TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:Obama has absolutely nothing to lose by not signing off on a Tax-compromise of any sort.

He gets additional tax revenue and he gets to point the finger at the Republican boogey-man. That more than makes up for the cuts that are triggered.

This. ^^

The press will completely bury that he rejected several republican offers, that he fecklessly on his own completely broke down the prior negotiations a few months ago, that he told Boehner the other day that he gets NOTHING in exchange for the 842 billion bump in revenue—actually using the term "I get that for free" (as if WE weren't going to pay for it ). They'll bury what his tax on $250,001 of income will do to small business owners—a demographic that he actually despises because A) they're not the SUPER-rich who fund his campaigns and share his globalist vision; and B) because they tend to be republicans. They'll bury what effect that will have on employment, small businesses being the nation's primary employers. They'll bury it because to them, there are only three honorable jobs: anything in a union, anything in the press, and anything in government. They'll bury his trampling on the Constitution because they hate all of it too......except the First Amendment, which they cynically use to tear down the rest of it..... They LOVE taxes.....because they don't pay them. Anybody who thinks that subscription prices is what keeps the print media afloat doesn't know the industry, and the broadcast media don't have to keep presses running. The people who buy their advertising product pay those taxes, and then those advertisers pass that increased cost on to THEIR consumers. That's you and me. So the media gets to stick it to us TWICE—once in taxes on our income, and a second time in taxes on their income. What could be better than that?

Wait! THERE'S MORE! The liberal press (but I repeat myself) cares nothing for national security, hates the military (which largely votes conservatively) and would like to see it "brought down a peg or two," so they LOVE that the lion's share of the cuts to the federal budget will be to military spending.

There are so many documented cases of high-level White House meetings behind closed doors attended by Obama, with big name media "professionals," at which the topic for discussion was exactly how best to sell an administration initiative to the public, that we can count on all their reporting to be critical of republicans and in praise of Obama and his "fairness." It is indisputably true that with the lone exception of FoxNews (and even they are pretty squishy on gun rights) the major media are 100% supporters of Obama. If not for NewMedia, we would not have access to information which contradicts the official administration position. THATs how far the media's nose is inserted up the administration's posterior.

And the funny thing is, the "fiscal cliff" is the ONLY way to force the administration to cut back spending, and it is STILL going to cost everyone in higher taxes. If the Founders were alive today, they would be stockpiling AR15s and private stores of 5.56 ammo and getting ready to restore that which they created, because what we call "government" today has strayed FAAAAAAR from what they intended. This administration, and democrats in general (which includes 90% of the media) use the Constitution for toilet paper. And who do we have to blame for that?

Republicans. That's right, republicans, because republican politicians are only marginally less irresponsible for the current state of affairs.

Snatchel, here is an excellent article explaining the absolute myth that democrats spout about how we had the best boom times with a 91% top tax rate after WW2, and it IS a myth:

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate
A liberal article of faith that confiscatory taxes fed the postwar boom turns out to be an Edsel of an economic idea.
Wall Street Journal
December 6, 2012, 7:02 p.m. ET

Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more "investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.

True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%—but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.

The author goes on to give more numbers explaining this myth, but the next time one of your liberal friends brings this chestnut up, hand him a printed copy of the article. Numbers don't lie. Democrats lie all the time. You can tell because their lips are moving.

mamabearCali wrote:Right now my gut says....let it burn...maybe if obummers people feel pain too it will get his attention. Perhaps then we can get something done.

Exactly.

Dems have refused to make any spending concessions. They won't even talk about where they are willing to make cuts. Obama is talking about trying to take the power to control borrowing caps away from Congress. Geitner is saying saying that he's fine with going "over the cliff" if republicans will not give.

In the middle of this, remember this principle: when Congress budgeted $X for a program 5 years ago, $(X+4%) 4 years ago, $((X+4%)+4%) 3 years ago, $(((X+4%)+4%)+4%) 2 years ago, and $((((X+4%)+4%)+4%)+4%) last year, that THIS year when republicans try to hold the line on spending for that program at $((((X+4%)+4%)+4%)+4%), democrats call that "deep cuts" or "slashing spending" for that program, and they say that the only way we can "afford" to hold spending to the previous year's rate is to "increase taxes for the wealthiest."

THEN, to add to their treachery, and I use this word deliberately, they flood the media with panic messages saying we're going to go over the cliff if we don't raise the borrowing limit............so they can spend MORE.

The democrat hasn't been born who ever called for a cut to entitlement spending. They are all too HAPPY to try and gut the military (and yes, maybe that is an item we can take a look at), but they are congenitally unable to stop giving money away.

Republicans are weak-kneed sissy-boys, and they always cave in. Who here actually thought that bailing out GM was a good idea? Bankruptcy would have cost the taxpayers nothing, some people would have lost their jobs, but not by any means all of them, and GM would have been put back on a solid financial footing. We all know that is not what happened. Instead, taxpayers are on the hook, Obama will not allow GM to get out from under the arrangement, taxpayers are subsidizing the construction of unpopular overpriced electric cars which are not selling, GM's stock is not a good long term investment compared to Ford or other auto companies, and GM is now a boat-anchor on the economy. Sometimes, a little pain is exactly what is called for to get a company or government through tough times and get them back on a solid footing.

What is needed from democrats is some intellectual honesty. What is needed from republicans is some backbone. What is needed from BOTH is a willingness to be unpopular and risk reelection in order to attend to the fiscal health of the taxpayers and to stop stealing from them in hidden ways. Congress just passed a law tacking mortgage fees onto Fanny and Freddie mortgages to pay for the administration of a new immigration bill. Get that? If you want to buy a house now, you'll have to help finance an immigration policy which hasn't got the faintest thing to do with your mortgage. It is NOT the government's money, it's the taxpayers' money. There is a quote in today's Patriot Post email: "I have several pet peeves, and one of them is the idea that when Americans get to keep their own money, it somehow 'costs' the government." --columnist John J. Miller.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if we go off a fiscal cliff on January 1st or not. If it doesn't happen then, it's going to happen in a year or two anyway because that class of mental defectives called democrats cannot bring themselves to turn off the cash spigot. I honestly believe them to be traitors to the nation with malicious intent.