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

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It takes a special kind of shill to hold Obama up as a deficit hawk.

Define deficit hawk.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's up for debate.

Haha, no.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Define deficit hawk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_hawk

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You're really, really stupid.

Question: how were we able to raise the debt limit in the summer of 2011?

How has little do with why, dumbass. Take your revisionist history and **** off.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

How has little do with why, dumbass. Take your revisionist history and **** off.

How were we able to raise the debt limit in the summer of 2011?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_hawk

Deficit hawk is an American political slang term for people who place great emphasis on keeping the federal budget under control.

I fail to see how Obama fails to fit this definition.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I fail to see how Obama fails to fit this definition.

That doesn't surprise me. You failed to understand my post about his deficit spending too.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

That doesn't surprise me. You failed to understand my post about his deficit spending too.

Would a deficit hawk not reduce spending at radical speeds?

Has Obama not suggested slicing the deficit by $4 trillion over ten years just a week ago?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Would a deficit hawk not reduce spending at radical speeds?

Yes. In fact, a deficit hawk would make reducing spending a priority.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Has Obama not suggested slicing the deficit by $4 trillion over ten years just a week ago?

Not in any serious way. Deficit hawks aren't about unserious lip service.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Yes. In fact, a deficit hawk would make reducing spending a priority.

Not necessarily in the wake of a recession. You deficit-spend out of recessions.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Not in any serious way. Deficit hawks aren't about unserious lip service.

At least half of it's going to end up in the grand bargain.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Not necessarily in the wake of a recession. You deficit-spend out of recessions.

You can make whatever excuses you want, but Obama hasn't demonstrated the traits of a deficit hawk. His promises to initiate nearly $1 trillion in new spending during the 2008 campaign even before the financial crisis hit is not an indication of deficit hawkishness.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

At least half of it's going to end up in the grand bargain.

I don't know what Republican deficit hawks will be able to accomplish in that regard, but I do know that the President hasn't made a serious proposal to cut spending and bring the deficit down.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You can make whatever excuses you want, but Obama hasn't demonstrated the traits of a deficit hawk.

You keep repeating that conclusion, but you have yet to make a case.

Hilarious that you refer to the Great Recession as an excuse, by the way.

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't know what Republican deficit hawks will be able to accomplish in that regard, but I do know that the President hasn't made a serious proposal to cut spending and bring the deficit down.

And Republicans have?

What have Republicans done that the President hasn't also done, if not surpassed?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You keep repeating that conclusion, but you have yet to make a case.

Hilarious that you refer to the Great Recession as an excuse, by the way.

Obama's record of out-of-control spending is public. A deficit hawk wouldn't have made a deficit-expanding health care reform his top, first-term priority. A deficit hawk who decided to take on the health care reform challenge would have made containment of spiraling health care costs (which largely drive our long-term deficit problems) the top priority rather than universal coverage.

There's your case.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

And Republicans have?

What have Republicans done that the President hasn't also done, if not surpassed?

Have you heard of the Ryan budget proposal from a year or two ago? What about Ron Paul? Republican and democrat deficit hawks alike came together and made a proposal commonly known as Bowles-Simpson.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

A deficit hawk wouldn't have made a deficit-expanding health care reform his top, first-term priority. A deficit hawk who decided to take on the health care reform challenge would have made containment of spiraling health care costs (which largely drive our long-term deficit problems) the top priority rather than universal coverage.

Ah, so you do have things you base your opinions on.

Of course, it's total bullshit.

Obamacare actually reduces the deficit and contains it innumerable measures designed to contain healthcare costs, and already has.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Have you heard of the Ryan budget proposal from a year or two ago?

The Ryan proposal? Oh, you mean the thing that has no chance of passage? Even his own Presidential ticket had to moderate it?

As my good friend pat would say:

Deficit hawks aren't about unserious lip service.

So let me get this straight:

Politically unfeasible budgetary solutions from Obama: unserious lip service.

Politically unfeasible budgetary solutions from Ryan: the very definition of a deficit hawk!

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Ah, so you do have things you base your opinions on.

Of course, it's total bullshit.

Obamacare actually reduces the deficit and contains it innumerable measures designed to contain healthcare costs, and already has.

No, when you strip away the budgeting gimmicks, it adds to the deficit. And the cost containment measures are trivial and completely inadequate to address the problem.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The Ryan proposal? Oh, you mean the thing that has no chance of passage? Even his own Presidential ticket had to moderate it?

As my good friend pat would say:



So let me get this straight:

Politically unfeasible budgetary solutions from Obama: unserious lip service.

Politically unfeasible budgetary solutions from Ryan: the very definition of a deficit hawk!

The Obama proposal, when it was made as a part of the budgets he sent to Congress, couldn't even get democrat votes. The Ryan plan at least passed the House. There's a pretty significant difference in seriousness between the two.