Bigger fights loom after "fiscal cliff" deal

Comments (110)
mb56 wrote:

When the US Debt to GDP ratio was 121% after WWII, our leaders rolled up their sleeves and implemented some SERIOUS spending cuts AND tax increases to deal with the problem… and EVERY administration paid down our debt until it stood at ~35% of GDP at the end of Carter’s term. BUT what do our current bunch of idiots do? They make tax cuts and cap gains cuts PERMANENT for 99% of the population at some of the lowest rates in the last century… while avoiding once again the tough issue of how to implement reasonable and rational spending cuts…unreal!! One of the most irresponsible actions I’ve ever seen out of a Congress…

Jan 01, 2013 8:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

No one with any integrity should advocate for spending cuts without stating specifically where those cuts should come from. This is part of the problem. If you folks can’t state where the cuts should come from, how do you expect our elected representatives to do it? It’s not a situation where we just make spending cuts and the only result is that less tax revenue is going out. There are consequences.

Is it better to tax the rich less and take healthcare away from, say, 40 million elderly Americans? Should we end food stamps for 40 million poor children? Should we do away with the Center for Disease Control? Should we get rid of agencies like the SEC, eliminating oversight of our investment markets? Be specific or shut up about making spending cuts.

Jan 01, 2013 8:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
foiegras wrote:

Just in…breaking news…House vote on budget deal delayed until 11:45 p.m….House Republicans rush into private strategy session with the Koch brothers…Sheldon Adelson…desperate, panicky House leadership looks to red-blooded post-feudal robber barons for directions…”What are we going to do???”

Jan 01, 2013 9:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
msdds1 wrote:

President Bush was the first and only president to wage war and degrease taxes int he history of the US. We went to war and lowered taxes and paid for it with??? money we did not have. And to boot, Bush increased government exponentially. So the deficit grew and grew while the spending did as well. I grant you there are programs that could be cut but subsidies go to the wealthiest as well in Farm and Oil. And the over site was removed and we got the loan debacle. So the Republicans did exactly what they dont want any one else to do. Increase spending , increase government, decrease over site, increase debt…… the list goes on. And there is no way you can compare this to WWII cause the demographics of the nation was totally different. There was a strong middle class and there was not eh disparity we have now between the Uber rich and the Uber poor and the struggling lower middle class. When you read that the average CEO salary with options is in the Billions?? how can you compare this. They have so much money it is mind boggling. There are more unemployed people out of college then ever before. So if you vote for austerity only you will never give these young people a job.
It takes both.

Jan 01, 2013 9:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
theyuha wrote:

You would think we were going to feed the Republicans animal part to the cat the way they struggled against this.

Jan 01, 2013 10:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mb56 wrote:

Well spreadsheets are wonderful things… and I would encourage EVERYONE who possibly can to go get the US Budget numbers by major category and the US Income numbers (both summarized on Wikipedia), and put them into a spreadsheet along with reasonable projections for inflation and GDP growth – perhaps 2% and 2.5% respectively for starters. IT IS A VERY SOBERING EXERCISE! The sad reality (and one the politicians don’t want to tell you) is that to get back to some sane debt level like 60% of GDP by 2040 is going to take about $1T of debt reduction measures ANNUALLY… not over a decade… and IMHO 2.5% long-term GDP growth is very optimistic. So where is that going to come from? It’s equivalent to cutting ALL of government by 1/3rd or increasing taxes 50%… clearly one or the other isn’t feasible and it’s going to take both. On the cut’s side – clearly Defense and the Discretionary categories are going to have to take the biggest hits.. *carefully* and slowly because EVERY dollar of government spending saved is a dollar out of someone’s job or business – DIRECT hits on our fragile economy. On taxes… clearly locking in rates at century lows for 99% of the population isn’t going to cut it either… rates are going to have to rise for those further down the food chain as well – perhaps the top 15% or so as the economy improves.

Jan 01, 2013 10:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bunker555 wrote:

Looks like Cantor, Issa, and Ryan got neutered today.

Jan 01, 2013 10:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Capryl wrote:

The House GOP should call this a Democrat bill and demand almost unanimous Democrat support, with just enough squishy or safe Republicans to pass this surrender.

Jan 01, 2013 10:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

Unsustainable growth propped up by debt is not real. It has to be corrected by a recession. For some reason people thought it could be avoided by eating tomorrow’s lunch, or our kids’ lunch. Kicking the cliff down the road won’t kill it. When borrowing is no longer an option things have to be worked out in the street. How can we avoid following Greece’s path?

Jan 01, 2013 10:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mosimo wrote:

flashrooster – I appreciate your comments, it is quite difficult to make those specific decisions, but do remember that for each of those noble programs you mention, we borrow at least 40% of every dollar from foreign lenders to sustain them. This is not a viable solution either. We all must learn to live within our means or the problems we have today will look easy. Today we have the ability to make these tough decisions, but if our creditors begin to doubt our capability, they will step in and make the decisions for us. That is not a situation any of us should look forward to. What are you willing to give up? Your children’s future I assume is the easiest answer…

Jan 01, 2013 11:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

@flashrooster: Great questions on where to start the cuts. The nation spent $60B on the election and we expect the president to figure it out. Kicking the can down the road after 4 years in office is not funny. If the president has any bit of integrity he should simply resign, instead of claiming victory on breaking the promise made just weeks ago. It’s not an easy job but it has to be done, otherwise the answers will be found through shootouts in the street. Would you prefer this over a civil discussion on where to cut?

Jan 01, 2013 11:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Whatsgoingon: I was interested in what you had to say until I got to this: “If the president has any bit of integrity he should simply resign…” You are indicative of the problem that could end up leading to this country’s collapse, and rational people who care about this country don’t appreciate that.

mosimo: I know it’s difficult. I wish both Democrats and Republicans would refrain from talking about spending cuts in general and, instead, negotiate specific cuts, reducing or eliminating programs, and finding less expensive ways to perform necessary government functions. As long as we, and our politicians, speak about spending cuts in general terms, nothing will happen. That’s a certainty.

I listened to what our President had to say just a few minutes ago after this legislation passed in the House, and he’s right. We can’t drag this country through another debate about raising the debt ceiling because that’s money to pay for what’s already been spent. We must tackle the deficit and do so in a balanced way. The Republicans are going to have to give more on the revenue side and both sides are going to have to figure out how to run our government spending less money. With the way our current government is being run, it will be impossible.

