LPSG

The "Fiscal Cliff"

everything can be retroactively be returned to the 1st of January 2013, when Congress goes back into session on January 2nd. So to say it's a fiscal cliff, is a lie. It's more like a

is part of a discussion in the Politics forum that includes topics on Political and government related discussions..


Go Back   LPSG > Main > Politics

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-30-2012   #181 (permalink)
AtomicMouse1950 is offline


everything can be retroactively be returned to the 1st of January 2013, when Congress goes back into session on January 2nd. So to say it's a fiscal cliff, is a lie. It's more like a slope. The only thing that happens on Jan. 01, 2013 i
is the tax increase, which can be erased. So it's a Fiscal slope. You need to understand the mechanics, and Not the hype.
AtomicMouse1950 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012   #182 (permalink)
njitalian02 is offline


i'm still confused about this "fiscal cliff." I read that in 2011 when the debt ceiling crisis was occuring, Congress and Obama put together a deal whereby if another deal could not be reached by now, automatic spending cuts and tax increases would occur. Now, what confuses me is Congress and the President already signed off in essence on what is going to occur, so what are they really fighting over now? If it was okay to sign into law in 2011, why is it suddenly horrible in 2012?

Also, taxes go up for all and spending is cut in various departments. Doesn't this help the deficit by cutting at problem from both the spending and revenue sides?
njitalian02 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012   #183 (permalink)
thick12 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by KTF40 View Post
Yes, I did. I'd ask you to read it as well.

From your own link "Their proposal is a serious and credible plan, but I cannot support it. We must address the explosive growth of our health care entitlement programs at the structural level to meet the fiscal and economic challenges confronting this nation. This plan not only lacks needed structural reforms, but would in fact take us in the wrong direction on health care by accelerating the adverse consequences of the President’s health care law. It also relies too heavily on tax increases, which would stifle the very growth and prosperity that are the essential preconditions of a sustainable fiscal path. "

I'm not sure how you can conclude he is talking about anything other than Obamacare. He references Obamacare. And guess what, Obamacare was the biggest tax increase in American history, so everything he is talking about is Obamacare.

What could the "also" in Ryan's statement be other than tax increases outside of Obamacare which he also disagrees with? That almost unavoidable interpretation tracks with Ryan's budgets, which cut tax rates and opened loopholes much more than S/B, with the biggest cuts and loopholes given to extremely large compensations and wealth.

BTW, the claim that Obamacare was the biggest tax increase in American history is widely in dispute, isn't it? Here's one of a number of examples of how tax credits are used in the ACA to save costs for businesses:

STUDY: Obamacare Reduces Costs For Small Businesses | ThinkProgress

There's also the benefits to businesses that result from getting healthier employees and potential customers, and the greater amount of disposable income created by lowering the rates of increase in health care costs to citizens, allowing customers to have more money available to spend at businesses outside of health care.


The link I provided you was the proposal that was voted down. This is a fact. This is the final product. This is public knowledge. If the commission voted for in favor of it, those would have been the recommendations given to Congress and the Prez.

That's how all these various congressmen can introduce legislation similar to Simpson-Bowles, because Simpson-Bowles is public knowledge and it's available for anyone to read.

It's time for me to concede this point. Factual information which shows that a final product from the Commission was not official based on the rules Obama created for S/B does not effectively diminish the widespread acceptance of your interpretation. It's kind of like the Iraq war that way: primarily based on a false premise, but a confused public accepts much of the false premise to this day.

Propaganda, it's the damndest thing.
.

Last edited by thick12; 12-30-2012 at 02:48 PM..
thick12 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012   #184 (permalink)
Domisoldo is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by njitalian02 View Post

Also, taxes go up for all and spending is cut in various departments. Doesn't this help the deficit by cutting at problem from both the spending and revenue sides?
Indeed, some suspect that BHO really wants to go over the "fiscal cliff":

1. Considerably greater tax revenues than a mere punitive tax on the "rich", to be squandered on more bureaucratic initiatives and handouts to his clientele.

