Flat tax - lower than current rate(s) - fair for everyone
AND/OR
A variation of Simpson Bowles - I would remove the pensions for government employees and elected officials, reduce allowances for office staff, have government engage in same health care as the rest of us, no taxpayer paid perks, term limits, tax payer voted raises, reduce travel expenditures, require blind trusts for any official on any banking/financial oversight committees,

Social Security needs to be reformed. Chile did it 30 years ago. People are allowed to pick investments, with guidance and usually average 3 times the return they would get from the government system. They even have an option to take the government minimum at retirement, but none of them due.
It's pretty simple folks, it's called the rule of compound interest. Divide your rate of return in to the number 72 and it will approximate the number of years it takes your money to double. Currently SS funds are invested in Treasury Bonds that yield 1% or so. Some of them as much as 3%. That means you money takes 24 to 72 years to double.
The DOW Jones has averaged 12% since 1929. That includes the Great Depression. too many wars, several stock market crashes, oil embargoes, recessions. And the average has been 12%. At 12% your money doubles in 6 years. Obviously you need to be less aggressive as you get older. But if you dollar cost average from the age of 18 till your 67, you'll still average in high single digits if not more over the course of your working years.
We need to start shifting social security to a system that actually invests in something real. Not a bunch of IOUs from the Government that the taxpayers wind up paying off.
As for the tax rates, they can raise all the rates they want, it won't bring in more money. We average around 19% of GDP historically, no matter the rate. So the key is increase the GDP through growth. That will bring in more revenue.

And we need to cut spending. We can't keep spending $60,000 per family of 4 in need, while only $20,000 actually getting them in benefits. The rest is government overhead. It's paying for salaries and benefits of government employees. We are just institutionalizing poverty. We could double the money that actually gets to people by giving them cash, and save 25 to 30% by cutting out the 90% of administrative costs.
And then there is the rest of bureaucracy. Study after study shows there is way too much duplication of programs in sector of the government. We don't need a Federal Department of Education. Take half the money and send it directly back to the states. And shut down the department or fold it back in to HHS and return it to one department of HEW.
And finally we need to get rid of Government Employee Unions. Unions exist to protect workers rights and to make sure they share in companies profits. Well the government doesn't make a profit to share. And 90% of government employees are white collar workers. They're not working in sweat shops. And there is huge conflict of interest. You can't have a politicians who have negotiate contracts with unions accepting union funds and support for their campaigns.
Even Franklin Roosevelt, Liberal Icon of the 20th Century, opposed Government unions. It wasn't till JFK caved, that we got this mess.

Well, at least I can die happy knowing that their are at least two people in the U.S. who understand bookkeeping and a balanced budget. All great ideas. Maybe a petition to Congress. Any one else what to add to the list. All my Christmas wishes are there. Lets hope the fiscal cliff is not so bad as to cause financial mayhem, but bad enough to wake up the White House.

The government exists at all levels to expand, keep itself in business and to make sure they are compensated well and that they are exempt from any programs they stick us with. Taxpayers exist only to provide the necessary revenue for them. And here in Massachusetts we happily re-elect the worst offenders. Where else in the nation have 3 consecutive house speakers (fourth on deck) been convicted of corruption?

Chicago

Most refreshing to see people are thinking and agree with the way I am thinking. Rather than have government workers participate in our health care, what about the rest of us having the opportunity to participate in the same health care system the government work does.

I hope they don't try and pay off the debt on the backs of seniors by cutting social security or medicare. And I don't want to see the truly needy lose medicaid either. Tax the rich. Many of them don't even mind paying more taxes and those making 250K and less should keep their tax cuts.

I understand the desire to protect those on a fixed income. However, I want to preserve a future for my children. Seniors have to bear part of the burden. Who do you think ran up the debt in the first place? I know one thing, it was not our children.

Show of hands: how many of you out there think that the 82 billion a year in revenue that the government will collect in taxing the rich will put a size able dent in the 1.2 TRILLION this government is spending annually? Anyone? Anyone? Reader, how about you? This is simple math folks. We cannot sustain the spending and increasing our debts that the government is on a current tract to spend! Do you folks have ANYTHING to say except tax the rich? It looks like cuts in entitlements isn't going to be supported by Harry Reid. Uh ohh...trouble ahead.

What is the purpose of this article ? It cannot be to influence the Massachusetts congresspeople, we all know that they will vote the party line as they did when they adopted Obamacare without any idea of what was in the bill. The readers who have offered suggestions have probably spent more mental energy actually thinking about how to solve our fiscal problem than any of our congresspeople.