One thing no one dares to talk about is the ever-rising cost of healthcare in this country. We won’t be able to have a long term fix to our deficit problem unless we find a way to lower the cost of healthcare, and not consider throwing people off of Medicare and Medicaid as a solution. That doesn’t lower the cost of healthcare. That only makes it so fewer Americans have healthcare. That’s not an acceptable response. The cost of healthcare will continue to rise even if we throw everyone off of Medicare.

Healthcare is an example of where we can do things much cheaper, but we can’t, for example, pass laws that forbid Medicare administrators from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices, like the Republicans did with Bush Medicare D Prescription Drug Plan. Our government must put aside the politics and just do what works for the American people.

If, for example, we were to reform our healthcare system so that it’s no longer the most expensive, the most inefficient system in the world, then we’d have to put aside all politics and all preconceived notions and labels, and just design the very best, most efficient system in the world. That’s the way our country used to think. Unfortunately, to do that it would require some very rich and powerful people in the healthcare industry to take a big hit in their income. The focus must be on providing affordable healthcare for our people in the most economically efficient way, and not on how to best increase someone’s profits.

Jan 01, 2013 11:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
doodoo38178 wrote:

Congrats to our elected officials. Your “Deficit Reduction Bill” increases our deficit. Pat yourselves on the back! Go on vacation, you’ve almost earned it.

Jan 02, 2013 12:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
PKFA wrote:

Where do we cut? Well, where do we spend? Top five:
1). Social Security
2). Defense
3). Medicare
4). Medicaid
5). Interest on debt.
There’s a start…

Jan 02, 2013 12:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
rakeshdry wrote:

What are we going to do you ask? Check with George Clooney, Jay Z, and Bill Maher, the sources of all wisdom.

Jan 02, 2013 12:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
pax2013 wrote:

@flashrooster our health care system was driving us toward a 3rd world status prior to the great recession and AHCA. It’s a top priority if we are to succeed in solving the problem. What sort of system do you propose? I How do we get from here to an entirely affordable, system that is also the most efficient and best in the world? I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter – I thanks

Jan 02, 2013 1:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
mb56 wrote:

@PKFA: I fail to see why people keep picking on SS – it is currently solvent and simply increasing the cap on salary will keep it solvent for decades… it is a misnomer to call SS a “Government Expense”… it’s not SS’s fault that the Government borrows SS funds and must now pay it back. And how do you cut interest on the debt – except perhaps to call the more expensive government bonds… but that takes money once again…

Jan 02, 2013 1:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
pax2013 wrote:

Health care

Jan 02, 2013 1:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
mb56 wrote:

Why do I feel like I’ve just watched a sequel to “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” (or maybe “The Twilight Zone)… perhaps because thats exactly where we’re headed? Permanently freezing tax rates for 99+% of the population (at some of the lowest rates in the last century no less), while making NO spending cuts is one bizarre way to deal with a debt crisis.

Jan 02, 2013 1:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

@flashrooster: “…You are indicative of the problem that could end up leading to this country’s collapse, and rational people who care about this country don’t appreciate that.” Not sure who are the “rational” people you referred to. Are you talking about elected liars who turned a “deficit cutting bill” into “tax increase game”, or people spending 50% beyond tax revenue when our GDP is growing less than 3%, or ones who think we should keep spending since we can’t figure out what to cut first, or people never believe we are heading down the same path as Greece since god is blessing America? If you are talking any of the above, how exactly do they care about this country?

“I listened to what our President had to say just a few minutes ago after this legislation passed in the House, and he’s right. We can’t drag this country through another debate about raising the debt ceiling because that’s money to pay for what’s already been spent. We must tackle the deficit and do so in a balanced way. ” Where’s the balanced way? How much deficit has he reduced in the past 4 years? Does he know that at the current rate in just a few years our interest payment will consume total tax revenue? Does he know by then every tax payer will be a slave paying every dime to the country’s creditor without getting ANYTHING? Does he remember the topic of slave could trigger a civil war? Does he know voters are counting on him to save us from reaching that point? It’s a dire situation calling for a true hero. If he can’t be the one why should he stand in the way?

Jan 02, 2013 2:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

pax2013: Smarter people than me would have to be called on to devise such a plan, but it would have to be done without special interests pressuring lawmakers to do things that will guarantee those special interests significant profits. I frankly don’t see how we can create the most efficient system without eliminating the “for profit” dimension of our system. As long as profits are the goal, then the system can never be too efficient from the patient’s point of view. Higher profits would require “customers” to pay ever increasing costs, which brings us right back to our current system. You’d have people running our healthcare focusing on how to make us pay more, not less. That, or they’d be focused on diminishing the quality of our healthcare, so that they could pocket the difference in profits. Most likely they’d be trying to do both, raising our costs and reducing theirs.

Honestly, I have no particular bias for or against the type of system we employ, just that is be the best we can do. Not the best we can do politically, but the best we can do, period. It needs to be affordable to all Americans and has to lower overall costs of how we do healthcare. If tax payers have to pay more in taxes, then they should be compensated with lower healthcare costs so that people aren’t paying more. That, obviously, would defeat the purpose.

Jan 02, 2013 2:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

PKFA: I certainly applaud your willingness to put something on the table, but do you really think throwing people off of Medicare and Medicaid is any kind of a solution? They are in the programs because they can’t afford healthcare otherwise. You can make them pay more, but most are in those programs because they can’t pay more. Maybe a little more, but not much. I would heartily support studying ways of reducing costs. The AHCA did that by, I think, $700 billion. I’m all for that. But we’re only fartin around the edges until we tackle the actual cost of how we do healthcare here in the US. It just costs too much per person.

Also, I have to second what mb56 stated. SS isn’t contributing to our debt. Not yet. I’d suggest raising the caps on the payroll tax, or lifting it altogether.

Jan 02, 2013 2:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Whatsgoingon: I’m saying that calling for the President to resign is irrational. Sure, there’s a lot of BS going on in Washington, but calling on the President to resign is just another spoonful to add to the mountain of BS. And I should remind you that the budget is Congress’s job, not the President’s. And had Obama come into office and eliminated the deficit, we probably would have ended up in a depression. The day Obama took office our outlays were already considerably higher than what we were taking in. There was nothing Obama could do about that. We were paying for 2 wars, TARP, The Dept of Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, Bush’s Medicare D Prescription Drug Plan, and some ill-advised tax cuts. Seriously, what Obama has contributed to our deficits has been very moderate. He’s actually increased spending less than any President since Eisenhower. He’s not the evil demon the right have made him out to be. But you have to be willing to make the truth a higher priority than hating him to recognize that.

