over the fiscal cliff

[vacationer1954]

I don't believe anyone ever claimed that is all it takes to get out of poverty, but it certainly puts you on the road to be able to.

You wrote, "You want to be in the top 1%, the only thing stopping you is you." That's not true.

And we are still going over the cliff since the deal has actually added to the deficit and has done nothing to reduce it. Our taxes may not be going up, but we will be paying for this mess, and so will our children and theirs.

The fiscal cliff referred to automatic increases in taxes and automatic across-the-board spending cuts. We are not going over the fiscal cliff. We have been spending more money than we've been taking in for decades, almost a century. Nothing new about that. You're correct that that hasn't changed, but we'll learn more about whether that will change in two weeks. It's still going to be an issue.

 

[eliza61]

Yes, the crisis is still there because we are still spending more money than we are bringing in. I cant really say too much without turning this thread political but the bottom line is, spending needs to be cut. If it isn't we will NEVER be out of this crisis, ever.

Absolutely agree. I don't think that there are many people who don't think spending needs to be cut. the problem is what to cut and what are the ramifications of those cuts.

Here's a cautionary tale that happen to Camden NJ (and I condensed it a lot0

A few years ago, The govenor told Camden (one of the poorest cities in the country) that it was cutting it's funding (not all but he rolled it back to previous levels). Everyone applauded saying cities needed to live within their means. So the mayor of Camden laid off all the police and most of the firemen. Unfortunately the bad guys must not have gotten the memo that due to budget crunches they too were laid off. Long story short property crime in the 3 surrounding towns rose 30% (bad guys did not rob Camden, no one there has any thing). So Cherry Hill, Pennsauken and Collingswood residents were understandably annoyed.

Next, the state police had to start covering 911 calls in NJ and since their contract is such that if they begin to "police" your town instead of assist, they send a big fat bill to the state for overtime.

Lastly after a few months of this, the state senator from the area requested national guard troops come in and start lending a hand, which he has the right to do. Once again national guard troops cost money to deploy, which I did not know.

Long story short by the time the state got the bill from the state police, the national guard and the private ambulances covering for emergency services (because the residents still dial 911 when some one gets sick) it is believed to have cost NJ 30% more than the original aid requested.

So the problem is simply throwing people out rarely saves money because these people don't magically disappear or problems don't go away. HOw do we make cuts that won't burden an already taxed system.

We do need a major overhaul but no one wants "their" interest touched. Military doesn't want cuts, can't cut medicare, social security can't be touch, no one is going to restructure the tax code which is unequal and antiquated.

so how exactly to we overhaul some thing when all these interest can't be touched.

 

[luvmy3]

You wrote, "You want to be in the top 1%, the only thing stopping you is you." That's not true.

The fiscal cliff referred to automatic increases in taxes and automatic across-the-board spending cuts. We are not going over the fiscal cliff. We have been spending more money than we've been taking in for decades, almost a century. Nothing new about that. You're correct that that hasn't changed, but we'll learn more about whether that will change in two weeks. It's still going to be an issue.

And I stand by statement, the only thing stopping you IS you.

Yes the spending has been going on for decades and since I cant talk politics I cant mention what has happened in the last 4+ years

 

[luvmy3]

Absolutely agree. I don't think that there are many people who don't think spending needs to be cut. the problem is what to cut and what are the ramifications of those cuts.

Here's a cautionary tale that happen to Camden NJ (and I condensed it a lot0

A few years ago, The govenor told Camden (one of the poorest cities in the country) that it was cutting it's funding (not all but he rolled it back to previous levels). Everyone applauded saying cities needed to live within their means. So the mayor of Camden laid off all the police and most of the firemen. Unfortunately the bad guys must not have gotten the memo that due to budget crunches they too were laid off. Long story short property crime in the 3 surrounding towns rose 30% (bad guys did not rob Camden, no one there has any thing). So Cherry Hill, Pennsauken and Collingswood residents were understandably annoyed.

Next, the state police had to start covering 911 calls in NJ and since their contract is such that if they begin to "police" your town instead of assist, they send a big fat bill to the state for overtime.

Lastly after a few months of this, the state senator from the area requested national guard troops come in and start lending a hand, which he has the right to do. Once again national guard troops cost money to deploy, which I did not know.

Long story short by the time the state got the bill from the state police, the national guard and the private ambulances covering for emergency services (because the residents still dial 911 when some one gets sick) it is believed to have cost NJ 30% more than the original aid requested.

So the problem is simply throwing people out rarely saves money because these people don't magically disappear or problems don't go away. HOw do we make cuts that won't burden an already taxed system.

We do need a major overhaul but no one wants "their" interest touched. Military doesn't want cuts, can't cut medicare, social security can't be touch, no one is going to restructure the tax code which is unequal and antiquated.

so how exactly to we overhaul some thing when all these interest can't be touched.

I have no idea but I think we'd benefit if businessmen ran the country instead of politicians. I mean the only interest they have is making money
That is a whole other topic though and its unfortunate we cant really discuss it because its an important issue effecting us all.

 

[SaraJayne]

I'd love to comment on this thread, but since we aren't allowed to discuss politics, I'll have to pass.

 

[eliza61]

I have no idea but I think we'd benefit if businessmen ran the country instead of politicians. I mean the only interest they have is making money
That is a whole other topic though and its unfortunate we cant really discuss it because its an important issue effecting us all.

I'd like a mix, I'd like a bunch of businessmen but also a bunch of educators. I'd like a whole wing of "grunt" workers who really know what it's like to survive in the country and why most no longer believe "you can be achieve any thing you want through hard work".
I'd love some military wives who can say how hard it is for them to survive when their spouses are deployed 4,5,6 times and then when they come home don't have the assistance they need but are constantly told if they aren't working it's because "they aren't trying".

But I love your last statement and it's one that I think it the most important and is all but missing. We have yet to get to the point where we realize that our fates are too intertwined. We can no longer say "it's their" problem because almost all spending and cuts will effect evey american.

 

[DawnM]

What businessmen? I hope you don't mean Wall Street. They "needed" a $700B bailout from the taxpayers.

I have no idea but I think we'd benefit if businessmen ran the country instead of politicians. I mean the only interest they have is making money
That is a whole other topic though and its unfortunate we cant really discuss it because its an important issue effecting us all.

 

[DawnM]

I honestly think this isn't a partisan issue......Washington has been overspending with BOTH parties in office. You can argue all day long which SIDE did the worst damage, but both sides show statistics!

Dawn

I'd love to comment on this thread, but since we aren't allowed to discuss politics, I'll have to pass.

 

[Marionnette]

What businessmen? I hope you don't mean Wall Street. They "needed" a $700B bailout from the taxpayers.

Take a deeper look as to why they "needed" that bailout. At the very root of the problem were the worthless home loans that banks were compelled to write for people who had no means to pay for them. Who made the banks write those loans? None other than our Congress critters, some of whom still labor under the delusion that EVERYONE should own their own home.

That doesn't excuse the way that banks then went about bundling and reselling those worthless loans. But if they hadn't been strong-armed into making those loans in the first place, then the incentive to hide them in bundles and then get rid of them would not have been there.

And FWIW, most of Wall Street has repaid those loans, with interest. The biggest drain on taxpayers as a result of TARP? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG, GM and Chrysler.

 

[Amstar]

what about the possibility of gov't employess being furloughed? I for one couldnt lose a months pay on top of the 2% S.S. increase and possible tax increase in March

 

[DisneyEater]

Yes, the crisis is still there because we are still spending more money than we are bringing in. I cant really say too much without turning this thread political but the bottom line is, spending needs to be cut. If it isn't we will NEVER be out of this crisis, ever.

Or you can raise everyone's taxes....but that's never popular, is it?

 

[ICF]

The problem....without getting too political...is that one group tends to oppose whatever the other group wants to do....and vice versa.

There is very little "working together" for the good of the country.

As far as cuts go....no matter where they come from, it's not going to be a good thing for somebody.

Cuts in military / defense spending....likely leads to job loss.
Cuts in Social Security / Medicare....retirees cant pay bills
Cuts on Welfare/Unemployment....the poor and unemployeed cant survive.

It goes on and on....Sure, I fully support spending cuts and trying to get the budget under control....but no matter what the cut is, people impacted can make a case why it's bad for them and the economy as a whole.

This mess is bigger than the current President or the one before him.....and there is plenty of blame to go around between all political parties.

