Pushed over the edge?

[ComradeDavo]

We're all going to die December 21st anyway.

You know it would be kind of strange if they reached a deal on that date.....

 

[Joecoolyo]

Would the deal be the catalyst or just a sign?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm telling you guys, Boehner may just drive us over the cliff:

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, emerged Friday to say that "no progress" had been made on resolving the impending "fiscal cliff."

Capitol Hill's top Republican said that talks with President Barack Obama toward resolving the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled for the beginning of next year continued to stall; Boehner renewed his demand that Obama submit a new plan for evaluation by lawmakers.

"This isn't a progress report because there's no progress to report," the speaker said at a brief press conference Friday morning on Capitol Hill.

source

Although many have noted (as has the media) that there is pressure on Boehner to take the deal and raise rates on the wealthy, this article (and many others) note he is also under a lot of pressure because the teahadists think his original deal gave up too much.

 

[warpus]

Is there a list of the tax hikes & spending cuts that would kick in should this happen?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Here you go, this documents many of the changes and the effects they would have.

Interestingly, this morning on the news I heard that the CBO has said that if we went off the cliff, we'd be in surplus by 2020 and our debt would be shrinking and we'd be growing economically. Though they didn't comment on the pain to get from here to there that would go along with the fiscal cliff.

 

[Cutlass]

If he does, Republicans will pay the price for it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Still working on a deal, GOP still insisting tax cuts for the rich.

Two sources familiar with the Obama-Boehner call yesterday described it to NBC News as a "tense" conversation. Amid dueling, new proposals, Boehner proposed a permanent extension of existing tax rates for the wealthy, a Democratic source familiar with the call told NBC's Kristen Welker.

I really think that they think tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires are more important than sound fiscal footing. Or that they can manuever this somehow into an election-winning spin cycle. Or maybe they just believe that -1+-5=15???

 

[Antilogic]

With the election won and a clear mandate to raise taxes on the rich, the President feels comfortable starting his negotiations from this extreme position. But the Republicans are standing firm on their insistence that tax rates should be lowered for most people while closing tax loopholes that will supposedly only affect the rich.

The president's position is extreme? He had something like $1.6 trillion in revenue increases, and Simpson-Bowles, which seems to receive widespread bipartisan praise, had something around $2.2 to $2.7 trillion in revenue increases (all figures over the customary 10-year period). The only reason the $1.2 trillion figure is cited is because Simpson-Bowles has a completely different baseline (i.e. all Bush tax cuts expire).

I hope it's a big deal. Constant fights over the debt ceiling will do far more damage to our credit rating than spending alone.

This.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The president's position is extreme? He had something like $1.6 trillion in revenue increases, and Simpson-Bowles, which seems to receive widespread bipartisan praise, had something around $2.2 to $2.7 trillion in revenue increases (all figures over the customary 10-year period). The only reason the $1.2 trillion figure is cited is because Simpson-Bowles has a completely different baseline (i.e. all Bush tax cuts expire).

I could have been clearer, however I only meant that it was extreme relative to the Republican counteroffer and (IIRC) his own proposal last year when he asked for much less revenue and more cuts.

I don't think he's being extreme at all and the Republicans have only themselves and their intransigence to blame for coming to this point. They could have had a sweeter deal long ago if they hadn't collectively decided "MUST STOP OBAMA" was their biggest priority.

 

[Core Imposter]

Its all a dog and pony show. Spending will continue unabated until fiscal calamity occurs. Revenue lines are pretty meaningless.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yeah, some pretty conservative legislators, like Tom Coburn, have already said they'd be flexible on increasing rates in exchange for specific spending cuts. The teacrazy wing of the GOP is going to complain about any deal, because they don't understand the concept of leverage, but Boehner, for all of his flaws, isn't one of those people.

While I understand the concept, this is why I don't like politics.

We're spending WAY too much darn money. We need to cut spending dramatically. Principled politicians should vote no on any tax hikes. If Obama drives us off the fiscal cliff, in that case, it is REALLY his fault, regardless of who ends up taking the blame for it in the eyes of the class-warfare fostering public who would gladly screw over those who have actually accomplished more than them.

Of course, the rich are not innocent here. They don't want to pay less taxes, they want wars for oil and would love to have low taxes while doing it. The solution is a bloated government budget we can't pay for.

We need to slash the defense budget, end the wars, and bring our troops home NOW.

If they do that, I'm willing to wait on the ponzi scheme entitlements system.

 

[Antilogic]

I might have just overloaded on talking points for the day.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What, don't you want to talk about Ponzi Schemes?

 

[GhostWriter16]

For the record, I am all for having higher taxes than we should normally have to pay down this debt (ALL of it, not Hamiltonian crap about maintaing a debt that saps money from the population in order to "Keep the nation together). Its just that my compromise is very different than yours. I would like the Federal government to spend somewhere close to 5% of the GDP and currently have a tax rate (If we're going to do it by taxing income) of somewhere around 10%. You guys want a massive Federal budget of closer to 30% of the GDP and want some people to pay even more than that in taxes.

Do you guys really have no objection to having the first four hours of your eight hour workday from going straight to the government? Because that's basically where we're at for some people between Federal and State taxes.

 

[galdre]

While I understand the concept, this is why I don't like politics.

We're spending WAY too much darn money. We need to cut spending dramatically. Principled politicians should vote no on any tax hikes. If Obama drives us off the fiscal cliff, in that case, it is REALLY his fault, regardless of who ends up taking the blame for it in the eyes of the class-warfare fostering public who would gladly screw over those who have actually accomplished more than them.

Of course, the rich are not innocent here. They don't want to pay less taxes, they want wars for oil and would love to have low taxes while doing it. The solution is a bloated government budget we can't pay for.

We need to slash the defense budget, end the wars, and bring our troops home NOW.

If they do that, I'm willing to wait on the ponzi scheme entitlements system.

I'd argue that we don't need to spend less, but change what we spend on - but I do agree that we need to slash the defense budget and bring our troops home

and then we need to bring jobs back to the US, which will raise our tax revenue and enable us to get out of debt

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'd argue that we don't need to spend less, but change what we spend on - but I do agree that we need to slash the defense budget and bring our troops home

and then we need to bring jobs back to the US, which will raise our tax revenue and enable us to get out of debt

Yeah, we've discussed that before. We didn't get any further than that first paragraph on actual agreement

At least UHC and more welfare helps SOMEONE though. War helps nobody (Except the state itself, who gains infusion of power from it). So I'd support your program over the current program.

I'd still never vote for it, but I do respect it.

Better yet, SLASH SPENDING. On anything and everything except debt payments. Increase those by about tenfold and pay it off.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Better yet, SLASH SPENDING. On anything and everything except debt payments. Increase those by about tenfold and pay it off.

Greece just called, they wanted to tell you that's a terrible idea.