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

[patteeu]

It's amazing how bad Obama is at bringing the country together.

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It's amazing how bad Obama is at not doing what the Republicans want.

FYP

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It's amazing how bad Obama is at bringing the country together.

One side has, almost quite literally, taken the ball and gone home.

[Direckshun]

No negotiations over Christmas, by the way, for those of you wondering.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

One side has, almost quite literally, taken the ball and gone home.

That kind of thing didn't happen when Ronald Reagan was uniting the country.

[HonestChieffan]

Golf is good.

[BigRichard]

Originally Posted by patteeu

That kind of thing didn't happen when Ronald Reagan was uniting the country.

Did Reagan have the democrats signing an intent to never bend on certain items? Just wondering.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by BigRichard

Did Reagan have the democrats signing an intent to never bend on certain items? Just wondering.

no, Regan's ideas weren't looney tunes and made too much sense to begin with

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

One side has, almost quite literally, taken the ball and gone home.

can't blame them when the game has no rules

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRichard

Did Reagan have the democrats signing an intent to never bend on certain items? Just wondering.

No. In addition to being a better leader, he was also better at working with the opposition and not alienating them.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by Tom.Jay61

Who made this deal?
When was this deal made?
Why was their a deadline?
Is January 1 2012 an arbitrary date they decided on, or is there a reason why they set it on that date (ie after the presidential election).

Thanks Drek. I know how concerned you are on this matter, so you should have no problem providing this information with links.

Yeah that's what i thought, Drek.

You're not here to have an honest discussion. You're here to spam up the board with Obamunist propaganda.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by patteeu

No. In addition to being a better leader, he was also better at working with the opposition and not alienating them.

Because he needed to give them their domestic agenda in order to get his military agenda regarding dealing with the Soviets.
Although, he still should have made a go of getting rid of the DoE.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Because he needed to give them their domestic agenda in order to get his military agenda regarding dealing with the Soviets.
Although, he still should have made a go of getting rid of the DoE.

I agree. The point I was making was that he wasn't an inept leader who's so full of himself he thinks he can insist on "my way or the highway", like the current occupier.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

That kind of thing didn't happen when Ronald Reagan was uniting the country.

Because the Democrats did not take the ball and go home.

They worked for balanced policy.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

no, Regan's ideas weren't looney tunes and made too much sense to begin with

If you were remotely aware of the liberal policies Reagan embraced...