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]

Originally Posted by Literature

I don't know what you think was on that ballot on Nov. 6, but it wasn't the avoidance of the fiscal cliff issue.

Leadership and the ability to bring conflicting sides to a mutually agreeable consensus was on the ballot but he lost.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Leadership and the ability to bring conflicting sides to a mutually agreeable consensus was on the ballot but he lost.

The Republican Party in the House alone can't even agree with themselves on a cogent opposition to Obama. It's wishful thinking that Romney could have gotten everyone together and happy.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

The Republican Party in the House alone can't even agree with themselves on a cogent opposition to Obama. It's wishful thinking that Romney could have gotten everyone together and happy.

Obama has a clear history of failed leadership and an inability to bring people together. Romney has a clear history of the opposite. The choice couldn't have been more clear. Unfortunately, the temptation to scapegoat the rich was too much for too many people.

[Direckshun]

And then, there were two:

At House Speaker John A. Boehner's request, Senate leaders and Representative Nancy Pelosi have been excluded from talks to avert a fiscal crisis, leaving it to Mr. Boehner and President Obama alone to find a deal, Congressional aides say. All sides, even the parties excluded, say clearing the negotiating room improves the chance of success. It adds complexity as the two negotiators consult separately with the leaders not in the room. But it also minimizes the number of people who need to say yes to an initial agreement.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

It always cracks me up when someone tries to claim that money not owed to the government in the first place somehow cost it anything.

That's what a tax holiday is, which is what the Bush tax cuts are: they are an absence of government funding that otherwise would have been there.

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

I don't need an "expert" handing me my opinion when I can see the numbers for myself.

I'm telling you, you're reading the data wrong.

As any economist, and any credible news source will tell you.

Claiming that Obama has spent more? He's actually reduced the growth of government more than any President you've voted for in my lifetime. But fine, Obama has spent more.

Claiming that he doubled the deficit? Factually untrue, and you will find nobody outside of your ideological bubble who will remotely confirm that.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

And then, there were two:

I have no problems with this. In fact I would argue that Steny Hoyer should be allowed to participate since he seems to be the only Dem that understands all options have to be on the table.

Pelosi is a ****ing insult to the people of this country.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I have no problems with this. In fact I would argue that Steny Hoyer should be allowed to participate since he seems to be the only Dem that understands all options have to be on the table.

Pelosi is a ****ing insult to the people of this country.

They'd be more likely to find a compromise if they cut Obama out and had Hoyer (or almost anyone else, including the White House janitor) negotiate with Boehner.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by patteeu

They'd be more likely to find a compromise if they cut Obama out and had Hoyer (or almost anyone else, including the White House janitor) negotiate with Boehner.

Thank God Boehner has the grapes to grab the wheel. BarryO is too busy fellating himself to give a damn about leading.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm telling you, you're reading the data wrong.

As any economist, and any credible news source will tell you.

Claiming that Obama has spent more? He's actually reduced the growth of government more than any President you've voted for in my lifetime. But fine, Obama has spent more.

Claiming that he doubled the deficit? Factually untrue, and you will find nobody outside of your ideological bubble who will remotely confirm that.

THIS!

The RWNJ's need to get out of the bubble and into reality.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm telling you, you're reading the data wrong.

As any economist, and any credible news source will tell you.

Claiming that Obama has spent more? He's actually reduced the growth of government more than any President you've voted for in my lifetime. But fine, Obama has spent more.

Claiming that he doubled the deficit? Factually untrue, and you will find nobody outside of your ideological bubble who will remotely confirm that.

It's indisputable that Obama has spent more.

You have to creatively allocate deficit to avoid the conclusion that Obama has at least doubled the deficit. I'm open to the idea that Bush deserves some of the credit for Obama's first year deficit, but Obama was the President and his party had full, filibuster-proof control of Congress. He didn't have to embrace the deficit that you say he inherited. The fact is that he embraced it and then added to it. No President has ever come close to spending as much as Obama.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

They'd be more likely to find a compromise if they cut Obama out and had Hoyer (or almost anyone else, including the White House janitor) negotiate with Boehner.

They'd be more likely if they cut Boehner out and had Tom Cole negotiate with Obama.

These are the leaders they've chosen.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You have to creatively allocate deficit to avoid the conclusion that Obama has at least doubled the deficit.

Radar Chief, your witness.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Radar Chief, your witness.

Is Direckshun my new interweb stalker here?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Is Direckshun my new interweb stalker here?

Yeah, I'm not sure why he turned me over to you since I was essentially agreeing with you except to the extent that I'm saying the allocation of the 2009 FY deficit is debatable.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's what a tax holiday is, which is what the Bush tax cuts are: they are an absence of government funding that otherwise would have been there.



I'm telling you, you're reading the data wrong.

As any economist, and any credible news source will tell you.

Claiming that Obama has spent more? He's actually reduced the growth of government more than any President you've voted for in my lifetime. But fine, Obama has spent more.

Claiming that he doubled the deficit? Factually untrue, and you will find nobody outside of your ideological bubble who will remotely confirm that.

African lion