Fiscal Cliff Discussion

[Jake]

Opting to add 'responsible spending cuts.' Deal is dead.

 

This bulls*** of not putting things up for a vote is f***ing ridiculous.

[StrangeSox]

In other words, they don't have the votes to pass ANY tax increase. It's pretty amazing that even the RINO's are holding out - Boner only needs 20 votes to cover his Nancy Pelosi stance, right?

A tax increase already happened at midnight. It's done. Now they're talking about tax cuts.

[kapkomet]

A tax increase already happened at midnight. It's done. Now they're talking about tax cuts.

 

Exactly what Obama wanted. Now he gets to claim he cut taxes for "middle class Americans".

[Balta1701]

In other words, they don't have the votes to pass ANY tax increase. It's pretty amazing that even the RINO's are holding out - Boner only needs 20 votes to cover his Nancy Pelosi stance, right?

Yes that's true, but Boehner also needs to bring the bill to the floor and decide what version of the bill to bring to the floor. The Democrats are powerless to bring a bill to the floor.

 

If he brings a bill to the floor his caucus doesn't want, they can vote him out as speaker because of it in a couple days.

 

That's why the failure to pass anything last time was such a big deal, it showed how weak of a speaker he is. He has no leverage whatsoever to bring people along from his side, and he can't afford to force a vote on something that the strongest part of his caucus doesn't want.

[Balta1701]

Meanwhile, Senate Democratic leaders tell The Hill they will "reject any House effort to amend a fiscal cliff deal that passed the upper chamber with overwhelming support on New Year's Day."

 

Said one Democratic aide: "We're done."

Link

 

@brianbeutler

 

.@SenatorDurbin's...unhappy w/ House Rs right now. Asked him if it's choice for them b/w Senate bill & cliff: "At this point I'm afraid so."

[Jake]

Exactly what Obama wanted. Now he gets to claim he cut taxes for "middle class Americans".

 

Except no one cared what they called it. Obama has said both that he's cutting taxes for middle class and that he's raising taxes on the wealthy. Repubs have apparently even forgotten how to use semantics to their advantage. Would you rather hear that your taxes had been cut pre-emptively or a couple days late? All the cuts were temporary - - extending them means cutting taxes again. Boehner needs to grow a set and realize his party is about to lose its majority if he doesn't do anything.

[NorthSideSox72]

Nss, haven't you been one of the many saying how terrible, awful the deficit is and how we need to solve tht immediately because of the imminent enormous inflation spike that was supposed to happen in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

 

Not at all. The deficit and inflation are unrelated. Who would say that?

 

The fiscal cliff gets rid of the deficit.

 

Sooner, yes. Just not in a way that makes sense.

 

The biggest problem with the fiscal cliff is the deficit rapidly shrinks in the middle of a minor depression.

 

No... the biggest problem with the fiscal cliff is the combined negative impact of a whole bunch of tax increases all at once, and a whole array of broad-based and untargeted spending cuts also hit all at once. The problem is not about the deficit.

 

But anyone who has complained about the deficit...should have very little problem with this.

 

So if you complain about the deficit and debt (which I sometimes do), you must inherently like the idea of the fiscal cliff? How does that make any sense? That's like saying, because I want to reduce my household debt, I must like the idea of stopping buying groceries.

 

And finally...you accuse me of denial about "overspending". Yet you ignore the fact that spending has gone up over the past presidents term by the lowest admount in decades and the yearly deficit has shrunk more rapidly since 2009 than at any point since 1946.

 

Yet again, bringing up two seperate things and conflating them. Did you see me say, ever, that the deficit is Obama's fault? Find where I said that, once. What I said is there are Democrats - including you - who have made the argument that the government should be doing even more deficit spending, and that will not have a negative impact. It will, and I've explained many times why.

 

Anyone who is not in denial about the long term budget will talk about health care costs growing at 8% a year, because if Medicare grows at 5% a year, it eats up the entire budget...at a time when 50% of our economy is health care costs. The PPACA bought us maybe a 5-10 year delay, but that is literally the entire long term budget gap (assuming we can get back to 6% unemployment).

 

50% of the economy is not health care costs. That is an absurd number and you know it. And besides, your overall point here only reinforces one of the reasons why running large deficits has dangers.

 

why should the process of governing be less democratic and less represenative? Why shouldn't everyone's Senators and Representatives have input into the process instead of just a select handful?

 

I was kinda joking with the room idea, just expressing frustration. I think you may be overanalyzing a bit here.

 

Within the last hour, House Republicans are now saying they will offer up an amended bill and send it back to the Senate (assuming they could pass it in the first place, of course). Presumably containing more spending cuts and maybe more tax cuts.

 

That would effectively break whatever agreement the Senate had in place.

 

Is there anyone who still doesn't see that the Republican Party has effectively fractured into two? And that the Tea Party crowd has made it impossible to for the GOP in the House to truly compromise en masse? Whether you like that or not, that is the reality. This is happening, most primarily, because of the Tea Party crowd, for better or worse.

 

Meanwhile, at least in the short term, the country is being f***ed over.

 

[kapkomet]

Yes that's true, but Boehner also needs to bring the bill to the floor and decide what version of the bill to bring to the floor. The Democrats are powerless to bring a bill to the floor.

 

If he brings a bill to the floor his caucus doesn't want, they can vote him out as speaker because of it in a couple days.

