What the fiscal cliff might really means for Progressives

[Just1Voice]

Face it, since the "Fiscal Cliff" includes massive cuts to military spending as well as the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, all the power is in the hands of the Dems. Not only do they get the automatic tax raises but they then have the military budget hostage. It's a brilliant strategy, and one I still cannot believe the GOP was stupid enough to agree to! They should have made a deal when they had the chance.

Never underestimate the sacrosanct nature of military budget spending. The GOP will pay through the nose to get that military budget money back. If the Dems choose to, they can demand equivalent extra taxation on corporations and investments to compensate for every dollar returned to the military budget. They could even demand extra revenues above that - say, 2 dollars of revenue for each dollar returned to the military, and then use that extra revenue to return the tax breaks to the middle class AND cushion the blow to domestic spending. The GOP will have no choice but to acquiesce.

See, all those hedge funds and major investors depend on the military industrial complex for much of the profit they earn, so they will lose more money in profit from those investments than they will in the increased taxes. Not a lot more money, but enough to seal the deal. So, once we have "gone over the fiscal cliff" and they are no longer in any position to bargain, they they will start getting those calls from the people who fund their campaigns, telling them to play ball, and while some of them will stick to their principles, enough of them will jump ship to make it happen.

And history will show that President Obama totally outplayed his greatest political enemies at their own game, and thereby saved the nation.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Face it, since the "Fiscal Cliff" includes massive cuts to military spending as well as the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, all the power is in the hands of the Dems. Not only do they get the automatic tax raises but they then have the military budget hostage. It's a brilliant strategy, and one I still cannot believe the GOP was stupid enough to agree to! They should have made a deal when they had the chance.

Never underestimate the sacrosanct nature of military budget spending. The GOP will pay through the nose to get that military budget money back. If the Dems choose to, they can demand equivalent extra taxation on corporations and investments to compensate for every dollar returned to the military budget. They could even demand extra revenues above that - say, 2 dollars of revenue for each dollar returned to the military, and then use that extra revenue to return the tax breaks to the middle class AND cushion the blow to domestic spending. The GOP will have no choice but to acquiesce.

See, all those hedge funds and major investors depend on the military industrial complex for much of the profit they earn, so they will lose more money in profit from those investments than they will in the increased taxes. Not a lot more money, but enough to seal the deal. So, once we have "gone over the fiscal cliff" and they are no longer in any position to bargain, they they will start getting those calls from the people who fund their campaigns, telling them to play ball, and while some of them will stick to their principles, enough of them will jump ship to make it happen.

And history will show that President Obama totally outplayed his greatest political enemies at their own game, and thereby saved the nation.

Every gov't spending program, agency and dept. has its lobbyists and supporters, as it would otherwise not exist. Talk of permanence, 10-year plans and other "goals" are pure BS, subject to change with the next (re-)election. While I agree that military spending has its fan club, so do domestic programs, agriculture and other gov't business "perks". That is the entire purpose of a budget, to force choices. Even "the rich" and "influential" know that 40% federal deficts are unsustainable and that choices must be made. The surest way for the rich to stay that way is to invest wisely, adjust to changing circumstances and to prevent the U.S. gov't from going broke, devaluing the currency and hurting the overall economy.

 

[Diogenes]

Every gov't spending program, agency and dept. has its lobbyists and supporters, as it would otherwise not exist. Talk of permanence, 10-year plans and other "goals" are pure BS, subject to change with the next (re-)election. While I agree that military spending has its fan club, so do domestic programs, agriculture and other gov't business "perks". That is the entire purpose of a budget, to force choices. Even "the rich" and "influential" know that 40% federal deficts are unsustainable and that choices must be made. The surest way for the rich to stay that way is to invest wisely, adjust to changing circumstances and to prevent the U.S. gov't from going broke, devaluing the currency and hurting the overall economy.

And when it comes to wise investments, it seems like a good idea to keep the money overseas for the next few years. Wasn't it Mark Twain who observed "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session."

