Everyone is afraid of going over the fiscal cliff. I have watched the news for months on this, and I am a bit confused.
Wasn't the fiscal cliff put in place to force change if the government would not do it's job?
I understand the fiscal cliff to include tax increases and massive spending cuts, even to the military.
What is wrong with that. The dem want spending to stay the same and taxes to go up. the republicans want taxes to remain the same, and spending to decrease. While it is much more than that, this is it in a nut shell.
So going over the cliff makes both sides give to the other. Taxes go up (yeah say the dems) and spending is decreased (yeah say the repubs)
If there is a true concern of 16 trillion in debt, then why not let the government go over the cliff? Seems to me, if congress can not do what is right, then forcing them is the next best thing. I thought that was what the fiscal cliff was all about.
I would not mind paying more IF spending was decreased, the debt went down, and thing would be better for my kids in years to come. I do not think for one minute that more money flowing to Washington would do nothing more than increase the amount they would spend. So I choose to keep (and vote accordingly if it matters) as much as I can and plan on helping my kids as much as I can, regardless of what happens in Washington.
Someone tell me why not go over the cliff, then go from there. Let the chips fall where they may. Congress created this. Let them pay the price and if folks get upset, maybe some more change can be brought about from it.
Is it as clear as that, or am I missing a bunch of stuff?