theatre and Wall Street is responding like overly dramatic teenage girls who just got their first period and first french kiss on the same day. The cliff will be resolved.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Fiscal Cliff, Libor Scandal, Robert Holmes, Peter Lanzna, Gun Control

Damage, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I think you've got real credence to this stuff.

 

[KI4MVP]

so the latest speculation is this congress is now expected to NOT DO THIER JOB and will instead pass the buck to the next congress to fix their mess.

This means these tax hikes will take effect Tuesday

It also means the automatic 10% cuts and associated layoffs will happen

It also means we will hit the nations debt ceiling on monday.

why is this happening? too many congress members who think fixing the tax problem after it happens lets them say they voted for a tax cut vs. fixing the problem before hand being a tax increase. This semantic political game could throw the country back into recession and cause harm to many families who aren't prepared for this across the board tax increase.

 

[Man Called X]

so the latest speculation is this congress is now expected to NOT DO THIER JOB and will instead pass the buck to the next congress to fix their mess.

This means these tax hikes will take effect Tuesday

It also means the automatic 10% cuts and associated layoffs will happen

It also means we will hit the nations debt ceiling on monday.

why is this happening? too many congress members who think fixing the tax problem after it happens lets them say they voted for a tax cut vs. fixing the problem before hand being a tax increase. This semantic political game could throw the country back into recession and cause harm to many families who aren't prepared for this across the board tax increase.

And yet, we keep giving them power...

 

[Lee]

And yet, we keep giving them power...

We are not "giving" them power, they already have it. This type of crap just goes to show how ineffective of a President Obama truly has been. Would Reagan or Clinton allowed this to happen on their watch? Absolutely not imo. They both had the ability to cross party lines.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Now you see why I didnt vote for Obama. Its not the campaign he was running, it was the one he wasnt. He was a say anything to get elected type and was accusing Mitt the whole time of doing things he himself was guilty of.

Wasn't Mitt Romney the exact same type? He literally changed his stance on pretty much everything from the primaries to the general election. If you voted for Romney, you voted for the exact same person you claim to be voting against in your quote above.

If you didn't vote for either, more power to you.

 

[Man Called X]

We are not "giving" them power, they already have it. This type of crap just goes to show how ineffective of a President Obama truly has been. Would Reagan or Clinton allowed this to happen on their watch? Absolutely not imo. They both had the ability to cross party lines.

US Govt exists solely because the people give it the power to exist.

At this point, let us fall off the cliff. It's about the only thing that would bring about any real change.

 

[KI4MVP]

We are not "giving" them power, they already have it. This type of crap just goes to show how ineffective of a President Obama truly has been. Would Reagan or Clinton allowed this to happen on their watch? Absolutely not imo. They both had the ability to cross party lines.

Neither Reagan or Clinton faced a congress that signed an idiotic pledge that causes them to send the country over the cliff over semantics.

 

[Man Called X]

Neither Reagan or Clinton faced a congress that signed an idiotic pledge that causes them to send the country over the cliff over semantics.

Reagan and Clinton worked in eras where the US dollar wasn't worth little more than monopoly money. The greed and mass fraud were still at their heights. Now that the same stunts can't be pulled to artificially make us look wealthier than we are, everyone is at a loss.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Neither Reagan or Clinton faced a congress that signed an idiotic pledge that causes them to send the country over the cliff over semantics.

Or a rival party that came out and flat out admitted they would do everything possible to block everything the president tried to do regardless of whether or not they agreed with it.