|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: To cliff or not to cliff|
To cliff or not to cliff
Posted - 12/28/2012 11:31:26 AM | show profile | flag this post
Well it's time for another fun poll question. It is really simple: "Will the US go over the fiscal cliff or not?" Please feel free to expand on your answer.
I say there will be a last minute "kick the can" solution. It will probably only last a year at the most but I just don't see any kind of long term solution and I think too many are worried about keeping their job to actually allow us to go over the cliff.
Posted - 12/28/2012 12:39:45 PM | show profile | flag this post
i suspect we'll stumble along patching things until..
the 2014 elections..
at which time, the remnants of the tea party will be swept out of office, and the democrats will likely regain control of the house..
i don't see any other way to break the partisan deadlocks..
much depends on whether boehner can manage to remain speaker..if he can, there's always a chance for a breakthrough..
if he doesn't, it'll be eric cantor or paul ryan..and the gridlock will continue on and on..
Posted - 12/28/2012 2:54:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
There's a scheduled meeting in about an hour at the WH. We'll know more after that.
Senate Democrats want the House to pass a bill that would preserve existing tax rates on incomes below $250,000.
Obama offered a deal to Boehner that would preserve income beneath a slightly higher threshold: $400,000 per year.
Boehner tried – and failed – to pass a bill (his “Plan B”) that would have kept tax rates the same for all income under $1 million.
The Teabaggers are just killing Boehner. When the Speaker of the House can't get his own party members to go along with anything--and his response is "God only knows"...it's time for a new Leader. Republicans facing primary challenges break into a cold sweat when they even think about a "tax hike" attached to their names.
I think we'll go over the Cliff for a very short time, and then patchwork measures lasting weeks or months.
Posted - 12/28/2012 3:47:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
oh my gosh those baggers are just awful. how dare anyone want to pay off our debt and deficits- so our future generations won't be paying the tab obama leaves us.
taxing just the rich isn't even a start.
obama and the dems are not serious about spending cuts.
they want us off the cliff- so that the middle class tax increases will pay for all their spending.
but hey, americans voted for big government- it is time americans pays for it.
Posted - 12/28/2012 4:54:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
That's just crap.
"how dare anyone want to pay off our debt and deficits" The GOP, and especially the Baggers, have shown no interest in doing that.
IF you were serious about the debt and the deficit, you wouldn't exclude the Pentagon budget. Hell, Romney/Ryan wanted to give these guys money Defense didn't even ask for.
IF you were serious you'd accept the idea that there has to be a mix of both spending cuts and more revenue. I still don't understand why Repubs think $800B in spending cuts is nothing. Deal with entitlements too (Means test? Raising the age?). Close some tax loopholes. Look at everything....but that has to include a small, modest, tax hike on the Super Rich.
"As the Obama White House and Congress negotiate to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, nearly two-thirds of Americans say they favor a balanced deal to reduce the deficit -- consisting of both higher tax rates and cuts to key entitlement programs.
According to the latest national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 65 percent say congressional leaders should make compromises to deal with the budget deficit, even if that means Democrats would need to accept targeted spending cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and that Republicans would need to accept targeted increases in tax rates."
To say NO to all of that means you're not serious. And voting down Jobs bills--infra-structure jobs--shows you don't want to do anything that might make the WH look good...even if it does help the whole country.
We'll see what today brings. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Posted - 12/28/2012 7:43:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
The Important Thing is to Ruin the Economy
Then blame Obama.
That's all that matters
Posted - 12/28/2012 8:40:14 PM | show profile | flag this post
nah.. romney's toast forever...
after his own kid outed him by saying his dad never really wanted to be president, anyway..
you could pretty much tell that by the way he campaigned, anyway..
Posted - 12/29/2012 7:30:35 AM | show profile | flag this post
Obama to Congress
Give me what I want now, and I'll give you what you want later...
Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" - Wimpy
Posted - 12/29/2012 2:48:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
"I'll give you what you want later"
Like the song says, "Domani never comes." And neither will Obama's "promise."
Any Republican contemplating falling for this humongous lie needs to remember the Democrat promise to Reagan in which they said they'd send him three dollars in spending cuts for ever dollar in tax increases...IF he'd agree to raise taxes.
Of course, he did...they didn't.
Posted - 12/29/2012 3:55:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
Yea. 30 years ago
is JUST LIKE today. Good Grief.
Do I have to point out to you that Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times...vetoed four paltry spending bills (only in the millions, out of 78 vetoes) and signed into law tax hikes.
Do I also have to point out that the President signs into laws spending bills passed by Congress--therefore, ANY president who complains that Congress spends too much?? Bull. Then don't sign it.
What's going on with the GOP in the House now is sort of a warped Catch-22. They say they're against raising taxes--the ultimate stumbling block--but they're willing for the payroll tax to go up (huh?) and for all the tax cuts to expire (huh?). Their problem is they're against tax increases, but some don't want their name attached to any bill with taxes in it.
Throw in Grover Norquist and the Teabaggers, and you've got a situation Reagan (and Tip O'Neill) never had to face. This is NOT thirty years ago by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted - 12/29/2012 4:21:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
I think dogson has lost it
He's become a conspiracy theorist.
Posted - 12/29/2012 5:00:37 PM | show profile | flag this post
no.. he just understands history..
unlike some people on these boards..
Posted - 12/30/2012 12:25:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
Another way to look at it, Mp
Democrats are so determined to raise taxes on some Americans they are willing to raise taxes on all Anericans to make it happen.
Posted - 12/30/2012 1:19:45 PM | show profile | flag this post
Not sure where you got "willing to raise taxes on all Anericans to make it happen."
At one end of the spectrum you have the Repubs saying 'no tax increases on anyone--billionaires included'
On the other end you've got Obama saying 'no tax increases on anyone making less than $250,000 That's what he campaigned on, the voters obviously agreed, and that's that. it was repeated duing the MTP interview today:
"The president challenged Republicans to vote on legislation that he said should be introduced by the Democrat-controlled Senate to prevent taxes on the "middle class" from being increased.
But he did not specify what income level he would be willing to accept as a dividing line between those who retain Bush-era tax rates and those whose rates would increase. The president has consistently supported increasing taxes on families making over $250,000 a year, but that figure has been a major bargaining chip in negotiations."
So there's 'wiggle room' there. Personally of course I'd like to see a compromise; say $400-500,000, but we'll see. In any event: "the Tax Policy Center, a partnership between the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, estimates that about 6.07 million Americans earned above $200,000 in 2011. They make up the top 4.2 percent of taxpayers."
So, obviously, those making less than $200K and less a year is like (me) and over 90% of the country. And Obama is clearly not going to accept a tax hike on them. Tax loopholes are one thing, raising rates is a different thing altogether.
So I just don't see your "willing to raise taxes on all Anericans to make it happen." IMO.
Posted - 12/30/2012 1:20:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
I picked up an interesting factoid
this morning on a Sunday talk show. The current level of government spending requires borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar spent and that is a principal reason why our national debt now stands at $16.3 TRILLION and growing.
The amount of money in dispute in President Obama's rock-headed insistence on tax rate increases represents about eight cents of each dollar spent.
THE PRESIDENT IS STUBBORNLY ARGUING OVER NICKELS WHEN THE PROBLEM IS QUARTERS. His intransigence may play politically to his Democrat base but it is putting the futures of our children and grandchildren further into hock every single hour.
Currently, every American household's share of the debt is $137,000. That's almost THREE TIMES the median annual income of American families.
Regardless of how Obama's water carriers on here try to characterize it, the president has offered virtually NOTHING in the way of spending reductions. By this I mean REAL cuts.
