Obama proposes more spending.

[Lancelot]

Actually that's not how America works. The president isn't the king he doesn't just get to do whatever he wants. Boehner has every right as the majority leader of the house to get the votes not to pass something.

That's how it works when all bush tax cts expire on 12/31. There is zero chance of an extension for all even coming to the floor for a vote in the senate, and there is less than zero percent of a chance that if a complete extension were to pass that it wouldn't be vetoed.

So here we are, as Obama and the democratic controlled senate have said: pass extensions for everyone under $250k, then move on to the next topic. There is zero reason for dems to negotiate on this. If republicans refuse and everyone's taxes go up...who will get the blame? The party who will pass the extension for all under $250k or the party holding that hostage to include all other earners? That is how democracy works, that is what will happen. Republicans have zero negotiation room on this, even people like Lee Terry admit this. Dems have no reason to negotiate. The fiscal cliff is set up with the dems holding the cards.

Hardball tactics should be dished right back to the rightist extremists who obstructed endlessly.

[Lancelot]

QE4 will be announced after the fiscal cliff blows over, you can take that to the bank... literally

They will however NOT discontinue QE3 and the Fed will start buying 40billion in Treasury Bonds per month ONTOP of the 45billion they're handing over to banks with QE3 to buy toxic mortgage backed securities.

That's 85billion per month for at least 2013, or just over ANOTHER trillion dollars of economic support that hasn't worked not once, not twice, but now three times.

That's an even greater devaluation in the currency and even a greater burden on the middle class or people on fixed incomes (seniors/welfare recipients).

Combine that with the fact Bernanke has said the Fed intends to keep interest rates close to 0 until 2015 and you can essentially bet the house that even more stimulus will come after QE4.

This is why physical gold and silver, with a greater emphasis on silver, are great buys for the long term right now.

3 years from now people will be shocked at how far these precious metals go, including palladium and platinum.

Is this a Glenn Beck live promo read? We've been hearing inflation warnings for years just like this. There hasn't been inflation. The dollar is stable relative to other currencies for the past 4 years. The only change is rampant fear mongering, am radio and foxnews advertising by gold companies, and a subsequent artificial inflation of gold and silver. Enjoy the crash. This is what happens when an artificial bubble is created...especially an artificial bubble sold through advising to the uninformed.

[Patsfan56]

That's how it works when all bush tax cts expire on 12/31. There is zero chance of an extension for all even coming to the floor for a vote in the senate, and there is less than zero percent of a chance that if a complete extension were to pass that it wouldn't be vetoed.

So here we are, as Obama and the democratic controlled senate have said: pass extensions for everyone under $250k, then move on to the next topic. There is zero reason for dems to negotiate on this. If republicans refuse and everyone's taxes go up...who will get the blame? The party who will pass the extension for all under $250k or the party holding that hostage to include all other earners? That is how democracy works, that is what will happen. Republicans have zero negotiation room on this, even people like Lee Terry admit this. Dems have no reason to negotiate. The fiscal cliff is set up with the dems holding the cards.
.

And with that, queue this

[GA16Angels]

And with that, queue this

Why make trillions when we can make...billions?

[dbroncos78087]

So we have one side that proposes $10 in spending cuts for ever $0 in tax increases and another propose $1 in spending cuts for ever $4 in tax increases...there will be compromise here people. You don't come out with the final result. Whenever I'm negotiating I always lead with an offer that I know I would never accept myself if I was on the otherside. That way you get more of what you want out of the deal.

[IndyFan]

So we have one side that proposes $10 in spending cuts for ever $0 in tax increases and another propose $1 in spending cuts for ever $4 in tax increases...there will be compromise here people. You don't come out with the final result. Whenever I'm negotiating I always lead with an offer that I know I would never accept myself if I was on the otherside. That way you get more of what you want out of the deal.

Minor correction on the GOP proposal. They are offering $10 in Democratic spending cuts for every $0 in tax increases. They are not offering any reduction in GOP spending cuts. Nothing about defense, corporate welfare and stuff like that. Just things like medicare and social security.

[gcoll]

I think the Republicans should accept that deal.

Because the Democrats have no reason to compromise. The debt fight didn't hurt them. It hurt Republicans. It seems logical to assume that no matter the outcome, Republicans will be blamed. So, just give the Democrats every single thing they want, and make sure everyone knows that is exactly what you are doing.

I can't see any other conceivable way for the Republicans to come away with anything. Because whatever "revenue increases" they agree to, the Democrats will inch it up.

[Patsfan56]

I think the Republicans should accept that deal.

Because the Democrats have no reason to compromise. The debt fight didn't hurt them. It hurt Republicans. It seems logical to assume that no matter the outcome, Republicans will be blamed. So, just give the Democrats every single thing they want, and make sure everyone knows that is exactly what you are doing.

I can't see any other conceivable way for the Republicans to come away with anything. Because whatever "revenue increases" they agree to, the Democrats will inch it up.

