The Fiscal Cliff

[YOhio]

Dear Mr. President...

[Omaha 680]

Let's just go over the "cliff". I'm ready. Maybe if people feel some pain and see how little it does to fix the budget crisis, things will start to get more real.

[PaloAltoCougar]

The other night Leno remarked that "Fiscal Cliff" is too bland a moniker, and we should go instead with "It's four in the morning and Lindsay Lohan is at the wheel."

[Goatnapper'96]

Dear Mr. President...

It is going to be interesting. I am convinced that the President wants the deduction limitation and the higher rates. I think that would raise close to $2 trillion over 10 years, which is roughly $200 billion/year or about 20% of what our current budget deficit is. Or less if they get an increase in rates but a lower increase than the delta between current rates and the Clinton rates. I could live with a mixture of raising rates on all groups, returning to Clinton tax rates, while also limiting deductions. That could raise a lot of money.

If we cut current spending by at least 2.5-1, which would be $5 trillion or $500 billion/year, then the US would be making serious headway. Something tells me that there would be many in Congress really hesitant to do this.

Then reform entitlements and it will be cats and dogs living together. Then once the budget is balanced I could even live with another progressive surtax that is used to pay down the debt.

[snowcat]

Dear Mr. President...

[byu71]

Let's just go over the "cliff". I'm ready. Maybe if people feel some pain and see how little it does to fix the budget crisis, things will start to get more real.

I would be all for that if it would in fact change anyone's mind, especially those, including people my age, who think all the payments the government makes can continue to be made if only someone will pay in their "fair" share.

The Greeks are proof if you tell them there is "no more money" they just won't believe it and want what they currently get.

The political game is what is going to kill us economically for a long time. Take it out of the politicians hands like we did with Simpson-Bowles, but instead of it being a recomendation, make their decision become binding like this fiscal cliff thing we are facing. Both parties will have their hands dirtied.

Right now the dems have the republicans over a barrell. We just want to tax the rich fairly they say and we "will" be responsible when it comes to spending, but no specifics. They want the republicans to get specific first and then fight any cuts tooth and nail to be seen as the party of "you get your goodies" but the nasty republicans forced us to take some of it a way. The republicans would do the same thing to the dems if they could.

The worst player in all this is the press who is supposed to be in there holding both parties accountable. Horseshit, except Fox, they might as well be a PR firm for the dems.

I have talked to people who are going to have their taxes raised. In addition to that I have talked to people who are going to get means tested for medi whatever and SS. They are also going to lose deductions.

What I hear mostly is, I am willing to bite the bullet, not because it is "fair", but because it needs to be part of the solution. However, I will be damned if I want to do all that only to see these f'en democrats spend that money they raise and then borrow more all in the name of fairness.

[ERCougar]

I wonder how true it is that Obama holds the power here. The fiscal cliff involves tax rate hikes for everyone, right? That's not what Obama wants--he just wants to raise the rates on the rich. I'm wondering if the Republicans would rather raise rates on everyone than just on the rich, so while going off the cliff isn't their ideal, it's better than Obama's idea.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I wonder how true it is that Obama holds the power here. The fiscal cliff involves tax rate hikes for everyone, right? That's not what Obama wants--he just wants to raise the rates on the rich. I'm wondering if the Republicans would rather raise rates on everyone than just on the rich, so while going off the cliff isn't their ideal, it's better than Obama's idea.

Bush's tax cuts took tens of millions of people off the tax rolls. It's time to put them back on.

[Omaha 680]

I wonder how true it is that Obama holds the power here. The fiscal cliff involves tax rate hikes for everyone, right? That's not what Obama wants--he just wants to raise the rates on the rich. I'm wondering if the Republicans would rather raise rates on everyone than just on the rich, so while going off the cliff isn't their ideal, it's better than Obama's idea.

Exactly. They need to call Obama's bluff here. Just respond with "all during the campaign we heard how much more equitable the tax system was during Bill Clinton's presidency and how the budget was balanced. You won, so we're going to allow you return to the more equitable 90s and let all the Bush tax rates expire."

[Omaha 680]

Bush's tax cuts took tens of millions of people off the tax rolls. It's time to put them back on.

Yes. Let's do this. Dems don't want to put people back on the tax rolls because when people pay income tax, they stop voting D. That's why they're content to play the rich bogeyman card and perpetuate the fantasy that there is enough wealth among the 1% to solve our problems.

Stop playing the game.

[byu71]

Exactly. They need to call Obama's bluff here. Just respond with "all during the campaign we heard how much more equitable the tax system was during Bill Clinton's presidency and how the budget was balanced. You won, so we're going to allow you return to the more equitable 90s and let all the Bush tax rates expire."

Sounds good, but when the elections come around, the republicans will get punished.

I don't care how pissed off people were at Romney for saying what he did, but it was true. Maybe not put well, but true. It was an election about the government handing out things and when things get taken away the party of redistribution is not going to get the bulk of the blame.

What is the best way for the government, those that believe in socialism to gain more power. It is for economic chaos. Where did the bulk of the social welfare programs get their start. The great depression I think.

How much power has the government gained since the 2008 collapse.

Lastly the stinking republicans who were into politics as usual and started handing out goodies too instead of being fiscally responsible carry a lot of the blame for the countries problems.

These people in charge are not smart enough of of high enough character to get this thing fixed.

Take heart though. Even European and Canadian Socialist countries do no have prolonged poverty for all. They also have their good time and bad times. Just don't expect so much mobility from the lower class to upper class as this countrty once had.

[wapiti]

Exactly. They need to call Obama's bluff here. Just respond with "all during the campaign we heard how much more equitable the tax system was during Bill Clinton's presidency and how the budget was balanced. You won, so we're going to allow you return to the more equitable 90s and let all the Bush tax rates expire."

Obama doesn't care if taxes get rates on the middle class as long as he can blame republicans for it.

[Mormon Red Death]

per TMQ:

How Government Is Like a Cell Phone: A month ago, TMQ detailed that despite what popular commentary assumes, federal taxes have been in steady decline for a quarter of a century. Here from last week's New York Times is the complete picture, showing the combined impact of federal, state and local taxes has been in decline for a quarter century across the board, for all income groups.

One thing this means is that government is becoming a better buy! Taxes decline, yet benefits keep rising -- higher Medicare and Medicaid spending; ever-more people receiving food stamps, Social Security and disability payments; longer unemployment benefits; government paying off parts of mortgages. Entitlements, already 46 percent of federal spending, will go up further as ObamaCare takes effect. Robert Samuelson notes that entitlements represent "a huge redistribution from young to old, redistribution that will be made worse if retiree programs are largely excluded from deficit reduction." And a huge redistribution from young people who need money to seniors who don't. Nearly 26 percent of Americans over age 65 have incomes of more than $75,000, yet they receive Social Security funded by young people who earn less.

The graph your columnist is waiting to see is one that compares declining taxes to rising benefits. If you know of a good academic (not interest group) version of that comparison, please send the URL to me at TMQ_ESPN@yahoo.com. Most likely when declining taxes and rising benefits are taken into account, the retail price of government is falling as fast as the retail price of cell phones.

Or is it? Because of the national debt, much of the retail price of government is being pushed into the future: lower taxes and higher benefits today, but a reckoning deferred. Imagine if you could buy a car at half price, while signing a contract that said your children would have to pay the other half plus interest, regardless of whether they gave consent. That's how government is operating right now.

Adults are supposed to leave money to children; today's adults are leaving their children debt. In the fiscal cliff talks, Republicans must agree to higher taxes: The time has come. President Obama and the Democrats must agree to entitlement cuts. Anything else would be irresponsible. In 2000 and 2004, the Republicans won and responded by acting irresponsibly with the nation's finances. In 2008 and now in 2012, the Democrats won. But two wrongs don't make a right -- that does not give the Democrats leave to act irresponsibly with the nation's finances. Barack Obama is a gifted leader. He must lead the country toward fiscal responsibility

.

[Omaha 680]

per TMQ:

He must lead the country toward fiscal responsibility

.

[venkman]

I LOL'd at "Barack Obama is a gifted leader". The one thing he most definitely isn't, is a leader, let alone a gifted leader.