The US fiscal cliff - would it really be a bad thing?

[Ian]

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt." - John Boehner.

I was always impressed by how much he stood up to the Bush administration when the debt skyrocketed during those eight years...
//sarcasm.

[Coito ergo sum]

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt." - John Boehner.

I was always impressed by how much he stood up to the Bush administration when the debt skyrocketed during those eight years...
//sarcasm.

So, since it wasn't done properly in 2007, this is wrong now?

[Ian]

Not wrong, just hyperbole and hypocrisy. How many times was the debt ceiling raised before Obama's term? And now these guys come out of the woodwork as suddenly in favor of cutting everything in sight. It's little wonder Congress in recent years has a public approval rating lower than most serial killers.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not wrong, just hyperbole and hypocrisy. How many times was the debt ceiling raised before Obama's term? And now these guys come out of the woodwork as suddenly in favor of cutting everything in sight. It's little wonder Congress in recent years has a public approval rating lower than most serial killers.

Actually, the quote I attributed to Boehner was Barack Obama. Only, now, Obama's all for increases in the debt limit, and it's no longer a failure of leadership.

Another thing I find humorous is the reporting on the "proposals" regarding this "fiscal cliff." NPR is fucking hilarious. This morning the "fiscal cliff" was referred to as "the fiscal cliff THAT CONGRESS CREATED." LOL -- nevermind that it was a deal struck which included the White House as part of those negotiations. They all created it, but NPR has to insulate the White House. And, of course, nowadays "Congress" is a media reference to "Republicans," because the common theme is that the Republicans control Congress, when they really don't (Democrats control half -- the Senate -- and the Republicans control the other half - the House of Representatives).

Then, NPR portrayed the White House's proposals here as eminently reasonable -- tax hikes and some nonspecific spending cuts. But, the GOP proposal was immediately cautioned with "but the numbers don't add up to balance the budget." Of course, NEITHER DOES THE WHITE HOUSE'S NUMBERS! But, NPR doesn't qualify the White House's proposal. The White House's proposal was characterized as "a balanced proposal of tax hikes for the [unfortunately worded] wealthiest among us, and a panoply of spending cuts." Whereas the Republican proposal was draconian spending cuts, an increase in Medicare eligibility, etc., and no tax hikes, and the numbers don't add up.

And, lastly -- why the fuck does the media not ask what the Congressional Democrats have as a proposal? It's "The White House's [reasonable/balanced] proposal," and Congressional Republicans proposal [which doesn't add up]. Congressional Democrats are never mentioned, and never asked why or whether they will ever pass a budget. It just doesn't matter.

I love listening to NPR, but more often than not it's just for the lulz. They are so flamingly biased in their presentations, it makes FoxNews look like a piker.

The only thing worse than their news coverage is their little "slice of life" vinettes where they have a narrator mutter the story in sort of hushed, semi-serious, sorta dejected tones, and they intersperse the story with fake background noises (like when they're talking in a restaurant, they overdub noises of silverware and background conversation, or when walking down the street they add street noise and a hot dog vendor speaking bruskly...

NPR...a radio station of douchebags.

[Ian]

Not wrong, just hyperbole and hypocrisy. How many times was the debt ceiling raised before Obama's term? And now these guys come out of the woodwork as suddenly in favor of cutting everything in sight. It's little wonder Congress in recent years has a public approval rating lower than most serial killers.

Actually, the quote I attributed to Boehner was Barack Obama. Only, now, Obama's all for increases in the debt limit, and it's no longer a failure of leadership.

Of course it is. And I know where the original quote came from. But there's a huge difference between taking a purely symbolic stance against increasing the debt limit when you know it's certain to be passed (what Obama did as a Senator) and actually rallying your party to try and block it for the first time in history, knowing that the country would go into default as a result (what Boehner did as Speaker). Orange-skinned crybaby jackass.

Besides, even before these fiscal cliff negotiations (if that's what we want to call them) began, the federal deficit began going down. Not nearly enough of course, but it is. That's not something the previous administration could ever claim. Credit the House if you like, I don't care.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not wrong, just hyperbole and hypocrisy. How many times was the debt ceiling raised before Obama's term? And now these guys come out of the woodwork as suddenly in favor of cutting everything in sight. It's little wonder Congress in recent years has a public approval rating lower than most serial killers.

Actually, the quote I attributed to Boehner was Barack Obama. Only, now, Obama's all for increases in the debt limit, and it's no longer a failure of leadership.

Of course it is. And I know where the original quote came from. But there's a huge difference between taking a purely symbolic stance against increasing the debt limit when you know it's certain to be passed (what Obama did as a Senator) and actually rallying your party to try and block it for the first time in history, knowing that the country would go into default as a result (what Boehner did as Speaker). Orange-skinned crybaby jackass.

