News How will the looming fiscal cliff impact the US economy and job market?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The United States faces a significant risk of a deep recession if Congress does not address impending tax hikes and spending cuts, known as the fiscal cliff, which could remove approximately $600 billion from the economy. Economists warn that each dollar of deficit reduction could potentially reduce economic growth by up to $1.70, exacerbating the situation. A report indicates that without intervention, nearly 6 million jobs could be lost by 2014, pushing the unemployment rate to nearly 12 percent. The discussions highlight systemic issues in the U.S. economy, including a polarized government and rising debt, which have been developing over decades. Immediate action is critical to prevent a severe economic downturn and job losses.
  • #151
aquitaine said:
Let's get our hyperboles in order here. I never said you claimed he deserved to get it, I said you said he deserved to die because he didn't have the means to get the care.
I most certainly never said any such thing. No one "deserves" to get or die from cancer.

Besides which, that is such an extreme case and "deserve" isn't relevant anyway. I could jump out my window right now and would probably break my leg on the landing. Would I deserve a broken leg for doing something so stupid? Definitely. Would universal healthcare cover my medical bills? Yep. Would my current insurance? Yep. "Deserve" just doesn't enter into the equation.
Do I REALLY need to quote A Christmas Carol?
I can't fathom why you would think that is relevant. Please explain.
But by staking out an extreme socially darwinistic position you made it a choice between the unsustainable statist solutions...or nothing. Not everyone who doesn't think those without means should just die is a statist.
Why is my position "extreme" when applied to healthcare but people accept it as just a reality of life when applied to other things that are also a matter of life and death?? Is it just because insurance is already collectivized that it makes for an easier transition to federalize it than other products like cars? Do you want to nationalize the supply of cars?

A new safety feature was just invented for circular table saws that stops the blade in microseconds if your finger gets in the way. This would save thousands of people a year from maimings. Since it was just invented, naturally the government should buy one for everyone who currently owns a table circular saw, right?
You know what cured your sister of cancer? Healthcare. Don't tell me it isn't necessary to live and then tell me about how it saved her life.
Again, you miss the point. If she had lived 50 or perhaps even 30 years ago, this probably would have killed her. And people accepted that as normal back then. People lived with the risk and knowledge that the life expectancy was lower then than it is today.

Now that cancer treatment exists, people think everyone who needs it should have it provided to them. Just because it exists. Even if I agreed with those that think this is a moral imperative, it doesn't matter because of the practical problem: this worldview will bankrupt us if we allow it to continue as currently formulated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
I can't fathom why you would think that is relevant. Please explain.

People who don't have means don't deserve to live. It's relevant because that's your position on healthcare.

Why is my position "extreme" when applied to healthcare but people accept it as just a reality of life when applied to other things that are also a matter of life and death?? Is it just because insurance is already collectivized that it makes for an easier transition to federalize it than other products like cars? Do you want to nationalize the supply of cars?

If you actually read my proposal you would notice that I didn't collectivize insurance at all. Instead I proposed a solution to the problem of tens of millions of uninsured that doesn't destroy western civilization, that is financially sustainable, and that also solves the underlying problems with our healthcare system all at once to provide people with a free market. I notice you don't say anything about that. It's more or less the Swiss model, and I don't see them going bankrupt any time soon.

A new safety feature was just invented for circular table saws that stops the blade in microseconds if your finger gets in the way. This would save thousands of people a year from maimings. Since it was just invented, naturally the government should buy one for everyone who currently owns a table circular saw, right?

No, because it isn't a direct threat to life thanks to healthcare. Regulations to require it's installation on new table saws, yes, but it's the owners responsibility to upgrade their saws accordingly. If they choose not to, that's their problem.

See, that's the exactly the problem I mentioned with the GOP, and the absurdities in this discussion proves definitively that it is no longer a party capable of governing. The only reason they are opposed to any and all healthcare reform is because the democrats took initiative and put it on their agenda. So we're left with a choice between financially unsustainable statist approaches, such as Obamacare, or nothing at all.
 
  • #153
aquitaine said:
People who don't have means don't deserve to live. It's relevant because that's your position on healthcare.
You really need to stop saying that because it isn't true. I have, in fact, said exactly the opposite Several times. And it is ad hominem: you're trying to paint me as a bad person instead of dealing with the argument. It seems like you are trolling me here.

It is easy enough to turn it around, though. In my example of jumping out of my window, I would deserve a broken leg. But my insurance and/or nationalized healthcare would still pay for it. So please drop this ridiculous line of argument you are on. "deserve" has nothing to do with any of this.
No, because it isn't a direct threat to life...

