Fiscal Cliff Thread

[JVB]

um, the guy was JOKING

Not really. He is a firm believer in broken window economics. We should hire half the country to break windows and pay the other half to fix them. 100% employment!

[jiminnm]

GP wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. He merely pointed out that in the 50s, when the top rate was around 90%, there was no shortage of investment

And there was also no shortage of ways to avoid paying that 90% rate.

[oladub]

Ola, not going into the same, tired arguments with you. been done 1000 times here, and you come up short every time

Too late. I already cited statistics disproving your point that "It is also true that we can't cut our way out of the deficit, especially when the economy isn't strong. There has NEVER been an instance when cutting government has improved the economy - you can't cut your way out of economic malaise." see post #70. Just thinking about all the peace, prosperity, and freedom makes me want to chisel out Roosevelt and Lincoln's faces on Mt. Rushmore and replace them with Harding and Coolidge.

Back to Paul Krugman, the Keynesian fool at Obama's economic table. Not only does he advocate some inflation as being healthy [[post #72), he has advocated that Obama be willing to further damage the economy [[post #6), and has advocated the broken window fallacy with regard to imposing ozone regulations. Sounds like a sadistic witch's brew to me.

"

something that forces firms to replace capital, even if that something seemingly makes them poorer, can stimulate spending and raise employment. Indeed, in the absence of effective policy, that’s how recovery eventually happens: as

Keynes put it

, a slump goes on until “the shortage of capital through use, decay and obsolescence” gets firms spending again to replace their plant and equipment."

Time to start smashing windows.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...zone-and-jobs/

[Jimaz]

The CEO Campaign to ‘Fix’ the Debt: A Trojan Horse for Massive Corporate Tax Breaks

“The ‘Fix the Debt’ CEOs are trying to pass themselves off as noble leaders who are willing to compromise in order the save America from financial ruin,” says report co-author Scott Klinger. “In reality, the campaign is a Trojan horse concealing massive corporate tax breaks that would make our debt situation much worse.”

The Actual Report In PDF Format

[firstandten]

Interesting article from Robert Reich. He feels the economy[[demand) should be strengthen first then the deficit attacked

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Ro...deficit-second

[oladub]

Interesting article from Robert Reich. He feels the economy[[demand) should be strengthen first then the deficit attacked

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Ro...deficit-second

Ouch. After failing for four years to get the economy on track, Reich says that should be the priority over addressing the deficit. He ignores what the fiscal cliff is about. Congress and the President could not agree on how to prevent raising the debt ceiling again so they punted. They raised the debt ceiling [[Democrat point) in exchange for having a year to get the budget in order so this wouldn't happen again by establishing crude draconian outcomes if they failed. Now we are faced with addressing the fiscal cliff again and Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling an additional couple of trillion dollars. Basically, what Reich is saying is to ignore the fiscal cliff, raise the debt ceiling, and maybe, just maybe, if the economy ever ever comes around, try to stabilize spending. Bowles-Simpson plan and prudence be damned. Reich must be on special assignment to damage Asian-American minds at Berkley.

[Danny]

Republicans, Wall Street and other venture captalists you going have to give in to the fiscal cliff. Your money empire will be gone soon. Give in the proletarian demands of the American People. we are now and official a democratic proletarian party.


'Obamaism' [[if it wanted to be a word') is the norm of the United States.

[oladub]

A new plan is being worked on by Obama and Republicans to do nothing except kick the can down the road.

The plan that has been discussed by White House officials is similar in many ways to what lawmakers have discussed. It would terminate the spending cuts for a period of six to 12 months, and replace the cuts with more targeted reductions and revenue increases. House Republicans have proposed a similar model, though they have called for terminating the cuts to defense programs only and haven't accepted a deal to include tax increases as part of any package. -WSJ

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...be-kicked-2013

[JVB]

A new plan is being worked on by Obama and Republicans to do nothing except kick the can down the road.

Shocking!

