fiscal cliff

[Lennys Tap]

I  think this is a great read. It's short, and I have found it to be extremely convincing, regardless of one's political persuasion:

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/percent-379256-government-spending.html

"You cannot simultaneously enjoy American-sized taxes and European-sized government. One or the other has got to go."

Steyn is right. If we want the government to provide European size goodies they come with a price tag - higher taxes, lower growth, and a chronically higher unemployment rate. Look to Europe (or California, New York or Illinois vs Indiana or Texas) for the future.

[DegenerateDish]

Raising income taxes in Illinois by 66% sure has helped this state, we're in the clear!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Republicans had term limits in their "Contract with America"- did nothing.

Obama ran on throwing out the lobbyists - did nothing.

Welcome to Politics Political Liars 101.

Fixed it for you

[Hards Alumni]

Republicans had term limits in their "Contract with America"- did nothing.

Obama ran on throwing out the lobbyists - did nothing.

Welcome to Politics 101.

Neither of those things were seriously going to happen.  Politicians have been running on those two ideas for a very long time.  The problem is that only congress and the president can impose them both.  And of course it is against their best interest to impose them.  As long as they make the rules for themselves nothing is going to change.

[Lennys Tap]

Neither of those things were seriously going to happen.  Politicians have been running on those two ideas for a very long time.  The problem is that only congress and the president can impose them both.  And of course it is against their best interest to impose them.  As long as they make the rules for themselves nothing is going to change.

Sad but true.

[Tugg Speedman]

Neither of those things were seriously going to happen.  Politicians have been running on those two ideas for a very long time.  The problem is that only congress and the president can impose them both.  And of course it is against their best interest to impose them.  As long as they make the rules for themselves nothing is going to change.

Disagree ... we vote for them so we get the Government we want.  The fault lies with the American public, not Washington.

[Hards Alumni]

Disagree ... we vote for them so we get the Government we want.  The fault lies with the American public, not Washington.

Ah, an idealist.

[mu-rara]

Term limits
Kick lobbyists out

Would help.  The problem is that everyone seems to want to find ONE way to fix the problem.  The only real solution is to adopt many solutions over a period of time.

Hards,

Would you allow your congressman/senator to leave office at the end of their term?
Your side has lobbyists too.  Would you allow them to be kicked out?

I agree with your sentiment. The politicians who need to vote on this will not let go of power.

[MUBurrow]

Disagree ... we vote for them so we get the Government we want.  The fault lies with the American public, not Washington.

Yes and no. The problem with all the gerrymandered districts from both sides of the aisle is that nothing swings anymore. People don't vote that altogether different than they ever did, but when each party locks in more districts, and fewer swing, the primary becomes more of a threat than the election. So each politician becomes less and less likely to be willing to compromise, and becomes more of an ideologue with each election they are more afraid of the primary than the other party's candidate. I'm fairly certain Silver wrote on this in the Times recently, but I admit that I haven't actually read it yet

[Tugg Speedman]

Yes and no. The problem with all the gerrymandered districts from both sides of the aisle is that nothing swings anymore. People don't vote that altogether different than they ever did, but when each party locks in more districts, and fewer swing, the primary becomes more of a threat than the election. So each politician becomes less and less likely to be willing to compromise, and becomes more of an ideologue with each election they are more afraid of the primary than the other party's candidate. I'm fairly certain Silver wrote on this in the Times recently, but I admit that I haven't actually read it yet

Politicians reflect us.  As a nation we are more ideologue and less will to compromise.

[Hards Alumni]

Hards,

Would you allow your congressman/senator to leave office at the end of their term?
Your side has lobbyists too.  Would you allow them to be kicked out?

I agree with your sentiment. The politicians who need to vote on this will not let go of power.

Yes, of course I would.  My "side" has nothing to do with this conversation. 

[Jay Bee]

Hards believes an electoral vote victory is a mandate from the nation for the winning candidate to do anything and everything he wants. 