There is no difference. Obama's opposition was not "symbolic." Either he meant what he said, or he didn't. He wasn't kidding, or sending a message that we need to collectively "be concerned" about it. He called it "a failure of leadership." You're just engaging in mental gymnastics to give credit to the same conduct on the one hand, but descry it on the other.

Besides, even before these fiscal cliff negotiations (if that's what we want to call them) began, the federal deficit began going down. Not nearly enough of course, but it is. That's not something the previous administration could ever claim. Credit the House if you like, I don't care.

It also went up under Obama in his first term. It only went down in FY 2012, and that was the first time it went down, and it did not go down because of anything Obama did, since they did nothing but increase spending, and according to Obama followers he net reduced taxes. So, if what he did is "working" then why don't we do more of it? Why the insistence on raising taxes, if it is true that he really cut taxes and increased spending. Why not cut taxes more, or at least just keep them the same. If we're heading in the right direction -- why not just keep heading that way?

[Gerald McGrew]

Polling is now showing that the American public 1) will blame Congressional Republicans if an agreement isn't reached, and 2) is rejecting Republican proposals.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/0 ... f-argument

[Coito ergo sum]

Polling is now showing that the American public 1) will blame Congressional Republicans if an agreement isn't reached, and 2) is rejecting Republican proposals.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/0 ... f-argument

That's why I have no idea why the GOP doesn't just roll over and agree to a tax hike on those making $250,000 or more, provided the President makes good on his pledge (already broken) that nobody making under $250,000 would see even "one dime" of a tax increase.

Also - it's funny - in 1990, a Democratic controlled Congress raised taxes, and George HWBush didn't veto it. Who got blamed? George HW Bush, and not the Democrat Congress. The Democrats ran him out of office, claiming he broke his promise of "no new taxes," but then the Democrats championed those very same taxes!

So, if Congress raises taxes now, and Obama signs the bill into law, then shouldn't he be credited with the tax hike, like GHWBush was?

And, you get things like Geithner talking about how we need to go back the Clinton era taxes, which were during good economic times, obviously implying that the higher taxes will make help us return to those economic times, which nobody actually argues from an economics perspective is what follows from tax hikes.

[Ian]

Nobody argues that? Really?

[Coito ergo sum]

Nobody argues that? Really?

Who argues that raising taxes helps the economy?

Certainly Geithner wasn't -- he was making sure he implied it -- by associating the higher taxes and the better economic conditions at the time -- but he was very careful (if you read his words) not to literally express a cause/effect. There's a reason for that careful parsing. It's not an accident.

[Gerald McGrew]

That's why I have no idea why the GOP doesn't just roll over and agree to a tax hike on those making $250,000 or more, provided the President makes good on his pledge (already broken) that nobody making under $250,000 would see even "one dime" of a tax increase.

IMO, it's a result of their ideology.

Also - it's funny - in 1990, a Democratic controlled Congress raised taxes, and George HWBush didn't veto it. Who got blamed? George HW Bush, and not the Democrat Congress. The Democrats ran him out of office, claiming he broke his promise of "no new taxes," but then the Democrats championed those very same taxes!

It was the "read my lips" video byte that cost him.

So, if Congress raises taxes now, and Obama signs the bill into law, then shouldn't he be credited with the tax hike, like GHWBush was?

Given that he specifically campaigned on allowing the W. Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire, plus the polling that shows it's very popular with the public, I don't see how him doing that would be seen as a negative.

And, you get things like Geithner talking about how we need to go back the Clinton era taxes, which were during good economic times, obviously implying that the higher taxes will make help us return to those economic times, which nobody actually argues from an economics perspective is what follows from tax hikes.

I think it's a counter to the conservative mantra that allowing the W. Bush tax breaks for the wealthy to expire will doom the economy and the country.

[laklak]

Drive the motherfucker right off the cliff. Quit fucking around. I want to see absolutely draconian cuts across the board and huge tax increases for everybody. You wanted him, you got him. When he drops his 250,000 to 100,000, and then to 50,000 - that's what I'm waiting for. I can't wait for the corporate tax rate (already the highest in the developed world) to hit 40 or 50%, fuck it, go for 90%. See how this Grand Experiment works when 75% of small business owners say Fuck It and over 50% of the population is on the Government Tit (trust me, I'll be sucking harder than anyone). Tax capital gains at 50%. 95% Estate taxes. $10 a gallon gasoline, $10 a pack for ciggies, 200% excise tax on alcohol. Maybe a national sales tax and VAT. Do it, just fucking do it. Stop this gradual slide into Greecehood, just go ahead and jump in. Let the economy crash, let the riots and cannibalism start. I'll just head for the mountains, I got plenty of land and ammo. Do it.

[amused]

Shit, and all this time I thought laklak was the reasonable one.

[Drewish]

Military cuts. Cuts to social programs. An end to the Bush tax cuts. Why would I NOT want us to drive off the cliff?

[Tero]

There is now talk of cutting farm aid. All those farmers that take gubment support and then vote Republican.