Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

[shiang]

Well it seem all but certain that we'll run over the fiscal cliff. Meaning the Government will be shut down and Bush tax cuts will expire for everyone.

Obama and the Dems want Bush tax cuts to expire for the 250k+ brackets (starting at around 3% increase for 250k up to 4.5% for 388k) and raise Capital gains tax from 15 to 20%. This by itself will cut deficit spending by over 10%.

Boehner wants only people making 1 mill + to have Bush tax cuts expire. As I have stated in a previous post (early in the general elections) that this sounds nice but simply will not raise significant revenue. Boehner's proposal, by the way, is shunned by help the wealthy Republicans.

Republicans want either

1.No tax changes

or

2.Secretly want to raise taxes for all Americans and for political reasons can't say that. Going over the fiscal cliff would do that by default. On the bright side, in the short run deficit will decrease by around 20%. On the down side, a weaker middle class would almost certainly mean a slower economy. Much more so than tax hikes only on the wealthy.


Who do you think will get the most blame when the Government fails to pass a budget plan for the future in time?

 

[Mycroft]

Well it seem all but certain that we'll run over the fiscal cliff. Meaning the YouGovernment will be shut down and Bush tax cuts will expire for everyone.

Obama and the Dems want Bush tax cuts to expire for the 250k+ brackets (starting at around 3% increase for 250k up to 4.5% for 388k) and raise Capital gains tax from 15 to 20%. This by itself will cut deficit spending by over 10%.

Boehner wants only people making 1 mill + to have Bush tax cuts expire. As I have stated in a previous post (early in the general elections) that this sounds nice but simply will not raise significant revenue. Boehner's proposal, by the way, is shunned by help the wealthy Republicans.

Republicans want either

1.No tax changes

or

2.Secretly want to raise taxes for all Americans and for political reasons can't say that. Going over the fiscal cliff would do that by default. On the bright side, in the short run deficit will decrease by around 20%. On the down side, a weaker middle class would almost certainly mean a slower economy. Much more so than tax hikes only on the wealthy.


Who do you think will get the most blame when the Government fails to pass a budget plan for the future in time?

Your post is so full of inaccuracies and omissions that attempting to answer it seriously would mean completely scrapping your post.

Instead, I'll just answer the question in your thread title: It doesn't matter.

A better question would be: Who loses? Answer: The American people.


You got anymore lying political hackery you want to share with us?

 

[The Giant Noodle]

Everyone and No one.

 

[molten_dragon]

Hopefully everyone in Washington gets blamed, since they're all at fault.

 

[code1211]

Well it seem all but certain that we'll run over the fiscal cliff. Meaning the Government will be shut down and Bush tax cuts will expire for everyone.

Obama and the Dems want Bush tax cuts to expire for the 250k+ brackets (starting at around 3% increase for 250k up to 4.5% for 388k) and raise Capital gains tax from 15 to 20%. This by itself will cut deficit spending by over 10%.

Boehner wants only people making 1 mill + to have Bush tax cuts expire. As I have stated in a previous post (early in the general elections) that this sounds nice but simply will not raise significant revenue. Boehner's proposal, by the way, is shunned by help the wealthy Republicans.

Republicans want either

1.No tax changes

or

2.Secretly want to raise taxes for all Americans and for political reasons can't say that. Going over the fiscal cliff would do that by default. On the bright side, in the short run deficit will decrease by around 20%. On the down side, a weaker middle class would almost certainly mean a slower economy. Much more so than tax hikes only on the wealthy.


Who do you think will get the most blame when the Government fails to pass a budget plan for the future in time?

You're kidding, right? The press will be the ones who fix the blame and with their lips surgically attached to the TOOKUS of the POTUS, the blame is already fixed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Obama signed this "bipartisan" joke into law, instead of using the "veto" in August. How can Obama and the press not blame demorats, who got credit for PPACA and "fixing" the economy? It seems that Obama wishes to tax less, spend more and pretend that combinaton "reduces" the deficit. Of course, the demorats will give the republicants increased defense spending in exchange for lower taxes on the 98% if the republicants will give Obama some extra spending too. DC has no brains, yet plenty of balls, to "kick the can down the road" while denying that they actually did so.

