How do rank and file voters are looking at the fiscal cliff negotiations? Electoral effect?

Politics & Elections
21

I doubt I’m a typical Democratic voter- I get accused of being a ‘liberal’ a lot but have never considered myself to be one. Anyway…

  1. I think it is despicable on the part of the GOP to allow unemployment benefits to simply hit a wall like this. I mostly blame them for the financial crisis, and also the ballooning debt, and so by extension the unemployment problem is also largely their baby. To now cut all these people off because compromise is against their religion or whatever their problem is strikes me as bordering on evil.

  2. Obama campaigned on raising taxes on people earning over $250k- twice. I don’t think he should budge on this. I also think accusing Obama of not being pragmatic because he won’t consider ‘entitlement reform’ is highly mendacious. He’s not a Republican- they are the party of wealthy anti-Americans who have been trying to starve the beast for decades. ‘The beast’- you know, that government entity that is supposed to express the will of the American people? The GOP’s mission seems to be to do away with that. Take a look at this factual data and it seems clear that government policy has been hijacked by special interests at the expense of the public at large. As for other spending cuts- the ‘cliff’ is full of cuts; Obama is proposing something like $1 trillion worth of them. To claim ‘Obama won’t consider cutting spending’ isn’t just a talking point, it is a lie.

  3. I am not sure I could have a much lower opinion of the GOP. I really do see them as anti-America. We have the debt ceiling negotiations coming up and they seem perfectly willing to force the country to default on its debts for their petty ends. This after a majority of Americans voted for a democratic president, a democratic Senate, and, yes, a democratic House too, which the GOP only maintains control of through criminal gerrymandering (technically it is legal, but is amounts to a crime, doesn’t it? I am willing to be corrected on this one). If all that doesn’t amount to a big ‘fuck America’ from the GOP, I don’t know what does.

  4. If you think people making over $250k aren’t rich if not wealthy, well I’m sorry but I can’t hear you. The demands of these people to not see their taxes go up rests firmly on the omission of the relevant facts of the matter. Like pretty much every other GOP policy. Top rates need to return to something more like the pre-Reagan rates- the Clinton rates are a downright childish thing to cry about.

Anyway, after it is all said and done Obama has a nest of vipers to deal with. Most of the GOPers in Congress act dumber than a drunken fundamentalist. I feel like I have to (and can) trust Obama to do the best he can with a bad situation. He’s shown a little spine lately- I’d like him to show some more.

Edit: oh yeah, cliff it! Then propose tax cuts under $250k (or $175k) for the new Congress to vote on. But take care of the unemployed somehow.

22

Obama believes he has no incentive to bargain for Romney’s tax plan.

The voters have already agreed with him.

23

Explain that to me. If we don’t raise the debt ceiling, then it simply means we cannot raise more debt (deficit spending). That means we need to raise taxes and/or cut spending to have a balanced budget. In no way does it mean we do not meet out debt obligations viz. interest and redeeming securities.

24

As I understand it, Congress has already approved (last year) the spending that takes us over the debt ceiling. To not raise the debt ceiling creates a policy contradiction- the spending is approved, but the borrowing is not. Spending cuts and tax hikes can keep us below a debt limit next year (2014) and beyond, but not this year as the money is already spent.

If the debt ceiling isn’t raised in 2013, what will Congress be able to agree on to avoid defaulting on some commitment or another? If your point is that, at the least, interest and securities will take a priority and the country won’t literally default on those then yes, I see that point. But Congress has already approved the whole list of obligations that takes us over the debt limit. Blind intransigence on this question will lower America’s credit rating yet again, is not the will of the people judging by the way they voted, and perhaps most importantly is un-constitutional in that:

So, by even threatening to not allow our obligations to be met, the GOP is acting in an un-constitutional manner = anti-America. Note the word ‘pensions’ is right in the text- which would seem to apply to Social Security, and so while ‘entitlement reform’ could be acted upon at some point, to insist on doing it this way is a canard. Do I have it right?

25

Social Security is not a pension. SCOTUS decided that early on in it’s history. I would also question if passing a budget creates an obligation. Other than servicing the debt, Congress can pass laws limiting th spending it approved earlier.

26

Refusal to raise the debt ceiling means you refuse to honor debts you have already incurred. I kind thought conservatives HATED that sort of behavior. I mean, if’ it’s OK for the Republicans to advocate this, can I advocate it in my personal life? Cause it’s gonna take my living expenses WAAAAAY down.

27

I thought it just meant that you could spend and owe more.

28

The only reason why the Republicans drew more House districts in their favour than the Democrats is that they had control of more state legislatures, in states which the Democrats control, they’ve done similar gerrymandering. The only states to avoid this sort of behaviour are states which have revised their laws to have their Congressional districts drawn by nonpartisan commissions like here in California.

29

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) explains: “The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred.”

I’m genuinely curious where you got this information, and why you were so certain about it. Were you just going off of “common sense”? Or did someone actually misinform - or lie to - you?

30

Very well. Ignorance fought. But there is still more to say…

Of course passing a budget creates an obligation- it is law, passed by Congress. Have they actually passed anything else to contradict the budget? No, nor are they likely to. So the budget stands. Consider these quotes from the article I cited earlier:

What he is arguing is that the Constitution would justify the Executive ignoring the debt ceiling to pay the government’s obligations, since the Constitution takes precedence over laws passed by Congress. In other words, the GOP is behaving in an un-Constitutional manner with their debt-limit hostage-taking moves. And that, my friend, merits no respect whatsoever.

31

This rank-and-file non-voter is becoming increasingly unconcerned about the cliff. Frankly, it’s closer to what Obama is asking for than anything the Republicans are offering.

32

The Republicans are refusing to maintain lower taxes for 98% of Americans – and the tax breaks for the first $250,000 for the other 2%. No agreement will be reached before the deadline.

When no agreement is reached, taxes will revert to the previously historically low rates; which are higher than they are now. Then the Republicans (and Democrats, of course) can push for lowering taxes. The new rates might be the same as they are now for 98% of Americans, and will probably go up for the top 2%. Thus the Republicans can say that they did not raise taxes as they promised Norquist they wouldn’t; they can say that they lowered taxes – although the taxes will be higher; a virtual tax increase. It may be that the taxes are higher than what the Democrats are asking for.

So going off the cliff is a ‘win-win’. The Republicans can claim they didn’t raise taxes (in spite of a higher tax rate than there is now), and the Democrats get the revenue to run the country and possibly a bit more.

33

It is just unfortunate that we are not represented in a manner that allows for complex matters to be addressed intelligently. By all means SS and Medicare need to be amended. We are neither the same society nor the same people as when these programs were enacted. If nothing else, minimum eligibility ages should be pushed back to account for increased life expectancies. And I do not think it unreasonable to revise what one can expect in the form of health care, in light of tremendous changes in medical technology (and costs).

Medicare premiums are nowhere near high enough to provide the types of care our aging population feels they are entitled to. It seems like so much effort is spent trying to wring as much as possible from the government in terms of benefits, so as to preserve as much wealth as possible to pass on to heirs. Hell, I understand such a position, but I don’t understand it as being much other than selfish and greedy.

Sure spending should be reduced in so many areas. Would be nice if it could be done in a tailored manner rather than with a blunt hatchet, but since our reps refuse to cooperate, a blunt hatchet is better than some complex fiction which nobody believes, but which ostensibly kicks the can further down the road.

By the way, EVERYTHING the government does is an “entitlement” for someone or another. Military spending benefits folk in the services drawing pay, entire communities dependent on defense industries, and every citizen who enjoys a free and secure country. So lump that in among the “entitlements” to be cut.