...and

2.
Cuts mostly hitting Defense: not a BHO priority.

The problem is that there is a rare consensus among economists that such a cliff dive would send the economy into a tailspin: not good as a BHO legacy.
Domisoldo is offline  
Old 12-30-2012   #185 (permalink)
D_Aurifice_Stupher is offline
Account Disabled


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think they are worried about the consequences of their actions on that vote.

Take just me for example, then multiply that out to everyone in the U.S. I make around $45,000 a year. After taxes I am basically squeaking by every year. Rent, vehicle payment, food and energy is all I pay for. The expected tax hit for me is going to be around $200.00 more in taxes every month. Plus the possible $2400.00 tax bill in April if nothing is done. $2400.00 I do not have btw, do you? So I am going to have to cut out something, and do not know what.

When all is said and done, everyone will have a whole lot less money to spend next year. So business's are going to suffer hugely, possibly laying off millions of people due to lack of business. The economy which is already fragile, will implode dramatically.

The whole thing is a Catch 22. Your right that the budget needs to be addressed. But if the economy implodes, and millions more lose their jobs, than Unemployment will skyrocket, and the government pays for that. Also a whole lot less tax income from unemployed folks.

Some folks on other sites I frequent like to say, "We are so f---ed!"

And we are.
D_Aurifice_Stupher is offline  
Old 12-30-2012   #186 (permalink)
sargon20 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by VZR1800 View Post
Phony my ass.
Sorry you can fall for it. I won't.

Don't Fall for the Phony "Fiscal Cliff"

The Big Fake “Fiscal Cliff”

The phony fiscal cliff: expect tax cuts extended and spending cuts postponed

"The world’s a jungle. You want my advice, Anthony? Don't expect happiness. You won’t get it. People let you down…in the end, you die in your own arms."
– Livia Soprano
sargon20 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012   #187 (permalink)
KTF40 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by thick12 View Post
What could the "also" in Ryan's statement be other than tax increases outside of Obamacare which he also disagrees with? That almost unavoidable interpretation tracks with Ryan's budgets, which cut tax rates and opened loopholes much more than S/B, with the biggest cuts and loopholes given to extremely large compensations and wealth.
The "also" is Obamacare, since Obamacare is a series of massive tax increases.

From FactCheck.org : Biggest Tax Increase in History? - "The most recent estimate from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation puts the total for more than a dozen different tax increases and other “revenue-related provisions” at $675 billion between now and 2022."

For you to interpret his statement with the other things you mentioned is pure speculation. And as I said before, if you want to speculate or accuse him of lying that's fine, but it's a subjective debate I'm not interested in having.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thick12 View Post
BTW, the claim that Obamacare was the biggest tax increase in American history is widely in dispute, isn't it? Here's one of a number of examples of how tax credits are used in the ACA to save costs for businesses:

STUDY: Obamacare Reduces Costs For Small Businesses | ThinkProgress

There's also the benefits to businesses that result from getting healthier employees and potential customers, and the greater amount of disposable income created by lowering the increases in health care costs, allowing customers to have more money available to spend at businesses outside of health care.
Yes, it's open to interpretation.

But in reference to my post where I said that, it's a claim widely used by Republicans and supports Ryan's statement as to why he would be against Bowles-Simpson on the basis that it included Obamacare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thick12 View Post
It's time for me to concede this point. Factual information which shows that a final product from the Commission was not official based on the rules Obama created for S/B does not effectively diminish the widespread acceptance of your interpretation. It's kind of like the Iraq war that way: primarily based on a false premise, but a confused public accepts much of the false premise to this day.

Propaganda, it's the damndest thing.
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/site...h12_1_2010.pdf -This is not my interpretation. I had nothing to do with this document nor did I influence how the media "interprets" this document.

This is the conclusions of the Simspon-Bowles commission. Nobody is interpreting anything here. This is the document that received an up or down vote. This is the report and is in no way comparable to the Iraq War.

