How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Fiscal Cliff [Reader Post]

By 31 Comments 1,332 views

Ex Factor Guide – Get Your Ex Back! 5.6% Conv Rate…-medium wp-image-86833″ />

There is a lot of talk of the upcoming fiscal cliff that is looming if a budget deal is not reached by the end of the year between President Obama and Republicans in Congress. If this comes to pass some disastrous consequences will hit us:

Among them are the end of 2011’s temporary payroll tax cuts — the result of which will be a 2 percent tax increase for most workers.

There will also be an end to several tax breaks for businesses, and changes in the alternative minimum tax (AMT) that could result in more people having to pay — the income range is currently between $45,000 and $200,000 — and higher tax payments for those who do.

Several of these existing tax breaks came from the George W. Bush tax cut bill of 2001, which were extended under President Obama until the end of 2012.

There will also be tax increases for higher income individuals to help pay for the Affordable Health Care Act (so-called Obamacare).

At the same time, spending cuts will take place in more than 1,000 government programs, including cuts in the defense budget as well as social programs like Medicare, through 2022.

But some programs are exempt from the BCA. Those are Social Security, federal pensions and veterans’ benefits.

And if you want a personal picture of how the Fiscal Cliff will affect you personally, here is a calculator to give you a rough estimate. It’s a very rough estimate, but it only takes a few seconds to calculate your rough share of the pain. And it is painful.

To which I shrug and say, “So what?”

None of this is pleasant, but in the larger scheme of things I actually hope that this happens. I know this will be quite painful, but we need to start feeling some pain. Since coming into office Obama has given us the largest tax increases since… George W. Bush. The over $4 Trillion in debt that we’ve added since 2008 is just a tax increase that has not been passed into law yet. No Republicans or Democrats have thrown out any kind of serious plan to deal with this debt. And yes, that includes Conservative hero Paul Ryan.

So I say that it’s high time we start feeling the consequences of our actions. Abolishing the debt ceiling and giving the president a blank check to push us further into debt indefinitely is the equivalent to an alcoholic at the bar telling his bartender that the only way to get his tab paid up is for the bartender to remove any limit to it. To give another example if you have a credit card that’s nearly maxed out and you’re barely making minimum payments call your bank and inform them that the only way for them to continue getting payments is to raise your limit. And let me know how that goes.

Would a trillion dollar tax hike hurt our economy? Absolutely. But do future generations deserve a massive bill / inflation / lower growth? I don’t think that our children and grandchildren should be punished for our sins. And if we are forced to feel the bite of what our government largesse really costs we’ll pay a lot closer to what we’re paying for. Big Bird might be a rounding error, but if we don’t need something we shouldn’t be buying it. The left can join into this as well – I’m sure that there are a number of defense projects they’d like to put into the budget cutting sights. Who knows, we might even get to eliminate programs that are proven to be useless like Head Start.

What if we come to a consensus that we want to keep every single program in the federal government? No problem. We can just use my handy progressive income tax calculation spreadsheet and divide $1 Trillion so that everyone feels pain and the taxes are progressive:

(click on the image for a larger view)

What, you mean you don’t want to pay this tax now? Exactly when are you planning on paying it? Next year, ten years down the road, or just continue to pretend that it’s someone else’s problem? How much? And who pays it? Or do you want to wait until the economy improves? OK then, by how much? What will unemployment and growth rates have to hit? Let’s see your hard numbers. No more empty platitudes about “fair share”, “modest increases”, “reasonable cuts”, or arbitrary percentages. We need a trillion dollars in tax increases to cover our spending, so show me how you’re going to raise it.

If you’re going to talk about reforms or spending “cuts”, then show me a reduction in a dollar amount to cover what you don’t want to pay. If a program’s budget is increasing, slowing its rate of growth is not a cut any more than “eliminating” fictional spending over the next ten years is. To give an example, say I decide I’m going to reign in my beer consumption while watching my beloved Philadelphia Eagles disappoint me as only they can. I can come home next Sunday from The Rhino Bar and tell Sister Babe that instead of consuming my one or two pitchers during the game I consumed four pitchers, but the fact that I didn’t spend extra money for a round of shots I had originally budgeted for it’s a great savings for us. And if I explain to her not to worry about the cost since bartenders were kind enough to raise our bar tab limit that probably wouldn’t go over too well, either.1 Personally, in the short run I’m against eliminating any programs, no matter how expensive or useless. It’s time we understood what we really have to give up to pay for what we think we’re entitled to. It’s not like we can continue to put this off indefinitely.