All he has offered is MINOR reductions in the rate of spending INCREASES that are projected to burgeon the national debt to $22 TRILLION by the end of his second term in 2016.
But, of course, government spending disproportionately benefits Democrat constituents so Obama is unwilling to take the steps necessary to put our fiscal house in order.
We have to get spending under control NOW and that will take four times as much in ACTUAL reductions as the politically-motivated tax increases for which Obama is holding up progress.
Posted - 12/30/2012 2:45:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
You're right cruise; halfway at least
It wasn't just this morning, I heard the same thing before: "The current level of government spending requires borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar spent and that is a principal reason why our national debt.."
Well when you're right, you're right. It's actually 43 cents. OMG, what has Obama done?!?!? Wait a minute. It was 40 cents for every dollar under Bush (At one point. At another point it was much much less) And Bush left a few trillion off the books for the next guy. So if a jump from 40 to 43 counts as a monstrous impeachable leap to you, that's your opinion.
So, let's agree that spending under both Bush and Obama is WAY over the top, way too much. And let's agree a huge deficit is a bad thing, just so we're both on the same page.
This is where we differ: "the president has offered virtually NOTHING in the way of spending reductions" That's just plain wrong. From Politifact:
"Obama says his plan will cut deficits by $4 trillion." (me: Even I don't buy that) But keep reading:
"Both the source cited by the Obama campaign and a separate group, one that puts a premium on deficit reduction, say the president’s plan will shrink the cumulative gap between spending and revenues by well over $2 trillion over ten years.
The remainder comes from the 10-year impact of cuts already approved." (The $800B is what they're proposing right now).
So anywhere from $800B to $2 Trillion--If you consider that NOTHING--You're just showing your 'I don't care..I just hate Obama' side. Spending Cuts+Revenue is the only way to go, and the vast majority of Americans agree. But you don't want to hear it. You just hate our President. Period.
Posted - 12/30/2012 4:31:21 PM | show profile | flag this post
Democrats have been real clear
They will not accept any deal that does not include a tax increase on top earners. Without a deal the result is a tax increase on all Americans. So according to democrats either raise taxes on the top earners or raise taxes on everyone.
Posted - 12/30/2012 4:56:51 PM | show profile | flag this post
I don't know why I continue
responding to your dishonesty but here goes...AGAIN:
You picked a MINOR point...one that has been well known for months -- perhaps years -- and is not even in dispute...and ignored the rest of my post.
Even YOU cannot think that's being honest or participating in a useful discussion.
And as long as you think you can play this off to my supposed "Obama hatred" then you don't feel the need to engage in a serious discussion of this issue.
Posted - 12/30/2012 5:11:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
Now you're back to what I called the Repub Catch-22: "Without a deal the result is a tax increase on all Americans." So since a tax increase is toxic to the GOP (thanks Grover)--No deal. But, whoa, no deal means a tax increase. So, deal. But no deal. Wait a minute....
See? Let's say for a minute both sides cave. Both sides say no tax increase for anyone. Let's just keep everything the way it is. Fine. Except that the Arithmetic rock falls on your head and you realize that spending cuts alonw--even a trillion worth--doesn't do squat against the debt. So you're still back to what MOST Americans say (including me): Compromise. Cuts and higher taxes/loopholes.
cruise? "You picked a MINOR point...one that has been well known for months -- perhaps years --" NO.. YOU DID. You brought up the 40 cents on the dollar thing--not me. You started your post with it. But now that's my fault.
And yes, since you refuse to answer (or take back) your own lying stupid talking points, we can only deduce you do this because you hate who the president is, and it has nothing to do with facts.
Posted - 12/30/2012 5:46:09 PM | show profile | flag this post
Canada went through this a decade ago...
... we were in worse debt/GDP ratio condition than the US.
the Liberal finance minister at the time (a business leader, and later PM, Paul Martin), cut spending AND raised taxes.
And that was during huge economic growth.