/sarcasm

[oladub]

At 7.9% unemployment, it's a stretch to say we ever got out of the recession. Alan Greenspan, however, is now saying that raising taxes will cause a recession but that it is worth it to help balance the budget.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle5369498/

[Zacha341]

Well if we get more taxes out of the hyper rich repub and dem elite we can at least FEEL better and continue to spend!

At 7.9% unemployment, it's a stretch to say we ever got out of the recession. Alan Greenspan, however, is now saying that raising taxes will cause a recession but that it is worth it to help balance the budget.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle5369498/

[oladub]

On post # 43 I asked,

$85B/year [[ a Washington Post statistic estimating how much revenue will be raised by reinstating the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the rich ) doesn't go very far toward narrowing the $1T/year Obama deficits. I thought that resuming pre-Bush rates on the rich was going to raise something more like $400B/year. Anyone have links showing that renewing previous higher tax rates on the everyone earning over $250K will raise more revenue?

So far, no response. Warren Buffett yesterday suggested a minimum tax of 30% on over $1M earners and 35% on over $10M earners no matter what the source of income. That would raise more than the piddly $85B/Year tax increase Obama is running around the country promoting. I read one claim that the Buffett proposal would raise over $300B/year toward reducing the $1T+ annual Obama deficits but haven't been able to back up that number.

Please refer to post # 13 to see what the Bowles-Simpson plan, which President Obama once promised to support, also includes. To start with, it requires $200B of discretionary spending cuts. Listen to the President as he barnstorms the Country making speeches about not going over the fiscal cliff. He is really vague on the $200B of cuts needed to accompany his $85B of new taxes. Meanwhile, unions are spending millions lobbying Democrats in Congress to resist cuts in discretionary spending. The President is not reaching across the aisle to come up with a deal. He is still campaigning; demagoguing and pretending that he didn't twice extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. He is not serious about the spending cut part of the equation. If anyone disagrees, can you find a list of his proposed spending cuts? Sorry, but labeling reductions of wasteful war spending as "peace dividends" to spend on new programs doesn't count. Neither does reducing spending increases and calling them cuts.

[Papasito]

There are not enough rich people in this country to pay for the amount of spending that the Government wants to do. Until there are some solid rules that control spending and tie it to revenue taken in, raising or lowering taxes means absolutely nothing.

If there are no rules on spending, throwing more tax revenue at limitless spending means nothing.


Regarding the fiscal "cliff"... why would the Left compromise? If we "fall off" the cliff, they get to raise taxes, cut the military and blame it all on the Republicans. I don't see why the White House would NOT want to go over this "cliff" when it gives them everything they want!!

[rb336]

That's just funny. when you say that, you act like we are going to cut the deficit to nothing in one year. We had a budget surplus under Clinton. just go back to those levels of taxing and spending. Why do I constantly have to remind you people of this:

[oladub]

That's just funny. when you say that, you act like we are going to cut the deficit to nothing in one year. We had a budget surplus under Clinton. just go back to those levels of taxing and spending. Why do I constantly have to remind you people of this:

rb, It must be the dawning of the age of Aquarius or the Spirit of Warren Harding must have paid you a visit because we finally agree on something. I've been looking for a Democrat, any Democrat, who would just go back to the levels of taxing and spending of the Clinton/Gingrich era. I liked your chart too except it should be renamed the legacy of Bush/Obama tax policies since Obama voted for Bush's Wall Street bailout, negotiated to extend the war in Iraq, doubled Bush's troop level in Afghanistan, and twice extended Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Not to quibble though, I'm glad that you want to go back to the spending levels of Clinton. Clinton's last budget for 2001 was $1.9T. Obama's 2013 budget is $3.8T.

Multiplying $1.9T by 4.6% to account for population increase and 10.4% for inflation between 2009 and 2013 = [[$1.9Tx1.046x1.104) = $2.19T taking into account both population and cost of living increases. By all means, raise those taxes by $85B a year on the rich and cut spending [[$3.8T-$2.19T) for another $1.61T. Combined [[$85B of tax increases plus $1.61 of spending cuts) would cancel out the projected $1.1T Obama deficit and allow us to pay down $1.36T of the federal debt. At that rate we could pay off the federal debt in about 12 years. I'm with you on that!