So you’re not ready to balance the budget? You don’t want to go over the fiscal cliff? You want our economy to improve? Too bad. This is what we voted for, and elections have consequences. And I’m not just throwing this out as someone else’s problem. I work in government contracting, which puts me right in the line of fire. Combine that with the tax increases we’d get hit with right in time for when Baby Bob is scheduled to arrive in January and it doesn’t make for a winning combo in the Brother Bob household. I’d still rather go through hard times now than continuing to put our day of reckoning off and have things get much worse down the road.

Besides, we’ve had it good here in DC for a long time now – I talked previously how it is high time we focused on income inequality in the US. To use some Hunger Games terminology, the districts may be suffering, but life has been quite good in Panem. Having the part of the country that passes down the rules and regulations to tie down the rest of the country as our great growth industry is not, to use a favorite term of the left, sustainable. And we deserve this pain – why should the rest of the country suffer while we’re insulated from it? As for the rest of you outside of the beltway…

Were you cheering the day that Obamacare was passed and now you don’t like that your work hours got cut? Too bad – you voted for it. And evil, greedy corporations aren’t the only ones making this squeeze.

Are you young and were you happy that you’re allowed to now stay on your parents’ health care until you’re 26, or that someone else is being forced to pay for your birth control? And now you’re moving back home after college because you’ve become more expensive to hire and there are fewer jobs out there? Too bad – you voted for it.

And yes, those of us who voted for Romney are not without blame ourselves – we share in this, too.

Mark Steyn recently offered some advice for John Boehner as to how to sell the Fiscal Cliff to the American public:

So, given that the ruling party will not permit spending cuts, what should Republicans do? If I were John Boehner, I’d say: “Clearly there’s no mandate for small government in the election results. So, if you milquetoast pantywaist sad-sack excuses for the sorriest bunch of so-called Americans who ever lived want to vote for Swede-sized statism, it’s time to pony up.”

OK, he might want to focus-group it first. But that fundamental dishonesty is the heart of the crisis. You cannot simultaneously enjoy American-sized taxes and European-sized government. One or the other has to go.

So stop worrying, everyone. We’ll probably see some deal made at the last minute, and if we don’t there’s no need to panic. It’s just our future arriving a little bit earlier than we’d like.

Crossposted from Brother Bob’s Blog

1. In other “Laws of unintended consequences”, dropping this kind of news on my eight month pregnant wife would probably also significantly shorten my life expectancy. Then again, if I could articulate any kind of coherent speech after drinking the equivalent of 20 beers that would be a feat in itself.

Blogging by the credo of "Making the world a more offensive place, one blog post at a time", Brother Bob started writing posts around the beginning of the Obama presidency over at Brother Bob's Blog. A born-again Existentialist and self-professed libertarian with conservative tendencies, he has ironically chosen to live in the Washington, DC area - deep behind enemy lines. He has always loved history, and spent eight years volunteering as a tour guide on weekends, giving over 200 tours to roughly 2,500 mostly foreign guests. His tours were highlighted by stories generally not found in the history books or most other tours, such as the importance of the Battle if Antietam, the origins or Arlington Cemetery, and dispelling the myths of FDR's New Deal. Although his favorite subject to blog about is Economics, as seen in his Economics for Politicians series, his posts try to address angles that other conservative writers and the mainstream media (naturally!) miss. "There's no point in putting up a post on a subject that someone smarter than me has already written". He believes in the "Happy Warrior" approach, and tries to inject humor in his posts, sometimes successfully. Two such examples are his posts comparing the modern left to the horrible Star Wars prequels, and analyzing the laments of a DC woman in search of a feminist boyfriend. Brother Bob lives with his very patient wife known as Sister Babe, and their fantastic son. Little Bob. Little Bob is also the reason that being a tour guide came to an end, as spending Saturdays raising a son takes priority over giving lectures to foreign visitors on the folly of Keynesian economics. BB is also grateful for the opportunity to take his place among the outstanding writers at Flopping Aces, appreciates every person who takes the time to read his posts, and especially those who join him in the conversation in the comments.

31 Responses to “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Fiscal Cliff [Reader Post]”

  1. 1

    Scott in Oklahoma

    I think we conservatives should just stop participating in the liberal government’s programs all together, until such time as we can present some conservative politicians with balls. Then when we have some conservative politicians willing to step up, they can begin by taking this fight down to a personal level. Make it common knowledge which liberals are working hard towards our demise, shove them into the light. Loudly publicize Obama’s past, highlight all the things he has said over the years that are in direct conflict with his actions now, and MAKE HIM ACCOUNTABLE! Yeah, accountable. If that means he gets arrested and charged with crimes against the state and the citizens, so be it.

  2. 2


    The thing is, Brother Bob, and you know this, it’s that those of us arguing for the continuation of the Bush tax cuts are the ones who are also arguing for a serious reduction in the size of the Federal government.

    I understand what you’ve expressed here. It’s the collective will of the people, based on the election results. Both from 2008 and 2012. As a collective, we voted to continue on placing more of our personal responsibility into the hands of the federal government, and as a collective, we voted on stiffing the “rich” with the bill. The biggest problem is, as a collective, our math really, really sucks.

    In order for us to begin paying down the debt, we’d have to achieve a combined total of over $13 Trillion, over the next ten years, in tax hikes AND spending cuts(true spending cuts, mind you). Bush’s tax cuts, from the rates during Clinton’s years, the ones liberal/progressives LOVE to promote, are only linked to around $1.7 Trillion over the decade they have been in effect. Add in the various tax breaks like the reduction in FICA from Obama, and we’ll call it an even $2 Trillion.

    Only $11 Trillion more to go. And considering that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid total around $1.3 Trillion, if you subtract those protected programs from the annual budget for 2012, you are left with about $2.0 Trillion. Of which an estimated $1.1 Trillion would have to be cut. And even if we cut the ENTIRE defense budget from that amount, an estimated $660 Billion for 2012, you still need to cut $440 Billion more, just to reach a point where we could begin paying down the debt. That’s a full 1/3 of all the non-Defense, non-Social insurance programs contained in the federal budget. And all that with no defense capability for our country. Sad, isn’t it?

    But the liberal/progressives do not want to touch the social insurance programs. They never agree to any TRUE cuts in other spending programs. Defense is the one area they willingly agree to cuts.

    I’ve heard liberal/progressives wish to limit our Defense spending to a paltry 1% of our GDP. Given the Defense budget for 2012, that’s a $500 Billion cut. Good for only $5 Trillion of that $11 Trillion deficit gap, leaving $6 Trillion left to cut. Or raise taxes by. Or a combination of the above. And all that AFTER the tax rates, ALL OF THEM, are raised to the Clinton era tax rates.

    What part about a “spending problem” do the liberal/progressives not understand?

  3. 3

    Nan G

    No one has any fiscal responsibility these days.
    When you point out how each year we could simply add that to our taxes from where we are on your chart, most non-taxpayers would simply parrot Ripley at the start of Aliens where the ”corporation/government” told her what her attempt at cleaning up the Nostromo cost them, she simply said, “You can bill me.”
    People honestly don’t think they will EVER have to pay the piper.
    Maybe they’re right.
    The whole monetary system might collapse before they have to start making payments.
    Seems that’s what Obama is counting on.
    (With his $40 million vacation and $100 million inauguration)

  4. 4


    Brother Bob says:
    “So you’re not ready to balance the budget? You don’t want to go over the fiscal cliff? You want our economy to improve? Too bad. This is what we voted for, and elections have consequences. And I’m not just throwing this out as someone else’s problem.

    “I’d still rather go through hard times now than continuing to put our day of reckoning off and have things get much worse down the road.”

    Brother Bob we should have gone through the ‘hard times’ 4 years ago….This administration wasted a hell of a lot of money….seriously, where exactly does “Trillions” of dollars go?? What exactly has the taxpayer received for ALL THAT MONEY ?? wait, here’s what I see = debt up past our eyeballs and down our backsides…then wrapped around several thousand times….

    …Now ‘the won’ has the nerve to push for a “blank check”… [I feel like I’m in a bad remake of the Twilight Zone].

