OFF THE CLIFF!

[Townsend]

Governors Look Over Fiscal Cliff

http://kwgs.com/post/governors-look-over-fiscal-cliff

Members of the National Governors Association's Executive Committee met with President Obama to discuss the pending fiscal cliff. Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin is the Vice-Chair of the Association and attended the meeting. The discussion was held this morning at the White House

After the meeting, the governors met with reporters outside the White House.  Governor Fallin said there were questions about potential federal cuts creating more unfunded mandates. She says the states need flexibility to address  cuts and be able to keep critical programs in operation, if the budget cuts come to pass.

Six governors in all, three Democrats and three Republicans, met with the President in what was described as a cordial meeting.

(He waved at them through a window)

Governor Fallin said there were questions about potential federal cuts creating more unfunded mandates.

Like what?

[Gaspar]

It really doen't matter.  The president is not interested in coming to the table and hashing any of that out.  He's not interested in any simplification of the tax code.  He's not trying to do a single thing except raise taxes on the wealthy and small businesses.  He promised that when he was elected in 2008 as part of his class warfare platform, and he has campaigned for it ever since.  The economy has always been quite secondary to him.  That is the only specific that exists from either side.  Simpson Bowels is an analysis and report.  They identify loopholes and deductions, but make no specifics because that would have painted a target on their heads and given the special interests a plan of attack.

They have to sit down with the president and identify the things that both sides are willing to give up.  That's how this sh!t works, or at least is supposed to work.  The president says "I'm not considering anything unless I can raise taxes."  The Republicans ask "are you interested in increasing revenue or just increasing taxes?"  

I'd like to see them work together and come out with something that solves the spending problems, but the administration does not see any spending problems, in fact they want more spending, additional stimulus, and more complexity.  

At this point, I'm with Teatown.  President Obama has already won!

Over the cliff!

[Townsend]

It really doen't matter.  

Sure it matters.  No specifics and you might as well not do anything.  "No no, we'll cut the loopholes."  Which ones?  "Don't you worry your pretty little head about it."

He's not trying to do a single thing except raise taxes on the wealthy and small businesses

The wealthy will get the same tax breaks as the rest of us.  If your household makes $249,999, your taxes will be the same as the wealthy and the small business' first $249,999.

[Townsend]

Lookin' like it's going great.

[Red Arrow]

Sure it matters.  No specifics and you might as well not do anything.  "No no, we'll cut the loopholes."  Which ones?  "Don't you worry your pretty little head about it."

The wealthy will get the same tax breaks as the rest of us.  If your household makes $249,999, your taxes will be the same as the wealthy and the small business' first $249,999.

You are missing the spending cuts.  Increasing taxes only on the wealthy will not correct our situation.  If "you" are unwilling to make spending cuts, increased taxes will get to most of us.  Maybe not you since you are broke.

[Townsend]

You are missing the spending cuts.

How am I missing spending cuts?  Which part of the conversation are you joining?

[Red Arrow]

How am I missing spending cuts?  Which part of the conversation are you joining?

Gee, I thought we were talking about going over the cliff.  Going over the cliff is due to spending we cannot afford. When you cannot afford what you want you either get more money, cut spending somewhere, or a combination.  Raising revenue isn't good enough for President Obama (now, it was earlier), he demands rate increases on the rich or there will be no talks of spending cuts.  Republicans have offered tax revenue increases but not rate increases.  Republicans have not stated explicit loophole closures.  President Obama has only suggested non-specific spending cuts in the future in exchange for tax rate increases now.  We are going nowhere.

[nathanm]

President Obama has only suggested non-specific spending cuts in the future in exchange for tax rate increases now.  We are going nowhere.

There are across the board cuts to the discretionary budget under current law. That's in addition to the rate increases that result from the Bush cuts expiring. If the Republicans would like to cancel some of those cuts or rate increases, it would behoove them to agree to a plan that meets the points Obama has outlined. Obama gets mostly what he wants out of current law, so why should he negotiate away things that are important to him? Is there some reason you think he ought to give up the one thing he ran on?

That makes no more sense than it would (politically, anyway) for the Republicans to agree to extend the Bush cuts in the less than $250,000 brackets without Obama giving up some military cuts or something.

[Red Arrow]

There are across the board cuts to the discretionary budget under current law. That's in addition to the rate increases that result from the Bush cuts expiring. If the Republicans would like to cancel some of those cuts or rate increases, it would behoove them to agree to a plan that meets the points Obama has outlined. Obama gets mostly what he wants out of current law, so why should he negotiate away things that are important to him? Is there some reason you think he ought to give up the one thing he ran on?

I don't remember the entire list of cuts but I believe there are some that Obama really would like to avoid.  The present law revokes the Bush cuts for everyone, including those under $250,000 for married folks, less for those filing single (me).   Although Obama may get most of what he wants, I think there is enough on the table to behoove him to try to deal with the Republicans.  I have been told enough times on this forum that compromise means both sides not getting all they want.

That makes no more sense than it would (politically, anyway) for the Republicans to agree to extend the Bush cuts in the less than $250,000 brackets without Obama giving up some military cuts or something.

