The Fiscal Cliff

dmaul1114

Banned
With the election over, the "fiscal cliff" is the next big political topic for discussion.

Put simply, if a deal's not reached all those cuts to defense etc. go into place Jan 1, and the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone.

Only news thus far is Boehner is expressing some willingness to additional revenue. But his statements are pretty wishy washy and seem more in the direction of closing loopholes etc., rather than say letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the $250k and above households.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...12c5ce-2919-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/u...ng-table-with-fiscal-cliff-dead-ahead.html?hp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just read the article and it's just going to be more of the same from the right. I'll believe it when I see it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
 
I'm really hoping things go a little different this time around, with Obama no longer worried about a re-election campaign. Then again I'm probably wrong, Democrats aren't known for standing up to anyone.
 
I for one am shocked that people are surprised Boehner just plans on cutting loopholes.

It also confuses me that when a party runs on a platform that corporations make too much, pay too little in taxes etc that when push comes to shove they have an issue with shutting down the loopholes that allow GE to pay zilch in taxes year after year.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I for one am shocked that people are surprised Boehner just plans on cutting loopholes.

It also confuses me that when a party runs on a platform that corporations make too much, pay too little in taxes etc that when push comes to shove they have an issue with shutting down the loopholes that allow GE to pay zilch in taxes year after year.[/QUOTE]
Removing loopholes aka deductions is regressive(I shouldn't need to explain why) and combining them with lowering taxes across the board still benefits the rich more than the working class on an exponential level. Taxation is already at historically low levels and if you think that those deductions will just go away and not change into something else that accomplishes the same purpose, I have a bridge to sell you...and you think the guy that was handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the floor is going to spearhead this effort to make the wealthy and corporations pay MORE in tax AFTER he said he wants to lower rates? EL OH EL, dude.

We've already seen this conversation play out on vs: tax rates have no effect on hiring.
 
govt spending is bad and doesn't create jobs

with these defense cuts, untold numbers of jobs will be lost

While paraphrased, both of these comments come from the same person. Simply amazing how they continue to get away with this stuff ALL THE TIME.

we need to address the debt/deficit because it's bad

going over the fiscal cliff will result in a terrible economy

It simply never ends. If Dick Cheney was right about anything, it's that debt/deficits don't matter.
 
Here's what happened in a simple explanation.
Dad tells little Billy: "Hey Billy go buy a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, and some hot dogs from 7-11".

Billy goes to 7-11, picks the stuff up, takes it to the counter, the employee rings the stuff up and says: "That will be $10".

Billy now realizes that dad hasn't given him any money yet. He calls dad: "Dad, can you come down here and give me $10 for this stuff you asked me to buy?"

Dad: "Sure but you have to promise to only spend $8 next time"

The fiscal cliff is an artificial disaster Congress created. The debt ceiling was never an issue before. The government is told to spend money from Congress then when it tries to do so, Congress is telling it they can't until they spend less next time. Congress is the institution that demanded the spending in the first place! This fiscal cliff should just be written off the books entirely and they should work on the budget instead of this RIDICULOUS game of chicken.

Now we've got Bill at the 7-11 with the stuff telling dad: "I'm not going to buy ANYTHING unless you give me the money".
And you've got dad saying: "Fine, you can stay there all day with that stuff."
So we have gridlock. Mom's yelling at dad. The other kids are yelling at everyone else because they're not going to eat and Billie is being yelled at by everyone else in line.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I for one am shocked that people are surprised Boehner just plans on cutting loopholes.

It also confuses me that when a party runs on a platform that corporations make too much, pay too little in taxes etc that when push comes to shove they have an issue with shutting down the loopholes that allow GE to pay zilch in taxes year after year.[/QUOTE]

I have no problems with closing loopholes. That should be part of the solution. So should some spending cuts.

But it also needs to involve at the least letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making $250K or more (I'd prefer letting them all expire personally), taxing capital gains as regular income, and making sure the estate tax laws stay in place (rather than expiring and going to zero).
 
My point above is that taxes and cuts should be debated in the budgetary process next year and they should roll back sequestration. To make an issue of the government spending the money you told them to spend makes no sense. Don't like the spending? Well there's a whole budget debate about that and it won't hold the whole fucking country hostage.
 
I was just reading that and about to post something about it. I agree though, he needs to stand his ground and let it happen if that's what they want. If they refuse to deal then fine, let it happen.
 
And so begins two more years of stalemate. Maybe in 2014 people will wise up and vote with their wallets instead of their bibles.
 
Boehner has made several gestures this week expressing a willingness to compromise.

I see him the way I see Lucy holding a football for Charlie Brown, but the framework from the public perspective (Boehner being conciliatory, Obama standing firm) is quite the opposite of what we experienced in the past.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Boehner has made several gestures this week expressing a willingness to compromise.