    Yes, Brother Bob elections do have consequences, especially when [let’s not kid ourselves here] the votes came from people who thought they could vote themselves [free] ‘stuff’ …… [instead of voting for fiscal responsibility]

    So far I’ve seen the likes of –
    A Detroit Councilwoman Joanne [?] wants to know where their $$ is…because ‘our people’ voted for the Ofraud…now they want their ‘goodies’ [payback]… this is the mentality not only here but all over America…


    A lot of people who have been lucky enough to get a fairly decent paying job are probably just beginning to get ‘back on their feet’ only to get hit with this….and this is “who’s definition” of FAIR ???


    If the republicans cave I think I’m pretty much done with them…I am seeing what a huge disappointment they have become…

  5. 5


    Whats to stop them from caving,Demint see’s the writing on the wall..realist he is.Conservatives are always realist.Boehner is the “Old Guard”, Power he seeks.

    Only fix is to step back and say “told you so”… financial desuetude will force power back to the states.I know from owning my own business that people really don’t wake up until it hits them personally and the state has done a fine job of avoiding this so far.

  6. 6


    In support of my continued assertions that “It’s the spending, stupid!“, I present this article, which details further why spending is the biggest culprit in why deficits have risen to the new normal of $1 Trillion plus;

    Take the end of President Clinton’s term as the point of comparison since the budget was balanced. Annual federal spending was $1.94 trillion, revenue was $2.10 trillion. Adjusting for inflation and population growth since the start of 2001, today’s equivalents would be $2.77 trillion in spending and $3.00 trillion in revenue. That would be a nice budget surplus of $230 billion.

    So where did it go? Was it the Bush tax cuts? The Obama stimulus? The recession? Yes, yes, and yes; but the blame is not shared equally.

    Today the federal government is collecting $2.67 trillion in revenue ($330 billion short of the Clinton-equivalent) and is spending $3.76 trillion. Yes, that’s right; we are spending $987 billion more than if we increased the last Clinton budget for inflation and population growth. It sure looks to me like spending is the main culprit.

    Lib1 attempted to declare that spending was not, in fact, the major part of the deficits.

    Most of the deficit is not because of over-spending (except possibly by the defense department)—it’s the result of under-taxation and to much unfunded war in the majority of the past decade.

    Given the numbers from the article above, can we declare liberal/progressives deficient when it comes to math?

    And, since the spending happens to be the major problem with the federal budget, heading off the “fiscal cliff” is not likely to solve anything. Only exacerbate the problem further.

  7. 7


    too polite
    now call his bluff, he is playing crap with THE PEOPLE.there must be a way to pin him
    on his arrogance, and incompetence,

  8. 8

    Brother Bob


    Great comments so far everyone, but in this one I’m calling out my friends. How do we pay for all of this? It’s easy for us to blast the lefties for screaming for higher taxes while ignoring spending. We call for lower taxes but offer nothing on cutting spending. The math obviously favors us, but my *horrible* tax plan is the most realistic yet. What have you got?

    Time to weigh in with your *Detailed* plans, everyone.

    And yes, JohnGalt and Larry W. – I’m looking at you two for the guys whose responses from both sides I most want to hear!

  9. 9


    He wins either way,he takes over the Cliff as-if we’re not there already their at 3.3 billion in borrowing every day to to keep us afloat.But say we do go over the cliff ..SHTF he offers middle class takes cuts Republicans bites he wins,republican cave he wins.

    Throwing numbers to a public that doesn’t comprehend nor cares to understand is a losing issue.If it were California,Illinois,New York would be red,the last election was a clear indication that the states will have to take the lead.

    Conservatism is not a ideology is a life style.The pursuant of FreeDom demands it.

