The Fiscal Cliff and Georgia (Columbus: credit, purchasing, theatre)

[arjay57]

The government just needs to quit spending so much money.

-- In 2000 the US got by just fine on a budget of $2.3 trillion. That was with a population of 281 million.

-- By 2010 the budget leaped to $3.6 trillion. That's a 55% increase in ten years, although the population only grew by 10%.

No business, family or individual could stay afloat with that kind of burn rate.

It's not just Bush or Obama, or Republicans vs. Democrats. It's all of them. The federal government is simply spending money we don't have and it's going to ruin us.

As for the fiscal cliff, we should be okay. If we could get by with 50% less 10 years ago, I don't think shaving a few points will make that much difference.

[rorqual]

Originally Posted by arjay57

The government just needs to quit spending so much money.

-- In 2000 the US got by just fine on a budget of $2.3 trillion. That was with a population of 281 million.

-- By 2010 the budget leaped to $3.6 trillion. That's a 55% increase in ten years, although the population only grew by 10%.

No business, family or individual could stay afloat with that kind of burn rate.

It's not just Bush or Obama, or Republicans vs. Democrats. It's all of them. The federal government is simply spending money we don't have and it's going to ruin us.

As for the fiscal cliff, we should be okay. If we could get by with 50% less 10 years ago, I don't think shaving a few points will make that much difference.

Things need to be paid for. Since 2000 we have had the Bush tax cuts (not paid for), Iraq War (not paid for), Medicare Part D (not paid for) and the stimulus money (not paid for). The stimulus money was needed to escape the Great Recession and a large amount of it went towards tax cuts.

[AcidSnake]

The real problem is that each time is a minor economic recession and the resulting bout of inflation happens, the American public gets spooked. And then the supply-siders come around and tell us that wealthy people need to save money, unions need to be killed, businesses need to grow bigger through monopolies, and regulations need to be taken apart. This happen after Carter's administration, and then after Clinton's administration.

So then we cut taxes for everything, not realizing that dang...we actually like some of that government spending.

I mean let's face it: without a lot of that government spending on military bases, the economies of most southern and conservative red states would plunge precipitously to third world levels.

They are simply not very diverse economies. And with the exception of Texas and its natural resources, many of these conservative states would practically starve to death without government spending.

So somehow the American need to realize that they can't simply get spooked by a minor inflationary event into cutting everything for the 1% every time. That "sky is falling" thought process is getting very old.

Think about it:

What was it about Carter and Clinton's recession that justified these huge tax breaks and major deregulation campaigns by the next office holders in the first place? What? I have never gotten an honest answer from anyone about those situations.

Because I guarantee you that the next minor recession and resulting inflationary event that takes place, the mainstream media will scare us again. And then supply-siders and their politicians they bought will tell us to cut taxes, kill unions, and get rid of regulations again.

When will this stupid cycle be broken?

Originally Posted by arjay57

The government just needs to quit spending so much money.

-- In 2000 the US got by just fine on a budget of $2.3 trillion. That was with a population of 281 million.

-- By 2010 the budget leaped to $3.6 trillion. That's a 55% increase in ten years, although the population only grew by 10%.

No business, family or individual could stay afloat with that kind of burn rate.

It's not just Bush or Obama, or Republicans vs. Democrats. It's all of them. The federal government is simply spending money we don't have and it's going to ruin us.

As for the fiscal cliff, we should be okay. If we could get by with 50% less 10 years ago, I don't think shaving a few points will make that much difference.

[K-SawDude]

It's laughable (in a sad way) to see conservatives in Congress bending over backwards to preserve our bloated military budget. It's amazing to see a constant conservative stream of "WE NEED TO CUT SPENDING!", except when we're spending millions on planes that sit in hangers and never see combat. For that reason, I actually like aspects of the "fiscal cliff," as it's the first time in decades that we've had any significant proposal on the table to cut military spending (which IS a welfare/jobs program, btw). It's one-fifth of our entire budget: File:U.S. Federal Spending - FY 2011.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm a liberal, generally, but I agree with arjay that debt is a concern in the long run. (It's hyperbolic to say we're "approaching Greece," though. We're not even close to Greece levels of debt and money mismanagement. Plus, we have monetary strategies we can employ to control debt and inflation in ways that they can't.) I think taxes need to go up AND spending needs to get cut. But not all at once, as it's too much of a shock to the economic system. Medicare and military spending are the areas that really need to be cut the most, but conservatives are generally too chicken to do anything about them--if you REALLY want to preserve these levels of spending, you have to vote for tax increases at some point. Liberals don't want to face budget realities, but at least they're willing to raise taxes.

[noah]

Exactly, plus the expansion of Medicare. And we will see how the healthcare law works out over time. It gets very little attention (the debt and spending side versus the tax side) but I don't see how the current level of spending could be supported in the long run no matter the tax rates, then again we don't have a track record of reducing spending levels or even reducing the speed of increases in spending.

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

The reason the budget is out of whack is more due to huge expenditures in the middle east, expenditures for stimulating the economy, etc.

[GeorgiatoChina]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

Think about it:

What was it about Carter and Clinton's recession that justified these huge tax breaks and major deregulation campaigns by the next office holders in the first place? What? I have never gotten an honest answer from anyone about those situations.

Why can't the middle class get a break? Why shouldn't they lower the taxes on the folks that aren't the 1%?

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Just to the rates of before 2004. Those tax cuts were never meant to be permanent. When taxes were a little bit higher the budget was balenced.

Bring the rates up for everyone. This class warfare stuff is getting old. Taxing the rich at a higher rate won't even make a dent in current spending levels.

So we got tax cut extensions with no meaningful budget cuts while we continue on a path to fiscal crisis? What are the odds we pass a budget this year?

[AcidSnake]

Why are you asking me this? I'm not in favor of jerking over the middle class. If you know my entire history of being on city-data you know this.

So what is the point in you asking me this? Are you trying to get a rise out me or something? If so that's a pretty crude and lowbrow tactic.

And you can stand in line with other folks who would wanna troll me; its a pretty long line so take a number.

Originally Posted by GeorgiatoChina

Why can't the middle class get a break? Why shouldn't they lower the taxes on the folks that aren't the 1%?

[ChefRamsey]

Originally Posted by rorqual

There are still far too many Tea Party types in Georgia who will make deal making difficult - these are the ones who take the stance of "no compromise or we will primary you!".

Georgia GOP climate makes cliff compromise difficult | 11alive.com

Republicans do a good talk in the white house of balancing the budget and controlling the deficit but when they control the presidency they don't. Dubya blew the budget. Bush Sr. didn't balance the budget or control the deficit. Reagan piled on massive debt and didn't balance the budget. Infact the last Republican president to balance the budget was Eisenhower in the 50s. The GOP only cares about debt, budget, etc when a Democrat is President so its best for the country that a Democrat stays President as that way the focus will be on budgets, deficit, etc.

Can't tell if liberal propaganda or real life....

Can't wait till that guy in the video dies.

[Columbuskidd92]

The bill was passed!