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

[Coito ergo sum]

Remember when all the Obama supporters were lambasting Romney for not having a plan with numbers that add up to balance the budget.

Yes, and it wasn't just Obama supporters, it was independent analysts, some of whom the Romney campaign had previously cited (e.g. the Tax Policy Center).

"Independent" doesn't mean "unbiased."

Why don't they require the same of Obama? How do his numbers add up?

Is Obama saying, "My plan will balance the budget"?

No, but neither did Romney.

He wants more taxes "on the rich" (even though it's not just on the rich -- he's already raised taxes on the middle class),

Still sticking with that misrepresentation, eh? Typical.

Not a misrepresentation. Fuck off.

A couple of examples.

1. Within weeks after taking office, he signed a cigarette tax which falls disproportionately on folks making less money. A regressive sales tax.
2. In September of this year, the CBO found that the Obamacare tax (ruled a tax by the SCOTUS) falls upon the middle class by the millions.

And, incidentally, despite Obamacare, there will be 30 million uninsured in 2022. Nice job with that "healthcare for all" eh? We passed Obamacare to cover 18,000,000 people at a cost hundreds of billions of dollars overall.

"I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase -- not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." -- Barack Obama.

and the tax revenue generated doesn't come close to even reducing the deficit given all the spending that they don't want to cut. Raise taxes and raise the debt ceiling. Tax and spend. Tax and spend. Tax and spend. Same old story.

Well let's take a look...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... -business/

"Mr. Obama's most recent proposal to stave off the "fiscal cliff" calls for $1.6 trillion in new revenues, achieved in part by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans, as well as $600 billion in spending cuts and a handful of other measures. "

If that's accurate, is it your position it will have no effect on the federal budget deficit? None at all?

It will not reduce it. And, it absolutely is not accurate.

Of course they "call for" $1.6 trillion in new revenues. They can "call for" whatever they like. The question is, will the tax revenues collected be as high as they say it will. Considering past history, they are very likely highly overstating what will be collected.

[Coito ergo sum]

When people obsessively hoard newspapers, clothes, or food, we pity them and try and get them help because we figure there's something wrong with them.

When people obsessively hoard money, the GOP holds them up as role models and crafts policies in their favor.

[Gerald McGrew]

"Independent" doesn't mean "unbiased."

Just like all those election polls, huh?

No, but neither did Romney.

*sigh* Yes he did. He said so at the third debate for chrissakes. Weren't you paying attention?

"Come on our website. You look at how we get to a balanced budget within eight to 10 years."

Not a misrepresentation. Fuck off.

Ah yes, typical CES. "Fuck you". You really have issues, don't you?

Again, the net result of Obama's policies have been a decrease in taxes on the middle class. Thus it can accurately be said that Obama has decreased taxes on the middle class. If all you have in response is cigarette taxes and a projection, then I'll let that stand.

It will not reduce it. And, it absolutely is not accurate.

Ah right...because you say so. Again, just like arguing with a creationist; "there are no transitional fossils because I say so".

You sure are one boring-assed person to debate. "Fuck off!" "No it isn't!" "Fuck off!" "No it isn't!" ad nauseum...

[Jason]

[cronus]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ating.html

Like lemmings, the Americans seem hell-bent on leaping off an economic cliff. The effect on us could be devastating

As the year draws to a close, we may have survived the end of the world, as foretold by the ancient Mayan civilisation, but we still face financial apocalypse.
This could be our fate unless America’s political extremes can reach agreement in the coming days to keep the country’s economy on track. There is more at stake than just the budget of the world’s most important economy. This crisis questions whether elected politicians are any longer capable of rescuing ailing economies.
We have already witnessed their failure in Europe as national economies have imploded and the eurozone has plunged into deep debt. The armageddon phrase being used to describe what America faces is the ‘fiscal cliff’ — and, like lemmings, many of the country’s decision-makers seem to be heading over the edge.

(continued, still be safer here than there I figure....)

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ating.html

Like lemmings, the Americans seem hell-bent on leaping off an economic cliff. The effect on us could be devastating

As the year draws to a close, we may have survived the end of the world, as foretold by the ancient Mayan civilisation, but we still face financial apocalypse.
This could be our fate unless America’s political extremes can reach agreement in the coming days to keep the country’s economy on track. There is more at stake than just the budget of the world’s most important economy. This crisis questions whether elected politicians are any longer capable of rescuing ailing economies.
We have already witnessed their failure in Europe as national economies have imploded and the eurozone has plunged into deep debt. The armageddon phrase being used to describe what America faces is the ‘fiscal cliff’ — and, like lemmings, many of the country’s decision-makers seem to be heading over the edge.