Are you talking about extending the cuts for under $250,000 without extending for over $250,000?

In the big scheme of things, I am old enough that even if you young guys totally screw up the country I will probably not live long enough to see the full effect.  I have no children. My brother and sister have no children.  There are obviously no grandchildren.  If you guys want to pass this mess on to your kids and grandkids, have fun. 

[Gaspar]

There are across the board cuts to the discretionary budget under current law. That's in addition to the rate increases that result from the Bush cuts expiring. If the Republicans would like to cancel some of those cuts or rate increases, it would behoove them to agree to a plan that meets the points Obama has outlined. Obama gets mostly what he wants out of current law, so why should he negotiate away things that are important to him? Is there some reason you think he ought to give up the one thing he ran on?

That makes no more sense than it would (politically, anyway) for the Republicans to agree to extend the Bush cuts in the less than $250,000 brackets without Obama giving up some military cuts or something.

You hit the nail on the head!
This is political, and based in ego.  We, the people, are simply caught in the crossfire.

Most economists, and the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform created by President Obama agree that we must have far more reduction in spending to get back on solid footing.  Neither party is willing to face that yet.  The Republicans are offering a plan that anemic, and the president's push for revenue is even more anemic because it barley scratches spending.  "The Cliff" will likely prove a remedy to spending and revenue, but only for a very short period of time because the backlash will reduce recepts drastically by causing certain recession, unemployment, and all of the other things that have become the new norm for this president. 

The only hope we really have is that President Obama would prefer to spend the rest of his days on the golf course without having to hear all of this economy stuff.  It is difficult to focus on your game when your subjects are unhappy.

Interesting language CBS uses today:
On "fiscal cliff", Obama appeals to former foes

". . .The president's remarks today represent his latest appeal to business leaders to get behind his approach to avoiding the "fiscal cliff," a series of tax hikes and spending cuts set to go into effect next year. As lawmakers search for ways to avert the "cliff" while still bringing down the deficit and keeping up economic growth, they've sought the input of business leaders. Mr. Obama and congressional Republicans are both hoping the support of the private sector will bolster their respective economic agendas." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57557160/on-fiscal-cliff-obama-appeals-to-former-foes/

Why would CBS classify "Business Leaders" as "Foes"?  I know it's simply a headline but it indicates that the media classifies the president as at-odds with business.  Each time he addresses the business roundtable he finds himself on the defensive.  This shouldn't be.  His focus should be on developing and promotig economic prosperity, and that starts by expanding business and therefore employment.  Instead, the president adresses this group to defend what he sees as a class war, where the private sector is an enemy that he must defend the people against.  That's the wrong paradigm. Unfortunately we have a growing populous that believes that is reality and President Obama is their Lord and Saviour. 

Each new hobgoblin this president rolls out creates increasing fear, we have increasing uncertainty, and we have growing dependence. Quietly, last week the Federal Reserve purchased 90% of the treasury bonds as the debt increased.  We are printing money like wildfire to keep the curtan of economic normalcy before the public.  Cliff or no cliff, the new year promises a wave of regulation, tax, and government growth that few can successfully sugar-coat.

I would like to see a president that can appear before business leaders and be celebrated for programs that spur growth.  A man or woman who is applauded by the people for creating economic opportunity, inovation, jobs and security.  A person willing to accept that difficult, and in many cases unpopular, decisions must be made, not just to preserve what is left of a free market economy, but to grow it.  A leader that sees congress as a vital tool and partner in doing the work of the people.  A flawed and imperfect person that realizes he or she alone is nether responsible or capable of producing fair policy without the assistance, debate, and involvement of congress and the input of the people.

Perhaps we can elect someone like that in 2016.

[Townsend]

"You look familiar.  Were you ever on the Oklahoma Highway Patrol?  Why you gotta keep both hands above the table?  Lookit, I'm makin' some googly eyes atchu."

[nathanm]

If you guys want to pass this mess on to your kids and grandkids, have fun. 

We're already passing on a mess caused by the relentless drive to reduce tax revenue even if it means running large deficits.

I think the Republicans expected that he would be out in January, so didn't really care that the deal was worse for them than it was for the Democrats. I suspect Obama will end up giving away some of his advantage. That's just the sort of person he has been.

[Gaspar]

We're already passing on a mess caused by the relentless drive to reduce tax revenue even if it means running large deficits.

I think the Republicans expected that he would be out in January, so didn't really care that the deal was worse for them than it was for the Democrats. I suspect Obama will end up giving away some of his advantage. That's just the sort of person he has been.

Funny, I thought the mess was caused by spending.  My bad. 

[nathanm]

Funny, I thought the mess was caused by spending.  My bad. 

Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows, so no, it's not only about spending. Unless you're one of those loons that believe that all government spending is illegitimate and immoral?

[Red Arrow]

We're already passing on a mess caused by the relentless drive to reduce tax revenue increase spending even if it means running large deficits.

Fixed it.

I suspect Obama will end up giving away some of his advantage. That's just the sort of person he has been.

Earth to Nathan... come in Nathan.