Hell, I’m a long time gov employee. Do you want to eliminate my salary? My benefits? Of course, what are you going to do with the program I help administer, where folk routinely (and generally ignorantly) complain of overlong waiting periods? Sure, my pay is an “entitlement” for me. I’ve already had a pay freeze for the past 3 years, which was just extended through March. That’s fine. And I’m fine with my taxes going up. I’ve been notified that the “cliff” could result in up to 20 days fo furlough. That would sting, but wouldn’t keep me from leading a comfortable life.

Nice roads, safe skies, safe food and drugs, secure banking and legal systems, enforceable contracts … - entitlements all. It just strikes me as so hypocritical for so many people of all political persuasions to criticize what other folk desire from their governments as unaffordable entitlements, while not viewing the services they value themselves in the same light.

No solution should be considered unless EVERYONE is hurt at least a bit. So a pox on the Repubs for failing to raise taxes on those who have benefitted the most from their diverse entitlements. And an equal pox on Dems for being afraid of old people and special interests, while not acknowledging the countless improvements that could be made on our social safety nets. BRING ON THE HATCHET!

34

When “The Budget” is passed does it actually lay out the spending for every single little item or is it a general guide. For example, is “The Budget” for defense $200B to be spent throughout the year or is it
(5) F-22 @ $500,000 each
(6) Toilet seats @ $300 each
(1) Destroyer @ $1.2M
etc.
I would argue the first case is not an obligation whereas the second is.

If this is the case, then we have to address some other issue that up until now has been unprovan legal theory. The question is if Congress passes a law that contradicts a previous law does that automatically rescind the previous law? For example, let’s say the debt ceiling is $1T. If Congress passes a budget that creates a debt of $1.2T then is the debt limit law automatically rescinded?

35

I know you’re just using place-holder numbers, but $500,000 won’t even get you two Cessna 172 Skyhawks or even a single Cessna 400 Corvallis, let alone an F-22. A Selected Acquisition Report from the DoD put the cost estimate for the F-22 at $64.5 billion for 184 aircraft. So the unit cost is about $350 million per copy.

36

Obama has offered far more than his constituency would approve. The Republicans could have accepted the offer and avoided the National disruption of the fiscal cliff. They refused - for whatever reason.

Now it is time for this administration to govern. The Senate should modify the House bill to meet the President’s criteria - $250K tax threshold - no change to cost of living index - 1 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases.

Also the Senate must modify the fillibuster rules. If Senator wants to hold the floor, he can stand and do so.

Crane

37

This is a middle ground fallacy. The effects of the various policies must be considered. Keynesian economics puts second best Pareto efficiency at top marginal rates of 70% and cutting unemployment/retirement benefits (which is what chained CPI would do) during a recession as unlikely to aid recovery. A reasonable response to changing demographics is restructuring the programs in a way that people either agree with a minimax solution (increased focus on securing insurance with a larger proportion of elderly population) or just informing everyone that there’s going to be internecine strife approaching.

38

Only a few hours left until we jump off the fiscal cliff…

Robert Kuttner offers a nice summary of recent politics.

[QUOTE=Robert Kuttner]
I have often quoted the British historian A. J. P. Taylor. Speaking of the revolutionary year in Europe, 1848, when democratic revolutions broke out only to be crushed, Taylor observed, “It was a turning point of history, but history didn’t turn.” In many respects, that also describes 2008.
[/QUOTE]

39

Let me throw an idea out there. Naturally Republicans will never vote to raise taxes and would never trust Obama and the current crop of Democrats to cut spending. Forcing this country to jump off the cliff accomplishes both goals. Maybe that is the Pub plan to reduce the deficit at all costs.

My understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that Obama’s plan would not cut spending so why not force the Dems to discuss intelligent spending cuts and allow some taxes to increase. I’m also curious why closing the deficit is a bad thing. I know that some Keynesians on SD will say it’s because of the economy but in that case why is there no Dem deal for 2013 or even 2014 with spending cuts and higher taxes to follow i.e. postpone the cliff until 2015?