See, that's the exactly the problem I mentioned with the GOP, and the absurdities in this discussion proves definitively that it is no longer a party capable of governing.
Are you suggesting that healthcare should only pay for life threatening conditions? The absurdity is in your posts, not mine.
If you actually read my proposal you would notice that I didn't collectivize insurance at all. Instead I proposed a solution to the problem of tens of millions of uninsured that doesn't destroy western civilization, that is financially sustainable, and that also solves the underlying problems with our healthcare system all at once to provide people with a free market. I notice you don't say anything about that.
I didn't comment on it because it just looks like handwaving to me. I don't accept that the things you say would happen would happen and I don't want to get into a "will not/will to" type of argument. The fundamental issue to me is that it does not address the logical flaw in healthcare, overall; the fact that people want everything that exists because it exists.
It's more or less the Swiss model, and I don't see them going bankrupt any time soon.
Their financial unsustainability is the same as everyone else's:

Total_health_expenditure_per_capita%2C_US_Dollars_PPP.png


A 50% increase in costs in 12 years. Unsustainable.
 
Last edited:
  • #154
aquitaine said:
...I think the American Enterprise Institute has summed up the current state of the GOP quite correctly:

Ornstein and Mann are not the same thing as the American Enterprise Institute.
 
  • #156
aquitaine said:
People who don't have means don't deserve to live. It's relevant because that's your position on healthcare.

Please stick to stating your own opinion. Putting words into others' mouths is one way discussions here in P&WA go down the tubes.
 
  • #158
Astronuc said:
Congress will apparently return on Sunday. Let's see what happens.

Could it be that they will heroically save the world from the problem they themselves created?
 
  • #159
ImaLooser said:
Could it be that they will heroically save the world from the problem they themselves created?
Somehow, I don't see heroic.

. . . .
Absent a solution — or even a pathway to a bill — senators whiled away the hours without any agreement, debating and voting on amendments to a surveillance measure, pondering hurricane aid, and swearing in a new senator from Hawaii. Retiring senators, who had anticipated that their services would no longer be needed, worked in offices in varying states of disassembly, their staffs pecking out e-mails on iPads because their computers had been carted away.
. . . .
The Congressional impasse over how to avoid tax increases and spending cuts has left this entire city gripping Starbucks cups procured from Georgetown to Capitol Hill, bearing the message “come together,” to wait in low-grade misery for the next chapter in the drama. This would be Sunday night, when House members arrive, just ahead of New Year’s Eve at the summons of their leaders, who decided Thursday that they could not afford to be home killing time while Senate Democratic leaders took to C-Span to take shots at the absent House.

. . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/u...ators-chafe-at-inaction-over-fiscal-deal.html

They'll take it to the brink, and maybe drop over the edge.

Apparently the US government will reach the current debt ceiling, but then the Treasury can raid other funds ( :rolleyes: ), which probably won't be repaid anytime soon, until Congress raises the debt ceiling yet again - and the nation goes deeper into debt.
 
  • #160
ImaLooser said:
Could it be that they will heroically save the world from the problem they themselves created?

I expect they are mostly just counting the days to when they can stop having to pretend to understand economics, and get back to what all politicians like doing best: blaming each other for what happened.
 
  • #161
Monday morning will be interesting. I imagine the equities markets will pop up with a deal, and tank if there is no deal.

The last several days have been pretty volatile.
 
  • #162
Astronuc said:
Monday morning will be interesting. I imagine the equities markets will pop up with a deal, and tank if there is no deal.

The last several days have been pretty volatile.

I've been watching the markets, too, for clues into what's really happening. A couple weeks before Christmas they were going gangbusters, which I interpreted to mean there must be a back-room deal in the works.

Guess that was all just wishful thinking :mad:!
 
  • #163
Astronuc said:
Monday morning will be interesting. I imagine the equities markets will pop up with a deal, and tank if there is no deal.

The last several days have been pretty volatile.
I expect that anything that might be signed in the next week or two still won't be viewed favorably by the markets.
 
  • #166
mheslep said:
Then the deficit has grown worse. Some months ago the next debt ceiling was not to be reached before late January.
I wonder if that has to do with the supplemental bill for Hurricane Sandy.

Senate votes in favor of $60B Hurricane Sandy emergency-spending bill
By Ramsey Cox - 12/28/12
The Senate passed the emergency-spending bill for Hurricane Sandy relief efforts on Friday night.

The 62-32 vote came after the Senate worked all day Friday on amendments to H.R. 1, a vehicle to provide $60.4 billion to storm recovery efforts.

