Bowsite.com

Political gaming from the One party and they will act like it took at great compromise to come out with a plan at the last moment and they saved the day.

Hunt the good stuff....Hmmmm...

At least Missouri must have a balanced budget....

how would the politicians suffer or be effected? they wouldn't. they'll blame each other, and a majority of the sheople that support them will believe it.

BTW - I think it was the Occupy crowd that broke the laws and had meltdowns, the TEA party...not so much.

regardless of party, these idiots in washington have just about ruined this country. our fiscal house is a mess with no fix in sight, and both parties are to blame equally. your "side" isn't winning crap.

As far as this fiscal cliff is concerned, the republicans will lay down because, well, thats what they do. There isn't a hanging pair amongst them. They are pretty much what the democrats were 20 years ago. The democrats are...Greece? I don't know.

I say let it go over. They will double the debt spending to keep B-Ho's chin above water. We'll get pissed, elect a republicrat, who'll take the fall in 5 years or so.

So why would the federal government profile people who make more than $250,000 and increase their taxes?

Why is it OK to profile those making more than $250,000, but not OK to profile a Mexican with no ID, or even an 18-30 year old muslim wearing a strange looking vest?

The only tax cut that ends is on income over $250,000.

"Going Over the Cliff Is Our Best Option By Gerald P. O’Driscoll, Ph.D.

The best outcome, given the circumstances, is to go over the cliff. The consequences are much exaggerated but will nonetheless be painful. Only if the broad population experiences pain will there even be an opportunity for real spending reductions.

There are two salient issues to the cliff. First, the cuts under sequestration are real. Second, taxes go up for everyone. That creates a broader constituency for spending reductions.

Under any bipartisan deal, spending cuts will be based on imaginary savings and dubious projections. No meaningful spending cuts will occur. But the tax increases for the “rich” will be real and permanent. The broad population will feel no pain, and there will no constituency for spending cuts.

Most fiscal reforms globally fail because they are either insufficient or political leaders lack the will to see them through. Reforms that succeed rely overwhelmingly on reductions in expenditures, rather than increases in taxes. Spending cuts should make up 80% or more of the deficit-reduction plan.

Based on past US experience (Reagan, GHW Bush), the Republicans will get rolled in any deal. Spending cuts will be illusory, while tax increases will be all too real. My prediction is that, if there is a deal, spending will rise, the deficit will rise, and taxes will rise. That is the worst of all worlds. No deal is better than a raw deal.

That is why I repeat my preference to go over the cliff. Sequestration actually implements real spending cuts. It is the only path to real spending cuts on the horizon. Our deficits, debt and unfunded liabilities are simply unsustainable. We are stealing from our children and grandchildren. We need real spending cuts. The “cliff cuts” won’t be nearly enough, but they are a start."

Buffett's company is in court to clarify where the liability lies in a disputed tax question. The company has a responsibility to its shareholders to ensure that it pays only those taxes for which it is truly liable:

As I was speaking with various people about the issue, many of them said that given Mr. Buffett’s personal position on taxes, Berkshire should just settle the case. But that misses the point: Mr. Buffett may have his own views on income taxes, but in this instance, he represents shareholders and NetJets owners.

There's progress - not one of the GOP Clown Car Occupants Presidential candidates would accept even 90% spending cuts.

Nice of you to insult us all with the clown car reference.

The problem with 'spending cuts' is they almost never actually happen. Tax increases do.

We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem!

It wasn't intended as an insult to you, it was the weak field that presented itself to you folks in the primary.

I mean seriously - Donald Trump? Newt Gingrich? Gingrich actually had the lead, TWICE! Just how weak it was is amply demonstrated by the the eventual nominee, and his awful performance as a candidate.

I confess I was surprised by just how bad the field was, but I think you'll have a much stronger field in 2016. Let's just say that those who chose to run this year did not represent the real depth of your bench.

"We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem!"

Revenues are close to an historic low as a percent of GDP, WAY below the 19% that Paul Ryan told the CBO to assume would be collected under his budget, BTW.

That's for two reasons. First, the Bush Tax cuts, which were a bad idea in the first place and failed to generate any serious growth. Second, in the aftermath of a financial collapse the economy inevitably takes a long time to recover.

The same collapse leads to the biggest problem in spending - UI, SNAP, and Medicaid for all those out of work as a result.

We have a revenue AND spending problem, in addition to a sagging economy problem.

The Geithner Rule – don’t pay until you get caught.

If he can do it, why can't we?

"Revenues are close to an historic low as a percent of GDP..."

And that is a bad thing because...?

Our government has grown far beyond anything the founding fathers could have dreamed in their worst nightmare.

We could eliminate entire departments and the net result would not only mean billions in less spending, but would also make the very things they were intended to 'help' work better and more efficiently.

Starve the beast!

I wasn't offended. Being offended is a choice. You can choose not to be offended. Try it some time.

Because we have directed our government to spend more than that.

"Our government has grown far beyond anything the founding fathers could have dreamed in their worst nightmare."

They founded an agrarian Republic prior to the Industrial Revolution, so that's no surprise.. The government they envisioned was adequate for an agrarian republic - and BTW, as you know the previous one under the Articles was not.

"We could eliminate entire departments and the net result would not only mean billions in less spending, but would also make the very things they were intended to 'help' work better and more efficiently."

In some cases, possibly true. In others, definitely not. Already we have repeated recalls of contaminated food because of inadequate inspections, and it takes forever to get drugs through licensing and some STILL turn out to be not efficacious and/or unsafe in the market.

"Starve the beast!"

The beast = us.

"They founded an agrarian Republic prior to the Industrial Revolution, so that's no surprise.. The government they envisioned was adequate for an agrarian republic - and BTW, as you know the previous one under the Articles was not."

No, they founded a Republic because they had a great and rightful fear of a government that could become intrusive and oppressive. Preventing that was why the country broke away from England in the first place.

When you have a government that can take up to 35% of your earnings, over 50% of your property when you die, tell you what you can and cannot have for medical care, tell you what you can and cannot do with your property, tell you how much you have to pay the people who work for you and the benefits you provide for them, force you to contribute to a government run retirement Ponzi scheme, ad infinitum, the beast has grown far too large and tyranny is waiting at the doorstep.