To prevent a tax raise, Republicans are prepared to raise taxes (Fiscal Cliff talk)

[Slyfox696]

First off, I hate the term "fiscal cliff" as it really isn't representative of what could happen, but whatever.

For those who have only a passing interest, House Republicans recently defied their own negotiator, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner, by refusing to accept his budget proposal which, in part, called for a tax rate increase on those earning over $1 million dollars. If a fiscal cliff deal isn't made by January 1st, all tax rates will go up for all Americans.

This is the logic of the Republican party today. In order to prevent tax rates going up on 1% of America, they want to raise the tax rate on 100% of America.

Now if that makes sense to you, then you're smarter crazier than I am.

 

[JGlass]

I'm not sure how the tax increase would work out should we "fly off the cliff," but perhaps their thought process is that if they increase taxes across the board they wouldn't have to raise taxes as much on the on the 1%? But I'm not sure if that's how the tax plan should we go off the fiscal cliff (I too hate that term; it's blatant fear mongering), as I'm pretty sure it's an even tax increase across the board.

 

[klunderbunker]

One important note here: assuming we do go over the cliff which looks more likely than ever now, it's not like it's total death. If a deal is made after the new year, the legislation can be written retroactively so the rates aren't affected.

That being said, it amazes me how badly this has been screwed up. The idea of this was to hack away at the budget deficit/national debt (which for some reason is now about to kill us all despite clearly being a long term problem rather than a short term one but whatever) by raising some additional revenue. However at the same time, there is something called sequestration, which is a set of massive budget cuts to the military and social programs set to begin I believe at the beginning of the year. Naturally the GOP would rather defend the richest in the country instead of taking care of the masses. That's what makes the least sense to me: the two parties agree on the 98% not needing to have their taxes raised, but instead of taking care of that and taking pressure off millions of people, let's serve the millionaires because.....I have no idea what legitimate reason there is to do that.

 

[This Is My Name Thank You]

The recession is over; now enter the depression.

I'm at a lost for words. No matter what happens, we just have to roll through the punches. Maybe when the nation falls (which I hope doesn't), the politicians with the millions of dollars, will finally see how it feels to be an everyday struggling American.

Where the hell is this so called "change"?

 

[shattered dreams]

Not sure I agree that the deficit is only a long-term problem.

Now if that makes sense to you, then you're smarter crazier much richer than I am.

Fixed.

I definitely think wealth distribution is an important issue but I don't think keep taking more from the rich is a sufficient strategy to deal with some of these issues completely.

 

[Rayne]

It's political theater, is all it is. The Republican Party has been dealt a fantastically shitty hand, and they're playing it as best as they can.

The Republican Party unquestionably lost the last election, even though the political makeup of both chambers stayed relatively the same. They should have made big gains- facing an embattled incumbent with low approval ratings during a seemingly endless recession. Historically, that's a recipe for an opposition win. If they want to mitigate the damage, they have to look strong in opposition to the Democrats, while admitting the realities of the last election. If the Democrats are able to lay the blame on House Republicans again for a 'no-nothing' Congress, they are going to get slaughtered in the 2014 elections.

Meanwhile, Democrats are in the position where more people would blame the Republicans for a failure to reach a compromise. (Extensive polling gives a 45-35 margin, the other 10 being the undecideds.) Politics isn't a zero-sum game in a two-party system; both parties can lose, so long as one loses less. It is in Democratic interests to go past this fake "cliff", and write legislation after the fact rescinding any increases. Furthermore, if taxes have already gone up, they will have more leverage when it comes to getting the tax increases that they want.

TL;DR version- Republicans lose far more than Democrats by allowing tax increases and budget cuts to occur; hence, the Democrats have most of the leverage in making a deal. However, Republicans still have to appear strong.

This was the logic behind Boehner's "Plan B". (Seriously- what was he thinking? How many times have Republicans already voted against Plan B?) It was a deal unpalatable to enough of his caucus so that he wouldn't be able to get it through the House, but it was an attempt to offer a deal that would make it look like he would reason with President Obama (and Senate Democrats), just at a different level. Look strong, and force your opponent to look unreasonable. It didn't work because the tactic wasn't refused by the Democrats, but ignored. Boehner didn't have the votes for it, and they knew it.

There's no pressing need for a last-minute deal. The Four Horsemen don't leap from the clouds if there's not a new deal in place by January 1st. So you won't see one. The Democrats have no need to make a deal right now.