No offense, but these are facts. You're just wrong to call this propaganda.
KTF40 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012   #188 (permalink)
thick12 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by njitalian02 View Post
i'm still confused about this "fiscal cliff." I read that in 2011 when the debt ceiling crisis was occuring, Congress and Obama put together a deal whereby if another deal could not be reached by now, automatic spending cuts and tax increases would occur. Now, what confuses me is Congress and the President already signed off in essence on what is going to occur, so what are they really fighting over now? If it was okay to sign into law in 2011, why is it suddenly horrible in 2012?

Also, taxes go up for all and spending is cut in various departments. Doesn't this help the deficit by cutting at problem from both the spending and revenue sides?

You are entirely correct in your second paragraph. With tax rates and loopholes returning to Clinton-era levels and over $1 billion in yearly spending cuts from the sequester executed simultaneously, the deficit would be sharply and immediately reduced. Unfortunately, such extreme austerity paired with tax cuts would also cause an economic recession. There are no disagreements between conservatives and liberals about that last fact.

This would result in longer-term damage to revenue streams, which is a major problem with austerity policies. They result in quickly diminishing results when it comes to debt reduction. Simply put, contractionary monetary policies cause economies to contract! That is not helpful in the near- to long-term and quickly becomes unpopular.

It shows you how bamboozled the people have become. Republicans have propagandized the shit out of this, making deficits the creators of a bad economy and high unemployment rates. This is most often the opposite of the facts. For example, FDR convinced Congress to vastly increase Federal spending when he took office at the bottom of the Great Depression. His first year of office was the bottom of the Depression exactly because he got Congress to vastly increase the Federal debt in order to increase employment. The result was that unemployment was reduced during his first term by 10 percentage points.

Here's a good question for you: what was the year when our Federal budget deficit was its highest as a percentage of the national Gross Domestic Product? 1945. Do you associate that year with a depressed economy? No, me neither. We were at maximum employment to feed the war machinery. In 1946 and onward, did we respond to the peace dividend by using it to pay down our massive debt? Not entirely, or even largely. How about the Marshall Plan? The G.I. Bill? Two massive, very expensive programs which happened to be extremely wise and profitable investments, helping lead straight to the boom economies of the 1950's.

Regarding your first paragraph, what can we say? It's pretty appalling. Things are fucked up and bullshit, I guess.

Last edited by thick12; 12-30-2012 at 03:32 PM..
thick12 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012   #189 (permalink)
slurper_la is online now


Quote:
Originally Posted by VZR1800 View Post
...Plus the possible $2400.00 tax bill in April if nothing is done....
It scares me that anyone would believe this! Political leanings aside do you not understand that none of this affects anyone's tax returns in April 2013?

If our taxes go up effective January, it would be for the 2013 calendar year, reported and filed in 2014. Your returns filed in April 2013 are for the 2012 calendar year so the "fiscal cliff" raise would have me bearing.

You may call me Tony

I'm not a porn star, I just play one in the bedroom
slurper_la is online now  
Old 12-30-2012   #190 (permalink)
D_Aurifice_Stupher is offline
Account Disabled


Quote:
Originally Posted by slurper_la View Post
It scares me that anyone would believe this! Political leanings aside do you not understand that none of this affects anyone's tax returns in April 2013?

If our taxes go up effective January, it would be for the 2013 calendar year, reported and filed in 2014. Your returns filed in April 2013 are for the 2012 calendar year so the "fiscal cliff" raise would have me bearing.
It's called the AMT, Alternative Minimum Tax. Every year they vote to delay it for another year. They have not done so this time. It will affect a lot of people for their 2012 taxes.