 

[ChrisL]

I chose other because there was no option for both. BOTH parties are responsible.

 

[ChrisL]

Your post is so full of inaccuracies and omissions that attempting to answer it seriously would mean completely scrapping your post.

Instead, I'll just answer the question in your thread title: It doesn't matter.

A better question would be: Who loses? Answer: The American people.


You got anymore lying political hackery you want to share with us?

Totally agree.

 

[Mathematician]

Quit ****ing spending if you can't afford it. Whether it's our POTUS or people wanting handouts, they waste money and expect others to pick up the tab. Learn some financial responsibility and we won't even mention the fiscal cliff.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Obama signed this "bipartisan" joke into law, instead of using the "veto" in August.

Which August was that? It seems like there's one every year.

It seems that Obama wishes to tax less, spend more and pretend that combinaton "reduces" the deficit.

No, he's pretending that such policies are a plain necessity in the face of the worst economic collapse in 75 years regardless of what short-term damage those policies might do to the deficit. Only it isn't pretending.

DC has no brains, yet plenty of balls, to "kick the can down the road" while denying that they actually did so.

Actually, the DC area is at least among the most highly educated regions in the country and has often been ranked first in that regard.

As for the cliff, it arose as a manufactured provision that neither side liked or expected ever to have to deal with again. Once it came to loom on the actual horizon, Republicans assumed that their stance would be bolstered by the 2012 elections, so they did nothing earlier. And now they have no coherent idea of what to do at all.

 

[ReformCollege]

Well it seem all but certain that we'll run over the fiscal cliff. Meaning the Government will be shut down and Bush tax cuts will expire for everyone.

Obama and the Dems want Bush tax cuts to expire for the 250k+ brackets (starting at around 3% increase for 250k up to 4.5% for 388k) and raise Capital gains tax from 15 to 20%. This by itself will cut deficit spending by over 10%.

Boehner wants only people making 1 mill + to have Bush tax cuts expire. As I have stated in a previous post (early in the general elections) that this sounds nice but simply will not raise significant revenue. Boehner's proposal, by the way, is shunned by help the wealthy Republicans.

Republicans want either

1.No tax changes

or

2.Secretly want to raise taxes for all Americans and for political reasons can't say that. Going over the fiscal cliff would do that by default. On the bright side, in the short run deficit will decrease by around 20%. On the down side, a weaker middle class would almost certainly mean a slower economy. Much more so than tax hikes only on the wealthy.


Who do you think will get the most blame when the Government fails to pass a budget plan for the future in time?

Unless Obama + Dems are willing to make changes to entitlements, including changing the retirement age, I cannot take any of their proposals seriously.

Besides, the obvious point I think Dems are missing is that higher taxes is not the solution. We'd actually raise more revenue if we switched to a flat tax system, or a non-income tax system, such as a national property tax. It would also cost less to regulate, taxpayers wouldn't have to pay as much in tax-filing services, and the economic dead-weight loss would be far less.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Which August was that? It seems like there's one every year.


No, he's pretending that such policies are a plain necessity in the face of the worst economic collapse in 75 years regardless of what short-term damage those policies might do to the deficit. Only it isn't pretending.


Actually, the DC area is at least among the most highly educated regions in the country and has often been ranked first in that regard.

As for the cliff, it arose as a manufactured provision that neither side liked or expected ever to have to deal with again. Once it came to loom on the actual horizon, Republicans assumed that their stance would be bolstered by the 2012 elections, so they did nothing earlier. And now they have no coherent idea of what to do at all.

When the cliff bill was signed into law.

OK, he is pretending that he is not pretending.

Ok, I used DC, when I really meant only the congress critters, lobbyists and other highly paid gov't influence peddlers.

 

[SgtRock]

I know who is not going to take the blame. The same guy who blames Bush for all of his failures. The same guy who blamed the economic crisis in Europe for our problems. The same guy who never takes responsibility for anything. Pointing fingers as usual and voting present.

 

[DVSentinel]

Other, it will entirely depend upon who is doing the blaming.

Dems will blame Reps
Reps will blame Dems
Libertarians, I am not sure who they will blame. I guess it will depend on whether they are right, left or center.