[Tugg Speedman]

Hards believes an electoral vote victory is a mandate from the nation for the winning candidate to do anything and everything he wants. 

The president won with 51% of the vote.  He argues that means he gets 100% of what he wants.  (Let me head off the question here ... Go look it up, he has said this loudly and repeatedly since the election)

The speaker argues his party won a majority of the House and they will only vote for what they agree with.

Who is right?  Answer both.  It's the fault of the American public for sending the conflicting views to Washington.   Or, the American public is so divided we send these conflicting signals making it impossible to compromise.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The president won with 51% of the vote.  He argues that means he gets 100% of what he wants.  (Let me head off the question here ... Go look it up, he has said this loudly and repeatedly since the election)

The speaker argues his party won a majority of the House and they will only vote for what they agree with.

Who is right?  Answer both.  It's the fault of the American public for sending the conflicting views to Washington.   Or, the American public is so divided we send these conflicting signals making it impossible to compromise.

Absolutely agree with this last part.  Both sides won.  Anyone that denies this didn't look at the results.  The representatives won their seats to do what their constituents asked them to do.  In the GOP's case, hold the line on taxes and cut spending.  Obama won the presidency (though he got millions fewer votes and a smaller percentage...first time that has happened for a re-elected president since FDR).  He's going to claim he has the will of the people to do what he wants. 

Personally, at this point I hope we go over.  Everyone should be paying more...tired of the few carrying the many.  Tired of spending at 24% of GDP when ideally it should be 18%.  It has been long overdue to pay the piper and there needs to be pain by everyone to finally wake up.  Unfortunately I'm sure these guys will come up with a compromise that will do the following:  Cut taxes in the short run for some citizens and will decrease spending over the next decade.  That's always the hitch, "we'll cut spending down the road", which never happens.

[mu_hilltopper]

Politicians reflect us.  As a nation we are more ideologue and less will to compromise.

Only a sliver of the country has less will to compromise.  The country is a bell curve of political philosophy.  Roughly, a quarter are unyielding liberals, a quarter are unyielding conservatives.  There's a vast middle that want to meet somewhere in the middle, probably shaded to the right than left, 2012's election notwithstanding.

Right now, there's no doubt the quarter of unyielding conservatives makes the most noise, and while most divergent from the other two groups, yields the most power through their relentless battles in GOP primaries .. creating a party that's further right than the populace they represent.

The majority -- the middle -- just isn't organized nor as principled. 

 

The president won with 51% of the vote.  He argues that means he gets 100% of what he wants.  (Let me head off the question here ... Go look it up, he has said this loudly and repeatedly since the election)

Disagree.  Both sides have argued they should have 100% of what they want.  That's how negotiations start. 

[Pakuni]

Hards believes an electoral vote victory is a mandate from the nation for the winning candidate to do anything and everything he wants. 

Guess who said this after an electoral vote victory (hint: it wasn't Obama or Hards):

"I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style."
"When you win, there is ... a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view. And that's what I intend to tell Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the president; now let's work."

[Pakuni]

I know I'll get blasted for this, but I hope we go over the fiscal cliff.

Higher taxes, less spending and paying down the deficit sounds fine to me. Painful, but necessary.

Yes, I too look forward to pulling my kids out of their school so they can attend the cr@ppy public school nearby, cancelling any family vacations and saving significantly less for retirement this year.
Hoo-effin'-ray.

Those of you hoping for the cliff completely miss the point of the cliff.
It was set up to be something so awful, such a lose-lose proposition that the politicians would be forced to compromise for a workable solution.
It was not set up as an alternative solution. It will not make things better, and never was established to make things better. It will make things worse.

It's like amputating your child's arm to deal with a hangnail because you and your wife can't agree over who should go fetch the nail clippers.

[Hards Alumni]

Hards believes an electoral vote victory is a mandate from the nation for the winning candidate to do anything and everything he wants. 

Its funny to hear what I believe.

But I realize Jay is just trolling.

