The battle of the Reaktionaries. In corner 1 sits Charles Krauthammer, who says that Republicans should play the Game of Chicken with the DЭMOCЯAT Paяty Dэaя Lэadэя and make him decide between Tax Cuts for everyone and the FISCAL CLIFF. In corner 2 sits Rush Limbaugh who asserts that this is a NO WIN scenario for the Mammoth Party, and they should only vote PRESENT. What thinkest thou???
Rush is not infallible, and he was wrong when he forecasted that Romney was going to win on November 6.
I side with Charles Krauthammer, President Osama may want to destroy the USA as we know it, but he doesn't want to make Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan, he doesn't want to lay the groundwork for a DЭMOCЯAT debacle in 2014+2016.
If the USA goes over the FISCAL CLIFF and it goes through a Second Recession, the ENTIRE WORLD is going down, not just the USA. The outcome will be financial panic worldwide (probably accompanied by global war), and such domestic economic downturn/strife that will turn all his voters into Republican voters.
But if the Republicans play the Game of Chicken with the Duck in Chief, and the Duck loses face by caving in, he will begin to crumble as the paper tiger he is.
I remind everyone here that Hitler could have been stopped if he had been opposed by the West from Day 1. To vote PRESENT on Obama will only embolden him and strengthen his hand.
This is the time to play hardball and oppose the President, not give him a blank check.
They're all taking the wrong approach here.
What is being presented is "kick the can down the road," or "kick the can even further down the road." The reality is the further they kick the can, the higher the cliff gets, and I guarantee we will run out of road within the middle-ageds' lifetime.
The revenue generated by raising taxes is dynamic -- a doubling of the tax rate does not yield a doubling of revenue and in fact may decrease it a la Arthur Laffer. Some extensive work has suggested that we are on the right side of the curve for unearned income and on the left side for earned income -- that is, raise capital gains taxes and revenue drops because people stop taking capital gains, but raise taxes on people working and there is still revenue to be made.
But in short, we aren't going to fix the problem by raising taxes.
We also can't fix the problem by cutting discretionary spending. If you look at the budget charts, the big ones (pensions, medical care, defense and interest) take up the bulk of the budget. Cut everything but those four items and you're still not sitting pretty. In addition, if you project this to a few years later, medical care alone will take up the bulk of the budget and there will be no room for the entirety of either pensions or defense -- either half of defense and no pensions, or half of pensions and no defense.
The biggest part of the problem is that in order to get a solution, everyone in congress has to admit that they caused the problem in the first place -- perhaps not themselves, per se, but at least their predecessors. The problem started back in the 80's when government decided that health care is different from the rest of the economy and therefore economics 101 doesn't apply (specifically, increase in prices pushes down demand, monopolies jack up prices by restricting supply, etc.).
That reminds me ... gotta go shopping ....
Dear Leader's attempt at any appeasement is only because of his divine grace. (PBUH)
I say it's PURGE TIME !!
They always win this game. Resistance is futile.