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

[Drewish]

There is now talk of cutting farm aid. All those farmers that take gubment support and then vote Republican big agro-businesses that have bought off both parties.

FTFY

[Tero]

Many states have rigged it so "family" farms have some support at all times. Of course, there is drought, insurance etc.

I'm not complaining the support, just the conservative Jesus votes.

[Svartalf]

Tero, you are wise beyond your chemistry.

[Tero]

I love the Boehner Obama pissing contest. All in the media. And Boehner wants his Christmas turkey.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Well, I think they haven't thought this part through, because Obama can't fix it anymore. He already broke his promise on the no taxes for those making under $250,000. So, the Republicans have a chance to offer him exactly what Obama says he is o.k. with, but now he can't deliver, unless he repeals a bunch of the taxes in Obamacare.

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.

Yes, but it puts the lie to the argument sold around here that Democrats are all honorable, and the GOP are the big bad guys. The Democrats crucified GHWBush for agreeing to the tax increase that the Democrats wanted, and of course the deal was that spending cuts were part of the deal. And, what happened? The tax hike came, and the spending cuts didn't. And, GHWBush was blamed for the tax hike, and the Democrats blamed him -- for the tax hike they wanted.

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.

Because when the economy goes back into recession, he ought to take the blame. What the people find now acceptable will suddenly be exactly the opposite.

And, if that doesn't happen, then of course the GOP will be proven wrong, so you're correct on this. The GOP need to put their money where their mouth is.

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.

If you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, it will hurt the economy. That isn't even seriously contested. Those that argue for the tax hikes say that we need the money, and that we have to bite the bullet. They don't say that the tax hikes will not hurt the economy. They say we have no other choice but to hurt the economy in order to raise the tax money.

[Gerald McGrew]

Because when the economy goes back into recession, he ought to take the blame. What the people find now acceptable will suddenly be exactly the opposite.

And, if that doesn't happen, then of course the GOP will be proven wrong, so you're correct on this. The GOP need to put their money where their mouth is.

Right...it's a test of predictions. The conservatives are predicting that if tax cuts for the wealthy expire, it'll plunge us into a recession. The Democrats are saying it won't and that it's needed to 1) reduce deficits, and 2) reign in rapidly growing income inequality.

Obama ran specifically on the latter and won. Time to do it and see who's right.

If you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, it will hurt the economy. That isn't even seriously contested.

No one is contesting that allowing the cuts for the wealthy to expire will hurt the economy? No one?

Those that argue for the tax hikes say that we need the money, and that we have to bite the bullet. They don't say that the tax hikes will not hurt the economy. They say we have no other choice but to hurt the economy in order to raise the tax money.

Um....what liberal sources are you getting this from?

[Coito ergo sum]

Because when the economy goes back into recession, he ought to take the blame. What the people find now acceptable will suddenly be exactly the opposite.

And, if that doesn't happen, then of course the GOP will be proven wrong, so you're correct on this. The GOP need to put their money where their mouth is.

Right...it's a test of predictions. The conservatives are predicting that if tax cuts for the wealthy expire, it'll plunge us into a recession. The Democrats are saying it won't and that it's needed to 1) reduce deficits, and 2) reign in rapidly growing income inequality.

Obama ran specifically on the latter and won. Time to do it and see who's right.

Well, I would make Obama put his money where his mouth is. He also campaigned on "nobody making under $250,000 would see a dime in tax increase." I would offer the tax hike on the higher income folks, if Obama pledges to do what is necessary to honor that commitment. If he won't, then the GOP can say "he already lied about the tax increase on those making less than $250,000," so we aren't going to raise taxes unless he'll get rid of his promise-breaking tax hikes on the middle class.

If you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, it will hurt the economy. That isn't even seriously contested.

No one is contesting that allowing the cuts for the wealthy to expire will hurt the economy? No one?

Correct. There are some that say that allowing the portion of the tax cuts that applied to incomes over $250,000 to expire will not drive us into recession. But, there is nobody arguing that it will help the economy.

Who do you think is arguing otherwise? Post exactly what they're saying.