Remember Rahm Emanuel's "you never want a serious crisis go to waste" comment ? The financial situation is a serious crisis and the President is not letting it go to waste, he has already started his "blame the Republicans" campaign, which is what he does best. Our congresspeople are happy to follow. So, again, I ask : what is the purpose of this article ?

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Venting. Putting forth suggestions. Realizing how incompetent we as the public have become. Most people do not like the Tea Party. WHY? I'll tell you why. Because they made half of us think about what has been happening to this country and taking a GOOD LONG LOOK at our elected Officials. It wasn't that Romney was a better candidate, but that he did his job and made a profit for the company he worked for. Granted he made money for himself, and also streamlined some businesses and made them profitable. Everything goes to experience. This article is about what are you thoughts on the Fiscal Cliff. I for one take responsibility for the state of the union. Due to my negligence (sitting back and really doing little to stop it) , I have let the Politician do what he will. SO, Charlie, what are your views? In answer to Mr. Flemings question, No. I would be surprised if any of the additional taxes collected went to bringing down the National Debt.

My views are straightforward, M C : the deficit must be eliminated -- not just reduced, but eliminated, in no more than three years. The Republicans should tell Obama that if he does not offer a plan that does that, there is no point in "negotiating", he can leave for his Hawaii vacation and live with the consequences. Boehner made a good-faith effort to get serious negotiations started and all he got in return was a ridiculous demand from Obama for more taxes, more spending (a new "stimulus" bill) and authority for the President to raise the debt limit without congressional approval. Spending reductions to come later -- oh, sure. The Republicans should just ignore Obama's rhetoric, call his bluff and let the voters decide two years from now if they still believe reelecting Obama and most Democrats was a good idea.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Great. I agree with you. I have said all along that Congress should call his bluff. The House should send a decent bill to the Senate. Let them make the decision to pass and send on to the President. IF they do not pass a bill, then it is no longer the Republicans who are at fault, but the Dem controlled Senate. I honestly believe that if Harry Reid was not Majority leader, the Senate would pass a decent bill and leave it up to the President for Yea or Nay. His choices are Leave it for 10 days, becomes law. Veto, back to Congress to be passed with two-thirds majority, or sign it. Also, he should reread the Constitution and abide by the laws put forth concerning the duties of the President of the United States. He need to be held accountable for all his actions and inactions. Some which may be impeachable.

Before the election it could be argued that Obama's failure to offer a real deficit reduction plan was "just politics" because such a plan has to include reductions of the many entitlements which will of course be unpopular. But nothing has changed since the election, he is still making the same speeches and burning up jet fuel instead of doing his job. I do not expect him to change, and I hope that Boehner and the rest of the Republican leadership do exactly what you suggested, M C.

Unfortunately impeachment is not a solution. Obama wisely chose Biden as VP, creating the political equivalent of a "poison-pill" anti-takeover provision some corporations include in their bylaws. I do not wish Mr. Biden any misfortune, but unless the current Speaker was next in line, impeaching Obama would be a bad idea.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan has already been calculated in to the mix. No one expected to be in there for the next ten years. Trying to calculate that as a cut is called fudging the books. That's how we got in to this mess.
Look this is simple. We need to freeze spending at current levels. Some people call that a cut. But it's not. It's simply freezing spending at fiscal 2013 levels for the next 10 years. That means no raises for public employees either. A reduction in Federal Employees by attrition.
We need to stimulate economic growth by simplifying the tax code, allowing for the exploration of our natural resources, eliminating some of the stifling regulations.
New growth will balance the budget.
And sorry, there are some programs that government should be in business of. No where in the Constitution does it call for Corporation of Public Broadcasting. Nor should we be constantly raising PELL grants which only allow Colleges to raise tuition. That means kids have to borrow more money and wind up in more debt. Every time the government tries to help someone, they wind up hurting them more.
As far as SS and Medicare, if we make changes in the programs for future generations, we'll be able to preserve the programs for all. Younger people will be given plenty of time to plan for the future. But if we do nothing, the programs will go bankrupt.

Lets get the ball rolling early...John DiMascio for president.

Plenty of time to plan for the Future. That's the problem, you cannot plan for the future. One party is taking you one way, the other thinks they know whats best. I remember walking in Watertown Square on Main street and there would be a line of people holding saving passbooks outside Watertown Savings Bank. Both adults on payday and children on Saturday. Thats when children collected stamps at school and turning them in when the books were full for cash. People always put away for a rainy day. Today a rainy day is a trip to the mall to buy, spend, find the bargain with the rainy day money. Younger people really have no concept of fending for themselves. If not Joe DiMascio for President, then someone who has the same outlook will have my support.

