PDA

View Full Version : I hope this stopgap measure to avoid the fiscal cliff doesn't pass



Paul Pless
01-01-2013, 06:04 PM
As feared Obama is giving up too much. This is now the defining point of his presidency, and will impact his relationship with Republicans for the next four years. Lets just let this go till at least the new Congress is sworn into office then come back.

Tom Montgomery
01-01-2013, 06:13 PM
Don't worry. The House Republicans won't pass the bill.

Curtism
01-01-2013, 06:14 PM
Is he giving up too much or inching closer to getting exactly what he wants. How many times has he offered up these concessions now?

John Smith
01-01-2013, 06:28 PM
I'm not sure what to hope for, but my gut leans towards the Republicans not passing the bill.

If we look at this as a big game of chess, and this bill fails to pass, the President is the one who's offered compromise and the Republicans are the ones who refused it.

That puts him in a much better position for the next huge debate; the debt ceiling.

If I were in the Oval Office, this is the position I would want to be in.

He will have two built in opportunities to speak to the people. Those people need to be educated. This would be a good time to start.

Remind the people that the last time the Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling, our credit rating took a hit. Tell the public of the compromises the Republicans refused to accept.

Let the public know what historical tax rates have been.

Then offer up something that actually solves our problem. We cannot get enough money out of taxing the rich and cutting spending to fix what needs to be fixed. It's time to tell the public exactly what the math looks like, and remind them we've had a free lunch mentality under Republican controlled government for three decades.

wardd
01-01-2013, 06:35 PM
I'm not sure what to hope for, but my gut leans towards the Republicans not passing the bill.

If we look at this as a big game of chess, and this bill fails to pass, the President is the one who's offered compromise and the Republicans are the ones who refused it.

That puts him in a much better position for the next huge debate; the debt ceiling.

If I were in the Oval Office, this is the position I would want to be in.

He will have two built in opportunities to speak to the people. Those people need to be educated. This would be a good time to start.

Remind the people that the last time the Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling, our credit rating took a hit. Tell the public of the compromises the Republicans refused to accept.

Let the public know what historical tax rates have been.

Then offer up something that actually solves our problem. We cannot get enough money out of taxing the rich and cutting spending to fix what needs to be fixed. It's time to tell the public exactly what the math looks like, and remind them we've had a free lunch mentality under Republican controlled government for three decades.

there is not getting into a better position with the irational

the only hops is if boehner throws up his hands and puts bills on the floor for bipartisan votes with out a majority of rep votes

John Smith
01-01-2013, 06:40 PM
there is not getting into a better position with the irational

the only hops is if boehner throws up his hands and puts bills on the floor for bipartisan votes with out a majority of rep votes

You are correct, and they are irrational. This means we may default on our debt.

More than simply irrational, they are not at all interested in, or aware of, the facts and the consequences of their votes. Plus they are driven by something other than what is good for the country.

They have the power to prevent anything from passing. Gets kind of scary, doesn't it?

pefjr
01-01-2013, 06:40 PM
No spending cuts, no signee.

mikefrommontana
01-01-2013, 09:32 PM
No signee, get even more cuts than you wanted PLUS higher taxes.

Saw that nose off to spite your face--they will.

ccmanuals
01-01-2013, 09:44 PM
I think the market is gonna be pissed tomorrow.

skuthorp
01-01-2013, 09:50 PM
At 2pm the Aussie market and A$ is up, but it's early yet.

elf
01-01-2013, 09:52 PM
Too late, Boehner just agreed to bring the bill to a vote because his caucus agreed to vote for it. A terrible shame.

RodB
01-01-2013, 09:53 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-cliff-jumping-with-barack/2012/11/29/6ddd39f8-3a5f-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html


Charles Krauthammer
Opinion Writer
Cliff-jumping with Barack
Text Size PrintE-mailReprints
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: November 29

Why are Republicans playing the Democrats’ game that the “fiscal cliff” is all about taxation?

House Speaker John Boehner already made the preemptive concession of agreeing to raise revenue. But the insistence on doing so by eliminating deductions without raising marginal rates is now the subject of fierce Republican infighting.




Personal Post
Charles Krauthammer

Krauthammer writes a politics column that runs on Fridays.
Archive
@krauthammerFacebookRSS
Gallery

Tom Toles on the budget battle: Collection of cartoons on the federal budget.
Video

Ann Telnaes animation: Sen. Mitch McConnell refuses to raise the tax rates on the rich.
You may also like...

Michael Gerson
Joy shadowed by sorrow

George F. Will
‘Disdain’ and dismay

Where is the other part of President Obama’s vaunted “balanced approach”? Where are the spending cuts, both discretionary and entitlement: Medicare, Medicaid and now Obamacare (the health-care trio) and Social Security?