  10. 10

    Scott in Oklahoma

    @Brother Bob: Well, I ain’t JohnGalt or Larry, but I’ll throw out some spending cutting suggestions for ya. There’s a bunch of alphabet agencies that could be scaled way back or shut down completely, like the EPA, Dep’t of Energy, Dep’t of Education, TSA, Homeland Security, any agency with overlapping resonsibility with another agency, Dep’t of Labor, the dreaded IRS, any agency related to Obamacare and I am sure many others. Put the SS money back in a lockbox, invested for profit. Bring accountability to the forefront. Eliminate Congress’ benefits and pensions after they leave office, along with term limits. Use intelligent purchasing rules. Make a budget and live with it. So that’s a beginning…. And I am all for a flat tax…

  11. 11


    Bob: a detailed plan isn’t actually needed. Remember that spending projections assume increases every year, so most of the time a “cut” is just a smaller increase than “planned”. Tax revenues are already recovering even under the current tax system. So I would expect that, without any effort, we can expect revenue to return to its historic 18% of GDP if we don’t crash the economy with bad policy. That still leaves a fairly big shortfall, because we’re spending 22-24% of GDP at the Federal level. Thing is, this can be brought down by holding the rate of growth in the overall budget to, say 2%, while growing the economy at 3%. Over 10 years this would bring us back to the point where the deficit is a manageable 2% of GDP (it’s manageable because, mathematically, we can run a deficit equal to the rate of GDP growth and keep the debt/GDP ratio constant – remember that the absolute amount of the debt isn’t as much of a problem as the size of it relative to our economy). Holding overall spending to a net 2% deficit will be hard given the demographic pressure on entitlement programs. So, it may mean that to accomodate that, other parts of the goverment may have to be held to 0%, or even (gasp!) cut. I can list several departments of the federal government that I suspect we wouldn’t miss, and I’m sure you can too. I assumed the current tax regime remains in place, but what I’d rather do is revamp the income tax system to make it simpler. This should leave it revenue-neutral on a static scoring basis, but in reality the shifts in incentives should cause GDP growth to be somewhat higher than my baseline assumption. Supposing that despite these measures GDP growth remains low, while entitlement costs continue to rise, I’d reluctantly look at consumption taxes as a way to get federal revenues up to, say 20% of GDP. Note that the Reagan-era deal on social security theoretically squared the books by bumping the tax rates to accommodate expected boomer retirement costs. Mathematically, this meant that we would expect to draw more money out of the economy over the past 20 years, and pay it back out over the next 20. So, to some extent, a larger-than-usual federal budget in the early 21rst century was always baked into the cake and agreed to by the more sober people we had running our government back then.

  12. 12


    you are the reason why I love my BLOG at FLOPPING ACES
    you could fix the problem so easy with these last two comments,
    you have the right solution ,exactly

  13. 13


    Here are the problems, Brother Bob, and Doug touched on some of them.

    -One, revenue as a measure of GDP has historically been around 18-20%, even in recessions. The last recession, which we still haven’t recovered from, left the government at a 15% of GDP number, and considering the GDP shrank by a bit, that is a relatively small number when compared to spending.
    -Two, spending as a measure of GDP grew dramatically, first under Bush, but even larger under Obama. Doug states 22-24%, but the actual number is closer to 25%. Obama and the Dems added hundreds of Billions to the “baseline budget”, that amount of “permanent” spending that gains an additional 4-7% annually, based on projected inflation and population growth, amongst other factors.
    -Three, regarding that “baseline budgeting”, unless and until that is removed from congressional budgetary methods, there can never be true spending cuts since the politicians whose constituents are affected most always bitch, moan and whine whenever even just the rate of spending increase is cut.
    -Four, the social insurance programs make up nearly one-third of the total budget. And that share is expected to grow much larger in the next decade, due to all of the baby-boomers retiring.
    -Five, the interest paid out on the debt, annually, has reached the $500 Billion figure, and grows larger every year.

    So, how do we fix the budget? I’m not sure that I agree that conservatives, in general, are talking about actually lowering taxes. Most of them, in my opinion, are only concerned with maintaining the current tax rates, including the rates for capital gains and business taxes. Part of the problem with the slack, or stagnate, economy is that people are unsure as to what the tax rates will be, and until they know for sure, they are liable to continue holding onto money that might otherwise be spent, or even invested in riskier propositions, both of which cause growth to happen.

    I’d say that the first step to addressing the budgetary and economic issues is to mark the tax rates more permanently, and at the current rates. This will inspire people and business to spend a little freer with their wealth/capital, boosting sluggish consumer numbers, which in turn will spur growth in business, add jobs, and lead to higher and higher revenue for the government. Remember, we currently are sitting at a very high unemployment rate, which affects the revenue the government brings in, from income taxes, FICA taxes, business taxes, etc. Add jobs the right way, in the right sectors, and the revenue is boosted back up to around that 18-20% mark without doing anything else.