Chris Schaffner -- "Repugs" ? That kind of language may amuse your friends but makes your comments irrelevant.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

We are on an unsustainable path of spending. President Obama has presented a plan that was rejected 99 to 0 by a democratically controlled senate in 2012. What makes him think he can bully it through the house? The man is simply not serious about any realistic solution. http://www.openmarket.org/2012/05/16/senate-rejects-obama-budget-99-0/

Charlie-
Chris Schaffner cannot stop his inner 12 year old from peaking through his thought processes. Every once in a while, he'll put in a cogent comment that is worth contemplating or even discussing, then he'll call someone he doesn't agree with a "poo-poo head", or it's equivalent, and suddenly you realize what a mental midget you are dealing with, then you just start ignoring him. He is, by the way, the future of the Democratic Party...just to let you know what quality of debates lie ahead for those who care about this countrys future. Name calling, the last resort of those with limited resources.

Spelling teacher is back from changing the litter box guys. Meow

I'd start by cutting a deal providing my entitlement under the Constituion to a republican (small "r) form of government and a Federal government bound by its Constitutionally set limits. Recognizing however that progressives have used the Federal Government for the past 100 years to progressively destroy these limits and usurp the rights of the States and the people, I'd settle for a reduction in taxes across the board, a cut in Federal entitlement program spending and foreign aid. The States and the People have broad latitude under the Constitution to address those in society that are in need and can't provide for themselves or their families. That's the way it was done for over 150 years, until the Federal Government incrementally turned FDR's social security into something it was never meant to be and a much borader range of so-called (extra constiutional) "entitlement" programs. Now its all about how much the Federal government can confiscate from one group of citizens, and borrow from the social security trust fund, other countries, and the private sector to pay for the federally determined "entitlements" of another group of citizens.

Sonny Beaches -- my comment about eliminating the deficit was an answer to M C Stringfellow's question, not an attempt to lay out a plan in the few paragraphs available here. Given Obama's record and current grandstanding, a discussion of possible strategies is academic at best since he is the President and we are not.

Yes, the deficit could be eliminated in three years. Spending and yearly increases in spending have to be capped. Revenue would increase, without raising taxes, if people who are collecting unemployment would find jobs.

I am reaching the "character limit" so I'll continue in a second post.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Continuing my comment to Sonny Beaches :

Yes, the deficit could be eliminated in three years. Implementing most of the spending reductions and entitlement changes that have been discussed for at least a year would be part of it, as well as moving people from the unemployment rolls to paying jobs would be another part. That would decrease expenses (lower unemployment costs) and increase revenues (taxes on the earnings). The government does not create private sector jobs but it can destroy and/or delay them, as has been amply demonstrated by the Obama administration -- more regulation, withholding of permits (pipeline, off-shore drilling), no reliable tax policy, clear bias toward the big labor unions all detract from job creation. Details would take days to describe and discuss which would serve no purpose as I wrote earlier.

I do not expect to convince you.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Doing away with charitable contribution deductions seems appropriate. Give what you can because you want to, not because you will benefit financially.

Sonny Beaches -- I should have made it clearer for you : people (most of them) would rather have a job then collect unemployment, so when the economy is expanding and good jobs are available they move themselves from the unemployment rolls. That reduces government spending and increases government revenue, among other benefits. I am of course talking about "private sector" jobs, expanding the government payroll does not reduce government spending or increase government revenue.

It would be hard to find anyone who is not in favor of "creating jobs" or at least pays it rhetorical homage. Unfortunately the actions of Obama and his administration do not match the rhetoric. I listed some of the reasons why our economy is not growing, and may be on the verge of shrinking, which is the subject of this article. Future historians will debate why Obama made the choices that he is making but for us it is not just an interesting academic exercise. We have to deal with the consequences of his decisions now, and that is not encouraging.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Sonny Beaches -- you have a remarkable ability to misrepresent other people's comments -- not just mine, also those of others on this board who do not share your views.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Boy Charles... He really revealed your fallacious arguements didn't he? Ka pow! He is like, what, a wizard isn't he? So he read a book and underlined some passages that he thought would make a great comeback, huh? This "Beaches" person MUST be a learned and erudite person! "Charles ...Your comments sound SO much like Andrew William Mellon...I can't believe it!" Wow! He really got you there old boy! Ya gotta admit it! Beaches really knows his Mellon!
...Too bad nothing you said sounded like anything like he quoted...
But nevertheless! When Beaches quotes someone, it's gotta apply, right? He's Wicked Smaht!!