Those that argue for the tax hikes say that we need the money, and that we have to bite the bullet. They don't say that the tax hikes will not hurt the economy. They say we have no other choice but to hurt the economy in order to raise the tax money.

Um....what liberal sources are you getting this from?

Just post the ones that suggest that the tax hikes are booster to the economy. We'll talk about them.

[Gerald McGrew]

Well, I would make Obama put his money where his mouth is.

Weird. I don't think you'd have to "make" him allow the W. Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

He also campaigned on "nobody making under $250,000 would see a dime in tax increase." I would offer the tax hike on the higher income folks, if Obama pledges to do what is necessary to honor that commitment. If he won't, then the GOP can say "he already lied about the tax increase on those making less than $250,000," so we aren't going to raise taxes unless he'll get rid of his promise-breaking tax hikes on the middle class.

Under Obama, the net result has been a decrease in federal taxes on those making under $250k.

If I take $5 from you, but give you $15, is your conclusion going to be, "He took $5"?

There are some that say that allowing the portion of the tax cuts that applied to incomes over $250,000 to expire will not drive us into recession. But, there is nobody arguing that it will help the economy.

Who do you think is arguing otherwise? Post exactly what they're saying.

You're changing your argument. First you asserted that no one was contesting, "If you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, it will hurt the economy". Now you're saying, "No one is arguing it will help the economy".

The CBO projected that allowing the top end cuts to expire will have no real effect.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/1 ... ?mobile=nc

"Extending all expiring tax provisions other than the cut in the payroll tax and indexing the AMT for inflation—except for allowing the expiration of lower tax rates on income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single taxpayers—would boost real GDP by about 1¼ percent by the end of 2013. That effect is nearly as large as the effect of making all of those changes in law and extending the lower tax rates on higher incomes as well (which CBO estimates to be a little less than 1½ percent, as noted above), primarily because the budgetary impact would be nearly as large (and secondarily because the extension of lower tax rates on higher incomes would have a relatively small effect on output per dollar of budgetary cost)."

IOW, the CBO agrees allowing the top cuts to expire will not hurt the economy. That's why Congressional Republicans tried to hide the report.

[Coito ergo sum]

There are some that say that allowing the portion of the tax cuts that applied to incomes over $250,000 to expire will not drive us into recession. But, there is nobody arguing that it will help the economy.

Who do you think is arguing otherwise? Post exactly what they're saying.

You're changing your argument. First you asserted that no one was contesting, "If you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, it will hurt the economy". Now you're saying, "No one is arguing it will help the economy".

The CBO projected that allowing the top end cuts to expire will have no real effect.



http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/1 ... ?mobile=nc

"Extending all expiring tax provisions other than the cut in the payroll tax and indexing the AMT for inflation—except for allowing the expiration of lower tax rates on income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single taxpayers—would boost real GDP by about 1¼ percent by the end of 2013. That effect is nearly as large as the effect of making all of those changes in law and extending the lower tax rates on higher incomes as well (which CBO estimates to be a little less than 1½ percent, as noted above), primarily because the budgetary impact would be nearly as large (and secondarily because the extension of lower tax rates on higher incomes would have a relatively small effect on output per dollar of budgetary cost)."

IOW, the CBO agrees allowing the top cuts to expire will not hurt the economy. That's why Congressional Republicans tried to hide the report.

Actually, the article says it will hurt the economy, only by just a little bit.

CBO updated its analysis of the scenarios that make up the so-called “fiscal cliff” and found that extending all of the tax cuts would boost the nation’s economy by “a little less” than 1.5 percent of gross domestic product. Extending all of the tax cuts other than the high-income Bush tax cuts, meanwhile, would boost the economy by 1.25 percent

Thus, your best example is the CBO, which says that under its analysis it found that extending the all the tax cuts would help the economy a little bit more than extending all the tax cuts other than the higher income. So, while the CBO does not say that it will hurt the economy much -- it does say that it will hurt the economy as compared to allowing all the Bush tax cuts to continue -- the difference being 1.5% GDP boost if all of the Bush tax cuts are extended, vs. 1.25% if all except the high income tax cuts are extended.