(continued, still be safer here than there I figure....)

LOL - half the country has been saying this "fiscal cliff" would help the economy anyway. For years, we've been told that the Clinton era tax rates would help the economy, because we were doing so well under Clinton. So, since rolling back the Bush tax cuts means only that we go back to Clinton era tax rates, what is everyone on the Left bitching about? It would be a monumental tax increase on the wealthy (must be, because as those on the Left have been saying for 10 years, the Bush cuts were monumental tax cuts to the wealthy -- therefore, reversing them must be "disproportionately impacting the wealthy" right? After all, if the cuts disproportionately benefitted the wealthy, rolling them back must necessarily be disproportionately hurting them, yes?)

So, now it's a big problem? Why? The tax hikes are going to hurt the economy? Isn't this what the Republicans have been saying for years?

Of course we're going over the cliff. Why not? Obama, Pelosi and Reid know that (a) they get everything they want, or (b) they go over the fiscal cliff and the Republicans will be blamed for it. So, what do they do? They say "my way or the highway" and the GOP offers compromises, and they are rejected. The Senate, run by Democrats, says the House Republicans aren't doing anything, but the Senate Democrats haven't voted on jack shit and won't put anything up for a vote. Why not? They won't even vote on what their own President wants, and they haven't passed a budget in 4 years.

The GOP needs to just cave in, today. They should just say "we don't agree that this is the right way to go, but the President was reelected, and the Democrats control the Senate and we only have a slight majority in the House -- the American people don't want us to go over the fiscal cliff. So, here you go Obama -- it's your baby. Everything you want, you got it." Then if the economy tanks, the GOP will be proven right, and if the economy does good, the Democrats will be proven right.

[amused]

There are enough sane Republicans in the House that can vote for a bill that the House Democrats will support, IF Boehner will allow it to come up for a vote. It will pass. It's that simple.

[Coito ergo sum]

There are enough sane Republicans in the House that can vote for a bill that the House Democrats will support, IF Boehner will allow it to come up for a vote. It will pass. It's that simple.

That is just not true. What bill would that be? What would the Democrats support? The one the Senate put up for a vote? Of course not, because the Senate Democrats haven't put one up for a vote. Why? Why do you say the House Republicans have to put one up for a vote (if they're sane), but you don't say the same thing about Senate Democrats? Obviously, if the President's tax hike is what the Democrats want, why don't they vote on it in the Senate?

[amused]

There is already a senate bill that can pass the house with bipartisan support if it was allowed to come to vote. But all spending bills must originate in the house.

[Jason]

IF Boehner will allow it to come up

IF Boehner...... come........... up

[Coito ergo sum]

There is already a senate bill that can pass the house with bipartisan support if it was allowed to come to vote. But all spending bills must originate in the house.

The problem with that is that it is not a compromise. It's "give us the tax hike on anyone making $250,000 and up, but we'll talk about spending cuts later," because the Democrats are more than willing to agree to tax hikes, but not spending cuts.

[Gerald McGrew]

Sometimes I wonder what the hell Republicans are thinking, or even if they have a political strategy at all (beyond "Whatever Obama is for, we're against"). What proposals are left on the table now (after Boehner's "Plan B" self-inflicted wound) are all worse for the GOP than what Obama offered back in 2011 the first time the Republicans held the country hostage on behalf of the rich.

I guess the good thing is, the American public generally sees what's going on and is properly assigning blame...

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... A426D6AA61

Despite the growing pessimism, Americans also increasingly approve of how some political leaders are handling negotiations. Approval of Obama’s approach to the cliff has jumped from 48 percent to 54 percent, the approval for Democratic leaders in Congress has spiked from 34 percent to 45 percent, and even Boehner — whose inability to pass the so-called “Plan B” was considered a major setback — saw his approval tick up a single point, to 26 percent. The approval for Republican leaders in Congress dropped 3 points to 26 percent.

Other polls have consistently shown Republicans receiving most of the blame if the country falls off the fiscal cliff.

I can't imagine how Boehner thinks anything in those numbers is going to change when he's staying home on vacation and refusing to reconvene the House while Obama and the Senate are both back at work. Even to people who are barely paying attention, they're going to see that as the GOP refusing to even negotiate at all contrasted with the President being at work and offering proposals.

It can't be said often enough...today's Republicans are idiots.

[Gerald McGrew]

[Coito ergo sum]

You do realize that the Democrats WANT the taxes to go up across the board? Isn't that obvious?

If they didn't, Reid would have passed a bill in the Senate to make sure they don't, except for those making over $250,000 a year, and called upon the House to pass it. What's he waiting for?

[Gawdzilla Sama]