And out comes the Nazi references! That didn't take long, did it?

My goodness! This blog is a hotbed of republican unrest. It's a shame that these small, local blogs are the last bastion of conservative discourse. In case any of you might have missed Nov. 6, 2012, the country isn't listening to you. I know you figure that's a real shame, but we'll probably survive without you for awhile. And, if most of you actually live in California, you must feel particularly forlorn. Back up the moving vans boys, we're heading for Canada.

Reuters just reported that Al Qaeda is trying to take credit for the fiscal cliff.

Considering how close the American Right is approaching Falangism, I think the Kristallnacht analogy was apt.

Aron- sounds like you are a student of history. Tell me, with details, how is being conservative similar to the Falagistas of Spanish 1937? And then finish off the connection that you see with Kristallnacht. I am VERY interested in getting schooled on this subject. Keeping in mind the opposition to capitalism and the pro strong government positions that the Falanges espoused, I am expecting a VERY interesting comparison. Pray, lead us, Professor Levy, on an interesting narrative...
We are waiting...

Michael, I shall give you a full response as soon as I get home to my computer.

But I must clarify my position: I am seeing a combination of Falange with elements of post-Strasserism. The incorporation of religion and corporatism to the American Right is my main focus.

And dispense with the snark. If you want an actual response, you will refer to me by my full title: HRH Professor Aron Levy, Defender of the Faith, by the Grace of Bob.

Charlie, in that case, I stand corrected. I am simply so used to dealing with conservative hypocrisy that it has made me quite jaded and cynical.

And Michael, I may have to get back to you tomorrow. My computer is acting up, and my phone is not the right medium for what I'm planning on writing. Don't think I'm simply delaying.

Sonny
Interested why you subtitles your signature with exotic destinations. You've managed to list Miami, Cancun and Tahiti...and now the less exotic Revere Beach. What exactly is the purpose to that? Just curious. Are you taking us on a whirlwind tour of all the places you wish to visit one day when your all grown up?

Michael,

We accept your apologies.

Aron Rex

Sonny, may I ask how old you are? Really, I'd like to know.

Fleming...No what-ifs. Romney didn't win. Live with it.

As the fiscal cliff approaches with tax hikes and budget deficits certain, Obama will finally get credit for the economy he deserves. With the last Republican presidency fading into distant memory, it will be fun to watch the loony left attempt to blame Obama's woes on George W.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Earth calling Sonny... tax rates cannot be raised enough to erase the budget deficits, and The Chosen One, the one we have been waiting for, will not materially cut spending.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

The second paragraph of this Patch article starts with "As Congress negotiates a deal to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff" on Jan. 1 ..... ", and the headline, as well as the last paragraph asks for comments .... "What deal would you cut ?". The reaction by some (presumably) Obama supporters to any comment which is not a 100% endorsement of Obama's demands ("tax the rich", increase spending, give me unlimited borrowing power, etc) has been "we won, you lost, live with it". 60+ comments later, the article's premise that Congress and the President need to work together to find a solution -- a deal, a compromise -- has been lost in a glut of nonsense and arrogance. Unfortunately this mirrors the actual "negotiations" between the White House and Congress.

As was noted by Michael Fleming yesterday, the election did not change the division of power in Washington -- the Democrats have the Presidency and the Senate and the Republicans control the House. Arrogance will not work. In a couple of months, the federal government will run out of money and out of borrowing authority, and the executive branch will need Congressional approval to raise the debt limit. I hope that the House Republicans, as a minimum, get spending reductions done before they agree to raise the limit. I wonder what Obama supporters will say then if the response to their objections is "we won, you lost, live with it" ?

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Hey guys, don't forget: this whole 'fiscal cliff' issue started because the GOP held the nation hostage by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

Let's call a spade a spade, no?

Missing the point? Hardly. Austerity does not work. Just look at Europe. And compare that with the New Deal.

Keynesian economic theory is proven. Austrian school theory is proven to fail.

Right, lets do that. The Dems were in control of Congress for over fifty years. All they did was Spend, Spend, Spend. Someone has to call a halt. It should have been done years ago. As for Obamacare, WHO PASSES A BILL WITHOUT READING IT. the dems. Their Philosophy "I can't be out of money, I still have checks. Raise the debt ceiling." Is that how you run you business, Mr. Levy.? Republican or Democrat, enough is enough. I do not have a parachute, so I will be hurt very badly when the FISCAL goes over that CLIFF>

Sadly we all have to live with it, but thankfully Obama will have to shoulder the outcome.

Reverend E. Raleigh PImperton III

The misogynist Clinton also worked the the opposing congress. Spending was cut dramatically when Clinton and Gingrich struck a deal about taxes AND spending. That is what is missing in this current negotiations. I honestly don't have a problem with increasing taxes on the top 2%. But ONLY if that is accompanied by guaranteed reductions in real spending and expanding the government trough. The last 2 tax raises negotiated with the Repubs called for cuts in spending...but those cuts never materialized. It was a ruse. THAT is why the right will not raise taxes without serious guarantees of spending reductions, just as the Simpson-Bowles committee called for. It was Obama that ignored the recommendations of his own commission, not the conservatives.

Sonny-
Called it!

Sonny-
It was a joke, you twit.

Charlie, just like us, the EuroZone crisis was caused by too little banking regulation. One need only look at European countries outside the EuroZone *cough*SCANDINAVIA*cough* to see the benefits of greater regulation. They have the highest standard of living in the world.

And regarding Keynes versus Friedman, look at New Zealand and Iceland. For years, they were a 'free market' wonderland. And then their economies collapsed. Friedman was just wrong.

100,000 Jews were arrested and transported to Buchenwald after Kristallnacht. This was the beginning of the crack down on the Ghettos. It was also the beginning of the death camps. Jews were made to pay for the destruction of their property to the German state, an equivalent of 5.5 billion dollars in today's value. All property was confiscated. Ghetto's were destroyed and people sent to concentration camps.

Sonny-
I stand by my comment. Perhaps it is you that needs to look it up.
And by the way, what happened to you to make you a bottomless pit of such snark and cynical anger? Why do you feel such a strong urge insult and diminish people who come on to these pages to simply exchange points of view or to engage in honest conversation? Examine the posts of Charlie Kedlec or MC Stringfellow. You might agree with their points of view, but they put their arguments forward in well written, intelligent fashion, not tearing down or insulting the intelligence of those they are engaged with. They argue like adults. Like men. You snip and snipe like a girl who got dumped at the prom. I know your style is seen as cleverness in some circles, but in the world where grown ups live, your petty nibbling is seen as a manifestation of insecurity, similar to the motivations of the local High School bully. We're you a bully?

People come here to exchange views about the world, maybe to learn a point of view from someone who knows more about a subject, or who can explain a point of view better...not to become involved in a perpetual chop fight that resembles a Jr. High boys locker room. The anonymous nature of these blogs allows a certain breadth of discussion not achievable in face to face conversations. You, on the other hand, allows anonymity to give you cover to have an attitude that would be found tiresome and insulting in real society. Please, I can tell you're smart.
Now try wisdom.

Yes it is a locale. But picked by the Nazi to restrict the movement of Jewish people.
Hence "herded like cattle" no choice on their part. I will not take pontificate or equivocate , but will accept vacillate as I have been known to waiver in mind. Didn't use google.

Definition of "Ghetto" Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 1) in certain European cities, a section to which Jews are or were restricted: the word is also applied, often in an unfriendly sense , to any section (of a city) in which many Jews live. 2) any section of a city in which many members of some national or racial group live or to which they are restricted. The Ghettos already existed before the war. The Nazis only tightened the area and made living there hell.

So, this is off the subject. Lets get back on track.

MC-
The point of these negotiations is to come to some sort of compromise between two differing points of view, economically speaking. The Dems want more revenue, the Repubs want to cut spending. Both are needed. boehner has offered 800 million in increased revenue, roughly what taxing the top 2% will yield over 10 years, but Obama has not considered any cuts in spending. He has said through Gietner that without a raise in tax RATES, no deal is possible. This is motivated by ideology, not economics. This is politics, not good faith. We WILL go over the cliff, and the Dems want to try to pin it on the right. This is irresponsible governance.

I realize that it is ideology not economics. There will be no compromise. If there is, the Republicans will cave first, as always. Hope Boehner stands his ground until he gets the cuts that are needed. Obama is in for a long haul and it does not look good.

Agreed. I fear for all of us. Going off the cliff may serve the immediate politics of the Dems, that is, to split the Republican House and the whole party, but in the end it will put the global economy in a tailspin that it will be a long time in recovering. Obamas agenda seems to be " Oh yeah? Try and stop me".
I want this economy to improve just like everyone else. But that will be made even more difficult when our credit gets down graded ...which it certainly will, when this cliff has been ignored. The amount of money dedicated to paying interest on the debt will increase and dramatically reduce our ability to pay for needed services like fire and police. Yikes. Elections DO have consequences!

Sonny
Just go away. Please.

It took decades of unbalanced budgets and unfunded wars to get us into this mess. It's going to take decades to get out. The fiscal cliff is just a small wave in the storm surge that's coming.

M C and Michael -- I agree with your comments, I hope Republicans do not agree to any postponement, temporary "fix" or other non-solutions. Obama is still doing the only thing he knows how to do -- campaigning, trying to put pressure on the Republicans by making speeches to his followers blaming Republicans, as always.

But in about one week, Obama is going to leave for his 20 day Hawaii vacation. That is not going to help his bargaining position. The Republicans should stay in Washington and keep pointing out that they want to solve the country's financial problem but the President is on vacation -- maybe by repeating Clint Eastwood's effective "talking to an empty chair" gimmick.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

And -- M C and Michael -- I suggest that we all just ignore Sonny Beaches. His/her comments do not contribute anything useful to the discussion.

CK

Banks
Agreed. This is a result of BOTH parties engaged in profligate spending sprees just to keep themselves in cushy jobs. Also agree that this IS a small wave compared to the overall size of the markets, but in a world of tipping points, it will only take a small wave to make an unstable economy both national and global, to tip over.
Charlie-
Agreed on your suggestion. Number one rule in blogging: "Don't feed the trolls"
MF

Insulting and degrading behavior shouldn't be tolerated, regardless of whether you agree with their politics or not. You are an enabler...

Charlie -
That is an interesting point you made about the presidents 20 day vacation falling in the middle of the showdown and negotiations between him and congress. This is a HUGE opportunity to show the country what a NON negotiator he and his party is. This cliff WILL BE gone over. This is now a 24/7 7 days a week campaign by the president, and he feels he can slam the country and pin it on the right. I don't see that working, but, never underestimate the media to do His Bidding.

If you think this won't be a working vacation for the president, you three are even more foolish than you appear.

Just remember whose fault the Fiscal Cliff is; and it ain't the left.

(BTW, would you be interested in halving the military's 1.6 trillion dollar annual budget? Because I think that would go a long, LONG way to solving our nation's fiscal woes.)

Also, where was your outrage over President Bush spending nearly ONE THOUSAND DAYS on vacation during his term? (487 days at Camp David, 490 at his ranch in Crawford.)

Your hypocrisy is showing once again.

OF COURSE it will be a working vacation. Who has suggested it won't be? I mean, arent ALL presidential vacations a working vacation? C'mon! But the point is appearances and timing are very important, and the president giving speeches about him sending the middle class into a higher tax bracket because of politics, with waving palms and blue water beaches in the background...sends a message no matter how "hard" he is working. Right?
As far as the FAULT of the fiscal cliff is concerned, it's only the left that puts that on Repubs. The other half of the country sees it differently.
Aron, no one is outraged about Obama taking a vacation. You're engaging in an arguement that no one is making. Re read my post. (it's not very far away. Just above a few posts up) we were talking about the TIMING of its occurrence.
ALL presidents need vacations. This one is not begrudged in the least.
Calm down Aron.

Do you think I'm angry? I don't get angry over the Internet.

And it is much more than half the country which blames the Republicans. Remember who won the election a month ago?

Of course I understand. What do you think I am, a simpleton? But you refuse to take into account the fact that people are completely fed up with Congress -- NOT the President. He won with a mandate. And the GOP ended up with egg on its face.

Tell me, what did you think about McConnell filibustering his own bill on Thursday? Was that in the best interests of the nation?

I'm confused. If we go over the fiscal cliff, it will rapidly cut the deficit. So why are both parties afraid of this? Maybe because they know austerity is not the answer to what ails us economically?

Charlie-
Yes, I can see that he is not following the line of thought that was the subject of the post. I just clarified the subject, so I'm sure he understands the question now. Awaiting his reply.

Charlie-
Yes, the immediate benefits to a "cliff drop" are DEFINITLY in Obamas favor, that's why I fear that is what is going to happen. It is a calculation he is making that he will get a huge bolus of money from the increase in taxes...on EVERYBODY...which I think he wants anyway, and any of the down sides (slowing of the economy, lower growth) can be pinned on the right. That I believe is why he added a poison pill into his proposal of 50 billion more stimulus spending and the permanent lifting of the debt ceiling. He KNOWS no one will vote for that in the House, so I fully believe there will be no compromise. Obama is playing hardball and feels he can prevail even after going over the cliff.

