Magox Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I almost never see any conservative on this board acknowledge that it even COULD be anything but a failure. Interesting... Thank you for your meaningless contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 The spending decisions will take place in a couple months, and that's when the Rs will have the upper hand. It's a silly exercise to compute the impact over the next 10 years without those changes added into the equation, and they will change. Can you explain how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) Can you explain how? Because they need the Rs to increase the limit. This last debate was focused on "protecting the middle class and asking the wealthy to pay a little more", which of course poll tests really well, however that fight has already been won by the president and will quickly shift to the national debt, and most people agree that we need to reduce the deficit, and since Revenues was the primary driver of the last deal, the focus of debt ceiling deal will be primarily spending cuts. Which of course falls more into the Rs comfort zone. Edited January 2, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 The spending decisions will take place in a couple months, and that's when the Rs will have the upper hand. It's a silly exercise to compute the impact over the next 10 years without those changes added into the equation, and they will change. I agree about the computations, but I don't think the republicans will have the upper hand on many things in the near future- quite the opposite. I expect the conservative movement to abandon them and for a second party to battle the democrats. I hope they have something in place before the next congressional election and the next presidential election (hopefully at the latest) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Because they need the Rs to increase the limit. This last debate was focused on "protecting the middle class and asking the wealthy to pay a little more", which of course poll tests really well, however that fight has already been won by the president and will quickly shift to the national debt, and most people agree that we need to reduce the deficit, and since Revenues was the primary driver of the last deal, the focus of debt ceiling deal will be primarily spending cuts. Which of course falls more into the Rs comfort zone. What he said.As I said earlier in this thread, there will be cuts to SS and Medicare, even though the primary cause of any future deficit projection is healthcare. Outside of the healthcare fix, I would support a tweaking to SS if the Rs are willing to cut defense spending (I'm talking the billion/trillion $ boondoggles). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 You obviously misunderstand the fiscal cliff. The point was to avoid the short term austerity measures because it would cause the fragile recovery to stumble back into recession. Politicians are using the FC to barter over who will pay for the long term fiscal fix. You obviously don't understand a dog and pony show when you see one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Gee, I thought we couldn't get past New Year's Eve without upping the debt limit. So that is now going to be a subject of negotiations a couple months down the road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Gee, I thought we couldn't get past New Year's Eve without upping the debt limit. So that is now going to be a subject of negotiations a couple months down the road? Technically they couldn't, but there are things that Treasury can do to push it back a few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Technically they couldn't, but there are things that Treasury can do to push it back a few months. You mean like they do every other time? Just kick the can down the road.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 You mean like they do every other time? Just kick the can down the road.......... What I said and what you said have nothing to do with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I almost never see any conservative on this board acknowledge that it even COULD be anything but a failure. Interesting... Because it WON'T be anything other than a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 You mean like they do every other time? Just kick the can down the road.......... What Treasury is doing in order to gain the two months is not kicking the can down the road. "Kicking the can down the road" is what is being done when the Congress enacts sweeping cuts...that take place in 10 years...and a future Congress has to enact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 What I said and what you said have nothing to do with each other. Just lamenting how things work......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 roubini gets it right...http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8f45b6c8-54f5-11e2-a628-00144feab49a.html#axzz2GrtjtH9T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I agree about the computations, but I don't think the republicans will have the upper hand on many things in the near future- quite the opposite. I expect the conservative movement to abandon them and for a second party to battle the democrats. I hope they have something in place before the next congressional election and the next presidential election (hopefully at the latest) IDK Obama can play hardball which he will, and he has a compelling argument if he communicate what the debt ceiling really is to the people...but all in all...he's going to have to deal on that one and I wouldn't call it an "upper hand" but it will be better than it was this last month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 you are exactly right about that, but I don't think that anyone who deserves to will actually receive any blame a few years from now. instead, it will be blamed on the republicans for not raising taxes on ALL of those top wage earners (400K & above instead of the original 250K per year)when they had the opportunity to do so, causing a revenue shortfall and driving up the debt. of course that's total BS, but that's what will happen....just wait. if I had been in charge of the house republicans, I would have mounted an aggressive campaign for LOWERING middle-class tax rates, forcing the dems to defend a pro-tax on the middle class stance. it might not have worked, but at least I'd know that I stood for something I believed in as I went down in flames. Holy crap! Where the hell have you been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 lol 0% chance of that happening your probably right... he's the best Speaker the Dems have had since Tip O'Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 You obviously don't understand a dog and pony show when you see one. You're talking to a guy who actually believes the tax rates during the Clinton Administration caused a surplus. You know that, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Because they need the Rs to increase the limit. This last debate was focused on "protecting the middle class and asking the wealthy to pay a little more", which of course poll tests really well, however that fight has already been won by the president and will quickly shift to the national debt, and most people agree that we need to reduce the deficit, and since Revenues was the primary driver of the last deal, the focus of debt ceiling deal will be primarily spending cuts. Which of course falls more into the Rs comfort zone. no... the Rs spent too much time last go 'round, offering to slash deductions, instead of raising taxes. Dems are already trumping the loophole thing in anticipation of the next negotiations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 You're talking to a guy who actually believes the tax rates during the Clinton Administration caused a surplus. You know that, right? I know this will be hard for you to understand, but here goes. As i argued with GG, economic growth and Greenspan's belief that the so-called "non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment" (NAIRU) had fallen (due to productivity growth) meant the Fed let the recovery continue (around 1997) as the unemployment rate fell below 6% (most economists thought this was the value of NAIRU, the rate that would cause inflationt to accelerate). The number one factor that generated more revenues was the fact that unemployment fell to 4% (GG argues cap gains revenues were more important). Now, how does this square with my comment on Clinton's tax structure? The tax structure influences what's known as the full employment budget deficit/surplus. That is, if the economy was at FE, it's the estimated (by the CBO) budget value. As I've done several times here, I've compared the budget deficit for Bush and Clinton during years when both regimes exerienced unemployment of about 4.5%. On the revenue side, Bush's tax cuts added somewhere between $100-150 billion to the deficit. So, yes, when the economy is at an equivalent state (same level of unemployment), the higher taxes under Clinton generate more revenues. Why do you think the CBO is estimating more revenues from the just announced tax increases? Are they biased? If you don't believe that tax increases will generate higher revenues over time, then I guess you also must believe that tax cuts don't cause deficits, but then you would have to come up with a story to explain the 1980s and 2000s. Ok, let your insults continue. There certainly won't be a serious response; that hasn't happened since the last time the Bills were in the playoffs..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts