The Fiscal Cliff

[byu71]

I'm small time, most of my investments are in my 401k. But a couple of weeks ago I moved 80% of my balance into the safest, low risk funds. I'm guessing nothing substantial is going to get done, and the market will react negatively. I'm not not so much trying to time the market, as protect my 20% YTD return for 2012. :humblebrag:

Congrats on your return YTD and your shrewd move.

Now if you move back in at a lower level than you got out, double applause.

[CardiacCoug]

I hope there's a fiscal cliff. Reducing the deficit through increased taxes and reduced spending sounds nice.

Yep, seems like either there will be a lot of economic pain now or even more economic pain later. Why not rip the bandaid off and start living somewhat within our means as a country right now?

[Jacob]

I hope there's a fiscal cliff. Reducing the deficit through increased taxes and reduced spending sounds nice.

it doesn't reduce spending. why do you think spending will be otherwise reduced?

[byu71]

it doesn't reduce spending. why do you think spending will be otherwise reduced?

Going off the cliff indeed reduces spending. Why do you think it has been called "going off the cliff"? I think the defense department said they will be laying off 800,000 employee's.

I can't believe how hard it must be trying to work with Obama. He talks out both sides of his mouth more than any politician I can remember. They all do it, but he has it down to an art form.

Right while they are negotiating, he records a puff interview with David Gregory and said the only hangup to fixing the problem is the republicans want to protect the rich. They may want to do that, but they are also adamant about spending.

I would imagine Boehner and any other republicans who have negotiated with him have been very tempted to tell him to go F himself.

This guy is taking my moderate, cooperative, republican stance and pushing me to the right.

[Goatnapper'96]

Going off the cliff indeed reduces spending. Why do you think it has been called "going off the cliff"? I think the defense department said they will be laying off 800,000 employee's.

I can't believe how hard it must be trying to work with Obama. He talks out both sides of his mouth more than any politician I can remember. They all do it, but he has it down to an art form.

Right while they are negotiating, he records a puff interview with David Gregory and said the only hangup to fixing the problem is the republicans want to protect the rich. They may want to do that, but they are also adamant about spending.

I would imagine Boehner and any other republicans who have negotiated with him have been very tempted to tell him to go F himself.

This guy is taking my moderate, cooperative, republican stance and pushing me to the right.

I agree with your assesment of Obama but the reaction to him in 2010 has produced enough inflexible rightwingers that even if he were reasonable a deal might still not be had. One of those is Raul Labrador, the mormon BYU grad representing Idaho's other district. Our Jack, Rep Simpson, is a pragmatist but there are enough like Labrador in the House. Why do you think Boehner could not get the votes for increasing taxes on income over $1 million? That was a great maneuver that would have boxed in the President and Democrats but too many House Republicans let the good become the enemy of perfect. Between them and the President the situation is untenable.

[byu71]

I agree with your assesment of Obama but the reaction to him in 2010 has produced enough inflexible rightwingers that even if he were reasonable a deal might still not be had. One of those is Raul Labrador, the mormon BYU grad representing Idaho's other district. Our Jack, Rep Simpson, is a pragmatist but there are enough like Labrador in the House. Why do you think Boehner could not get the votes for increasing taxes on income over $1 million? That was a great maneuver that would have boxed in the President and Democrats but too many House Republicans let the good become the enemy of perfect. Between them and the President the situation is untenable.

I basically agree with you when it comes to the hard righties in the republican party. I especially am bugged when I think about the Senators, including Reid, who are in the Senate who might not have been if the far righties hadn't insisted on running "their" candidate instead of a more moderate candidate that could have won.

While the righties are taking crap for not voting for the $million, I can see politically why they didn't want to. They could get beat up by their constituents for voting for something that wasn't going to get passed anyway. No democrat, I guess that includes Matheson, was going to vote for it.

The republicans get beat up for taking votes and voting. They have passed budgets and then they get beat up over what they voted for. That is why dirty Harry hasn't had any votes on budgets. The dems can claim this is what they would and wouldn't do, but talk generalities. No one can stick them with a vote they made.

In a way I am starting to feel that while I don't like how stubborn the righties are, perhaps they are the only reason the moderate republicans aren't getting rolled.

Poor first President Bush. He worked with the dems and broke his "no new taxes" pledge. Did the dems keep their promise to him, NO.

If I were dealing with Obama, Pelosi and Reid, I would have a battery of lawyers with me and insist everything we said would be on tape. They are the type of people I would never take as a client. They would screw you over in a heartbeat.

[Portland Ute]

Did anyone else hear or see the Obama "press conference" today?

Most unusual press conference I have heard.

It was, quite literally, a pep rally. I don't know if it was all media in the audience or not, but if it was, it was a shameful display.

If it was not the media, then who were these people?

It was a campaign rally. People cheering after comments. Obama gloating about his wins.

It really seemed as if he was 'feeling his oats' during this thing.

But why?

There has been no agreement and certainly there are no details.

Odd, odd, odd.

[Jacob]

Going off the cliff indeed reduces spending. Why do you think it has been called "going off the cliff"? I think the defense department said they will be laying off 800,000 employee's.

I can't believe how hard it must be trying to work with Obama. He talks out both sides of his mouth more than any politician I can remember. They all do it, but he has it down to an art form.

Right while they are negotiating, he records a puff interview with David Gregory and said the only hangup to fixing the problem is the republicans want to protect the rich. They may want to do that, but they are also adamant about spending.

I would imagine Boehner and any other republicans who have negotiated with him have been very tempted to tell him to go F himself.

This guy is taking my moderate, cooperative, republican stance and pushing me to the right.

I think you are mistaken. The sequester (defense cuts that you refer to) are not tied to the expiration of current tax rates. And word is that nobody is talking about eliminating the sequester with any last minute deal. So, the sequester stays in place whether there is a tax deal or not. So, spending is not decreased if there is no deal compared to if there is a tax deal.

[byu71]

I think you are mistaken. The sequester (defense cuts that you refer to) are not tied to the expiration of current tax rates. And word is that nobody is talking about eliminating the sequester with any last minute deal. So, the sequester stays in place whether there is a tax deal or not. So, spending is not decreased if there is no deal compared to if there is a tax deal.

Well, I am not sure of exactly what will happen. If you are right, the Obama get's his tax on the rich and everything else stays the same?

Republicans are idiots if they take that deal. The percent of the public that approve of Obama's approach aren't going to vote for a republican anyway.

[il Padrino Ute]

Did anyone else hear or see the Obama "press conference" today?

Most unusual press conference I have heard.

It was, quite literally, a pep rally. I don't know if it was all media in the audience or not, but if it was, it was a shameful display.

If it was not the media, then who were these people?

It was a campaign rally. People cheering after comments. Obama gloating about his wins.

It really seemed as if he was 'feeling his oats' during this thing.

But why?

There has been no agreement and certainly there are no details.

Odd, odd, odd.

Why would anyone be surprised about this? When Dear Leader speaks, minions cheer.

[SCcoug]

If they take us over the cliff then the game would be to get credit for lowering the tax rates back (for at least the "middle class") while also casting blame for not getting a deal done in the first place.

I've read a few places that delaying any vote until tomorrow allows them to count the vote as a tax cut.

[Jacob]

Well, I am not sure of exactly what will happen. If you are right, the Obama get's his tax on the rich and everything else stays the same?

Republicans are idiots if they take that deal. The percent of the public that approve of Obama's approach aren't going to vote for a republican anyway.

Are you kidding. Republicans #1 goal is making tax cuts permanent and cutting spending ranks somewhere around where Bronco ranks football. This deal gets almost all the tax cuts permanent and only raises taxes on folks over $400k by a few percentage points. Sure, there are a few more pieces I'm not fond of, but this is a smokin' deal if they get it, considering where we are at. 1.2T in sequester spending reduction also remains unchainged, which allegedly means 800k layoffs from the military. I'm sure there's another 800k we could cut from the rest of the federal government.

[byu71]

Are you kidding. Republicans #1 goal is making tax cuts permanent and cutting spending ranks somewhere around where Bronco ranks football. This deal gets almost all the tax cuts permanent and only raises taxes on folks over $400k by a few percentage points. Sure, there are a few more pieces I'm not fond of, but this is a smokin' deal if they get it, considering where we are at. 1.2T in sequester spending reduction also remains unchainged, which allegedly means 800k layoffs from the military. I'm sure there's another 800k we could cut from the rest of the federal government.

I disagree with your first sentence, but it isn't worth arguing over.

Yea, I am confused. Nice you have it all figured out. CNN besides Fox is saying there are no spending cuts. Then they also say the sequestration is in effect for spending, but will be fixed in a couple of weeks.

Did you see Obama's statement I guess in front of his followers? He puts the best of trollers on this board to shame. He is suggesting the sequestration can be fixed by raising more taxes. He doesn't seem to buy your permanence feelings.

Sounds like lefties are ticked at what they think the deal is and so are righties. Maybe that means this is a good deal.

[All-American]

Deal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...5-p-m/?hpid=z1

[byu71]

Sequestor is being put off for two months. The amount will be made up with half actual spending cuts and the other half through more revenue.

I guess the sequestration part is not going into force right now.