Jan 02, 2013 2:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

@flashrooster: Glad you are calling for truth. We live beyond our means and we have to pay for it, the sooner the better. A depression SHOULD happen and it’s best tool to turn us in the right direction (remember how GM turned around?) Obama should tell the truth, that we need to pay for our mistakes, instead of faulting everybody else and painting an illusion of “recovery”. It simply kicks the can down the hill for a bigger crash.

Jan 02, 2013 3:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
Foxdrake_360 wrote:

Great. Such a good government.

Jan 02, 2013 5:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

PKFA…Social Security has taken in $1T more dollars in withholdings from our pay checks than it has paid out. The ONLY reason it is currently a cost to the U.S. government is because Congress took the money, put it in the general fund and spent it on everything else. They issue a special interest bearing Treasury note specifically for the S.S. Fund (essentially an IOU). Social Security IS NOT a free government program. You and I paid for it through direct pay roll deductions.

#5 on your list is interest on the debt. You can thank the stupidity of the Tea Party and extreme right members of the House for this expense increasing. During the last Debt Ceiling debacle, nut jobs like Michelle Bachmann and several other far right extremist in the House were touting that they wanted to default on our debt. You know the money that this institution approved spending. Moody’s (Credit rating Agency) responded by lowering our credit rating. Which in turn means than we now ENJOY paying a higher percent of interest on our debt. Moody’s has already threatened to downgrade our credit rating again, if these yahoo’s don’t start getting their financial house in order. Which brings me to #2 on your list…DEFENSE. We spend 46% of what the world spends on Defense, yet Mr Ryan thinks we just aren’t spending enough on Defense based on a percent of GDP (see “Path to Prosperity” version 3.0 2013). We have 11 SUPER aircraft carriers. No other country on the planet has more than 1. If we cut Defense spending in half, we would still spend 5 times more than China (who is #2 in Defense spending).

Medicare is essentially a health care Insurance plan (again, funded by pay roll deductions). No other health insurance company on the planet (BCBS, Aetna, Cigna, etc) could survive if they had all the fraud and waste that there is in Medicare. Perhaps the most poorly managed enterprise on the planet. I would entertain privatizing Medicare and putting it the hands of people who are EXPERTS in running healthcare issue programs.

The reason we are in the financial mess we are in is because Congress’s solution for everything is to simply throw money at it. They never really manage anything to assure that the program is efficient or effective.

Jan 02, 2013 5:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Whatsgoingon…Flashrooster is exactly right. There was Forbes article that showed how much Federal Spending has increased by President. In the last 4 years (Obama), federal spending increased 1.4%. No other president in the past 40 years is even close to that number. Under GW, federal spending increased 8% in each of his 2 terms. The closest was Bill Clinton. Federal spending increased 3.0% during his tenure.

Jan 02, 2013 5:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
minipaws wrote:

IOUSA – Obviously Democracy doesn’t work!

Jan 02, 2013 6:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
minipaws wrote:

The United States of Blameacracy. Must be the other party’s fault!

Jan 02, 2013 6:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

The politicians are NOT stupid. They know they can’t fix the government as it is not broken. It has become more and more corrupt for sure, that’s just human nature and time. But even if we removed all the corruption, it (the US Government) still would not work for the 21st century globalized world. It is time for us to once again lead the world forward and redesign our government to be a model for the future. A start of a world government. It will be very, very difficult to do without a violent period. History shows us this and we should pay heed to it. I hope that the United States next miracle is just that, transitioning to a new form of government without a civil or revolutionary war. That in itself would show that mankind has actually progressed enough to deserve to live and expand. I don’t think it will happen though. I think the basic human greed will prevail for another decade. the US will continue to strive to regain the past glory that we let slip through out fingers. Other countries will succeed us and maybe then, in 30 or 40 years, we will realize what the now dead baby boomers really did to us.

Jan 02, 2013 6:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

Unlike the Obama haters and their fantasy world, I am going to tell it like it is.
This had to be done, the Republicans did not like it, but they knew the country would fall apart and they knew the Rush Limbaugh “make Obama fail by destroying the country” plan was a loser.
I don’t like Republicans any more, but they did the right thing, so I thank them for that.

Jan 02, 2013 7:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
amerigom wrote:

“United States avoids calamity in “fiscal cliff” drama”
Hollywood, could not have produced a better scenario!
This “sham” was predicted, months before the ‘clock ran out”!
Going down to the wire, was a concoction!
I wonder how long it will take for a premiere; AND will it be a Drama or a Comedy?
Yes! “Fiscal Crisis; and \”Fiscal Cliff”; It does have a nice sound!
Are you taking notes?
A sure result of the “talks”; Everything will cost more!
Our Dollar will become less valuable!
We could use some “Change”; and it is a bill sitting in Congress, for more than a decade!
HR 25; Called the Fair Tax!
The Fair Tax would replace the Income Tax!
Revolutionary; because it would be tax on consumption; rather than Income!
The Wage-earners dollar would immediately gain 22% IN VALUE!
Very simple; with the Fair Tax; ALL other FEDERAL TAXES will be eliminated! NO more withholding. If you earn $400.00 a week; Your check will be made out for $400.00; NO deductions!
That’s only a starter!
Read All About It!
GOD; Bless America.
In GOD We Trust.

Jan 02, 2013 7:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
Tiu wrote:

A pathetic charade badly acted out. All it’s achieved is a bunch of headlines.
The problems still remain.

Jan 02, 2013 7:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

The problem is now worce.

Jan 02, 2013 8:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
byrond2 wrote:

Here’s the kicker. The US is still headed into a recession and now the politicians won’t be able to blame the fiscal cliff.

Jan 02, 2013 8:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
Globalman wrote:

Great leaders lead and somehow merge opposing points of view into constructive action. Reagen did it. Clinton did it. Why can’t Obama? Whatever he does he sows dissession and creates turmoil. This may be a “victory” from Obama’s perspective but it is a long term economic disaster. Obama does not understand economics and the fact we have never spent our way out of recession or depression. The fiscal debt is unsustainable. The Fed sustains this course by holding $2T in debt, which is akin to paying a credit card payment with another credit card. We must reduce fiscal debt in a meaningful way! But Obama has certainly set his bridges on fire on both sides of the aisle by his negative leadership and lack therein. Its difficult to imagine that Congress can ever agree on a long term viable solution. The can will continue to be kicked down the road in all likelihood without a true solution.

Jan 02, 2013 8:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Obama is a complete dunce: He just raised taxes on 77% of Americans and the working middle class, made permanent 99% of the Bush tax cuts liberals hate and lost all of his leverage for the upcoming debt ceiling battle in which he will be forced to cut spending.

