The "Fiscal Cliff"

[Astaroth]

Soon, a large number of automatic heavy spending cuts will trigger in the US.

Therefore, Congress and the President are currently discussing what to do about that and how to compromise to avoid this blow to the US economy.

Therefore, my question to you guys: what do you think will happen?

Will we end up getting tax increases for the top 2%? Would you support that? And if yes/no, why?

I believe that the Republican-controlled House is currently at quite a disadvantage. Their approval ratings are abysmal and Obama has just been re-elected, giving him a stronger position. Furthermore, he has already offered to keep everyone's but the top 2%'s tax rate low. If the Republicans don't agree to that, they will be seen as the party that is responsible for tax hikes across the board.

Therefore, they seem to have a bit of a problem on their hands. If they agree to tax increases (even if it's just for the top 2 %) they will anger 1. their major donors, 2. their own interests and 3. their base (since they have promised not to raise any taxes). But if they don't come to a compromise with Obama, they are the ones whose constant obstructionism will be blamed for the country going off the "Fiscal Cliff".

What do you think will happen? What should be done about this issue?

[Kanaric]

I like how it has the ultimate political marking fear mongering name given to it so as to destroy any reasonable discussion on purpose.

As far as what will happen Obama will cave to republicans, because hes a conservative. They will probably enact what is the republican idea now and they will disown it and call it liberal while espousing an even more conservative idea to make Obama seem liberal but in back rooms being pleased and patting his back. As is their typical strategy.

[DarthShizNit]

Meh, either a last minute compromise will set in or they'll take us over and then simply reimburse the spending a week latter.

[Black John]

As far as what will happen Obama will cave to republicans, because hes a conservative.

At first I was like but then and finally .

[Denny Crane!]

There should be higher tax rates and massive spending cuts on both sides. Anything else screams politics over practicality and those people are so mercenary its scary.

[Simon Cashmere]

There should be higher tax rates and massive spending cuts on both sides. Anything else screams politics over practicality and those people are so mercenary its scary.

Higher tax rates can kill your economy. The Federal government gets enough money from people, it just wastes the money it gets. What needs to happen is for government to be smaller, instead of this Leviathan that just keeps sucking up money.

I hope they go over the fiscal cliff, that way there might actually be some sensible spending cuts.

[justicar5]

Higher tax rates can kill your economy. The Federal government gets enough money from people, it just wastes the money it gets. What needs to happen is for government to be smaller, instead of this Leviathan that just keeps sucking up money.

I hope they go over the fiscal cliff, that way there might actually be some sensible spending cuts.

75% of the DoD would be a nice start.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Higher tax rates can kill your economy.

Not according to the CBO:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8A71D020121108

The Federal government gets enough money from people, it just wastes the money it gets.

There are subsidies that can be cut for the corporations and spending that can be cut from defense and homeland security. That would knock out most of the deficit. But there are a lot of things we need to spend money on... disaster relief, unemployment insurance, transportation, etc.

[Kanaric]

What exactly happens if the cliff is allowed to happen? Ending all the bush era tax cuts and cutting what spending?

Not knowing what would be cut it almost seems reasonable.

[Denny Crane!]

What exactly happens if the cliff is allowed to happen? Ending all the bush era tax cuts and cutting what spending?

Not knowing what would be cut it almost seems reasonable.

If the cliff happens?

Its what I said.

The baseline projection. This scenario would have lower deficits and debt but also have lower spending and higher taxes.

The fiscal cliff is the smart move. America should run at it and leap head first over that fiscal cliff.

The projections lead to contraction, short term pain for long term net benefit. Its smart financial planning, something which people don't seem to be able to apply towards nation states for reasons I can only hazard insulting guesses at, mainly that they are politicians and need an alternative viewpoint. Independent people have no excuse.

The negotiations should focus over where tax rises should hit, mainly on the rich? Fine.

Over where spending cuts should happen? Everything that isn't essential and I'm looking at military and foreign aid budgets here. Grand massive government projects second. There were a 100 ways to improve the health system and reduce costs for every individual in america without spending a trillion or whatever it was. But hell keep the health system and cut military by 20% if its that big a bug bear, I'd rather spend $100 on health than $10 on guns.

[Kanaric]

But what is cut?

IF it is the smart move and "medicare" or "social security" is on the chopping block there is not any chance it would ever be allowed to happen.

[Astaroth]

Denny, I'm actually finding myself semi-agreeing with you on this.

Problem is, the Republicans are never going to agree to lowering defense spending, keeping healthcare mostly like it is and increasing taxes on the rich.

[Denny Crane!]

But what is cut?

Canadians the darlings of the left had this one right. EVERYTHING. Literally nothing ringfenced, everything had to justify its existence without a 20% of the cut.