If any American, regardless of stripe, thinks that you'll get your books in order without both .. in this economy... is nuts.
In fact, forcing it right now is the worst time to do it.
Even Reagan and Bush1 realized it.
(to brag, we kinda get this stuff: best banks in the G8, no serious recession; hell, even our central banker was snapped up by the UK as their first foreign Bank of England Governor, based on his non-partisan honesty and comittment to financial regulation)
Thankfully Canada is committing to energy deals with China and free trade deals with the EU, Asia and LatAm so we won't be tied to your sinking ship.
After Iraq, your gun laws, international hostility and conservative extremism .. well this is putting a nail in your coffin.
Get used to be being an ex-superpower.
it is pathetic the GOP is even trying to play politics with this.
Posted - 12/30/2012 6:32:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
"You picked a MINOR point"
Yes, YOU DID pick a minor point. I used the point in my post to set up the fact that Obama was arguing over nickels while the problem is measured in quarters but you ignored that.
The reason you did so...as nearly as I can deduce...is because:
1) You cannot dispute it, and
2) It knocks your party's argument into a cocked hat.
But I'm wasting my time trying to have a rational discussion with you. It's just not in your character.
Posted - 12/31/2012 10:58:49 AM | show profile | flag this post
It's funny how you think no tax increase means both sides caved. Actually that would mean the democrats caved in and the republicans were able to hold the line against any tax increase. But we both know that will not happen and the reason why is real simple, republicans cannot allow the country to go over the cliff while it is a win for the democrats if we do. For democrats there is no such thing as a bad tax increase, they have proved that over and over again. Remember if we don't get a deal we go back to the good old days of the Clinton tax rates, which according to many of you is the greatest economic times this nation has ever known. So the best hope we as a nation have is that republicans can at least hold out and get a tax increase on as few Americans as possibile. No matter what happens, some Americans taxes will go up in 2013. Republicans are trying hard to make it as few as possibile.
Posted - 12/31/2012 12:52:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
blackedtape; Well yes and no.
"No matter what happens, some Americans taxes will go up in 2013."
I think we can agree that's a fact at this point, and you can't argue with facts.
I'll even go so far to agree with your "Republicans are trying hard to make it as few as possibile." I think where our opinions diverge is how we got to this point.
The "Cliff" is a product of both parties, agreed? (a by-product if you will over the Debt Ceiling talks--which again both sides screwed up) If the GOP takes us over the Cliff--then they choose to let taxes go up. If they deal, then taxes go up. Why? Because of the debt and the deficit. Well, how did that happen? Because of BOTH Dem and Repub Administrations.
As I said before, whether it's Reagan or Obama, or Clinton or Bush Sr, the president signs the spending measures. And in the case of Dubya, it was worse, he spent trillions without even asking Congress. So let's admit this was a bi-lateral hole we dug.
You don't like tax increases?? Fine. Then don't spend so much. And that goes for the Dems and social programs as well as the Repubs clinging onto their Defense spending (and hey! let's start a new war here!). The goal at this point is to get a fair deal, and both sides have to give--which will piss off the bases of both parties.
Posted - 12/31/2012 1:08:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
and the fact of the matter is, it's the republicans who are.
paralyzed with fear of their party base..
assuming the tea party is now the republican base..
they have to face voters again and again.. barack obama doesn't..
if the republicans care more about their reelection prospects than they do their country, then let the onus fall on them..they are the ones who keep throwing up roadblocks to any deal..
witness the latest from lindsay graham..
Posted - 12/31/2012 1:24:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Because of BOTH Dem and Repub Administrations"
Does that mean Obama cannot...or should not...take a unilateral action to begin to bring excessive spending under control FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY AND ALL ITS PEOPLE?
But government spending is THE modus operandi of the Democrat party and many its constituents have become almost totally reliant on it...that reliance having been nurtured by Obama's pandering in the run-up to the election.