I'm making an addition to Poe's Law of Internet Disagreements. The first conservative to reference TelePrompTers automatically loses the debate.

Come on guys. Can't you come up with some new anti-Obama canards? You might as well be razzing him for the '57 states' gaffe five years ago.

Agree with everything you said...except: he will NOT reverse the military appropriations. He wants that gutted, and he wants it to STAY gutted. He has made several arguments, including in his debates, that he wants a smaller navy as well. That means less wars abroad in his mind. THAT is why he WILL go over the cliff. What's not to like for a leftist? Higher taxes on everybody, and a weakened military? A virtual one-two punch dream for McGovern types. I was surprised the Repubs agreed to that. The left wants BOTH...and going over the cliff gives them both. Where is the down side for leftists? I could be wrong, but I see that buzzing around Valerie Jarrets mind, and therefore it is buzzing around in Obamas mind.

Who cares? The canard is played out. He uses them sometimes, and doesn't use them in others. President Bush used them all the time, but you never heard anyone complain about that. Or mock him for it.

Nearly everyone uses cue cards. The fact that you continue to mock President Obama for that fact says more about you than it does about him.

Michael let me repeat myself. One point six TRILLION dollars. Do you not think that's just a TAD overly bloated?

Come on. Get with the program. I am a trained military historian. And I am almost entirely pro-military. But there comes a time when you have to say enough is BLOODY enough.

Clarification: that figure accounts for the ENTIRE national defense apparatus. And it still boggles the mind.

Aron-
Wait wait wait....what are you talking about? Are you confusing me with someone else you might be blogging with? I don't understand the comment you just made about "let me repeat myself one point sixTRILLION dollars..." I am truely confused. Get with WHAT program?? What are you talking about?? We weren't even in a conversation. I've been talking with Charlie, not you. What conversation are you referencing?

Ooohhhh....your talking about the DOD budget. Dude, I appreciate your input, I really do, but help a fella out, will ya? Give me some kind of context so I know where you are jumping in at, then I can put your comments in perspective. I had NO idea what you were talking about.
The defense budget should be left to the generals. I can't possibly make any intelligent criticisms on whether 1.6 trillion is too high or too low. Neither do you, regardless of you being a military historian. The budget will go up or down depending on our overall strategy of if we want to be a one war capable or a two war capable military. And that is a political decision. And that decision is being played out in Washington right now. Just because 1.6 trillion sounds like a big number, that doesn't determine if it is too high or not. ALL the numbers we are looking at are big numbers. What is the price of freedom? Whatever you are willing to pay.

Steve
Yes, I know who votes on passing the budgets. But the military is the determiner of what and how much they need and for what particular weapons systems that they need to accomplish their mission. That mission is determined by civilian lawmakers, chief amongst them is the CIC. I have NO idea how much our intelligence services need, and unless you are on the intelligence committee or budget committee, neither do you.
There is a new form of warfare hitting the streets that needs to be addressed, and that is cyber warfare. We are totally un prepared for cyber attacks in this country, and protecting our power grids and everything else will take MORE billions, not less. SO YES, being stingy on these items will hurt us in the long run. Remember, protection of its citizens is the governments number one duty, not buying cell phones or providing day care or investing in failing solar companies. Protection of its citizens.

They're less impeachable than your sources regarding President Obama's birthplace, Tin Mike.

Chris, there's no convincing these folks of the current danger of austerity. The only jobs they seem to believe the government should create are in the defense field. Other civil servants can go suck eggs.

Aww Steven, you're still confused? Let me help...

Your buddy Lurch is the 'war hero'...

I was merely a humble Infantry soldier – who went to bad places, managed to live, and went back the next day.... The heroes were my young Pathfinders who followed me, and the aviators who flew the missions.

Aron-
Austerity won't work. Totally agreed. But how about a little "frugality"? That seems to be a reasonable goal, right?

Michael,

The government frugal with your money?...LOL,,, Check out this new program paid by us.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/10/California-free-cell-phone-homeless

Breitbart? Now THAT'S a reliable source. Come on, Andrew. Why don't try and find a site that isn't composed of 95% lies.

California - "the wind tunnel of America, where all new ideas are tested." Many of the ideas are a flop. News just in that California tax receipts are falling despite a big increase in taxes on 'the rich'... a preview of life under The Chosen One.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton II

Deacon, you're a priest. You already pay no taxes, right? So who are you to complain?

