http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57...g-fiscal-cliff/

However you may look it at, Congress continues to go nowhere. It is just as I feared. And please no one say that this is the "GOP's fault", both sides are being stubborn about this.

Your thoughts everyone?

Power politics 101

This is all "talk" from both sides for the public and to calm each of their respective bases, a deal will be reached by the end of the year. I used to work on Capitol Hill and they do this all the time, they act all pissed and take up their respective positions to the public, but in private they all order boxes of pizza behind the scenes and hammer out a deal. There is no election coming up so I am very optimistic soemthing will get done.

A deal WILL get done, especially in light of CBO saying the country will fall back into recession and unemployment above 9% if it's not.

I do give credit to John Boehner for being willing to sit down with the President to work something out. I like his idea for closing loopholes and deductions as opposed to raising tax rates. I think Obama should take that into consideration rather than shooting it down. Compromise and concede.

Both ideas have their merits, and I support a compromise that does both - raise tax rates (to Clinton-era rates (an increase of less than 5%) for the rich (those who make $250K+) while also closing/limiting loopholes. Obama didnt shoot the idea of closing loopholes and deductions, he just said he is not taking off the table increased tax rates for the rich.

Well, let me see. We just had a national election where the primary fiscal issue between the presidential candidates was whether taxes will be raised on those with incomes of $250,000 to the pre-Bush tax cut levels. The candidate, who supported this restoration of taxes on the wealthy, won handily, and polls indicate Americans favored the tax hike by a wider margin than that by which the President won re=election.

So for John Boehner to state smugly that any request to increase taxes on the wealthy is "unacceptable," is to ignore the message of the American voter.

Congress will compromise and the President will compromise, and I would be willing to bet my house that the budget will increase a tax increase in a form close to what the Democrats were putting forward. There will also be spending cuts, including a decrease in the growth of defense spending. Somehow Romney thought we had to increase defense expenditures by $2 trillion. We spend an astronomical amount on military funding.

Show me a country that spends most of its public funds on defense, and I'll show you a country that doesn't have much to defend.

Personally an agenda where both sides can incoportate some their ideas is good. I just think raising rates is a bad idea. Boehner pointed out that most of those people paying higher taxes are small business owners who create jobs, and raising taxes would cause them to lay people off.

But make no mistake I'll be satisified with anything that gets us past this mess. Just as long as it's done in the right way.

Don't believe everything you hear. Boehner was throwing out the usual spin. In REALITY, only about 2-3% of small business owners earn enough to have $250,000 in taxable income left after applying all of the available business and personal deductions.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/...3e2a5b756e.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/w...3684_story.html

Even the rich (numerous CEO's, Buffett, etc) have written countless articles (in WSJ, Businessweek) asking to be taxed more.

Let's just wait and see what happens. No need for anybody to get all antsy when they havent even "met officially" to discuss a deal yet. I am not worried.

I'm also in favor of rewriting the tax code entirely, which is seriously flawed. And for the record Klydon, Boehner said that raising taxes on anyone is unacceptable. That's not just the rich. In a state where we are fragile economically, raising taxes, whether rich or poor, is a bad idea. An overhaul of the tax system would do better than simply raising them.

But Boehner has to step up this time around and it looks like he's attempting to.

Yep, our defense budget is more than the next 10 nations combined! It is ridiculous!

I agree, the tax code needs to be overhauled. Thats a HUGE project, that will not (and shouldn't) take place over the next month.

Actually Dapper I agree with you there too. There's not enough time to rewrite the entire tax code, especially with a whole batch of new senators coming in next month. They need to strike some sort of temporary deal and then work towards that goal of a tax overhaul.

Can Boehner step up to the plate? We will see

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/us/pol...?pagewanted=all

Completely agree.

Boehner's problem is he's afraid Cantor will commence a coup and overthrow him as Speaker/Leader of the House GOP.

Both sides are playing a dance until somebody blinks, but the GOP have the weaker hand.

Well let's face it, the GOP are in a weaker position. They didn't win an election they had a good shot at winning (had they campaigned correctly) and they can't afford another four years where they block everything the president sends their way.

But they do have valid points in solving the problem of the fiscal cliff that should not be ignored or scoffed regardless of opinion on the issue.

That is how he answered the question about considering a tax hike on the wealthy, but his answer is not on point as the President has never proposed raising taxes on those not earning $250K. Raising everyone's taxes is not on the table.

Keep in mind that the Bush tax cuts were designed to expire, and it was the President, who compromised on this issue once, which brought criticism from his own party. The President has expressed his wish to discuss the budget in good faith, but the issue of taxes on the wealthy doesn't have the same wiggle room as before. he's in a stronger position now than before, having been elected to a second term and not having to face re-election.

Of course it shouldn't be ignored.

I just think the right-wing (or more exactly the "Conservative Entertainment Complex" in Fox News and so forth, as David Frum recently coined them) are naive....no I'm sorry, super naive if they really expect no tax increases of some kind. Most especially they must get over the idea of letting their adversary the Kenyan get a legislative victory. That was the whole point of obstructing the first term to force him out of office. That plan failed.