You think he’ll hold another gloating, snide campaign style press conference today? LOL

Jan 02, 2013 8:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
Wassup wrote:

The stupidity and arrogance displayed by the Executive and Legislative Branches to avert the “fiscal cliff” months before it was to take place is unparalleled and is idiocy at its worst. The American people demand common sense and forthright handling of this nations business and are far from obtaining it.

These so called representatives should be barred from all their elite insurance, vacation, adjournment benefits, pay and perks when the nations budget is not balanced and a potentially defined instance such as the “fiscal cliff” is at hand. Kicking the problem down the road is not addressing the problem. It should only be allowed once. Further handling of the agenda to a honest conclusion should then be mandated. The defined determination should be handled by an unbiased panel of voters and be in effect when certain criteria and timing is not met. An overhaul of Congress is justified at this juncture and a review of Presidential powers should be initiated forthwith to prevent mandates and dictatorial edicts from being flagrantly put in place without Constitutional merit and Congressional approval for the constituents of our nations benefit.

Jan 02, 2013 8:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
abb68 wrote:

this ‘deal’ was a failure on all counts:
the tax code in the US remains archaic, overly-complicated, and lacks fairness.
the problem of debt/GDP levels was unaddressed and remains the biggest single threat to the welfare of this country.
The president’s repeated vows to end unhealthy partisanship are undermined by his own example.

Jan 02, 2013 9:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

The American Economy just avoided the cliff and fell into the abyss along with our freedom and what is left of our morality and justice. Enjoy your chains.

Jan 02, 2013 9:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
Globalman wrote:

Amerigom you have swallowed Obama’s line hook line and sinker. This may be good politics for Obama but bad economics for the country in the long run. By the way the country has already “fallen apart” in an economic sense.

Jan 02, 2013 9:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

Start by cutting the government in half. Let them get real jobs.

Jan 02, 2013 9:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
jtfane wrote:

For those who are interested here are the eight Senators that voted no on the bill: Bennet (D-CO), Carper (D-DE), Grassley (R-IA), Harkin (D-IA), Lee (R-UT), Paul (R-KY), Rubio (R-FL), Shelby (R-AL),

and three who did not vote: DeMint (R-SC), Kirk (R-IL), Lautenberg (D-NJ).


Jan 02, 2013 9:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

abb68…Obama is partisan? He nominated Republicans to the Secretary of Defense, the Army and Transportation. He nominated Republican Governor John Huntsman as our Ambassador to China. And he nominated at least 1 Republican as a regulator that oversees the CBOT. In trying to solve our economic problems he asked the Republicans to join in to form 3 separate bi-partisan committees. In 2010, working with the 1st bi-partisan committee, he worked with Republican House Speaker John Boehner and they had a handshake deal to save over $4T in taxes and spending cuts. Where the President against the wishes of his own party put entitlement programs on the table. The Tea Party Republicans and extreme right in the House shot that deal down. One of the major criticisms of Obama by those on the left is that he crosses the aisle too much. If he seems less partisan of late, perhaps it is because his efforts to WORK with Republicans has failed so badly over the past 4 years. It was McConnell who in 2010 said that it was the Republican Party’s primary goal to make Obama a one term president. Well dude, they not only failed at that goal. They failed miserably. Romney/Ryan couldn’t even carry their home states. Romney/Ryan lost by 23 percentage points in Massachusetts. They lost by 9.5 percentage points in Michigan. And they lost by 7 percentage points in Wisconsin.

Jan 02, 2013 10:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
carlo151 wrote:

This is a good first step. Those that can pay, will pay more. Payroll tax will go up on all, hitting those that make less than $110k more that those who make more, but it should never have been cut in the first place. For all those who expect SS when they retire, then expect to pay for it when you are working.

Extended unemployment is ok during tough times, but indexing it to unemployment is also correct. And if you are in an area where you need 99 weeks, then maybe it is time to move.

I am a liberal, but a realist. I have kids and don’t expect them to pay my bills after I am gone.

The US has basically always run deficits, and we can handle them, but lets leave them for recessions and disasters . At the height of the housing bubble 2004-2006 with unemployment below 5%, we should not have been running a deficit. As growth picks up, everything should be indexed to unemployment and GDP.

Jan 02, 2013 10:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

Got news for you carlo, your kids are EACH over $50,000 in debt RIGHT NOW and is getting worse every day. Your economic picture works well, in mexico.

Jan 02, 2013 10:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
Globalman wrote:

xyz2055 to believe that a politician of either party is not political is so far beyond reality that it is riduculous. There is plenty of blame to go around for both parties. You forgot to mention that the Dems had a majority in both houses and failed to address. Both parties (and the voters) need to stop pointing fingers and Obama needs to be a constructive leader. Also who cares if he appoints Republicans or Democrats to his cabinet. Not the point. We are broken and need to tone down the rhetoric. The CBO says that the fiscal cliff deal will add $4T to debt. Its a loss for everyone.

Jan 02, 2013 10:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
Globalman wrote:

Suggest reading “The Forgotten Man:A New History of the Great Depression” by Amity Shlaes. Suggests that unbridled government spending costs are borne by midde/ working class. Also poses the question of not why Depressionnended but why it took so long. As you read you will see the same mistakes being repeated today. Scary.

Jan 02, 2013 10:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
zotdoc wrote:

avoided a calamity? ha ha ha – for how long. at least the sequester would have cut some spending, now we are headed down the road to an even bigger calamity, possibly a complete financial collapse.

Jan 02, 2013 11:01am EST  --  Report as abuse

All I know is that 2% of my paycheck this week will be missing. How come the Democrats didn’t fight for that SS tax break to remain for the middle class and let it expire for the top 2 percent of earners?

Jan 02, 2013 11:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Globalman..nice rant you’ve got going on there. And I would certainly agree that both parties are indeed to blame for this mess. The Senate in particular hasn’t done jack until this week. But did you ACTUALLY read the comment I was responding to? abb689′s statement that Obama is an example of promoting partisanship is WAY off the mark….In REALITY Obama has probably been the least partisan president we’ve ever had. In that specific context..your response to my post was ridiculous.

Jan 02, 2013 11:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Globalman and zotdoc..both of you realize that the “sequester” spending cuts have only been delayed by 2 months in the bill that was passed yesterday..right? The debate over spending cuts and by how much is FAR from over.

Jan 02, 2013 11:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
ChangeWhat wrote:

Our politicians are so full of $h!t their toilet paper is brown before it hits their @$$.

“Republicans, angry the deal did little to curb the federal deficit”

Drop less bombs and steal less resources from other countries.
Close unneeded bases around the world that are waiting for the boogie man attack.

