Florida State Seminoles

[innocentbystander]

but I don't tend to classify single mom and divorced mom as one-and-the-same.

So is it divorced moms or single moms that vote Democratic?

Both

[hedge]

I saw a sign in an antique store in Savannah that read: Help Wanted. Irish Need Not Apply...

[innocentbystander]

I saw a sign in an antique store in Savannah that read: Help Wanted. Irish Need Not Apply...

http://www.moc.org/

I saw a sign that said "Blacks Welcome!"

[Jungle Rat]

SNL just squashed any chance of John Boehner running for President in 16. Thankfully.

[Bklyn]

Boehner never had a shot after that 60 Minutes interview he had a few years ago.

[eCat]

Whenever a politician is sent to Washington with a mandate, he is going to follow up on it.

When a handful of politicians are sent to Washington with the same mandate, they are going to be a pain in the ass to anyone that doesn't recognize them.

The tea party candidates are republican in name only. Boehner has to contend with them because quite frankly they don't give a shit one way or another. Its them against Washington.

Then you throw in Grover Norquist, 15 years of GOP promises of being the tax cut party, and Fox News creating a hype machine that locks them in and Boehner is in a very undesirable position.

He gets blasted for not being able to compromise by all of the country while at the same time getting killed by his own party for doing anything that resembles caving to Obama. At the same time if he doesn't cave, he is going to be held responsible for putting a $3500 tax increase on the middle class. Then if things aren't bad enough, the republican solution is to start closing loopholes that heartland America has relied on such as the mortgage deduction.

I personally don't think the fiscall cliff is all bad. The only way Americans are going to get serious about cutting government spending is if it hits them directly, and both the GOP and Democrats aren't interested in taking money out of the pockets of the voting masses to pay for big government. Consequently it makes having big government much easier. Until the voting masses feel how much big government truly costs, they are going to keep pushing for it - whether its the cost of imperialism under the guise of safety or entitlements.

You stick people like me with a $3500 bill and start closing loopholes and I'm gonna be pissed off.

[eCat]

so much for the Patriot Act being toned down

"The ACLU released a report this week that shows that under Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder, warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American's electronic communications is "sharply on the rise."

After months of litigation and Freedom of Information Act requests, the ACLU obtained documents from the federal government proving that real-time monitoring of electronic communications inside the U.S. has climbed 60 percent since 2009 and far surpasses monitoring under President Bush.

The ACLU reports that the Dept. of Justice used "pen register" and "trap and trace" techniques 23,535 times in 2009 and 37,616 times in 2011. "

[sardis]

"I personally don't think the fiscall cliff is all bad."

I agree. In fact, I am starting to favor the scenario over what is being negotiated.

[Owlman]

I personally don't think the fiscall cliff is all bad. The only way Americans are going to get serious about cutting government spending is if it hits them directly, and both the GOP and Democrats aren't interested in taking money out of the pockets of the voting masses to pay for big government.

If the Cliff actually occurs (it's a warning on Jan 1st, still time to advert the cliff), then it is bad for the country. That's because the primary or most dominant problem the U.S. has right now is not the debt/deficit. The debt/deficit is a long-term problem, not a short term issue. The biggest economic issue is the slow growth in the economy. The fiscal cliff in a fairly short time solves the debt issue, but it is likely to put us back in a recession or an outright depression. It's solving what is a long-term problem with short-term solutions with major consequences as a result.

[eCat]

I fully understand the potential issues of going off the fiscal cliff, but if we run a sizable deficit for the next decade because we're going to be mired in this problem and uncertainty for the foreseeable future.

[sardis]

Yes, it is a long term debt problem; however, it is a long term problem that needs to be adressed now. To expect us to go ahead and agree to higher taxes and just defer dealing with the spending part is nuts because we know it will never happen. You dont have to cut right away, but put in a 5 year plan that the CBO says gets us to spending at 21% of GDP at the end of 5 years. A smoother transition than the fiscal cliff. But absent of that, the cliff is the best for us long term, recession or no.

[Owlman]

I fully understand the potential issues of going off the fiscal cliff, but if we run a sizable deficit for the next decade because we're going to be mired in this problem and uncertainty for the foreseeable future.

But that's longterm needing a longterm solution, not we aren't going to raise the debt ceiling unless you make cuts now. Yes, it needs to be addressed now, but with longterm cuts, not short term ones that will put us back in a recession.

[Owlman]

But absent of that, the cliff is the best for us long term, recession or no.

Millions more out of work, with the only safety net for them???? The government. Doesn't make sense.

[Owlman]

But absent of that, the cliff is the best for us long term, recession or no.

Millions more out of work, with the only safety net for them???? The government. Doesn't make sense as a solution.

The govt should stimulate the economy during a downturn. You cut things when things are going well. You cut taxes during a downturn (which increases the debt, you increase taxes when things are going well. Taxes should eventually increase for all when the economy is going well for all. Right now, for just the top, because for them things are going well. Spending should be cut long-term presuming that things will be going well longterm, if we ever have the discipline to follow this.

[eCat]

But absent of that, the cliff is the best for us long term, recession or no.

Millions more out of work, with the only safety net for them???? The government. Doesn't make sense as a solution.

The govt should stimulate the economy during a downturn. You cut things when things are going well. You cut taxes during a downturn (which increases the debt, you increase taxes when things are going well. Taxes should eventually increase for all when the economy is going well for all. Right now, for just the top, because for them things are going well. Spending should be cut long-term presuming that things will be going well longterm, if we ever have the discipline to follow this.

things haven't gone well for 4 years and won't go well for another 3 or 4. We can't open end stimulate the economy.

[Owlman]

Well, but you don't make it worse by short term austerity measures

[sardis]

"Spending should be cut long-term presuming that things will be going well longterm, if we ever have the discipline to follow this."

Yeah, that's the theory, but there are absolutely no signs that this will be done. In fact, if you'd be honest, your side has no intention of cutting anything but defense. They're counting on revenue pipe dreams and many of them, now conveniently after the election, are publically admitting that taxes will need to be raised on those you are so concerned about to pay for future entitlements.

We can delay until we' get like Europe's mess or we can deal with it now and it be less painful.

[Owlman]

I have no side. I've proposed cuts longterm on multiple occasions here, and tax increases. I haven't lied about not doing cuts at all. I've proposed raising the eligibility age, etc. But this idea that long-term debt is such a problem that it's better to cause a deep recession/depression? Can't go along with that at all. Ask yourself, what President either increased taxes and cut government when times are doing well in the past 112 years? The only one was Clinton. We're at the lowest tax rates in 50 years, yet some would have you believe that cutting taxes is the solution when times are great, when times are bad, when there's a war, when's we're at peace, when we are running a surplus, when we are running a deficit. And when you point out the fallacy of it all, the response is I don't trust them to make cuts so it's better to put us in a recession.

The problem is the general public always wants the other guy to pay. The other guy is getting welfare, I'm not. I earned the loans, the free roads, the medicare, the tax breaks for oil and business, the school loans, etc. But the reality, you won't be able to really hit current and near seniors with cuts so let's be honest and just adjust it (you won't end it) for 12 years from now and further.

[sardis]

Well then submit a plan for 10-12 years, since you think it will take that long, showing how we get to fiscal health under your tax and spending plans. Show us how from the CBO estimates we get there. Don't just ask for more revenues from the public and have no plan to address the long term spending issues.

[Owlman]

I have, on multiple occasions