The Fiscal cliff

[rwh11385]

Here's an interesting analysis: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...cut-scenarios/ about implications for people directly.

Some opinions printed say not to be too worried about it, others are saying it is a bigger deal than the people who say it isn't. It has produced a lot of uncertainty that is already affecting businesses, and could drag down next year more if an agreement isn't met. But it's been like that for years, Congress can't come to an agreement and work together and just push off issues into the future. Even if an agreement is reached, another one will be faced down the line. The government should set a stable environment for business and get out of the way of the economy, not have everyone constantly holding their breath to see if they can possibly take timely action.

What is hilarious is GOP in-fighting:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE8A80WV20121205

"Speaker Boehner's $800 billion tax hike will destroy American jobs and allow politicians in Washington to spend even more," DeMint said in a statement on Tuesday.

Signaling some worry about fragmented sentiment in the House, Republican leaders took the unusual step of removing two hard-line Tea Party conservatives, Tim Huelskamp of Kansas and Justin Amash of Michigan, from the House Budget Committee, where elements of a fiscal cliff deal are likely to be considered.

How is there supposed to ever be bi-partisan agreement if the extremists cannot even work within their OWN party?

[rwh11385]

so you want a piece of me too?
is it not possible to ask corvallis a question without the likes of you answering for him, expanding the subject matter to other aareas, and then getting upset because i don't respond to you?
is that it?
why can't corvallis answer for herself?

BTW - rwh's post was not on topic to my question of corvallis. go re-read it. where did i ask/talk about the reason for the deficit?
what i want to know, from corvallis, is if the tax on millionaires will help reduce the deficit? got it?
since corvallis voted for gary johnson, it's a bit confusing that corvallis apparently believes the tax is justified somehow.
i just want to hear, FROM CORVALLIS, why?

When you are getting questioned from all sides, how long is it going to take you to realize that YOU are the problem?

It is possible, as I said. If you want to ask Corvallis a question and only him respond, PM him. This isn't your personal forum where you make the rules of who can or cannot respond.

Trying to insult Corvallis by calling him a girl, mature move.

You talked about the reason for the deficit when you said:

so i'll assume corvallis that you want the marginal rate to go up on "millionaires" to help pay for the messiah's spending

please show us all how it does anything to lower the deficit spending this fool is commited to.

Or do you not even read what you write?

[gwb72tii]

In my experience, someone is losing an argument when they start posting short non-responses like this all the time.

By the way rwh, where the fuck do you get all these charts? Is there some chart database I'm missing out on, or are you just good at knowing how to find them? Not hatin' either, they obviously work.

so you want a piece of me too?
is it not possible to ask corvallis a question without the likes of you answering for him, expanding the subject matter to other aareas, and then getting upset because i don't respond to you?
is that it?
why can't corvallis answer for herself?

BTW - rwh's post was not on topic to my question of corvallis. go re-read it. where did i ask/talk about the reason for the deficit?
what i want to know, from corvallis, is if the tax on millionaires will help reduce the deficit? got it?
since corvallis voted for gary johnson, it's a bit confusing that corvallis apparently believes the tax is justified somehow.
i just want to hear, FROM CORVALLIS, why?

[rwh11385]

By the way rwh, where the fuck do you get all these charts? Is there some chart database I'm missing out on, or are you just good at knowing how to find them? Not hatin' either, they obviously work.

Google - but years of experience in researching for data helps a lot, and is beneficial beyond just forum discussions.
"The most valuable commodity I know of is information." -- Gordon Gekko

[streetwaves]

nice non-answer/strawman/re-direct
and the question was for corvallis, the "libertarian" from oregon

In my experience, someone is losing an argument when they start posting short non-responses like this all the time.

By the way rwh, where the fuck do you get all these charts? Is there some chart database I'm missing out on, or are you just good at knowing how to find them? Not hatin' either, they obviously work.

[rwh11385]

i asked corvallis a question
hard for you to understand?

So because you asked Corvallis a question I'm not allowed to point out that you are full of it? There's private messages for a reason if you can't take all the people pointing out your BS. This P&R forum isn't your personal cesspool of ignorance, although you try to make it that way.

[gwb72tii]

i asked corvallis a question
hard for you to understand?

[rwh11385]

nice non-answer/strawman/re-direct

LOL. Dude, at this point you are just throwing words at the screen and hoping you making any sense, but you fail so miserably.

I directly attacked your claim with facts to show it was invalid. That's not strawman nor a non-answer. It's a direct response to your statement of ignorance.

[gwb72tii]

nice non-answer/strawman/re-direct
and the question was for corvallis, the "libertarian" from oregon

[rwh11385]

so i'll assume corvallis that you want the marginal rate to go up on "millionaires" to help pay for the messiah's spending

please show us all how it does anything to lower the deficit spending this fool is commited to.

Classic referring to the messiah instead of actually caring to argue based on facts.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...years-deficit/

Bottom line: The narrative that an “Obama spending spree” caused our deficit problem is utterly false.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/02/chart-of-the-week-medicare-spending-is-main-cause-of-runaway-deficits/

Chart of the Week: Medicare Spending Is Main Cause of Runaway Deficits

Entitlement spending is the main cause of long-term runaway federal deficits. Medicare is the fastest-growing program due to retiring baby boomers, the effects of an aging population, and rising healthcare costs.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/spending-cuts

But hey, who needs facts? Support a leader who talks about Big Bird although Seasame Street doesn't get direct benefit from the tiny speck of federal spending that goes to PBS vs. the growing Entitlement programs. You're right, blow reasonablility out the window and blame the deficit on Obama's spending... compared to what spending and programs he inherited.