So think about it farther. The Democrats have no need to make a deal right now; where does that leave a smart Republican planner? With the failure of "Plan B", he has two options. First, accepting a prior deal is off of the table, because Republicans have less leverage now than they did before the Plan B bluff was called. If Republicans want a deal by January 1st to avoid being blamed (more than Democrats), they now have to do it on entirely Democratic terms. Second, you take the lumps you get from the "fiscal cliff", and hope that the bleeding that the Democrats take is enough to bring them to the table on better terms than you'd receive now.

It's a very lousy hand for the Republicans to play, but it's what they have. I expect Boehner to take the second option, and we'll see a deal in late January. It'll be easier to recover from a fake "fiscal cliff" and the 45-35 blame they'll take, versus the appearance of having completely caved to Democrats in negotiations.

 

[Da Solo]

I completely understand the logic:

"Let's not further tax the people who could afford to pay for it, because then they can't fund our campaigns and benefits and political machines and beach parties. How about we, instead of that, make some cuts? Inner city education? Who needs it? Those kids won't make it to 21 anyway, why buy them new schoolbooks when we have some from the 1920's? Nothing's wrong with them, they're still binded..."


So we're screwed because politicians are playing politics, I'm not really stunned. And I'm not too scared about this "Fiscal Cliff" either. We've been in shit since like '03, they just keep renaming it, from Recession to Depression to Fiscal Cliff to Debt Ceiling to...

 

[shattered dreams]

http://www.businessinsider.com/government-spending-and-taxes-2012-12

I highly recommend at least skimming this article and viewing the attached slide show and then viewing at least the next slideshow it links to. This writer does an excellent job of laying out the issues and explaining how it might make sense to deal with them.

 

[Slyfox696]

Republicans say they oppose raising the debt limit, preferring instead to cut spending.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/02/mcconnell-debt-debate-starts-today/?hpt=hp_t2

Either CNN or Republicans are completely clueless on what raising the debt ceiling means. You can cut all the spending you want, it won't change the fact we still need to raise the debt ceiling to pay the bills we've already incurred.

My guess is that it's Republicans who are being clueless. It would fit.

 

[Thriller Ant]

I don't get what the big deal about the debt ceiling is. Wasn't last year the first time ever that raising the debt ceiling wasn't a quick "everybody vote yes so we can get it over with" situation? It is impossible to not hit it without literally cutting off all government spending, so just raise it and go back to arguing about something useful.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't get what the big deal about the debt ceiling is. Wasn't last year the first time ever that raising the debt ceiling wasn't a quick "everybody vote yes so we can get it over with" situation? It is impossible to not hit it without literally cutting off all government spending, so just raise it and go back to arguing about something useful.

But why do that when you can try to get something you want out of it? If the global economy is affected, so what?

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't get what the big deal about the debt ceiling is.

The big deal is that it's one of the few leverage maneuvers the Republican party has to get what it wants.

Wasn't last year the first time ever that raising the debt ceiling wasn't a quick "everybody vote yes so we can get it over with" situation?

I don't know about the first time, but it certainly was never as disputed as its been in the last couple of years.

It is impossible to not hit it without literally cutting off all government spending, so just raise it and go back to arguing about something useful.

It's impossible to not hit it at all. We already hit it. Our only options at this point are to either raise the debt ceiling or default on our payments, which would cause huge economic ripples.

The Republican Tea Party thinks this is their leverage to get spending cuts. They're willing to destroy the economy to get what they want. However, the Republicans are in a better position for this than they were with taxes, because most Americans think government spending needs to be cut anyways. So if we default on our payments, Republicans can say it was Democrats fault for not cutting spending to avoid hitting the debt ceiling. Because, unfortunately, most Americans aren't smart enough to understand that spending cuts have nothing to do with this current debt ceiling.

 

[Thriller Ant]

The big deal is that it's one of the few leverage maneuvers the Republican party has to get what it wants.

By leverage, do you mean using fear mongering to make the public concerned about it? I don't see how else they can use it as leverage without destroying the country, although, I wouldn't be surprised if that was their goal at this point.

I don't know about the first time, but it certainly was never as disputed as its been in the last couple of years.

Fair enough

It's impossible to not hit it at all. We already hit it. Our only options at this point are to either raise the debt ceiling or default on our payments, which would cause huge economic ripples.

The Republican Tea Party thinks this is their leverage to get spending cuts. They're willing to destroy the economy to get what they want. However, the Republicans are in a better position for this than they were with taxes, because most Americans think government spending needs to be cut anyways. So if we default on our payments, Republicans can say it was Democrats fault for not cutting spending to avoid hitting the debt ceiling. Because, unfortunately, most Americans aren't smart enough to understand that spending cuts have nothing to do with this current debt ceiling.

And this is why you read an entire post before responding.

