Fiscal Cliff?

[lawrocket 3]

Is it really a "fiscal cliff?" $120 billion per year in spending cuts?

How about the taxes - restored, as has so often been said, to Clinton levels? Isn't that a good thing?

It seems to me more like a fiscal slope. The Democrats seem to agree, which means they have no real urgency. And since the fiscal cliff is the product of compromise, does it indicate that compromise is an overused term?

Personally, I'd like to see a real fiscal cliff. The sooner we hit rock bottom the sooner we can begin to actually do something constructive with the budget and with entitlements. But seeing as how the fiscal slope won't really do much, I don't see that happening. It's just another example of how to pass costs forward.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

Yup, we would be better off going over this fiscal cliff than negotiating the way out of it.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,395]

>It seems to me more like a fiscal slope.

If it happened gradually I'd agree; I think the cliff metaphor came about because all the cuts and tax cut expirations happen at the same time.

Although it's not as bad as a cliff - more like a fiscal curb that you have to jump down. It will mean an impact to the economy; the defense cuts alone will have a measurable effect on employment as contractors fire people. That in turn will reduce revenues, mitigating much of the debt reduction that the cliff is intended to provide.

[lawrocket 3]

So what you’re saying is kinda what I’ve written about repeatedly on here: spending cuts and tax increases are the worst combination. Government doesn’t do as much, and the private sector has less to fill in the gaps.
On the other hand, it’s more half-ass cuts that prolong the problem without a fix. And also, it’s “tax at the level of Clinton” restoration that has been called for (oops. Only taxing the wealthy at Clinton levels. Those Bush tax cuts weren’t all bad, eh?)
But frankly, I think the economy and the country need a thorough cleaning and reorganization. It probably requires creating a royal mess in order to put things back where they belong and get rid of what is a drag. Throwing everything on the floor, deciding what we don’t want anymore, and reorganizing the mess and cleaning up what we are keeping. I’m thinking the sooner we plunge off the fiscal cliff the better.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

But frankly, I think the economy and the country need a thorough cleaning and reorganization.

I think most people agree that's what we need. The problem is that no one wants to be responsible for it. In our hyper-partisan environment, neither side wants to give the other side even the slightest advantage. The very act of proposing significant financial change is always met with great rending of flesh and gnashing of teeth over the destruction of America(tm). It's really disheartening.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The problem is that no one wants to be responsible for it.

Right. Because it's political suicide to do it. Why are these tax increases such a tough pill? Because it's not just the rich but everybody who will be paying them.

We all want others to sacrifice but don't want the sacrifice to fall on us. No politician wants to alienate the AARP. Medicare and Social Security are the biggest budget issues now and in the future and to do anything about it will mean being voted out.

It's not about partisanship. It's about survival. Which is why the "fiscal cliff" ain't really a cliff.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

It's not about partisanship. It's about survival.

I thinks its about both, but survival is more likely if you don't have your opponent attacking you for doing your job. If both sides would admit that there is room to negotiate, then something meaningful might be acccomplished. These days, even being open to negotiation is seen as a betrayal of party.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

rvival is more likely if you don't have your opponent attacking you for doing your job. If both sides would admit that there is room to negotiate, then something meaningful might be acccomplished.

It's not necessarily the opponents attacking for doing their job. It's the campaign donors telling them they better not.

Quote

These days, even being open to negotiation is seen as a betrayal of party.

Negotiation and compromise BROUGHT us to this so-called "fiscal cliff." That aside, we are deeply missing something important. When the President was running his first campaign, it was with the understanding that he would be a unifier and bring Americans together. he promised not to pit Blue America against Red America. He promised not to demonize those who disagree. He promised to "resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."

Just like Nixon did in 1968.

This is not to say that he doesn’t have the zealots on the right to deal with. He has and he does, and his dealing with it has no doubt helped to widen the political gap and foment position-based politics. What’s he doing now? The GOP is wildly deviating from the “no new taxes” that worked for so long and seeking other matters. The POTUS is holding firm: we start with increased taxes on high-earners and that’s not negotiable.

Compare with Clinton. Compare with Reagan. Reagan made his ideas to known all – his fundamental philosophy was explained frequently to the People. And behind the scenes, he had staffers working with Congress to make things happen. The 1986 Tax Reform Act was a remarkable feat. Reagan grew some support, got the Democrats who ran the House – especially Rostenkowski – to become advocates for it, and had bipartisan help in Senate to finish up the details. It was executive and legislative working together.

