The Fiscal Cliff is just accidental austerity

[Blart]

Increased revenue + reduced spending = major deficit reduction*

For a congress that was elected based on debt paranoia, I'm surprised they're not happy. Is the GOP suddenly Keynesian? Why are they listening to the CBO?

*assuming those spending cuts & tax increases don't tank the economy and destroy our recovery, hah

[Rohirrim]

I agree with Krugman's take:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/op...eal.html?_r=1&

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I agree with Krugman's take:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/op...eal.html?_r=1&

Haha... Democrats turn for brinksmanship.

They're against brinksmanship when the other guy is doing it. But when it's their turn, it's the right thing to do.

Good to see that politics hasn't changed overnight.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Haha... Democrats turn for brinksmanship.

They're against brinksmanship when the other guy is doing it. But when it's their turn, it's the right thing to do.

Good to see that politics hasn't changed overnight.

No. I think it's time to stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class. The middle class creates the economy, not the rich. Just because the Right keeps repeating that bull**** line about "job creators" over and over, doesn't make it true. Like Krugman, Reich and even Ben Stein have said, simply pick the era where America was the most well off and duplicate that. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

No. I think it's time to stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class.

This bit of rhetoric doesn't really mean anything to me. You balance a budget by reducing spending and/or raising taxes. Currently, the rich pay the lion's share of the taxes collected in this country. It doesn't really mean anything to say that the budget is being balanced on the backs of the middle class. It's just rhetoric - not anything based on actual fact.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Taco John

This bit of rhetoric doesn't really mean anything to me. You balance a budget by reducing spending and/or raising taxes. Currently, the rich pay the lion's share of the taxes collected in this country. It doesn't really mean anything to say that the budget is being balanced on the backs of the middle class. It's just rhetoric - not anything based on actual fact.

It means that, since Reagan, policies and tax code changes have resulted in Romney paying 13% of his income, and his secretary paying 30% of hers. Of course the rich pay the lion's share of taxes collected if you put it all in a big pile and say who put in the most. And their incomes have quadrupled over the last thirty years on these wealth redistributing policies so they are not only making a hell of a lot more, they are keeping a hell of a lot more of what they make. And now they want to balance the budget by cutting grandma's Medicare and SS?

The rich in America have been on the gravy train for thirty years while wages and income for the middle class has stagnated or declined. Most of this is a result of policy. It's time those policies were changed. Like Lincoln said, the workers come before capital, for without them, capital doesn't exist.

[Missouribronc]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

No. I think it's time to stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class. The middle class creates the economy, not the rich. Just because the Right keeps repeating that bull**** line about "job creators" over and over, doesn't make it true. Like Krugman, Reich and even Ben Stein have said, simply pick the era where America was the most well off and duplicate that. What's so hard to understand about that?

This is a bunch of crap. Why? Because the Democratic Senate, which has been Democratic for four years, hasn't passed a budget in three years. Can't balance a budget if you don't even talk about one.

The fact that they haven't even discussed a budget makes the above post hysterical.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

This is a bunch of crap. Why? Because the Democratic Senate, which has been Democratic for four years, hasn't passed a budget in three years. Can't balance a budget if you don't even talk about one.

The fact that they haven't even discussed a budget makes the above post hysterical.

Since you have apparently never taken a government class yet seem perfectly content to spout tired talking points from your ass that you truly know nothing about, here's some knowledge for you.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...tary-procedure

There, don't say I never did anything for you, cupcake.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

This is a bunch of crap. Why? Because the Democratic Senate, which has been Democratic for four years, hasn't passed a budget in three years. Can't balance a budget if you don't even talk about one.

The fact that they haven't even discussed a budget makes the above post hysterical.

Ass, the republican lead house has passed a bill to balance the budget every year knowing full well it had no chance in hell of passing the senate ? What do you call that ?

They will compromise or pay the price

[Obushma]

Originally Posted by Blart

Is the GOP suddenly Keynesian? Why are they listening to the CBO?

What the **** are you talking about? Chicago school is a form of Keynesian economics, the GOP has been Keynesian for over 50 years, where the **** you been?

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Obushma

What the **** are you talking about? Chicago school is a form of Keynesian economics, the GOP has been Keynesian for over 50 years, where the **** you been?

I'm confused as well. The Republicans are definitely keynesians. There is a minority that is begging them to move off of it, but there's no indication that Republcians have any intentions of doing so.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'm confused as well. The Republicans are definitely keynesians. There is a minority that is begging them to move off of it, but there's no indication that Republcians have any intentions of doing so.

Anybody with a brain is a Keynesian. A mixed economy focused on the demand side has proved itself. Why did we have this second depression? Because we went supply side. We ignored what our grandfathers had learned. And please don't tell me we didn't. I know, to the Libertarians, every thing is either perfection or nothing, but that's not the way the world works. Like the Chinese proverb goes, "Running a large country is like cooking a small fish." What does that mean? It means that small moves have a big effect on the outcome. We went supply side. And we've been hovering around the ****ter ever since. Deregulation flushed us. Turn your back on the Keynesian idea of a mixed economy. Go with austerity. You know where you'll end up? Like Spain and Greece.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'm confused as well. The Republicans are definitely keynesians. There is a minority that is begging them to move off of it, but there's no indication that Republcians have any intentions of doing so.

mINORITY MY ASS....POLLS SHOW 2/3 of Americans want the rich to pay more ?

We all no what republicans think of polls though !

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

mINORITY MY ASS....POLLS SHOW 2/3 of Americans want the rich to pay more ?

We all no what republicans think of polls though !

I don't think you know what you're replying to. That has nothing to do with what he posted.

[Blart]

Originally Posted by Obushma

What the **** are you talking about? Chicago school is a form of Keynesian economics, the GOP has been Keynesian for over 50 years, where the **** you been?

I don't understand. How do you see Chicago school as Keynesian?

Anyway, why is the GOP now paying attention to the CBO? They certainly weren't worried about crashing the economy over the debt ceiling, because the deficit was of prime importance. It just seems entirely inconsistent. Am I missing something, or am I the only one calling them out?

[Rohirrim]

I don't agree with Obama on everything, but he is dead on here:

[ZONA]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I don't agree with Obama on everything, but he is dead on here:

AMEN

[pricejj]

Krugman's solution (as well as the Socialists on this board), is to let the fiscal cliff happen. Why? The answer is easy. The only way to pay for Obama's unprecedented increase in government spending is to drastically raise the taxes on the middle class. The Socialists all rejoice!

If the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire for EVERYBODY (fiscal cliff), then (theoretically) within 10 years the federal budget will be almost balanced (-1.2%).

Aaaaah there it is folks, the truth comes out. The Socialists can't have their cake and eat it too. If you don't raise taxes on the middle class, you will NEVER get close to raising 24% of GDP in revenue (which is what Obama and the Democrats have been spending since 2008).

In all reality, the only way to keep the charade going is if Obama continues $1T deficits. From this election, we have seen, that the government dependent section of the U.S. population is more than willing to let that happen.

They don't care about inflation. As long as they can afford to put gas in their cars, it doesn't matter. They never aspired to acquire real assets (whose value is skyrocketing), all they care about are material things. When you have foodstamps, a free phone, section 8, tanf, a low-wage part-time job, and a health insurance tax rebate...what else do you need?

[pricejj]

The only problem Europe has (which they are quickly finding ways around), is that they have a pesky 3% deficit mandate in the EU Constitution.

Without the requirement that all government deficits would have to be less than 3% of GDP...and if they could print their own Euro's (like the U.S with the dollar), life would be easy as it was pre-2008.

It's no secret, Socialism leads to a broad lower-class without land, or any real assets...and a small, wealthy, elite who owns ALL the assets. That is where we are today, and it is quickly getting worse.

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I don't agree with Obama on everything, but he is dead on here:

Agreed.

If we are all respecters of Maynard Keynes why is it China gets it and implements it but we do not?

[Blart]

Nice little conspiracy theory, but the fiscal cliff would lead to a bigger deficit, as seen in the UK. It's something we want to avoid.

I'm just trying to figure out why the GOP and Fox news, and pricejj's agree with us that austerity is bad.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Blart

Nice little conspiracy theory, but the fiscal cliff would lead to a bigger deficit, as seen in the UK. It's something we want to avoid.

I'm just trying to figure out why the GOP and Fox news, and pricejj's agree with us that austerity is bad.

The CBO says that by allowing all current legislation to proceed without alteration that the deficit would be cut in half in 2013, primarily by raising taxes on the middle-class.

The 'fiscal cliff' would probably put the U.S. economy in recession in 2013, but would be great for the future solvency of the U.S....as deficits are projected to close rapidly over the next decade.

Allowing the baseline to proceed would generate revenues of 24% of GDP (in time), without raising taxes (or just raising taxes on the 'rich'), would only generate revenues of about 18% of GDP. So what's it going to be, are you going to allow tax rates to rise to pay for your spending?

My guess is no. Why do it, when there is no immediate consequence of running $1T deficits? Print baby, print!

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Blart

Nice little conspiracy theory, but the fiscal cliff would lead to a bigger deficit, as seen in the UK. It's something we want to avoid.

I'm just trying to figure out why the GOP and Fox news, and pricejj's agree with us that austerity is bad.

'Austerity' is only a tax increase. You know that. Of course, tax increases harm the economy. But why raise taxes when you can print all the money you want without repercussions?

It's the Democrat way!

[pricejj]

Of course, with federal debt growing ~7% per year, and GDP growing only ~1% per year, you are quickly stuck in the situation we are stuck in today...with the Federal Reserve printing all new debt issued to the U.S. (~$80B) monthly.

This doesn't present a problem of course, as long as the broad lower class is content without owning any real assets.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Of course, with federal debt growing ~7% per year, and GDP growing only ~1% per year, you are quickly stuck in the situation we are stuck in today...with the Federal Reserve printing all new debt issued to the U.S. (~$80B) monthly.

This doesn't present a problem of course, as long as the broad lower class is content without owning any real assets.

It's called "crisis management" and is not a long term plan.