"Fiscal cliff" refers to a host of different federal budget cuts and tax increases that are all scheduled to take effect at the start of 2013. These looming budget cuts and tax increases are referred to as a "cliff" because, if they all actually took effect in 2013, it would be a major setback for our weak economy.Even with this definition I come out a bit hazy on what exactly is going on and after reading the multiple articles I have in regards to this particular topic, it seems to me that the political world in general isa bit " hazy." Are they proposing these solutions based on what they believe to help the United States as a whole, or just their self? It seems we are kind of have ourselves a "chicken fight" on our hands. Who will back down first? Will it be the Democrats or the Republicans? This is not the time for a political showdown!
I do believe the only quote that I have seen to be remotely clear and level headed is from Amy Brundage, a White House spokeswoman, within the article G.O.P Balks at White House Plan on Fiscal Crisis by Jonathan Weisman:
Right now, the only thing preventing us from reaching a deal that averts the fiscal cliff and avoids a tax hike on 98 percent of Americans is the refusal of Congressional Republicans to ask the very wealthiest individuals to pay higher tax rates. The president has already signed into law over $1 trillion in spending cuts and we remain willing to do tough things to compromise, and it’s time for Republicans in Washington to join the chorus of other voices — from the business community to middle-class Americans across the country — who support a balanced approach that asks more from the wealthiest Americans.Shouldn't the real reason behind all propositions brought to the table be for the betterment of our country overall? If I am reading this article correctly, are we arguing on whether the rich should pay higher taxes or not? On whether the top 2% of our country that make several times the average citizen (which remember is considered to be around $50,000 a year) actually be in a higher tax bracket? Perhaps it's just me or maybe I'm not getting the entire picture here, but I don't really think that is unreasonable.
Are people really that stingy?
Hah! I forgot that this world is full of Mr. Scrooges!
Anyways...While I'm not a huge fan of Obama or any one in a political office at this point in time, I do believe President Obama's proposition for resolving or at least lessening the damage of the fiscal cliff is better than the alternatives that have been brought to the table. And Mr. President, if it's any consolation, which I'm sure it's not, when I make enough money to be within the top 2% wealthiest of our country, you can higher my taxes.
Along with my fellow student, I too had no idea what the fiscal cliff meant. I also like to think that none of the political mumbo jumbo affects me, except gas prices.
ReplyDeleteIt is said that President Obama has spent more than any other president in history. If the $5.5 trillion wouldn't have been spent maybe we wouldn't be facing this fiscal cliff. I don't believe in raising taxes on the rich. I'll say most of them have worked hard for their money so why should they have to make up for everyone else. The rich and/or famous also donate a lot of money. Donald Trump donates to more than 20 charities. Many celebrities give millions to charities and great causes. How many average Joes could do that even in a life time?
Why should he be excluded from paying higher taxes, or anyone in congress for that matter. Maybe we should stop giving money to other countries and worry about our own problems first.
Personally, I haven't heard the term "fiscal cliff" too
ReplyDeleteoften but reading the definition, on a classmate's blog
it totally makes sense to me. The budget,
itself seems like a cliff to me.
Yes, money always seems to be the root of
most issues. It isn't everything in life,
but it sure makes life a little easier.
Money is used to buy or attain happiness
all the time.
Depending on the issue at hand, I can really
go either way with one of the major political
parties. As for spending and taxpayers paying
more, I take more of a 'Republican' stance.
Of course it makes sense that the more money
you make, the higher the tax you will pay on
it. Coming from someone that is paid minimum
wage or middle class, the thought "why not
take it from someone who makes seven times
what the average income is."
The truth of the matter is, you don't know that person's story.
Maybe they were dirt poor growing up and worked
hard so they could be wealthy or maybe
they just sat back and inherited the money.
Whichever the case or situation may be, why
are we taking more money and increasing their
taxes when our president is costing tax payers
close to $4 million?
According to Huffington Post, the President,
First Lady and immediate family's cost of regular
and extended stay on vacation is almost $4 million.
I am sorry, call me ignorant or naive, but
why, when this country is fiscally in a
downfall is it okay for the President to take
a vacation of nearly $4 million? Why raise taxes
on the wealthy? So the President can take
a more expensive trip than he has previously?
So my comment is, yes money is the root of evil,
and during an economic downfall why bother
proposing to raise taxes and make cuts when
a vacation is costing $4 million? That $4
million could be put towards to debt this country
is in.