I just don't get the logic. There do need to be spending cuts; you can't solve the problem by just cutting or taxing. The part that confuses me, however, is rather than sitting down and negotiating (I know Dems aren't always open for negotiation either), the Republicans take these extreme positions and wait until the last second to budge. The only positive from this is that they are setting themselves up for huge losses in the next couple Congressional elections.

 

[Slyfox696]

By leverage, do you mean using fear mongering to make the public concerned about it? I don't see how else they can use it as leverage without destroying the country, although, I wouldn't be surprised if that was their goal at this point.

Fair enough

And this is why you read an entire post before responding.

I just don't get the logic. There do need to be spending cuts; you can't solve the problem by just cutting or taxing. The part that confuses me, however, is rather than sitting down and negotiating (I know Dems aren't always open for negotiation either), the Republicans take these extreme positions and wait until the last second to budge. The only positive from this is that they are setting themselves up for huge losses in the next couple Congressional elections.

The problem is the fact that the Republican party is every bit as fractured and marked by in-fighting as the Democrats were at the beginning of the century. There's multiple divisions within the Republican party, including the Tea Party, which refuses to negotiate on virtually anything and steadfastly insists on the idea their way is the only way. And when you have the kind of pig-headedness , it's hard for the Republican party to get anything done within themselves, much less with the Democrats, who experienced a rousing success in the last election and are quite full of themselves at the moment.

At the end of the day, you have moderates, conservatives and extreme conservatives. Democrats are the moderates, traditional GOP is conservative and Tea Party is extreme conservative. Traditional GOP would like to be move more towards the middle and be considered moderate, but if they do, they face an uphill battle in Republican primaries, especially since the Citizens United decision said there can't be a limit on money spent by any organization. So traditional GOP have to move more to the right, instead of to the middle, where most of the deals get done.

 

[Slyfox696]

Also, don't underestimate the impact media organizations like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. have on the political landscape of today. There's a reason so many Republican voters seem to be so confused on so many facts. There's a reason why people who regularly watch Fox News are more likely to be misinformed on important issues than people who don't watch news at all.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Also, don't underestimate the impact media organizations like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. have on the political landscape of today. There's a reason so many Republican voters seem to be so confused on so many facts. There's a reason why people who regularly watch Fox News are more likely to be misinformed on important issues than people who don't watch news at all.

I just graduated with a journalism degree in May, and Fox was frequently used as an example of what not to do as a journalist.

As for the other post and at the risk of taking this off topic, is there any way the Republican party can get fixed without some sort of division? I know a stand-alone Tea Party would be fairly weak, as would a more moderate Republican party, but I can't see a scenario other than another terrorist attack where that party as it stands now can be anything other than an annoyance to the political process.

 

[Slyfox696]

I just graduated with a journalism degree in May, and Fox was frequently used as an example of what not to do as a journalist.

As for the other post and at the risk of taking this off topic, is there any way the Republican party can get fixed without some sort of division? I know a stand-alone Tea Party would be fairly weak, as would a more moderate Republican party, but I can't see a scenario other than another terrorist attack where that party as it stands now can be anything other than an annoyance to the political process.

It's not really going off-topic, the division in the Republican party played a huge part in the fiscal cliff fiasco (like Boehner's Plan B, for example) and will play a part in the upcoming debates.

The only way to "fix" it is for them either gain the Senate and/or White House, or for them to get completely shellacked in the next two national elections. If Republicans grow in power, then the moderates can run to the right with little concern because they'll be voting on measures that will pass and they can stand up to their base and say "look at the conservative things I did". Of course, that would be terrible for our country, but it would help the Republican party.

And I'm sure you can figure out why taking a beating in the next two elections could force change.

 

[Thriller Ant]

It's not really going off-topic, the division in the Republican party played a huge part in the fiscal cliff fiasco (like Boehner's Plan B, for example) and will play a part in the upcoming debates.

The only way to "fix" it is for them either gain the Senate and/or White House, or for them to get completely shellacked in the next two national elections. If Republicans grow in power, then the moderates can run to the right with little concern because they'll be voting on measures that will pass and they can stand up to their base and say "look at the conservative things I did". Of course, that would be terrible for our country, but it would help the Republican party.

And I'm sure you can figure out why taking a beating in the next two elections could force change.

Oh, definitely. I just have a hard time seeing them winning anything in the near future as it seems the party is becoming more and more dominated by the "guns, low taxes and AMURICAH" types in both the base and those being elected, rather than people that can be useful in any sort of political setting. There are way too many people that think like that, so I know that aspect of the party won't completely go away, but I don't think it is enough to sustain it or even carry it to any sort of major gains in the next couple years.