Fiscal Cliff Predictions

what is it with you liberals that you insist on believing all critics of barry sotero are GOP lovers or Bush supporters? I never voted for Bush & acknowledge the obvious, which is spending under Bush was ridiculously high.

But with revenue in the tank & regulatory costs imposed on businesses growing at an insane rate under barry, this guy insists on huge spending, taking us from $3T to $3.8T so far. How could anyone in good conscience support fiscal policies like this??

My name is Lance wrote:

There's nothing constitutional about it and only a moron could desribe it as successful.

It is constitutional according to the Supreme Court.

My name is Lance wrote:

If I'm a successful 40 yr old producer that earns say $200k/yr., SS is a horrible deal for me.

Why? Do you have a government guaranteed defined benefit pension plan? If so, it's unlikely you're paying into SS now.

My name is Lance wrote:

But with revenue in the tank & regulatory costs imposed on businesses growing at an insane rate under barry, this guy insists on huge spending, taking us from $3T to $3.8T so far. How could anyone in good conscience support fiscal policies like this??

Congress controls the purse strings, not Obama. Try to keep up.

I appreciate all of the comments that sent my thread over 300 posts.

But the idea is for it to be a prediction thread.

What will they do, as opposed to what would you like them to do.

We have plenty discussions on threads about what we want.

We know the players involved. They are exactly like the people posting on this thread.

There are rational ones and nut jobs - on both sides.

If just the people on this thread had to agree on fiscal cliff details we wouldn't have had a full resolution by New Years either.

Did they raise taxes on high earners or did they extend cuts on lower earners?

How will this be interpreted by the voters?

Did they raise payroll taxes or restore payroll taxes?

How will this be interpreted by the voters?

Do deficits really matter to voters?

Believe me. This isn't about the country. It's about the voters - at least to those making the decisions.

So, what's next?

do I have a what?? I have no pension plan, govt guaranteed or otherwise. It's up to me to invest & save for retirement, just as it should be for everyone else.

Back to tax cuts. The "fiscal cliff" deal is a $620B tax hike. Only reason it's not more than $620B is some republicans made a mild show of putting up some fairly weak protest. Barry obviously would've been happy with a $1T tax hike, which is basically what obamacare is. Yet you people here wanna praise barry the tax cutter? WTF?

My name is Lance wrote:

do I have a what?? I have no pension plan, govt guaranteed or otherwise. It's up to me to invest & save for retirement, just as it should be for everyone else.

Hey, that's great. What will you do if your investments tank like they did during the Great Depression?

My name is Lance wrote:

what is it with you liberals that you insist on believing all critics of barry sotero are GOP lovers or Bush supporters? I never voted for Bush & acknowledge the obvious, which is spending under Bush was ridiculously high.

But with revenue in the tank & regulatory costs imposed on businesses growing at an insane rate under barry, this guy insists on huge spending, taking us from $3T to $3.8T so far. How could anyone in good conscience support fiscal policies like this??

'regulatory costs imposed on businesses growing at an insane rate under barry". politifact found that regs are growing at the same rate under Obama as most presidents, and slower than under georgie 2.

'revenue in the tank' yes - this is the problem. Spending growth under obama is inline with historical averages. but the financial crisis wiped out revenue.

'huge spending' well it may be huge, but under Obama and teh GOP house spending has growth 9%. Which is about the same as reagan and much less than bush.

Point is that Obama is not an outlier in anything, and you should stop implying he is.

My name is Lance wrote:

you're right. we shouldn't cut anything. We're at $1T+/yr. just with SS & interest payments. The rich aren't paying their fair share and we don't have a spending problem. All hail barry sotero, the dear leader..

We spent "only" $2T in 2002, even with 2 wars, but you're absolutely correct - it's just wacky to think we could possibly live on what we were spending an entire whopping 10 years ago..

I will keep this simple, because it is clear that you have difficulty responding with facts.

A question for you, what two wars were we engaged in during fiscal year 2002?

My name is Lance wrote:

SS is a "wildly successful" welfare program? WTF? Where do you dream up this stuff? Mom's basement?

... and only a moron could desribe it as successful.

And what happens to my ponzi scheme share of the pie if I die at age 61?

Your source may as well be Pravda or the White House.

And crediting SS with decreasing poverty rates for old people is like crediting Medicare for advances in medical technology over the last 50 years or crediting the food stamp giveaway program for more efficiwithdrawing...

