Raising taxes on the 250k plus earners, and no sig cuts now combined with a reduction to medi 10 to 20 years in the future. Translation we'll be running up our debt massively going forward with the expectation that the world will continue to lend us to live backed up by the fed buying our debt and printing more dollars when needed. The ponzi scheme of all ponzi schemes continues until the world says no more.

Medicare only has 12 years of solvency left... Better be 10 years and not 20 :)

With a democratic executive branch and a democratic senate, the repubs will obviously end up having to play ball on the 3.6% raise or simply risk being forever blamed as the ones who crashed the economy in January of 2013. It is simply a question of whether or not that end up getting anything out of the deal.

If this is passed we are virtually guaranteed to be $20,000,000,000,000.00 in debt by 2017. 20 trillion. For many it is just a number. Not the noose around our way of life necks that it actually is.

I think what many fail to see is we are at historically low cost of money times, interest rates, and that will not continue forever. Soon our lenders will demand more interest for our debt. Very soon the largest expenditure by the US government will be interest on our debt. It won't be military, medi,ss, education, roads or anything else. It will be interest on current and past borrowing.

This is what 53% voted for. Proudly. Happily. Unfortunately blindly to how it will hurt them. Just more cake today and it won't make them fat and sick. It will make them content.

Your numbers mean nothing.  Right wing budgets and claims have undermined conservative ethos so much by not being concerned with "facts" that you seem surprised that a significant majority of Americans have tuned you out.

All you basically say is, if we don't get our way, Apocalypse.

Seriously.  So you're arguing that if Obama has his way on policy that the debt will have doubled in eight years what it was when he took office.  So he and Bush would be even?

People might listen if there had been any concern about the Debt back when Bush's tax cuts went through and he put two wars on the credit card.

catchnshoot wrote: Your numbers mean nothing.  Right wing budgets and claims have undermined conservative ethos so much by not being concerned with "facts" that you seem surprised that a significant majority of Americans have tuned you out.

All you basically say is, if we don't get our way, Apocalypse.

Seriously.  So you're arguing that if Obama has his way on policy that the debt will have doubled in eight years what it was when he took office.  So he and Bush would be even?

People might listen if there had been any concern about the Debt back when Bush's tax cuts went through and he put two wars on the credit card.

as opposed to left-wing budgets?

As long as taxes are getting raised on the 250k + crowd, I am content. No scare tactics will work. Just listen to them squirm trying to get out if it, lol

First off I and many conservatives were complaining when Bush was adding to our debt. Here on these boards several of us were. While % of debt growth is one way to look at it it ignores the reality of the vastness of our debt, and the accompanying economic drag it causes to pay for the interest on that debt. Going from 1 trillion to 2 trillion is bad, but going from 10 trillion to 20 trillion is much worse. I understand many tune it out. Is there an amount when you get concerned? Do a little research on ever fiat currency that has failed and compare it to our current debt to gdp ratio. Or debt per capita or debt to anything. The grave for the dollar is being dug and if you think the US is seen negatively by some of the world imagine how we will be seen when the world's currency fails. Or just tune out and be ill prepared when the absolute inevitable happens. It will be fast. It will be furious and it will likely happen within the next 10 years.

"It will be fast. It will be furious"

America lives it's life a quarter mile at a time. Winnings winning.

And if they had voted for Romney the difference would be what exactly? Increased defense spending and lower revenues? Sounds like anexcellent deficit reduction plan.

The recovery is toast.

It will be interesting to see how our fearless leader tries to shift the blame come next summer.

Don't forget the $5 Trillion in tax cuts for the rich right off the bat.

elbowj wrote: And if they had voted for Romney the difference would be what exactly? Increased defense spending and lower revenues? Sounds like anexcellent deficit reduction plan.

rayfa wrote: First off I and many conservatives were complaining when Bush was adding to our debt. Here on these boards several of us were. While % of debt growth is one way to look at it it ignores the reality of the vastness of our debt, and the accompanying economic drag it causes to pay for the interest on that debt. Going from 1 trillion to 2 trillion is bad, but going from 10 trillion to 20 trillion is much worse. I understand many tune it out. Is there an amount when you get concerned? Do a little research on ever fiat currency that has failed and compare it to our current debt to gdp ratio. Or debt per capita or debt to anything. The grave for the dollar is being dug and if you think the US is seen negatively by some of the world imagine how we will be seen when the world's currency fails. Or just tune out and be ill prepared when the absolute inevitable happens. It will be fast. It will be furious and it will likely happen within the next 10 years.

Romney said it would take him two terms to accomplish what he planned to do.

I understand the concern for the numbers, but debts can be paid off.  It took several decades to pay off the WWII debt. But it can be done when the economy is working for everybody and there is a thriving middle class.

That has not been the case historically when Republicans have the White House and it hasn't been the case since the 90s.

53% of the people wanted to give Obama at least another term, which is the soonest anyone could be expected to get hold of a problem as deep as the Bush policies had gotten us into, rather than return to the same policies that got us in trouble.  It's as simple as that.