I see him the way I see Lucy holding a football for Charlie Brown, but the framework from the public perspective (Boehner being conciliatory, Obama standing firm) is quite the opposite of what we experienced in the past.[/QUOTE]

Yeah that is what Boehner said on Wed but then on Thursday he said raising taxes was "unaccepatble". The only thing he would agree to was basically the Romney tax plan. Well guess what Mr Speaker your guy's plan lost.

http://news.yahoo.com/boehner-raising-tax-rates-unacceptable-173931049.html
 
Boehner pretty much already went back on that and said earlier that any tax increase on the wealthy is unacceptable and wouldn't get through the house.
 
Huh. I thought he said something about compromise today, though. Guess I was wrong.

Been a busy week, so I haven't been paying much attention since Tuesday night.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Huh. I thought he said something about compromise today, though. Guess I was wrong.

Been a busy week, so I haven't been paying much attention since Tuesday night.[/QUOTE]

This is going to come down to the last second. We'll probably go over the fiscal cliff because the far right tea party won't allow the Republican's to compromise and Obama holds all the cards this time. If they don't compromise, ALL Bush's tax cuts sunset and Obama wins.
 
More I've thought about it recently, we NEED to go over the cliff. Then, conceivably, it would be the GOP agreeing to ,technically, a tax cut proposed by the President due to the rates going up on everybody. I get the feeling Boehner will try to rally them together near the very end and focus on a plea bargain of sorts since they don't want their precious defense spending to get slashed. Lawrence O'Donnell makes an interesting case of where good ol Grover Norquist's Pledge would fit into all this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4g7WhbbMwc
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But it also needs to involve at the least letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making $250K or more (I'd prefer letting them all expire personally), taxing capital gains as regular income, and making sure the estate tax laws stay in place (rather than expiring and going to zero).[/QUOTE]

Nooooo!!!!!!
 
Yeessssss!

Worthless, whiny rich pieces of shit like you need to pay more taxes.

No one wants to hear you whine again about how tough you have it working in a useless profession making over $200k and how that's not enough because you choose to live in expensive area, to pop out a bunch of crib midgets with your wife etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']If the deficit doesn't matter, why bother taxing anyone at all? Let's just go all-out and 100% and rack up that debt.[/QUOTE]

Well we want to look like we care. Getting the rich to pay their fair share is a head-slappingly simple way of turning around our image.
 
Of course the deficit matters in that it can't grow indefinitely. Krugman's point is that we don't have a deficit crisis right now. Countries are lining up buying our debt, keeping interest rates at all time lows.

The bigger priority is upping spending with more stimulus so we truly get out of this recession and don't descend into another one, and that we can do that without triggering a deficit crisis.

Best way to finance that? Tax the rich more. Helps pay for that, and works at paying down the deficit some later when the economy is back on track as the deficit can't grow unchecked indefinitely.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well we want to look like we care.[/QUOTE]

This reminds me of a South Park episode...

Regardless, I don't feel that it "looks like we care" about our spending problem by simply increasing our income by what would be a relatively trivial amount (in comparison to our current spending levels and in comparison to the overall debt level).

[quote name='dmaul1114']Of course the deficit matters in that it can't grow indefinitely. Krugman's point is that we don't have a deficit crisis right now. Countries are lining up buying our debt, keeping interest rates at all time lows.[/quote]

So, basically, the argument is that we should focus on short-term goals.

I see no problem with that.

Best way to finance that? Tax the rich more. Helps pay for that, and works at paying down the deficit some later when the economy is back on track as the deficit can't grow unchecked indefinitely.

I just know that someone is grinding their teeth over the misuse of debt vs. deficit...

Is higher taxes the best way to finance social spending?
I tend to believe that cutting spending in other areas (in particular, military/defense) would be the better way to finance it. That's not to say the entire tax situation doesn't need to be looked at, but when our government has had unchecked spending for so long, I'd prefer to see them show that they do have restraint and control (and common sense) before giving them more money.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Is higher taxes the best way to finance social spending?
I tend to believe that cutting spending in other areas (in particular, military/defense) would be the better way to finance it. That's not to say the entire tax situation doesn't need to be looked at, but when our government has had unchecked spending for so long, I'd prefer to see them show that they do have restraint and control (and common sense) before giving them more money.[/QUOTE]

Greenspan thought that giving the govt less money (IE reducing taxes) would force the govt to go on a budget diet. Didn't work out that way.

The answer is that we tax appropriately and reduce spending when we can. Vote for politicians who will tax the rich and take a hard look at military budgets - it's the win/win we're all looking for (and by we I mean the 99%).

