The spending the Democrats want to cut: ...nothing.

[Danzig]

i'm hoping everyone has to come to the realization that there is no such thing as a temporary tax cut or hike.

i'm one of those wondering just what will happen if we go off this fiscal 'cliff'. is it a cliffs of dover height, or two foot retaining wall cliff? if the bush 'temporary' tax cuts expire, and defense spending cuts go in-will it really matter?
i'd rather they let all the cuts expire than keep extending them for everyone. now, had the cuts to the rich resulted in the job growth they were touting would be a result, i'd be all for continuing them. except, that's a lie. or a damned lie.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm hoping everyone has to come to the realization that there is no such thing as a temporary tax cut or hike.

i'm one of those wondering just what will happen if we go off this fiscal 'cliff'. is it a cliffs of dover height, or two foot retaining wall cliff? if the bush 'temporary' tax cuts expire, and defense spending cuts go in-will it really matter?
i'd rather they let all the cuts expire than keep extending them for everyone. now, had the cuts to the rich resulted in the job growth they were touting would be a result, i'd be all for continuing them. except, that's a lie. or a damned lie.

So true about the job growth from cuts on the highest levels of income being bunk. Why we based economic policy on something drawn on the back of a cocktail napkin I'll never understand Then again, I came from a state that elected Rick Santorum to the Senate, so stupidity knows no bounds.

The full repeal of the Bush tax cuts may actually have somewhat of a negative effect on the economy, as middle-class people will have less spending money, and as there are a lot of middle-class people, that will affect consumer spending and make the economy contract somewhat.

The best course, from what I've read, would be at this point to extend the rates on income under $250,000, as middle-class people are likely to spend that money, which is good for the economy. There's no benefit to cuts on income above that, as it's not likely to be spent and in fact, would be better off taken in tax because the government will spend it on things that do drive the economy.

Essentially, you want the money being spent, not hoarded. And middle class are more likely to spend.

[jms62]

They should compromise at say 500-750 K

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by jms62

They should compromise at say 500-750 K

Fixing the AMT thing would also be nice, while they're at it. We are nowhere near $250,000, and we've gotten smacked by the AMT.

[SOREHOOF]

Every time we get close to the debt ceiling Obama tells us he can't guarantee the S.S. checks will go out. Doesn't sound like it's solvent for the next 30 years or so to me. Unless he's lying. Any deal cut will be worse than the cliff. We can't tax our way out of this fiscal mess. If Govt. spending drove the economy we would be living in a boom time right now.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Every time we get close to the debt ceiling Obama tells us he can't guarantee the S.S. checks will go out. Doesn't sound like it's solvent for the next 30 years or so to me. Unless he's lying. Any deal cut will be worse than the cliff. We can't tax our way out of this fiscal mess. If Govt. spending drove the economy we would be living in a boom time right now.

It's worse than that, as they will increase spending as they always do, well in excess of any increased tax revenue, again, as they always do.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It's worse than that, as they will increase spending as they always do, well in excess of any increased tax revenue, again, as they always do.

Does "they" also include your guy gwb who managed to piss away a huge surplus with his unfunded Billion dollar a day wars that have accomplished nothing. Nothing positive that is.