The problem with the economy is the redistribution of wealth up to the 1% and the stranglehold on the shrinking middle class.  There must be a strong middle class spending money for the economy to function anywhere near well enough to eliminate debt.

All of these brushfires the right keeps trying to breathe life into--the debt, Susan Rice, Obamacare, the fiscal curb--are diversions propagated for the plutocrats.

We don't know what the Romney plan was nor would have done so to say so is silly. Do I believe he had the strength to get the job done? Unlikely. Is a very serious and deep problem and I've seen no poli willing to do anything but kick the ever growing can down the street. Is true debt can be reduced, it just never has been since i've been alive and I'll be 50 in January. Every yearsince 1963 the national debt has increased. Every year. I remember in the 1980 when the nat debt cross the trillion dollar figure for the first time and now it is 16 times higher.

I'd add I don't know where you got the notion that we got rid of debt post ww2. In 1941 national debt was 41 billion, in 1951 it was 250 billion. In 1961 it was 290 billion and in 1971 it was 400 billion See a trend there? See us getting rid of debt ever? See how we now double debt every decade while our gdp is not growing nearly like post ww2? See a problem we are not approaching to take seriously? See the end game? Well, I do.

See a hypocrite who just got done blaming O voters exclusively?

---------------------------------------------
--- rayfa wrote:

We don't know what the Romney plan was nor would have done so to say so is silly. Do I believe he had the strength to get the job done? Unlikely. Is a very serious and deep problem and I've seen no poli willing to do anything but kick the ever growing can down the street. Is true debt can be reduced, it just never has been since i've been alive and I'll be 50 in January. Every yearsince 1963 the national debt has increased. Every year. I remember in the 1980 when the nat debt cross the trillion dollar figure for the first time and now it is 16 times higher.

I'd add I don't know where you got the notion that we got rid of debt post ww2. In 1941 national debt was 41 billion, in 1951 it was 250 billion. In 1961 it was 290 billion and in 1971 it was 400 billion See a trend there? See us getting rid of debt ever? See how we now double debt every decade while our gdp is not growing nearly like post ww2? See a problem we are not approaching to take seriously? See the end game? Well, I do.

---------------------------------------------

rayfa wrote: We don't know what the Romney plan was nor would have done so to say so is silly. Do I believe he had the strength to get the job done? Unlikely. Is a very serious and deep problem and I've seen no poli willing to do anything but kick the ever growing can down the street. Is true debt can be reduced, it just never has been since i've been alive and I'll be 50 in January. Every yearsince 1963 the national debt has increased. Every year. I remember in the 1980 when the nat debt cross the trillion dollar figure for the first time and now it is 16 times higher.

I'd add I don't know where you got the notion that we got rid of debt post ww2. In 1941 national debt was 41 billion, in 1951 it was 250 billion. In 1961 it was 290 billion and in 1971 it was 400 billion See a trend there? See us getting rid of debt ever? See how we now double debt every decade while our gdp is not growing nearly like post ww2? See a problem we are not approaching to take seriously? See the end game? Well, I do.

He may be thinking about this. As a percentage of GDP it was reduced after WWII. That's what this chart is showing. Which really just means that the key is growth.

From wiki

Elbo you are so tied to blame and being right, when often not, you'll never get it. I don't, and didn't blame anyone. Not O or his voters for the position we are in. Nor do I blame those that voted for O. They did vote for him and this deal, however it turns out, will be non impactful as to deficit reduction, but I don't cast blame on anyone. That's a you thing. Most are not engaged enough in the process to really understand what they are voting for. They, on both sides, pick their favorite idol.

The other day you were talking about balance. Taxing a tiny % of the populace while putting off real cuts for a decade or more is anything but balanced. Yet you'd never fess up to this obvious point, but balance or impactfu it is not. The only balance that should be a goal is a balanced budget. A concept no poli I've seen is willing to approach in a meaningful way.

Your posting generally fails to address anything but a tiny item, you, thru your way of seeing things not meant, perceive things. I'd suggest you step your game up, but apparently this is the level you enjoy, or can only muster posting with.

If you believe the solution to our coming currency crisis is to cut roughly 10% of the deficit with a prayer that enough growth in the economy will vault that figure to 20% I'd argue you don't understand the severity of the route we are taking as a nation. All the more sad.

He may be, but that is not paying off debt. It's growing debt just not as fast as gdp growth of 50 years ago, a rate we can only dream of today. I frankly hate the notion of comparing debt to gdp as particularly meaningful as for it to be meaningful it is assumed gdp growth goes on forever. That is a joke. Bottomline we borrow more and more money each year to pay for the interest on the money we borrowed "yesterdays". If that doesn't sink in with the masses, when the currency crumbles as every fiat currency in this situation has, it will when people are using dollars for wallpaper.

