Fiscal Cliff

[joepistole]

Are the Wall Street Journal's standards so questionable? For my part, I hope President Obama told him exactly that. As there has been no agreement reached so far, it certainly seems plausible that events went pretty much as that WSJ piece portrays them.

Strange - the article indicates that it's behind a paywall, but if you enter "how fiscal cliff talks hit wall" into Google, you'll be taken right to it. But linking to it results in the same link to a paywall.

Yes the WSJ is not what it used to be. The WSJ is owned by the parent company of Fox News and is an integral part of the Republican entertainment complex. There standards are very questionable. But none of that changes the fact that it took a few words out of context and appears to be misrepresenting those words in order to sell a message. One should always be leery of taking words out of context. Republicans have a long and consistent record of taking President Obama's words out of context and misrepresenting them.

The facts are Republicans created the Fiscal Cliff last year when in an unprecedented action they threatened to cause the nation to intentionally default. That action unnecessarily resulted in the partial collapse of the stock markets, slowed economic growth and resulted in a credit downgrade on the nation's debt. It was stupid for the Republicans to threaten the nation with default last year and it was stupid for them to create the Fiscal Cliff we now face. You cannot instill confidence and encourage investment and economic growth when you are facing a catastrophic self-induced fiscal cliff every few months.

What is known about the negotiations is this; long ago President Obama set out a fairly detailed plan and campaigned on it. The Republicans have not. The most they have done is to send President Obama a letter with a vague counter offer that was devoid of specifics demanding unspecified spending cuts. If they want more spending cuts, then they should at least be able to name them and provide sufficient detail so as to be meaningful. And they have had nearly a year and a half to avoid the fiscal cliff they created. A few weeks before the edge of the cliff is not the time to begin negotiating. This should have been done a long time ago. Unfortunately this Republican controlled House and consistently failed to keep its commitments.

President Obama responded to Boehner’s offer with a counter proposal offering to allow the Bush II tax cuts to expire on income earners up to 400k versus Obama's proposed 250k. And then out of no where Boehner comes out with his Plan B, that makes no sense and he cannot even get it through the House which he leads. Obama has consistently bent over backwards to accommodate Republicans. And it has caused him some mega heartburn with his own party. Republicans have steadfastly refused to make similar accommodations instead preferring to stick to their “principals” regardless of the will of the American people as expressed in the ballot box and in public polling.

 

[Michael]

Courtesy of ZeroHedge.com

 

[Michael]

 

[Michael]

 

[Michael]

My two cents: There is no fiscal cliff. It's a lie, a charade... political theatrics.

 

[Billy T]

My two cents: There is no fiscal cliff. It's a lie, a charade... political theatrics.

How so?

which numbers are wrong?

 

[Michael]

How so?

which numbers are wrong?

Oh there's an economic reality and government will shrink and entitlements will shrink. But, it's hard to tell baby's (the voting public) that the bottle has to be taken away and its time to sit at the big table. That is a sure way NOT to get reflected (which is all the majority of these arseholes care about). Hence the big show.

I was referring to the political theatre put on for the public.

 

[pjdude1219]

Oh there's an economic reality and government will shrink and entitlements will shrink. But, it's hard to tell baby's (the voting public) that the bottle has to be taken away and its time to sit at the big table. That is a sure way NOT to get reflected (which is all the majority of these arseholes care about). Hence the big show.

I was referring to the political theatre put on for the public.

Always amusing to see someone belonging to one of the most childish ideologies out there referring to others as babies.

 

[joepistole]

My two cents: There is no fiscal cliff. It's a lie, a charade... political theatrics.

I would expect no less from the guy who wants to burn down the house.

There is very real fiscal cliff along with a lot of drama and political theatrics. The fiscal cliff is more like an iceberg. There is a lot the average Joe and Jane don’t see like the farm bill that will double milk prices or the mandatory spending cuts that will but millions out of work or the Medicare cuts that will make it more difficult for seniors to get medical care. Now it will take time for the impact of these changes to be felt by the average Joe and Jane, but if nothing is done, they will feel the real pain of congressional negligence and more specifically Republican ideology and intransigence (i.e. fanaticism).

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

There is very real fiscal cliff along with a lot of drama and political theatrics.

There is also a middle ground. For instance, Rachel Maddow is trying to call the situation anything but a fiscal cliff. But to try to put it into two neat points:

• There is an economic disaster waiting, but it doesn't come on January 1. Federal agencies and their budgeting offices are trying to figure out how to push the damage as far back into 2013 as possible. But the loss of that much federal spending will put a Hiroshima-sized hole in the Main Street economy.