 

[blaxshep]

And when it comes to wise investments, it seems like a good idea to keep the money overseas for the next few years. Wasn't it Mark Twain who observed "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session."

Aint that the truth!

 

[Born Free]

Face it, since the "Fiscal Cliff" includes massive cuts to military spending as well as the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, all the power is in the hands of the Dems. Not only do they get the automatic tax raises but they then have the military budget hostage. It's a brilliant strategy, and one I still cannot believe the GOP was stupid enough to agree to! They should have made a deal when they had the chance.

Never underestimate the sacrosanct nature of military budget spending. The GOP will pay through the nose to get that military budget money back. If the Dems choose to, they can demand equivalent extra taxation on corporations and investments to compensate for every dollar returned to the military budget. They could even demand extra revenues above that - say, 2 dollars of revenue for each dollar returned to the military, and then use that extra revenue to return the tax breaks to the middle class AND cushion the blow to domestic spending. The GOP will have no choice but to acquiesce.

See, all those hedge funds and major investors depend on the military industrial complex for much of the profit they earn, so they will lose more money in profit from those investments than they will in the increased taxes. Not a lot more money, but enough to seal the deal. So, once we have "gone over the fiscal cliff" and they are no longer in any position to bargain, they they will start getting those calls from the people who fund their campaigns, telling them to play ball, and while some of them will stick to their principles, enough of them will jump ship to make it happen.

And history will show that President Obama totally outplayed his greatest political enemies at their own game, and thereby saved the nation.

Military spending is only part of the cuts in the "fiscal cliff" there are cuts across the board, that Obama does not want cut. In fact I've never seen a liberal want to cut anything, yeah they all talk about wanting to cut this or that but never has happened. Now we're over 16 trillion in debt and headed over 20 in the next four yrs under Obama and what do the liberals want to cut. NOTHING

Now you suggest Obama by adding 6 trillion to the national debt in just 4 yrs and is on target to add another 4+ trillion in the next 4 yrs for a total of 20+ trillion in national debt. And you call that saving the nation. What planet are you on?

 

[Just1Voice]

Military spending is only part of the cuts in the "fiscal cliff" there are cuts across the board, that Obama does not want cut. In fact I've never seen a liberal want to cut anything, yeah they all talk about wanting to cut this or that but never has happened. Now we're over 16 trillion in debt and headed over 20 in the next four yrs under Obama and what do the liberals want to cut. NOTHING

Now you suggest Obama by adding 6 trillion to the national debt in just 4 yrs and is on target to add another 4+ trillion in the next 4 yrs for a total of 20+ trillion in national debt. And you call that saving the nation. What planet are you on?

So have you ever actually looked at the budget? Do you understand that something that massive has its own inertia? It was in free-fall when he inherited it.. THAT was the real "fiscal cliff" and Obama pulled our chute in time to keep our economy from splattering all over the pavement.

So allow me to educate you as to how one saves an economy. You simply make it much larger. Enlarging the economy changes the perspective ratio on the debt. If your GDP is $16 Trillion, a $12 Trillion debt looks terrifying, but when your GDP is $50 Trillion, suddenly it doesn't seem such an obstacle. That is how it has always been done. Take a look at patterns in economic history, you will certainly find this to be the way we have always done it. That is how we will do it again this time. Our economy is a profit-making dynamo, but it needs a push - a big push. We can't afford to be stingy - you gotta spend money to make it. But once it's rolling, it will grow even faster than it did under Clinton.

And now, thanks to the fiscal contingency, the progressive policymakers are about to get a huge gift, handed to them practically gift-wrapped by the GOP. Progressives are just hoping the Republicans will continue to stupidly piss away all the remaining time they have left with grandstanding, doubling down on their own lunacy until they are pulling a Wile E Coyote in mid-air, holding their little "oops" sign as their feet drop out from under them. It's over. It's all over. Poor saps. Happened to the dinosaurs too, so... you know... at least there's that.

 

[specklebang]

The OP scenario seems valid, the consequences are a bit murkier.

 

[Just1Voice]

The OP scenario seems valid, the consequences are a bit murkier.

Well just consider this: Our military budget is currently more than $700 billion annually. $109 billion of that is on the table. Officially, it has to be cut. Well, if it is to be saved, where is that money coming from? Increased taxes on corporations and capitol gains is the Progressive response (actually Progressives are split on this issue and around half of them would prefer to simply make those cuts, but we all know that won't happen) - and the Republicans will have to do it! They won't have a choice. It's that or cut the money. One way or another enough Republicans will vote for the tax increase for it to pass. But this is military budget money and that means it actually worth even more to Republicans. If pressed, they will agree to increase revenues enough to restore most of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class as well.

What might be the consequences? Economic growth. The Keynsian economic model which has distinguished itself by being the one that didn't fail miserably, provides that a strong middle class of consumers is the driving force of the economy.

Face it, the US economy is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, and it has been since the start. The degree of socialism (that is the percentage of GDP generated by the government) is a fluid thing, and needs to be adjusted regularly according to need. That means government revenues have to increase according to need. Republicans are going to have to accept that. It's a permanent condition.

 

[Jarhead]

How has "Progressivism" ever helped this country?

Wilson? Roosevelt? Obama?

Not once.

 

[Born Free]

So have you ever actually looked at the budget? Do you understand that something that massive has its own inertia? It was in free-fall when he inherited it.. THAT was the real "fiscal cliff" and Obama pulled our chute in time to keep our economy from splattering all over the pavement.

So allow me to educate you as to how one saves an economy. You simply make it much larger. Enlarging the economy changes the perspective ratio on the debt. If your GDP is $16 Trillion, a $12 Trillion debt looks terrifying, but when your GDP is $50 Trillion, suddenly it doesn't seem such an obstacle. That is how it has always been done. Take a look at patterns in economic history, you will certainly find this to be the way we have always done it. That is how we will do it again this time. Our economy is a profit-making dynamo, but it needs a push - a big push. We can't afford to be stingy - you gotta spend money to make it. But once it's rolling, it will grow even faster than it did under Clinton.

And now, thanks to the fiscal contingency, the progressive policymakers are about to get a huge gift, handed to them practically gift-wrapped by the GOP. Progressives are just hoping the Republicans will continue to stupidly piss away all the remaining time they have left with grandstanding, doubling down on their own lunacy until they are pulling a Wile E Coyote in mid-air, holding their little "oops" sign as their feet drop out from under them. It's over. It's all over. Poor saps. Happened to the dinosaurs too, so... you know... at least there's that.

You should preach that to those in Greece and Spain. I think they already tried that and look where they are today. So much for your Keynesian Theory. You liberals are brainwashed, you think there is an endless supply of money. Greece and Spain thought that too.

I repeat

"Now you suggest Obama by adding 6 trillion to the national debt in just 4 yrs and is on target to add another 4+ trillion in the next 4 yrs for a total of 20+ trillion in national debt. And you call that saving the nation. What planet are you on?"

After all these trillions spent, what do we have to show for it. High unemployment, more poor today than ever before, more people on food stamps, more on welfare, an anemic GDP 1.3%. But hey you liberals think just like those liberals in Greece and Spain. And now they march in the streets shouting "I want my entitlements", yes thanks to liberals we're now an entitlement society and no money to pay for it. Except borrow and spend. The liberal way.

 

[Dickieboy]

So allow me to educate you as to how one saves an economy. You simply make it much larger. Enlarging the economy changes the perspective ratio on the debt. If your GDP is $16 Trillion, a $12 Trillion debt looks terrifying, but when your GDP is $50 Trillion, suddenly it doesn't seem such an obstacle. That is how it has always been done...

So please educate me on when precisely this $50t GDP is going to occur AND what the debt will be at that time…the budget the President presented for FY 2012 projected the GDP in 2021 to be a mere $24,633b…and a debt of $18,967b…

 

[Samhain]

So please educate me on when precisely this $50t GDP is going to occur AND what the debt will be at that time…the budget the President presented for FY 2012 projected the GDP in 2021 to be a mere $24,633b…and a debt of $18,967b…

He's confusing "wealth" with GDP.