. . .
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...r-60b-hurricane-sandy-emergency-spending-bill
 
  • #167
Astronuc said:
I wonder if that has to do with the supplemental bill for Hurricane Sandy.

Senate votes in favor of $60B Hurricane Sandy emergency-spending bill...

That fits. The deficit is on the order of $90B/month.
 
  • #168
I wonder how many wealthy patients near death get life support removed on New Year's Eve. The fiscal cliff includes a pretty large change to estate taxes. Keeping a person alive for one or two more days could get very expensive.

The exemption drops from $5 million dollars to $1 million dollars and the rates increase to 55% for the amount above the exemption. For a person with an estate worth $3 million dollars, dying on New Year's Day instead of New Year's Eve could cost $1.1 million dollars.
 
  • #169
Wall Street Week Ahead: Cliff may be a fear, but debt ceiling much scarier
http://news.yahoo.com/wall-street-week-ahead-cliff-may-fear-debt-150342441--sector.html
(Reuters) - Investors fearing a stock market plunge - if the United States tumbles off the "fiscal cliff" next week - may want to relax.

But they should be scared if a few weeks later, Washington fails to reach a deal to increase the nation's debt ceiling because that raises the threat of a default, another credit downgrade and a panic in the financial markets.

. . . .
Except that Geitner, US Secy of Treasury, indicated that the US government would hit the debt ceiling on Mon - or maybe Tuesday.

Makes one wonder if anyone in Washington is paying attention.

At this point, I would expect debt ceiling as well as the tax law would be under discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #170
Astronuc said:
Wall Street Week Ahead: Cliff may be a fear, but debt ceiling much scarier
http://news.yahoo.com/wall-street-week-ahead-cliff-may-fear-debt-150342441--sector.html
Except that Geitner, US Secy of Treasury, indicated that the US government would hit the debt ceiling on Mon - or maybe Tuesday.

Makes one wonder if anyone in Washington is paying attention.

At this point, I would expect debt ceiling as well as the tax law would be under discussion.

If the author is suggesting that we could go over the fiscal cliff and have congress go through another round of debate over the debt ceiling, I would doubt that very much. So soon after going over the "cliff" I doubt there would be much support at all to do it again. Then again, with politicians, you never know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #171
JonDE said:
If the author is suggesting that we could go over the fiscal cliff and have congress go through another round of debate over the debt ceiling, I would doubt that very much. So soon after going over the "cliff" I doubt there would be much support at all to do it again. Then again, with politicians, you never know.

There has been some talk that Boehner's failed efforts to get some kind of Republican bill introduced means his days as Speaker of the House are numbered. The only problem is that the House Republicans best positioned to succeed him all stand with him in spite of his weakened position.

Who in the world is stupid enough to want his job?!

Actually, I could see Boehner failing to get a majority of votes for Speaker of the House, at least on the first vote. It's just that there's probably no other willing candidate that can get a majority in what's essentially become a three party House.

Paul Ryan could possibly get a majority if he was brave enough/foolish enough to risk replacing a strong reputation with a reputation as 'Failed Speaker of the House', but why in the world would he do that?

On the other hand, 8 of the last 11 Republican VP candidates prior to Ryan never won another election. Perhaps Ryan could find an entirely unique way to extend the curse.
 
  • #172
Senate Seeks Bipartisan Formula to Reach Tax Deal
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/us/politics/president-obama-urges-last-minute-tax-deal.html
Senate leaders and their aides spent Saturday searching for a formula to extend tax cuts for most Americans that could win bipartisan support in the Senate and final approval in the fractious House by the new year, hoping to prevent large tax increases and budget cuts that could threaten the fragile economy.

As part of the last-minute negotiations, the lawmakers were haggling over unemployment benefits, cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, taxes on large inheritances and how to limit the impact of the alternative minimum tax, . . . that is increasingly encroaching on the middle class.

President Obama said that if talks between the Senate leaders broke down, he wanted the Senate to schedule an up-or-down vote on a narrower measure that would extend only the middle-class tax breaks and unemployment benefits.
. . . .
Today is the day, or perhaps tomorrow. :rolleyes:


Update: Don't expect much - http://news.yahoo.com/cut-fiscal-deal-pale-against-140752956.html

. . . .
The so-called "continuing resolutions" to which a divided Congress has increasingly resorted to keep the government operating, provide a "very powerful tool" to pry out spending cuts, said Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee said he will not be satisfied until there are substantial cuts to federal retirement and healthcare benefits known as entitlements, producing savings in the $4.5 trillion to $5 trillion range.

