Discussion: The Economy, Fiscal Cliff, National Debt, And Other Financial Issues III

[The Incredible Hulk]

and of course "Boner" and the GOP come out and ****-can Obama's fiscal cliff plan.

We're ****ed.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by The Incredible Hulk

and of course "Boner" and the GOP come out and ****-can Obama's fiscal cliff plan.

We're ****ed.

What is Obama's plan?

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Kelly

What is Obama's plan?

This is what the GOP said the White House proposed.

• Immediate full “de-coupling” of both marginal rates and capital gains/dividends (*the Senate bill could not achieve this); estimated at $960 Billion.
• Additional tax increases to equal $600 Billion, but not effective until 2014
• 2009-level Estate Tax exemption/rate (*the Senate bill could not achieve this)
• Patch for Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR)
• AMT and business tax extenders
• Payroll tax extension or new alternative policy
• Bonus Depreciation extension
• WH proposal for refinancing underwater mortgages
• Mulit-year Stimulus Package: $50 Billion in new infrastructure spending for FY 2013; $25 Billion/year in FY 2014-18
• UI extension
• Unspecified savings from certain non-entitlement mandatory programs (ex: Agriculture programs)
• 1-year deferral of the sequester
• Permanent increase in the debt limit sufficient to avoid affirmative action to raise it again

That's just stage 1. Stage 2 would be this:

• Tax Reform consistent with the $1.6 Trillion tax increase
• Medicare/entitlement policies from the President’s Budget that could total $400 Billion in
savings
• Sequester would to serve as “hammer” for tax reform

[Kelly]

I've read what he is wanting....

I'm fine with the tax hikes he wants, but his spending cuts are ridiculously low and laughable at best, no entitlement reform, not even a flash in the pan of spending cuts.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I've read what he is wanting....

I'm fine with the tax hikes he wants, but his spending cuts are ridiculously low and laughable at best.

I think what the President wants is for the GOP to offer a proposal for (specific) cuts. He has offered $400 billion in cuts to Medicare (and we aren't even mentioning the savings that we will see from the end of the war in Afganistan). What do the Republicans want to cut? Maybe they could start from things in the sequester that they would be willing to let slip through. If the GOP doesn't want to negotiate we could just jump off the "cliff" and we will have our cuts.

[Kelly]

Until I see entitlement reform I see nothing...

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Until I see entitlement reform I see nothing...

Look a $400 billion cut to Medicare is really sticking out the olive branch. If nothing is done and the sequester kicks in form the Budget Control Act (which I will from now on call the BCA) Medicare cuts will cap out at 2% or $11 billion, so what the Obama Administration is offering is a lot more than that.

[Optimus_Prime_]

I actually think its high time most stores changed their business model to be more efficient. Instead of cutting down on individual hours, maximize the individual and don't stay open as much. Stores stay open during hours they literally know generate almost no business. Due to the rising of women in the workforce means that entire segment is no longer out shopping all day, especially since the Internet makes it convenient. Stores should have limited open hours and have websites. It also would give mom and pop shops an ability to compete on a bigger market.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

I actually think its high time most stores changed their business model to be more efficient. Instead of cutting down on individual hours, maximize the individual and don't stay open as much. Stores stay open during hours they literally know generate almost no business. Due to the rising of women in the workforce means that entire segment is no longer out shopping all day, especially since the Internet makes it convenient. Stores should have limited open hours and have websites. It also would give mom and pop shops an ability to compete on a bigger market.

Due to my work hours and lifestyle I like having 24 hour stores. I despise not being able to get something when I need it. And because most of my shopping occurs between 11pm and 4am limited hours would screw me over through the week. Most stores operate on skeleton crews after 9pm. Labor isnt costing them much.

[Kelly]

Yeah, most of what is happening in grocery stores, etc....is stocking during those hours, usually one lane is open, and that is usually the self check out lane. I would much rather the stockers do their work during those hours, than me have to move around them while I'm shopping.

NOW, as far as opening on Thanksgiving, etc....that is ridiculous. They can do their whole black Friday thing without opening on Thanksgiving. IF they would all make a truce for Thanksgiving, then there would be no need to compete.

