The Fiscal Cliff thread.

[Thiebear]

The Bush Tax Cuts were passed to save us from a GOP-projected future in which the entire national debt would have been paid off by 2015.
And yes, it would appear that they were successful.
It lowered taxes by 3% on the top income tax bracket. Other brackets received different amounts of cuts.
Dunno about "helped". I'm pretty certain that 401K's existed before Bush, and were completely tax exempt before him. But it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't adjust them in some way or another.
Nope. Created in 1997.
The amount that you are allowed to put in them has been increased several times. Don't know if it was in the same law as the tax cuts or not. Might well have been.
As is typically the case, I have no clue what you're talking about, here.

Someone is cranky pointing out incorrect heritage foundation reports in the 2001?, but the name in 2010 is really for jobs...
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...on_Act_of_2001
the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

and if we passed TARP we would be at 5% unemployment now? They both had their purpose.

I did see where you posted about removing it altogether will NOT cause the 1% loss in Growth I read it would. - if no harm Kill it!
If Harm, we just gained 178k jobs (thanksgiving), need 400k a month (lost 500k jobs altogether making the 7.7%). So don't make it worse please.

And the unemployment rate fell to a four-year low in November from 7.9 percent in October mostly because more people stopped looking for work and weren't counted as unemployed.

But the government said employers added 49,000 fewer jobs in October and September than it initially estimated.

[JMS]

Congress and the Pres should have adopted the bi-partisan deficit commission's recommendations. But of course they did not have the guts to do so. The best thing for this country is to go over the cliff IMHO now with the automatic tax increases for most and budget cuts. I say this knowing full well that I well this is not in my personal interest working for DOD. I just find it completely immoral to pass on debt (bankruptcy) to future generations.

If the Speaker had any moral compass whatsoever he would either endorse what the commission proposed OR propose a better plan. Besides NPR which is not even a drop in the bucket, what are the cuts that he proposes that would balance the budget?

Simpson Bowles has a lot of problems with it... It's a blunt instrument which nobody likes... Not the right or the left..

1. It lowers further the tax rate for the wealthy while increasing the overall tax burdon on the middle class.
2. Capping federal revenues at 21% of GDP will make it impossible for the government to meet its obligations and fund important investments in the future.
3. The plan would cut spending for critical investments necessary to promote economic growth and create jobs.
4. The plan would result in less health care coverage and higher out of pocket health care costs by increasing the excise tax on high cost health care plans and taxing health care plans.
5. The plan would undermine the health care safety net by limiting the federal share of Medicaid costs.
6. The expansion of authority of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to hospital payments threatens to drive hospitals away from providing Medicare services. Don’t you worry that Medicare patients will find it hard to find healthcare?
7. The plan cuts health care benefits for veterans and military families
8. Simpson Boweles makes cuts deep cuts to Social Security for middle class families even though Social Security does not contribute to the deficit and therefore arguable should not be included in a deficit reduction plan
9. Raising the retirement age will represent a hardship for older workers who are unable to find jobs or are physically unable to work.
10. Using chained CPI for Social Security benefits would be unfair to seniors who have less ability to substitute cheaper alternatives and face higher cost of living than the rest of society.

[twa]

I think the final sentence of my quote sums up the article: There's things in there that both political sides will grab hold of, and run gleefully towards the horizon, with.

Doldrums ahead....Forward Ho
Labor Participation Rate Is At 31 Year Lows

no glee

[alexey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...on_Act_of_2001
the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

Why do you think they lowered the top rate more than other rates?

[Larry]

Simpson Bowles has a lot of problems with it... It's a blunt instrument which nobody likes... Not the right or the left..

1. It lowers further the tax rate for the wealthy while increasing the overall tax burdon on the middle class.
2. Capping federal revenues at 21% of GDP will make it impossible for the government to meet its obligations and fund important investments in the future.
3. The plan would cut spending for critical investments necessary to promote economic growth and create jobs.
4. The plan would result in less health care coverage and higher out of pocket health care costs by increasing the excise tax on high cost health care plans and taxing health care plans.
5. The plan would undermine the health care safety net by limiting the federal share of Medicaid costs.
6. The expansion of authority of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to hospital payments threatens to drive hospitals away from providing Medicare services. Don’t you worry that Medicare patients will find it hard to find healthcare?
7. The plan cuts health care benefits for veterans and military families
8. Simpson Boweles makes cuts deep cuts to Social Security for middle class families even though Social Security does not contribute to the deficit and therefore arguable should not be included in a deficit reduction plan
9. Raising the retirement age will represent a hardship for older workers who are unable to find jobs or are physically unable to work.
10. Using chained CPI for Social Security benefits would be unfair to seniors who have less ability to substitute cheaper alternatives and face higher cost of living than the rest of society.

I wouldn't mind seeing some support for some of those claims.

For example, as to #2:





Sure looks to me like a cap of 21% of GDP doesn't seem like TOO onerous a burden.

[deejaydana]

Doldrums ahead....Forward Ho
Labor Participation Rate Is At 31 Year Lows

no glee

Read Bill Gross' latest opinions of what's happening and what's ahead. We're going to have a flat lined or extremely anemic economy for probably 5 to 10 years given the debt, globalization and some other contributing factors all playing a part (mostly debt though).

[Thiebear]

Why do you think they lowered the top rate more than other rates?

They figured the 1.4% difference would buy them the election in 2008?

[alexey]

They figured the 1.4% difference would buy them the election in 2008?

I was hoping for a funnier answer, something along the lines of economic stimulus and patriotism

[Thiebear]

I was hoping for a funnier answer, something along the lines of economic stimulus and patriotism

It's only Patriotic to be forced to pay more. Ask Warren

[FanboyOf91]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/0...sters-himself/



Mitch McConnell actually filibustered his own bill? I for my country.

[Predicto]

Mitch McConnell actually filibustered his own bill? I for my country.

Ok, that was almost unbelievable.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Jon Stewart keeps saying this, and even asked Alan Simpson about it the other day, but I haven't had a good answer from anyone on it.

Supposedly there are 1.2 trillion in cuts coming if we go off the cliff. And cutting that is going to send us into another recession. But, the Republicans are proposing 1.6 trillion in cuts. Isn't that going to send us into a recession then?

[JMS]

I wouldn't mind seeing some support for some of those claims.

Sure looks to me like a cap of 21% of GDP doesn't seem like TOO onerous a burden.

I agree, normally it's not.. But look when we exceeded 21% GDP spending.. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Reagan's Cold war buildup, Iraq, and Afghanistan....
Ask yourself what would the country be like if we were capped spending at 21% GDP and lost 2 or 3 of these seven confrontations because of funding? Do we really want to tie the hands of the nation's leaders when they face a crisis?
Is it even reasonable to do so? And if we can justify spending more than 21% GDP as you have pointed out we have before, why should we write into law a restraint that we can't have federal revenue at that level?

Today we borrow .46 cents for every dollar we spend. Much of it from Foreign countries like China. Can you envision that money drying up? Could you envision a time due to our dependence on foreign capital to service our debt we
could need to get more money from our own citizens to avert a crisis?

Such is the argument.

---------- Post added December-7th-2012 at 02:06 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

Jon Stewart keeps saying this, and even asked Alan Simpson about it the other day, but I haven't had a good answer from anyone on it.

Supposedly there are 1.2 trillion in cuts coming if we go off the cliff. And cutting that is going to send us into another recession. But, the Republicans are proposing 1.6 trillion in cuts. Isn't that going to send us into a recession then?

The Cliff cuts about 7-8% across the board. It's a blunt instrument. That's what the DoD is especially concerned about. They can absolutely cut that much from their budget, but having no imput into what will be cut and having to do it across the board is what they object too.

I also think there are about 3-4 different tax reform bills expiring on the same day with the cliff.. everything from subsidies, to inheritance tax, to bush tax cuts... that combination is more damaging than just the raw dollar calculation on the cuts.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

So, you think the GOP plan is worse than the fiscal cliff recession?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ahem....:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f7b_story.html

House Democrats are reviving an idea that was last popular during the debt ceiling fight of 2011, urging President Obama to consider declaring the debt limit unconstitutional and denying Republicans the chance to wrest spending concessions in exchange for raising the nation’s borrowing limit.

On Thursday, White House spokesman Jay Carney for the first time ruled out that maneuver, indicating that President Obama does not believe the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives him the right to ignore the legal debt limit.

But that opinion is not shared by some Democrats on the Hill, who think that the amendment’s requirement that the validity of the country’s public debt “shall not be questioned” means that Congress cannot tie the government’s hands to borrow funds to meet obligations that the United States has already incurred.

“I’m not a constitutional expert. I’m not even a lawyer. But I do know plain English — I used to teach English. I think that wording is pretty clear to me,” Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House’s third-ranking Democrat, said in an interview.