# Do You Support the Fiscal Cliff Compromise? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 1, 2013, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742 "2013-01-01T09:46:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/1 "2013-01-01T09:46:20Z")
Do you support the compromise regarding the fiscal cliff controversy that was passed by the United States Senate a few hours ago? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/2 "2013-01-01T10:04:13Z")
No! Bayonet the ruling class stooges of Wells Fargo…OK, all of them, but especially Wells Fargo…and install Himself as President for Life! I’m getting too old for this shit, and so are you! ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/3 "2013-01-01T13:58:40Z")
No. There is no reason to exclude people in the $250k-$400K range, and even those under $250K should have seen their taxes go up a little. The legislation should have included a debt ceiling increase good for the next 4 years, now the fuckers will be holding a knife to our throats over this and extracting demands. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/4 "2013-01-01T14:44:52Z")
I voted yes because I think in dysfunctional Washington this was the best we’ll see right now and I think that going over the fiscal cliff would be too much of a financial blow to middle class Americans (with people earning $50k estimated to pay over $2,000 more in taxes, that’s a major increase.) But like I said in the other thread, I actually think going over the cliff would be better for the long term fiscal health of the country than this very weak compromise. So in principle I’m not real happy with the deal and maintain (barely) hope that they’ll work to come to a more holistic agreement at some point in the near future. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/5 "2013-01-01T15:06:39Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > No. There is no reason to exclude people in the $250k-$400K range, and even those under $250K should have seen their taxes go up a little. The legislation should have included a debt ceiling increase good for the next 4 years, now the fuckers will be holding a knife to our throats over this and extracting demands. I agree about the debt ceiling, which is a silly and self-contradictory concept. But I don’t see any breakpoint at $250K really, unless it’s specifically 2-income families, who are at the point where they’d really start to get the benefits of the withholding cap. Whereas single income families are already at that point way before $250K, but still do not get the benefit of having substantial capital gains, which do start to make a big part of the income of those making more like $500K. So I think either $150K or $400K is a more logical point than $250K to start raising taxes. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/6 "2013-01-01T15:48:06Z")
Since the OP couldn’t be arsed to tell us what the compromise was: > [@](#): > > Under the compromise arrangement, taxes would rise on income above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for households, while exemptions and deductions the wealthiest Americans use to reduce their tax bill would face new limits. The accord would also raise the taxes paid on large inheritances from 35% to 40% for estates over $5 million. And it would extend by one year unemployment benefits for some two million Americans. It would also prevent cuts in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients and spare tens of millions of Americans who otherwise would have been hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax. I guess I’m kinda “meh” about it. That seems pretty much what Obama had agreed to earlier. It keeps unemployment benefits flowing for 2M Americans. Not perfect, but better than nothing. I don’t really care that much about jiggering the tax rates around a few percentage points here and there. I just wish we could do it once and for all and quit fighting about changing them all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/7 "2013-01-01T16:29:11Z")
If judged in terms of the possible, it’s fine. The House Republicans are going to make any policy shitty, and the House and Senate Dems aren’t helping much. If judged in terms of the absolute merits, its weak. It doesn’t do anything serious to solve the medium-priority problem (long-term deficits). It only half-solves the high-priority problem created by earlier hamhanded attempts to deal with the medium-priority problem (sudden tax increases and spending cuts), leaving us 2% GDP less in the 1Q2013 than we otherwise would have been (returning a 2% tax to your paycheck). I don’t want my kids to pay my debt, and I also don’t want to crash the economy while it’s weak. But apparently that’s too much to ask this Congress. We can’t even get chained CPI out of the Dems, or the so-called party of deficit hawkery to even propose a change to Medicare. So things will get worse in 2023, and yet worse in 2033. But by then maybe we’ll be in a new political world. ---
**Author:** ![Face\_Intentionally\_Left\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/face_intentionally_left_blank/32/288_2.png) [@Face\_Intentionally\_Left\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Face_Intentionally_Left_Blank)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/8 "2013-01-01T16:44:11Z")
Also this, from [here](http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/01/16280618-house-to-review-senate-fiscal-cliff-compromise-timing-on-vote-unclear?lite): > [@](#): > > Taxes on capital gains and dividends over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples would be taxed at 20 percent, up from 15 percent. I like that part. Apparently there will also be a 3.8% increase due to Obamacare on capital gains, so it goes from 15% to 23.8%, which seems fairly significant, though still not back to the pre-1997 levels of 28%. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/9 "2013-01-01T16:55:48Z")
