While the "Fiscal Cliff" looms..............

[hollohas]

Why the heck should we put a cap on revenue (1 trillion) that is FAR short of working to pay off that?

But $1.6 trillion will pay it off?

Major cuts need to be made and the White House refuses to make that happen.

[nynco]

I agree major cuts are needed. Start with ending the drug war. The white house just offered billions in cuts to stream line the waste in Medicare? Boehner offered nothing.

[hollohas]

I agree major cuts are needed. Start with ending the drug war. The white house just offered billions in cuts to stream line the waste in Medicare? Boehner offered nothing.

There it is again...the GOP "offered nothing". OMG, they agreed to INCREASE TAXES. That IS what they are offering. Negotiating from NO tax increase, to a rather large tax increase.

Again, the White House says they will make a goal to save $400 billion in Medicare, but won't put that in writing. They want to leave that discussion until next year. I guess we should just trust them...

[nynco]

Hollohas, honestly, can you post a link to the agreement to increase taxes part. News changes fast. I am interested to read the next angle. Its better than sports to me.

[NMB2]

[spqrzilla]

Honestly, let the fiscal cliff come. The GOP is not negotiating in good faith. Obama is giving them practically all they want.

Objectively false statements. Which is a pattern from you nynco.

And the claim that the no new tax pledge is unconstitutional is irrational looneytoon nonsense.

[spqrzilla]

I agree major cuts are needed. Start with ending the drug war. The white house just offered billions in cuts to stream line the waste in Medicare? Boehner offered nothing.

The medicare "cuts" are fake. Just as the double-counted medicare "savings" in Obamacare was fake.

Fake cuts and new taxes sufficient to cut Obama's deficit by a whole tenth.

That's the White House' joke.

[cstone]

Ship has a leak and is taking on water. You can bale water (raise revenue). You can plug the leak (cut spending). You can do both, but only one is a long term solution. As one of the people who's taxes will be raised, I prefer to plug the leak before you force me to bale faster.

But I lost the election.

Be safe.

[nynco]

Objectively false statements. Which is a pattern from you nynco.

And the claim that the no new tax pledge is unconstitutional is irrational looneytoon nonsense.

In the 112th Congress of the United States, 235 members of the House of Representatives and 41 members of the Senate have signed the pledge created by Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform. The pledge states :

I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

Norquist and his organization give political support to candidates who make the pledge and work to defeat candidates who do not. To assume office and be paid a salary, members of Congress must take an oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The Constitution of the United States, to which signers swear their true faith and allegiance, provides, in Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States ...

The Sixteenth Amendment says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived ...

The preemptive and unconditional pledge to Norquist by each signer is a knowing and willful repudiation of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution and the Sixteenth Amendment. The pledge to Norquist makes signers' oath of office to uphold the Constitution a fraud on the Congress and the American people. It is also a probable violation of federal criminal law.

Title 18, Section 1001, of the United States Code says that whoever willfully makes any false statement or representation in any matter coming within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the government of the United States shall be fined or imprisoned for not more than five years. Section 1001 specifically applies to claims for payment of money submitted to Congress. Accordingly, by fraudulent oath of office, Norquist signers claim Congressional salaries in violation of Section 1001.

Norquist signers in the California Legislature pledge that they will "oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes." To assume office and be paid a salary, they must swear an oath to uphold both the federal and state constitutions. But the California Constitution says, in Article 13, Section 31:

The power to tax may not be surrendered or suspended by grant or contract.

In view of their pledge to Americans for Tax Reform, signers make a false oath of office, because they have surrendered their power to tax to Norquist, in violation of Section 31. The California Government Code makes each Norquist signer's false oath of office an act of perjury, punishable by imprisonment for two, three, or five years.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/66...e-constitution

[nynco]

Ship has a leak and is taking on water. You can bale water (raise revenue). You can plug the leak (cut spending). You can do both, but only one is a long term solution. As one of the people who's taxes will be raised, I prefer to plug the leak before you force me to bale faster.

But I lost the election.

Be safe.

I agree we need to do both.