JPB
 
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2012 02:20 pm
How's it going to play out?

Will we get to the brink and come up with a short kicking of the can, do something meaningful, go over?

Whatdoyathink?

Here's an interview with Sen Chambliss (R-GA) to get you started.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/08/gop-sen-chambliss-you-could-see-riots-in-the-streets-of-the-united-states-if-we-dont-do-this-right/
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 42 • Views: 49,229 • Replies: 1,201

 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2012 02:33 pm
@JPB,
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2012 02:37 pm
with any luck we're off to see some lady who'll carry our groceries


i think i've heard her referred to as Helen, a hand basket
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2012 02:50 pm
@tsarstepan,
If only it would be that quick!
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2012 02:51 pm
@djjd62,
It's going to be an interesting couple of months. I'm glad the Gang of Six (now Eight) has been meeting throughout. Let's see if they take the Grand Bargain and go from there.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2012 03:03 pm
I predict more brinkmanship, then a temporary fix that punts it down the field a little way.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2012 03:05 pm
@JPB,
is it common knowledge in the US that much of the rest of the world is in much bigger economic strife than they are

and i ask that only partly tongue in cheek, the minister of finance and our prime minister often warn that the somewhat comfortable economic position we hold at this moment could easily disappear if europe (especially greece, italy and spain) go tits up

most of the american coverage i see seems to put the blame for any economic woes firmly on the president
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2012 03:27 pm
Here's how it should play out:

Obama tells congress: "it's your problem, you created it, you fix it." GOP and Democratic congressional leaders meet to hammer out a compromise but fail miserably as a result of GOP intransigence over tax increases. Jan. 1 comes and goes with no agreement, so the Bush tax cuts expire and the sequester spending cuts go into effect. The business community lets Republican leaders know that it's time to stop playing games. Obama steps in at that point, using the bully pulpit of the presidency to shame both sides into an agreement. Congress passes a bill that includes some modest spending cuts in social programs and sets the top marginal rate at somewhere between the Bush rate (35%) and the reinstated Clinton rate (39.6%), which allows GOP house and senate members to say that they didn't violate the Norquist pledge because they technically didn't vote to raise taxes.

Here's how it will play out:

Obama will take the lead in trying to reach a "grand bargain" on spending cuts, taxes, and the debt ceiling. GOP congressional leaders refuse to entertain any tax increases, but will grudgingly agree to the closure of some tax "loopholes" and a "broadening of the tax base" (i.e. taxing more poor people). Obama, as usual, caves in to Republican intransigence and pushes for a deal that includes substantial cuts to social services and no cuts of any consequence to the military, while the Republicans will graciously permit the government to keep borrowing for another six months. Then GOP hardliners will accuse Obama of being a socialist and a job-killer. Boehner will scuttle backwards like an orange crustacean and renounce the entire deal, just as he did in 2011, and the entire nation will fall off the fiscal cliff. Six months later, Obama and congress agree to a one-time rebate of $500 to each taxpayer that will please Republicans because it's like a tax cut and will appeal to Democrats because it's like a stimulus bill.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2012 03:39 pm
@djjd62,
I don't know about folks who sit within the Fox News bubble, but I think anyone who pays attention outside of that bubble knows what's happening in Europe.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2012 03:44 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Here's how it should play out:

Obama tells congress: "it's your problem, you created it, you fix it." GOP and Democratic congressional leaders meet to hammer out a compromise but fail miserably as a result of GOP intransigence over tax increases. Jan. 1 comes and goes with no agreement, so the Bush tax cuts expire and the sequester spending cuts go into effect. The business community lets Republican leaders know that it's time to stop playing games. Obama steps in at that point, using the bully pulpit of the presidency to shame both sides into an agreement. Congress passes a bill that includes some modest spending cuts in social programs and sets the top marginal rate at somewhere between the Bush rate (35%) and the reinstated Clinton rate (39.6%), which allows GOP house and senate members to say that they didn't violate the Norquist pledge because they technically didn't vote to raise taxes.


Too much stress to give it a "should", but I agree that's a reasonably likely outcome.

Quote:
Here's how it will play out:

Obama will take the lead in trying to reach a "grand bargain" on spending cuts, taxes, and the debt ceiling. GOP congressional leaders refuse to entertain any tax increases, but will grudgingly agree to the closure of some tax "loopholes" and a "broadening of the tax base" (i.e. taxing more poor people). Obama, as usual, caves in to Republican intransigence and pushes for a deal that includes substantial cuts to social services and no cuts of any consequence to the military, while the Republicans will graciously permit the government to keep borrowing for another six months.


