WTF happened to deficit reduction? What happened to making the rich pay their fair share?

[ProSense]

President Obama speaks to nation about fiscal cliff saying a deal "is within sight"

by HoundDog

<...>

Lisa Mascaro Deal emerges in 'fiscal cliff' talks; Obama to speak

More than $600 billion in revenue would be raised – far less than the target President Obama first set in talks with congressional leaders. The president sought $1.6 trillion in new revenue from a large deficit-reduction package, and at least $800 billion in earlier talks with Republicans over a deal on tax increases.

The agreement would set the top tax rates at 39.6% for income above $450,000 for households and $400,000 for singles, which is a narrower definition of who is wealthy than Obama once sought, according to a source who was not authorized to discuss the negotiations. The president won reelection campaigning on asking those who earn above $250,000 to contribute more in taxes.

The investement income tax rate will rise for those with higher incomes from 15% to 20% for capital gains and dividends.

The estate tax, which has been a key sticking point throughout the weekend of negotiations, appears to have been settled. The agreement cuts the difference, setting the new rate at 40% on estates valued at more than $5 million – a compromise between today’s 35% rate and the 45% rate Democrats sought on estates of $3.5 million or more.

Democrats apparently have gained a phase-out of tax deductions on incomes over $250,000.

However, the current snag is a 90 day delay of the sequestration cuts. Republicans are pushing for a one month delay, while the Democrats prefere to postpone them for one year.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/31/1175111/-President-Obama-speaks-to-nation-about-fiscal-cliff-saying-a-deal-is-within-sight

If it comes to the floor, Democrats need to vote this deal down.

[Dawgs]

1. Unfortunately, some here think a bad deal is better than no deal. n/t

[OldDem2012]

2. If this deal keeps taxes from being raised on those making less than $400k per year,....

....which happens to be the vast majority of Americans, tell me why it should be voted down.

[ProSense]

4. Because even

If this deal keeps taxes from being raised on those making less than $400k per year,....

....which happens to be the vast majority of Americans, tell me why it should be voted down.

...below $250,000 is the "vast majority of Americans."

I mean, 95 percent of Americans make less than $150,000.

[jeff47]

8. You failed to answer the question

Going over the cliff raises taxes on everyone. It ends extended unemployment when we have very high unemployment. It ends a lot of tax credits that are huge cuts for working families.

Why, exactly, should we severely hurt 98% of the population to get a small increase on the 1.5% of the population that are between $250k and $400k?

Especially since the current deal claims to reduce tax deductions on incomes over $250k.

[ProSense]

11. Here's my answer:

The President should do it.

Obama To Congress: Come To A Deal – Or Else
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022088083

<...>

DAVID GREGORY: Is this your Lincoln moment?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, no. Look, A, I never compare myself to Lincoln and, B, obviously the magnitude of the issues are quite different from the Civil War and slavery. The point, though, is democracy's always been messy. And we're a big, diverse country that is constantly sort of arguing about all kinds of stuff. But eventually we do the right thing.

And in this situation I'm confident that one of two things are going to happen when it comes to the fiscal cliff. Number one, we're going to see an agreement in the next 48 hours, in which case middle class taxes will not go up. If that doesn't happen, then Democrats in the Senate will put a bill on the floor of the Senate and Republicans will have to decide if they're going to block it, which will mean that middle class taxes do go up. I don't think they would want to do that politically but they may end up doing it.

And if all else fails, if Republicans do in fact decide to block it, so that taxes on middle class families do in fact go up on January 1st, then we'll come back with a new Congress on January 4th and the first bill that will be introduced on the floor will be to cut taxes on middle class families. And I don't think the average person's going to say, "Gosh, you know, that's a really partisan agenda on the part of either the president or Democrats in Congress." I think people will say, "That makes sense, because that's what the economy needs right now."

So one way or another, we'll get through this. Do I wish that things were more orderly in Washington and rational and people listened to the best arguments and compromised and operated in a more thoughtful and organized fashion? Absolutely. But when you look at history that's been the exception rather than the norm.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50314590

As for this: "Going over the cliff raises taxes on everyone. It ends extended unemployment when we have very high unemployment. It ends a lot of tax credits that are huge cuts for working families. "

Going over the cliff is deficit reduction. This negotiation is a farce to protect the rich and wasteful military spending.

[jeff47]

12. You need to pick one.

You are simultaneously claiming two things:

1) the cliff is a great thing, since it's massive deficit reduction
2) the cliff is a terrible thing, since it raises taxes on people earning less than $250k.