Overall though, the problem with this debate is that the players get bogged down in the details. Anytime either side makes a bold statement( raise taxes vs cut spending ), the other side blasts them with "show be your details/plan".

If Republicans want to cut Medicare, then propose a $ or % cut, and let the Medicare bureaucracy determine how to implement that amount. That's what they are there for. Let the executives of the systems in question determine the details of the plan and let the legislature set the parameters.
If Democrats want to increase taxes on specific things, then call out a number.

 

[specklebang]

I suspect that Republicans (like Democrats) are not as passionate about this as you might think.

The primary goal of a politician is to enrich themselves, their friends, their donors, their future associates. The nation is very low on this list.

We've had plenty of tax cuts that didn't solve any problems. We've got multiple duplicates of safety net programs that barely accomplish their purpose.

The lack of management ability and the self-serving actions of the parties have not and cannot solve the fundamental economic problems. America isn't starving but the way we create jobs has.

• Employers hire fewer people and dump additional work on remaining workers.
• Employers pay less and eliminate holidays, bonuses and other benefits.
• Manufacturing is as easy to do overseas as it is at home. Due to technology, the work done in China can be observed by the owners in America and done cheaper (and sometimes better).
• Manufacturing in America is increasingly automated.

So all of this fiscal cliffing is about trying to show that America wants to get its debts under control so or "credit rating" will be preserved. Pretty low on the priority list.

Well just consider this: Our military budget is currently more than $700 billion annually. $109 billion of that is on the table. Officially, it has to be cut. Well, if it is to be saved, where is that money coming from? Increased taxes on corporations and capitol gains is the Progressive response (actually Progressives are split on this issue and around half of them would prefer to simply make those cuts, but we all know that won't happen) - and the Republicans will have to do it! They won't have a choice. It's that or cut the money. One way or another enough Republicans will vote for the tax increase for it to pass. But this is military budget money and that means it actually worth even more to Republicans. If pressed, they will agree to increase revenues enough to restore most of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class as well.

What might be the consequences? Economic growth. The Keynsian economic model which has distinguished itself by being the one that didn't fail miserably, provides that a strong middle class of consumers is the driving force of the economy.

Face it, the US economy is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, and it has been since the start. The degree of socialism (that is the percentage of GDP generated by the government) is a fluid thing, and needs to be adjusted regularly according to need. That means government revenues have to increase according to need. Republicans are going to have to accept that. It's a permanent condition.

 

[johnny_rebson]

I'm curious if some of the GOP politicians in DC are going to cave, but they want to talk tough first in the hope that their base will still support them.

 

[Carleen]

Face it, since the "Fiscal Cliff" includes massive cuts to military spending as well as the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, all the power is in the hands of the Dems. Not only do they get the automatic tax raises but they then have the military budget hostage. It's a brilliant strategy, and one I still cannot believe the GOP was stupid enough to agree to! They should have made a deal when they had the chance.

Never underestimate the sacrosanct nature of military budget spending. The GOP will pay through the nose to get that military budget money back. If the Dems choose to, they can demand equivalent extra taxation on corporations and investments to compensate for every dollar returned to the military budget. They could even demand extra revenues above that - say, 2 dollars of revenue for each dollar returned to the military, and then use that extra revenue to return the tax breaks to the middle class AND cushion the blow to domestic spending. The GOP will have no choice but to acquiesce.

See, all those hedge funds and major investors depend on the military industrial complex for much of the profit they earn, so they will lose more money in profit from those investments than they will in the increased taxes. Not a lot more money, but enough to seal the deal. So, once we have "gone over the fiscal cliff" and they are no longer in any position to bargain, they they will start getting those calls from the people who fund their campaigns, telling them to play ball, and while some of them will stick to their principles, enough of them will jump ship to make it happen.

And history will show that President Obama totally outplayed his greatest political enemies at their own game, and thereby saved the nation.

The hawks are no longer hawks. What's going on here? No mention of defense budget cuts.