What's this "deal" word?

Thank you!  I love that freakin' reference/pic!

It's not a trap.  The GOP would be wise to avoid pulling a Thelma and Louise off the fiscal cliff (all to ensure millionaires and billionaires save 5% off their income above $250k).  

It sure will be interesting.

It's true. I would rather have both parties pursue middle ground that does not meet all their demands but minimizes their losses instead of one side, the other, or both standing firm and saying it's their way or no way. That just leads to grid lock and even worse issues.

I can see how some of the GOP backers might be pushing them to pursue a deal or compromise though, what would be worse for some of them - a few higher taxes or loosing potentially millions if the stock markets dive off the fiscal cliff with the rest of the country.

It will be interesting to see how long this lasts.

I seem to remember a time when a "compromise" was reached and if both parties were raising wholly hell about it, that it was probably a pretty good deal. 

Seems to me both parties are at fault in this.  How about we compromise and everybodys taxes go up to pay for the stuff "we" want.

.

I don't necessarily agree that both parties are at fault.  It was many of the Tea Party individuals that specifically voiced that they would not compromise because that meant they were weak in their principles.  When the stance of one side is "no compromise", the other side really doesn't have anywhere to start.

or...decide what we as a country NEED (not necessarily "want"), figure out how much it's gonna cost and then develop a system where everyone pays into it...some more than others, without the "rich aren't paying their fair share" rhetoric

Then there is nothing left to say.  If you are so partisan that you refuse see that "your side" has had as big hand in the political gridlock as the other then nothing I can say will mean anything to you.

They refused to compromise because they wanted spending cuts.  The left has not offered any decent amount of cuts.  Raising taxes on anyone should be the last resort.

Yes please! 

I am so sick of that little gem: "fair is what we say it is and changes when we say it changes"  Kind of like a friend of mine keeps reminding me "some pigs are more equal than other"

well, when one side says that advocating spending within our means is "radical" it's hard for the other side to know where to start either....

Not partisan.  I'm stating what has happened.  One side has openly stated, proudly stated, that they will not compromise.  At all.  Where does that leave the conversation?  It becomes a non-starter. 

Fortunately, once those individuals have actually made it into Congress, they have seen that they cannot be that way.  But at this point, the over arching viewis that Republicans have been obstructionist, not Democrats. 

Don't disagree that spending within our means should be considered radical.  It is logical.  So maybe you are both right.  One is open about it and the other is not.  Maybe both sides are to blame. 

There was a "grand bargain" on the table last year that they refused because they didn't want it to appear that Obama had made any progress on the debt and because it raised revenues. 

I agree with Crowny, if your compromise is spending cuts only, that's not very much compromise. See the republican primary debate where every candidate rejected 10-1 spending cuts for revenue increases. 

Why not?  Is there anyone who thinks we don't spend too much?  Have you seen our debt  numbers?  The "compromise" should be how MUCH we cut spending.  Not IF we cut spending.

I agree with them.  A dollar cut in spending is a dollar raised in revenue.  There is no need to raise revenue when there is room to cut spending.  And there is PLENTY of room to cut spending.

I agree and I think the dem's have agreed as well, hence the "grand bargain" which contained more spending cuts than tax increases. Tax rates are at historic lows, though and the mess we are in can't be fixed by cuts alone. Therefore completely taking one option off the table isn't compromise. The Rep's have effectively said we would not accept a deal that had $10T in spending cuts if it also contained $1T in tax increases. That shows that you aren't serious about wanting to get debt under control and that you aren't willing to compromise.

My point is so has the other side, Repeatedly, after all as Obama said himself.  "I won the election Eric"  or do you not remember him telling house Reps it's my way or the high way on a number of topics?  Do you not remember Harry Reid refusing to allow bills to come up for a vote because he didn't like them and they might actually pass, including a budget that has not been passed in 4 years?

"Fiscal Cliff"- I say BRING IT ON!

Most economists say the short term effects are non-existent; in fact it would be a stronger show of leadership ?and thus more reasuring to the fiscal markets, because the country would actually be working to address the budget/deficit.   Only then can both sides walk away with some measure of compromise; Repubs can tout spending cuts and Dems can claim they raised tax revenue.  Win-Win.

Why did it have ANY tax increases at all?

I 99% disagree with the second statement.  I believe we can fix a LOT of the issue with cuts alone.  If, after we have exhausted all the cuts, we still need to increase taxes then I'm all for it.

That's like ordering a 96oz t-bone AND ice cream because you're pretty sure you'll finish all the steak.  How about you finish the steak THEN if still hungry, order dessert.

ETA: And by cuts I also mean restricting and revamping things like SS and Medicare.  They can no longer be the sacred cows.

Here's why I think cuts alone won't work courtesy of wikipedia.

That means we literally have to cut expenditures by more than a third to balance the budget. That's 1/3 of every single item could be cut and we wouldn't have a balanced budget.

I just want to add on the "cuts vs raising taxes/revenue" debate that I also do not think cuts alone are enough to solve our current issues. What programs are you going to touch and what are you going to leave alone and how will those cuts effect the economy down the line. Sure it sounds great to cut all the government subsidies going to agriculture or cattle farms but if you cut those, suddenly either the farmers and giant farm conglomerates can't afford to keep farming due to the cost or they have to raise prices which means more people cannot afford food. The same goes for any other cut out there where the risks have to be considered along side the gain of simply balancing the budget. Hence a balanced approach of cuts and revenue increase needs to be approached in a measured and thoughtful way.

I always say people want to cut the fat but only for programs that arent theres or do not effect them. In America, it might be impossible to identify what ISN'T fat, when everyone see's fat in everything that is not theirs.