Fiscal Cliff Diving


Automatic cuts to the Dept of Defense is not a bad thing. Actually, there should be a lot more. Funny how none of that is every part of the "deal" that they are trying to work out. I have a feeling it will get dropped in the end.
I agree.
Both sides really win with this, since they can go back to their constituents and say they cut taxes.

I'd love to set up this deal every continuously. Just have taxes automatically raise by 10% a year unless a deal is passed that lowers this. Politicians can say they lowered taxes every year.
@4 That's what bugs me about it.

I was actually hoping that the Republicans would have to go back to their constituents and say "You know, there are times when taxes are necessary and we had to make that call to avoid a financial disaster."

The Republicans look pretty bad no matter the outcome, but with them going back to their party and saying: "Look! Tax Cuts!" it's fodder for them to get reelected.
Plus, if you don't realize exactly how this is going to play out inside the bubble, let's take a look.

"Oh my god! Did you see that Obama totally let us go over the fiscal cliff? He raised taxes on the middle class. It was his first act as a 2nd term president! WE TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN!"

Queue new tax cuts.

"Yeah, after Obama raised taxes on the middle class, your Republican House of Reps acted quickly and shut that shit down! They totally just removed the Obama tax on the poor and middle class! Praise capitalism! Boo Socialism!"
amen and more.
1. gop always holding hostage. we should for once. stop being wusses. "nice estate tax rate you got there, too bad it's going up top 1%"
2. while there is a hit on working class, an impact of $1000 a year wokrs out to $20 a week, this is doable, and is like the hit you take when you strike. a short term hit, for more bargaining power.
3. for those at median income and above, actually the "hit" is manageable. as someone said, we should soak the almost rich. the so called hit on the top 20% just means they go skiing 15 days a year, not 20.
every dollar of deficit reduction is many dollars of interest payment reduction and we do in fact need to start paying down that debt, restoring clinton era taxes should be seen as a goal.
"Fiscal Bluff"
I might be wrong, but it seems that unless action is taken by tomorrow, extended unemployment (the federal payments that kick in after the state unemployment is exhausted) will stop. Wouldn't that have a huge impact on people that are already barely able to feed their families?
Jump, I say!
America needs this reality check. It's about time.
I embrace the fiscal cliff with the same fondness I had when I realized the Mariners signed Raul Ibanez.
You are considering only the political optics of this situation when the negative economic impact would be immediate and severe for *a lot of people* (likely including me). Not really interested in seeing millions of people get screwed just to make the GOP look bad. Schedenfreude is great but it won't pay my mortgage.
"If you don't give the rich man all your money, he'll drive you over a cliff. It's just common sense."
@9 Extending unemployment benefits is not necessarily part of the fiscal cliff negotiations. It could be folded into a deal. But it's usually vote on as a separate bill.
I also hope we go over the fiscal cliff. But I hope we then stay there. Unfortunately, no party seems to be pursuing my prefered policy.

While Goldy is probably right that the Ds are likely to get what they want on taxes by going over the cliff, @9 is also right that they are unlikely to get what they want on UI by doing so. UI extensions have been part of the pre-cliff compromise proposals that have been going back and forth for the past month. But post-cliff, if the house sends the senate a bill lowering all but the top rate, that bill won't include UI extension, and there is no way the senate will refuse to pass it. At that point UI extension will be dead, because there is no political pressure on Rs to extend UI as an independent decision.
Another "amen" here from the choir.

Let me just add one thing. I'm going crazy listening to people describing those who make over $1,000,000 a year as millionaires. While they certainly are, that's not the original meaning of the word. "Millionaire" is a word that describes total wealth, not annual income. In fact, you don't need any income at all to be a millionaire. All you need is a million in the bank, or in other assets.

And you know what else? Those people with incomes of $250,000 a year? They might be middle-class by some definitions, but they're definitely UPPER middle-class. And you know what else? They're not going to shrivel up and die if you tax their incomes at higher marginal rates. Worse comes to worse, they could join a less-expensive country club, keep the Range Rover for 5 years instead of 3, or rent out their summer vacation home over the winter. Sheesh... Such hardship!

For once I agree with you on something.

I never liked the way the Bush tax cuts were structured. (Don't get me wrong, I'm for lower taxes, but he accomplished them, in part, by completely removing lots of people from the tax rolls (in part, creating the 47% we've heard so much about)). When we fly off the cliff (or curb) those people will find themselves back on the tax rolls (with some skin in the game). Having them there may help us get real tax reform which I hope will result in a simpler, flatter code where more people participate but pay less across the board.

Also, have you looked at all the ridiculous farm subsidies bills that will suddenly be laid out naked for everyone to enjoy? The first will cause the price of milk to double almost immediately.

The more the public is aware of (by being made victim to) the Federal governments chicanery, the better. I'm sincerely hoping that by flying off of the cliff (or falling off the curb) we will get some real and lasting reform in several areas instead of more barnacles on bad bills that should have been taken off the books 70 years ago.
@15 - thanks for clarifying. I think I read in the Huff Post that unemployment benefits were slated to expire unless acted on by the 29th. Other than that, I'm ready to stumble off that curb.
@13: Thank you. Being right is swell, but it's not synonymous with doing right. Cheering for millions of economically vulnerable people to be screwed in the hopes that said screwing will damage your political opponent's position isn't just dangerous (given the possibility of backlash against you instead of against your opponent), it's wrong.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd like to finally be able to sell my house this coming year.
There is NO fiscal cliff. Yes, there will be some painful cuts that go into effect January 1, and yes, we should fix those asap. But a lot of the damage will be temporary, and the fix certainly can be retroactive to January 1 (as it usually is).
Goldy is addicted to stealing 46¢ of every dollar his Socialist government blows from his daughter.

What a worthless fuck excuse for a man he is.....
@18 - Since when are those who pay payroll and state and local taxes not on the tax rolls? A minimum wage earner in Washington is taxed more than Romney at the fed level. Your basic premise is bunk. It appears you learned nothing from the 47% campaign incident.
Apparently the "Fiscal Cliff" is caused by the removal of Christianity from society.…
@24 and the 47% is mostly children and people over 65. But that trope will take a long time to die.
Enjoy the ensuing recession.
@26 - It will take a long time to die because it is think tank propaganda dutifully regurgitated by the believers.
@18 - Skin in the game?

That expression implies that the person with the skin will be incentivized to strive for a better game outcome for all involved. For example, when employees own stock, having that particular skin in the game will make them work harder to ensure that the company does well, thus raising the stock price.

How does that expression relate to a single mother of two making 20K a year? I don't see how suddenly getting less take-home pay would empower her to improve the economy (the game in this context?). In fact it would do the opposite, as she would be forced to consume less.

Or is it an incentive to improve her own lot? It seems like living near the poverty rate is already a huge incentive for that.

I've heard a lot of conservatives use that expression in this context, but really it's just sour grapes. If they make $200K and pay federal taxes, it seems unfair to them that someone making $20K doesn't. (Maybe they should trade places.) So they throw out this bullshit expression as a justification for taxing the working poor.

Another transit related death...

Woman Struck and Killed by MTA Bus in Midtown…
@29 -- hear hear!

I listen to a lot of people who say:

"Its not fair that I have to pay taxes on my really nice home and that almost-homeless guy gets his rent subsidized!"

"Its not fair I have to pay $15 co-pays for my insurance. Look at all the free emergency medical care we hand out to immigrants and the destitute."

"Its not fair!"

I never hear:
"I'd totally trade places with the poor if I could"
@29 AND @31, hear hear.


Trade places, after a fashion.

The productive Middle Class, especially small business owners, are weary of struggling to make it work in the face of an oppressive regulatory confiscatory socialist robber baron humanistocracy.

And especially irked by having the 47% wag their greasy fingers in our faces chiding us for not paying our fair share.

There are many ways small business owners can reduce their tax bill.
Expect all across the land for the Productive Class to focus on making themselves smaller targets for Obama's tax knife.
Expect to get a smaller and smaller haul out of the hide of Middle Class America.

If the 47% is how the game is played deal us in .......