Cliff Divers: Why would a deal in February necessarily be better than the deal now?

[renie408]

We are still going to have to deal. Why is everyone so convinced that if we allow the country to go over the fiscal cliff, which WILL hurt the economy for months afterward (think debt ceiling fight which highlighted the dysfunction of American government) is going to result in some magically delicious deal that we are all just going to LOVE? The last time something like this happened (think debt ceiling again) THIS situation is what we got.

How strong is the White House's position going to be after we go over the cliff and those first BAD numbers start rolling in? Logically the new Congress cannot get to work on this thing until February. I am not sure why everybody thinks the deal would be made in January when Congress has proven they cannot move quickly to save our lives.

So, the fiscal cliff WILL have negative effects with no guarantee of any better deal in the new year than the one now.

I am in NO WAY a conservative. Not even close. And I think we shouldn't just toss this deal out and start yelling "JUMP JUMP JUMP". Why do you think that going over the cliff is the right thing to do? If you cannot convince ME, and I am on 'your' side, how the hell do you expect Obama and Dems to convince the rest of the country that this was the right thing to allow to happen? And why is going over the fiscal cliff a GREAT IDEA, but Tea Party House members sticking to their guns and allowing the debt ceiling deadline to pass was just HORRIBLE? Why are those willing to allow this thing to happen heroes, but the people who let the other thing happen were idiots? What if our credit rating is downgraded AGAIN because of this? What if we lose jobs...how does that HELP seniors?

And in the end, what if we wind up with an even crappier deal?

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Because Rich people won't like paying 1998 taxes.

And they won't like the fact that their shares of militaryindustrial inc. have dropped in value.

The rest of us? We won't notice the tiny jump in our SS taxes.

[Lasher]

2. Because we will have a better Congress

And because we will be at a better starting point by then.

[reformist2]

6. Exactly. We'll only need 17 Repugs to cave then. Plus, we can start on January 3, not February.

[Chef]

3. The Cliff

You might have a point. Part of the problem with the crash and the recovery is that we couldn't do as much as was required to fix the systemic problems. If the economy had tanked, we might have had a shot at electing a progressive government in 2010. This is similar in that, as bad as it would be, we might have to go back to square one to get anywhere. If everything is cut back including the military, then we might be able to restore some of the good things.

Who am I kidding? The only thing that will be restored is the military and the rest will languish with this bunch we have in the House now.

[99Forever]

4. Perhaps it might fool the 'Pubes into...

... thinking our party brass has a spine?

[Auntie Bush]

5. It better be...with a different congress, push from public opinion and Dems refusal to vote yes

till we get a better deal. After all...Obama won the election!

[n2doc]

7. Because the vote would be for NEW tax cuts, not continuation of old ones

The GOP can claim that they always vote for tax cuts in this manner. Also, we will have a better senate and a smaller house GOP majority, making it harder to ram through stuff in the house.

[hfojvt]

13. the OP's concern is on the spending side

Because sequestration involves a $2 billion cut to food stamps and eliminates extended unemployment benefits, the OP thinks we should give a couple trillion in tax cuts to the rich in order to prevent that from happening.

Seem to be laying the ground work for arguing that the surrender really wasn't a surrender because the President, unlike a liberal purist like yourself, cares about people on foodstamps and the unemployed. So he just HAD to make a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad deal.

I have heard the same arguments ad nauseum for the LAST surrender.

To me, it sounds like Bush deja vu. After all, in 2003, Bush claimed over and over and over again that his tax cuts for the rich were really a way to help the unemployed.

Maybe the plutocrats marketing firm feels like "hey, the canaille bought this b.s. once, why not sell it to them again?"

[n2doc]

14. But after the 1st the only way for the repubs to get their tax cuts is to compormise

If nothing happens, the rich get to have their taxes raised to 1998 levels, and more critically, the estate tax goes way way up. The rich are going to be putting Congress under huge pressure to change that. Obama needs to make sure the food stamp and other supports are not cut.


The latest Ive heard on the "deal" is Boehner wants to skip sequestration on Defense and make the rest of the budget shoulder the burden. Very nice of him

[wryter2000]

8. My way of looking at it

A. It's not clear at all that going over the cliff will hurt the economy. Remember what they all said about Clinton's tax increase? They all wailed it would hurt the economy, and it ended up creating growth. Basically, going over the cliff will return to the Clinton rates.

B. In February, we introduce a bill to lower rates on income below $250. Let the Repubs try to argue against that. For that particular item, we'll be in an extremely strong position.

C. We can't give in on Social Security and Medicare. If those are the only options to keep us from going over the cliff, then we don't have any real choice.

[hfojvt]

10. I don't care for the whole "lower rates on incomes below $250,000" thing.

Most people make a LOT less than $250,000. 50% of the country makes less than $55,000. I think we should be giving tax cuts to people below the median income more than we are giving tax cuts to people way way way above the median income. Democrats should not be giving big tax cuts to people who make $240,000 a year and much smaller tax cuts to people making $40,000 a year.

Unfortunately that is the position we are in now. Obama's original proposal to keep 78% of the Bush tax cuts is really another huge tax cut for the rich. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321

[Harmony Blue]

11. I agree

A. No one knows for sure that it will hurt the economy. Both the economy and stock market are chugging along currently.

B. Agreed

C. Agreed

Social security CPI will do nothing to address the "fiscal cliff" or the debt ceiling. And it has nothing to do with the general deficit...

[hfojvt]

9. I don't think it is about a better deal in February

But I think some other things.

That going over the "cliff" is not as bad for the country as a bad deal would be.

Therefore, WE (meaning President Caveman) should not be at all desperate to make a deal. By going over the cliff - the rich are hit with $80 billion a year in tax increases. (Acutally $180 billion because Obama is already proposing $100 billion in tax increases) And there is nothing that Republicans can do about it. Republicans should be crawling over broken glass to prevent that from happening.

But they aren't.

Because they are counting on the President to cave - just like last time.

AFAIC, we are in this mess because Obama caved last time. So doing the same thing again and expecting better results is not only disgusting, but foolish.

Once our side extends the Bush tax cuts (again) we lose our trump card. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/165

[spanone]

12. in february we will have a new congress.