Tim Kaine says no one wants to fall off the fiscal cliff. Lawrence O'Donnell is rooting for a fall

[No Elephants]

off the fiscal cliff. Patty Murray says she has no problem with falling off the fiscal cliff.

I don't have a lot of respect for Tim Kaine's opinion because I saw what he did with the DNC and because he is a RW Democrat.

Anyone here have an opinion on falling off the fiscal cliff?

[Enthusiast]

1. Falling off the fiscal cliff might

be the only viable method of paring down military spending to reasonable levels. Am I correct on that, No Elephants?

[No Elephants]

3. I don't know. It's a rare time I don't have an opinion!

[Divine Discontent]

2. sounds like a way to wake up the nation that we need to raise new revenue on those making over 200K,

let the Bush tax cuts pass, and take a bite out of the bloated military budget, and zap away every one of the handouts we give to rogue nations and corporations. I'm not any kind of financial expert, but if it wouldn't make things much worse, then I'd say go for it.

[No Elephants]

4. Let's tell the truth and shame the devil, as some church folk say..

The truth about the so-called "Bush" tax cuts. We've been under the Democratic tax cuts since January 2009.

Bush left office in 2008 and did not even attempt to exercise any power whatever after he left.

The Democrats could have repealed the "Bush" tax cuts at any time after Obama's inauguration, on the grounds of economic collapse. They chose not to do that, nor did Obama ask them to do that. So, in reality, after 2009, we've been living under Democratic tax cuts.

The Democrats having failed to take any action about tax cuts, however, the Bush tax cuts expired, by their own terms.

In violation of an oft-repeated 2008 campaign promise, including to Not Joe the Not Plumber, Obama did an end run around Congress and cut a deal with the Senate Minority Leader, while Democrats still held both houses of Congress, as well as the Oval Office.

So, since January 2009, we have lived under the tax cuts that both a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President left in place. Calling them Bush tax cuts four years after Democrats could have repealed them and two years after after the Bush tax cuts expired in accordance with their own terms is just too conveninet for me. And, it too conveniently disguises reality. IMO, being out of reality is never a good or healthy thing.

As far as "if it wouldn't make things worse," that is the rub, isn't it? Sure, many Democrats like raising taxes and cutting the defense budget. Those things were supposedly the stick for the Republicans and the carrot for the Democrats, but there were also cuts to social programs in the sequester that were supposed to be the stick for Democrats and the carrot for Republicans.

As usual, hear mostly only one side.

[No Elephants]

5. I apologize. DD. Looking further, I think falling off the fiscal cliff is not too bad

from a Dem perspective, though some of the tax increases could hurt people who make as little as $37K a year, as well as people who lose their jobs. I hate to see that! Also, if medicare reimbursement gets cut, we could see more doctors refusing to accept Medicare.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/08/news/economy/fiscal-cliff/index.html?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_t2

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. Fiscal cliff would be terrible for my family but the problem is...

My mother still works (in federally funded research.)

But the problem is...

The sequesters are targeted to be punitive and therefore unacceptable.

So the logic at the time is that cuts to defense and cuts to research
are equally unacceptable.

They were designed (by the Administration + a bipartisan Congress) to punish congressional voters if they failed to implement the Social Security catfood panel recommendations that nopony asked for and nopony wanted to implement.

Plus, now MSM has convinced most "liberal" voters that ending the Bush tax cuts is similarly punitive and hence just as unacceptable.

By artificially tying something unacceptable to something previously acceptable or desirable, they can make anything seem acceptable or unacceptable to the fickle low-information "progressive" or "conservative" voter. Like with mandatory private health care being seen as a bedrock liberal principle because "without it we wouldn't have no preexisting conditions".

[No Elephants]

7. In my observation, few today care about principles.

It's all about the red team and the blue team. If you are a Republican, you support whatever Republican politicians do and oppose whatever Democratic politicians do; and if you are a Democrat, you support whatever Democratic politicians do and oppose whatever Republican politicians do.

Maybe this is why the two sides of Congress can't find common ground anymore. People can unify around principles. The only way to get the other side to agree with you nowadays, though, is to change political parties.

And that extends to partisan media and to voters.