• The iceberg comparison is, if not apt, at least onto something. Perhaps an ice sheet metaphor works better. That is to say, the streets don't flood with misery on January 1, but the "sea level", as such, looks to rise as the melting accelerates.​

And on a related note, there is a hint of progress on the farm bill. I haven't yet checked today's wires, but as of yesterday, somebody somewhere was reporting that committee leaders from both congressional houses had verbally agreed, in principle, to pass a farm bill.

Okay, I can do a little better than that. Yesterday, Politico reported that the respective Ag committees "are drafting a short-term farm bill extension" as well as "another round of direct cash payments to already profitable growers—a costly subsidy that lawmakers had vowed to end this year". Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told Politico it's a short-term extension intended to last only nine months or so, though she hopes to have a five-year bill ready in time that "the cash subsidies could be reduced or eliminated before payment is due in October". It is Stabenow's bill that passed the Senate months ago; the stalled House version in the House is much similar. Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, said his crew will start marking up a new bill sometime toward the end of February.

But, yes, we'll likely dodge the "dairy cliff".
____________________

Notes:

Rogers, David. "With Obama's urging, Congress tries for farm bill extension to avoid dairy disaster". Politico. December 28, 2012. Politico.com. December 29, 2012. http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/congress-tries-to-avoid-dairy-disaster-85567.html

 

[superstring01]

Will we go over?

Hope so!

Bitter medicine. And it's not like the Clinton era tax rates were so ruinous.

--String

 

[joepistole]

Will we go over?

Hope so!

Bitter medicine. And it's not like the Clinton era tax rates were so ruinous.

--String

I think the tax increase portion of The Fiscal Cliff is the most visible, but the least dangerous portion of the cliff. It is the sequester, the debt ceiling, and all the other related issues that will sink the ship.

If going off the cliff would incapacitate the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party, I could see some long term benefit to going off the cliff. But given Republican gerrymandering, I question wither that is a realistic possibility. Unfortunately we have an entrenched Tea Party minority in the House who are controlling everything in the House, and as long as Republicans rule by “a majority of a majority” which renders Democrats impotent in the House, the House and the nation are doomed. The economic and political well being of the nation is at risk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority

 

[joepistole]

Hello Cliff. We are going down to the wire. Congress has had 516 days to fix the cliff which they created and they wait for day number 516 to resolve the issue. The blame game is in full motion. A Tea Party congressman was on Fox News this afternoon blaming the Senate for inaction. As he explained it, the House was just waiting for the Senate to do its job. According to this Tea Party congressman from Oklahoma, the House has been responsible in this matter. It is the evil Senate who is to blame.

I thought the Tea Party was big on the Constitution. Were they not the people running around wanting everyone to recite the Constitution before each session of Congress and telling everyone to carry around a pocket Constitution? Apparently they haven’t been reading the Constitution. Because if they had, they would know that in Article I, section VII the House is specifically named as the responsible party. Then again perhaps they do know their responsibility in this mess and they are relying on Fox News viewer ignorance to pass the blame for their inaction. This House never let little things like the economic wellbeing of the nation get in the way of their vacations. We can all rest easier knowing that this Congress received all of its vacation time even has the country goes down the toilet due to their inaction and incompetence.

The reason the House is now waiting on the Senate is because at the last minute, before going on Christmas vacation, the House was unable to do its job and produce legislation that avoided the cliff. The House abrogated its responsibilities to the Senate. That is why they are now waiting on the House.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Hello Cliff. We are going down to the wire. Congress has had 516 days to fix the cliff which they created ......

Had Romney won the election, this would have been settled long ago. Obama is the problem. He can't govern. He has no interest in governing. He doesn't care about the economy, or the deficit, or the American people. So long as he is president, this nation is going to endure one crisis after another. I only pray that there is something left to save when leadership is handed over to more competent hands.

 

[joepistole]

Had Romney won the election, this would have been settled long ago. Obama is the problem. He can't govern. He has no interest in governing. He doesn't care about the economy, or the deficit, or the American people. So long as he is president, this nation is going to endure one crisis after another. I only pray that there is something left to save when leadership is handed over to more competent hands.

Yeah right, Romney couldn’t even lead his own party much less a nation. Romney is much like Boehner, unable to lead his party. Romney couldn’t even win a majority of the vote. If Romney can’t lead his party and win a general election especially given all the money he had, how the Hell is he going to lead the nation?