See point @2 in this article, and start saving those pennies.
16 Things About 2013 That Are Really Going To Stink | ZeroHedge

Quote:
#2 The Middle Class Is About To Be Scorched By The Alternative Minimum Tax

Of more immediate concern for the middle class is the Alternative Minimum Tax. Many Americans have never heard of the AMT, but it is truly one of the worst things about our tax code.
If Congress does not act, and right now it does not look promising, millions of middle class households will see a massive increase in their tax bills for 2012.

According to one analysis, households that are forced to pay the AMT will end up paying an extra $3,700 in taxes…

Unless Congress acts by the end of the year, more than 26 million households will for the first time face the AMT, which threatens to tack $3,700, on average, onto taxpayers’ bills for the current tax year. Because those people have never paid the AMT, they have no idea they are in its crosshairs — put there by a broader stalemate over tax policy that has kept Congress from limiting the AMT’s reach.
Do you have an extra $3,700 sitting around to send to Uncle Sam?
If not, you had better contact your representatives in Congress and scream like crazy about passing a fix for the AMT. They have always gotten it done before, but this year there is so much animosity between the Republicans and the Democrats that nothing may end up getting done.
D_Aurifice_Stupher is offline  
Old 12-30-2012   #191 (permalink)
slurper_la is online now


Quote:
Originally Posted by VZR1800 View Post
It's called the AMT, Alternative Minimum Tax. Every year they vote to delay it for another year. They have not done so this time. It will affect a lot of people for their 2012 taxes.

See point @2 in this article, and start saving those pennies.
16 Things About 2013 That Are Really Going To Stink | ZeroHedge
My friend, you want to rely on Tea Party rantings?

You may call me Tony

I'm not a porn star, I just play one in the bedroom
slurper_la is online now  
Old 12-30-2012   #192 (permalink)
D_Aurifice_Stupher is offline
Account Disabled


Quote:
Originally Posted by slurper_la View Post
My friend, you want to rely on Tea Party rantings?
Nothing about Zero Hedge is Tea Party or ranting. I will listen to them over you because the site is a Financial site. Until I hear otherwise, I am preparing for the worst. If it does not come to pass, good. If it does I hope to be ready for it.

Truth is were f---ed anyhow. The government budget needs to be addressed. But addressing it is going to kill the economy. You may choose to bury your head in the sand, I do not. If I and everyone else in the country have less money to spend after all the necessities, than private companies are going to suffer. And their response will be to start letting employees go. A recent YAHOO article quoted millions of newly unemployed. No I cannot find the article, wish I had saved it to my favorites. All those unemployed are not going to buy things or pay taxes. Government will be paying out more in unemployment.

Big Catch 22.
D_Aurifice_Stupher is offline  
Old 12-30-2012   #193 (permalink)
thick12 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by slurper_la View Post
It scares me that anyone would believe this! Political leanings aside do you not understand that none of this affects anyone's tax returns in April 2013?

If our taxes go up effective January, it would be for the 2013 calendar year, reported and filed in 2014. Your returns filed in April 2013 are for the 2012 calendar year so the "fiscal cliff" raise would have me bearing.

Not entirely correct. The most frequently mentioned tax break which would expire would be the 2% cut in FICA payroll taxes which funds Social Security, which was agreed to during the Obama Adminstration as an economic stimulus measure. The loss of that tax break would begin affecting everyone with the first paycheck earned from 2013 work hours.

If a deal is quickly reached in January, this would affect workers very little and the tax break could be reapplied retroactively, but it has been estimated that if the "cliff" were to remain in effect all year with no mitigations, the payroll tax alone would increase by over $2,000 for the average payroll earner in 2013. That would be in addition to the increased income tax rates you mention which would be due for payment in 2014. Again, these are assumptions are made with the spectre of complete Congressional inaction for the entire year, which has about a %.000001 chance of happening.

In addition, we have VZR's mention of the AMT. I must say it seems an extreme departure from normal tax policy to retroactively repeal a tax break. It's pretty understandable why Congress would avoid creating tax policy like that; after all, people have already made spending decisions for 2012 based on their understood tax liabilities. It seems much more likely to me that an AMT change would not be due for payment until 2014 as well. Admittedly, I know less about this, but it's worth rechecking that info, and in the end that's almost certain to be covered in the coming deal as well.