[gwb72tii]

Pew released a new poll yesterday about the public's attitudes towards the "Fiscal Cliff"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/04/National-Politics/Polling/release_181.xml

No surprise, they'd blame Republicans in Congress over President Obama 53% to 27% if it happens.

Can't say I blame them, seeing as how Boehner and his lackies have held the entire country hostage to higher tax rates because they refuse to allow taxes to go up 3% on millionaires.

so i'll assume corvallis that you want the marginal rate to go up on "millionaires" to help pay for the messiah's spending

please show us all how it does anything to lower the deficit spending this fool is commited to.

[CorvallisBMW]

Pew released a new poll yesterday about the public's attitudes towards the "Fiscal Cliff"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/04/National-Politics/Polling/release_181.xml

No surprise, they'd blame Republicans in Congress over President Obama 53% to 27% if it happens.

Can't say I blame them, seeing as how Boehner and his lackies have held the entire country hostage to higher tax rates because they refuse to allow taxes to go up 3% on millionaires.

[rwh11385]

Also good points. I would point out that all tax increases are bad in the long run for an economy- but in the short/intermediate term they tend to have little to no impact.

True, it's a matter of efficiency and dead-weight losses. But a nation cannot fund itself, even just the basic costs to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", without some taxes. We should try to find the rate and structure (hopefully more simplified) that provides maximum revenue while having minimal drag on the economy.

Hopefully we can work towards having more private efforts helping to promote the general Welfare (rise of social enterprises) and people use their liberty to find success rather than expecting to be entitled by it, which will help remove some of the burden on the government.

I also meant to say that in your ideas to fix the economy - I think people kept pushing the UI benefits extensions because of the simple fact that few people saved for emergencies and were spread thin with their debt. Most people couldn't afford their lives while employed, let alone after being laid off. So the government covered for them - but hopefully now people are smarter and I think the data shows people are having less of their income be required to meet debt payments and we have a positive savings rate again. As Sleeve reminds some people, UI is something that is accounted for with our employment - although the extensions are not. Running out certainly encourages people to find work, but let's also try not to have such a vacuum in our collective bank accounts if shit ever hits the fan again individually. At least, that's what should be the case... and government not promising to cover us next time like a parent who is forgiving of a money-stupid child.

[uofom3]

The forum misses rational economic talk from ya man.

Context is very important and I don't think many people demand putting things into perspective anymore. Shock factor with nothing to size up against is key for TV ratings.

And as big as our debt is and people repeat the number (and attribute it to the current President, regardless of who it is), it's the result of policies of many years in the making and will take many years (and intelligent, rational decision making) to fix. But like debt, our government spending as % of GDP is lower than the other countries like France and Greece. We can get better but it isn't worth burning down the place over.

Like joshh said, if it is factual since he didn't provide the quoting source, Obama shouldn't be seeking higher rates as punishment or class warfare, but trying to claim that the economy is going to be that negatively effected by the top marginal tax rates from the 90s without providing any support is dubious. I'd love it if someone could provide a deep look into how tax rates across income groups influence the economy and growth, as that could be used for an optimization of the Laffer Curve and rates would be set instead of a constant quibble. But I haven't seen anything like that.

But maybe the economy is defined by more than simply marginal tax rates which are meaningless without considering deductions or credits in our convoluted code? Stuff like technology and innovation, education, population growth rates, trade balance, and lifestyle changes might also have a little bit of influence too.

A private space race / mining asteroids, better fuel efficiency, cheap renewable energy, more productive agriculture can help the economy... so can a higher % of people finishing high school and also people learning technical skills instead of dropping out or learning valuable skills in college instead of just racking up debt that can't solve the world's problems... allowing people who want to work here can do so and pay payroll taxes instead of being under the table, take advantage of our reshoring and reduce demand for foreign energy... and legalize gay marriage and stop the war on drugs to grow the economy, particularly with less people costing money in prison and removed from the labor force as well as less enforcement to fight a losing effort. Plus tax it. But I guess if the news wants people to focus on marginal tax rates, then we should do as we are told.

Also good points. I would point out that all tax increases are bad in the long run for an economy- but in the short/intermediate term they tend to have little to no impact.

[CorvallisBMW]

Still rockin'.... Just haven't been posting.

Lots of people here must have been reading "how to lie with statistics". You cannot think about any of this in absolute terms - big numbers are scary when not compared to other big numbers -no one is scaling the situation. Look at this as a percentage of something else and not on a nominal basis and it looks a lot different.

We also need to remember that we have seen several periods in u.s. history where the debt as a % of GDP has been much higher than now. Can this go on forever? No. But it can go a lot farther. Comparisons to us and Greece are ridiculous - Greece doesn't have and essentially never had a viable economy in the first place - plus their tax collection system is a joke.

My thoughts on how you fix the economy?

- reinstate glass-steagall, repeal sarbox
- stop letting banks park money at the fed deposit window for 25bps risk free
- stop flattening the yield curve to give banks a reason to lend so there is some margin/spread there which should help increase the velocity of money (lending).
- cut unemployment benefit duration by at least half.

I'd start there, but then there are a lot of subsequent steps you would have to take that I don't have the patience to hammer out.

HOLY SHIT, Ted! You're alive!

:)

Good to see you're still around and kickin'