E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro discuss the fiscal cliff deadline and President Obama's motives behind his trip to Michigan today.
Discuss this post
Leave a Comment:You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Back to the fiscal cliff are we? Time for me to take my lucky US dollar and roll a huge fiscal spliff ... my commentary hopefully will descend to the riduculous.
Lately, I am at a loss for words during phone sex.
My bartender doesn't understand me.
It's time for the Democrats/Republicans to stop pointing fingers and taking ridiculous stances.
Both partys need to start doing their jobs that will result in what's in the best interest of the majority of Americans.
Compromise seems to be a word lacking in elected politicians vocabulary.
Get things done and stop trying to make a case that the other party is trying to ruin the country.
Enough already!
BCWC - How are you doing today? I'm sorry about your bartender .... ;-)
well said Nomore!
Layton, the land is full of snow and my over-sized dog Jack is in heaven ... he has promised me the denuded bone and I am a happy pet! As to my bartender, I believe I need to maintain some distance between her and my girlfriend so I speak in parables with no meaning to either.
cat joke time...
Mr. Johnson walked anxiously up to the door, and rang the bell. When the older woman answered, he said very sadly "I'm so sorry mam, but I have some bad news. I'm afraid that I have run over your cat. I really would think it fit that I replace it"
She looked him up and down, and finally spoke "I'm game, but how are you at catching mice?"
The solution will have to be painful to both sides, but it should definitely be more painful for the top 2%.
Totally agree, Fancy. I'm tired of everyone stating who should be blamed for this. We need to stop looking at what's best for this country! I'm encouraged by the President meeting with Boehner and hope that the Congress can begin to work on resolving this issue.
The 2% will thrive no matter what comes their way. Their Union is strong and has all the bargaining power.
BEFORE the elections, Obama talked about raising taxes on the richest 1%.
AFTER the elections, Obama talks about raising taxes on the richest 2%.
AFTER the inauguration, Obama may be trying to sell taxes on the top 4% !
At no time, however, has Obama talked seriously about reducing government expenses, serious efforts to PASS A BUDGET and realistic plans to reduce the deficit !
When Obama came into office, the national debt was at $10.8 trillion ! By the time he leaves, the national debt will exceed $21.6 trillion .... and Obama will have DOUBLED what all his predecessors did COMBINED !
Anyone got a strong cup of coffee for the liberals ? It's time they woke up, drank a stiff cup of java and realized our country is headed towards bankruptcy if Obama is allowed to spend like there is no tomorrow !
Jim - The President has ALWAYS said he wants to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 a year. I have seen various opinions on the percentage of Americans that fall into that category, but he has never wavered from that dollar figure. You are trying to make him sound inconsistent, but he has not been inconsistent on that number. Also, the President has already cut 1.7 Trillion in spending and reduced the annual deficit, so don't try to make him sound like he doesn't want to cut spending.
Obama is and always has been inconsistent !
As Senator, he criticized Bush for wanting to raise the debt ceiling saying it was a sign of failed leadership and that it would be shifting deficits to future generations. Obama has done more debt ceiling "raising" than Bush and he has done it in a shorter time frame. That is beyond "iconsistent" ... it is hypocrisy !
Oh, and the $1.7 trillion in spending ..... Is that over 10 years ? If so, that is a pitiful excuse for fiscal reality. Also, the dollar figure is $200k for those filing "single".
Obama DOES NOT WANT to reduce spending .... he wants to grow government, to GROW revenues, to tax and spend, to tax and redistribute ! Come January, you will probably discover he has no intentions of extending the Bush Tax Cuts for any taxpayers .... but, then again, he did put this off until JUST AFTER THE ELECTIONS, didn't he ?
The Republicans are boxed in by Grover Norquist and Obama is boxed in by his "no new taxes on those earning less than $250K" pledge. This brings me to Medicare. It is not sustainable in its current form but the only options on the table is how do we cut it and reduce benefits. Since I tend to look at Medicare as the nation's insurance policy for the aged and disabled, why not do what insurance companies are facing increased costs? Why not raise the 1.45% payroll tax on both the employers and employees to, say 2% each along with savings to strengthen the program over the long haul. I would much rather have 0.55% more taken out of my paycheck than to see seniors thrown under the bus, have the eligibility age raised, or convert it to a voucher program but that is just me. The question is, why is this option not on the table?