Incidentally -- as an aside -- I love how the article refers "extending all of the tax cuts other than the high-income Bush tax cuts...." instead of "extending all of the Bush tax cuts other than the high income tax cuts." NPR does that shit all the time too.

Frankly, if the GDP is correct -- I'd be all for letting all the Bush tax cuts to expire at every level. If all it's going to do is act as a 1.5% hit on GDP if all the Bush tax cuts are repealed, then let's just do it. Let's see what will happen. However, I doubt you can find an serious economist who thinks that the repealing all the Bush tax cuts will be limited to that small effect on GDP.

[Ian]

The Tea Party continues to be shoved out of the way:

Four Tea Party Republicans Removed from Budget & Finance Committees Posts
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomber ... 091091.php
Right Ballistic Over John Boehner 'Purge'.
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/r ... 84612.html
Boehner's Potential War with the Far Right
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/50077353/

Bravo to the Republican leadership for finally having the guts to take steps like this. In the short term the GOP is definitely in for a civil war and it's already real ugly. But it needs to be done in order to get their hands back in full control of the wheel in their own party, and confine the teabaggers to the trunk back seat where they belong. This is ultimately good for reasonable people of both parties.

[Drewish]

The Tea Party continues to be shoved out of the way:

Four Tea Party Republicans Removed from Budget & Finance Committees Posts
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomber ... 091091.php
Right Ballistic Over John Boehner 'Purge'.
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/r ... 84612.html
Boehner's Potential War with the Far Right
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/50077353/

Bravo to the Republican leadership for finally having the guts to take steps like this. In the short term the GOP is definitely in for a civil war and it's already real ugly. But it needs to be done in order to get their hands back in full control of the wheel in their own party, and confine the teabaggers to the trunk back seat where they belong. This is ultimately good for reasonable people of both parties.

The fiscal right was the right with principle. Boehner will burn for this.

[Ian]

No, the fiscal right had their own set of principles. Those principles were not very good or practical, IMHO.

Boehner's in for a fight, but don't put your money on the Tea Party being the future of the GOP. They're being taken out to the woodshed, and it's about goddamn time.

[Drewish]

No, the fiscal right had their own set of principles. Those principles were not very good or practical, IMHO.

Boehner's in for a fight, but don't put your money on the Tea Party being the future of the GOP. They're being taken out to the woodshed, and it's about goddamn time.

It's not a matter of if the Tea Party is the future of the GOP, it's that if the Tea Party is not their future, then they have no future. capitulating on social issues will help the Republicans in the long run. Giving in on fiscal issues? Might as well sign their own death certificate.

I know you like this, but you're somebody who was never going to vote Republican anyways, so your position doesn't much matter.

[Ian]

Not at all true. I've said once or twice that I'd like to vote Republican someday... if only the Republicans started acting like Republicans again. The party has become a mutated wretch from what it once was. But in my lifetime I think they will be able to fix that again, and then they might even get a vote or two from me.

For some reason I just thought of the end of Return of the Jedi...

[Gerald McGrew]

Actually, the article says it will hurt the economy, only by just a little bit.

An insignificant amount. Funny though to see conservatives who previously argued that 1.3% GDP growth is "nothing" now trying to say that a 0.25% potential decrease in GDP growth is enough to prevent tax cuts on the rich from expiring.

Incidentally -- as an aside -- I love how the article refers "extending all of the tax cuts other than the high-income Bush tax cuts...." instead of "extending all of the Bush tax cuts other than the high income tax cuts." NPR does that shit all the time too.

Probably wouldn't resonate so well if Republicans weren't so intent on protecting the wealthy.

Frankly, if the GDP is correct -- I'd be all for letting all the Bush tax cuts to expire at every level. If all it's going to do is act as a 1.5% hit on GDP if all the Bush tax cuts are repealed, then let's just do it. Let's see what will happen. However, I doubt you can find an serious economist who thinks that the repealing all the Bush tax cuts will be limited to that small effect on GDP.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3756