The Fiscal Cliff Approacheth

[Direckshun]

In an effort to make this thread sticky-worthy, I am going to update this OP to keep casual glancers informed.

This post is the official one-stop shopping of the key points/developments of the fiscal cliff negotiations.

Far as I understand, the fiscal cliff:

1. Gets rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
2. Gets rid of the Bush tax cuts for everybody else.
3. Slashes defense spending by something like $500 billion.
4. Slashes domestic programs like the NIH, Head Start, and medicine/drug care for the poor by $500 billion.

The new idea is for Democrats to allow the cliff to hit, then immediately introduce a bill that would bring 2, 4, and some of 3 back. But not 1.

Here is a chart detailing exactly what the fiscal cliff is going to do, financially:

Spoiler!

Originally Posted by Direckshun

New CBO projection: if the fiscal cliff hits, we are in another recession, and lose two million jobs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87L0JV20120822

The poor would be hurt by the fiscal cliff:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Overall, if the tax breaks from the 2009 stimulus are allowed to expire—the EITC and Child Tax Credit expansions, along with American Opportunity Credit for college tuition—the poorest 20 percent of Americans would see their taxes go up by $209 on average, reducing their after-tax income by 1.9 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center.

As would the middle class:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

According to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, more than half of all married couples will owe an additional tax of around $4,000 unless Congress acts. And more than a third of families with children will fall subject to the AMT, with parents of three or more children facing an extra tax of $4,700.

Among married couples with at least two children and adjusted gross income between $75,000 and $100,000, the center estimates that 84 percent will face a significantly higher tax bill this year because of the AMT.

There seems to be some consensus between the parties that substantial revenues want to be raised. Boehner and the GOP hopes that's through limiting tax deductions rather than tax raises.

Obama's opening offer, essentially:

• Allow the Bush tax cuts on high earners to expire. $849 billion
• Limit itemized deductions to 28 percent, close some loopholes and deductions on high earners, eliminate tax breaks for oil and gas companies, eliminate the carried interest loophole, plus a few other items. $584 billion
• Create a special "Buffett Rule" tax rate for millionaires. $47 billion
• Restore the estate tax to 2009 levels. $143 billion
• Limit corporate income shifting to low-tax countries. $148 billion
• Other miscellaneous tax increases and reductions. About -$200 billion
• Total: $1.6 trillion

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

If your argument is that it's wrong for an institution to be so critical to the economy that sharp cuts would tank the economy, then I'd figure you'd be in favor of breaking up the big banks.

I'd be happy to review anything which restores fiscal sanity, sure.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

If your argument is that it's wrong for an institution to be so critical to the economy that sharp cuts would tank the economy, then I'd figure you'd be in favor of breaking up the big banks.

You're trying to relegate all government spending to that of "an institution"?

Even so, I don't know of any banks that are as large as the federal government.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

You're trying to relegate all government spending to that of "an institution"?

It is an institution.

[Otter]

I'd get ready for soup kitchen lines...they seem to be coming.

[Direckshun]

Blech.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa.../stareport.pdf

[Lightrise]

That's exactly what the democrats should do, but I'd add changing the filibuster rule if they also retain the senate. But the fact is that the republicans already voted last year to destroy the nation by shoving it into default in order to screw the private sector. There is no reason to make it difficult for republicans, they can choose to support the middle class any time they want. They can choose to support veterans or continue to harm them. They can choose to protect the environment or risk your child's life with toxic waste. They can choose to worship Grover Norquist or disavow torture and love God. They can follow a talk radio doctor shopper or the example of Theodore Roosevelt, the Roosevelt who also left the republican party that had disgraced themselves.

[patteeu]

Another day in Obama's America... another credit downgrade for the country.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Lightrise

That's exactly what the democrats should do, but I'd add changing the filibuster rule if they also retain the senate. But the fact is that the republicans already voted last year to destroy the nation by shoving it into default in order to screw the private sector. There is no reason to make it difficult for republicans, they can choose to support the middle class any time they want. They can choose to support veterans or continue to harm them. They can choose to protect the environment or risk your child's life with toxic waste. They can choose to worship Grover Norquist or disavow torture and love God. They can follow a talk radio doctor shopper or the example of Theodore Roosevelt, the Roosevelt who also left the republican party that had disgraced themselves.

Should the Democrats vote to remove the filibuster if the Republicans take the Senate?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Saul Wickedson

Should the Democrats vote to remove the filibuster if the Republicans take the Senate?

I'm not sure removing the filibuster was ever on the table.

Forcing actual, physical filibusters should be, however.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Forcing actual, physical filibusters should be, however.

There's a reason majorities don't do that.

[Lightrise]

The democrats do not have a history of abusing this power like the republicans do. But the filibuster rule has been changed in the past, so it wouldn't be unprecedented. The fact is that Reid didn't change it last time because McConnell committed verbally not to obstruct. While many were suspicious that McConnell would once again be the skunk in the room, Reid chose to give good will one more change. Well, Mitch indeed stunk up the room and harmed the nation day after day. What I'd rather see is less extremism and less obstruction from the republicans. It would be helpful if they would rescind their support for the Cancer on America, the Grover Norquist blackmail pledge. It would be nice to reclaim a label of patriotism most of them gave away for greed.

[KC Dan]

What I would like to see is the Harry Reid led Senate actually follow Federal law and pass a budget.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Lightrise

The democrats do not have a history of abusing this power like the republicans do.

At least not since the last time democrats were in the minority.

[Lightrise]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

What I would like to see is the Harry Reid led Senate actually follow Federal law and pass a budget.

At some point my friend, you have to take responsibility for ignorance. Or, you risk being exposed. It has become hilarious to see the golden rats hurl this right wing extreme talk radio vomit out for the other golden rats. The Budget Control Act passed by both houses and signed by the president is the law. In that bill, there is specific language, specific, that the act replaces the NON BINDING Budget Resolution. It is this budget resolution, which really doesn't amount to anything, and is not required under current law, that is often being erroneously repeated for political purposes.

So, you're either doing that and you are now exposed for it, or there's the ignorance problem. In the end, all golden rats march one by one into the sea of irrelevancy.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

At least not since the last time democrats were in the minority.

During the Bush administration?

Are you saying Republicans now are filibustering just as much as Democrats were in the Bush administration?