Forget the Fiscal Cliff

Sorry... I'm still on my first cup of coffee... I meant 4.6%...

You know, like

Martin Ent Inc wrote: There it is that [sic] racisit stuff.

You misunderstand me, I am not advocating against your plan of increasing income limits on higer earners, I am just saying it won't be enough, we need to end the current tax holiday for everyone plus increase income limits, and also look at both raising the age for complete benefits and possible means testing as the SS approaches insolvency.

But I do have to disagree with you about there being no link between the record high debt of the goverment right now not affecting SS at all. If buying US debt becomes unpopular worldwide, the US will be unable to raise more money to fund both discretionary spending end entitlements.

NOBODY has said that "it would be enough"... You love to keep harping on the fact that it "won't be enough"... I'll repeat: NOBODY HAS SAID THAT IT WILL BE ENOUGH, in and of itself. It's part of a larger budget. But you keep repeating it...You obviously think it has some relevance... (It doesn't--but you seem to think so.)...So, whatever melts your butter...

FredHayek wrote: If buying US debt becomes unpopular......

If, if, if, if.... And if a meteor hits the earth it's all over. And if frogs had wings they'd fly...And if Boehner could shoot fireballs out of his arse, he would...

Buying US debt is already unpopular and much of QE3 is balance sheet wizardy.

Looks like it is where we have to go, US debt even shunned by China, before people get the message.

Really seems like no takers other than LJ from the liberal side on this question. So can I get someone on the conxervative side of the coin to interpret for me what the liberals consider a "balanced approach" to making our country solvent again?

Most reasonable adults can admit that just taxing the top 2% doesn't solve the problem...it just feels good. So I really am good with doing that JUST so we can get past it and get to substantive discussion on what else we must do.

Those same reasonable adults will also admit that the DOD budget can and should be cut. Cutting it in half is a recommendation I would expect from a third grader who hasn't a clue about strategy and the implications of US influence in the world so I will dismiss that recommendation. I will concede then that the DOD must take a big hit. Got it!

Given that half the sequestration targets the DOD and the other half targets entitlements, what entitlements DO the liberals think we can cut using the balanced approach the President promised to his fawning supporters during the election?

I'm not asking this question correctly otherwise I would have seen an answer by now. Can someone from the right assist? I apologize in advance for my limited command of the English language and would appreciate assistance so I can just see the left's recommendation. I'm just not seeing it.

Really seems like no takers other than LJ from the liberal side on this question. So can I get someone on the conxervative side of the coin to interpret for me what the liberals consider a "balanced approach" to making our country solvent again?

"Balanced Approach" = Tax the wealthy. Increase the debt.

Balanced approach? Balance phantom spending cuts that are already in the pipeline like the Iraqi & Afghani drawdown versus taxing the minority rich. (Instead of eliminating taxloopholes.)

Per NPR this morning, it looks like England's Pols also play this game, Starbucks used various loopholes to avoid paying taxes last year in the UK.

lionshead2010 wrote: Really seems like no takers other than LJ from the liberal side on this question. So can I get someone on the conservative side of the coin to interpret for me what the liberals consider a "balanced approach" to making our country solvent again?
-I've said this somewhere else. They don't WAN'T balanced. "Balanced" is relying on someone more successfull then themselves to help those that are less fortunate and then hungrily coming back for more. A lot of the time they can find individuals that are more than willing to give up everything they worked for, but the ones that won't are a bunch of treasonous "teabaggers." We'll fight until the world ends I'm afraid.

Most reasonable adults can admit that just taxing the top 2% doesn't solve the problem...it just feels good. So I really am good with doing that JUST so we can get past it and get to substantive discussion on what else we must do.
-Works for me, just so we can move on to more creative excuses from the left.

Those same reasonable adults will also admit that the DOD budget can and should be cut. Cutting it in half is a recommendation I would expect from a third grader who hasn't a clue about strategy and the implications of US influence in the world so I will dismiss that recommendation. I will concede then that the DOD must take a big hit. Got it!
-Again, fine. Let's do that and bring everyone back here to protect our own borders and ports. When things start getting blown up, I don't want to hear the bleeding hearts talking about the "rights" of terrorists.

Given that half the sequestration targets the DOD and the other half targets entitlements, what entitlements DO the liberals think we can cut using the balanced approach the President promised to his fawning supporters during the election?
-I'll get this one started for 'em: Welfare, by requiring drug tests and residency (or at least a work visa) to qualify.

I'm not asking this question correctly otherwise I would have seen an answer by now. Can someone from the right assist? I apologize in advance for my limited command of the English language and would appreciate assistance so I can just see the left's recommendation. I'm just not seeing it.

And instead of getting answers to your questions, the excuses and slanted liberal media source links will fly. Sorry if I was vague and can't help myself when it comes to slinging insults.