Let the Javerys of the world look out for themselves, the rich always do juuuust fine...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeessssss!

Worthless, whiny rich pieces of shit like you need to pay more taxes.

No one wants to hear you whine again about how tough you have it working in a useless profession making over $200k and how that's not enough because you choose to live in expensive area, to pop out a bunch of crib midgets with your wife etc.[/QUOTE]

Jeez dude - chill the F out. I already pay more taxes by making more money and being in a higher tax bracket. I don't need to pay more on top of that for "society" or some other bullshit reason. Also, I've never said I had it tough - the only complaint I've ever had is when people try to propose new rules and apply a blanket dollar threshold without taking into consideration any other factors.
 
[quote name='Javery']the only complaint I've ever had is when people try to propose new rules and apply a blanket dollar threshold without taking into consideration any other factors.[/QUOTE]

So you want the tax code to become even more complicated? Never heard anyone argue for that before.
 
[quote name='camoor']So you want the tax code to become even more complicated? Never heard anyone argue for that before.[/QUOTE]

Of course! I want it to be as complicated as possible.
 
[quote name='camoor']Most rich people do, they just don't come out and say it.[/QUOTE]

I have a specific reason - my wife is a CPA. A simple tax code could put her out of a job (or at least make her specialty less... um, special).

Not directed at you camoor but I am curious to hear people's definition of "rich". People seem to throw this word around like there is some standard meaning without any context.
 
[quote name='Javery']I have a specific reason - my wife is a CPA. A simple tax code could put her out of a job (or at least make her specialty less... um, special).

Not directed at you camoor but I am curious to hear people's definition of "rich". People seem to throw this word around like there is some standard meaning without any context.[/QUOTE]

I would imagine if you fall in the top 5-10 percent of earnings in the U.S., that would be defined as rich for most people. Personally, I think if you make over a million, you would be considered rich, but I have no data or any real reason to think that.
 
I am an engineer working in IT for a defense contractor in Northern VA with State Department as a customer. I say let us go over the cliff.

Housing prices in this area is back to bubble prices and only that way is because people can pay and charged for it. Those are reasons for extortion and not fundamentals of a sustainable model.


Wash DC is place where people move to for work and die but people are charged NY or San Diego prices for housing b/c they say people can pay for it. If anyone that has ever been to DC/NY/SD/San Fran knows that DC is no where near the league of any of those other desirable places

Let it burn baby, let it all burn.
 
[quote name='Javery']Jeez dude - chill the F out. I already pay more taxes by making more money and being in a higher tax bracket. I don't need to pay more on top of that for "society" or some other bullshit reason. Also, I've never said I had it tough - the only complaint I've ever had is when people try to propose new rules and apply a blanket dollar threshold without taking into consideration any other factors.[/QUOTE]
You know dude, nobody thinks they're rich. If you asked me I'd say you were, but then I know you'd say I'm wrong and list why. Let's just be honest here a moment, you make way more each year than the majority of the people in this country make in many years worth of work. Even for someone making around 50-60k, it would take them around 4 or so years to make your yearly salary assuming the 200k figure is right, and that certainly wouldn't be unheard of for a lawyer. You may not have the biggest house or nicest car, but then you're spending the money on other things anyway, so it isn't that you couldn't have a bigger house or nicer car, you just chose to spend the money on something else, having a family in this case.

You certainly aren't Rockefeller, and probably never will be, but to the majority of this country, you're a rich SOB.

And yes that rhymes.:lol:
 
[quote name='Clak']You know dude, nobody thinks they're rich. If you asked me I'd say you were, but then I know you'd say I'm wrong and list why. Let's just be honest here a moment, you make way more each year than the majority of the people in this country make in many years worth of work. Even for someone making around 50-60k, it would take them around 4 or so years to make your yearly salary assuming the 200k figure is right, and that certainly wouldn't be unheard of for a lawyer. You may not have the biggest house or nicest car, but then you're spending the money on other things anyway, so it isn't that you couldn't have a bigger house or nicer car, you just chose to spend the money on something else, having a family in this case.

You certainly aren't Rockefeller, and probably never will be, but to the majority of this country, you're a rich SOB.

And yes that rhymes.:lol:[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to argue with that - if we are being honest though can't you see why someone in my position (doing just fine although it could all come crashing down at any time) would reasonably be opposed to higher taxes?
 
[quote name='Javery']I'm not going to argue with that - if we are being honest though can't you see why someone in my position (doing just fine although it could all come crashing down at any time) would reasonably be opposed to higher taxes?[/QUOTE]
1. It can come crashing down for any of us at any time. Cept for "us", crashing means going to some boutique firm "only" making half what we make now. That's not the kind of problem most of America would have a problem with when viewed from their economic position. In fact, they'd slit your throat for that half.