I blame the Dems, who over the last 4 years have added more to the debt than during any other 4 years of US history and whose spending created the crises in the first place. I blame the Reps for not seriously addressing the issue until the last minute and not offering up compromises until then. The Dems for also not addressing the issue in a timely manner and for not being willing to make compromises needed to make the deal.

But the greatest amount of blame has to go to American voters, who once again demonstrated the ability to not think beyond themselves, displayed, yet again, massive ignorance of issues facing the country and stupidity of allowing themselves to be ignorant, selfish and focused on a few issues instead of the whole.

 

[Dickieboy]

The Republicans will get the blame just as they did in 1996 over the ‘government shutdown’. And it will be just as irrelevant now as it was then. Consider after all the blame the GOP got they maintained the majority in the House AND Senate for the next 10 years…

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Well, we know who FOX News Nation will be told to blame. The people who have actually been paying a little attention may be expected to think differently, what with the whole mess resulting from refusal by TEA Party/Norquist Republicans to take offered deals that Republicans of just a few years would have died for. Bunch of stinking ideologues...just as S&P reamed them out for once already.

 

[Dooble]

Obama and the Dems want Bush tax cuts to expire for the 250k+ brackets (starting at around 3% increase for 250k up to 4.5% for 388k) and raise Capital gains tax from 15 to 20%. This by itself will cut deficit spending by over 10%.

Now there's a new one I haven't heard before: Raising taxes cuts deficit spending by over 10%. How does that work, exactly?

 

[Thrilla]

nobody will take the blame... everyone will assign blame to the folks on the other side of the aisle.

..bank on it.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Now there's a new one I haven't heard before: Raising taxes cuts deficit spending by over 10%. How does that work, exactly?

Well, let me try to explain. Deficit spending is spending that creates a deficit. Deficits themselves are calculated as spending minus revenues. But tax increases cause revenues to go up. If they go up by more than one-tenth of what had been the deficit, then raising taxes will have cut deficit spending by 10%. Do you see how that might work now?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

nobody will take the blame... everyone will assign blame to the folks on the other side of the aisle. ..bank on it.

That's certainly all you'll see on TV.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Repulicans will blame democrats

Democrats will blame republicans

Independants will blame both

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Unless Obama + Dems are willing to make changes to entitlements, including changing the retirement age, I cannot take any of their proposals seriously.

Retirement age was already increased in 1983. And Social Security pays for itself so well that it is sitting on a $2.7 trillion surplus. SS plainly isn't the problem. And you might want to remember that the reason people are entitled to SS benefits is that they have already paid for them.

Besides, the obvious point I think Dems are missing is that higher taxes is not the solution. We'd actually raise more revenue if we switched to a flat tax system, or a non-income tax system, such as a national property tax. It would also cost less to regulate, taxpayers wouldn't have to pay as much in tax-filing services, and the economic dead-weight loss would be far less.

This is all just foolish. The revenues that any tax scheme returns depend upon the rates that are set within it, not upon what type of a tax it is.

 

[Thrilla]

That's certainly all you'll see on TV.

..and in internet forums.. and in halls of congress... and in living rooms across the nation.

if no compromise plan comes about... who will you blame?.... given your post history around here, I'd assume you will be blaming Republicans.

 

[DaveFagan]

Repulicans will blame democrats

Democrats will blame republicans

Independants will blame both

The Republicans. They have trapped themselves. They can't publicly say that they want to keep taxes down for the 1%, so their next best bet is raise everyone else's and proportionately the 1% will still pay less. Corporate Welfare has to stop.

 

[ChrisL]

Retirement age was already increased in 1983. And Social Security pays for itself so well that it is sitting on a $2.7 trillion surplus. SS plainly isn't the problem. And you might want to remember that the reason people are entitled to SS benefits is that they have already paid for them.


This is all just foolish. The revenues that any tax scheme returns depend upon the rates that are set within it, not upon what type of a tax it is.

The retirement age DOES have to go up because of the baby boomer generation. There are SO many retiring and NOT enough younger people working. The baby boomer generation is going to eat up SS, and it will probably be gone by the time I retire, if I ever get to.