Social Security is the easiest to solve. So you get a sense of the Democrats’ inclination to reform entitlements when Dick Durbin, the Senate Democrats’ No. 2, says Social Security is off the table because it “does not add a penny to our deficit.”

This is absurd. In 2012, Social Security adds $165 billion to the deficit. Democrats pretend that Social Security is covered through 2033 by its trust fund. Except that the trust fund is a fiction, a mere “bookkeeping” device, as the Office of Management and Budget itself has written. The trust fund’s IOUs “do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.” Future benefits “will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.”

And draining the Treasury, as 10,000 baby boomers retire every day. Yet that’s off the table. And on Wednesday, the president threw down the gauntlet by demanding tax hikes now — with spending cuts to come next year. Meaning, until after Republicans have fallen on their swords, given up the tax issue and forfeited their political leverage.

Ronald Reagan once fell for a “tax now, cut later” deal that he later deeply regretted. Dems got the tax; he never got the cuts. Obama’s audacious new gambit is not a serious proposal to solve our fiscal problems. It’s a raw partisan maneuver meant to neuter the Republicans by getting them to cave on their signature issue as the hold-the-line party on taxes.

The objective is to ignite exactly the kind of internecine warfare on taxes now going on among Republicans. And to bury Grover Norquist.

I am not now, nor have ever been, a Norquistian. I don’t believe the current level of taxation is divinely ordained. Nor do I believe in pledges of any kind. But Norquist is the only guy in town to consistently resist the tax-and-spend Democrats’ stampede for ever-higher taxes to fund ever more reckless spending.

The hunt for Norquist’s scalp is a key part of the larger partisan project to make the Republicans do a George H.W. Bush and renege on their heretofore firm stand on taxes. Bush never recovered.

Why are the Republicans playing along? Because it is assumed that Obama has the upper hand. Unless Republicans acquiesce and get the best deal they can right now, tax rates will rise across the board on Jan. 1, and the GOP will be left without any bargaining chips.

But what about Obama? If we all cliff-dive, he gets to preside over yet another recession. It will wreck his second term. Sure, Republicans will get blamed. But Obama is never running again. He cares about his legacy. You think he wants a second term with a double-dip recession, 9 percent unemployment and a totally gridlocked Congress? Republicans have to stop playing as if they have no cards.

Obama is claiming an electoral mandate to raise taxes on the top 2 percent. Perhaps, but remember those incessant campaign ads promising a return to the economic nirvana of the Clinton years? Well, George W. Bush cut rates across the board, not just for the top 2 percent. Going back to the Clinton rates means middle-class tax hikes that yield four times the revenue that you get from just the rich.

So give Obama the full Clinton. Let him live with that. And with what also lies on the other side of the cliff: 28 million Americans newly subject to the ruinous alternative minimum tax.

Republicans must stop acting like supplicants. If Obama so loves those Clinton rates, Republicans should say: Then go over the cliff and have them all.

And add: But if you want a grand bargain, then deal. If we give way on taxes, we want, in return, serious discretionary cuts, clearly spelled-out entitlement cuts and real tax reform.

Otherwise, strap on your parachute, Mr. President. We’ll ride down together.

RodB

Keith Wilson
01-02-2013, 12:36 AM
The objective is to ignite exactly the kind of internecine warfare on taxes now going on among Republicans. And to bury Grover Norquist.Works for me.

Gerarddm
01-02-2013, 02:01 AM
Well, it did pass. On to the next manufactured drama. I swear, the GOP should be offered a TV reality show.

John Smith
01-02-2013, 07:04 AM
This bill passed, but it's like giving an aspirin to a headache caused by a brain tumor.

A signal has been sent: we've raised taxes as much as we plan to. Now we'll argue about spending cuts, and we'll agree on some, and that will pass, but we'll still have a deficit and growing debt.

One can look at steps in the right direction as being a positive thing. Or one can look at them as useless endeavors. something that may slow down our trip to bankruptcy, but won't prevent it.

In the meantime, IF we can grow the economy and enough people get enough GOOD jobs, that will also take us in the right direction. They'll be a spending cut when/if we are out of Afghanistan.

Overall, I"m not too optimistic. But, then, that's my nature.

Paul Pless
01-02-2013, 07:06 AM
Overall, I"m not too optimistic. But, then, that's my nature.Neither am I; and I'm an optimist by nature.:d

George Jung
01-02-2013, 09:00 AM
Exciting times; I've been keeping an eye on the markets through all of this; feels like a game of Chicken.

pefjr
01-02-2013, 11:13 AM
I think the market is gonna be pissed tomorrow.Nah, the market is not open tomorrow yet. Oh ...you mean this morning, yeah looks like the shorts are p'ed. Butt..t in the fullness of time ....later today at closing the market may be down on itself.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-02-2013, 12:04 PM
As feared Obama is giving up too much. This is now the defining point of his presidency, and will impact his relationship with Republicans for the next four years. Lets just let this go till at least the new Congress is sworn into office then come back.