2. At some point we have to own that there is a debt problem. If it is going to be fixed, "we" have to pay more. We can be reasonably opposed to higher taxes while also conceding that for the good of the country, "we" need to be taxed more.

Just sayin brah.
 
Thumbs up to that post Speedracer. The world would be a better place if more of the wealthy had your attitude, and more of the super rich had Buffett's.
 
[quote name='Javery']I'm not going to argue with that - if we are being honest though can't you see why someone in my position (doing just fine although it could all come crashing down at any time) would reasonably be opposed to higher taxes?[/QUOTE]

Your 'reason' makes about as much sense as Gordon Gekko's 'greed is good' speech.

edit: Javery, fyi Gekko was the villian of that movie. I didn't want you to be confused.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']You can't rhyme "be" with "B", Clak.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I don't give you shit about your yearly "tree planting" excursions, let me have my moment.;)
 
So you want to take 39% of a person's income for federal taxes, 11% in Hawaii for state taxes, and 45% estate tax if Obama's 2013 budget passed? Not to mention all the other taxes levied on just about everything. Oh, and you want capital gains taxes raised on investment money that was already taxed at the regular rate. What makes you think that the government is entitled to this money? Wage and wealth disparities are not good for the country, but straight jacking people with the IRS strong arm is unjust and immoral. Fair share BS....I pay a very low income tax rate by using every deduction I can, fully funded IRA, mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc., yet I would love a totally revamped and simple tax code. Taking half a person's income, and then close to half again when they die is a crime no matter how much they make. Cut the military, cut entitlements, cut the endowments to the arts, cut all foreign aid, cut all the goofy tree hugger research funding, cut it all....but don't steal from the citizens who live here.
 
Let's say we let all "Bush Tax Cuts" expire and maintain the estate tax. How much more money is that projected to bring into the Federal Government?
 
[quote name='egofed']So you want to take 39% of a person's income for federal taxes, 11% in Hawaii for state taxes, and 45% estate tax if Obama's 2013 budget passed? Not to mention all the other taxes levied on just about everything. Oh, and you want capital gains taxes raised on investment money that was already taxed at the regular rate. What makes you think that the government is entitled to this money? Wage and wealth disparities are not good for the country, but straight jacking people with the IRS strong arm is unjust and immoral. Fair share BS....I pay a very low income tax rate by using every deduction I can, fully funded IRA, mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc., yet I would love a totally revamped and simple tax code. Taking half a person's income, and then close to half again when they die is a crime no matter how much they make. Cut the military, cut entitlements, cut the endowments to the arts, cut all foreign aid, cut all the goofy tree hugger research funding, cut it all....but don't steal from the citizens who live here.[/QUOTE]

You don't grasp the percentages of a progressive tax system. Everything else you say is moot.
 
[quote name='egofed']So you want to take 39% of a person's income for federal taxes, 11% in Hawaii for state taxes, and 45% estate tax if Obama's 2013 budget passed? Not to mention all the other taxes levied on just about everything. Oh, and you want capital gains taxes raised on investment money that was already taxed at the regular rate. What makes you think that the government is entitled to this money? Wage and wealth disparities are not good for the country, but straight jacking people with the IRS strong arm is unjust and immoral. Fair share BS....I pay a very low income tax rate by using every deduction I can, fully funded IRA, mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc., yet I would love a totally revamped and simple tax code. Taking half a person's income, and then close to half again when they die is a crime no matter how much they make. Cut the military, cut entitlements, cut the endowments to the arts, cut all foreign aid, cut all the goofy tree hugger research funding, cut it all....but don't steal from the citizens who live here.[/QUOTE]

How much (as a percentage of the budget) do you think non military foreign aid is?
 
I really wish that the anti government, America fuck yeah types could have their own little chunk of land to run, just to leave the rest of us alone. They gripe about taxes and refuse to look to other countries which do pay higher taxes, and tend to get more for it. Hell, look at your local infrastructure, I bet your roads are no better than mine here, full of pot holes, crap patch jobs etc. You know that in many other industrialized countries they take care of their roads much better than we do, but that takes money, and where does that money come from? Yep, the thing you hate. Look at the state of some of the bridges in this country, they stay up much longer than they're supposed to, they get scheduled for replacement and it never happens. Why? Because bridges aren't cheap, that's why. People don't want to pay taxes to build new ones or properly maintain old ones, so they deteriorate.

Reagen derailed this country from the ideas of the new deal, and we haven't been the same since.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Let's say we let all "Bush Tax Cuts" expire and maintain the estate tax. How much more money is that projected to bring into the Federal Government?[/QUOTE]
A non trivial number?
 
bread's done
Back
Top