"Unfortunately for America," said Corker, "the next line in the sand will be the debt ceiling."

Most observers see the $16.4 trillion debt limit as the true fiscal cliff in the new year because if not increased, it would eventually lead to a default on U.S. Treasury debt, an event that could prove cataclysmic for financial markets.

. . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-fiscal-cliff-dive-more-battles-cliffs-212008912--business.html

Some assessements and perspectives from Brad Blakeman and Joe Sestak
http://news.yahoo.com/video/fiscal-cliff-deal-could-leave-201112547.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #173
BobG said:
On the other hand, 8 of the last 11 Republican VP candidates prior to Ryan never won another election. Perhaps Ryan could find an entirely unique way to extend the curse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-campaign-house-ryan-idUSBRE8A60MV20121107

Hasnt extended it yet.
 
  • #174
I wanted to bring a little humour to this thread. :)

6YHWZ.jpg
 
  • #175
Sixteen trillion Two Hundred and Fifty Four Million Six hundred and Eighty Two Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Four ...


... Before I can finish saying it ... I'm wrong. ... I feel obsolete. :(
 
  • #176
Inching closer to an agreement - Progress seen in last-minute 'fiscal cliff' talks
http://news.yahoo.com/progress-seen-last-minute-fiscal-cliff-talks-141404187--finance.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — Working against a midnight deadline, negotiators for the White House and congressional Republicans narrowed their differences Monday on legislation to avert across-the-board tax increases.

Congressional officials familiar with talks between Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said one major remaining sticking point was whether to postpone spending cuts that are scheduled to begin on Jan 1.

Republicans want to replace across-the-board reductions with targeted cuts elsewhere in the budget, and the White House and Democrats were resisting.

. . . .
They have to cut expenditures in line with revenue. They need to stop pretending about optimistic growth.
 
  • #177
Astronuc said:
Inching closer to an agreement - Progress seen in last-minute 'fiscal cliff' talks
http://news.yahoo.com/progress-seen-last-minute-fiscal-cliff-talks-141404187--finance.html
They have to cut expenditures in line with revenue. They need to stop pretending about optimistic growth.
Clearly there will be no new spending cuts by January under this President, nor are the pending small cuts in current law secure.

But he [McConnell] claimed the White House called in the morning "demanding" to avert the automatic spending cuts, $110 billion of which is set to take effect in 2013.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...l-deal-as-ball-drop-set-to-ring-in-tax-hikes/

To force the issue, would you favor not raising the debt limit?
 
  • #178
mheslep said:
Clearly there will be no new spending cuts by January under this President, nor are the pending small cuts in current law secure.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...l-deal-as-ball-drop-set-to-ring-in-tax-hikes/

To force the issue, would you favor not raising the debt limit?
If the plan is to keep running deficits - they have to raise the debt ceiling. It appears the deficit spending is the plan.

2012 Projected Deficit: $1.33 trillion, 8.5 percent of GDP; 2013 Projected Deficit: $901 billion, 5.5 percent of GDP; 2018 Projected Deficit: $575 billion, 2.7 percent of GDP; 2022 Projected Deficit: $704 billion, 2.8 percent of GDP.

That's ridiculous, IMO.

FY2013 started with a projected ~$900 billion deficit, but Congress just approved a $60 billion emergency supplemental bill to cover the damage done by Sandy. And if we have another similar event this year?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/overview
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43083 - back in March 2012.

I'd go with $3 cut in expenditures for every $1 of tax increase.

Actually, I think Tom Harkin has it right -
“No deal is better than a bad deal, and this looks like a very bad deal the way this is shaping up,” Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa said in the chamber. “So we go back to the tax system that we had under Bill Clinton. I ask: What’s so bad about that?”
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...cconnell-pursue-deal-150143841--politics.html

If they can't eliminate the deficit, then at some point the US government will have to default on it's debt. The deficits are currently exceeding the typical annual growth rate of the US economy.

Apparently the House will wait until Wednesday to vote on whatever the Senate produces, i.e., after the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. That way, they can claim that they reduced the tax rates, which their inaction had allowed to increase anyway.

The time to stop the nonsense is overdue - by a several decades.
 

Attachments

  • united-states-gdp-growth-annual.png
    united-states-gdp-growth-annual.png
    8.6 KB · Views: 478
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #179
It appears to me that this (on which I agree)
Astronuc said:
...
I'd go with $3 cut in expenditures for every $1 of tax increase.
is contradictory with this

Astronuc said:
Actually, I think Tom Harkin has it right -
“No deal is better than a bad deal, and this looks like a very bad deal the way this is shaping up,” Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa said in the chamber. “So we go back to the tax system that we had under Bill Clinton. I ask: What’s so bad about that?”

There are no cuts to expenditures with a do nothing, default back-to-Clinton-rates, no-plan plan as Harkin calls for. Therefore after an initial one year decrease, the deficit would continue to increase.

Astronuc said:
The time to stop the nonsense is overdue - by a several decades.
Is it? Supporting Harkin's proposal is more of the same.
 
Last edited:
  • #180
With respect to Harkin's comment, I was referring to the tax increases and mandatory cuts, in the absence of an agreement. I was not referring to Harkin's proposal or any specifics.

I'd prefer a sensible agreement on tax increases and expenditure reduction - and entitlement (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) reform.

I'd prefer to see the patriotic millions/billions hiring people or supporting entrepreneurs rather than simply sending their money in the form of taxes to Washington DC.

As of now, apparently the plan is to add another ~$7 trillion to the debt over the next decade. How would investor react to a company where the management indicated that they were planning to operate this way over the next 10 years. And if the interest rates increase? It is not in the long term benefit of the country to continue the way it has for the last 12 years.
 
  • #181
Looks like they could not do their jobs. Totally unnecessary and unwelcome drama.

I'm disappointed in my government. What a bunch of yahoos. Are they thinking it's a long time until the next election cycle, so they thought they'll be able to get away with this with no consequences?
 
  • #183
Analysis: Fiscal Cliff Breach Makes Sense for Pols
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-fiscal-cliff-breach-makes-sense-pols-223724203.html
Going over the "fiscal cliff" may seem irresponsible and self-destructive for the nation as a whole, but it's a politically logical, self-preserving step for many individual lawmakers.

In other words, Politics as usual in Washington DC.


And the administration needs to agree to cuts in expenditures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #184
mheslep said:
Does the use of the plural 'they' mean everyone but the President garners your disappointment? He has no next election, ever.

If so, I see things the other way 'round.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/29/e...ma-for-lack-of-fiscal-cliff-leadership-video/

Is your post in response to mine? If so...really? You see only *one side* playing politics here?! Wow that's absurd, IMO. Both sides are playing.

Re your blog link: Krauthammer has become a partisan hack of late. I used to read him and I respected him, at least. Not so much anymore.
 
  • #185
Is fiscal cliff an actual issue of imminent concern? I believe when elections ended, the US media ran out of ideas to attract viewers and hence hyped the fiscal cliff issue. The consequences of not meeting the deadline seemed to be blown out of proportion.
 
  • #186
Senate passes 'fiscal cliff' deal, House up next
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/senate-passes--fiscal-cliff--deal--house-up-next-082813845.html

With 2013 just over two hours old, the Senate voted 89-8 on Tuesday to approve a last-minute deal to avert income tax hikes on all but the richest Americans and stall painful spending cuts as part of a hard-fought compromise to avoid the economically toxic “fiscal cliff.”

The country had already technically tumbled over the cliff by the time the gavel came down on the vote at 2:07 a.m.. The House of Representatives was not due to return to work to take up the measure until midday on Tuesday. But with financial markets closed for New Year's Day, quick action by lawmakers would likely limit the economic damage.

. . . .
Compromises on tax rates

Under the compromise arrangement, taxes would rise on income above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for households, while exemptions and deductions the wealthiest Americans use to reduce their tax bill would face new limits. The accord would also raise the taxes paid on large inheritances from 35% to 40% for estates over $5 million. And it would extend by one year unemployment benefits for some two million Americans. It would also prevent cuts in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients and spare tens of millions of Americans who otherwise would have been hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The middle class will still see its taxes go up: The final deal did not include an extension of the payroll tax holiday. And the overall package will deepen the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars by extending the overwhelming majority of the Bush tax cuts.
. . . .

Efforts to modify the first installment of $1.2 trillion in cuts to domestic and defense programs over 10 years -- the other portion of the “fiscal cliff,” known as sequestration -- had proved a sticking point late in the game. . . . .

The government still has to address the deficit and cumulative debt.


'Fiscal cliff' deal to block pay hike for Congress
http://news.yahoo.com/fiscal-cliff-deal-block-pay-hike-congress-041813369--politics.html

Analysis: Economy would dodge bullet for now under fiscal deal
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-economy-dodge-bullet-now-under-fiscal-deal-075151243--business.html

Senate Passes Legislation to Allow Taxes on Affluent to Rise
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/us/politics/senate-tax-deal-fiscal-cliff.html

NY Times - News Analysis: Grand Deals Give Way to Legislative Quick Fixes
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/u...ains-give-way-to-legislative-quick-fixes.html

China commentaries demand U.S. responsibility on "fiscal cliff
http://news.yahoo.com/china-commentaries-demand-u-responsibility-fiscal-cliff-014316992--business.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #187
Astronuc said:
Senate passes 'fiscal cliff' deal, House up next
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/senate-passes--fiscal-cliff--deal--house-up-next-082813845.html
The government still has to address the deficit and cumulative debt.'Fiscal cliff' deal to block pay hike for Congress
http://news.yahoo.com/fiscal-cliff-deal-block-pay-hike-congress-041813369--politics.html

Analysis: Economy would dodge bullet for now under fiscal deal
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-economy-dodge-bullet-now-under-fiscal-deal-075151243--business.html

Senate Passes Legislation to Allow Taxes on Affluent to Rise
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/us/politics/senate-tax-deal-fiscal-cliff.html

NY Times - News Analysis: Grand Deals Give Way to Legislative Quick Fixes
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/u...ains-give-way-to-legislative-quick-fixes.html

China commentaries demand U.S. responsibility on "fiscal cliff
http://news.yahoo.com/china-commentaries-demand-u-responsibility-fiscal-cliff-014316992--business.html

Notice what the republicans fought so hard to protect...

*Hurray* now we get to argue about the debt limit and if we should drive the country over that particular section of the road. This self destruction politics is working well...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #188
I wonder how much money would not be spent if ...


–Cut the number aircraft carriers in the fleet from 11 to 6 and reduce carrier air wings appropriately, which would save operations and support (O&S) costs and long delay the need to buy expensive new ships and aircraft.

–Cut Army division-equivalents from 10 to 5 (similar savings in O&S and new equipment).

–Cut Marine divisions from 3 to 1 (similar O&S and procurement savings).

–Cancel the F-35 for the Navy, Marines, and Air Force and instead upgrade current model fighters with new electronics.

–Cancel purchases of Virginia-class submarines, but provide some modest funding to keep the submarine industrial base warm.

–Eliminate costly dedicated military housing, health care and commissary systems and buy such items from the existing civilian market.

–Abandon the unnecessary American Empire, eliminate all U.S. military bases overseas, and decommission the forces stationed there.


http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/29/bending-to-military-contractors/
 
  • #189
Alfi said:
I wonder how much money would not be spent if ...


–Cut the number aircraft carriers in the fleet from 11 to 6 and reduce carrier air wings appropriately, which would save operations and support (O&S) costs and long delay the need to buy expensive new ships and aircraft.

–Cut Army division-equivalents from 10 to 5 (similar savings in O&S and new equipment).

–Cut Marine divisions from 3 to 1 (similar O&S and procurement savings).

–Cancel the F-35 for the Navy, Marines, and Air Force and instead upgrade current model fighters with new electronics.

–Cancel purchases of Virginia-class submarines, but provide some modest funding to keep the submarine industrial base warm.

–Eliminate costly dedicated military housing, health care and commissary systems and buy such items from the existing civilian market.

–Abandon the unnecessary American Empire, eliminate all U.S. military bases overseas, and decommission the forces stationed there.


http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/29/bending-to-military-contractors/
Those very detailed cuts would have consequences. Any idea what they might be? That is, what threats do you imagine the US military should defend against, and would those cuts impair the ability to do so?
 
  • #190
lisab said:
Is your post in response to mine? If so...really? You see only *one side* playing politics here?! Wow that's absurd, IMO. Both sides are playing. ...
That's not remotely what I said, that "only one side" is playing politics. I'm disappointed in the President's leadership on the subject, as also indicated by both Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Krauthammer.

I can not imagine you really think I said only one side is playing politics either, but chose none the less to throw up a straw man in order to continue the narrative that criticism of the President's lack of action on this subject is absurd.
 
  • #191
House Republican anger clouds fate of ‘fiscal cliff’ deal
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...st-fiscal-cliff-deal-161832950--politics.html
A hard-fought bipartisan compromise passed in the Senate early Tuesday to spare all but the richest Americans from painful income-tax hikes teetered on the edge of collapse as angry House Republicans denounced its lack of spending cuts.
. . . .
I would agree that the spending cuts are insufficient.

A report released by the Congressional Budget Office Tuesday complicated matters further still. The nonpartisan group "scored" the Biden-McConnell compromise as likely adding nearly $4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years, hardening opposition among many Republicans seeking further spending cuts.
. . . .
That's better than a projected $7 trillion from last year, but still problematic.