Unfortunately for you and your fellow Republicans, President Obama has done a very good job of managing and leading the country. He led the nation from the verge of economic collapse, with an economy shrinking at an annualized 9% rate per year, a nation losing nearly a million jobs a month and more with each passing month, a government running trillion dollar deficits, 8 years of bungled wars and fiscal mismanagement and an opposition party that was willing to destroy the nation for political advantage, to an unprecedented recovery. Unfortunately Republicans need these crises, they don’t have anything of value to offer the nation’s middle class so Republicans do these stupid things in hope that they might be able to blame Democrats for Republican induced crises.

Let’s be real, Republicans created the Fiscal Cliff when they pulled the debt ceiling stunt last year which caused the US to suffer its first ever credit downgrade. Republicans had a year and a half to fix it. And what did they do, they walked away from the negotiating table and waited until the last minute to deal with it. And now Republicans are threatening to undo all that has been done with the Fiscal Cliff they created. As long as Republicans in the House refuse to do their jobs and continue to be fiscally irresponsible as they were during the George II administration, then yes we are going to continue to have problems. But blaming President Obama is like blaming the fireman for the house fire you and your fellow Republicans started.

Had Republicans not gerrymandered congressional districts in 2010, and the party that won the most votes in the House received the most seats in the House, we wouldn’t have this problem because the House would be under Democratic control in about 4 days.

 

[billvon]

Had Romney won the election, this would have been settled long ago.

True. Taxes would be lower and spending would be higher. Our debt would be growing that much faster, but his 47% would be happy, and he could bow out four years later before it all collapsed.

Glad to see an adult in the White House instead.

 

[pjdude1219]

Had Romney won the election, this would have been settled long ago.

true more of the same fuck the middle class fuck the poor the rich need to be coddled.

Obama is the problem. He can't govern. He has no interest in governing.

your lying your literal flat out fucking lying. he has tried his best to govern the republicans don't want to be governed the right doesn't won't to be governed they demand only they get to make policy and their policies are the problem.

He doesn't care about the economy, or the deficit, or the American people.

lies pure and utter fucking lies. your a mod and your sitting literal completely lying your ass off. he has tried his best while you and yours have tried to stop it time and time again.

So long as he is president, this nation is going to endure one crisis after another.

true because of people like you who would rather cause harm than let obama and other who have different political views fix the problems your stupid ideas have caused.

I only pray that there is something left to save when leadership is handed over to more competent hands.

competent hands you wouldn't know a comptetent hands if the slapped you in the face. you support the people who think rachetting up spending while ensuring revenues plument are competent heres a better i idea you sit in the corner with all the other republicans, libertarians, and the other pro corporate power thugs, shut the hell up and let the adults fix the problems you caused and after words you can continue to fucking whine about how bad things are because those evil people who believe in you know ensuring we have the revenue to cover our expenses are in charge and the country will be saved from your ilk.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Yeah right, Romney couldn’t even lead his own party much less a nation. Romney is much like Boehner, unable to lead his party. Romney couldn’t even win a majority of the vote. If Romney can’t lead his party and win a general election especially given all the money he had, how the Hell is he going to lead the nation?

Romney was a sucessful Republican governor in a Democratic state. Clearly he knows how to work with the other party.

Unfortunately for you and your fellow Republicans, President Obama has done a very good job of managing and leading the country.

Pathetic lie.

Had Republicans not gerrymandered congressional districts in 2010, and the party that won the most votes in the House received the most seats in the House, we wouldn’t have this problem because the House would be under Democratic control in about 4 days.

Romney carried 78% of all counties and 52% of all congressional districts. Democrat voters tend to be clustered into small geographic areas whereas Republicans are everywhere else. This creates a situation in which Obama can rack up huge numbers of votes in a few big cities while Republicans win congressional majorities by carrying most of the other districts. The huge number of votes Democrats get in Detroit, for instance, doesn't help them win in all the other areas of Michigan which creates a situation in which the "blue" state of Michigan just enacted right to work legistlation.

 

[joepistole]

Romney was a sucessful Republican governor in a Democratic state. Clearly he knows how to work with the other party.

Yeah right, Romney was a one term governor. When Romney entered office he had a 61% job approval rating. When he left the governor’s office he had a job approval rating of 34% ranking 48 out of 50 state governors.