“Our opportunity here is on the debt ceiling,” Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said on MSNBC, adding Republicans would have the political leverage against Obama in that debate. “We Republicans need to be willing to tolerate a temporary, partial government shutdown, which is what that could mean.”

Senator Pat Toomey should jailed for treason on this statement alone. He is willingly saying, “we did not get our way so too bad for the American people that voted me in, i’m willing to cause turmoil in politics and in America to get my way.”

My thoughts to you Pat Toomey, I think you are terrorist. You should be sent to Guantanamo. How dare you hold anything over Americans heads? If you were in front of me I would smack you around like the little b!tch you are.

Jan 02, 2013 11:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Like I said all along, there is no fiscal cliff. We went over it, and we didn’t even go over it. Its official name now is fiasco cliff.

Jan 02, 2013 11:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Alwayslearning writes:

“All I know is that 2% of my paycheck this week will be missing.”

Incorrect. Keep learning.

Jan 02, 2013 11:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Globalman..your post regarding “great leaders”, particularly regarding Clinton is delusional. But nice try at your attempt to rewrite history. Clinton didn’t work with the Republicans that had control of both houses during his tenure. They impeached him. We had major gridlock during the Clinton years. The difference between Clinton and Obama are in the circumstances. We didn’t have the massive debt nor the huge annual deficits that Obama inherited. I loved it when Clinton was president. When Congress doesn’t have free reign to spend money like a drunken sailor (see 2000 to 2006), it’s good!

Jan 02, 2013 11:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
JL4 wrote:

Trying to talk reason and facts to an Obama-hating Republican is like talking to the proverbial rock, and more pointless. I’d put my money on the rock.

We can’t blame Bush, but they sure do blame Obama (not Congress, which is where the spending decisions are made).

The House obstructionists have lost their credibility and leverage. Deal with it.

Jan 02, 2013 11:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
jrj906202 wrote:

Kicked the can down the road again.It looks like that is the future,as the country is divided between the givers and the takers.The country is still in the hands of voters who aren’t qualified to be voting and only vote for whatever they can get from govt.This greed is causing the downfall of the country.

Jan 02, 2013 11:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
joe10082 wrote:

The biggest showdown that must come this year is an uprising of all American citizens in the removal of as many of our elected dysfunctional representatives in Congress by any and all legal remedies available. They do not represent the interests of the American people any longer and as such must be sent packing. They have become the enemy within like cancer!

Jan 02, 2013 11:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
jrj906202 wrote:

According to Dems,Bush was the root of all evil.Seems like the Dems are fine with Bush’s middle class tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug program.Dems are the greediest people,but,somehow have managed to make many people believe they are generous,good people.

Jan 02, 2013 12:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jayhawker98 wrote:

Flashrooster, I have found your the tone of your conversation quite refreshing. There is much people in Washington, and a few on this post, could learn simply from the balanced way you approach a discussion. This is the quality that is missing in Washington. One side always wants to see the worst in the other. For example, we could describe someone as a “radical irrational hippy” or we could say they favor programs for those with less resources; likewise, we could describe someone as a “fascist uneducated drone” or say the favor personal responsibility.

Jan 02, 2013 12:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tiktin wrote:

It’s very simple Congress refuses to cut spending, reform entitlements or raise taxes in any meaningful way. Thus, government spending, and the deficit, continue to grow every year. The deficit is now so large that the government can no longer borrow enough money to cover it. Thus government spending is being funded more and more with printed money. Last fiscal year, $800 billion of the $1.27 trillion dollar deficit was funded by printed money. This year, it is projected that $1 trillion dollars of the deficit will be funded by printed money. Just how bad things are may be seen from the fact that the dollar is dropping against the euro, which itself in trouble. We are at the beginning of an accelerating downward spiral which can only end in economic collapse.

Jan 02, 2013 12:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

tikin..more specifically both sides want to “cherry pick” the spending cuts. This is getting us nowhere. Simpson-Bowles (IMHO) is a brilliant plan. But it failed miserably in the House in March 2012, because in Simpson-Bowles the cuts are across the board. All politicians favor cutting spending, so long as the cuts don’t involve their pet programs. Here in lies the problem.

Jan 02, 2013 12:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JoeObserver wrote:

Agreed, a deal has been reached. But this will give short term benefits only. In the longer term, a responsible fiscal policy will help. A deficit reduction must be part of the deal, say No to Money Printing. This is one of the cheap methods (employed by countries such as Zimbabwe). Also one must live within means. Nothing wrong with spending on borrowed money, but should be able to manage it.

Jan 02, 2013 1:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RPhillips111 wrote:

“Potentially devastating tax hikes and spending cuts”? The actual “solution” Obama and Reid forced on Republicans and the country are what is devastating.

The Deal raises taxes and raises spending–the status quo. It also continues the illusion that the annual $1.4 trillion deficit is solved. It also continues the Obama Campaign “against the Rich” as basic government policy.

What is devastating is that no effort was made, or likely will be made for the next four years, to cut the size and spending of the federal government, which has to be reduced by about 30% in order to live within the current-or even new–tax structures.

The Republicans have made the mistake over and over since 2008 by thinking that Obama is like his predecessors. He is not, he believes in a collectivist society and socialist governments–dreams from his education, parents and every other important influence in his life.

Republicans keep on thinking that Obama really does recognize we have to reduce spending and cannot raise taxes enough to fund the federal government. So they make the fatal inside Washington mistake of sitting down in private with him while he’s publicly attacking them for supporting “the 1%”.

You do not sit down privately at the table with someone who will never made a deal with you. That is why everything should have been put on TV, nothing private. There should have been reporters and TV cameras even in the bathroom to keep them from talking “privately”.

Jan 02, 2013 1:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dragos111 wrote:

I find it amazing that our politicians just raised taxes again and we are being told by the media that this is a good thing. This is just the start of what Obama wants. Last Friday he even said that we will be looking at more taxes to come. He has no interest in cutting spending. He is not even considering that.

Folks, wake up. They are coming after you to take what you earn and give it to someone else.

Jan 02, 2013 1:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PKFA wrote:

Interesting. Lots of questions about where to cut. I listed the top five categories for Federal spending (Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt). The premise being that any meaningful spending cuts will logically have to come from the lion’s share of the spending (duh!). And I received some comments from various posters. One said that we can’t cut from Social Security- it runs a surplus (really?). We can’t cut from Medicare and Medicaid because people need these entitlements. And, the rate of interest is essentially the fault of the Tea Party and Moody’s downgrade. No one weighed in on Defense, perhaps because the posters work in the military industrial complex.