You didn't blame anyone? What the hell was this: This is what 53% voted for. Proudly. Happily. Unfortunately blindly to how it will hurt them. Just more cake today and it won't make them fat and sick. It will make them content.

Take that 2 x 4 out before you go preaching post etiquette, is.

rayfa wrote: Elbo you are so tied to blame and being right, when often not, you'll never get it. I don't, and didn't blame anyone. Not O or his voters for the position we are in. Nor do I blame those that voted for O. They did vote for him and this deal, however it turns out, will be non impactful as to deficit reduction, but I don't cast blame on anyone. That's a you thing. Most are not engaged enough in the process to really understand what they are voting for. They, on both sides, pick their favorite idol.

The other day you were talking about balance. Taxing a tiny % of the populace while putting off real cuts for a decade or more is anything but balanced. Yet you'd never fess up to this obvious point, but balance or impactfu it is not. The only balance that should be a goal is a balanced budget. A concept no poli I've seen is willing to approach in a meaningful way.

Your posting generally fails to address anything but a tiny item, you, thru your way of seeing things not meant, perceive things. I'd suggest you step your game up, but apparently this is the level you enjoy, or can only muster posting with.

If you believe the solution to our coming currency crisis is to cut roughly 10% of the deficit with a prayer that enough growth in the economy will vault that figure to 20% I'd argue you don't understand the severity of the route we are taking as a nation. All the more sad.

Give it up Ray. He sterotypes anyone that disagrees with him with the broad brush of being a radical "Pug". Once he has labeled you there is no amount of reason or discussion that will change his label for you. If you try you get frustrated, get drawn offsides and he thinks it proves that his stereotype is correct.

The pattern is repeated on a daily basis. It's not going to change.

Im sure he's a nice enough guy. And obviously bright. But no amount of reason is going to make any difference in his thinking once you've been labeled.

somewhat thread-related question for you political buffs: who came up with the term "fiscal cliff"?
im honestly unaware, and i doubt it's an actual term used in legal documents.
It seems people try to dramatize so politics so much, i cant help but think it's...political.

Elbo that's not blaming, that's stating a fact. 53% did vote his way. It's those that voted for obama's fault the currency will fold would be blaming. Not really a subtle difference.

I think you over estimate elbo VG. He writes well. I assume he is educated. He shows no signs of being a nice guy or particularly bright. People who can only see things from their own point of view are rarely bright. You and I disagree often yet I still see your point and generally well constructed logic behind them.

Maybe you could try to google translate that into English is.

"Maybe you could try to google translate that into English is." Elbo brought



And evidence of the above quickly brought by the elbo. He can't help himself. Not the words of a bright person. Thanks elbo for the fortification of my thoughts. 7 minutes. Quick he is, bright he's not.

Your repeatedly failed attempts to carve out what you perceive as to how I and others should post are as lame as your abundance of posts dictated as if posts on a message board are somehow beholden to standards you neither apply to yourself or others. That post only reflected confusion at a sentence that no doubt caused some long passed English teacher to go spiraling. It neither confirms your previous post nor relates to it's content, but confusion is as standard with you as your tendency to attempt to tell others what to do, disregarding the fact that you fail to practice what you preach.

Of course your post was an attempt to assign blame. Ignoring that and initiating an attack is just par for the course. Luckily, my self measurement is in no way impacted by the events occurring at ROTW, considering your habit of operating in the described manner,.it would be hard to deduce the same for yourself. There exists a simple solution though. Just press that ignore button and there will no longer be any need for your sensitivities to be affected by someone calling you on your tripe. Problem solved.

I think that the best option is to not cut a deal and do the fiscal cliff.  It will be tough medicine, best the country will be better off in the long run.

I've suggested likewise. Not the best option, but better than the options currently on the table.

Luckily, my self measurement is in no way impacted by the events occurring at ROTW, considering your habit of operating in the described manner,.it would be hard to deduce the same for yourself.

caused some long passed English teacher to go spiraling.


Comical. Your self measurement is lacking. Geez what a hack. Run on sentence first, later the ,. combo platter.

Phone excuse? No doubt there is plenty you can't deduce.

Oh look, tis is correcting grammar. You just can't see your hypocrisy. Must be the early onset. The hack might very well be the individual constantly substituting personal attacks for arguments of merit, but then again I'm not the self anointed board President who has taken it upon himself to initiate this same pattern with numerous posters here. Tis tiring. At this point, press that ignore and leave me the f alone.

Mark478 wrote: I think that the best option is to not cut a deal and do the fiscal cliff.  It will be tough medicine, best the country will be better off in the long run.

Interesting approach. The general populace would revolt over tax raises and benefit cuts, but the employment sector (the key to our future) needs the stability of the deficit issues actually being dealt with. It probably is the best route for this country, but I don't think the politicians have the courage or character to put America's future ahead of their own electability.

Paul O'Neil, former Treasury Secretary under Bush,  in The Price of Loyalty:

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

"Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He says, 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' … O'Neill is speechless."