IF it is the smart move and "medicare" or "social security" is on the chopping block there is not any chance it would ever be allowed to happen.

EVERYTHING. But hell argue that guns need to be on the chopping block first and I'll not object.

Denny, I'm actually finding myself semi-agreeing with you on this.

Problem is, the Republicans are never going to agree to lowering defense spending, keeping healthcare mostly like it is and increasing taxes on the rich.

Well lets face it, its not like intransigence isn't hugely present on either side but with my limited perspective of US politics I can't imagine I'd sit to comfortably in the fanatically religious crazy fundamentalist republicans, I'm sure there is more to the party than that hell Ron Paul is in it but the fundamentalists always shout loudest.

However just a point in general slightly off topic, the conservatives are the rational (if depressingly incompetent) side of politics in the UK.

[Thorn777]

Canadians the darlings of the left had this one right. EVERYTHING. Literally nothing ringfenced, everything had to justify its existence without a 20% of the cut.



EVERYTHING. But hell argue that guns need to be on the chopping block first and I'll not object.

The way you think about this, is as simplistic as the proposed medicine. Though in Canada's place, working in the infinite growth and debt accumilation paradigme like the rest of us, it did kind of made sense for the next few election-cycles.

Canada cutting 20% off a social-system on a high level and with underpopulation, meaning plenty of job opportunities, is painfull and lots of other bad things in the context of modern, humanist, and enlightened societies we once tried to be, but its not over night killing millions of people.

In the US 20% off everything would mean social and economic chaos. Its not a well oiled machine like Canada, who also have safety-nets within the safety-nets btw once it did those cuts.


@OP
What the US needs is stop being what it thinks it has to be, and instead lead the world on a path of sanity again before you will be lead.

[Denny Crane!]

"Only"?

Lol. The US military spending is almost 5% of its GDP, that's almost twice the global average (which is only so high due to the high US military spending. There are only a small amount of countries that spend a similar % of their GDP on the military. Among those are Saudi Arabia, Syria and Russia.

The way you think about this, is as simplistic as the proposed medicine.

Bet loads of people in Canada criticised this way at the time. It worked though.

Though in Canada's place, working in the infinite growth and debt accumilation paradigme like the rest of us, it did kind of made sense for the next few election-cycles.

It didn't kinda make sense it worked.

Canada cutting 20% off a social-system on a high level and with underpopulation, meaning plenty of job opportunities, is painfull and lots of other bad things in the context of modern, humanist, and enlightened societies we once tried to be, but its not over night killing millions of people.

Neither would America and it is utterly simplistic the very thing you accused me of to say it as you do. The key words being without justification. You could for instance have a hard time justifying the 600 odd billion spent on guns etc. but not social safety nets. But either way USA is living beyond its means with the trillion odd deficit and that needs to change.

In the US 20% off everything would mean social and economic chaos. Its not a well oiled machine like Canada, who also have safety-nets within the safety-nets btw once it did those cuts.

Instead it is a stonking rock solid economy where one state is bigger then most other national economies.

Programs like this would lead towards restructuring of the USA nation but it would work, it is the only way forward. Less spending higher taxes.

[Kanaric]

Denny, I'm actually finding myself semi-agreeing with you on this.

Problem is, the Republicans are never going to agree to lowering defense spending, keeping healthcare mostly like it is and increasing taxes on the rich.

Well the fact that they refuse to cut defense and berate anyone who suggests it shows their true color of hypocrites and that they are not serious at all about cutting spending. Typical of republicans and why I could never morally vote for them.

[Col. Tartleton]

DAMN THE TORPEDOES! FULL SPEED AHEAD!

(Look out everyone, it's Admiral Bad Ass.)

Raising taxes on the rich is useless without massive spending cuts. If the deal is they can have their meaningless taxes on the rich and we can have our gutting the budget good work.

We're probably better off with a small military. It's everyone else who's ed by our budget cuts.

If Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Israel, and the EU want our help they're going to have to pay for it.

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't get the hype about the fiscal cliff. I guess CNN, FOX, and MSNBC need something new after the elections. It's bound to happen. Yes, some people will be worse off but it should happen.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Debts come to kick everyone in the ass at some point. When you try to make due with what you don't have, you're going to have to deal with less later. Guess this is just that time.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Congress will deadlock until the last possible second, when "Contingency 3a-267" will be invoked, a little-known subtext which will permit the government to postpone the exercise of grown-up behavior until the following fiscal year. During that time, the government will function in "safe mode," a special contingency which allows the government to continue to function without any fiscal or legal requirements whatsoever

Seriously though, everyone made s big deal out of the "debt ceiling Armageddon," and in the end, the government just did what it always does: postponed the issue with some arbitrary legislative measure that solves nothing while putting off the problem until after the next election.