    The second step is to address the federal spending, and that starts by addressing how the government does it’s budgets. Remove “baseline budgeting” from the equation altogether, and hold non-interest, and non-social insurance payout spending, to whatever the current amount is, which I believe is around $2.5 Trillion or so. Hold that spending for the next 10 years. This will do several things. One is that it will force the agencies themselves to become more accountable for their spending, knowing they aren’t going to be getting that 4-7% increase the next year, which will force them to cut the unnecessary and wasteful out of their spending. Another is that the Departments over the agencies will be forced to identify and cut, either completely, or partially, those agencies which are duplicitous in nature, and/or inefficient. There are many more of these than people actually think there are.

    The third step is to address the social-insurance programs, doing whatever is necessary to hold the increases in spending for them to as low as possible. Raise the age of retirement, means test the SS and Medicare if necessary, streamline the administration of the programs where they can be, whatever is necessary. But above all, ensure that for the people that paid in, that need the money, that it will be there for them in the future.

    This still leaves the big elephant in the room, Obamacare. We all know that it isn’t going to be revenue neutral, as Obama and the Dems contended, but for our purposes now, let’s assume that it will be, taking it completely out of the equation.

    So, what do we have? Over ten years, the revenue, if the above is done, should grow to a figure of around $4.0 Trillion, assuming an “instant” boost from maintaining current tax rates and the jobs that should create, and a modest 2% annual growth in the economy.

    Over ten years, the non-interest, non-social insurance budget will stay relatively even at around $2.5 Trillion, so the only factors affecting whether or not we end up with a deficit, or surplus, at the end of the ten years is how much more the social insurance portion of the budget will grow by, and the subsequent increases in the interest payments. Since the current total budget is around $3.8 Trillion, that only leaves a $200 Billion increase in that ten year period, if the budget was to be balanced at the end of that ten years. I’m pretty sure that just the interest increases alone will eclipse that mark, meaning that addressing entitlement spending and presenting a workable solution is all that more important.

    Any way you look at it, though, Congress and the President better get their act together and actually solve the budget issues, or it won’t be very long until our economy goes completely under. We have no one to help prop us up like those Euro countries do, or Japan has, or any of the other 100+ countries on this Earth.

  14. 15

    Hard Right

    Letting people keep the money they earned is “free stuff”?
    Sounds like you you have control issues. You really should see a psychiatrist.
    Dr. Sanity would give you much insight into yourself.

  15. 16


    Typical Lib1 response. “But, but, so did the other guy!”

    My parents relieved me of such juvenile arguments quickly when I lived at home. Wrong is wrong, no matter who commits the actions or utters the words.

  16. 17


    to all of you
    what if another war is called on,
    there is thousands of AMERICANS GOING TO TURKEY,that one who said
    and was ask by OBAMA to mediate between his friends and ISRAEL which he also hate,
    while the cliff is closing in, while OBAMA doesn’t want to give any cuts, but want an unlimited credit card to be valid all his 4 years,
    all of those are contradiction to each one

  17. 18

    Brother Bob


    @ Doug#11 & Johngalt #13: Great points guys! That’s actually what I was looking for. In fact, what you proposed in cutting growth rates is pretty similar to what Jamie Radke was campaigning on during the VA Senatorial primary. I might have to start running some of these numbers in one of my spreadsheets for a future post. Thank you, gentlemen!

  18. 19


    Tax receipt’s are at a all time high,FACT,spending has out paced inflows,FACT,politics are local,FACT.

    The message is to complicated,the average American doesn’t understand these numbers and what they mean.
    Say What !! Harris Interactive Polled 2059 americans..Poll: Nearly One Third Of Americans Would Accept ‘TSA Body Cavity Search’ in Order to Fly,Think about that statement for a minute.

    Say What !! Ben Bernanke say in public for all to see and hear do away with the debt ceiling just give the feds unlimited spend ability.And not peep from the press about this absurd statement.

    The house votes 33 times in 18 months to over turn obamacare…are you serious,33 times !!

