Comments on: There’s the fiscal cliff, and then there’s…

By: holmes

holmes — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 21:29:37 +0000

It’s so funny, S-B plan results in higher effective tax rates, but that doesn’t make the left tingle as much as higher nominal rates (with loopholes/deductions). It’s almost entirely about aesthetics with these people now.

By: southpaw

southpaw — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:48:35 +0000

Geoffrey Britain:
I appreciate your position and agree mine has consequences, but it seems we disagree on whether or not a slow retreat is better than shooting our officers in the back and running away quickly.
I will not support a Democrat, but I will support anybody in the primary who opposes the candidate who managed the graceful retreat, eg. compromise. If we vote for a candidate to oppose certain things, and he doesn’t because it will harm his colleagues, this seems to be his colleague’s problem and not mine or his. In other words, if he’s voting with the leadership because half of them are in districts that will unload them for being conservative, I sincerely don’t understand how this helps the party, or my district.
The candidates in the districts who are at risk will always want cover from those who aren’t; and so “moderates” move the whole body to the left. .
I also think if we look hard enough, we will see that some of the “moderates” have their own skins to worry about, and that’s what the issue is really about. For example, Ohio has claimed more than $64 billion in defense contracts since the year 2000; this is not a point lost on Boehner. Which is my point; as long as the bacon is being brought back to your district, you’re only going to take this theatre so far. These guys are looking out for themselves first, their districts second, and the US taxpayer last. Boehner will not vote for anything that cuts off the goodies to his district or state. In other words, he’s talks about fiscal responsibility, but isn’t about to start believing it.
I started wondering who loses if we go over the cliff? Turns out lots of states. Here’s a source that’s interesting: http://www.governmentcontractswon.com/department/defense/ohio_counties.asp

If you follow the pork, you will be able to count the votes and this will have been just another dog and pony show.
On the fiscal cliff — I asked myself — why should Obama fight keeping the rates the same, but oppose deductions? I have to assume removing the deductions is a much bigger hit on the “rich”. Hollywood, liberal millionaires etc, many of them Obama donors don’t care about tax rates, they care about deductions. They’re way over the upper bracket now; another 3 or 4% is meaningless, because they don’t pay it. Obama knows this. But if you close the loopholes and eliminate deductions, that has the potential to hurt big money donors a great deal. Simply raising the tax rates a few percent is much harder on those who are near the $250k limit, who have no, or almost no deductions. So the idea this is all about fairness ought to be questioned — if he’s really about the rich paying their fair share, eliminate their deductions and see who comes out of the woodwork cheering. I’m betting it won’t be Hollywood or the Beyonce.
PS – I don’t think the US military would follow the orders to take up arms against its citizens. Nor do I think we would take to the streets with our guns. I certainly wouldn’t.

By: Don Carlos

Don Carlos — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:13:40 +0000

I urge those who think an armed uprising is A) possible and B) has even a minuscule chance of succeeding to hearken unto Geoffrey Britain’s posting at 10:16 pm above.

It ain’t gonna happen. It is delusional to think it might. Sorry. The only basis for so doing was States’ Rights, and we lost that in 1865. We have a super-Imperial Presidency and that is that.

By: physicsguy

physicsguy — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:58:24 +0000

I came in here to let everyone know of an article over at AT, and find a very similar conversation going on here….. armed rebellion. The AT article is

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/obama_wants_a_war.html

However, what really struck me was the tone and content of the comments. I am beginning to wonder how close we really are to an armed uprising. The anger is really starting to bubble over, and the effects of Jan.1 I would suspect only accelerate those feelings.

By: parker

parker — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 06:08:35 +0000

Steve,

What GB does not see is that it only takes 5% to just say no; the only question is what does it take to provoke the 5% to say no? I don’t know what is the tipping point, but there is a tipping point.

And, for all the talk of unintended consequences, there is a very good fictional take on the unintended consequences. http://tinyurl.com/c6sc4yu This is recommended reading for all who doubt that a few can confound, confuse, and defeat the lackadaisical running dog lackeys. I’ve thought about this long and hard. I will not stumble or fall if/when it comes down to the tipping point. If there is a god, I pray this calamity, should it begin, begins when I am still able to put the front sight on the head of a kevlar ninja. If it comes down to crash and burn I vow to burn before I crash. For the grandchildren.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 05:25:43 +0000

Geoffrey Britain, I doubt very much that Americans will submit to a government that takes away their property and uses the military against them. If that is the government’s response to a fiscal crisis (no matter how deep) I think people all over the country will start planning how to overthrow the government. It will be seen not only as the right but the duty of the people to overthrow the government. What will they do after overthrowing the government? They’ll establish a new one that protects their rights. Will people in the military stop them? I doubt it. The days of revolution by small arms are past. So what good are small arms? They will help deter violence.

By: parker

parker — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 04:40:28 +0000

From Breitbart: http://tinyurl.com/d4hqnkm

By: parker

parker — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 04:05:27 +0000

“complete seizure of personal assets”

Even Will Smith has his doubts about this proposition. http://tinyurl.com/c7s5myz. My son, my niece, and several 2nd and 3rd cousins no longer serve in the military. ASAP they left due to BHO.

“Absent concentration camps, non-violent political prisoners and summary execution of American citizens…”

How else will they seize personal assets? I’m not going to sign a blank check to the IRS or HLS. Are you? Will Brad Pitt or Will Smith?

By: J.J. formerly Jimmy J.

J.J. formerly Jimmy J. — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 03:46:43 +0000

Steve @ December 3rd, 2012 at 8:07 pm:

I’m with you on this. It has spending cuts and raises taxes on the rich in specific ways that would allow the Repubs to say, “We offered higher taxes.”
This seems to be even better than walking away because then the ball would really be in Obama’s and the dems court.

For those who haven’t read Professor Reynolds’ column, it’s here:
http://tinyurl.com/bormcm7

By: Geoffrey Britain

Geoffrey Britain — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 03:16:49 +0000

parker,

These are not the days of the revolution or even the civil war, where handguns and rifles could be determinative. When fiscal collapse and/or the tyranny of the left result in nationalization and seizure of personal assets, those who think that civil unrest, of which there will be plenty, will turn into a civil war are confusing wishful thinking with reality.

No States national guard units, much less any civilian ‘militia’ or guerilla resistance is going to be able to withstand the US military. And, even after a fiscal collapse, the Feds will occupy the legal, though certainly not the moral high ground.

The Feds will still credibly claim Constitutional authority, the President will, with the backing of Congress (certain during widespread rioting), have the legal right to declare martial law; the only method for reducing the rioting and civil unrest that will erupt after a fiscal collapse.

The States will have no Constitutionally legal mechanism for resisting the Feds and if the ‘red’ States refuse to comply with Federal directives, the US military will follow the directives of the President to force compliance.

The US military will do so because they are non-political and there will exist no Constitutionally legal rationale for refusing the President’s orders.

Absent concentration camps, non-violent political prisoners and summary execution of American citizens…the US military will not base its actions upon their evaluation of which Americans occupy the moral high ground.

The US military will follow the guidelines of Constitutional authority until and unless they are given orders that are clear and undeniably Constitutional violations and, even then, they will hesitate to displace the current civilian authorities.