Lets take the cliff

[Beavah]

Yah, yeh gotta love da media with its metaphors straight from da lobbyists, like "Fiscal Cliff".

 

Somehow returnin' to da tax rates when we were runnin' budget surpluses and had strong economic growth doesn't sound like much of a cliff. Da sudden cut in spending from sequestration would yield a jump in unemployment through cuts in da military and defense contractors, as well as in da government-funded and private sectors. But it would be temporary, eh? Six months to more stability, with business reinvesting because finally the not-sufficiently-dammed uncertainty of this nutter Congress would be over. All that's required in addition is an automatic raise of da debt ceiling every time Congress approves an unbalanced budget or continuin' resolution.

 

So let's take the leap instead of listenin' to goofs refuse both Medicare cost controls and a rational tax rate.

 

My biggest worry in da next week is that President Obama will once again preemptively surrender to da nutters of both parties.

 

Beavah

 

[Brewmeister]

Oh come on Beavah. There is no way Obama is going to "surrender" on this issue. Why should he? He has the complete upper hand!!!

 

It's to his total advantage to slow walk this. He will blame the Republicans for going over the cliff, the media will dutifully report it, and the average uniformed voter will squawk when his or her paycheck goes down. Which of course gives Obama the opening to come in and propose a "tax cut for the middle class" which, of course, get us right back to where we are today for the majority of folks in the country. Heck, he can even propose to restore some of the military spending too.

 

It's a custom-made "crisis." No way will we see any negotiation from the Oval Office.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

the average uniformed voter will squawk

 

There's a separate forum for that...

[Brewmeister]

*uninformed

[scoutingagain]

"It's a custom-made "crisis." Yah, one of the true bi-partisan accomplishments of the last year or so.

 

I agree let's take the leap. Unfortunately it seems like they will get to a deal of somekind. They're down to quibling about a few hundred billion one direction or the other on a total package in the Trillions. The only hope is the nutters on both side reject it. The fact is if one party or the other actually "likes" the deal that we end up with, it's probably a bad deal.

 

The "cliff" would be a big downpayment on the deficit and long term debt and it's the only way I see that happening. All the other approaches that are currently nibbling around the edges without really addressing long term fiscal responsibility.

 

SA

 

 

[packsaddle]

Beavah, remember when you lamented the lack of a plan by the Tea Party and I said that the plan IS not to have a plan?

Remember that? Is it starting to make sense yet?

[fred8033]

I thought I was the only one. My view ... take the cliff. I'm a life long republican and it seems like the responsible thing to do. Last I heard ... and I could be wrong ... we're running a 180 billion deficit a month right now. That's about $570 per person in the U.S. ... $1250 per working person in the US ... or about $2400 per person who pays income tax ... or (very rough guess) $5000 to $10,000 per person per month who makes about $100,000. (I'd be more precise, but I don't have the time or data with me).

 

I'll never hit the 1% club and probably not even the 2% club. But it seems like we all need to kick-in to solve the budget instead of the democrat position of tax the rich. IMHO, that's really just another version of irresponsibility and blaming someone else and choosing a policy because it doesn't affect me. IMHO, that's just not intellectually or morally honest. And to be honest, I think it's sleazy.

 

IMHO, the cliff tax chainge is only talking about returning to the higher payroll tax rates of year 2002. We're spending more on social programs. Wouldn't it be right to return to the levels we were at for 30+ years?

 

[perdidochas]

If we go off the fiscal cliff, the ones that will suffer the most are those in the lower income levels. When the Bush tax cuts were first made, I remember how much they helped my under $25k income for a family of four.

[fred8033]

perdidochas wrote: "..."

 

I fully understand ... but a family of four with income under $25,000 does not pay any income tax. They pay FICA and Medicare tax (payroll taxes) but so does everyone. The difference is the increased child CREDIT, from $500 to $1000 per child and the 2% lower FICA tax (from the long term 6.2% to the recent 4.2%). I fully understand life is hard at $25,000 per year. 2% lower is $500. At $25,000 per year, the child credit is 100% back to the tax filer. The new tax law represented another $1500 back to the family each year ... beyond what they paid in FICA or income tax. So not only did they not contribute to the federal budget, they actually got $1,500 MORE back beyond what they paid in via income tax or payroll taxes.

 

From what I see, ... and I could be wrong because many specifics play into taxes ... but when a family of four files a tax return with $25,000, they owe zero income tax and get about $5,000 out.

 

Life is hard at that income level. But I've seen my payroll taxes increase by double due to the FICA taxable limit raised from $65000 in 1997 to $110,000 now. That was about $3000 more in taxes then 15 years ago without any income increase. Families over the $110,000 per year never got the 2% lower. That's a $2,200 impact.

 

...............

 

I have a hard time giving credence to those who don't pay taxes.