I love this idea.

[flips333]

I think that's probably wise, and I think with a long term plan the markets and ratings will be fine.
That said I agree on china slowing which will have an effect on us moreso then EU.

Remember though WW2 got us out of the recession/depression.

As I am hoping that we don't have another one of them world war things, I'm hoping cooler heads prevail and it's a long slow solution instead of the let's fix it all at once approach.

[IndyFan]

I think the Republicans should accept that deal.

Because the Democrats have no reason to compromise. The debt fight didn't hurt them. It hurt Republicans. It seems logical to assume that no matter the outcome, Republicans will be blamed. So, just give the Democrats every single thing they want, and make sure everyone knows that is exactly what you are doing. . .

I love this idea.

me too.

[valade16]

That article is at best a half truth...

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...pendthrift.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...html#pagebreak

Basically...

This guy talks about a percentage increase instead of an actual dollar increase. If spending goes from $100 to $110, then it has increased 10%. If spending goes from $1,000 to $1,090 then it has increased only 9%. Now how do you spin these numbers? Well, you could say that under the first scenario, spending increased by 10% whereas under the second scenario it only increased by 9%. However, in terms of dollars spent, nine times as many dollars were spent under scenario two than were spent under scenario one. You can talk about percentages all day long but Obama has spent more money than Bush Jr. in less than half the time. Period.

That doesn't absolve Bush as our giant mess can essentially be laid square on the shoulders of him and Greenspan but this Obama is a small spender **** is totally bull.

When Bush took office, the debt was around $5.6 trillion; when he left, it was around $10 trillion which represents a 78.5% increase. When Obama took office, the debt was around $10 trillion and now it is about $16 trillion, which represents a 60% increase. In dollar terms, Obama added $1.5 trillion more than Bush in less than half the time. So forget the percentages, the question is would you rather have $4.5 trillion added to the debt or $6 trillion? The Republicans tried to spin this when Bush was president. Dick Morris (an accurate first name by the way) used to say that Bush's spending increases were a smaller percentage of GDP than in previous years. Well, if the GDP is $10 trillion, then a 3% spending increase would be $300 billion in spending. If the GDP is $15 trillion, you may only increase spending by 2.75% which would be $375 billion so although you spend less as a percentage of GDP, you spend more money in dollar terms that we don't have which results in us having to borrow, tax or print $375 billion and causes the price of good and services in America to go up; hence, we all get poorer.

This is all you have to see to know this article is and was a load of lies.

2008: $2.98 trillion
2009: $3.27 trillion
2010: $3.46 trillion
2011: $3.60 trillion
2012: $3.65 trillion
2013: $3.72 trillion

There's no decrease there...

me too.

Lost in all of this diatribe is inflation, which is pretty funny because you keep harping on how we are facing massive inflation of the dollar then refuse to see how % increase over the previous budget actually better incorporates inflation than using the actual dollar value of a budget from 2013 and 2003.

Heck, this entire spiel:

"This guy talks about a percentage increase instead of an actual dollar increase. If spending goes from $100 to $110, then it has increased 10%. If spending goes from $1,000 to $1,090 then it has increased only 9%. Now how do you spin these numbers? Well, you could say that under the first scenario, spending increased by 10% whereas under the second scenario it only increased by 9%. However, in terms of dollars spent, nine times as many dollars were spent under scenario two than were spent under scenario one."

Was irrelevant because it's supposing George Bush and Obama are actually talking about 2 different things that are vastly different in spending but we're talking about the same thing.

Also, bringing up Bush is a really poor example because Obama's % increase in spending in 2008 is relative to Bush's budget.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...spending_chart

Look at the graph on the right, Obama is actually spending less as a % of the GDP than Bush thus far...

[Longhornfan1234]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/po...thtopdems.html

Obama puts SS on the table. Liberals are going to be mad


Nancy Pelosi said she can "sell" Obama's SS plan to Democrats in the House.

Obama and head Dems are making progress.

[GGGGG-Men]

We have a spending problem. Libs think that debt doesn't matter............and it's responsible to keep raising our debt limit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ugDU2qNcyg

[GA16Angels]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/po...thtopdems.html

Obama puts SS on the table. Liberals are going to be mad


Nancy Pelosi said she can "sell" Obama's SS plan to Democrats in the House.

Obama and head Dems are making progress.

What makes anyone think that cutting social security benefits is a good idea when we have, or will soon have, the most senior citizens ever in our history?

[Longhornfan1234]

What makes anyone think that cutting social security benefits is a good idea when we have, or will soon have, the most senior citizens ever in our history?

With the baby boomers retiring, we're getting a lot more retirees (and who are now living a lot longer) with a lot fewer workers to support them. The system, as it is now, is unsustainable. We need large tax increases and/or some way to reduce payouts (raising the retirement age, means-testing of benefits, reducing benefits, etc).