Fiscal Cliff Deal Reached!

[Yssup Rider]

Military spending, if I recall correctly.

[TheDaliLama]

He also admitted to raising taxes too much.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Military spending, if I recall correctly.

Yep...The military was left in pretty bad shape.

Sometimes you have to go to war with the army you have.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Yep...The military was left in pretty bad shape.

Sometimes you have to go to war with the army you have.

You mean, no body armour, no plating on vehicles, blah, blah, blah, and none of these:

[Texas Contrarian]

Yes, it appears that a gimmicky deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" is in the making. But does anyone seriously regard that as great news? Nothing has been cut or reformed. This is simply tantamount to a bipartisan announcement that no one is going to lift a finger in an effort to make a politically tough decision. All we're doing is building a flimsy bridge to the next crisis. And it will come soon enough.

Originally Posted by bigtex

We tried it the George W. Bush way for the better part of the past 12 years. It is now time for America to put the failed economic and foreign policies of the George W. Bush Administration behind us once and for all, so that we can finally begin to move forward.

Wow! Does anyone not see the irony in that statement? In all of the most fundamental ways, the Obama economic agenda is exactly the same as the one pursued by George W. Bush and the political hacks who served in congress during his tenure. Over the last four years it's been extended and expanded. That's why our economy is stuck in a slow-growth mode and will almost certainly continue to be so for many years to come. But this isn't just an American problem. Europeans have been doing many of the same things for decades, but at least they aren't dishonest enough to tell their citizens that middle class taxpayers don't have to pay for expanded entitlement programs and big government.

Originally Posted by oden

Do the math, just do the math.

Please, oden! Let's play fair here. Don't ask supporters of big government to try to tell us what sort of tax system we'll need to implement in order to pay for all of this. (Ready for a VAT, anyone?)

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Some are still using a slide rule ...

.... for their economic computations.

I don't know, LexusLover.

I was sort of thinking that a lot of people might be using one of these:

[CJ7]

think I read where the spending cuts (military etc) were put off for 60 days ...

just in time for the debt ceiling crunch

snick

[Fast Gunn]

Well, I for one am relieved to see some sort of accord reached in Washington regardless of the calculation device used.

Yes, I would have preferred something more solid and longer term, but any agreement is better than no agreement.

At this point, I will take what I can get in regards to the gaping jaws of the fiscal cliff looming over us.

As for the comparison of President Obama to Bush, there is a huge world of difference between them and their policies.

. . . Why is that not obvious to anyone?

[CuteOldGuy]

Please explain to us the differences in their fiscal policies, FastGoon.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

As for the comparison of President Obama to Bush, there is a huge world of difference between them and their policies.

. . . Why is that not obvious to anyone?

To briefly explain what I meant:

I regard the following to be the most important features of the Bush-era economy:

1. Big tax cuts for all income groups while government spending was increasing at a very rapid rate. Since Bush never vetoed anything, and called for a lot of the spending himself, it rose by about 60% during his time in office. Obama stacked failure atop failure by adding several hundred billion dollars per year of new spending to already bloated budgets. Those two are arguably the two most fiscally irresponsible presidents in U.S. history. Regarding fiscal matters, the only real difference between them is that Obama wants to raise taxes on the affluent, but that would only amount to a fraction of one percent of GDP -- and not even to a nickel of every deficit dollar. Note that the vast bulk of the Bush-era tax cuts went to taxpayers who were not in the top bracket.

2. Easy money/weak dollar policies which destabilize long-term prospects for growth and drive up costs of things such as oil and agricultural commodities, placing even more stress on the beleaguered middle class. Such policies are vastly increasing income and wealth disparity -- which has been gradually rising since the dawn of globalization in the 1970s, but has risen much further over the last ten years.

3. A complete failure to do anything meaningful to regulate the financial sector or rein in its excesses. The TBTF banks are now at least 50% larger than they were 5 years ago, and Dodd-Frank actually does more harm than good, since it virtually destroys much of the capital available to community banks which will need to remain viable if we're ever going to have a real recovery. They provide the lifeblood for many of our small businesses.

And that's just hitting a few highlights.

Do you see anything that's been structurally or fundamentally improved since the 2008 financial crisis?

Yes, Bush and Obama espoused vastly different visions in a number of ways. For instance, they obviously had opposite views of the Iraq War.

But in terms of the most fundamental features of the economy, there isn't a whole lot of difference. In other words, nothing is being fixed.

[Fast Gunn]

Explain the difference in their fiscal polices to you, old geezer?

Hell, I can't even get you to spell correctly!

. . . Trying to explain fiscal policy to you would be like explaining the encyclopedia to a dog!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Please explain to us the differences in their fiscal policies, Fast Gunn.

[CuteOldGuy]

In other words, FastGoon, you got nothin', nothin' at all. Figured as much.

[Jackie S]

Clank, Clank, Clank. That is the sound of that can rolling down the road.
I have been watching the various news shows this morning, they are interviewing regular Americans, getting their view.

This has solidified my opinion that the majority of Americans are a bunch of fukin idiots. They don't have a clue how the National Debt affects the overall stability if the Country, and how it is going to affect things in the future. I really believe that most Americans believe the Country can do what they do, when you max out one credit card, just take out another one. Afterall, as long as you make that minimum payment, everything is OK.
Clank,Clank, Clank.............

[Fast Gunn]

Well, I am glad that you at least concede that the two Presidents had dramatically different visions of how the country should be operated.

As for the easy money policy, I think it makes a world of difference in how you use that easy money that makes it either good or bad.

Bush squandered the wealth of this country on his idiotic wars and tax cuts for the rich which is essentially what got us into this mess. That was bad anyway you slice it.

Right now, the economy is fragile and still recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression so it is responsible and right to do whatever we can to help it fully recover. We have ended the war in Iraq. We have taken out OBL. We have rescued Detroit. We have elected the right man to highest office. This is good, but it must be measured.

. . . This country is finally on the road to prosperity once again!

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

To briefly explain what I meant:

I regard the following to be the most important features of the Bush-era economy:

1. Big tax cuts for all income groups while rapidly increasing government spending, which rose by about 60% during Bush's time in office. Obama stacked failure atop failure by adding several hundred billion dollars per year of new spending to already bloated budgets. Those two are arguably the two most fiscally irresponsible presidents in U.S. history. The only real difference between the two is that Obama wants to raise taxes on the affluent, but that only amounts to a fraction of one percent of GDP, and not even to a nickel of every deficit dollar.

2. Easy money/weak dollar policies which destabilize long-term prospects for growth and drive up costs of things such as oil and agricultural commodities.

3. A complete failure to do anything meaningful to regulate the financial sector or rein in its excesses. The TBTF banks are now at least 50% larger than they were 5 years ago, and Dodd-Frank actually does more harm than good since it virtually destroys the capital of community banks which will need to reain viable if we're ever going to have a real recovery. They provide the lifeblood for many of our small businesses.

Do you see anything that's been structurally or fundamentally improved since the 2008 financial crisis?

Yes, Bush and Obama espoused vastly different visions. Obviously they had opposite views of the Iraq War.

But in terms of the most fundamental features of the economy, there isn't a whole lot of difference.

[CuteOldGuy]

Did you see the deal? $41 in tax increases for every $1 cut in spending. Why even bother?

And FastGoon, you are an idiot.

[Chica Chaser]

Yeah, that's effective. No spending cuts, what a surprise...just kick the can.