Fiscal cliff definition:
The fiscal cliff is a newly coined term (by Democrats) referring to the effect of a number of laws that (if unchanged) could result in tax increases, spending cuts, (this is where the argument lay. Dems want more tax increases that are already built in, but none of the spending cuts.) and a corresponding reduction in the US budget deficit beginning in 2013. The deficit — the difference between what the government takes in and what it spends — is expected to be reduced by roughly half in 2013. That sharp reduction in the deficit is the cliff. (Should be a good thing ?)The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the sudden reduction will probably lead to a recession in early 2013 with the pace of economic activity picking up after 2013. (Better to take the hit now than later, when it’ll be much worse affect on the economy. This battle is about the Obama team covering it up, if at all possible, to happen sometime after the 2nd Presidential term. Which will be much more devastating for America in 2016 with deficits predicted to approach $20 TRILLION.)
The laws leading to the fiscal cliff include the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and planned spending cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Budget Control Act of 2011 was enacted as a compromise to resolve a dispute concerning the public debt ceiling. ( Obama & the Dems now after election time want to ignore the Budget Control Act. Predictable from the start. A never ending story. Tax now, cut later. The later for Dems. never happens.)
The year-over-year projected changes for fiscal years 2012–2013 include a 19.63% increase in tax revenue ( not counting the 3.5% capital gain tax increase on IRA’s and 401K’s and the hidden taxes in the Obama care plan) and 0.25% reduction in spending. (The spending reduction could be done easily. Only .25%, miniscule. But the Dems fighting any reduction in spending. They only want to increase spending and grow Gov. ) These changes would return tax revenue to approximately its historical average of 18% GDP, while continuing to spend at dollar levels held approximately the same since 2009.[1] Some major programs, like Social Security, Medicaid, federal pay (including military pay and pensions), and veterans' benefits, are exempted from the spending cuts. Spending for federal agencies and cabinet departments would be reduced through broad, shallow cuts referred to as budget sequestration. ( Washington budgets have a built in 6% – 8% increase annually. The actual Washington definition of a spending cut is less % annual increase, not actually less total spend than the year before. The U.S. Gov. Has never spent less from one year to the next. NEVER !!!)
The United States public debt ( as of now each child in U.S. owes over $200,000 to our debt) would continue to grow even if no mitigating actions are taken to avoid the fiscal cliff. However, over the next ten years projected increases in the debt would be lowered by as much as $7.1 trillion or about 70%, resulting in a considerably lower ratio of debt relative to the size of the economy. Because of the short-term impact on the economy, including a possible recession, the fiscal cliff has stirred intense commentary both inside and outside of Congress (mosly inside of Congress to purposely scare the public and not be honest about what we face ) and have led to calls to extend some or all of the tax cuts, and to replace the across-the-board reductions with more targeted (“more targeted” means –less Gov. Cutbacks and more Spending) cutbacks. Additionally, the debate may be exacerbated by the expectation that the debt ceiling is expected to be reached before the end of 2012,[note 1] unless "extraordinary measures" are used.[2] Nearly all proposals to avoid the fiscal cliff involve extending certain parts of the 2010 Tax Relief Act or changing the 2011 Budget Control Act or both, thus making the deficit larger by reducing taxes and/or increasing spending.

The whole idea of the “FISCAL CLIFF” is to get the public’s mind off of the fact that Washington has a “SPENDING” problem, not a revenue problem. We have republicans that are claiming to be “fiscal conservatives” that are nothing more than “LIARS” that should just switch to being democrats. The “Show” congress is putting on at this time is all SMOKE AND MIRRORS, LIES and DISTRACTIONS . How many times in the last few years have we seen this act ? And the media continues to support the latest fiction story in Washington and award the supporting actors. Always a few in Washington battling for the Emmy in these “Washington D.C. Shows”. Supported by the State run media.

The real issue is very simple. Don’t spend more than you take in !!! The U.S. Gov. Is a hungry monster that has an insatiable appite for the publics personal property. It is not the rich that will take the biggest hit, but the middle class and workers.

WAKE UP AMERICA !

I say let the bush tax cuts sunset, everybody is responsible for the debt not just the rich...that would bring in the money needed so that we dont hit the debt ceiling which we would sometime in feb.....by extending the time needed to work out a deal, which republicans have offered a deal closing loop holds and taking away deductions that would raise the revenue that obama wants through higher tax rates......the problem really is not that we dont take in enough revenue through the current tax plan but that we are spending too much......If dems are not willing to cut spending and reduce the automatic spending increases that happen every year then repubs should let it all come crashing down on bo's head......it will crash one way or the other......and I think it is funny that harry wont let obamas plan go to a vote, knowing that it has no chance of passing even with a dem controlled senate............obama needs to reread what his commission has said.....simpson/bowles has some great ideas...i dont like all of their findings but most of them would benefit we the people and curb our debt and annual deficit....