I'm posting this thread in order to clarify and highlight just how silly the current debate over the fiscal cliff really is. Much has been made about the idea of raising taxes on the rich as huge point of contention between the Democrats and Republicans. Case in point, opinion articles like this - An opening for Obama on deficits, debt and taxes - latimes.com Regardless of where you stand on a continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy or not (personally I'm not in favor), it's important to understand just how small and trivial this amount is in comparison to out current financial problems. The article above points out those referenced tax cuts amount to about $700 billion over ten years. I've heard other estimates that go as high as about $800 billion over ten years. That means, we are arguing over a sum of $70-80 billion of new revenue annually. Does anyone have any idea how small a number that is in relation to our deficits and debt? That equals about 6% of the last fiscal year's $1.1 trillion deficit and about .004% of our current debt. This country is in such bad financial shape, that even if we went over the so-called "fiscal cliff", it still wouldn't solve anything - If the U.S. goes over the fiscal cliff, do we still need to raise the debt ceiling? So next time anyone want to make an argument in favor or against raising taxes on the rich, I just hope you understand how small and miniscule this issue is in the grand scheme of things. And that fighting about this or pretending that this would play any significant role in reducing the debt and deficit is quite silly.