- Jackie S
- 12-07-2012, 01:01 PM
This is an automatic law that has already been voted on and signed into law by a previous Congress and President. I don't remember which one. Anybody know?
- CJ7
- 12-07-2012, 01:17 PM
So it’s time for a reminder on just what the “fiscal cliff” is, and how we got here.
We’re talking mainly about two things: tax increases which will go into effect if the Bush-era tax rates that were extended in 2010 expire, and spending cuts generated by the Budget Control Act that ended the debt limit showdown last year. So who is responsible for the current threat?
On the spending-cut side, it’s easy: the Republicans are fully and completely responsible. They not only voted to create the sequester; they wanted even larger cuts than the sequester is set to trigger. When they pushed for them last year, Democrats objected, and the result was an impasse that landed us where we are now. If large cuts would damage the economy — and that’s what the current fuss is about — then it follows that the Republican preference for even deeper cuts threatened to cause more and earlier damage.
Note that the president and some Dems in Congress were for some cuts, but generally wanted any austerity delayed until the economy had recovered, while the Republican position has been that austerity was good for the economy. The particular composition of cuts in the planned sequester were not what Republicans wanted, but the problem here is the size of the cuts, not their composition.
The tax side is more complicated, and has more to do with a real disagreement between the parties and their inability (so far) to resolve it. Both parties want to extend most of the Bush-era rates; Republicans want to extend all of them, while Democrats want to increase rates for high-income filers. Unlike with the cuts, neither party wants all the rates to expire. The danger is that they’ll fail to compromise, which will result in a large tax increase that neither side wants. It’s simply too early to blame either side for failing to compromise. What we do know, however, is that last time they reached this point in 2010 it was the Democrats who caved completely to the GOP, which got its way.
In reality, it seems highly unlikely that disaster lurks in any of this, especially on the tax side. Even if the tax increase or the sequester cuts go into effect at the end of the year, Congress can reverse it whenever it wants. The CBO scare story isn’t the immediate effects of a December stalemate; it’s the effect of a stalemate that lasts throughout 2013. That seems unlikely.
Regardless, if there’s one quick takeaway from this, it’s the amazing spectacle of Republicans suddenly deciding to blame Obama for the potential consequences of austerity.
We’re talking mainly about two things: tax increases which will go into effect if the Bush-era tax rates that were extended in 2010 expire, and spending cuts generated by the Budget Control Act that ended the debt limit showdown last year. So who is responsible for the current threat?
On the spending-cut side, it’s easy: the Republicans are fully and completely responsible. They not only voted to create the sequester; they wanted even larger cuts than the sequester is set to trigger. When they pushed for them last year, Democrats objected, and the result was an impasse that landed us where we are now. If large cuts would damage the economy — and that’s what the current fuss is about — then it follows that the Republican preference for even deeper cuts threatened to cause more and earlier damage.
Note that the president and some Dems in Congress were for some cuts, but generally wanted any austerity delayed until the economy had recovered, while the Republican position has been that austerity was good for the economy. The particular composition of cuts in the planned sequester were not what Republicans wanted, but the problem here is the size of the cuts, not their composition.
The tax side is more complicated, and has more to do with a real disagreement between the parties and their inability (so far) to resolve it. Both parties want to extend most of the Bush-era rates; Republicans want to extend all of them, while Democrats want to increase rates for high-income filers. Unlike with the cuts, neither party wants all the rates to expire. The danger is that they’ll fail to compromise, which will result in a large tax increase that neither side wants. It’s simply too early to blame either side for failing to compromise. What we do know, however, is that last time they reached this point in 2010 it was the Democrats who caved completely to the GOP, which got its way.
In reality, it seems highly unlikely that disaster lurks in any of this, especially on the tax side. Even if the tax increase or the sequester cuts go into effect at the end of the year, Congress can reverse it whenever it wants. The CBO scare story isn’t the immediate effects of a December stalemate; it’s the effect of a stalemate that lasts throughout 2013. That seems unlikely.
Regardless, if there’s one quick takeaway from this, it’s the amazing spectacle of Republicans suddenly deciding to blame Obama for the potential consequences of austerity.
- Yssup Rider
- 12-07-2012, 03:02 PM
I continue to be amazed that Republicans blame Obama for everything.
At least they're off of Clinton's ass.
Ooops! Wait a second! I think there's a Clinton bashing thread going on here now, right?
At least they're off of Clinton's ass.
Ooops! Wait a second! I think there's a Clinton bashing thread going on here now, right?
- Jackie S
- 12-07-2012, 04:50 PM
Did the Democrat Controled Senate pass the Budget Controle Act, and did President Obama sign it?
- CJ7
- 12-07-2012, 04:57 PM
Did the Democrat Controled Senate pass the Budget Controle Act, and did President Obama sign it? Originally Posted by Jackie S
not without the republican controlled House approval
congress as a whole passed the bill
Yesterday, the president signed the bill ending the months-long stalemate on increasing the debt ceiling hours before the United States was set to default on its financial commitments [debt]. The debt ceiling deal was reached Sunday and approved by the House (269-161) on Monday and by the Senate yesterday (74-26).
- Randy4Candy
- 12-07-2012, 04:58 PM
Did the Democrat Controled Senate pass the Budget Controle Act, and did President Obama sign it? Originally Posted by Jackie SYes. What's your point? ALL legislation regarding these Bushy tax cuts have always had a "sunset" clause attached. You do know what a "sunset" clause is, don't you? It's a favorite Republican ploy to pass the buck, or kick the can or whatever Karl Rove-inspired bumper sticker slogan is popular at the moment. Your Teawipe, half-assed, half-informed "point" leaves out all of the information of how it got passed in the first place and what the deals were to get it passed.
You have trouble with shiny objects distracting you, don't ya?
- CJ7
- 12-07-2012, 05:05 PM
try explaining reconciliation to COF ...
- Yssup Rider
- 12-07-2012, 05:15 PM
Tax bills must originate in the House.
- Jackie S
- 12-07-2012, 05:23 PM
I am trying to make a reasonable point here that both parties are to blame for the upcoming mess. (if that is what you can call it), that is pending.
It's amazing how the Democrats, with controle of both the Senate and the Presidency, could be strong armed so easilly. The Senate could have voted it down, and The President could have vetoed it, which would have stood.
It's amazing how the Democrats, with controle of both the Senate and the Presidency, could be strong armed so easilly. The Senate could have voted it down, and The President could have vetoed it, which would have stood.
- Randy4Candy
- 12-07-2012, 05:35 PM
Yep, you're right Jackie S, but legislation passed prior to the 2008 Fiscal Fuckup Recession had a different set of rules or thought process or whatever you like, like it or not - especially the $Trillions that were kept off the books by the Cheney Administration. The European nations that tried the stricter reigning in of much - not all - of their spending have been having a rougher go of it. But, it's really pointless to point out that everyone had a part in making the mess since we can't really agree on what the mess actually is.
Where the "Fiscal Cliff"came from is interesting but meaningless. The "Fiscal Cliff" is a reality and dealing with it is all that matters. Origination theory or history is a waste of time and has nothing to do with dealing with the result.
Where the "Fiscal Cliff"came from is interesting but meaningless. The "Fiscal Cliff" is a reality and dealing with it is all that matters. Origination theory or history is a waste of time and has nothing to do with dealing with the result.
- CJ7
- 12-07-2012, 05:35 PM
I am trying to make a reasonable point here that both parties are to blame for the upcoming mess. (if that is what you can call it), that is pending.the point being, its not as big of an issue as EITHER party wants you to believe it is ..
It's amazing how the Democrats, with controle of both the Senate and the Presidency, could be strong armed so easilly. The Senate could have voted it down, and The President could have vetoed it, which would have stood. Originally Posted by Jackie S
there maybe a fiscal slope but there always has been ... but a fiscal cliff that will be the instant demise of the country doesnt exist besause NEITHER party can, or will let that happen ... political sabre rattling at its finest
look back to Gingrich locking the fiscal door during the clinton years ... it cost him his job. It wont happen again, rest assured.
- Guest123018-4
- 12-07-2012, 06:36 PM
I am all for letting it all expire.
Not going to hurt me one way or another as I am prepared.
If in fact, the "Bush/Obama" tax cuts are what has led us into the sorry state we are in, then the answer is to let them expire and everything should be fine.
we need the additional revenue and we all know that we need the spending cuts that come with it..
Sure it may slow the economy for awhile but things will get better in a few years or so.
With all the increased revenue and spending cuts we should be able to eliminate the deficit and start paying down the debt. Hell we may even be able to start firing a bunch of the lazy ass bastards that "work" for the VA and stop treating our veterans like crap.
Not going to hurt me one way or another as I am prepared.
If in fact, the "Bush/Obama" tax cuts are what has led us into the sorry state we are in, then the answer is to let them expire and everything should be fine.
we need the additional revenue and we all know that we need the spending cuts that come with it..
Sure it may slow the economy for awhile but things will get better in a few years or so.
With all the increased revenue and spending cuts we should be able to eliminate the deficit and start paying down the debt. Hell we may even be able to start firing a bunch of the lazy ass bastards that "work" for the VA and stop treating our veterans like crap.
- Yssup Rider
- 12-07-2012, 07:17 PM
Im with 2Dogs actually. Im happy to pay a little more if it means we start righting the ship. I'll buy less pussy. That'll easily make up the difference.
- Jackie S
- 12-07-2012, 08:57 PM
- cptjohnstone
- 12-07-2012, 10:20 PM