[moviedoors]

Originally Posted by Kelly

NOW, as far as opening on Thanksgiving, etc....that is ridiculous. They can do their whole black Friday thing without opening on Thanksgiving. IF they would all make a truce for Thanksgiving, then there would be no need to compete.

Speaking as a lower level manager at one of these big box stores, I whole heartedly endorse this.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Yeah, most of what is happening in grocery stores, etc....is stocking during those hours, usually one lane is open, and that is usually the self check out lane. I would much rather the stockers do their work during those hours, than me have to move around them while I'm shopping.

NOW, as far as opening on Thanksgiving, etc....that is ridiculous. They can do their whole black Friday thing without opening on Thanksgiving. IF they would all make a truce for Thanksgiving, then there would be no need to compete.

Did you know that in 1939 Thanksgiving was moved up a week to provide more shopping days between it and christmas? Thanksgiving that year fell on November 30. The retailers complained that it would only allow 24 shopping days between thanksgiving and christmas. FDR bumped up thanksgiving a week to November 23.

docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/thanksg.html

Personally, Ive never cared about thanksgiving. Yeah i like the food, but i can get that food year around if I want it so the food isnt anything special. All it does is throw a kink in my routine. However, the consumerism around the holiday and christmas is disgusting.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Did you know that in 1939 Thanksgiving was moved up a week to provide more shopping days between it and christmas? Thanksgiving that year fell on November 30. The retailers complained that it would only allow 24 shopping days between thanksgiving and christmas. FDR bumped up thanksgiving a week to November 23.

docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/thanksg.html

Doesn't surprise me, especially since Christmas decorations come out as soon as the Halloween decorations are taken down. It's just ridiculous....

[moviedoors]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Doesn't surprise me, especially since Christmas decorations come out as soon as the Halloween decorations are taken down. It's just ridiculous....

We set Christmas decorations in September.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by moviedoors

We set Christmas decorations in September.

Wow! Im not even putting up a tree this year.

[moviedoors]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Wow! Im not even putting up a tree this year.

I didn't mean me personally. I meant the store I work at. We set Halloween and Christmas concurrently.

[bkong0]

That Christmas thing is really interesting, I had no clue!

[Kelly]

Why can there not be more level thinking like Claire McCaskill in the Senate...*sighs* Dear Santa, could we please have someone like her as the Senate Majority leader, and someone like her on the Republican side for the House...? Please... : /

[Marx]

Senator Graham is on Face The Nation talking about "the fiscal cliff". The GOP has learned absolutely NOTHING from the election.

We may be screwed.

[Kelly]

I think Meet The Press has the best, balanced debate on that issue...

Honestly, I don't think the election has anything to do with this. If anyone thinks that the election gave a mandate for anything, it didn't. It was an election of personalities not issues. The exit polls showed that.....when asked, the #1 issue for voters was the economy, and the person most said was better equipped to do it was Romney, YET they voted for Obama....so, IMO, the election was a big "hot mess of nothing". No mandate was given, even the most liberal of pundits have stated this....

BUT....On Meet The Press, I see Republicans and Democrats, pundits and people such as Grover Norquist.....actually talking. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO); Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN); Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform; Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD); Jim Cramer, CNBC; Maria Bartiromo, CNBC

All of these people actually talking, respectfully, THAT is what our Representatives should learn from...Maria Bartiromo brought up a very important detail. You raise taxes on dividends, which Obama wants to do, will take away, ANY incentive, that is not good......also, payroll taxes REALLY NEED TO BE LOOKED....such a good debate.

David Gregory did an OUTSTANDING job of asking tough questions to both sides.....BRAVO...totally enjoyed the debate....from both sides, all were respectful, informed, and ready to talk.

I don't like Norquist, but one thing that he did say, that I hope would happen....would be that the President would allow CSPAN cameras into the negotiations in committee for 7 days....let us actually see what happens, not just talking points from both sides after the fact.

[SentinelMind]

I'd rather just drive off the fiscal cliff than pass on trillions more debt to our children....

Seriously, $255 billion more stimulus in a fiscal budget deal???

http://news.yahoo.com/why-obama-push...033547060.html

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by SentinelMind

I'd rather just drive off the fiscal cliff than pass on trillions more debt to our children....

