What's this "deal" word? (Page 2)

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.

Then why are we spending the money we do not have.  Some program can be cut 100%.  Others will be less than 1/3.  It's tighten the belt time people.

And maybe we do need to increase revenue.  But really, do you trust these people to take the extra revenue and put it to good use?  I sure as hell don't.  Make the good faith effort to do some REAL cutting.  Then once you've proven you can do it, come back and ask for more money.  I'll be happy to pay then.

There has been ZERO effort to change SS or other entitlement programs.  Why should I just "trust" them to do it after they raise taxes.

You're a Gary Johnson supporter.  You should trust gov't to screw it up whenever possible.

ETA: I would be OK with closing some of the loopholes and subsidies the US currently has to help increase revenues.  But raising taxes on the middle and upper class.  Nope.

Loopholes/tax breaks would be the preferred route IMO. Another reason that cuts alone won't work IMO. DoD (DoD only, not homeland security, VA, etc), SS, Medicare, Medicaid alone are about equal to our revenues. $2.369T in those categories in 2012 vs $2.469T revenues.

"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. 

Maybe I just mis-heard on the news 10 seconds ago, but didn't the CBO say it would trigger a recession?