 

[leahjade]

Or you can raise everyone's taxes....but that's never popular, is it?

You can take every cent from upper income people and it won't make a dent in our debt especially when almost half the country pays NO federal taxes whatsoever. Spending must be CUT drastically. We should have DIS budgeters do the country's budget!!

 

[Colleen27]

While I use to agree with Luv, I think me and many others no longer believe that.
We don't want stuff given to us. I've never had one single thing given to me in my life (outsideof what my parents gave me) but I think people see that they are working 2, 3 jobs at a time and falling deeper and deeper.
They are seeing their homes (and no not everyone purchased a home they could not afford) value go down the toilet. they are losing their homes through no fault of their own and it's becoming impossible to educate their kids.

and with the unemployment rate stuck at 7% I find it hysterical when they say "there are opportunities out there". So what you are saying is that over 2 million folks are too lazy to work. or don't want to do it.
That's illogical.

Exactly. Income inequality is a macro-level problem; we're a consumer-driven economy in which a large and growing percentage of consumers are so squeezed by stagnant or falling wages and rising cost of living that they aren't "driving" anything other than debt and foreclosure crises. No matter how responsible and educated our society might strive to become, we're always going to need more burger flippers and janitors and factory workers than we do executives, accountants, and doctors, so how well those at the lower end of the income/education scale are compensated for those roles will always be an issue that affects the health of the entire economy.

Increased education, hard work, etc. are a micro-level solution; a great idea for individuals with the ability to follow that course, but not a solution at all to the national issue because the reason it works is because those things can set a person above the rest. And we're already starting to see the results of applying it on too broad a scale - supply and demand are driving college costs through the roof while simultaneously reducing the value of a four year degree to what a diploma was a generation ago.

We wouldn't benefit if businessmen ran the country because businessmen think from the top down - lower wages, fewer benefits, less workplace protections are all good for businesses, particularly those businesses who don't need to rely on the working class for a customer base. We need some checks on that, a mix of interests (including business, of course, but also including labor, educators, etc) in leadership positions working together and compromising, and we haven't had that in decades. Our system of sponsored government and high-dollar campaigns is so fundamentally broken on both sides of the aisle that no one is looking out for the "little guys" that make up the majority of this country's population because those little guys don't attend 10K/plate fundraisers or have their own PACs to get sympathetic candidates elected.

 

[Friendly Frog]

For example. this is hypothetical You make 100K and you get routine tax. Let's say I make 100K but I take mine 1/2 in stock option because of my company allows me to do this as a CEO. My taxable income is now 50K and usually I can sell those options back very quickly and pay almost no tax on them.

There are all kinds of crazy loopholes. Serve on a public utility board and pocket a cool 75K. taxed at a much lower rate than income, yet it's still income.

So maybe a solution is to get rid of all the loopholes and exemptions. don't know.

Yep, and people are wanting to do away with Social Security and medicare for our seniors, but we can still find money to fund keeping troops in Germany to protect it from Russia...or to support rum production or...


Personally I think the cap on Social Security taxes should be removed completely. Why should it have a max pay in amount? The middle to lower income groups never reach the max amount and why should those who make more stop paying after a certain amount? Think of the money that would be collected just from those making over a million a year and I don't think the impact of that 2% would be nearly as harsh as cutting funding for seniors. Removing the S.S. cap would go a LONG way in funding the program for the future of everyone. I just cant imagine living in a country that can always find the money to aid other countries but are so willing to cut benefits for their own seniors.


You think it is costly to pay medicare just wait till you see what happens to your county taxes when people do not get preventive care and start using county hospitals for health care!

BTW My husband has not received a raise since 2000 and our family income has actually been cut in HALF since 2008.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

The problem of income inequality? That isn't a problem, you want to make more money, go to school get and education and get a better paying job. That is the great thing about our country, that opportunity is open to ALL that live here.
You want to be in the top 1%, the only thing stopping you is you.

Absolutely not true. It is not possible for 100% of the people to be in the top 1%. If every single person got a doctorate and busted butt everyday to seek out the best opportunity, still only 1% would be in the top 1%. The problem lies in the huge gap between the top and the bottom.

