The Glade 4.0

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE8A80WV20121109

Obama insists on tax hike for rich as part of fiscal deal

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday he was prepared to compromise with Republicans to avert a looming U.S. fiscal calamity, but insisted a tax increase for the rich must be part of any bargain.

Obama, who was re-elected on Tuesday, reminded Republicans that his approach to avoiding steep tax hikes and spending cuts due in January, which could trigger another recession, had just won the backing of Americans at the polls. His spokesman said he would veto any deal that did not include an extra contribution from the wealthiest.


How about you stop **** spending first, then we can discuss whether you need more money.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

He's been saying this for a year. Maybe more.

Yeah, you know what? **** it. Just raise the goddamn rate and quit **** ***** about it.

But we need serious spending reforms as well.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

They have an expiration date for a **** REASON. Sorry Müs, not yelling at you, this whole thing about the Bush tax cuts and that it's even a talking point is just frustrating to me. I wish our politicians would just cut all the bullshit.

How about we stop pretending that revenue isn't part of the equation.

You don't give more money to a crack addict. They'll just use it to buy more crack.

Government needs to show a little fiscal responsibility before the general public is going to feel anywhere near secure about giving them more money.

"We're going to have to raise taxes!"
"Um, how about you just don't spend so much?"
"But we neeeeeeed the money."
"No, you're just going to waste it."
"We won't waste it. We promise!"
"Ok, here's the money."
"Woohoo!" <wastes it> "We're going to have to raise taxes!"

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

It's also worth pointing out that if there was the mandate for Obama's fiscal plans regarding debt and taxes as Obama's claiming, the Republicans would have lost the House.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

yes, Elections have consequences. I had one Job in Florida cancel yesterday, Exact wording I was told unpredictable economy, and regulations.
Another job placed on hold until financial and regulatory forecasts are complete. You will be advised of project status within 10 days, please submit any outstanding charges for payment.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

I would like to remind everyone that out of some 200,000,000 possible voters, only 58,000,000 or so supported Obama. So no, Obama's plan did not win the backing of a goddamn thing this week.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

This is not different than any other election for any other President.

Yes, as a matter of fact it did. It doesn't matter how many voters didn't vote; you don't get to assume they don't support the President just because they didn't vote. Maybe they don't care, and are perfectly happy to go with whoever gets picked. Either way, you don't get to speak for them. If you don't vote, you don't count. Period. You are not a de facto vote for Coro not liking any candidates.

As to the spending, I'm ok with the tax increase IF there's significant spending cuts and IF the cuts to everything else, social spending in particular, are AT LEAST as deep as the cuts to the military. Otherwise, more taxes (and cuts to military spending) ARE just like crack to a crack addict. Both parties have to tell their constituents they won't be buying votes anymore, either directly, or through feel-goodism.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

People that don't vote don't have an opinion worth caring about.

How about a tax plan where everyone who voted for Obama gets a tax hike?

And I would kinda like to see candidates worth voting on before I get criticized for not voting for either of of them.

IMHO, not voting is better than being one of those stupid "pet issue" voters that destroy our political process, where only one thing is important to you and you are somehow obligated to vote for the most "electable" candidate that's pro-that. This is what lets the Dems and Reps split the country so effectively and lock out all competition, because if you're (for example) the only pro-choice or pro-life candidate in a given race you're guaranteed 20% of the votes regardless of your positions on anything else.

Either of them? There were many choices.

Yes, either of them.

Sorry to hear that, Lesh. That sucks. Big picture, though, it's worth noting that it goes both ways. I had a number of clients in the renewable energy sector slow-walking deals for 2013 until the election was done because they were concerned that a Romney administration would be bad for their business. Similarly, clients with interests in both renewables and traditional power gen have been working up contingency plans to switch back to more of a coal and gas focus if Romney had won. Point is, the money just flows to different industries depending on who sets the agenda in DC. Not always an exact 1 for 1, of course, but this was the first presidential election in which I got an inside look at how at least some of the big-money guys think, and it was amazing to me, given all the public rhetoric in both directions, how much of the private discussions were really just about where, not whether, to invest.

Tax increase? Why are we talking in singulars? Incoming:
Bush income tax cuts
Capital gains tax
Obama's FICA tax holiday
Estate tax
Gift tax
Obamacare tax

What else am I missing?

_________________

I'm basically in complete agreement with you except that I believe that the military can afford deeper cuts than most areas. That said, they should not be radically larger. But I find all the whining from the military about compromising our safety and readiness to not be compelling.

Most state ballots had over 2 options.

It isn't a meaningful part of the equation. Revenue has a far smaller variable range than spending does. Taxing the top 1% of earners at 99% (presuming they'd even continue to earn at that point) wouldn't put a significant fractional dent in our national debt.

We need 3% REAL cuts over the next 10 years, every year, across the board, and we'll be fine. By 2022 that'd take us back to inflation adjusted Clintonian spending levels and simultaneously balance the budget, while showing our creditors we know how to actually reduce spending.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The military cannot afford deeper cuts than most arews, mainly because deeper cuts in the military would be an ecuse to not cut other, politically painful areas. There is also the fact that deep cuts in the military inevitably cut combat power first, leaving less useful areas intact as essentially a fixed cost. It is irresponsible to claim the military needs cuts while at the same time using it as a combination social welfare and engineering platform, jobs program, job training program, corporate and contractor welfare program, and source of pork for idiots like Barney Frank who oppose every degense program since 1965, but still demand major defense spending intheir district or state.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

None of which were any better or even electable, so my point remains.