    You have to be in power to Govern and we don’t have yet,putting forth plans that will go no where is pointless,with midterms coming around again what would be more effective at this point in time.Caving in and giving Obama what he wants which is unlimited spending to buy more votes and be successful at it.Or telling the truth about the dangers of where we are headed and why we are walking away from the talks.
    For that matter the Republicans should get together and just leave congress and go back home to their districts and be honest and tell the people that they cant be apart of the destruction of the country any longer.This is war “flat out” and we should be fighting on a state level,tell the feds “GO TO HELL”.Because if we don’t we will end up like Greece before his term is out,so what say you!!

    California just voted themselves super majorities in the Senate and house,their is no stopping them from going over the cliff,Chicago is a war zone at night,New York is got Muslims pushing Chinese into subway trains and telling you what drinks you can drink.

    Say What !! Mich. legislators OK right-to-work amid union protests,the bill is waiting to be signed.
    Politics is local and we are winning on a state level.Congress GO HOME AND THE HELL WITH FEDERAL GOVERNANCE.
    You got two years before you will be irrelevant.

  19. 22

    Liberal1 (Objectivity)

    My prediction of the future runs a little like this: Eventually the Republicans will come to recognize that they lost the election. As soon as they can figure a way to save face, and still do what’s necessary, then we can be well on the road to recovery. With the Democratic Party holding the power of the Presidency for the next 12 year (four under Obama; and eight under Hillary Clinton), and the Congress again becoming a majority monopoly of the Democrats (because of rapid improvement of the economy through Democratic initiatives), the American economy will be in recovery.

    The issues of Affordable Health Care Act which a not optimal (and believe me, liberals, unlike conservative beliefs, are completely aware of ObamCare. We understand that because of the conservative blockade, a lot of non-idealized compromises were required to make a start on staying abreast of the rest of the industrialized world as far as this issue is concerned. The next 12 years of Democratic governing.

    The extreme-right-wing will lose support and continue to be marginalized, as has always been the case in history. With this marginalization, religion will be taken out of politics, and placed back in the churches—where it belongs. This will allow those who want to be guided by religious dogma freedom to do so; and those who do not feel obliged to particular set of doctrines the freedom to reject them. The Republican might be able to change, or it might go the way of Lincoln’s rival:

    All in all, people will know a new freedom from the threat of illness or accident; and the economic freedom to change jobs, quit their job and become an entrepreneur, without worrying about losing their health insurance. We might even end the War on Drugs, and find a whole new source of revenue (tax on the legal sale of once illegal drugs), and stop imprisoning people for just trying to change their reality—like some do right now, legally, through alcohol intoxication.

    I can see many other benefits to be achieved in the future—I’m optimistic. But before the readers start calling this Marxist utopianism, let them reflect on their own return to the period literally supposedly spelled out in the Constitution as reactionary utopianism.

  20. 24

    Scott in Oklahoma

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): You forgot to mention the government will own all the industry, all the housing, all the jobs. You will only be allowed to make enough to barely survive, unless you can get away with working inside the black market. They will accomplish this with a 80% tax rate for all people with an income, collected at the point of a gun.

    The upside to all that? We’ll divide even further, and the liberal government will have about 10 states to govern, and they will have to buy all their food, hard goods and energy from the free states that will emerge. I can see border closures as well.

    But hey, the lib’s will be happy, and have absolutely no reason to complain about anything.

  21. 25

    Wm T Sherman

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    blah blah blah blah With the Democratic Party holding the power of the Presidency for the next 12 year (four under Obama; and eight under Hillary Clinton), and the Congress again becoming a majority monopoly of the Democrats (because of rapid improvement of the economy through Democratic initiatives), the American economy will be in recovery blah blah blah

    You were stoned when you wrote that, weren’t you?

    I can tell.

  22. 26


    I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson who said that”Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.” That is what we have done with Homeland Security, The TSA, ATF, and to a lesser extent , the Dept. of Education, HHS, and most other agencies.
    Cut them, and we begin to have a handle on government waste.
    Have Congress in session every other year like Texas, and you save more money. Eliminate the Cadillac pension and healthcare of politicians, and you save even more.
    Like climbing a laddere,- one rung at a time.

  23. 30


    Brother Bob
    my my you have so much good advice here, you could apply them all and the problem is fix,
    how about a WISH FOR THE NEXT YEAR,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *