In partnership with CBSSports.com
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Has Obama gone too far?
Are the "cuts" mentioned in the article real cuts or cut in the "growth in spending"? There is a huge difference.
Personally... i would much rather have the fiscal cliff. Taxes are going to spike anyhow so might as well eat it and have taxes go up on everyone while actually having cuts of substantive.
I am leaning more and more this way as well. Better to take the short term recession, take a couple trillion out of the debt, and then investors will be encouraged by the long term economic picture and come back to an economy with actual, viable, long term prospects.
Cry Havoc; and let slip the dogs of war!
I concur. The era of short-term band-aids is really starting to hurt us. Take the hard lumps now, we'll be much better and legitimately stronger in the long term.
Join the fight for YOUR liberty!
That may be fine for someone that has a secure job (based on your post, I suspect you do) or someone that will not suffer without a job (if I can get health insurance through Obamacare, I fall into that category in 2014 as well as being secure in my job), but it would cause such a large recession that a lot of people will get hurt. Of course, a lot of conservatives would then blame those that are unemployed and want to cut funding to help them.
I don't think there is a painless fix to this situation.
The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen - Dennis Prager
Fiscal cliff and a step in the direction of a sane fiscal policy or more kicking of the can down the road...
At some point, those of you who say a fiscal cliff would be devastating, need to acknowledge that the United States must "take it's medicine" on its debt. Pretending that it doesn't exist and then just promising to slow the growth of spending (which has been completely out of control in all areas) isn't the answer. Spending is still slotted to grow faster than tax revenue in any scenario.
There's not. The reality is people are going to have to really suffer a bit IF we want sound money and responsible economic practices to make a comeback...
A comeback?! Like they were ever instituted in the first place in this corrupt, wacky government!!!!!
Obama: "Look at where they started, look at where we started...my proposal was right down the middle."
Yes, Obama's first proposal was the equivalent of Republicans asking for additional tax cuts. I love how an extreme position to start with, that would have struggled to get backing from the President's own party, constitutes a beginning point for negotiations. I suppose that the Republicans going from no tax rate increases to increases for those making $1 million or more should be considered an infinite % compromise, right?
It was pretty much Obama's proposal which was endorsed by the American public.
So you're saying that the American public, about 40% of whom pay no federal income tax to begin with, endorsed a plan that forced people who made more than they do to pay more taxes while at the same time allowing them to continue to pay the same rate (in many cases 0%) that they were already paying? I'm shocked!
I'm wondering if that same public would dislike a plan that increased taxes for everyone, including themselves...well, wondering sarcastically.
I think the American public could get behind a plan in which the government just mails them a check for $30,000 every Christmas too...maybe we need to look into that.
I agree, but some fixes are less painful than others.
Extending and pretending isn't a "fix". Far from it, as a matter of fact.
When did I advocate "extending and pretending"? Do you even remember some of what I believe should be done?
I don't really have a penchant of reading a lot of your riff raffs, I'm sorry to say. As such, I can't really remember what I don't read.
If you do not tend to read my posts, why would you ASSUME that I am for "extending and pretending"? Forgetting for a moment that your use of "riff raffs" indicates that you do not even know what "riff raff" means, if you do not read a lot of my posts, how do you know that they are "riff raffs" or anything else?
I would allow the taxes for those that would be in the 36% and 39.6% to go back to the Clinton levels. I would raise the lower brackets to the Clinton levels after the economy improves in a few years. I would end subsidies for farmers over four years. I would lower most subsidies 25% per year with a few exceptions. Those exceptions (e.g. for tobacco), I would end after the next crop. I would end the subsidy for charitable giving. I would end the tax deduction over 4 years, 25% per year. I would immediately end the benefit that an estate gets for charitable giving immediately. I would allow estate taxes to go back to starting at 1,000,000 and slowly increase in percentage until it reaches 49% at about $5,000,000. I would eliminate the tax deductions for moving expenses, medical expenses and theft. I would wait until real estate has fully recovered and then very slowly eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction (why should renters and cash buyers subsidize borrowers?). I would eliminate many corporate tax deductions and credits, but lower the marginal rate to 28%. I would raise the retirement age for SS one year more than it is presently scheduled to increase (two months per year in the 6 year period between when it is presently scheduled to rise to 66 and 67). I would stop early benefits (i.e. being able o collect benefits at 62). I would do it in the last six years that the age is being raised by not allowing any people not already entitled to retire early from becoming eligible to do so. I would increase the point at which SS contributions hit a ceiling. I would increase Medicare / Medicaid payments by .3%. I would cut a lot of government spending. It is hard for me on the outside to know where the waste is, but I m confident that there i a lot of it. I would close a huge number of our foreign bases.
Needless to say, no one could get the above passed. It would take too much away from people that are accustomed to getting it. Almost everyone would fight it, but that is what I believe would be best. I believe that the above would allow us to pay down our debt and we could then lower everyone's marginal tax rates when we in better shape.
This post was edited by Morethanafan 19 months ago
With regard to deductions, why not simply cap the deductions? They will hit high income earners significantly harder than low income earners and allow people to choose how to allocate those deductions. Capping it at about $25,000 will raise tax revenue significantly.
