ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Washington DC and The Holy Land (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Economics The Direckshun Grand Bargain (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=267483)

Direckshun 12-08-2012 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John (Post 9190193)
Here's what the CBO says about the fiscal cliff:

Substantial changes to tax and spending policies are scheduled to take effect in January 2013, significantly reducing the federal budget deficit. According to CBO’s projections, if all of that fiscal tightening occurs, real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) will drop by 0.5 percent in 2013 (as measured by the change from the fourth quarter of 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013)—reflecting a decline in the first half of the year and renewed growth at a modest pace later in the year. That contraction of the economy will cause employment to decline and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013. After next year, by the agency’s estimates, economic growth will pick up, and the labor market will strengthen, returning output to its potential level (reflecting a high rate of use of labor and capital) and shrinking the unemployment rate to 5.5 percent by 2018.

Output would be greater and unemployment lower in the next few years if some or all of the fiscal tightening scheduled under current law—sometimes called the fiscal cliff—was removed. However, CBO expects that even if all of the fiscal tightening was eliminated, the economy would remain below its potential and the unemployment rate would remain higher than usual for some time. Moreover, if the fiscal tightening was removed and the policies that are currently in effect were kept in place indefinitely, a continued surge in federal debt during the rest of this decade and beyond would raise the risk of a fiscal crisis (in which the government would lose the ability to borrow money at affordable interest rates) and would eventually reduce the nation’s output and income below what would occur if the fiscal tightening was allowed to take place as currently set by law.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43694

My favorite part was the very next sentence.

Taco John 12-08-2012 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9190185)
For the record, TJ, going off the cliff gives you more revenue and less cuts than what I've suggested.

Yes, I know. I have my reasons. My goal is to shrink government, not fund it.

Taco John 12-08-2012 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9190196)
My favorite part was the very next sentence.

And what about the next one - and the one after that?

Short term pain, long term gain.

Direckshun 12-08-2012 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John (Post 9190200)
And what about the next one - and the one after that?

Short term pain, long term gain.

That's, like, the official tagline of the Direckshun Grand Bargain.

Taco John 12-08-2012 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9190201)
That's, like, the official tagline of the Direckshun Grand Bargain.

I suppose I don't see it. I see a proposal that would choke housing and job recovery both short and long term.

WoodDraw 12-08-2012 10:06 PM

I don't have near the expertise to say yes or no.

I support raising the gas tax, but that has to be slowly phased in over a longer period of time.

I worry about the mortgage deduction thing, especially because it encourages urban flight and sprawl under what you proposed.

I'd like to decrease military spending, and expand the tax base.

J Diddy 12-08-2012 10:18 PM

Cut the taxes for the rich, close the loop holes, add a 5% federal internet sales tax add a sales tax of 5% federal sales tax until the debt gets cleared up.

A Salt Weapon 12-08-2012 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Diddy (Post 9190566)
Cut the taxes for the rich, close the loop holes, add a 5% federal internet sales tax add a sales tax of 5% federal sales tax until the debt gets cleared up.

If you could enter realville for a moment you might realize it's not a revenue issue we have as a country it's a spending problem.

Raising taxes without cutting spending will not clear the debt, no matter how long it's in effect.
Posted via Mobile Device

J Diddy 12-08-2012 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon (Post 9190585)
If you could enter realville for a moment you might realize it's not a revenue issue we have as a country it's a spending problem.

Raising taxes without cutting spending will not clear the debt, no matter how long it's in effect.
Posted via Mobile Device

Please talk to me about realville Mr. close down the government except for the military?

that being said, I agree. That is why I also advocate going over the fiscal cliff

A Salt Weapon 12-08-2012 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Diddy (Post 9190599)
Please talk to me about realville Mr. close down the government except for the military?

Good point.
Posted via Mobile Device

Direckshun 12-09-2012 10:37 AM

13 votes in the poll, plus disagreements with the plan from J Diddy and Woodraw.

Yay: 1
Nay: 15

Trivers 12-09-2012 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9191130)
13 votes in the poll, plus disagreements with the plan from J Diddy and Woodraw.

Yay: 1
Nay: 15

See how hard it is to reach an agreement?

Everyone else wants the other side to pay for their standard of living. And they vote in senators and reps who only care about staying in office.

All the talking heads this AM on TV were blaming the other side.

patteeu 12-09-2012 11:47 AM

Add me to the "nays". Your defense cuts are way too deep. Your tax increases on investment income are way too big and your top marginal tax rate is way too high. It's not clear to me whether you've included much in the way of preventing health care cost increases (beyond tort reform), but that's essential for medicare reform.

FD 12-09-2012 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9191130)
13 votes in the poll, plus disagreements with the plan from J Diddy and Woodraw.

Yay: 1
Nay: 15

Nobody is going to vote yes on an internet board. As is clear from the debates on here, there is no incentive to ever give an inch.

FWIW, I voted no because there were too many cuts to discretionary spending, not enough cuts to Medicare, and because it raised taxes too much on capital gains and dividends. Capital should be taxed less not more.

Direckshun 12-09-2012 02:42 PM

18 Nays, 1 Yay


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.