Look out for that Fiscal Cliff!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zappit

Zappit

Staff member
We're going over the cliff.

I really don't care if Republican feelings got hurt. I'd LOVE to see their careers hurt now, given how utterly pathetic they were in this entire process. The Dems gave them ground and were negotiating, but they just decided to hold their breath until they passed out unless everyone else did everything they wanted.
 
Krisken

Krisken

I think Boehner would have taken the deal if the rest of the House wasn't nuts. He knows now he's not getting jack squat.

Don't be surprised if he loses the speakership over this. Cantor has been gunning for it for a while and unlike on the Dem side (between Pelosi and Hoyer, who notoriously don't get along) he's less likely to put aside his ambition in favor of making gains.
 
Zappit

Zappit

Staff member
Krisken said:
I think Boehner would have taken the deal if the rest of the House wasn't nuts. He knows now he's not getting jack squat.

Don't be surprised if he loses the speakership over this. Cantor has been gunning for it for a while and unlike on the Dem side (between Pelosi and Hoyer, who notoriously don't get along) he's less likely to put aside his ambition in favor of making gains.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised. Putting Cantor up front is treating a cut with a chainsaw, which is pretty much how the more extreme elements in the GOP want to operate.

Don't laugh, Stein, they cut out a lot of the top earners from the increases in their proposal, which is a hell of a lot more than the GOP did.
 
strawman

strawman

Zappit said:
Don't laugh, Stein, they cut out a lot of the top earners from the increases in their proposal, which is a hell of a lot more than the GOP did.
Click to expand...
They moved from one completely unacceptable position to another completely unacceptable position. Obama said, "It's my way or the highway" knowing that there's no way they could agree to it, then made some insincere "attempts to negotiate" knowing that it was still unacceptable, and is trying to frame the debate in terms of the republicans not meeting at the negotiation table.

There is no negotiation. It's one side saying "come over here and talk on our terms about accepting our proposal."

The republicans are saying, "Cuts and increases are ok. Increases alone are not."

The democrats are saying, "Let's do increases now, and cuts later. Like, never. Because we never do cuts."
 
Krisken

Krisken

I don't know what you have been reading, but that's certainly now how I've seen it. Generally both sides have made demands the other side doesn't like. Too fucking bad, figure something out and stop being babies.
 
strawman

strawman

I think it's actually in the dems best interests to let everything expire anyway.

- They can get rid of all the tax cuts (ie, increase taxes on everyone, especially the cash cow middle class)
- They can blame it on the republicans
- They can offer significantly reduced cuts early next year and make everyone feel like they got something
- They don't have to cut any pork

It wouldn't surprise me if this was the game plan all along.
 
Krisken

Krisken

I think if there was something the President (who despite the stupidity by right wing tabloids is centrist) could accept and still keep the Dems on board, he would have taken it. They offered, as of December 17th, according to Ezra Klein-

The White House made a new offer to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Monday to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. The proposal matches the amount of spending cuts with revenue-raisers, calls for two stimulus measures and seeks an avoidance of a debt limit fight for the next two years.
The details of the offer were sent to The Huffington Post on condition of the source's anonymity.
The White House has moved off of its initial and second revenue demands of $1.6 trillion and $1.4 trillion respectively. As of now, the president would be fine raising $1.2 trillion in revenue. He also is no longer insisting that taxes increase on families with income above $250,000. Instead, he is calling for a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for incomes of less than $400,000.
To meet the $1.2 trillion revenue goals, the White House proposal calls for limiting the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent for taxpayers. It would return the estate tax to 2009 parameters, which would mean that estates worth more than $3.5 million would be taxed at a 45 percent rate.
The compromise on revenue may be difficult for some in the president's own party to swallow, though few would have imagined the White House scoring such a victory just one year ago. The spending cuts in the new proposal could be a harder sale.
In his latest offer to Boehner, the president proposes $800 billion in savings, including $290 billion in interest savings, $100 billion in defense cuts, and $130 billion in savings that would come from an adjustment to the inflation index for Social Security benefits. The administration insisted that there would be "protections for most-vulnerable populations" perhaps by indexing the changes so that they don't affect those with low-income.
The president has refused to give in on another Republican demand: that he gradually raise the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. There is, however, $400 billion in health care savings included in his offer.
Additional components of the proposal include language that would call for the fast track pursuit of corporate and individual tax reform as well as "spending reform." The White House proposal calls for a permanent extension of certain tax extenders (which ones weren't made entirely clear) and the alternative minimum tax. The payroll tax cut passed two years ago would, under this proposal, be allowed to lapse without an apparent replacement -– a major blow for progressive economists, who argue that the economy is too fragile to take such a hit.
The president is, however, pursuing some provisions that would make his base pleased. His plan calls for an extension of unemployment benefits -- set to expire at the end of this year -– and money for infrastructure spending. How much money is unclear, though the president's first offer asked for $50 billion. Finally, he is demanding that the nation's debt limit be increased for two years. He will continue to allow Congress the right to periodically vote not to raise the ceiling, but he would grant himself veto power over those votes.
That may be too much for Boehner to swallow. In his last offer, the speaker signaled comfort with a yearlong extension of the debt ceiling, but nothing more.
An administration official said that this was not the president's "final offer," but one that the White House viewed as a legitimate halfway point between the two sides. The official noted that the president already agreed to a trillion dollars in spending cuts as part of the first debt-ceiling standoff. When adding those figures to this plan, one gets to $3.4 trillion in deficit reduction. When considering war savings, that number goes up to well over $4 trillion over a 10-year period.
Boehner's office did not immediately return a request for comment
Click to expand...
the response by Boehner's office was
Any movement away from the unrealistic offers the President has made previously is a step in the right direction, but a proposal that includes $1.3 trillion in revenue for only $930 billion in spending cuts cannot be considered balanced. We hope to continue discussions with the President so we can reach an agreement that is truly balanced and begins to solve our spending problem.
Click to expand...
Seems like Boehner has no one to blame but himself and his party. Sometimes it's better to eat at McDonalds than to starve.
 
Krisken

Krisken

And now I eat crow as they decided to strike a deal. Keep in mind this doesn't mean it's been voted on and is ready to sign. Leadership is in on the deal, but who knows with the little children in the House and Senate.

And, as always, for fuck's sake, don't read the comments.
 
Tress

Tress

We won't actually be going over any "cliff" tonight. The provisions were not going to take effect until Wednesday, meaning Congress can vote tomorrow to retroactively approve the deal and avoid the penalties. Apparently McConnell and Reid have signed off, as well as Pelosi, but Boehner is still making noise about screwing it all up if the GOP doesn't get everything they want.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

I would just like to say that, even as someone who makes less than $250,000/yr (and therefore the lowest tax burden), I really don't appreciate having my ability to provide for me and mine taken and burned on some altar by someone claiming to be my servant in the hopes that he will get what he wants.

--Patrick
 
Tress

Tress

...and in the end, Congress sort of comes up with a solution, and sort of kicks the can down the road. A most imperfect "solution" with hardly any spending cuts. Just a tax increase for households earning $450,000 or more.

Blech.
 
Espy

Espy

Good job congress. Way to stay stupid. Wouldn't want to ruin that great streak you guys have been on. I can't wait till the debt ceiling debate of 2013!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top