1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

CBO: US likely to fall off 'fiscal cliff' if Bush-era tax cuts allowed to expire

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, May 23, 2012.

  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    So, do we let 'em expire, or extend them?

    I can't see the Republicans compromising, so I'd guess it will be one or the other.

  2. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Seems like this is stating the obvious, no? Isn't that specifically why those conditions were put into the agreement, basically to force Democrats and Republicans to compromise, come to an agreement and avoid triggering the automatic cuts (which affect both social programs and defense spending, each party's "baby," so to speak)?
  3. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Shocking that your headline would focus only on the tax cuts that expire and not mention the automatic spending cuts that would also kick in.
  4. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Let's roll!
  5. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Crazy like a Fox!
  6. Uncle.Ruckus

    Uncle.Ruckus Guest

    Correct. Except the Kochsucker Republicans in Congress have sworn an oath of fealty to Grover Norquist and have reneged on the deal they made last year. They want all the cuts to come from the Dems and none from their side.

    I'm guessing none of the righty posters here will admit Congressional Republicans are a bunch of Goddamned liars, though.
  7. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  8. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Well, to be fair to me, it was FoxNews' headline.

    It was also their top story on "Special Report" at 5:00 CDT, which apears to be the only place it's getting big play.
  9. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    What part of what deal did they renege on?
  10. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    An interesting read and not too much gobbledygook.

    So it seems we can "solve" the immediate problem by causing headaches down the road or suck it up for six months.

    So do we want to address the debt or face immediate economic hardship?
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Responsible fiscal policy won't be responsible for throwing the U.S. economy off a cliff.

    It's the irresponsible fiscal policy for the last 15 years that has led us to where we are that makes serious consequences inevitable.

    We can continue to avoid dealing with the mess we created -- and make that mess worse by running budget deficits of more than $1 trillion a year. Or we can deal with the consequences today rather than worse consequences down the line.

    Those deficits (and our accumulated debt of $15.5 trillion) are the result of an account imbalance -- that includes spending AND revenues. If we want to spend $3.5 trillion to $4 trillion a year, we have to raise our tax rates. And that is well beyond what people are talking about with regard to pre-Bush rates. Consequently, if we don't want to broaden our tax base and raise way more revenue, we have to cut spending dramatically, which means first and foremost slashing our entitlement programs. Or we can do a combination of the two.

    But we are already at the point where we can't just wish away consequences for the good times we have already gorged ourselves on. We are massively in debt and continue to add to that debt. We can get away with not dealing with it for a bit longer. Or we can face it.
  12. Uncle.Ruckus

    Uncle.Ruckus Guest


Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page