Removing medical expense deductions is absurd...I'm assuming that involves your advocacy for a single-payer health care system. Casualty loss of property is a loss by definition and should be allowed to the extent that is beyond the insured value of the property...otherwise, no taxes should have to be paid on that property. It already has a 10% AGI threshold that has to be met on it as well.
I'm not sure which deductions/credits you are referring to on the corporate side, but I do know that there are a few that I could at least see being examined. The corporate rate should be capped at closer to 20-25% to be globally competitive.
I do not believe there should be any deductions. However, I do not want to hurt real estate while it is so vulnerable now. Not only will that hurt real estate, it would hurt lenders and the economy as a whole. In places with more expensive homes (e.g. New York, several cities in California, Chicago, etc.), $25,000 is not high enough for the time being. Eventually, though, I'd like to see it zero.
Why would medical deductions be absurd? If you are insured, it is rare that one would have such deductions. They have to be at least 7% of your income. I suspect the deduction is abused by people having vanity surgery and claiming it has a medical purpose. I am not trying to pick on medical deductions. I believe that it and the moving deduction make the most sense to me of all of the deductions. I am just against the deductions in general. I do not see why the government should be subsidizing activities. I probably would go after other subsidies, but do not know enough about many of them to be specific.
Right, so we should just let things continue to fester and rot. Maybe, if we're lucky, we'll be able to wait until we have to cut off our whole arm instead of a finger. I'm not suggesting that the current mandatory cuts are the best implementation, but your argument is a slippery slope because the job losses will only be magnified as the debt to gdp ratio continues to worsen.
A SHORT TERM recession is a small price to pay for saving the LONG TERM economic prospects of the country. If it can be avoided - it should - but we have GOT to get the debt under control. At minimum, it needs to start growing slower than GDP or we'll continue to bleed off long term job growth and make no mistake the economy will ultimately halt.
Finally, the idea that you are not responsible for your own employment is - speaking generally - the whole damn problem in the first place. "Conservatives will blame those that are unemployed for being unemployed". Well who the hell am I supposed to blame? You are responsible for your own job skills/food/shelter/employment - are you not? This isn't Sierra Leone where people have no opportunity. I grew up in a TERRIBLE situation and at 30 years old I'm doing more than fine. Why? Because my public education was free - I got to pay sports for free - I got to go to church for free - and I took an hour a day or so to do my HW in highschool. Oh the horror of having to do your homework so you can go to college! And, if you douche it up in HS because of your homelife etc you can always go to community college. And there are a million GOOD SCHOOLS that let you work and go to school (I've been doing it for my entire adult life). If someone else couldn't handle that that's on them. Why should I have to pay for it? Seriously - how is a highschool drop out drug addict MY problem or anyone else's? If you were born healthy in this country you don't have an excuse and I'm proof of that. I work 80 hour weeks. I take 9 units of graduate level courses. I volunteer on two college boards. I mentor 3 underprivileged kids aged 12, 19, and 21. Today is my birthday and I was up til 5:00am last night finishing a paper of the cytotoxic binding potential of TiO2 and thiol capped gold for growth on CdSe nanorods. Today I have to finish a white paper on the future tech/market share of nano-tech cancer treatment and underwrite two deals, and I'm on "vacation". I won't be celebrating my birthday until Friday. I am only writing this because I'm waiting for a program to run and have a spare 20 minutes I am killing on the OT board. But am I content? No - I have a second round job interview this saturday because that's the only day I could do it and I want to keep progressing in my career.
So here I am - sleeping only 4 or 5 hours a day and busting my ass to get somewhere in the world - living WELL below my means in some craphole so I can keep on forking over $40k a year in tuition (paid for on after tax dollars), donating money, and helping out my family where I can (while building my savings) so I can gain the knowledge necessary to direct capital towards improving healthcare that benefits all of society and I'm supposed to feel bad for some lazy ass who doesn't want to have to put in an extra 10 hours/week at a JC after his piddly 40 hour work week so he can get ahead?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by phear_SC 19 months ago
Will the conservatives that are starting to say that they believe going over the fiscal cliff might be a good idea criticize President Obama for the economic fallout over going over that fiscal cliff, should it come to that?
You are assuming that all people unemployed are that way because they are lazy. Especially during a recession, that is not always true. I agree that something needs to be done. Above, I listed things that I would do if I miraculously had the power. I understand that all of my suggestions would never get through. In fact, a group would fight each one. However, that is better than seriously damaging the economy. As I wrote above, I will not be hurt personally. Apparently, you will not either. However, a lot of innocent people that want to work will be.
The problem with most people who want to help poor people is that they've never been poor. If you were born in this country, are physically and mentally healthy (this is key - people with legitimate disabilities should be helped), 30 years old or more, and don't have a college degree and a decent job it's your own damn fault. The liberal story starts with the idea that people aren't responsible for their circumstances - and in the vast majority of cases that's just not true.
And, lazy is a relative term. It's not a shock to me that most of the successful people I know have a similar lifestyle to mine. In fact, my business partner sleeps 4 hours a day and starts every day with a 5 mile run. Effort/Results are, in most cases, directly proportional.
Partially - because it's his misguided class warfare that's stalling the process in the first place.
It's like saying: Person A is wrong. Person B is right. Because they couldn't agree it's both of their fault.
Is it really Person B's fault for not wanting to agree to Person A's WRONG idea?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports