Fiscal Cliff - Manufactured by the Republicans

I have blamed Bush. Maybe you missed them? Bush and the Republican Congress ran up huge debts. Obama and the Democrat Congress did the same on steroids. Ever wonder why the Senate under Reid hasn't passed a budget in 4 years? With no budget, they can spend whatever they want.

We're being robbed blind by the federal government while liberals/progressives/Socialists/Marxists/Communists (whatever-the-name-of-the-day is) tell them to steal more.

By the way, Bush and certain members of Congress attempted to put regulations on the housing market and the free-for-all lending practices of Fannie and Freddie, but we all know that Dodd and Franks squelched that. Everything was fine and we should all invest in real estate. Remember that?

 

Seriously, stop with the fanny/freddy lie, you look foolish and are acting the tool.

 

Can we restore Federal spending to the Clinton era levels then too?

You might then get some support


And not that the tax rates during the Clinton era were a panacea that can explain the periods growth, but what industry do you expect to create a synonymous dot.com boom that he was fortunate enough to preside during?

thanks

 

Well this is partially true. Even with a budget they can spend whatever they want. They just off budget borrow.

 

I don't debate Obama Moron voters.

 

THIS^

Thanks.

 

Originally Posted by Trumanp

Restore the tax rates to Clinton era levels.

We all know that spending will not be decreased. The National Socialist Demoncraps have too many freebies to hand out in order to keep buying votes.

I say, let the sequestration begin. Lets go over the cliff and impose the mandatory cuts as called for. That is the only way cuts will be made, and even those aren't real cuts but just reductions in the increases for the next year.

Call Obama's bluff and stop any "negotiations", now.

 

to all ::::::::::::::::::

while we are discussing the facts and theories of the current economy, there are still other current events in the background.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Afghan Drug War From Blackwater's HQ
By Spencer Ackerman

22 November 12



he U.S. war in Afghanistan is supposed to be winding down. Its contractor-led drug war? Not so much.

Inside a compound in Kabul called Camp Integrity, the Pentagon stations a small group of officers to oversee the U.S. military's various operations to curb the spread of Afghanistan's cash crops of heroin and marijuana, which help line the Taliban's pockets. Only Camp Integrity isn't a U.S. military base at all. It's the 10-acre Afghanistan headquarters of the private security company formerly known as Blackwater.

Those officers work for an obscure Pentagon agency called the Counter Narco-Terrorism Program Office, or CNTPO. Quietly, it's grown into one of the biggest dispensers of cash for private security contractors in the entire U.S. government: One pile of contracts last year from CNTPO was worth more than $3 billion. And it sees a future for itself in Afghanistan over the long haul.

Earlier this month, a U.S. government solicitation sought to hire a security firm to help CNTPO "maintain a basic, operational support cell" in Kabul. Army Lt. Col. James Gregory, a Pentagon spokesman, explains that "cell" doesn't kick in the doors of any Afghan narco-kingpins. It handles the more mundane tasks of overseeing the contracts of the Pentagon's counter-narcotics programs, from "training and linguists, and [providing] supplies, such as vehicles and equipment." The solicitation, however, indicates those services aren't going anywhere: When all the options are exercised, the contract extends through September 29, 2015, over a year past the date when Afghan soldiers and cops are supposed to take over the war. And the "government preferred location" to base CNTPO? Camp Integrity.

The envisioned Pentagon counter-narco-terrorism staff is pretty small: only two to four personnel. But protecting them at Camp Integrity is serious business. The November 6 solicitation calls for a security firm that can "provide a secure armory and weapons maintenance service, including the ability to check-in and check-out weapons and ammunition," particularly 9 mm pistols and M4 rifles; and to provide "secure armored" transportation to the CNTPO team - primarily "in and around Kabul, but could include some remote locations."

CNTPO has a longstanding relationship with Blackwater, the infamous security firm that is now known as Academi. In 2009, it gave Blackwater a contract to train Afghan police, and company employees used that contract to requisition guns from the U.S. military for their private use. Although that contract was ultimately taken out of CNTPO's hands, the office's relationship with Academi/Blackwater endures. Last year, Academi told Danger Room it has a contract with CNTPO, worth an undisclosed amount, to provide "all-source intelligence analyst support and material procurement" for Afghanistan. An Academi spokeswoman, Kelley Gannon, declined to comment on Academi's relationship with CNTPO, or whether it'll bid on the new contract.

But its deal with Academi is just a small slice of CNTPO's efforts. It's got a sprawling mandate to fight drugs and terrorism. Last year, CNTPO offered security firms at least $3 billion, excluding the re-up options, for tasks as diverse as training Azerbaijani commandos and "airlift services in the trans-Sahara region of Africa." Some of its tasks appear to have little connections to either counterterrorism or counternarcotics, like "media analysis and web-site development consultation to officials of the Government of Pakistan."

All that points to an enduring role for the military going after drugs and drug money in Afghanistan. It's certainly an enduring problem: On Tuesday, the United Nations found that Afghan poppy cultivation rose nearly 20 percent over the past two years, especially in the southwestern Helmand province. Just last week, the U.S. military took the unusual step of classifying Mullah Naim Barich, the top Taliban operative in Helmand, as a "significant foreign narcotics trafficker or kingpin,'" allowing the U.S. to target companies that do business with him.

But the U.S. mission in Afghanistan isn't supposed to be about going after drugs anymore. It wasn't one of the residual missions that Gen. Joseph Dunford, President Obama's nominee to run the Afghanistan war, described to the Senate last week. But since the Pentagon gives its counter-drug/counter-terrorism operations such a broad mission, a residual force in Afghanistan might find itself going after Barich and his illicit colleagues for years to come, all supported from Academi's Kabul compound.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it is time to ask ourselves ?who really won the war in afghanistan? that is to say who won the previous war ? or is this the same war ? how many wars have there been in afghanistan recently ? how many times may the USA foreign policy win the same war in the same geo-political area ?

 

The fiscal cliff may be GOP manufactured (I'd say this is at least partly true, because Bush disingenuously had his tax cuts expiring so the budget impact report from the CBO would cause less sticker shock), but at this point it's very real. In particular it's real because of the impact the uncertainty about it can have (and is already having) on the market.

More on this, I was watching this video talking about the impact of falling off the fiscal cliff and how it would impact Canada (stick with me a moment). In particular, the market uncertainty is already impacting investment from Canada's business leaders + in the short-term the market ramifications of the US falling off the fiscal cliff would be very painful for the Canadian economy. That said, long-term, the prospects of both economies might actually be *better off* if the GOP + the Dems can't work out a deal.

When you think about say Simpson-Bowles and what it seeks to accomplish (raising taxes, cutting military spending etc.) at least some of that would be accomplished by the US "falling" off the fiscal cliff. The issue is that some of the tax cuts that will expire would harm lower income households, and the right way to do it is tax the super wealthy. Still, over the long-term it might be helpful for the US if the congressional stalemate was to persist, and for the economy to take the Fiscal Cliff plunge.