“he governor had a 61 percent job approval rating in public polls after his initial fiscal actions in 2003, although his approval rating subsequently declined,[220] driven in part by his frequent out-of-state travel.[220][221] Romney's approval rating stood at 34 percent in November 2006, ranking 48th of the 50 U.S. governors.[222] Dissatisfaction with Romney's administration and the weak condition of the Republican state party were among several factors contributing to Democrat Deval Patrick's 20-point win over Republican Kerry Healey, Romney's Lieutenant Governor, in the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial election.[221][223]” – Wikipedia

And Romney vetoed 844 items during his tenure as governor and his legislature overrode 700 of those vetoes. That is hardly the bipartisanship you and your fellows want to represent. The people serving in the Massachusetts legislature during Romney’s tenure don’t support your story of Romney bipartisanship.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/01/news/la-pn-romney-veto-claim-democrats-20121031

And none of that changes the fact Romney like Speaker Boehner was unable to lead his own party nor was he able to win a general election. So Romney sure the Hell would not be able to lead the country when he cannot lead his own party or win a general election. And when you look at Romeny's tenure as governor, you can make that a double Hell NO.

Pathetic lie.

No it is the pathetic and very verifiable truth. When President Obama was sworn into office the economy was shrinking at an annualized rate of 9% and growing with each passing month. When President Obama was sworn into office the nation was losing nearly a million jobs a month and more with each passing month. When President Obama was sworn into office, the nation was running a trillion dollar plus deficit. The Republican president and the Republican congress that preceded President Obama’s tenure took a nation with budget surpluses and turned them into unprecedented deficits and debt with 2 unfunded and bungled wars, the largest expansion of entitlements since Medicare, again unfunded and riddled with pork, and huge unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy which did little to stimulate the economy. The Republican president and congress that preceded President Obama took a decade of economic prosperity and ran it into the ground, creating The Great Recession - an almost Great Depression II.

President Obama has led the economy away from the economic abyss. Within 12 months, President Obama’s stimulus package reversed the job losses and turned an economy that had been shrinking at a 9 percent annualized rate into an economy that grew and has been growing at a 2%-3% rate for the last 3 years.The economy and employment have been steadily growing now for the last three years. In addition, President Obama has reduced the budget deficit by several hundred billion dollars. And on top of that President Obama was able to pass comprehensive healthcare reform which according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office using very conservative assumptions has estimated President Obama’s healthcare reform will save the nation over a trillion dollars.

Romney carried 78% of all counties and 52% of all congressional districts. Democrat voters tend to be clustered into small geographic areas whereas Republicans are everywhere else. This creates a situation in which Obama can rack up huge numbers of votes in a few big cities while Republicans win congressional majorities by carrying most of the other districts. The huge number of votes Democrats get in Detroit, for instance, doesn't help them win in all the other areas of Michigan which creates a situation in which the "blue" state of Michigan just enacted right to work legistlation.

Unfortunately for you and your fellow Republicans, this is a democracy of people, not of land. The facts are Democrats received more votes in the House, in the Senate, and for the presidency in this last election. Were it not for Republican gerrymandering in 2010 Democrats would have won more seats in the House and would be the House majority party in 2013.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...andering-house-representatives-election-chart
“After Republicans swept into power in state legislatures in 2010, the GOP gerrymandered key states, redrawing House district boundaries to favor Republicans. In Pennsylvania, Democratic candidates received half of the votes in House contests, but Republicans will claim about three-quarters of the congressional seats. The same is true in North Carolina. More than half the voters in that state voted for Democratic representation, yet Republicans will fill about 70 percent of the seats. Democrats drew more votes in Michigan than Republicans, but they'll take only 5 out of the state's 14 congressional seats.” – Mother Jones

 

[iceaura]

Romney was a sucessful Republican governor in a Democratic state. Clearly he knows how to work with the other party.

Working with the other Party is easy if the other Party is Democratic. As President Romney would have to work with the Republican Party, and they are batshit these days.

Democrat voters tend to be clustered into small geographic areas whereas Republicans are everywhere else. This creates a situation in which Obama can rack up huge numbers of votes in a few big cities while Republicans win congressional majorities by carrying most of the other districts.

So the complaint is what - that landscape acreage doesn't get a vote? Alaska is a very large area, true. So is Texas, and thoroughly gerrymandered to produce the kinds of distortions you describe (that was proven in Texas court, if you recall).

So some people who live where few people want to live - partly because of the kinds of neighbors found there - have a lot more influence than people who live where there are lots of other people.

And so the kinds of people who think - I'll take an example from my own experience - that their cows quit giving milk because of the satellite dish TV installed by the county's token lefty (the local librarian's husband) a half mile down the road, and so they are justified in blasting it with a shotgun one night, have disproportionate influence over national politics.

The other major voting bloc that supported Romney was middle aged white men - and they voted for W, twice, so they are obviously living on some other planet - probably where cutting rich people's taxes leads to job creation, say, which on my planet is a shockingly stupid thing for an adult to believe.