Seriously, $255 billion more stimulus in a fiscal budget deal???

http://news.yahoo.com/why-obama-push...033547060.html

Well, the President is actually in a very good position with this...if we do go off the "so called fiscal cliff" then he pretty much gets exactly what he wants....and then later in 2013, the Republicans will have to sign off on pretty much what he is asking for right now. He knows this...

[SentinelMind]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I think Meet The Press has the best, balanced debate on that issue...

Honestly, I don't think the election has anything to do with this. If anyone thinks that the election gave a mandate for anything, it didn't. It was an election of personalities not issues. The exit polls showed that.....when asked, the #1 issue for voters was the economy, and the person most said was better equipped to do it was Romney, YET they voted for Obama....so, IMO, the election was a big "hot mess of nothing". No mandate was given, even the most liberal of pundits have stated this....

I'm not so sure. There was a disconnect between voters were saying was important to them and what they did in the voting booth. When 60% of Ohio voters claimed to support the auto bailouts and more liberal feminist candidates get elected to Senate...it is clear, the libertarian/conservative electorate in this country is now a gradually dwindling minority. I wasn't surprised Obama won, but the beating the GOP took in House and how several constitutional amendments failed show GOP is on losing side of social issues and gradually losing entitlement debate. Voters like talking about reforming entitlements, but once you say the word cut your campaign is over. Voters didn't want Romney's entitlement reform and generally want the status quo to stay the same.

Furthermore, a plurality or majority of voters said they'd blame the GOP if plan isn't put forward.

Unless the Dems nominate a criminal by accident (John Edwards style) in future elections, the GOP will have a gradually reduced power in fiscal debate mess. Its inevitable.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by SentinelMind

I'm not so sure. There was a disconnect between voters were saying was important to them and what they did in the voting booth. When 60% of Ohio voters claimed to support the auto bailouts and more liberal feminist candidates get elected to Senate...it is clear, the libertarian/conservative electorate in this country is now a gradually dwindling minority. I wasn't surprised Obama won, but the beating the GOP took in House and how several constitutional amendments failed show GOP is on losing side of social issues and gradually losing entitlement debate. Voters like talking about reforming entitlements, but once you say the word cut your campaign is over. Voters didn't want Romney's entitlement reform and generally want the status quo to stay the same.

Furthermore, a plurality or majority of voters said they'd blame the GOP if plan isn't put forward.

Unless the Dems nominate a criminal by accident (John Edwards style) in future elections, the GOP will have a gradually reduced power in fiscal debate mess. Its inevitable.

The Obama Campaign gave us probably, the best example of a "Surgically specific campaign". It was beautifully done. They did not have the money that the Romney campaign had, so they used the money surgically to beef up the Woman and Hispanic vote, and it did well for them. Very impressive...I don't think it had anything to do with what the voters in polls was saying was the #1 issue.

But, I do agree, the Republican party is going to have to open the doors and be more inclusive, or they will simply become one of Darwin's extinct animals.

I think we have seen the evolution of Presidential Campaigns into surgically specific, district by district campaigning...very interesting to watch.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I think Meet The Press has the best, balanced debate on that issue...

Honestly, I don't think the election has anything to do with this. If anyone thinks that the election gave a mandate for anything, it didn't. It was an election of personalities not issues...

Certainly it was a mandate. If people wanted the Ryan plan, then the majority would have voted the Romney-Ryan ticket, which did not happen. The re-election of Barack Obama obviously was a statement by voters that they didn't want Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security severely cut, and they wanted taxes to be increased on wealthier Americans. That was certainly what Barack Obama was promising during his campaign.

Originally Posted by Kelly

...The exit polls showed that.....when asked, the #1 issue for voters was the economy, and the person most said was better equipped to do it was Romney, YET they voted for Obama....so, IMO, the election was a big "hot mess of nothing". No mandate was given, even the most liberal of pundits have stated this....

If you are talking about the exit polls conducted by the Associated Press, it was not just the economy that voters were concerned about (the economy that most people polled blame George W. Bush on). The poll indicated that 75% of voters believed that Barack Obama's policies favor the poor and the middle class, and that 53% felt that the President would better handle the economy going forward. That's a mandate to me -- make no mistake about it.