The president? This was about a group of very right-wing congressmen who were willing to endanger the economic structure of the United States because they feared voting for the measure would cause them to lose there seats in congress. How very very patriotic they are!
Got any calendar art to show the folks?

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-02-2013, 12:11 PM
How does Social Security add to the deficite? It is funded by it's own special tax and has a fund that can pay benefits for several decades. The trick is Social Secuity has LENT the US Treasury gazillions of dollars which have to be repaid. But we have to pay all other creditors as well. So why zero in on only one?

hanleyclifford
01-02-2013, 12:14 PM
The president? This was about a group of very right-wing congressmen who were willing to endanger the economic structure of the United States because they feared voting for the measure would cause them to lose there seats in congress. How very very patriotic they are!
Got any calendar art to show the folks? You've got a point there, Cuyahoga; right wing Republicans should not be permitted to vote the wishes of their constituencies.

It's just plain bad government.

Keith Wilson
01-02-2013, 12:28 PM
Thank you, Norm. I'm so tired of "the SS trust find is a myth" bullsh!t that I don't even bother to respond any more.


. . . right wing Republicans should not be permitted to vote the wishes of their constituencies.Not that simple. Because of increasingly polarized congressional districts, the real election in many of them is the Republican primary (just like in the old segregated south, the real election was often the Democratic primary). The primaries today generally have low turnout, and those who do vote tend to be more ideologically committed and considerably more extreme than the general population. Many House Republicans are very worried about a primary challenge from the radical right, decided by a very small percentage of voters, many of whom who view comprise, and even government, as dirty words. "Their constituency" is not the population of their district, but the swing voters in the Republican primary.

peb
01-02-2013, 01:10 PM
I wish some right winger could answer the obvious question.

Let's assume that, in anticipation of a demographic wave, it was necessary for the Social Security system to accumulate a surplus over a period of years, because the surplus would be needed when there would be a wave of retirements in the future.

If this was the case, where would the most sensible place to invest the money be? Presuming that the risk tolerance was extraordinarily low?

Under a mattress? In the stock market? Or in the investment vehicle known and considered to be the world's safest?

(Duuuhhhhhhh!!!)
Which means, that for the SS Trust fund to meet its obligations, the borrower of the funds must pay back the loans. mmmmm; hence the national debt is truly inclusive of the amount owed to the SS trust fund, not just the amount owed to private and foreign entitie

hanleyclifford
01-02-2013, 01:26 PM
Thank you, Norm. I'm so tired of "the SS trust find is a myth" bullsh!t that I don't even bother to respond any more.

Not that simple. Because of increasingly polarized congressional districts, the real election in many of them is the Republican primary (just like in the old segregated south, the real election was often the Democratic primary). The primaries today generally have low turnout, and those who do vote tend to be more ideologically committed and considerably more extreme than the general population. Many House Republicans are very worried about a primary challenge from the radical right, decided by a very small percentage of voters, many of whom who view comprise, and even government, as dirty words. "Their constituency" is not the population of their district, but the swing voters in the Republican primary. Their constituency is the people who vote.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-02-2013, 01:38 PM
Which means, that for the SS Trust fund to meet its obligations, the borrower of the funds must pay back the loans. mmmmm; hence the national debt is truly inclusive of the amount owed to the SS trust fund, not just the amount owed to private and foreign entitie


This is what I said avout three spaces above,

"The trick is Social Secuity has LENT the US Treasury gazillions of dollars which have to be repaid. But we have to pay all other creditors as well. So why zero in on only one?"

So what is it you are getting at?

Tom Montgomery
01-02-2013, 02:43 PM
This deal was a nice start.

Let's face it: the 2013 American public must suffer and endure a GOP dominated by extreme, uncompromising, conservative ideologues. They are not interested in responsible governance. They are interested in dismantling the last 70 years of U.S. social policy and transforming the U.S. Federal Government into a laissez-fare economic, Military Industrial behemoth.

This deal starts to break the head-lock the extremist ideologues have over the GOP. Responsible Republicans were finally freed to vote their conscience. Now it becomes a battle between responsible Republicans represented by Boehner and McConnell and the teaparty nut-cases represented by Eric Cantor and Rand Paul.

wardd
01-02-2013, 02:49 PM
I wish some right winger could answer the obvious question.

Let's assume that, in anticipation of a demographic wave, it was necessary for the Social Security system to accumulate a surplus over a period of years, because the surplus would be needed when there would be a wave of retirements in the future.

If this was the case, where would the most sensible place to invest the money be? Presuming that the risk tolerance was extraordinarily low?

Under a mattress? In the stock market? Or in the investment vehicle known and considered to be the world's safest?

(Duuuhhhhhhh!!!)

i have said this many times, also there is the problem of just the taking out of the economy of all that money so even if the government didn't need the ss money it has to be kept circulating somehow