Last edited by thick12; 12-30-2012 at 03:56 PM..
thick12 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012   #194 (permalink)
thick12 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by VZR1800 View Post
Nothing about Zero Hedge is Tea Party or ranting. I will listen to them over you because the site is a Financial site. Until I hear otherwise, I am preparing for the worst. If it does not come to pass, good. If it does I hope to be ready for it.

Truth is were f---ed anyhow. The government budget needs to be addressed. But addressing it is going to kill the economy. You may choose to bury your head in the sand, I do not. If I and everyone else in the country have less money to spend after all the necessities, than private companies are going to suffer. And their response will be to start letting employees go. A recent YAHOO article quoted millions of newly unemployed. No I cannot find the article, wish I had saved it to my favorites. All those unemployed are not going to buy things or pay taxes. Government will be paying out more in unemployment.

Big Catch 22.

We've faced much larger budget deficits and total debts as a percentage of GDP in the past, and we faced them down. The main differences between most of those circumstances and the current one are the combination of big deficits and a sluggish economy, and the tremendous level of intransigence being shown by the minority party, making a final deal more challenging. I mean, the House Republicans are unwilling to pass their own Speaker's budget! Hard to see good leadership on their side which will lead to an easy path to settlement, but that's been the case for a few years now and we've reached relatively short-term agreements and continued to grow the economy a bit. Hardly ideal, but doable.

This doesn't mean we should be complacent. Let's call our Congressional representatives and caucus leaders and tell them what we want! For me, it's no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security beneficiaries. Most of the talk is about the tax rates, but we should be much more concerned about how the budget cuts will be imposed. They should leave the middle and lower classes intact.
thick12 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012   #195 (permalink)
slurper_la is online now


Quote:
Originally Posted by VZR1800 View Post
Nothing about Zero Hedge is Tea Party or ranting. I will listen to them over you because the site is a Financial site. Until I hear otherwise, I am preparing for the worst. If it does not come to pass, good. If it does I hope to be ready for it.

Truth is were f---ed anyhow. The government budget needs to be addressed. But addressing it is going to kill the economy. You may choose to bury your head in the sand, I do not. If I and everyone else in the country have less money to spend after all the necessities, than private companies are going to suffer. And their response will be to start letting employees go. A recent YAHOO article quoted millions of newly unemployed. No I cannot find the article, wish I had saved it to my favorites. All those unemployed are not going to buy things or pay taxes. Government will be paying out more in unemployment.

Big Catch 22.
The link you provided led to a page with a huge banner titled "We The People, Tea Party Patriots"

What am I missing?

And I'm not burying my head in the sand. I recognize and appreciate the ramifications of what we face but I am willing to pay extra and not willing to see cuts to much needed social programs.
I'm not interested in extending the Bush tax cuts. I'm in favor of new Obama tax cuts and a much fairer tax structure.

You may call me Tony

I'm not a porn star, I just play one in the bedroom
slurper_la is online now  

Tags
fiscal cliff

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:36 PM.

Latest Threads
House Wife
16 Minutes Ago by lottie
A challenger appears?
38 Minutes Ago by michig
Updated cock pics
1 Hour Ago by zong
On Skype Now
1 Hour Ago by MarcFr

Latest Posts
House Wife
3 Minutes Ago by kiwipo
Possible revolution in
4 Minutes Ago by Aren

Latest Blogs

On Cam Now
02flaggers, brownstick, buzzwhite10, cowboybootfan, eastatlantaguy, FantomX, GuillaumeBordeaux, hctib1, Justin87, loveeg, MisterSlave, Nunu470, sportfan5x5, unlucky1, viewable1, whitedick50, williamspaul638, xvi45v

Please read the rules.

Online: 2121 | Chatting: 63

Sponsors

Copyright 1999-2013 LPSG