First, Social Security. Without getting into details, the Social Security Administration itself admits to a “long term solvency problem”. The report may be found at So much for that. One simple suggestion is to raise the contribution ceiling for higher income individuals. That would be no less “fair” than confiscating someone’s rewards for success.

Defense. Huge room for review and improvement here. The sheer number of pigs at congressional district troughs, though, makes this a challenge. Not to mention the jobs aspect.

Medicare. Inefficiencies too numerous to mention here. Fundamental issue is that the receiver of services is not the payor for them, so there is really no incentive for improvement until things get so bad as to prompt a complaint or lawsuit.

Medicaid. Primarily a program for the poor. If one accepts the premise that poverty has two fundamental causes, single-parent households and substance abuse, then have the poor get married and stop using. End of problem.

Interest on debt. Folks, it’s not the RATE of interest that’s the problem. It’s the PRINCIPAL. Reduce spending; reduce borrowing; pay less. Again, not that difficult.

The fundamental problem, however, is a societal one. Somehow American culture has evolved to the point where it’s ok to take what doesn’t belong to you, heck, to not even know whether it belongs to you or not. Social Security recipients receive far more than they contribute; Defense contractors have greased so many Washington palms to lubricate 10 time their deployed hardware; Medicare patients are entitled to health care no matter what health choices that may have made in the past (smoking, diabetes, etc.); Medicaid, again, it’s about choices; interest- well that’s a heady feeling a member of Congress can have spending vast amounts of other people’s money.

Yet, the comments are, “We can’t cut that”. Thus the fundamental problem. Thus nothing gets done.

Jan 02, 2013 1:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

PKFA…you’re half right. But this problem is a lot more complex than I think you realize. My personal pet peeve is the Department of Homeland Security. It didn’t exist before 2002. Today it has an annual budget of $60B and employees 240,000 people. This is the one department that I would target to simply eliminate. It is a redundancy. But, by eliminating this one department you would dump 240,000 people on the unemployment line. While I’d be the first one to advocate cutting Defense spending in half…that would also create a lot of unemployment. It just isn’t that simple. It took us 16 years to recover from the Great Depression. Simpson-Bowles spreads the recovery of this current mess over some 20 years.

Jan 02, 2013 1:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
clanki wrote:

I must say I find it EXTREMELY Disturbing that ALL european media is also claiming that this MADE UP “fiscal cliff” would of damaged the USA, in fact SCIENCE and FACTS show the OPPOSITE! It would revert to the Bill Clinton ERA which was one of the best times for Americans, why is everyone BOUGHT by the US?

Jan 02, 2013 1:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

I was about to post something about Boehner and his inability to manage his people, but then I started thinking, is that even possible…

It is like when you see a parent with a child that is acting out, the first reaction is to blame the parent, but then that child could have some sort of behavioral disorder that the parent is having a tough time dealing with. The child is the tea-party wackos, and the behavioral disorder is unwillingness to accept compromise.

So in a way I feel sorry for Boehner, I am wondering if he even wants the speakership, who would want to try and lead the un-leadable?

Jan 02, 2013 2:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Blackorpheus wrote:

Sane Americans realize that the various wars in the Middle East and South Asia are fruitless, devastating, and expensive beyond comprehension. Still we are not supposed to say: Stop warring, bring the troops home, distribute the billions of saved dollars to humans in need.

Jan 02, 2013 2:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“SS isn’t contributing to our debt. Not yet.”

It has been since 2010.

If you have to borrow to keep paying out benefits then it IS contributing to the debt.

Jan 02, 2013 2:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
frd197 wrote:

Why is nobody willing to take on the extreme waste and deception that permeate Social Security. I have seen dozens of people firsthand (I am a police officer) who are able bodied individuals who are on SSI for nerves, backs, etc. and it is a total scam. I am all in favor of assisting those in need, however, nobody wants to address the scams that suck money from the system.

Jan 02, 2013 2:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

ChangeWhat wrote: “My thoughts to you Pat Toomey, I think you are terrorist. You should be sent to Guantanamo. How dare you hold anything over Americans heads? If you were in front of me I would smack you around like the little b!tch you are.”

Dude, you’re freakin awesome. I would happily buy your next beer when you were done with him.

Jan 02, 2013 3:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

There would be no next, bigger fight if Obama and the Dems would simply agree to cut spending as the math dictates it is a necessity….simple as that.

With this tax increase on the rich now cemented and expected to yield $70B per year, it becomes patently clear that spending is the problem…

Jan 02, 2013 3:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham..spending has always been the biggest problem. It just didn’t really manifest itself until we had the financial melt down that resulted in millions of lost jobs, lost tax revenue and loss of consumer confidence (less consumer spending). The problem with the Bush era tax cuts is that we simply can’t afford them. The cliche is that the government doesn’t create jobs. That simply isn’t true. The problem is how do we reverse years of decadence in an orderly manner so that in the process we don’t do even more damage. Like I said before..I like Simpson-Bowles. It’s a practical approach that turns the ship gradually. It just won’t sell with the politicians we currently have in office. I firmly believe we have to get rid of this crop of politicians (both parties). They simply refuse to work together or take an everything needs to be on the table approach.

Jan 02, 2013 4:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DocRockk wrote:

Just call their bluff already. There is simply no way the Repubs would be so foolish (even for them) to ruin ours and possibly the world’s economy over the fiscal cliff.

What can the Repubs do when push comes to shove, and they have to vote on the fiscal cliff, when all, or nearly all Dems will vote to raise it?!

They will do what they did last night. They will get their bluff called and they will vote to raise the debt ceiling, because at the end of the day, they know that they cannot be responsible for devastating our economy, for political gain. Even they are not that suicidally dumb. I think.

Jan 02, 2013 4:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

4ngry4merican and ChangeWhat…add DeMint to that bitch slapping and I’ll add shots to the beers that 4ngry agreed to buy. LOL

Jan 02, 2013 4:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DocRockk wrote:

- edit

I twice meant “debt ceiling” above, not fiscal cliff.

Jan 02, 2013 4:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pilgrimson wrote:

Here’s bad news for JOE10082: we had an election 2 months ago, remember? The American electorate said resoundingly: More of the same! Blame somebody else. Tax Others. Spend it on Me! Borrow if possible! Don’t think of the consequences. Party, party!

For those who keep harping on Social Security as THE Problem: your head is not screwed on straignt. SS has a surplus of 2.6 trillion (or so) dollars. In other words, past workers OVERPAID into the system, so the money could be diverted. Talk to me when the trust fund gets below 0! The problem here is that the trust fund has been stolen by Congress for other purposes, so the balance is whatever is paid in each month by workers, and if there’s a monthly deficit, it has to be made up by other taxes (or borrowing). As for SSI: that’s a WELFARE program that should NOT be under SS. But, sadly and predictably, SS is a pot of money readily tapped for every purpose under heaven, and that’s where the viability issue comes in.