I agree with you up to this point.

Quote:
Then GOP hardliners will accuse Obama of being a socialist and a job-killer. Boehner will scuttle backwards like an orange crustacean and renounce the entire deal, just as he did in 2011, and the entire nation will fall off the fiscal cliff. Six months later, Obama and congress agree to a one-time rebate of $500 to each taxpayer that will please Republicans because it's like a tax cut and will appeal to Democrats because it's like a stimulus bill.


Sounds like Israeli/Palestinian peace talks ad nauseum. I hope not, but I can see it happening. I really, really hope not.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2012 06:41 am
It will depend in large part on whether Mr. Obama actually possesses any gonads.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2012 06:58 am
Yes it does. But what does he have to lose this time around?
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2012 09:31 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

How's it going to play out?

Will we get to the brink and come up with a short kicking of the can, do something meaningful, go over?

Whatdoyathink?

Here's an interview with Sen Chambliss (R-GA) to get you started.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/08/gop-sen-chambliss-you-could-see-riots-in-the-streets-of-the-united-states-if-we-dont-do-this-right/

Here's the most interesting portion of the interview to which you linked:

Quote:
SK: But the argument against letting the sequester take effect is a Keynesian one, because it would take government spending out of the economy while it’s still weak. Isn’t that what the market’s worried about, not just long-term deficit reduction?

SC: I think the market’s concerned about both. If you allow the sequester to kick in, the market’s not going to respond well. They’re looking for leadership, not just numbers. Are we going to do it arbitrary, across-the-board, spending cuts and reduction? if we are, that’s not leadership. That’s not what we’re looking to the United States for. We need to reduce spending by this amount in the right way in an overall balanced approach.

First of all, I'm shocked that someone from the media actually understood that massive cuts in government spending would have a Keynesian depressive effect on the economy, and doubly impressed that she actually tried to pin down a politician on that point. Suzy Khimm, whoever you are: good job!

Secondly, Chambliss's response shows just how completely out of touch Chambliss -- and presumably many of his GOP colleagues -- are on this issue. For Chambliss, the problem is obviously the effect that the spending cuts will have on market confidence, and that budget deficits are of equal concern to the markets. That, however, is simply ludicrous. It's immaterial whether the markets are optimistic or pessimistic. Massive spending cuts will drive the country into recession regardless of how the markets feel because of the reasons that Keynes identified nearly a century ago, whereas budget deficits are, right now, of little importance, because the government can borrow money for practically nothing.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2012 10:23 am
@thack45,
That's exactly my point--he has nothing to lose, so he should show some spine and go for it. He doesn't have to stir up personal or partisan animosity, he can use the bully pulpit to call on people to contact their Senators and Representatives to cooperate to solve this problem.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2012 10:36 am
Re "nothing to lose"

Apparently letting the sequestration occur (taxes go up, spending goes down) on Jan 1 and then working quickly to pass a tax cut will trigger AMT on a few million people earning $75,000 many (most?) of whom reside in NJ. According to the IRS it can't be undone in time for folks to get refunds by March/April.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2012 12:12 pm
@JPB,
Well, here's the wall that Obama has to work with.

Quote:
On Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner held fast to the Republican line that no one's tax rates should go up.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2012 12:13 pm
I think that the cliff is coming, and that we should probably let it come and be done with it. Short-term pain is better than long-term structural problems.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2012 12:15 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Well, here's the wall that Obama has to work with.

Quote:
On Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner held fast to the Republican line that no one's tax rates should go up.



He's not going to have a choice - Obama has stated over and over again that he will not reauthorize tax cuts for the wealthy, period. And, as the default position is for those rates to go up, Boehner can't force him to do anything at all...

I highly doubt that the GOP House, in the face of an electoral defeat on the national level, is going to be able to hang tough and shut the gov't down over this or the upcoming debt limit increase. Their last bout of intransigence on that issue directly resulted in a sharp decline in their approval...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2012 12:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I agree; the conservatives will never learn that they are no longer in control of our government if we bend to meet their demands.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2012 12:29 pm
Boehner maps out a two-step timeframe

Quote:
While the deal is far from being cinched, Boehner spelled out that this would be a two-step process in which negotiators reach a deal in December that sets the fiscal framework for new tax revenues and long-term savings from entitlement reform. Then those precise tax and entitlement changes would be implemented in congressional negotiations next year, he said. More
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fiscal Cliff
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2019 at 04:16:58