The Fiscal Cliff thread.

[JMS]

Candidate Obama had more say about 2009
Than any other candidate. Source: wash post.

You know how that Sourcing thing works don't you... you actually have to provide a link when you reference a "source" ... generally..

You are being silly to think Obama prior to winning the election had significant input into the budget. More input than McCain for instance who's party was in control of the Senate?... It was really nice of the GOP to solicit Obama's Opinion and give it so much weight then over McCain's input; That sounds like the Republicans to me... They are big like that when they are in the majority..: Actually as I remember it back in 2008 the GOP was complaining Candidate Obama abstained too much in votes and didn't make his opinions known...

The facts are both McCain and Obama had their hands full when the 2009 budget was debated even voted on much less negotiated mid 2008. :Even if the GOP had socited candidate's Obama's opinion and carefully tracked the idea's of the junior senator from Illinois into there bill...

Radicalism in defense of party is no vise, as long as they can blame the other guy.

[alexey]

Why won't the GOP discuss their suggestions openly?
...
I agree with the GOP's view that Obama's proposal did not include near enough spending cuts. What i don't like is they keep saying that we have to make the tough decisions, but they won't say what they believe those are. They don't want to take the political blame.

Put both proposals out there so the public can better understand where both parties stand.

Yes why not both force the cuts to entitlements AND find a way to blame Democrats for it!

[deejaydana]

Yes why not both force the cuts to entitlements AND find a way to blame Democrats for it!

Well, in truth BOTH sides are ginning this up for as much blame they can pile onto the other party. We all lose of course as this game of fiscal chicken continues.

[alexey]

Well, in truth BOTH sides are ginning this up for as much blame they can pile onto the other party. We all lose of course as this game of fiscal chicken continues.

It makes sense, but the audacity of it is stunning. That would be like Obama trying to blame the GOP for raising taxes on high income earners.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...offer/1743307/
GOP proposes Medicare eligibility age increase

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It makes sense, but the audacity of it is stunning. That would be like Obama trying to blame the GOP for raising taxes on high income earners.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...offer/1743307/
GOP proposes Medicare eligibility age increase

Interesting. I'm also wondering when they are going to tell us what "loopholes" they are going to close in the tax code that gives us 800 billion in new revenue. Just say it GOP: mortgage interest, state and local taxes.... what else.

[Fergasun]

Looks like the GOP is inching towards taking the Erskine-Bowles position.

Washington Post: Boehner, House GOP leaders offer ‘fiscal cliff’ counterproposal

The proposal marks the first time Republican leaders other than Boehner have explicitly and publicly backed new tax revenue. In addition to Boehner, the letter is signed by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.), Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (Mich.) and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (Wis.). The proposal calls for $800 billion in higher tax collections through an overhaul of the tax code next year that would push the top rate below the current level of 35 percent and raise cash by wiping out loopholes and deductions.

The plan also seeks $600 billion in health savings. One option, GOP aides said, would be raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. It also includes $300 billion in savings from other mandatory programs, such as farm subsidies. And it would save $200 billion by applying a less generous measure of inflation government wide, including to Social Security benefits, which would rise more slowly as a result.

I think this is a huge step forward given the positions they staked out during the last "negotiations". To be fair I would like to know how these proposals different from the "Path to Prosperity".... or perhaps its 80% of Path to Propserity.... either way, it's a good start.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 01:27 PM ----------

I would like to add again.

The reason Obama wants to see rates go up: he believes that's hard revenue.
I think he is skeptical if loopholes are closed and deductions removed it would be hard revenue.

Feel free to discuss as necessary...

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The reason Obama wants rates to go up on the top 2% is because he believes the tax code already favors them more. He believes that closing loopholes like mortgage interest deduction, state and local tax deduction, earned income credit, etc., disproportionately impact the middle class in a negative way.

The middle class does not have the available money to tax that the top 2% do (on their money earned over 250K). It has nothing to do with "hard revenue."

[Larry]

I like the idea of raising retirement ages. For Medicare and for SS. And not just to 67.

Really expected the Dems to propose it, but I'll certainly take it.

Now, the USA Today article actually says that no, the R proposal doesn't actually mention raising the age, just that it's based on Erskine, and he supported raising the age. It also includes such lines as "The House Republicans' proposal was short on specifics but . . . "

But still, I'm glad to see it.

Dare I hope that maybe we can do both proposals? (The "tax hike on the rich" and the R proposal)?

[deejaydana]

Interesting. I'm also wondering when they are going to tell us what "loopholes" they are going to close in the tax code that gives us 800 billion in new revenue. Just say it GOP: mortgage interest, state and local taxes.... what else.

You guys are blind if you think JUST one party is at fault here. Of course I back the GOP more (and many time begrudingly so because they are many times equally hopeless and full of hot air) but man, Obama has NEVER issued any kind of budget and guess what? No real spending cuts or programs cuts are being offered from that side and he believes he has a mandate from the people, which he's never had given the percentages of the election. Argghh. I just hate how fake both sides are at this point.

[alexey]

...
Dare I hope that maybe we can do both proposals? (The "tax hike on the rich" and the R proposal)?

It would be interesting... Hopefully Democrats will not give the GOP a hard time about the proposal to raise the age. At some point both parties have to move towards accepting the ownership of the overall deal.

[alexey]

You guys are blind if you think JUST one party is at fault here. Of course I back the GOP more (and many time begrudingly so because they are many times equally hopeless and full of hot air) but man, Obama has NEVER issued any kind of budget and guess what? No real spending cuts or programs cuts are being offered from that side and he believes he has a mandate from the people, which he's never had given the percentages of the election.

There are many things which Obama promised and failed to accomplish, and I do not think too many people here place the entire blame on the GOP.

Then again, the GOP is struggling right now. They find themselves in a very difficult spot where any cooperation with the other side is dangerous.


I do blame the GOP for giving the Obama a convenient excuse - "I'm not doing this because the GOP will torpedo it anyways".

[deejaydana]

There are many things which Obama promised and failed to accomplish, and I do not think too many people here place the entire blame on the GOP.


I do blame the GOP for giving the Obama a convenient excuse - "I'm not doing this because the GOP will torpedo it anyways".

There is a dynamic at play of differing views of how to get back to where we need to be. Some of this can't, unfortunately, be reconciled. Both sides however are going to play it up to the hilt that's it's entirely the other sides fault and that they need to own it (all the while demogoging it to death so all the low information folks can eat it up). The thing is, no matter WHAT compromise they make I unfortunately don't see any real will on either side to face hard choices. If the parties are united about one thing it's the continuation of their careers. We all lose.

[alexey]

There is a dynamic at play of differing views of how to get back to where we need to be. Some of this can't, unfortunately, be reconciled. Both sides however are going to play it up to the hilt that's it's entirely the other sides fault and that they need to own it (all the while demogoging it to death so all the low information folks can eat it up). The thing is, no matter WHAT compromise they make I unfortunately don't see any real will on either side to face hard choices. If the parties are united about one thing it's the continuation of their careers. We all lose.

Business people choosing profits over long term interests of the nation. Politicians choosing getting into office over long term interests of the nation. It's all natural, normal, and expected human behavior. If these guys wouldn't do it, somebody else would be in their place right now. Free market


Next up in the business cycle we will see the GOP get torn up between primary elections and general elections.

[Larry]

Obama has NEVER issued any kind of budget and guess what?

So, I guess all the times you've pulled the "Obama's own Party voted against his budgets" sound bite, you were making things up?

[deejaydana]

Business people choosing profits over long term interests of the nation. Politicians choosing getting into office over long term interests of the nation. It's all natural, normal, and expected human behavior. If these guys wouldn't do it, somebody else would be in their place right now. Free market


Next up in the business cycle we will see the GOP get torn up between primary elections and general elections.

I don't think it's quite that simple but heck, my post was using broad strokes as well so you just followed suit. I'm perfectly fine with the GOP getting torn up in the next cycle. The Dems can own it like they'll have to own California.