Obama, Republicans reach deal on fiscal cliff; Senate vote expected tonight

[Mord]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

See what I mean

It must be a tough life, being a rich person.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by MacNut

We have to cut spending, we can't just raise taxes and keep on the path to endless debt. This bill does't nothing to fix our long term problems of uncontrollable spending.

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

The problem many have with this bill has nothing to do with tax increases. Rates are going up and just about everyone is fine with that. The problem stems from the spending cuts (or lack thereof).

This is exactly why we're better off going over the cliff. Let all the cuts associated with it kick in first and then go from there.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

See what I mean

Yes we do..

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by zioxide

This is exactly why we're better off going over the cliff. Let all the cuts associated with it kick in first and then go from there.

Why go over the cliff now when we could have done it 2 years ago. Instead we dropped how many stimulus packages and added to the debt?

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by zioxide

This is exactly why we're better off going over the cliff. Let all the cuts associated with it kick in first and then go from there.

Actually from reading the news this afternoon it is looking more and more like we will go over the cliff. At this point that is probably what is going to happen. I have believed all along that the Republicans would prefer to "cut taxes" for certain groups rather then "raise taxes" on certain groups. Yes I know it all seems silly, but when they run for re-election in 2 years they can say they voted to cut your taxes not increase them even even if it's only on the wealthy.

As far as spending cuts go it is probably easier to add back some stuff then try and cut it later.

I'm not saying this is the ideal situation or if we are really going to go over the cliff, but we should know shortly.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

See what I mean

The rich should be marginalised, there aren't very many of them. They don't deserve to have any more say than anyone else - and certainly not significantly more.

Originally Posted by Mord

It must be a tough life, being a rich person.

To be fair, lots of rich people have pretty large issues getting on in life.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

The rich should be marginalised, there aren't very many of them. They don't deserve to have any more say than anyone else - and certainly not significantly more.

Nobody should be marginalized.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

Nobody should be marginalized.

They make up well under 1% of the population, their numbers should mean they are marginalized and ignored. And its already happening. As it should.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

Nobody should be marginalized.

Small minorities shouldn't really have that much say in the overall way we run our society. The rich are a small minority by any measure.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Small minorities shouldn't really have that much say in the overall way we run our society. The rich are a small minority by any measure.

Small minority for sure, but they shouldn't be ignored or walked over just because their numbers are small.

We should all have a say in our government if we so choose to get involved.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

Small minority for sure, but they shouldn't be ignored or walked over just because their numbers are small.

We should all have a say in our government if we so choose to get involved.

They shouldn't have a say beyond their number. Right now that is not the situation .

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

They shouldn't have a say beyond their number. Right now that is not the situation .

I would say they have a bigger say than their per capita number at the moment due entirely to involvement. Hgher income earners, in my experience, tend to be more politically involved. Their reps, by in large, also tend to be Democrats.

So if the evil rich all want to have lower taxes they have a funny way of showing it.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Small minorities shouldn't really have that much say in the overall way we run our society. The rich are a small minority by any measure.

If that were true the poor would have a bigger say in the country.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by MacNut

If that were true the poor would have a bigger say in the country.

And they probably should have a bigger say.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

And they probably should have a bigger say.

Yes they should, but do they care too. The people that need to know what Washington is doing don't seem to have any care and just let business happen as usual.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

I would say they have a bigger say than their per capita number at the moment due entirely to involvement. Hgher income earners, in my experience, tend to be more politically involved. Their reps, by in large, also tend to be Democrats.

So if the evil rich all want to have lower taxes they have a funny way of showing it.

That is the problem

I care very little what the über rich want.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

That is the problem

I care very little what the über rich want.

Exactly, I couldn't care less what the super rich want. At all. I could care less about how much of a voice they get.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

That is the problem

I care very little what the über rich want.

They should have no say in the direction of our country solely because they are rich?

[G51989]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

They should have no say in the direction of our country solely because they are rich?

Right now, they have a large amount of say in which direction our country goes. Simply because they are rich. Its time to change that.

Corporate donation should be taken off the table, a 10,000 limit per person donation to political campaigns should brought on.

Lobbing, K-Street should be gone.

1 vote, one person. It should work no other way.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by G51989

Right now, they have a large amount of say in which direction our country goes. Simply because they are rich. Its time to change that.

Corporate donation should be taken off the table, a 10,000 limit per person donation to political campaigns should brought on.

Lobbing, K-Street should be gone.

1 vote, one person. It should work no other way.

Corporate donations are already illegal. And the individual limit to a campaign is $5k now (2500 per election period).

[flopticalcube]

Looks like the die-hards have caved in. Now to the debt ceiling!

[G51989]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

Corporate donations are already illegal. And the individual limit to a campaign is $5k now (2500 per election period).

Super Pacs are just a loophole to illegal corporate donation.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by G51989

Super Pacs are just a loophole to illegal corporate donation.

Super PACs are about 5 minutes old and both sides have them. Hard to even argue how effective they actually are considering how many of them failed to move the needle for Romney after the primary ended.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

Super PACs are about 5 minutes old and both sides have them. Hard to even argue how effective they actually are considering how many of them failed to move the needle for Romney after the primary ended.

Super PAC's need to be outlawed, as do lobbying. K-Street? Needs to go.

Weather or not they are effective does not matter, they shouldn't be legal.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by G51989

Super PAC's need to be outlawed, as do lobbying. K-Street? Needs to go.

Weather or not they are effective does not matter, they shouldn't be legal.

I agree and there are cases out there now that are working on it. But the Citizens case is the precedent now and it's gonna be hard to change that.