Jan 02, 2013 4:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Our deficits are the result of collapsed economy; there is no chronic deficit problem.The president’s and Congress’ priorities at this time MUST be to put people back to work and to bring the economy back up to speed.

Jan 02, 2013 4:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
vhpeddler wrote:

The performance of the stock market today was indicative of how our Congress has held the economy hostage. More battling , less economic recovery.Are you listening Congress?

Jan 02, 2013 4:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
slimy wrote:

They better get started now…it will take Congress 59 days out of 60 to figure out what an entitlement is.

Jan 02, 2013 4:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gunste wrote:

Obama needs to remind everyone, forcefully, of the Reagan and G.W. Bush debt increases and tax cuts that has dumped the world into the current recession. The Bush Tax cuts, the Medicare D bill (to please Big Pharma), and two wars with nothing paid for, all financed by more debt, is hardly an argument for the current GOP to run on.
Obama needs to stand firm. If they want to shut the government down again, like Gingrich did in Clinton’s 2nd term, sop be it. The result was plain to see.
To give in to Republican blackmail, as he did in 2011 would be a big mistake again. It would merely demonstrate that he not cut out to run the country for the benefit of most of its citizens. You cannot give in to the GOP which represents the top 1% interest and is able to con a large section of voters to go along. Those people are voting against their own best interest, but let their prejudices guide them.

Jan 02, 2013 4:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ciao wrote:

I wish Reuters would stop using this half-truth:
“A similar showdown in 2011 ultimately led to a credit downgrade.”
It was not the showdown that led to the downgrade. The downgrade was because the outcome of the showdown failed to make any appreciable change in the debt and deficit. S&P waited for the outcome of the showdown because it appeared briefly that congress might actually take action to reduce the deficit. Once it became apparent that the negotiations were not going to actually going to have an impact, S&P proceeded with the downgrade. So, it was the ultimate failure of the showdown that caused the downgrade, not the showdown itself.

Jan 02, 2013 5:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SeniorMoment wrote:

Apparently the “Do Nothing Congress of 2010″ wants to become the “Do Even Less than Nothing Congress of 2012.”

Jan 02, 2013 5:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JohnMonroe wrote:

Question: Who is lending the U.S money? I read that China only holds 8% of U.S. debt and they are selling. If the U.S. borrows from the Federal Reserve then paying interest would be a moral hazard/conflict of interest. I say default on the debt and implement a balanced budget ASAP.

End the corruption and power grabbing of the fed. Starve the beast or it will eat your children

Jan 02, 2013 5:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

Globalman wrote: “Obama does not understand economics and the fact we have never spent our way out of recession or depression.”

Apparently it’s you that doesn’t understand economics. Or history. Or much of anything. We have, in point of fact, spent ourselves out of just about every recession, including the Great Depression. (Does the New Deal ring a bell??)

What we haven’t done, ever, is CUT our way out of a recession. But apparently that’s not stopping the idealogues like yourself from insisting that it’ll really really work this time. Fortunately less and less Americans are drinking that Kool-aid.

Jan 02, 2013 5:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

Dragos111 wrote: “He has no interest in cutting spending. He is not even considering that.”

You’re a liar.

Jan 02, 2013 5:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SeniorMoment wrote:

I think what Obama is saying is that he is going to pull a George W. Bush act of just ignoring the debt ceiling and order the Treasury to keep selling bonds until Congressional appropriations and tax revenues are sufficient by themselves to fund the appropriations Congress passes. I have never thought the Debt Ceiling law was constitutional. It amounts to legislating basic arithmetic and standard accounting methods.

Jan 02, 2013 5:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse wrote:

Nice failure by both parties!!! Then you act like you did something??? Completely ignored your job again. The other party is not to blame. You all failed and are not serious about running our country. We are going to cut your planned retirement!! I promise your inaction will cost you. Soon the poorest of you leaders will not be able to go into Public if you keep this up? The people are very upset with you losers.

Jan 02, 2013 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
123456951 wrote:

Europe is going through it’s austerity thing. Sounds like the US will eventually be going through something similar. The United States casino/lotto/me me me/cry baby mentality can’t last forever.

Jan 02, 2013 7:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Spending must be cut, and cut dramatically. One of the commenters mentioned that we should all shut up or state specifically where cuts should be made. I was not a big Romney fan, but liked his statement: anything we are doing that is not worth going further into debt with China for, should be cut.

There are many duplicated efforts in Federal law enforcement that could be combined and costs reduced. Do we really need Homeland Security, FBI, ATF, CIA, Marshall Service, and countless others, or could we have 2 or 3 with far less overhead and duplicated efforts?

The Department of Education is another. What if we took all the money they give the states and just give that money to the states. Close the DOE, and all of the current overhead spending that does not educate any kids gets taken out of the Federal Government spending.

End ALL subsidies: Famers, Milk, Oil Companies, Alternative Energy, Tax Incentives for Buying more efficient cars, etc. Prices will go up for some things, and we just have to pay it, because it is better than everyone paying for stuff that not everyone uses.

Hire a firm with a team of 10 people to audit all defense spending. Buy common tools from Wal-mart or Home Depot, or Amazon, or whatever at the best price you can get with some minimum feature set. You do not need a contract for hammers, just go get one that meets a competitive price and has the minimum feature set. That is one silly example, but the bottom line is that $50B+ could probably be cut from defense spending while at the same time having a stronger defense because we are using the money wisely.

There are literally millions of things that could be cut from Federal spending, these are just a few.

Jan 02, 2013 7:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
spqr05 wrote:

I have to say this is all BS!! These people should be ashamed of themselves.

This doesn’t set up anything for the next fight. Other than the Dems showing you a your black eyes. You were elected 4 years ago to block this rogue progressive movement and offer checks and balances to the Presidents unchecked powers. You have failed on all levels and we the people should demand the resignation of all you!

More importantly pay back your salaries and lavish checks for a failed job you losers.

Flashrooster, it’s simple the govt has grown by 800% since Bush began, we need massive spending cuts from every dept as this is so blown out of proportion. Min 20-30% cuts across the board, then outsource the work and watch the private sector start hiring.

Jan 02, 2013 7:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Can anyone say stagflation. We are printing money to cover the deficit. We are basically counterfeiting are own currency so that we can continue are spending without raising taxes. We are heading towards economic collapse.

