Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Phailadelphia

Fiscal Cliff -O- Rama!!

Recommended Posts

How does the government determine whether people need the money or not? That takes extra research and bureaucracy, which costs money.

 

Again you would need people for the research and implementation. Hence jobs. I am not seeing the downfall other than bureaucracy, which we are going to have no matter what, so we might as well have the jobs too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it would create jobs and that is bad ? I thought that is what we needed.

 

I thought you were against government spending? IDK. It'd take a massive amounts of money, and frankly I think that although people are crying for welfare reform like this, they'd bitch about the cost. It's similar to how people demand bringing jobs back to the United States, even though they would call for Obama's impeachment when the prices went up.

Edited by Vikingfan465

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back the WPA? I was reading an article from Forbes (admittedly, it's biased but it seemed like it had some good points, so do listen) that explained that the opportunity cost of hiring workers to just do public works on infrastructure and other projects is heavily in the government's favor. Essentially, we'd be taking people who otherwise weren't looking for jobs or couldn't find full employment and be putting them to work. When the economy has recovered, the workers are released with the expectation that there will be a bountiful supply of private sector jobs.

 

How does this apply to the welfare abuse? Well, I thought of a way that we might be able to fix that. Although I do believe the abusers are the minority here, I think that if a person on welfare cannot find full employment after 4 months, he should be mandated to do public works.

 

OBVIOUSLY, this has some flaws and frankly it's simply a starting point.

 

I like the public works thing. Who knows maybe they end up learning a marketable skill out of it.

 

As to the people who are ousted after the economy recovers. Assuming that is correct, at least they would have jobs for the time being which is more than they can say now. And if the economy has recovered to that point then they should be able to find jobs. I dont think they would let them go if it did recover because if the economy is going well than they would find it to troublesome to cut something especially when it is working. I mean this is the same government that lets sears rip them off with $100 hammers instead of either making their own or saying no we will take the $15 dollar hammer in your store.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the public works thing. Who knows maybe they end up learning a marketable skill out of it.

 

As to the people who are ousted after the economy recovers. Assuming that is correct, at least they would have jobs for the time being which is more than they can say now. And if the economy has recovered to that point then they should be able to find jobs. I dont think they would let them go if it did recover because if the economy is going well than they would find it to troublesome to cut something especially when it is working. I mean this is the same government that lets sears rip them off with $100 hammers instead of either making their own or saying no we will take the $15 dollar hammer in your store.

 

Keeping the workers for the government defeats the general purpose of the program. The program is really to take unemployed people and use them to revamp the infrastructure, which will in turn create more efficiency in trade and other business happenings. Also, most government stimulus programs aren't supposed to last too long. If we keep this going, we run into the same problem we have with people being dependent on welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you were against government spending? IDK. It'd take a massive amounts of money, and frankly I think that although people are crying for welfare reform like this, they'd bitch about the cost. It's similar to how people demand bringing jobs back to the United States, even though they would call for Obama's impeachment when the prices went up.

 

I never said I was against government spending. I am against the American worker having to finance some lazy ass who thinks he is above shoveling shit or working at McDonalds to make a living. I am against it being easier to commit unemployment fraud than to work. I am getting more frustrated by the day where the working man who laces up his boots at 5:00AM is becoming the minority in lieu of some skeeted out dumb skank with 5 kids at 19 living off the government with her skeezy methed out boyfriend. I hate that people feel sorry for them instead of taking their kids and locking those dumbasses up for polluting the gene pool.

 

If the government spending money stems the tide than I am all for it. Spend what it takes to get hard working people back to the majority.

 

And if we made it more expensive to outsource prices would go down. Many economists belive that if we were to tax the hell out of exports and companies were forced to bring back jobs to the US that the walling off the country like that would create savage competition to gain a dominant edge in the market almost immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've wondered what a tax on outsourced income could do, but I'm not aware of the consequences so I won't go around advocating that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

We insource more jobs than we outsource.

 

A lot of manufacturing jobs and others are headed back to the US though. Labor is becoming increasingly expensive overseas as workers demand higher wages and more benefits. I think you'll see a large influx of jobs moving back here over the next decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put on your seatbelts, folks. We're goin' over the cliff. :yep:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw that Boehner is willing to let tax rates hike on those making over a million dollars a year. Frankly, I think this is a very acceptable compromise and is actually in line with what I would have proposed had I been in Obama's position. The ball is in your park now, Democrats, so please play along and compromise.

 

 

EDIT: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/15/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

Goodness, this seems perfectly fine with me!

Edited by Vikingfan465

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw that Boehner is willing to let tax rates hike on those making over a million dollars a year. Frankly, I think this is a very acceptable compromise and is actually in line with what I would have proposed had I been in Obama's position. The ball is in your park now, Democrats, so please play along and compromise.

 

Just saw this. If this does not get approved now I think it may be safe to assume that politicians really give no fuck about us and just want this to happen. AS much as I hate the method at least Republicans are trying now it is time to get met halfway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/did-boehner-just-pull-the-plug-on-fiscal-cliff-negotiations.php

 

In response to President Obama’s extensive comments about the fiscal cliff at the White House Wednesday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner left himself little if any room to continue negotiations.