[Goose]

rb, It must be the dawning of the age of Aquarius or the Spirit of Warren Harding must have paid you a visit because we finally agree on something. I've been looking for a Democrat, any Democrat, who would just go back to the levels of taxing and spending of the Clinton/Gingrich era. I liked your chart too except it should be renamed the legacy of Bush/Obama tax policies since Obama voted for Bush's Wall Street bailout, negotiated to extend the war in Iraq, doubled Bush's troop level in Afghanistan, and twice extended Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Not to quibble though, I'm glad that you want to go back to the spending levels of Clinton. Clinton's last budget for 2001 was $1.9T. Obama's 2013 budget is $3.8T.

Multiplying $1.9T by 4.6% to account for population increase and 10.4% for inflation between 2009 and 2013 = [[$1.9Tx1.046x1.104) = $2.19T taking into account both population and cost of living increases. By all means, raise those taxes by $85B a year on the rich and cut spending [[$3.8T-$2.19T) for another $1.61T. Combined [[$85B of tax increases plus $1.61 of spending cuts) would cancel out the projected $1.1T Obama deficit and allow us to pay down $1.36T of the federal debt. At that rate we could pay off the federal debt in about 12 years. I'm with you on that!

this actually makes the most sense... problem is they want to go back to the Clinton levels of taxation and do nothing about actually CUTTING spending, not cutting proposed INCREASES in spending, or baseline budgeting....

too easy.....

[rb336]

and how much, exactly, do the two unfunded wars cost? y'all seem to conveniently leave those out

[Zacha341]

Very compelling comments Papa... Thank you.

There are not enough rich people in this country to pay for the amount of spending that the Government wants to do. Until there are some solid rules that control spending and tie it to revenue taken in, raising or lowering taxes means absolutely nothing.

[Zacha341]

The two wars is a factor IN ADDITION to the other un-capped federal spending.

It's not a 'either' / 'or... It IS BOTH!!

and how much, exactly, do the two unfunded wars cost? y'all seem to conveniently leave those out

[Papasito]

they want to go back to the Clinton levels of taxation

There is no housing or tech bubble to support the Clinton levels of taxation. It was a different time, a different economy, and 2012/2013 is not comparable to that era in any way whatsoever. Politicians are once again living in an alternate reality.

[Papasito]

Why Does Warren Buffet Want Rich To Pay More In Taxes?


Answer:
To keep the rich rich, and the poor poor.

How?
The mega rich "1%" is a private club. They already have their wealth and prosperity. They can afford paying upwards of 35% in income tax.

But can the self starting entrepreneur? Probably not.
These kinds of overwhelming tax rates take more of a person's wealth as they are coming up and growing their wealth. Take more of a person's money, and they have less to keep, save, or invest to get richer.
It seems more appealing and less work to have the Government support you. Why make over the threshold where your income punishes you for being successful?

The rich will stay rich, the poor will be kept poor, and gap between the 1% and the 99% will become wider and harder to traverse.

Warren Buffet stays in the elite rich private club sucking down surf & turf, and you and I keep eating our ham and eggs.

[JVB]

Why Does Warren Buffet Want Rich To Pay More In Taxes?

Answer:
To keep the rich rich, and the poor poor.

Exactly. The ultra wealthy have always conspired with government to limit competition. That's why I laughed at the irony of Obama calling it the "Buffet Rule".

[Jimaz]

Throw Grover over the fiscal cliff?

Who's Grover Nyquist and why has he had so much more influence over our government than the rest of us? Could it be his money?

[Jimaz]

The Wealthy Will Have to Pay More

How can Senator Bernie Sanders be that agile at his age? It's a testament to his commitment.

[oladub]

The Wealthy Will Have to Pay More

How can Senator Bernie Sanders be that agile at his age? It's a testament to his commitment.

Bernie Sanders has a list of taxes and savings to head off the fiscal cliff some of which are good like ending tax breaks for American companies shipping jobs overseas. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsro...a-f10d4bbc7edb

Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders is also trying to undermine the Bowles Simpson Plan which, at one time, both President Obama and some Republican leaders had agreed to support.