I didn't dream it up. I reviewed research on the topic. To support my claim here, I cited to that research, which itself cites to earlier research. Perhaps you should read some of it. Maybe you can poke holes in it or maybe you'd learn something new. In either case, next time you try to argue with someone on the topic you'll have better ammunition than calling him a moron over and over again or referring to the president with mildly offensive names.

My sources are independent academics. I believe that was clear to everyone reading my post besides you.

If you are so sure these studies are wrong and there is some other reason that reduction in poverty rates for the elderly far outstripped their reduction among other age groups, do let us know what the poverty cure was. It would be nice to apply that successful method to all age groups. It would reduce human suffering tremendously.

My name is Lance wrote:

You're counting tax cuts the obama way, i.e. a renewal of an existing tax break is a 'tax cut', not moving to end a prior tax break is a 'tax cut', temporary tax cuts that have already expired are still being touted as tax cuts, etc. Hell, barry even claims the Bush tax cuts as his own, even as he criticizes them as tax cuts for the rich & tries to end them.

Even tax deductions for businesses that only see a break if they purchase something, i.e. health insurance, are counted by barry as 'tax cuts'.

And lemmings like you just spoon that stuff up..

If you wanna talk about 'grand scales', let's talk debts & deficits..

lance, my dear, it was your claim that he did not cut taxes that we are exploring in this line of conversation. if you want to just admit that you were mistaken, which everyone can see that you were, then we can go back to talking about debt and deficits.

I listed, I believe, seven different pretty large tax cuts from his first term. Each of them scored, I think, on an annual basis. That is to say the estimated reduction in taxes over one year. In contrast, the $600 billion fiscal cliff number is a ten year number.

I can see why one would not credit Obama with extension of the bush tax cuts for households with over $250,000 of income, since he reluctantly agreed to that extension. For the remainder, he campaigned on extending them and did. Why would you not count that as a tax cut?

What about the two year payroll tax cut? That was proposed by the white house and was new. That counts, right? Why would you ignore tax cuts just because they have now expired? Was bush's elimination of the estate tax for one year any less real because it only lasted for one year? I'm pretty sure the wealthy heirs who inherited money that year think it is real.

Finally, health insurance is a terrible example as that has long been a deductible payment. R&d credits, bonus depreciation, international tax provisions like active financing and 954(c)(6) - these are real reductions in tax on the scale of tens of billions of dollars.

Hey Lance,

Do you have any details?

What is Obama spending the money on, and how much?

Is there a published list somewhere that shows:

- How much spending is a direct result of Obama's policies?

- How much is a continuation of Bush Jr.'s policies?

- How much is an automatic result Bush's recession, which brings lower taxes and higher outlays?

- What happens when you adjust the spending by taking out interest on the debt handed over from the previous administration?

Actually it is not just a $620B tax hike (over 10 years).

Payroll tax increases will be generating an additional $86B in 2013 alone on lower earners.

Does that get looked at as a tax increase or an expense cut?

Are income tax deductions such as mortgage interest considered an expense or lower taxes?

Anyway, the lower 98% got a bigger effective tax increase than the upper 2% in this deal if you compare to 2012 numbers.

Someone making $400K got all of their income tax cuts extended and had increased payroll taxes on 1/4 of their income.

Those making over a million had income tax relief on 40% of income and increased payroll taxes on 1/10 of their income.

Those making $100K or less had all of their income tax cuts extended and increased payroll taxes on 100% of their income.

How will we do without this stimulus we had been receiving the last two years?

Actually the figure is $113,700. And you ignored the increased capital gains rate and reduced deductions. Care to try again?

Hopefully, this will be my last post on this thread as I'm coming to that Nirvana mindset of "Whatever, nevermind." I agree with most of this, particularly your first sentence. Fair enough, Obama gets criticized for spending that is already mandatory and not of his own making to a large extent. However, after the "fiscal cliff" bill was adopted and the president gave his stump speech, he was clearly alluding to further tax increases via closing loopholes, etc, while referencing more spending in the not-so-veiled language of "investments in various projects."

Clearly, he has no interest in spending cuts, only a further expansion of spending and the entitlement state. If all he cared about was bringing in revenue and doing things in a "balanced" way, he would've accepted closing loopholes and eliminating exemptions from the jump. But he insisted upon a tax increase and put no real, tangible spending cuts on the table. That is who he is.

His own fiscal commission basically condemned his actions with their statement, which, primarily focuses on spending reduction, tax reform, and entitlement reform, none of which was broached as part of this bill. Simpson-Bowles even talked about pro-growth fiscal reform. So, even as I agree that your average American wants to have his/her cake and eat it too, I don't agree that we need to raise taxes further. I think we now need to focus on fundamental fiscal and entitlement reform.

But I don't see it happening with this, as you put it, placeholder president. And things will probably get messy just in time for the next president to take office. So, now we have the upcoming debt ceiling negotiation. I'm sure more "revenue" will dominate the dialogue and anything else will be a "non-starter." Perhaps Obama and Reid should listen to his own appointed fiscal commission, though it seems to me that the appointment of the commission itself was merely for political theatre:

"The deal approved today is truly a missed opportunity to do something big to reduce our long term fiscal problems, but it is a small step forward in our efforts to reduce the federal deficit. It follows on the $1 trillion reduction in spending that was done in last year’s Budget Control Act. While both steps advance the efforts to put our fiscal house in order, neither one nor the combination of the two come close to solving our Nation's debt and deficit problems. Our leaders must now have the courage to reform our tax code and entitlement programs such that we stabilize our debt and put it on a downward path as a percent of the economy.

Washington missed this magic moment to do something big to reduce the deficit, reform our tax code, and fix our entitlement programs. We have all known for over a year that this fiscal cliff was coming. In fact Washington politicians set it up to force themselves to seriously deal with our Nation’s long term fiscal problems. Yet even after taking the Country to the brink of economic disaster, Washington still could not forge a common sense bipartisan consensus on a plan that stabilizes the debt.

It is now more critical than ever that policymakers return to negotiations that will build on the terms of this agreement and the spending cuts in the Budget Control Act. These future negotiations will need to make the far more difficult reforms that bring spending further under control, make our entitlement programs sustainable and solvent, and reform our tax code to both promote growth and produce revenue. We take some encouragement from the statements by the President and leaders in Congress that they recognize more work needs to be done. In order to reach an agreement, it will be absolutely necessary for both sides to move beyond their comfort zone and reach a principled agreement on a comprehensive plan which puts the debt on a clear downward path relative to the economy.”

It's a shame we can't just go back to the transactions taxes that preceded the codified 1913 system that politicians and lobbyists have abused and manipulated basically since it was implemented but particularly in the last few decades.

The key sentence because it needs to be repeated ad nauseum. Ok everybody, have a great day:

These future negotiations will need to make the far more difficult reforms that bring spending further under control, make our entitlement programs sustainable and solvent, and reform our tax code to both promote growth and produce revenue.

This deal was a stopgap measure that needed to get done quickly to avoid the uncertainty with the tax rates. The spending cuts are coming and will be part of Fiscal Cliff II in February. What is it about "balanced approach" that you don't understand?

The part where the cuts will be meager relative to what Simpson-Bowles initially suggested and what really needs to be done, which is now more than what they suggested. It will not approach "balance" in any way, shape, or form. If you believe that, I have a couple plots of land to sell you for a really great price.

Juyeecf wrote:

Actually the figure is $113,700. And you ignored the increased capital gains rate and reduced deductions. Care to try again?

the reduced deductions (and personal exemptions), which kick in at $250,000 of taxable income for a married couple as i understand it, are a bigger deal than the mainstream press will ever tell you. (probably because they don't really understand these provisions).

you may see them referred to in articles as PEP and PEASE.

the other item that is widely ignored is the 3.8% tax on "unearned income" - basically interest, capital gains, dividends, and most rental income - for people with (modified) adjusted gross income above $200k/$250 singles/married.

so the long term capital gains rate for a wealthy person was 15% on 12/31 and it is now 23.8%.

I'm in broad agreement re: entitlement reform, and need for a more comprehensive deal focusing on growth. Hope it happens. But, to be clear - closing loopholes, eliminating exemptions, and "broadening the base" are all tax hikes. Also, have to point out that the excerpt below is just opinion, and really the weakest form of criticism - that which purports to know someone else's thinking and motivations. Also, can't see why you expect Obama to put spending cuts on the table. Republicans want them. It's their main issue. Democrats? Not so much. Relying on your adversary to specify and offer up what you want in a negotiation is not wise strategy.

Sagarin wrote:

Clearly, he has no interest in spending cuts, only a further expansion of spending and the entitlement state. If all he cared about was bringing in revenue and doing things in a "balanced" way, he would've accepted closing loopholes and eliminating exemptions from the jump. But he insisted upon a tax increase and put no real, tangible spending cuts on the table. That is who he is.