Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 12 Nov '12 15:02
    So, we have our president back again and the next big issue he will have to tackle are the automatic budget cuts coming up in January. Any ideas? I heard some discussion on the Diane Rehm show about simply letting the automatic cuts happen. Apparently, if nothing is done and the cuts go into place, then the bush tax cuts are automatically repealed. The argument was that democrats ought to be prepared to jump over the cliff if they didn't get serious concessions from republicans. I couldn't help thinking this sounded terribly familiar to me. Where did I hear something like this before?
  2. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    12 Nov '12 15:13
    Originally posted by dryhump
    So, we have our president back again and the next big issue he will have to tackle are the automatic budget cuts coming up in January. Any ideas? I heard some discussion on the Diane Rehm show about simply letting the automatic cuts happen. Apparently, if nothing is done and the cuts go into place, then the bush tax cuts are automatically repealed. The ar ...[text shortened]... p thinking this sounded terribly familiar to me. Where did I hear something like this before?
    Going over the cliff is better than giving into the tea baggers. The Republicans in the House of Representatives are up for reelection in 2014. Obama is not. Obama's job, and the job of Democrats in general, will be to stay partially in "campaign mode" and make it clear to the public that the reactionaries in the House are to blame for the fallout. That's how it can be sold. And apparently it is Obama's plan to keep the electorate engaged in this using his campaign organization.
  3. 12 Nov '12 15:19
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    Going over the cliff is better than giving into the tea baggers. The Republicans in the House of Representatives are up for reelection in 2014. Obama is not. Obama's job, and the job of Democrats in general, will be to stay partially in "campaign mode" and make it clear to the public that the reactionaries in the House are to blame for the fallout. Tha ...[text shortened]... it is Obama's plan to keep the electorate engaged in this using his campaign organization.
    How do you think going over the cliff (I can't help picturing the first lethal weapon here, with the president as riggs) compares to threatening to not raise the debt ceiling, that's the question I was really driving at in my op. An immediate cut of 550 billion dollars seems pretty extreme.
  4. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    12 Nov '12 15:30 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by dryhump
    How do you think going over the cliff (I can't help picturing the first lethal weapon here, with the president as riggs) compares to threatening to not raise the debt ceiling, that's the question I was really driving at in my op. An immediate cut of 550 billion dollars seems pretty extreme.
    It's a bluff by Republicans. They'll buckle. Maybe they'll hold out until February or later, but they'll knuckle under. The military-industrial complex is too dear to them.

    EDIT: The fact is, Republicans were counting on Obama being a lame-duck president by the time this deadline came 'round. But he's not, and they'll have to deal with it.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 Nov '12 15:47
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    It's a bluff by Republicans. They'll buckle. Maybe they'll hold out until February or later, but they'll knuckle under. The military-industrial complex is too dear to them.

    EDIT: The fact is, Republicans were counting on Obama being a lame-duck president by the time this deadline came 'round. But he's not, and they'll have to deal with it.
    Obama folded once before and I see no reason to believe he won't fold again on highest income tax rate increases. He and the Congressional Dems don't have the stones to let taxes increase to pre-Bush levels on everybody.
  6. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    12 Nov '12 16:38
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Obama folded once before and I see no reason to believe he won't fold again on highest income tax rate increases. He and the Congressional Dems don't have the stones to let taxes increase to pre-Bush levels on everybody.
    Obama had to fold last time because not to fold would have wrecked the economy, made the lot of millions of unemployed palpably worse, and raised taxes on middle incomes. How could he hope to get reelected with that on his record?

    Not so this time. I'm a little more optimistic that you.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 Nov '12 16:44
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    Obama had to fold last time because not to fold would have wrecked the economy, made the lot of millions of unemployed palpably worse, and raised taxes on middle incomes. How could he hope to get reelected with that on his record?

    Not so this time. I'm a little more optimistic that you.
    Republicans are making the same argument this time:

    A senior Senate Republican aide argued his party had the advantage. If negotiations break down over raising taxes on upper-income groups, thus causing all income tax rates to rise in January, "Will Obama really want to start his new term by pushing the economy into recession?" the aide said.

    http://news.msn.com/politics/congress-created-the-cliff-and-may-now-plunge-off-it-1


    He's shown a backbone of jelly on this issue even though he has the support of a large majority of the people. He'll fold; they'll be another 12 month extension so the parties can work on "tax reform".
  8. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    12 Nov '12 16:51
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Republicans are making the same argument this time:

    A senior Senate Republican aide argued his party had the advantage. If negotiations break down over raising taxes on upper-income groups, thus causing all income tax rates to rise in January, "Will Obama really want to start his new term by pushing the economy into recession?" the aide said.

    http: ...[text shortened]... e'll fold; they'll be another 12 month extension so the parties can work on "tax reform".
    We'll see.
  9. 12 Nov '12 16:56
    I'm with no1, Obama has shown extreme cowardice when it comes to raising taxes even though such a measure would be popular and economically sound.
  10. 12 Nov '12 17:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I'm with no1, Obama has shown extreme cowardice when it comes to raising taxes even though such a measure would be popular and economically sound.
    I'm not. Bets anyone? The top earners will get some sort of tax hike.
  11. 12 Nov '12 17:45
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I'm not. Bets anyone? The top earners will get some sort of tax hike.
    I'd guess there will be something minor, but taxes really should go up for the upper middle class too, let's say those making over ~$70,000. A minor tax hike for the super wealthy isn't going to do much to bridge the deficit, although it would be better than nothing.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    12 Nov '12 17:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I'm not. Bets anyone? The top earners will get some sort of tax hike.
    You're hedging your bet with "some sort." If they leave the rates as they are but take away one deduction you can claim victory with that hedge.

    If you want to make a binary bet it should be on whether the Bush income tax cuts will be allowed to expire for people earning $250k+.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 Nov '12 17:57
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I'm not. Bets anyone? The top earners will get some sort of tax hike.
    I'll bet $20 that the top rates don't get raised in legislation passed (or not passed) before the January deadline. I won't accept any change in deductions as qualifying for "some sort of tax hike".
  14. 12 Nov '12 18:23
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I'll bet $20 that the top rates don't get raised in legislation passed (or not passed) before the January deadline. I won't accept any change in deductions as qualifying for "some sort of tax hike".
    Then no bet. I do see deductions or loopholes that tend to benefit the wealthy as a possible compromise.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 Nov '12 18:44
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Then no bet. I do see deductions or loopholes that tend to benefit the wealthy as a possible compromise.
    That's not going to happen before January either. As I said, expect a 12 month extension of all the tax cuts, a delay in implementing any spending cuts and a year of wrangling about "tax reform".