Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sourclams wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I didn't think that took effect until January 1st 2013. I have a feeling we will NEVER see those cuts come to pass.

The fiscal cliff issue is very real and spending is going to be cut while taxation will be increased. This is going to happen.

OK. If you want to balance the budget thats kind of what you need to do.

 sourclams wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I didn't think that took effect until January 1st 2013. I have a feeling we will NEVER see those cuts come to pass.

The fiscal cliff issue is very real and spending is going to be cut while taxation will be increased. This is going to happen.

Then it's double dip recession time baby! yeah!

Make more and spend less, what kind of witchcraft is this?

 dogma wrote:

djones520 wrote:

How many jobs does each base create in the local communities they're located in?

Many, sadly those communities will likely see what happens when you base your economy around a single source of income. Maybe not now, but most certainly eventually.

It's all about bootstraps these days. Or so I'm told.

The entire point to the automatic spending cuts trigger that they put in place during the summer was to create a spending cut so draconian that both sides would be forced to meet in the middle and actually figure out a way to get the US balance sheet more balanced.

It's a reflection of how dire the situation can potentially become that policymakers felt it necessary to put that sort of 'big red button' into place.

If left to trigger, we could be looking at 2% econonomic constriction; joblessness spikes, Recession Part Deux.

 sourclams wrote:
The entire point to the automatic spending cuts trigger that they put in place during the summer was to create a spending cut so draconian that both sides would be forced to meet in the middle and actually figure out a way to get the US balance sheet more balanced.

It's a reflection of how dire the situation can potentially become that policymakers felt it necessary to put that sort of 'big red button' into place.

If left to trigger, we could be looking at 2% econonomic constriction; joblessness spikes, Recession Part Deux.

We never really came out of the recession.
Again, even this doesn't balance the budget. If you want to balance the budget you have to make your revenues and expenses match.

You know, if Congress acts, they can undo what has been done by previous inaction with the Debt Commission.

Also, there is a good chance that Congress doesn;t really care about balancing the Budget after the elections, and will instead revoke/change/remove the issue of the Fiscal Cliff one way or the other. It is not exactly a Fait Accompli yet.

No, we did come out of recession. Recession ends with economic growth; that occurred in 2010.

Since then we've more or less staggered sideways in spite of a whole lot of stimulus. That's the problem, we're reaching a point where stimulus will implicitly end; taxes are increasing and subsidies are declining. That means our 'real' economic comfort is going to drop.

 sourclams wrote:
No, we did come out of recession. Recession ends with economic growth; that occurred in 2010.

Since then we've more or less staggered sideways in spite of a whole lot of stimulus. That's the problem, we're reaching a point where stimulus will implicitly end; taxes are increasing and subsidies are declining. That means our 'real' economic comfort is going to drop.

Lateral movement is not growth. 1% is not growth. We're still in it.

Balancing the budget, although a good thing in principle, will not necessarily lead to growth in the economy.

Economic growth is what will get people back to work and balance the budget though higher tax receipts and reduce social security expenses.

Ready for round 1.5?

Make it simple. Take a shot if either candidate says "Umm". Take a drink if either candidate says "and...and". Take a shot if either candidate makes a comment thats worth a good laugh.

Once they go over the time limit, start drinking and don't stop until they do.

 d-usa wrote:
Once they go over the time limit, start drinking and don't stop until they do.

Oh daaamn... I'd be smash drunk in 20 minutes then!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also... both should be "good" in this debate...

Ryan with his "wonky" speaks...

Biden has ALWAYS been good in debates....

Actually Fox mention that Axelrod had to step in on Biden prepping. Seems Biden was all over the place.

 Jihadin wrote:
Actually Fox mention that Axelrod had to step in on Biden prepping. Seems Biden was all over the place.

Well.. its... "Joe" being "Joe"...

What else is new?

Well, one thing is obvious so far. Biden is not playing Mr. Nice Guy.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, one thing is obvious so far. Biden is not playing Mr. Nice Guy.

He's actually cracking me up... entertaining

Biden said 47%, everybody take your 5 shots!

Dang, that was if Ryan says that.

 d-usa wrote:
Biden said 47%, everybody take your 5 shots!

Said it twice!

Take 10!

hiccup....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WHOA!!! Ryan zinger!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ryan said to Biden: Sometimes the words don't come out of YOUR MOUTH the right way (after BIden's 47% statement)

So Democrats are not allowed to talk about "Bush did this when he was in power" because it was so long ago, but Republicans can talk about "Democrats did this when they had control"?

 d-usa wrote:
So Democrats are not allowed to talk about "Bush did this when he was in power" because it was so long ago, but Republicans can talk about "Democrats did this when they had control"?

Yup... they're ALL at fault!

Same old argument about money being taken from Medicare by Obama even though Ryan wants to take the same money.

 d-usa wrote:
Same old argument about money being taken from Medicare by Obama even though Ryan wants to take the same money.

Um... what?

That 716 Billion statement?

The "they will take $X from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, they are robbing Medicare" statement that has been proven to be wrong for quite a while now, and is the same number that Ryan uses in his budget.

 d-usa wrote:
The "they will take $X from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, they are robbing Medicare" statement that has been proven to be wrong for quite a while now, and is the same number that Ryan uses in his budget.

Ah...

Semantics...

Money got shifted...

Problem is, the Medicare benefits to seniors don't change, but the reimbursements to providers will have to change.

Which is what both plans are doing, but Romney/Ryan are making it sound like a bad thing even though their plan is doing the same.

 d-usa wrote:
Which is what both plans are doing, but Romney/Ryan are making it sound like a bad thing even though their plan is doing the same.

That's RYAN's plan... not, ROMNEY's plan.

But, if you want to bring in Ryan's old plan, check this out:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/13/yes-obamacare-cuts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/

...
When it comes to comparing Obamacare to the Ryan plans, Ezra is right. I’ve long argued the same thing: that the way to understand the difference between Ryancare and Obamacare is not in the scale of the cuts to Medicare, which are roughly similar, but in the competing mechanisms used in reform.
...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh... still really buzzed... but...

I'm not really paying attention, but from what I can tell, a Confused Old Man is screaming at Ryan to GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Which is what both plans are doing, but Romney/Ryan are making it sound like a bad thing even though their plan is doing the same.

That's RYAN's plan... not, ROMNEY's plan.

The Ryan plan is the Romney plan, except for the parts that they don't agree with, which neither of them is able to say what they are, because they have not talked about it.

Biden absurdly wrong "syria five times bigger than libya" FACTS libya 679,362 square miles- syria 71, 500 biden totally wrong...


Joe will be "Joe"