I imagine in 10 years time, with $20 trillion in debt, it won't be the 'right time' to raise taxes and reduce expenditures. The 'right time' to do this voluntarily never comes - so it just seems to keep going until - it doesn't.


And it's a bipartisan problem, as well as a national problem.
 
  • #192
mheslep said:
That's not remotely what I said, that "only one side" is playing politics. I'm disappointed in the President's leadership on the subject, as also indicated by both Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Krauthammer.

I can not imagine you really think I said only one side is playing politics either, but chose none the less to throw up a straw man in order to continue the narrative that criticism of the President's lack of action on this subject is absurd.

The "President's leadership"?

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c98.0.403.403/p403x403/538511_451248158273492_106679906_n.jpg

I also heard today that the Tea Party, instructed to destroy President Obama, has inadvertently begun the dismantling the Republican Party.

Might just be Facebook meme rumour, but I thought it was ironic also. (Those FB people told me it was ironic. I believed them.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #193
I'm inclined to agree that one side is playing politics (and winning). The other side are playing at being politicians.

This could run for a while - a BBC news report pointed out that the current Congress is due to end on Thursday, which effectively presses the restart button on the whole negotiation process.
 
  • #194
Perhaps the GOP figures they will have another, better shot at spending cuts in a few weeks when Obama needs the debt ceiling raised again. Similar to:
When the previous fiscal year ended on September 30, 1995, the president and the Republican-controlled Congress had not passed a budget. A majority of Congress members and the House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, had promised to slow the rate of government spending; however, this conflicted with the president's objectives for education, the environment, Medicare, and public health.[1] According to Clinton's autobiography, their differences resulted from differing estimates of economic growth, medical inflation, and anticipated revenues.[2]

When Clinton refused to cut the budget in the way Republicans wanted, Gingrich threatened to refuse to raise the debt limit, which would have caused the United States Treasury to suspend funding other portions of the government to avoid putting the country in default.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996#Background
 
  • #195
House passes fiscal cliff deal, tamps down GOP revolt
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...st-fiscal-cliff-deal-161832950--politics.html

The House of Representatives late Tuesday easily approved emergency bipartisan legislation sparing all but a sliver of America’s richest from sharp income tax hikes -- while setting up another “fiscal cliff” confrontation in a matter of weeks.

Lawmakers voted 257-167 to send the compromise to President Barack Obama to sign into law. Eighty-five Republicans and 172 Democrats backed the bill, which had sailed through the Senate by a lopsided 89-8 margin shortly after 2 a.m. Opposition comprised 151 Republicans and 16 Democrats.

. . . .
In a few weeks, the government has to reach agreement on the debt ceiling, which ostensibly be tied to further cuts in expenditures.

Anaylsis from Xinhua: U.S. "kicks can" towards "fiscal abyss"
http://news.yahoo.com/u-kicks-towards-fiscal-abyss-xinhua-085614675--business.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #196
Astronuc said:
Monday morning will be interesting. I imagine the equities markets will pop up with a deal, and tank if there is no deal.

The S&P index was up 1.7% on Monday. It went up another 2.5% today, after the House passed the deal last night. I'm sure the euphoria will dissipate soon, but it's fun to watch on a gray afternoon.
 
Last edited:
  • #197
We should just have walked off the cliff. I'm sick and tired of this astronomical debt that we're building.
 
  • #198
Winners and Losers from a Fiscal-Cliff Deal
http://news.yahoo.com/winners-losers-fiscal-cliff-deal-231507391--politics.html

"Fiscal cliff" deal looks so-so for U.S. businesses on taxes
http://news.yahoo.com/fiscal-cliff-deal-looks-u-businesses-taxes-043058870--finance.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The "fiscal cliff" deal that slowly, painfully took shape in the U.S. Congress in recent days fulfills some of corporate America's tax policy goals, but leaves others unmet, including a big one - meaningful deficit and debt reduction.
. . . .

Some big-ticket items were part of that, including an extension through 2013 of the widely claimed research and development tax credit. Also included was a provision allowing businesses to write off immediately half the value of new investments, known as 50 percent bonus depreciation.

The legislation also includes a wide range of other favors for select industries, including tax breaks for railroad track maintenance, restaurant and retail store improvements, auto racetracks, film and television production, and rum production in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

WIND POWER BACKED

Numerous tax breaks for wind power production and other alternative energy technologies were also included.

"This agreement might not be seen as perfect by everyone, but it gives American consumers and businesses the certainty they need to put worries over this issue behind them," said Matthew Shay, head of the National Retail Federation.
. . . .
The compromise also makes no mention of setting up a new method of taxing profits made offshore and brought into the country by U.S. multinational corporations. Many such businesses have been pushing for a "territorial system" that would let them bring foreign-earned profits home with little or no taxation.