I don’t think it will pass the House, so it doesn’t matter. Boehner couldn’t get the votes to raise taxes on incomes over $1 million, how is he supposed to get them to vote for higher rates on incomes over $400k? I hope Obama completely stonewalls the Tea Party on the debt ceiling. Don’t negotiate with terrorists. The way public opinion is turning, Republicans will own the chaos that results. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/10 "2013-01-01T16:58:19Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I don’t think it will pass the House, so it doesn’t matter. Boehner couldn’t get the votes to raise taxes on incomes over $1 million, how is he supposed to get them to vote for higher rates on incomes over $400k? Two reasons: (1) Now it’s for real. Voting for a tax increase to avoid the cliff is one thing. Voting for a tax increase as a political symbol is another. If extreme GOP elements are going to raise taxes on the rich, they sure as shit aren’t going to take that vote symbolically. (2) The Senate GOP overwhelmingly supported it. That provides some cover, and it means Boehner might consider bringing it to a vote even without a GOP majority in the House. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/11 "2013-01-01T17:02:39Z")
1. That presumes that the anti-tax caucus is capable of reasoned response, a conclusion not in evidence. 2)If he does, Boehner is toast. Possible, but not likely. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/12 "2013-01-01T17:04:13Z")
No, It accomplishes none of the vital things that are required. It ultimately will do squat about the debt, and entitlements are still not sustainable. We have spent weeks now debating a tax increase on the rich that would have accomplished virtually nothing, even if Obama got exactly what he asked for. The country has been held hostage over a meaningless “tax the rich” fetish. Since we apparently must increase taxes on the rich, pick a fucking line, increase above that line, then let’s move on and stop talking about such nonsense. I am not at all hopeful that we will do the things we need to. More bullshit. [This column](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-j-samuelson-obamas-leadership-failure/2012/12/31/fa34a9b6-5393-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html?hpid=z2) should be a must read for all voters: > [@](#): > > The “fiscal cliff” is a massive failure of presidential leadership. The tedious and technical negotiations are but a subplot in a larger drama. Government can no longer fulfill all the promises it has made to various constituencies. Some promises will be reduced or disavowed. Which ones? Why? Only the president can pose these questions in a way that starts a national conversation over the choices to be made, but doing so requires the president to tell people things they don’t want to hear. That’s his job: to help Americans face unavoidable, if unpleasant, realities. Barack Obama has refused to play this role. > > Instead, he has cast the long-term budget problem as a question of whether the richest 1 percent or 2 percent of the population should pay more in taxes. Not only that, but he has insisted that the higher taxes be paid by raising rates, as opposed to reducing various tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, preferential rates) enjoyed heavily by upscale Americans. The obsession with rates is bad policy (higher rates may threaten risk-taking, work effort and hiring) but qualifies as good politics: It signals Obama is macho; he’s tough on the rich, who are implicitly blamed for the nation’s budget and economic woes. > > Whatever one thinks about raising taxes at the top (and I have no objection to it as part of comprehensive budget package), it’s not the crux of the problem. The crux of our problem — the problem being the bipartisan and untenable promises made to most Americans of both high government benefits and low taxes — arises from an aging population and high health costs, which cause rapid increases in spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We will soon be $20 trillion in debt, and these idiots will be high-fiving over tax increases that would reduce the current year’s budget deficit to what–$1.1 trillion instead of $1.2 trillion? These tax increases would eliminate the debt in what–100 years? 150 years? More? That’s assuming the debt doesn’t keep growing–which it will… If we all are as committed to SS, Medicare and Medicaid as we say we are, we have to create programs that are sustainable. There is no meaningful plan that does not address this. There seems to be zero possibility of that occurring. Washington is a fraternity of imbeciles, both sides of the aisle, and our president has only made matters worse. He has created a false debate. Okay, now he won that debate. We’ve raised taxes (or are about to) on those rotten MFers who already pay most of the Federal taxes in this country. Now what? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/13 "2013-01-01T17:09:21Z")
Debt reduction is not the most immediate problem we face. Besides, cutting Medicare won’t balance the budget either, so we might as well not do that either, right? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/14 "2013-01-01T17:09:28Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > The country has been held hostage over a meaningless “tax the rich” fetish. This is an overly partisan read of the situation cultivated by those who want to blame Obama for a problem that is decades-old. The refusal of both sides to deal with entitlements and defense spending has nothing to do with whether its a good idea to increase taxes on income over 250k (or 450k). Democrats have never said the $800 billion from their tax increases would solve the problem. But the full amount has to come from somewhere. And if we’re gonna cut the measly millions the NEA gets, we’re definitely going to bring the rich back to Clinton-era tax rates. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/15 "2013-01-01T17:26:35Z")
Compromises are always messy things. But at least the lights will be on and the markets not collapse (unless the house decides to push us over). I for one do not know the details enough yet to know what to think. “[T]ax deductions and credits would start phasing out on incomes as low as $250,000 …” This is a big deal depending on which deductions and how quickly they phase out. Meanwhile the tough choices have just been kicked down the road, the conceit that the self-imposed deadline (cliff) would make them come to agreement given up on: “agreed to put off $110 billion in across-the-board cuts to military and domestic programs for two months while broader deficit-reduction talks continue.” Those cuts are the tough choices and the more difficult ones to do politically. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/16 "2013-01-01T17:41:20Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > No, It accomplishes none of the vital things that are required. It ultimately will do squat about the debt, and entitlements are still not sustainable. What’s your plan to eliminate the debt? Furthermore, do you think that going over the cliff, and/or defaulting on our debt, are preferable to the plan being considered now? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/17 "2013-01-01T17:41:26Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Meanwhile the tough choices have just been kicked down the road.. True, but at least income taxes for most Americans won’t go up. Let the new Congress deal with the tough stuff. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/18 "2013-01-01T17:56:28Z")
Getting Congress to do that (which _is_ their job) is the hard part. Getting Obama to agree to it now, not so hard. He’s not going to be up for re-election. And most Americans will be seeing taxes up - the payroll tax is going back to its previous level. The pain is shared. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/19 "2013-01-01T18:03:20Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > This is an overly partisan read of the situation cultivated by those who want to blame Obama for a problem that is decades-old. The refusal of both sides to deal with entitlements and defense spending has nothing to do with whether its a good idea to increase taxes on income over 250k (or 450k). > > Democrats have never said the $800 billion from their tax increases would solve the problem. But the full amount has to come from somewhere. And if we’re gonna cut the measly millions the NEA gets, we’re definitely going to bring the rich back to Clinton-era tax rates. I don’t care about cutting NEA funding. That one is the RW imbecilic fetish: eliminate waste. All that jive about Big Bird and fruit fly studies. It too is spitting in the ocean. If you want to participate in a “well, if you get to have an idiotic policy change, then we get one too” strategy, feel free. Not me. I don’t blame Obama for the portion of this problem that wasn’t on his watch. But I think Samuelson put it perfectly: In our country, there’s one guy, if he’s a real leader, who can advance the national conversation on tough topics, topics we’d rather not deal with. That’s the president, who has failed us utterly in this regard. I blame Obama for crafting a false debate and refusing to do what we need him to, who spent the bulk of his campaign on cowardly pandering. That’s the irony. The guys who could actually have saved entitlements, who at least had a shot, lost the election at least in part because people believe all this horseshit about Obama protecting their programs, not changing a thing against the villainous assault from the Right. In reality, it’s bizarro world. Want to save SS and Medicare? Whatever you do, don’t vote for a Democrat. As a group, they’re perfectly happy watching these programs implode so long as they can convince you there’s no cause for alarm in the meantime. Who’d have thunk it? The $800 billion–over 10 years, mind you–Obama originally proposed is so far from doing anything meaningful, it defies explanation. But what’s worse, it has not advanced us on a real strategy by so much as an inch. If anything, we’ve gone backwards. He held the country hostage over a tax change that doesn’t ultimately do shit. > [@Fear Itself](#): > > Besides, cutting Medicare won’t balance the budget either, so we might as well not do that either, right? Why wouldn’t creating sustainable entitlements balance the budget? 2/3 or so of the budget is SS, Medicare, Medicaid and defense. Let 'em all be on the table. Create a sustainable budget, a balanced one, that doesn’t add to the debt. How’s that for a crazy notion? Let’s start by not making it worse. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742/20 "2013-01-01T18:05:10Z")
My sole complaint is the expiring payroll holiday. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-fiscal-cliff-compromise/645742.md?page=2)