Aron- do you feel that the government ought to be be more frugal with the people's money? Austerity is an extreme shutting down of services, and all other government financed spending. This is facing Greece and other countries that have spent too much money and have too many government outlays. That is not being faced here. Yet. But it seems no one one the left is even willing to discuss taking our foot off the gas peddle. They seem to conflate the word "austerity" with ANY attempt to control spending, which means they don't want any reductions of spending AT ALL.
Do YOU see getting our spending under control as the same thing as "austerity"?
Your answer will likely predict Obamas answer, I'm thinking'...

Michael, my answer reflects Franklin Roosevelt's answer. When he tried austerity in 1935 (it could have been '36. I don't have my source handy), the country slid back into a miniature depression.

Spend money now. Get people back to work. Rebuild the tax base. Then we can talk about cutting. It worked back then, and it can work now. History is on my side. It isn't on yours.

Aron
As I recall, the deficit spending that FDR engaged in didn't bring the desired private sector jobs as was hoped. The jobs that were created by this deficit spending did not survive once this stimulus was ended. The great depression didn't really end until we got involved in WW2, where huge numbers of jobs were made with defense related spending. That is the history that I recall.

And that's why we need to resurrect the NRA and the WPA. We have plenty of people who want to work. Now let's build a new Mount Rushmore.

Why would anyone make fun of a person's military service? If you don't agree with their opinions, that's fine, But why poke fun of the fact they served? We all owe our freedoms to those that served, no matter how they served. It's a cheap shot, period.

Get a room already! Or jump off a cliff!

Well Steve. it's all good and definitely off the topic.. So I will leave it alone. As for me. Whether they got drafted or enlisted, Stomped through the jungle 50 years ago or fly drones from a desk in Nevada, They have all done more than I have and for that I am grateful, Just my opinion.

Well, maybe so. But he was there , I wasn't, He earned the right to talk about it.Whether it's trash talk or not, he earned the right. I just don't think belittling someone's service is a good thing. Service in my eyes is to be respected. Go after opinions all day long, but leave the service out of it. Win or lose he was there. Enjoy your day. And Support our troops.:)

Dude! How did you get so cynical? You will only give credit to those who have actually had bullets fired at them? The rest can go pound sand as wanna-be macho pretenders?? Jeez.
When someone signs up for military service, he or she is saying that they are willing to be put into dangerous, difficult if not deadly circumstances. Without question. THEY have no idea where they will end up serving, or how their lives will be threatened. BUt when America needs heros, they raise their hands and volunteer. They may never see action, or see action multiple times..They never know...but one thing is certain...they are doing more for this country than beer bonging dope smokin' Liberal Arts majors in college who's idea of service to their country is trying to shag one of the cheerleaders. They are telling the military that their lives will be directed by their commanding officers orders and without question. THAT ALONE gives them esteem in my eyes. I can't believe I have to argue the virtue of a soldiers sacrifice with you. Their service is a "fantasy"?? What a shame. They make those sacrifices, often the ULTIMATE sacrifice ...so thoughtless people like you can freely disparage their service. I am ashamed of you. You sir, whomever you are, aren't fit to clean their boots. I don't know Iron Mike. But I honor whatever time he has given in service to this country. His opinions are his. His service belongs to grateful Americans everywhere. Even ungrateful ones like you. Shame.

Tell him again Michael.

Attack his opinions all you want. That is what these pages are for. But attacking a mans service to his country or vets in general is not fair game. it makes you pretty low in my book and any respect that I might develop towards you... evaporates. If Iron Mike degrades another mans service, ...ive not seen it...I will deliver the same invective at him as I did to you.
Grow up. Be respectful. Debate with intelligence and dont forget your manners. Make your points on facts and logic, not disrespectful slurs. That goes for me and anyone else that wants to use these pages to try to expand our understanding of each other.
We are all Americans fer cryin' out loud. We are all brothers (and sisters) trying to make this country as great as it can be. We differ in method but not in motivation.
Let's try to remember that.

Charles-
I just read an interesting article in Forbes Magazine and it's author was "Charles Kedlac"
Was that you?

Sorry, it was spelled "Kadlec".

Michael -- no, it is a different Charles Kadlec (the name is not very unusual back in the "old country", the Czech Republic). He has published many articles and books, used to work with Arthur Laffer, I am not sure what he is doing now. We generally agree on important things so I do not mind him borrowing my name;

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Dang it
The writing style was a bit different than yours here on Patch, but you both share a precision that I thought suggested a common authorship.
Oh well.

I'm gonna agree with that Mike!