Jan 02, 2013 8:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Can anyone say stagflation. We are printing money to cover the deficit. We are basically counterfeiting are own currency so that we can continue are spending without raising taxes. We are heading towards economic collapse.

Jan 02, 2013 8:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
spqr05 wrote:

flashrooster – you are an example of the problem. You choose to attack people and want their ideas but you know the answers and know this President hasn’t done what he’s said

You talk about healthcare and in the same sentence forget to mention this President let lobbyist write the bill you just stated would be flawed.

You ask for meaningful reform and programs to cut, unfortunately as the leaders are at an impasse they need to cut everything across the board.

This President knows healthcare will bankrupt us and still failed to address it with his legislation.

You are a problem as you say one thing but support “leaders” that failed to do anything. We need drastic cuts (green, oil, tax subsidies all should be eliminated, including agriculture. If you don’t want to eliminate them easy, flat 35% reduction now let companies and people try and apply for it. This is what our country has evolved into as our “leaders” need to be not eligible for re-election. We the people demand congress and all govt employees be on the same healthcare program, pensions, doctors, salaries and allow people to vote whether a salary increase is acceptable. Without a balanced budget then no politician should be allowed to be re-elected.

Jan 02, 2013 8:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@flash rooster

We should raise taxes on everyone, and roll back spending to Clinton era. That cuts everything and eliminates homeland security and prescription plan implemented by Bush. Is that specific enough?

No child gets food stamps, where do you come up with this stuff?

Jan 02, 2013 8:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

The right wing talk show hosts were all wrong on the outcome of the fiscal cliff issue. They said Obama wanted the US to go over the cliff so he could raise taxes on all Americans. Now they are in hiding because their lies have been exposed. Why do people listen to people who are ALWAYS wrong? Send in the “guest hosts”!

Jan 02, 2013 8:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Good, because they can stay nice and busy on all this fiscal crap, they better back the hell off guns I will say that. People are ready to RAGE if they go for guns.

Jan 02, 2013 9:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
milestocode wrote:

All of Washington DC should go fornicate itself, not just Reid.

Jan 02, 2013 9:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
milestocode wrote:

All of Washington DC should go fornicate itself, not just Reid.

Jan 02, 2013 9:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ss31704 wrote:

We have many real fight coming up…debt ceiling, immigration, gun control. The Republicans had better get their act together. And better all play from the same gameplan.

Jan 02, 2013 9:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
wminaz wrote:

We didn’t avoid calamity, we postponed it which will make it worse.

Jan 02, 2013 10:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


The government can create jobs, it just can’t create a job that creates a profit or adds to the GDP. Government jobs are often meaningful, needed services that drain money out of the economy. More government jobs don’t grow the economy as we saw with the Obama stimulus and with FDRs new deal. We got out of the Great DepreThe bill is pork-filled with earmarks that have little to do with helping New Jersey Sandy victims.

Among those earmarks: $23 million for tree plantings to help reduce flood effects, protect water sources, decrease soil erosion and improve wildlife habitat in forested areas touched by Sandy; $2 million to repair roof damage at Smithsonian buildings in Washington — the damage predates the storm; $4 million to repair sand berms and dunes at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida; and $41 million for cleanup and repairs at eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The FBI is seeking $4 million to repla. vehicles, laboratory and office equipment and furniture, and Customs and Border Protection wants $2.4 million to replace destroyed or damaged vehicles, including mobile X-ray machines.ssion due to US manufacturing being the only thing left stand in after WW2 devastated European and Asian manufacturing and economies. I’m not saying that government spending and jobs didn’t help people in need, just that they didn’t fix the economy.

Jan 02, 2013 11:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4NoParty wrote:

Just two small points: As taxpaying employees, we were forced to pay into SS, in our case for over 55 years. Our “employer” matched each dollar for those 50 years…and in our case, we were employee and employer for 50 of those 55 years. Why do many of the posters here, and most of the Democratic Politicians, keep suggesting SS is the same as welfare, keep up the refrain that those of us who collect SS are using funds we didn’t earn or “bank” for our future use? In addition, I pay for supplemental health ins., and medicare. The medicare payment is taken directly from my SS check. It just jumped from $96.00 per month, to $140.00. The Government placed more people on SS and Medicare than had paid into it, and who were not retirees, and then they borrowed money which should have been safeguarded. Talking about cutting SS is not only a red herring, but one that is insulting, and part of the age warfare waged along with the class warfare. My other point is that the 2% tax being added back to fund their SS contribution, is simply the 2% cut from what had already been the employee deduction. When Obama cut that amount, he did not cut the employer contribution, it stayed the same rate. Reducing their deduction 2% from, which at the time seemed like a helping gesture, clearly will hurt more now that they have to subtract if from their pay…it wasn’t money the Gov’t. gave the worker, it was shortchanging the workers future SS payments, and, reducing the money being funneled into the SS fund. The Administration surely had to know that…but since the increase would go into play after the election, it wouldn’t register with most of us. As far as specific cuts, I believe it should be a 10% cut across the board. No new expenditures added, no pork…pretty plain, maybe a little painful, but in the long term, it is better than all of us paying the upwardly spiraling taxes, which is the next step in the Administrations plan.

Jan 03, 2013 7:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
toledofan wrote:

The so called fiscal cliff was nothing more than political gamesmenship and all the nonsense could have been averted if the politicans had been doing their jobs all along. I mean no budget from the Senate in four years, spending that outpaced tax revenues by more than 25%, Obamnacare and the taxes it brings and the dysfunction to the medical industry, and the growth of government in general. This is eaactly what Obama wants and needs to transform America into antoher Europe. It’s really pretty sad when tyou really think about it.

Jan 03, 2013 9:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
ChangeWhat wrote:

^Salutes 4ngry4merican and xyz.

“I’m sitting shotgun.”

Jan 03, 2013 10:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
BuggyBob wrote:

This government has indeed become the Be All, Does All tyranny our founders feared. That there were liars, thugs and tyrants wishing to make it so it not the problem: cowards seeing the problem and not addressing it is. Those Dozens of House Republicans who “reluctantly” approved the Senate bill and the Republican whores in the Senate who did so lied when they promised to uphold and defend the Constitution. Pass the Gun Control Act they pine for and they can do away with the facade of a Constitutional Republic altogether.

Jan 03, 2013 12:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

So now that the issue of taxation is settled, why does Obama refuse to cut spending?

He did promise a balanced approach; is he reneging on that promise?

Did he not believe his own deficit commission when they recommended that a 2:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenues was needed?

Jan 07, 2013 1:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.