 

That's why the failure to pass anything last time was such a big deal, it showed how weak of a speaker he is. He has no leverage whatsoever to bring people along from his side, and he can't afford to force a vote on something that the strongest part of his caucus doesn't want.

 

 

I don't disagree. That's twice in one day. WTF is wrong with you?

[Balta1701]

Boehner needs to grow a set and realize his party is about to lose its majority if he doesn't do anything.

No they won't.

 

They got 2 million fewer votes in the House than the Democrats in the last election. They held onto the House with ease because the House districts that heavily gerrymandered, and that won't change until the next census or until some districts have serious population swings/growth.

 

There are only 16 Republicans in the House from districts that Obama won. Their majority is fully entrenched right now. A 2006 style wave election might not be enough to shift the majority, and we're back into "Pox on both houses no matter what happens" mode.

[kapkomet]

Except no one cared what they called it. Obama has said both that he's cutting taxes for middle class and that he's raising taxes on the wealthy. Repubs have apparently even forgotten how to use semantics to their advantage. Would you rather hear that your taxes had been cut pre-emptively or a couple days late? All the cuts were temporary - - extending them means cutting taxes again. Boehner needs to grow a set and realize his party is about to lose its majority if he doesn't do anything.

 

 

You must have missed my line somewhere when I said Boner needs to borrow one of Nancy Pelosi's testicles.

[Balta1701]

Not at all. The deficit and inflation are unrelated. Who would say that?

I could respond to some of the remainder, but I'm just sort of jarred that you'd say this.

 

The government running a deficit is almost the definition of an inflationary act. The government running a surplus is a deflationary push.

 

They can, of course, be overwhelmed by other actions, since there are other players (the federal reserve, international currency exchanges and international economic policies, occasional implosions of the entire financial system). But they're completely intertwined.

[Balta1701]

Um...

Retiring Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio asked House Republicans why the House would “heed the votes of sleep-deprived octogenarians,” according to a source in the meeting.

[Jake]

You must have missed my line somewhere when I said Boner needs to borrow one of Nancy Pelosi's testicles.

 

 

 

Um...

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I could respond to some of the remainder, but I'm just sort of jarred that you'd say this.

 

The government running a deficit is almost the definition of an inflationary act. The government running a surplus is a deflationary push.

 

They can, of course, be overwhelmed by other actions, since there are other players (the federal reserve, international currency exchanges and international economic policies, occasional implosions of the entire financial system). But they're completely intertwined.

Sorry yes, I misstated that one. They are obviously very related, what I was saying was, your focus was wrong, and you used the focus on deficits to somehow imply that meant I liked the result of the fiscal cliff. You repeatedly conflated different concepts.

 

[bmags]

https://twitter.com/mikeallen/status/286223020643737600

 

Hilarious.

[Jake]

I'm now prepared for them to do nothing. Ever.

[bmags]

I'm now prepared for them to do nothing. Ever.

Maybe they'll repeal obamacare for the 34th time. They are prolific at voting for DOA bills.

[ptatc]

But that is our form of representative government. I don't feel that i should lose my representation in Congress and be left only with someone to vote "yes/no" on major bills.

I agree in concept. But in reality that would get absolutely nothing done. I'm from a rural area here in Illinois. Believe me I want all views represented. Illinois politics is ruled by Chicago because of this. However, too many people trying to make one decision will lead to more indecision and no action.

[Jake]

I agree in concept. But in reality that would get absolutely nothing done. I'm from a rural area here in Illinois. Believe me I want all views represented. Illinois politics is ruled by Chicago because of this. However, too many people trying to make one decision will lead to more indecision and no action.

 

I'm from rural Illinois and I don't think my reps have ever represented me. They go in there to push their ideology... And that's okay. What else would they do?

[ptatc]

I'm from rural Illinois and I don't think my reps have ever represented me. They go in there to push their ideology... And that's okay. What else would they do?

This is true. His point was that many committees make decisions, so there is not input from every member. My point was that no decision would ever be made if 100 or more people had to be in on everyone before it made it to the floor. This is where the idea of "not every view was represented" came from.

[StrangeSox]

I agree in concept. But in reality that would get absolutely nothing done. I'm from a rural area here in Illinois. Believe me I want all views represented. Illinois politics is ruled by Chicago because of this. However, too many people trying to make one decision will lead to more indecision and no action.

That is generally how Congress functions, not with super committees.

 

Edit: there are always sub-committees, but these "super committees" are distinctly different and empower only a handful of non-democratically selected members over everyone else.

 

 

Edited January 1, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Sudden talk that the Republicans may allow a vote on the bill without amendments coming out of their 2nd meeting.

 

Whether they have the votes or not is a question. One report said that they had maybe 20-50 votes in favor of the bill, which could make it very narrow at best and make it so that they would need a very united Democratic vote.

[Jake]

I'm hearing that they will only put amendment on floor if they have 218 votes for it, which is unlikely. If no amendment, then straight up and down vote. This should be successful. One rep tweeted that he thought the Senate bill would pass without Dems. On the other hand, a "senior aide" said he thinks it will all fall apart and it will have to go to the 113th.

[Texsox]

I believe this hard of a fight will result in the very best compromise we could hope for. I really hope there is no move to increase the debt ceiling. We may finally be putting the brakes on government borrowing.

[Jake]

I believe this hard of a fight will result in the very best compromise we could hope for. I really hope there is no move to increase the debt ceiling. We may finally be putting the brakes on government borrowing.

 

Why would we stop borrowing? Balancing the budget now would cause an absolute calamity.