If you are betting man, odds are we go "over cliff"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Dec 23, 2012.

  1. PracticalMac, Dec 23, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012

    macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    #1
    Just like last year, John Boehner was unable to corral his party behind him, no matter how modest his proposal to "his" "party".

    Now I see House republicans trying to throw the light to Senate and President, which is pointless and stupid because we all know their position, and those two have been saying for months it is all up to republicans.

    So taxes go up for everyone.

    Next year Obama will vote for a tax CUT, and he will take all the credit.
    If republicans want basically Bush tax cuts again, wont happen, and they will be blamed for preventing tax cuts.

    Is this for real?
     
  2. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #2
    Going over the cliff is the best solution at this point. Boner keeps refusing to give up the tax cuts for people making over $250,000 that was basically mandated by the electorate when Obama won. Then he tries to blame the President and the Democrats in Congress because he refuses to accept that? What an idiot.


    Take us over the cliff and let the cuts and tax hikes that we desperately need kick in automatically. Then, have the new Congress pass tax cuts for people making under $250,000.
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #3
    Why pass tax cuts for the middle class too? Let's keep the rates higher and use all the additional revenue (much higher than the revenue from the rich) to lower the deficit.
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    I'm cool with that. I can pay more taxes.

    It's the people who's unemployment will be cut off that I'm the most worried about.

    :(
     
  5. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #5
    Like citizenzen said, personally, I'd be fine with it too. Everyone would be back to paying the rates we paid under Clinton when the economy was doing well.

    But, there needs to be some type of fix because there is a portion of the country that will be hurting to pay more taxes. Maybe the tax cuts should be extended to those making only under $50,000 a year? Just a suggestion, I don't know what the solution actually is.


    What I want to know is why there hasn't been more talk about the "dairy cliff"? Dairy subsidies are set to expire at the end of the year and if not addressed they will go back to the 1949 method of calculating the subsidies, which in turn will make the price of milk go from around $3.60 a gallon to $7.00 a gallon nearly overnight.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #6
    The unemployed don't pay income taxes and they've enjoyed record unemployment benefits for 99 weeks. We are no longer in emergency mode and are recovering so why do we need emergency unemployment insurance benefits continued? Not extending those would help the deficit even more than then the higher tax rates on the rich.
     
  7. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #7
    We can't just put people out on the streets. Those people on unemployment are depending on that to pay their rent, buy them food, etc.

    We are recovering but jobs are still very hard to find in many places.
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #8
    Why do we need subsidies for milk? If the market price is $7 then why borrow from China or print money to make it $4?

    The poor already get food stamps.

    "There is no such thing as a free lunch."
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    Higher taxes and budget cuts, sounds like what is needed.
     
  10. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #10
    2:1 minimum going over. I expect, however, some sort of half-hearted compromise in January as there is still time. The can will get kicked.
     
  11. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #11
    I think you have it backwards.

    The subsidy is there to bring the prices back up if they drop too low, not to bring the prices down if they are too high.

    See this article for more details:

    http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/12/22/milk-prices-may-hit-7-a-gallon-in-2013/?iref=allsearch

    The subsidy isn't going away with these laws expiring, it's just reverting back to an old formula (from 1949!!!) to calculate it. All this will do is force the government to start buying at a higher price and then the costs will go up for everyone. Fixing this law will actually save the government AND the people money.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #12
    SNAP already covers food, unemployment insurance doesn't. There are jobs out there. Many employers are complaining that no one wants to take jobs because the unemployment insurance is better.
     
  13. macrumors 68030

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #13
    This is what happens when you gerrymander your state districts to win elections. These candidates no longer have to appeal to both sides, and so they end up being far from center and completely unwilling to compromise.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #14
    Same difference. Let's get rid of the subsidy entirely. Why is it bad if milk prices drop too low? Wouldn't that help the poor AND lower the deficit? The government is obviously overpaying for milk. Oh yeah, the milk lobby at work.
     
  15. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #15
    But then you would have farmers going out of business and even more unemployment.
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    Despite the fad lately of calling this a dirty phrase, I'm going to repeat it anyway ...

    Source please.

    Thank you.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #17
    Not one is going out of business selling milk. Without government intervention, they will sell it a price that makes them a profit. Farmers have been doing this long before this subsidy existed.

    ----------

    Here's one.

    http://mobile.usnews.com/news/blogs...employment-how-the-lazy-are-hurting-the-needy

    Also, North Dakota is begging people to come there with an unemployment rate of less than 1%.
     
  18. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #18
    Well, to be fair, this subsidy has been in place as long as our current modern, global economy has existed so we don't have proof of this being true or false.


    Yeah, but for many people it's just not feasible to drop everything and move to North Dakota. There are still many areas in this country where good jobs ARE hard to come by.

    I graduated from University in May and have yet to find a job that I'm not "overqualified" for, and it's not for lack of trying. There's some low wage jobs like waiting tables or stocking shelves but with a bachelor's degree I should be able to find something better than that.
     
  19. macrumors demi-god

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #19
    There is also enough food in the world to feed every man, woman and child yet malnutrition is still a global problem. Sometimes problems are more complicated than just availability. If an employer is hard up for employees and doesn't even pay enough compete w/unemployment and other forms of financial aid how little is the employer offering 'cause unemployment and SNAP ain't that much money (especially for a family).

    A messed up facet of the problem is that employers can pay wages so low that full time workers are still below the poverty line so basically taxpayers are subsidizing businesses for not paying a living wage. I also think we need a more graduated system for unemployment benefits and financial aid so it is not an all or nothing system. People should not be 'punished' for getting a job that results in a net loss of income because they now earn too much to qualify for benefits. That's obviously very counter productive.

    I assume all the jobs in ND will cover all relocation fees (including the cost for a tenant to break their current lease?), help find employees housing, have comparable schools to where employees would be moving from, etc.,? It's not like moving a family across the country is inexpensive and can be done that the drop of a hat.
     
  20. macrumors demi-god

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #20
    Should be... but with people that have your education level (or better) and significant work experience taking jobs that they are overqualified for that pushes young people trying to get entry level jobs from first rung on the ladder to off the ladder.

    Not to sound like a dick but if you need a job but think you are too good to wait tables or stock shelves you need to swallow your pride. There are skilled people all over this country your parents age that fight to get short term seasonal work because they have a family to take care of. Sometimes you have to cowboy up and do what you have to do regardless of whether or not you want to do it.

    Trust me, once you land an interview at a job you think you are qualified for having a work history (any work history) is better than no work history. For young people you get hired on potential and other intangibles since you have little to no track record in your chosen profession and you dont want to come off as someone that will only work when you want to work or only under ideal conditions (especially in a craptacular job market like this).
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    #21
    Actually yes, a lot of them will. But we are talking about mostly skilled labor jobs, and not just any unemployed person is going to get one.
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #22
    I'm all for supporting people in need. But this is getting ridiculous. People relocate for jobs all the time. People take jobs all the time that are below their education level. Any job is better than getting unemployment insurance IMO. The insurance is in place to help someone get off the ground not something that is indefinite or until they find that ideal job.

    If we had unlimited money or had a surplus, I wouldn't object. But we are going bankrupt as a nation. At what point would you say stop? $20T in debt? $40T in debt?

    If we don't stop soon, our creditors will force it on us which won't be pretty. If we print the money instead, which is what we're doing now, we risk a currency crisis.
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    So work a job you are overqualified for until you find a new one. Bachelor degrees are pretty common these days, someone with experience and a good set of references is going to look a lot better than living on tax payer welfare when those jobs you are qualified for come a long.

    ----------

    If it gets to that point its more likely a war would break out. I'm not entirely convinced any fiat money system will stand the test of time. A government printing a few trillion on materials similar to what you buy at your local copy shop for a 20.
     
  24. macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #24
    If forced to bet, I'd bet we's heading over. However, it would help our budgetary situation as long as it does not push us back into recession/depression.
     
  25. zioxide, Dec 23, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012

    macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #25
    Oh I know all of this. I'm just merely trying to point out to the poster who said employers are complaining that there are jobs and no one wants to take them that there aren't as many jobs as he thinks. I spent the past 2+ years working as a waiter and then a bartender so I'm quite used to working in a job I'm technically "overqualified" for. It does get annoying though when I have more qualifications than the person who's managing the place and they come to me to help them fix their problems.

    And the fact that the seasonal jobs will be ending soon just means jobs will be even harder to come by in the next couple of months.

    That's the plan. I'm not living on welfare here nor am I trying to excuse the people that do without trying to find a job. Just offering my personal experience to show that there still aren't nearly as many jobs as there are people still looking for work.

    Yes, there are some parts of the country that have more jobs than others, but they majority of people can't just pick up and move halfway across the country.
     

Share This Page