 

Here’s the key piece of Boehner’s brief comments from his appearance before reporters in the Capitol:

 

“Tomorrow the House will pass legislation to make permanent tax relief for nearly every American — 99.81 percent of the American people,” he said, referring to his own so-called Plan B. “Then the President will have a decision to make. He can call on Senate Democrats to pass that bill, or he can be responsible for the largest tax increase in American history.”

 

That sounds like he’s giving Obama a choice between Plan B or the fiscal cliff. No more negotiations over a broader deficit reduction plan.

 

Boehner did not take any questions from the press, and a spokesman for the speaker did not immediately respond to a request for clarification on his remarks. But whether or not he’s foreclosing on further negotiations before the end of the year, Boehner did suggest that he’d entertain further negotiations over a “balanced” plan in the future.

 

“The President’s offer of 1.3 trillion dollars of revenues, 850 billion dollars in spending reductions, fails to meet the test the President promised the American people: a balanced approach,” he said. “I hope the President gets serious soon about providing and working with us on a balanced approach.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republicans put forward a compromise, the Democrats refused to compromise their own plan. If we go over the cliff, this is squarely on Obama's shoulders now.

Edited by Thanatos19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

Huh? They've both compromised quite a bit.

 

Edit: The deal Obama and Boehner were "closing in" on prior to Boehner's introduction of 'Plan B' on Tuesday was comprised of half spending cuts, half new revenues. But Boehner doesn't like that plan because he holds no leverage. To make matters worse, Boehner has been busy mending the Plan B bill today because not even his GOP colleagues are willing to vote on it due to its tax increases. He basically doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Edited by Phailadelphia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

Plan B is dead. Boehner couldn't get his own party to rally for a largely only symbolic vote. Boehner likely to receive a vote of no confidence and be replaced as Speaker sooner rather than later. House has recessed until after Christmas. Precious little time left to strike a deal. Plan B was intended to give Boehner some sort of negotiating leverage over Obama (?) but failed.

 

Even if Boehner returns to the negotiating table with Obama, he's unlikely to get the necessary votes from his hard-line Republican colleagues, who still refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy, to avoid the sequester.

 

In other words, hold on to your butts folks. We're probably going off the cliff.

Edited by Phailadelphia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans and their "we won't raise taxes on anyone" policy can fuck off. So by their logic, raising taxes on everybody by going over the cliff is a preferable outcome to voting for a bill that extends tax cuts for everyone but the richest Americans. The next few weeks should be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

Republicans and their "we won't raise taxes on anyone" policy can fuck off. So by their logic, raising taxes on everybody by going over the cliff is a preferable outcome to voting for a bill that extends tax cuts for everyone but the richest Americans. The next few weeks should be interesting.

 

It's interesting considering the vast majority of their voters are the middle-class and rural demographics.

 

I would normally enjoy watching the GOP burn in fiery effigy but we're all going to be kinda fucked if they can't agree to a deal with Obama to avoid the fiscal cliff. Their logic in all this is just mind-blowing to me. Both of their options are unpopular, so they'll go with the MOST unpopular option if it means not negotiating with Obama? It's just crazy to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that when the sequester starts to have its devastating effects, the recently unemployed people ransack the houses of the Republicans and even the Democrats who refused to compromise here. This is fucking unacceptable and they should flat out be kicked from office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Obama is about to address the public regarding the fiscal cliff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the President basically said nothing (unprecedented, I know). Essentially, the two parties aren't that far off in terms of dollars and cents, and he doesn't believe there's any reason that taxes should go up on middle-class Americans because both parties believe that's the right thing to do.

 

We'll see what happens when Congress reconvenes on the 27th...

 

:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to watch that on FOX, and then the people came on and commented on what Obama said afterward. I really fucking hate FOX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the President basically said nothing (unprecedented, I know).

 

I felt like it shows that the Republicans are clearly the only side to blame.

 

 

SARCASM ASIDE, all I got from this speech was, "We're going on break now; we'll think about what will happen if we go over the cliff."

Edited by Vikingfan465

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to watch that on FOX, and then the people came on and commented on what Obama said afterward. I really fucking hate FOX.

 

Did you try watching it on CNN? Four minutes before Obama's statement they were reporting and discussing the fact that Gangnam Style reached a billion views on YouTube.

 

The media in this country is fucked on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you try watching it on CNN? Four minutes before Obama's statement they were reporting and discussing the fact that Gangnam Style reached a billion views on YouTube.

 

The media in this country is fucked on both sides.

 

I wasn't aware how bad MSNBC and CNN were simply because I usually don't watch the news. FOX was the only channel I remember and Yahoo! had the reminder that Obama was about to speak. :p

 

Also... damn I was hoping I would be the billionth view for Gangam Style. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/22/obama-state-of-the-union-_n_2352613.html

 

Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn't reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

 

Also relevant but I don't have a link for it: On December 13th, Boehner asked Obama for a mulligan on the 2011 deal. Obama replied "you missed your opportunity on that."

Edited by Phailadelphia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sad that both sides are more interested in winning the PR battle than in passing legislation.

 

At this point, let's go over the cliff. Fuck it. Bring on Recession II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×