[4everwarriors]

Yes, I too look forward to pulling my kids out of their school so they can attend the cr@ppy public school nearby, cancelling any family vacations and saving significantly less for retirement this year.
Hoo-effin'-ray.

Those of you hoping for the cliff completely miss the point of the cliff.
It was set up to be something so awful, such a lose-lose proposition that the politicians would be forced to compromise for a workable solution.
It was not set up as an alternative solution. It will not make things better, and never was established to make things better. It will make things worse.
It's like amputating your child's arm to deal with a hangnail because you and your wife can't agree over who should go fetch the nail clippers.

Definitely a BFin' of galactic proportions for all those who believe in the American dream and the success that will come with hard work.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Those of you hoping for the cliff completely miss the point of the cliff.
It was set up to be something so awful, such a lose-lose proposition that the politicians would be forced to compromise for a workable solution.
It was not set up as an alternative solution. It will not make things better, and never was established to make things better. It will make things worse.

I don't agree, there  are politicians that want to go over the cliff and have said as such.  I don't think it was setup at all to be "so awful" in their minds as to make sure a solution was inevitable.  For some politicians, the ramifications of the cliff are a wet dream and they are excited to see it coming.

Now, having said that, it will make things worse for most sane people... is that a bad thing in the short term?  We've had these conversations for decades and nothing ever happens.  We're going to curtail spending..we don't.  We're going to change the tax code...we don't.  We're going reign in public labor costs..we don't.  We're going to make sure "everyone pays their fair share"...whatever that means.   We don't.  All this while we are supposedly ALSO going to remain competitive with corporate tax rates...we don't. 

48% of this country pays no income taxes (in 2009 that was 50.8%), but they do pay other taxes..payroll, etc.  Nearly 20% of people in this country pay no income tax and no payroll tax.  Nevertheless, the largest share of revenue comes from federal income taxes followed by payroll taxes next.  Next time I hear someone say we should go back to the Clinton years I ask them if they truly mean it.   That means spending at 18% of GDP, not 24%.  That means the number of people actually PAYING income taxes is closer to 70%, not 52%.  Mathematically, we can't get there right now.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Definitely a BFin' of galactic proportions for all those who believe in the American dream and the success that will come with hard work.

Are there still people that believe that exists?  Come on 4ever, you can afford to give a little more...and a little more...and a little more.   

[Pakuni]

I don't agree, there  are politicians that want to go over the cliff and have said as such.  I don't think it was setup at all to be "so awful" in their minds as to make sure a solution was inevitable.  For some politicians, the ramifications of the cliff are a wet dream and they are excited to see it coming.

So, are you saying that because these people are politicians, it's impossible for them to not get the point?
I'd suggest that there is a scary large number of politicians out there who don't get the point, who are only far too happy to put their personal (read: electoral) interests ahead of the people they're supposed to represent.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Are there still people that believe that exists?  Come on 4ever, you can afford to give a little more...and a little more...and a little more.   

I'm sure poor 4ever is going to be destitute, living out of the back of his Mercedes 

[GGGG]

I don't agree, there  are politicians that want to go over the cliff and have said as such.  I don't think it was setup at all to be "so awful" in their minds as to make sure a solution was inevitable.  For some politicians, the ramifications of the cliff are a wet dream and they are excited to see it coming.

Now, having said that, it will make things worse for most sane people... is that a bad thing in the short term? 

Yes. 

Now this will all get negotiated away, but I think even the payroll tax restoration is going to have a pretty negative impact on the economy.  Taking a lot of money out of circulation.

[Pakuni]

Yes. 

Now this will all get negotiated away, but I think even the payroll tax restoration is going to have a pretty negative impact on the economy.  Taking a lot of money out of circulation.

Money is never really taken out of circulation.
A dollar spent by a government agency is worth the same as a dollar spent by a Fortune 500 company is worth the same as a dollar spent a nonpofit organization is worth the same as a dollar spent by my family, etc.
One could reasonably and fairly argue that the dollar may be spent more efficiently - and therefore better economically - by a private interest rather than a public one, but it's not as if the money just vanishes.