I have worked in human resources and LUCK has an awful lot to do with where you go in life. I'm not only talking about your upbringing or how big your inheritance or trust fund is. There are millions of people out there working harder than the next guy who is being paid more. There are many jobs that are seriously undervalued. Unless you are Superman, nobody works 300 times harder or is 300 times smarter than another hard worker, yet there are those who get paid 300 times more. I don't believe they are "earning" it.

 

[SaraJayne]

I honestly think this isn't a partisan issue......Washington has been overspending with BOTH parties in office. You can argue all day long which SIDE did the worst damage, but both sides show statistics!

Dawn

I'm not posting anything political, as I won't chance the points.

 

[Colleen27]

I'm not arguing that its easy for everyone, I'm just arguing that it is possible for everyone, and it is. Will it take hard work, discipline, sacrifices, yes. While that may be easier for some, the problem is, not everyone is willing to do that for themselves because it isn't easy for them. Its so much easier to blame "income inequality" and let govt make it fair for you instead.

Well, no. It might be possible for most people (most, not all - some don't have the native intelligence) on an individual scale but there are hard and fast limits on the number of high- and middle-wage jobs in our economy. If every single worker in the American economy had a degree we'd just have degreed cashiers and landscapers making minimum wage because there wouldn't suddenly appear a new crop of skilled jobs to fill, and we're already approaching that tipping point.

Education and hard work can only do so much when the overall economic trend of our lifetimes has been declining wages, increasing cost of living, skyrocketing price of higher education, and the elimination of decent jobs accompanied by the explosion of the low-wage "service sector".

 

[eliza61]

You can take every cent from upper income people and it won't make a dent in our debt especially when almost half the country pays NO federal taxes whatsoever. Spending must be CUT drastically. We should have DIS budgeters do the country's budget!!

True but remember dis budgeters would also tell you, that you have to increase revenue. How many times have dissers told some one to get a part time job or sell off every thing not nailed down?

Look at it this way, if you are in debt you can cut your spending down to the knub but eventually you have to bring in revenue. sooner or later you can only cut so much. you've got to eat and live.

now reverse your first statement. You can cut social security totally out and you've still have a money problem because you can't cut those people out. They don't go away and they are going to cost some city or state a boat load of money. Cutting medicare does not make people less sick. It just means your hospitals where care is more expensive is now flooded with more folks and your state now has a huge deficiet from the cost of indigent care.

This is one of the problems, we can't do one without the other. I do think we have to use our dollars more wisely. Dissers do a great job of squeezing a dollar until it squeals but you can't make some thing out of nothing.

 

[Friendly Frog]

... Income inequality is a macro-level problem; we're a consumer-driven economy in which a large and growing percentage of consumers are so squeezed by stagnant or falling wages and rising cost of living that they aren't "driving" anything other than debt and foreclosure crises. No matter how responsible and educated our society might strive to become, we're always going to need more burger flippers and janitors and factory workers than we do executives, accountants, and doctors, so how well those at the lower end of the income/education scale are compensated for those roles will always be an issue that affects the health of the entire economy.

Increased education, hard work, etc. are a micro-level solution; a great idea for individuals with the ability to follow that course, but not a solution at all to the national issue because the reason it works is because those things can set a person above the rest. And we're already starting to see the results of applying it on too broad a scale - supply and demand are driving college costs through the roof while simultaneously reducing the value of a four year degree to what a diploma was a generation ago.

We wouldn't benefit if businessmen ran the country because businessmen think from the top down - lower wages, fewer benefits, less workplace protections are all good for businesses, particularly those businesses who don't need to rely on the working class for a customer base. We need some checks on that, a mix of interests (including business, of course, but also including labor, educators, etc) in leadership positions working together and compromising, and we haven't had that in decades. Our system of sponsored government and high-dollar campaigns is so fundamentally broken on both sides of the aisle that no one is looking out for the "little guys" that make up the majority of this country's population because those little guys don't attend 10K/plate fundraisers or have their own PACs to get sympathetic candidates elected.

EXACTLY! and today American companies are choosing to keep more of their profits at the top than ever before in history. Whether you agree that this money should stay at the top or not, it will make an impact on the economy and nation as a whole. Without corporate retirement plans, and with declining health care benefits... and wages decreasing so that very little money is left for private retirement savings, our society will see a major decline... or we will be forced to fund more, (not less) benefit programs at even higher costs to the 99%. ( think Walmart.)