[skeptic]

Any average family, even in California, should be able to live on 100K per year comfortably. But they would have to actually budget and live within their means, rather than their wants. There lies the biggest problem with too many families. You do not need a new car regularly, and leasing them is a waste since for the same cost you can own it outright within 4 to 5 years, then drive it another 8 to 10 or even more. Am almost seventy, and have only had 5 cars, all of which were owned. Also have driven economy level for 40 years. Never saw the need to buy things I could not really afford; yet never starved, or felt deprived. Have more clothes than I ever will wear, so why do I need more?

 

I would wager that over three quarters of the families in this country could live on half of what they spend, if they simply understood need versus want.

 

In Scouting, it has been my observation that the scouts that had to earn their way financially for major activities, either partly or totally, always seemed to be the ones most enjoying things. Know that was the case for me at jamboree in 1960, and noted it in 1985 within the troop I served as ASM, and two Philmont expeditions. Extends even to summer camp for most kids. The ones whining and least willing to participate fully are the ones that refused to participate in fund raising because their parents would pay. Ironically, boys that choose to not work at all are also the ones that complain they did not get to do something when their parents cannot afford it.

 

While we are retired and have SS and Medicare, our combined income is no more than $40k, before taxes. Yet we are comfortable and able to share at times with kids and grandkids.

 

 

Compared to the rest of the world, our country is simply spoiled. Even our poor are way better off than most. That is why it is so sad that we have kids going hungry. I can guarantee that many of these children's parents have the latest phones and so on, cable and more than one tv, and often new, or close to new cars. They also likely smoke, drink too much, and possibly use drugs. Just another reflection of the selfishness too prominent in many here.

 

Maybe it was being raised by parents that were teens in the depression. I know to this day that I seldom waste food; I turn off lights; I repair things if I can, rather than simply throw them away. So don't expect me to feel sorry for those that have made far more than we have over the years, yet are now unable to live in comfort.

[acco40]

Yeah, the correlation to income level or wealth for that matter, and happiness is not very high. Over 50% of lottery winners report that their lives are 'less happy' after their win than before (I think I read that somewhere )

 

If one thinks the tax break removals and spending cuts are a good thing - lobby for it. But doing nothing is a spineless, gutless, way to address the problem.

 

 

[Beavah]

Beavah, remember when you lamented the lack of a plan by the Tea Party and I said that the plan IS not to have a plan?

Remember that? Is it starting to make sense yet?

 

I think yeh have me mixed up with somebody else, eh?

 

I'm an old-school conservative, back when it was principled and rational. I'm not a Tea Party fellow, and while I perhaps have occasionally lamented what some of those folks have done to a party I once supported, I can't say as I've ever lamented da fact they don't have a coherent plan. Thank goodness they don't!

 

Beavah

 

[scoutingagain]

"Families over the $110,000 per year never got the 2% lower. That's a $2,200 impact. "

 

Absolutely 100% not true. They got a 2% cut on the first $110,000 of income, more if they were a two income family. They did not get the break on income above that amount because they don't pay taxes on amounts above that.

 

I give little credence on those that don't pay payroll taxes on incomes above $110K.

 

SA

[packsaddle]

Beavah, I'm not going to mention anything about tangled placques...yet. But that exchange occurred back in fall 2011 when you wrote about the Tea Party: "It's very clear that both da Tea Party and da OWS people are frustrated, and for some good reasons, but neither has da education or training to actually understand what's goin' on and how things work. So they don't have any idea how to focus their frustration into productive action. Instead they latch onto favorite media soundbites or a single facet of da issue and become a tool for some of the very things they would oppose if they had a clue."

And to the above comment I responded: "...your description of the TPers approach tends to support my contention that their plan (witness how unlikely the NEW debt commission is to decide anything whatsoever) IS not to have a plan..."

Source: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=329023#id_329078

Not that it matters, really, in a couple of days.

[Beavah]

Yah, OK. I think you're not readin' me right, or drawin' da wrong conclusion or somethin'.

 

That entire quote was a statement about ignorance, eh? Just about not havin' the ability to come up with a plan.

 

Da notion of planning not to have a plan does not imply ignorance, it implies intent.

 

Yeh see some folks in da media accusin' da Republicans and Tea Partiers of that, eh? Just oppose everything and obstruct until things break, deliberately havin' no plan because a plan would invite critique and criticism. That might be true of intelligent operatives like da Romney campaign (which despite toutin' business credentials couldn't seem to come up with even da outline of a real budget). As da quote yeh gave above shows, I don't think it's true of da Tea Party movement. I think they're driven by da angst of economic and social disruption, and by a sense of powerlessness and lack of understandin' of da causes. That's why yeh get da almost clinically paranoid stuff about needin' weapons around town or stockpilin' weapons for da imminent socioeconomic collapse.

 

I think that fear is genuine, not calculated. So da inability to come up with a rational plan instead of digging bunkers is genuine, not a calculated ploy. There is no plan not to have a plan, eh? There's just no ability to rationally plan.

 

When you're driven by fear, any outsider becomes da enemy, rather than just the opposition. Yeh must fight da enemy, where yeh can negotiate with da opposition.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)