Obama begins second term facing pessimistic public: Poll
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...g-pessimistic-public-132253142--election.html
By Rachel Rose Hartman, Political Reporter, Yahoo! News

As President Barack Obama heads into his second term, he faces a pessimistic and weary public, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll released late Tuesday.

The percentage of Americans satisfied with the direction of the country stands at a paltry 23 percent in a poll taken Dec. 14-17. By a margin of 50 to 47 percent, respondents said the country's best years are over.

Fifty percent of respondents said it is somewhat or very unlikely that today's youth will have a better life than their parents.

That pessimism and negativity extends to the president, according to the poll.

When respondents were asked to choose adjectives to describe their feelings about the president's re-election, the poll showed the excitement and pride many Americans felt about the president's first term has diminished.

Sixty-seven percent of respondents in November 2008 said they felt optimistic about the president's election and the same percentage said it made them feel proud. Last month those numbers fell to 52 percent for optimistic and 48 percent for proud. Forty-three percent of Americans surveyed also said they feel pessimistic about the president's re-election and 36 percent said it made them feel afraid—both increases from 2008.



Boehner Meeting With Angry Sandy Republicans This Afternoon
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-with-angry-sandy-republicans-this-afternoon/

Although members from both sides of the aisle representing the region struck by Superstorm Sandy lashed out at House Speaker John Boehner on the House floor today, Boehner will meet at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon with Republican members from the area to tell them that his first priority in the next session of Congress is a resolution to the imbroglio.
. . . .
The 113th session of Congress begins Thursday at 12:00 p.m., when Boehner loses a little of his majority after Democrats gained 10 seats in the House in November.
. . . .
When members reconvene Jan. 14, they’re only in session for three days before taking another break leading up to the Jan. 21 inauguration. Then the House is scheduled to be back in session Jan. 21 until Jan. 23, before taking the rest of the month off.


Gov. Chris Christie to Congress: Shame On You
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/gov-chris-christie-congress-shame-18115183

Christy and Cuomo, governors of NJ and NY, respectively, are upset about the delay in getting the Sandy emergency relief federal funding bill through the House, after the Senate approved it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #199
mheslep said:
That's not remotely what I said, that "only one side" is playing politics. I'm disappointed in the President's leadership on the subject, as also indicated by both Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Krauthammer.

I can not imagine you really think I said only one side is playing politics either, but chose none the less to throw up a straw man in order to continue the narrative that criticism of the President's lack of action on this subject is absurd.

mheslep, you're right, I totally misread your post :redface:. My apologies.
 
  • #200
Interesting perspective - Who forced a fiscal cliff deal? Try foreign investors
http://news.yahoo.com/forced-fiscal-cliff-deal-try-foreign-investors-204534810--politics.html

How much of influence was it really?


Meanwhile - 'Fiscal cliff' deal leaves lots of issues dangling
http://news.yahoo.com/fiscal-cliff-deal-leaves-lots-issues-dangling-232914021--politics.html

'Fiscal cliff' deal: After rush of relief, debt ceiling clash already looms
http://news.yahoo.com/fiscal-cliff-deal-rush-relief-debt-ceiling-clash-194845620.html

CEOs pan fiscal cliff deal, vow to continue debt fight
http://news.yahoo.com/corporate-america-voices-frustration-fiscal-cliff-deal-210132593--business.html

It would help if companies hired the unemployed (so the government wouldn't need to pay unemployment benefits) in productive jobs that would generate more revenue and profits.

I'd like to see patriotic millionaires and billionaires supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses.

On the other hand, some of them give substantially to charitable causes (rather than pay taxes)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-3-billion-gorilla-2012s-165558264.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News Will Japan's Recession Impact Global Economic Stability?
Replies
21
Views
3K
News Bush is leaving a fiscal train wreck for the next president
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Does Rick perry have a plan to fix the US economy?
Replies
35
Views
8K
News What is wrong with the US economy?
18
Replies
870
Views
113K
A report on a sick man of Europe, Portugal
Replies
18
Views
4K
News Is The Global Economic Crisis Worse Than Expected?
Replies
29
Views
4K
News Is a Major Overhaul of the US Government Possible? Feedback Wanted!
Replies
11
Views
3K
News Is the Tax-Cut Strategy a Con to Dismantle Government Programs?
Replies
2
Views
4K
News A Scary Look at Past Work Experience of a US President
Replies
43
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top