Politically, once the Bush Tax Cuts are expired, there is no way Obama is going to revive them. If anything, I could see him propose in its place a broad middle class tax cut and dare the GOP to vote against it at some point.

Regardless, the inevitable compromise won't please everybody for both sides must give up something. I believe Obama can get his party's base to be whipped into order as they ate the '10 tax deal with the GOP that pissed off the liberals. The GOP base on the other hand, I can't exactly trust their own party to control those animals.

Amen.

The 2010 Congress did very little, but they did manage to pass important legislation, like reaffirming "In God We Trust" as the national motto, and their dramatic reading of selected portions of the Constitution.

While I think the Bush tax cuts should expire, the rate itself should not go up. Middle class taxes should not increase either. Cutting loopholes and deductions allowed for more revenue to come in without increasing the overall rate which can be a thorn in the side of many consumers.

Obama can whip his party into shape, whether Boehner can do it is another question, but their are good signs he's doing this as expressed in the article I posted above. Both sides will have to give up something I agree, but like I said before: tax rates not only should not go up, the whole code needs to be rewritten.

The house needs to go to the middle, just like Obama needs to go the middle. But if neither can do that we are screwed. The left is just as guilty as this as the right.

Is it a $250,000 income, or a TAXABLE income?? There's a big difference. And it depends where you live whether $250,000 makes you "wealthy". I have to tell you, where I live, the median rent is $1135 per month and the median price of a house is $463,000. Average real estate taxes are close to $10,000 a year. The cost of living is horrendous compared to say, Greene County, NY where a similar income would buy you ten times more.

Keep in mind that both tax cuts ibn 2001 (income) and 2003 (capital gains) were passed through Reconciliation which required only a majority Senate vote. The compromise expiration of both in 2010 (extended through 2012) was to obtain Democrats' agreement to reconciliation and to avoid a Democrat filibuster.

I've never understood the obsession of so many with increasing income tax rates for the rich. Such increases will net very little federal revenue (perhaps the increases will simply assuage some Americans' feelings). Congress' failure to extend the tax cuts will insure that the Nation's economic malaise will continue. Unless federal spending is significantly reduced for years to come, annual federal budget deficits will continue. However, I don't see how significant budget reductions can take place; realistically, I don't see where the cuts can take place.

Pretty much agree with everything you said. Some things will have to be cut no doubt about it. What will be cut remains to be seen.

Where do you cut, Oli? I agree that I can't imagine where you would start. You can't cut social programs in an economic downturn, as more people are dependent on them. You can't raise taxes, as people are already choking on increased taxes and "fees" (another way of saying taxes).

I don't pretend to have the answer, but I'm just going to say the obvious: something has to go. And the strategy President Obama has suggested is raising taxes on the rich to cut into the debt and keep the social programs is not prudent. Bottom line that doesn't work because it doesn't raise enough revenue to put a dent into the deficit.

So I'm just going to be rhetorical: where do you start?

The federal FY 2013 budget will result in at least a $900 billion deficit assuming that revenues are as estimated. Even if you cut that in half for each of the next ten years, you're still talking about increasing the national debt by $4.5 trillion. Medicare and medicaid consume about $900 billion in spending, SOcial Security about $850 billion, and the Defense Department about $650 billion. Interest on the national debt is about $350 billion. Those are the big ticket expditures. The largest among the others is, I believe, Veterans affairs at about $150 billion and the Departmwent of Agriculture about the same. You can nickel and dime the remaining expenditures, but that will amount to little savings.

I don't think Obama has it in him to do this, but here it is:

Let’s Not Make a Deal
By PAUL KRUGMAN

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/opinion/krugman-lets-not-make-a-deal.html?src=me&ref=general

And this one just as well thinks doing nothing is not such a bad idea either.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...-bad-thing.html

People want to reverse the Bush (now Obama) tax cuts because that is where the money is. The tax cuts and the Iraq/Afghan war spending will account for almost half of government debt (not budget deficit) by 2019.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra...bamas-deficits/

Just letting the tax cuts expire would cut the budget deficit by about half.
http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/de...h-tax-cuts.html

The other political reason that it may be important to let the Bush tax cuts expire is that the Republicans have gotten way too comfortable holding everything hostage to the continuation of those tax cuts. It's extortion politics. Unless the President stops caving, as he did twice prior, the Republicans will continue to say "Nice economy you got here. Now you wouldn't want any accidents to occur would you kid?"

I think fixing the deficit is important but neither side is as concerned about fixing the deficit as they like to pretend. And to be honest there are higher priorities in the short term, like getting unemployment down and income up.

You fix the deficit: Interactive puzzle

How in the world does anyone expect this Nation to emerge from this economic malaise by taking more money out of worker's pockets by increasing federal withholding and Medicare deductions? That makes no sense. Anual budget deficits cannot be fixed withhout draconian spending reductions. The national debt will not be reduced; only its rate of increase can be reduced.

I think he's a hack, but even Bill Kristol admits the GOP don't have much of a hand to deal with.



http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/kristol-raising-taxes-on-millionaires-wont-kill-country