What about now? We’ve got Harry Reid leading the Senate by repeatedly sniping the GOP. The GOP wants to cut spending. They are actually asking the President and other Democrats what they’d accept with it. They are receiving nothing but “tax increase on top earners.” The GOP is proposing putting in motion tax reform. Nope. The start is with tax increases for the highest earners.

The GOP hasn’t put forth a plan for cuts. The Democrats have said they won’t offer one and won’t entertain one until tax increases kick in. Then maybe they’ll chat. And they’ve made it known that Social Security and medicare are not to be discussed. Dick Durbin actually said that Social Security reforms will not be discussed because it doesn’t add to national debt, elaborating, ““Progressives should be willing to talk about ways to ensure the long-term viability of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but those conversations should not be part of a plan to avert the fiscal cliff.” Jay Carney backed him up. Harry Reid said he will not consider entitlement reform.

In other words, the Democrat position is: Raise taxes on the only the wealthy, increase the debt ceiling and don’t cut entitlements. Take it or leave it.

What would Clinton do? What would Reagan do? What is our President doing?

He isn't unifying. And he sure as hell seems to be relishing in only putting off the problem till later. Wanting tax increases and increasing the debt limit seems to be a sign that they KNOW that what they are doing is not a fix.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Fast 0]

Quote

But frankly, I think the economy and the country need a thorough cleaning and reorganization. It probably requires creating a royal mess in order to put things back where they belong and get rid of what is a drag.

True, but I don't think the term "Royal Mess" really does a good job of grasping the magnitude of what you're talking about. All of this stuff is chicken vs egg. Cut government spending, raise taxes = reducing the economy which in turn lowers revenue and undoes what you just did. Spend more, lower taxes, grow the economy but push off a problem that will eventually come tumbling down.

We're living in a house of cards. The only real way to start fixing these problems is slowly, but people (politicians and not) are not able to responsibly do it. Everyone wants it fixed now. Which is what society has been brought up and trained to be reasonable. The problem is, it's not feasible and the general mass of society isn't able to come to terms with that. Even on these forums, people are so bitterly entrenched in things that they are no longer able to act rationally.

Continuing population growth (and in low income areas especially), uncontrolled spending, failure to manage net income levels, general world hostility and declining education are leading us to a very scary place.

The crazy thing is, in America we still have it multitudes of times better than most of the areas of the world.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Cut government spending, raise taxes = reducing the economy which in turn lowers revenue and undoes what you just did. Spend more, lower taxes, grow the economy but push off a problem that will eventually come tumbling down.

Yep. It's why I described political suicide. It takes someone who will be reviled for a decade but highly appreciated after he or she is dead.

Quote

We're living in a house of cards.

Yep. And building it more and more on a foundation that is growing more and more slurry.

Quote

Everyone wants it fixed now

Apparently not. in fact, I think FEW people want it fixed now - particularly not in Congress or in the Executive branch. just look at Harry Reid's comments - don't even bother bringing it up.

Quote

it's not feasible and the general mass of society isn't able to come to terms with that

It is feasible, actually. It'll hurt like hell for some time but then we'll come out of it improved. No longer a house of cards, but at at least we could have a decent foundation for whatever gets built.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

The problem is that no one wants to be responsible for it.

What I find interesting is that this "fiscal cliff" was hardly an issue during the campaign. I only started reading about it in internet news articles after the election was over. If this is such a big issue, why was it hardly discussed during the campaign?

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If this is such a big issue, why was it hardly discussed during the campaign?

Because campaigning is fun, and this is something to campaign about. The president is campaigning as we write this, casting the issue as one of villains.

It's the whole not-unifying-anyone stuff. Why sit down and work with Congress when you can be front and center at a rally?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Personally, I'd like to see a real fiscal cliff. The sooner we hit rock bottom the sooner we can begin to actually do something constructive with the budget and with entitlements.

I truly hate to say this, but +1
Where are the adults that understand math?

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,395]

>What I find interesting is that this "fiscal cliff" was hardly an issue during the campaign.

A few points there:

1) I heard it mentioned several times during the campaign. One of the debates brought up the issue over sequestration (i.e. the automatic cuts that happen as part of the 'fiscal cliff') and it came up during several speeches. However I agree that it wasn't a big deal.

2) The "fiscal cliff" is largely a media term. The media doesn't make much money on boring news, and with no large crises facing the US, the Budget Control Act is a good candidate to be spun into something big and ratings-worthy. As Lawrocket pointed out, the "fiscal slope" might be a better term - I actually prefer fiscal curb - but you're not going to sell Doritos with terms like that.

3) It's not a happy subject for either party. Polls indicate republicans will be blamed for any lack of agreement, and the immediate result of such a lack of agreement would be higher taxes for most Americans. That's something that could kill an already-reeling party.

On the democratic side, the mandatory cuts to medicare and medicaid will hurt them with their constituents. No democrat wants to face a constituency that has lost services the democrats promised AND has to pay higher taxes.

So overall I think it wasn't that big a deal during the campaign because it wasn't a big deal during that time, period; the media were far more abuzz with the republican attacks over Obama's Benghazi issues, and the democratic attacks over Romney's 47% comment. Which is unfortunate but fairly accurately represented what people as a whole wanted to hear about.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Polls indicate republicans will be blamed for any lack of agreement,

Absolutely. Which is why there is no incentive for the President and the Senate to do anything.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Fast 0]

Quote

It'll hurt like hell for some time but then we'll come out of it improved.

We're talking about high unemployment, homelessness, foreclosure, housing decline, wage reductions, benefit reductions, across the board. The recession we just lived through and then some.

I think hurt like hell is an understatement, riots, etc. don't really seem that far outside of reality to me.

I guess that point I was trying to make was that if people were to think a little more outside the box and let go of some of the very hard drawn lines, current ways of doing things and take it slow, the problem could be fixed without that. That's the part I don't think is feasible for society, fixing it in a reasonable manner without some kind of additional collapse.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[billvon 2,395]

> Which is why there is no incentive for the President and the Senate to do anything.

While they have less to lose, losing funding for programs that are very important to them is indeed an incentive. Which, I think, is why they have agreed to (small) cuts instead of being totally intractable. The cuts are a small fraction of what we need to see; I am hoping that's just an opening position (on both sides, actually.)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I guess that point I was trying to make was that if people were to think a little more outside the box and let go of some of the very hard drawn lines, current ways of doing things and take it slow, the problem could be fixed without that.

History has put us where we are now. It means that history also demonstrates that your wish is a pipe dream.

We've got a blueprint - what I (and many others) believe to be a great starting point - Simpson/Bowles. Too bad the GOP doesn't like the tax provisions of the report and the Democrats don't like the spending provisions of the report.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Bertt 0]

I think that's what annoys me most about Congress. Simpson/Bowles is a plan. The fiscal cliff is a plan. Why is Congress still looking for a plan?

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[lawrocket 3]

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SimpsonBowles.pdf

Take a look at what Sen. Bernie Sanders has to say about the Simpson-Bowles plan. It starts at the bottom of Page 2. The first two pages are ad hominem attacks on Simpson, Bowles, Paul Ryan and some GOP Rep I've never heard of.

He also spins the plan. Example: yes, the Simpson Bowles plan cuts tax rates for the wealthy and large corporations. He was specific with "rates." He doesn't mention that it eliminated the loopholes.

This is the obstructionist shit I can't stand from either side. Move aside, GOP. You aren't the biggest assholes on the Hill, any more.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[CarpeDiem3 0]

Let's see. We're approaching the fiscal cliff of a $16 trillion debt because we Americans are selfish and don't pay enough in taxes. Not because the government spends too much. Right?

And at the same time as the country is driving over the cliff, Bronco-bama is going on a 20-day $4 million Hawaii vacation!

Oh, and Geithner wants yet more stimulus spending, and to be able to raise the debt limit any time he feels like it.

Not to worry!

[champu 1]

Quote

Let's see. We're hagrha rhgarahgrag barf troll .... gahrhargahrag barf-

Go away.

[RonD1120 58]

It is a fiscal cliff in the Tampa Bay Area because it could close of negatively effect CENTCOM and SOCOM. We would be hurtin' fer certin' without the DOD funding in this part of the country.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[lawrocket 3]

So you'd be like SoCal in the 90s when defense spending was cut and we lost all the aerospace dollars.

SOrry, but Tampa needs to feel the pain, too. Military and everybody get their own bite.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,395]

>It is a fiscal cliff in the Tampa Bay Area because it could close of negatively effect
>CENTCOM and SOCOM. We would be hurtin' fer certin' without the DOD funding in this
>part of the country.

Yep. People don't like it when the free flow of government cheese is cut off.

Now go cash your government check that you feel you are entitled to.