Why not do as all other first world nations have done and have universal healthcare ... the numbers say that the US GDP will have an extra trillion dollars annually to play with.
Well said, AI in Visalia!
bcwc--I agree. I just returned from Costa Rica. One of their presidents disbanded the army so that the citizens could have national health care coverage. We could even just cut down the amount spent on military and be able to cover the costs! Costa Ricans also enjoy a high literacy rate, as education is much encouraged.
BCWC, in my perfect world, I would like to look into how much payroll taxes would have to be raised for a single payer "Medicare for all." We would have to also look into some sort of mechanism so that those who don't actually work and draw a paycheck for a living (can you feel me Mitt Romney) are not free riding parasites so a tax on passive and investment income might be needed. Then we can vote the insurance industry off the island with regards to healthcare. While my taxes would go up, I would imagine it would be more than offest by having zero insurance premiums.
and watch as insurance agents join the ranks of the unemployed. They buy cars, homes spend money and pay taxes. Darn, going to have to charge somebody more taxes...
I believe that the amount taxes would have to be raised to provide single payer health care would not be nearly as much as we are now paying in health insurance premiums. I have a relatively low income, but if I pay $500 a month for health insurance and my taxes went up $250 per month to pay for single payer, I would come out $3000 ahead by not having to pay the insurance premiums. If you think in net income terms rather than tax increase terms, it doesn't sound like a bad deal.
Jeff, insurance agents can do what they do best, sell coverage to protect from rare but catestrophic event like auto collision, homeowners protection, life insurance, etc. That way a small premium can protect against a big loss. What insurance should not do is cover for that is a certainty. We will all one day get sick and die. Insurance does a poor job of risk management here and just ends up being an extra cost burden added to health care costs.
As for sticking trust fund babies that live off of investments and passive income some taxes for paying for universal healthcare that the rest of us would pay out of payroll deductions? Screw them, why should they get a free ride?
As I recall it, the whole fiscal cliff scenario was set up because of an artificial debt ceiling crisis orchestrated by the GOP. Their subsequent refusal to negotiate in good faith in the so-called Super Committee brought us to this point. So why is it now becoming a discussion of entitlement reforms? Why does addressing the tax rates and spending of the country now have to also be tied up in entitlement reform? The GOP is willing to "trade" tax increases for changes to Social Security and Medicare that will further hurt the middle class? Doesn't make sense to me.
What's the big deal. No one should be forced to join a union to be able to work. The argument that non-union workers enjoy the privliges won by the unions just won't wash. If an employer wishes to grant the same benefits to his non-union workers as he is required to do for his union workers that is his right . IT IS HIS MONEY to disburse as he wants. The unions are just afraid they will lose their influence because the employer will not be FORCED to deduct union dues from wages it will be up to the employee to deal directly with the union.
wyoming, You are so worried about the influence of unions when only 13% of the work force belongs to a union. That 13% is the lowest since the 1930's. No wonder this country is going to hell. You want to work for minimum wage with no benefits,no vacation 12 hour work days,you go right ahead but not me. Union participation should be 100%. Anyone against unions ought pick up a history book not listen to someone that knows nothing but thinks they know everything. How much influence does 13% of anything have,not much,but you keep shaking in your boots.
How in the H... did my comment end up here?
Of course, the republicqans will relent to the tax increases. They and their bonehead speaker have become Obama's little prison bitch! They will not do what those who elected them want them to do. This is exactly why we need a third Conservative Party. The republicans are the laughing stock of the entire nation. Their posturing and crying only makes them look worse when Obama gets his way. Let's get rid of this party. It is time to set this country against socialism, and we sure AIN'T doing it with the republicans, who have become nothing more than warmed over liberals.