Pick one.

This is an incredibly common problem in the media covering the fiscal cliff - they claim deficit reduction is overwhelmingly vital, but they also claim that doing that deficit reduction is disastrous.

[ProSense]

14. I made no such claim

You are simultaneously claiming two things:

1) the cliff is a great thing, since it's massive deficit reduction
2) the cliff is a terrible thing, since it raises taxes on people earning less than $250k.

I said going over the cliff is deficit reduction, which is the point of the entire farce. Yet the goal of these negotiations seems to be less deficit reduction than going over the cliff.

I didn't say the cliff is a "great thing" or a "terrible thing," and the fact that it raises taxes on everyone is irrelevant because, as the President said: "if Republicans do in fact decide to block it, so that taxes on middle class families do in fact go up on January 1st, then we'll come back with a new Congress on January 4th and the first bill that will be introduced on the floor will be to cut taxes on middle class families."

Going over the cliff is not the end of the world.

[jeff47]

19. Read the quotes you use

Your quote from Obama is talking about how terrible the cliff is.

The text you added after the quote is talking about how wonderful the cliff is.

[bigtree]

15. +1

[kelliekat44]

20. And many of them pay no taxes.

We make significantly less than $150,000 but would not say that a family of four that earns 450,000 is among the 1 or 2%.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Because in the near future a hack saw will be applied to the federal budget

Virtually every cut made will be a painful one, and many of those will ultimately have fatal consequences for tens of thousands of Americans if not more. It doesn't take much to push a poor person over the ultimate cliff when life suistaining support is cut back. And for millions more life will become more hellish and dreams of a better future will be pushed out of reach.

There are very very few major political figures in America today who are not on board with the campaign to shrink the federal deficit - the only question is who will suffer as a consequence of it. For 12 years Democrats have argued that America could not afford the Bush tax cuts for the rich - there are too many urgent needs for that money to justify giving the top 2% of income earners tax relief. Hundreds of billions in tax revenues per decade will permanently be lost by allowing those who make more than $250,000 to not pay Clinton era taxes on income between $250,000 and $400,000 per year.

That revenue loss is higher than the revenue gain that shifting to a Chained CPI for Social Security would result in, for example. That tax giveaway costs us more than would be saved by raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67. It is real money, big money. And now it will have to be offset by deeper cuts to programs that serve Americans far poorer than couples making $450,000 a year.

[jeff47]

9. If you were correct, those people would be fighting like hell to go over the "cliff".

The "Fiscal Cliff" reduces the deficit faster than any other plan, including the awful Simpson-Bowles. If politicians were as desperate to reduce the deficit as you claim, they'd be fighting to go over the cliff instead of avoiding it.

The cliff and all the other deficit reduction plans are just smoke and mirrors for cutting social spending. No Republican gives a fuck about the deficit.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Republicans care about shrinking Government, except for the Military

They always will fight to protect the military because the military protects their interests. The way to shrink Government (which results in the private sector growing as it takes over services that used to be in the public realm) is to cut off government revenues. That, beyond the simple greed involved, is why Republicans oppose the obvious, increasing taxes. So yes they have a covert agenda and they will fight tooth and nail to achieve it.

The biggest threat to the Republican agenda to starve Government of revenues was the expiration of the Bush temporary tax cuts. Unfortunately for them, they lost the election. But now it seems they will keep those tax cuts in place for couples making up to 450 million dollars a year - a better outcome than what Obama campaigned on and beat them in November on. Once the Bush tax cuts are off the table due to a completed deal, Republicans can go back to what they have been trying to do since at least when Reagan was elected - shrinking government. The leverage Democrats had to get Republicans to accept increased tax revenues was the fact that the Bush tax cuts were set to expire completely - Republicans couldn't block that from happening on their own. Going forward from here no new revenues can be tapped without the Republican House approving them - they now will have a veto over taking that route to lower the deficit.

Republicans love to talk about deficit cutting when that only involves cutting government spending. They will now grandstand on that endlessly and aggressively. Obama is already on record as agreeing that trillions more in deficit reduction must be achieved

[bigtree]

17. going over the cliff gives budget cutters more leverage

since the baseline of cuts would then be devastatingly low, anything above them will look like an increase. Who wanted these cuts in the first place? The cliff is a republican dream. Don't think they can't find money for defense.

[Zax2me]

3. Real deficit reduction requires real cuts in spending.

That simply has not been on the table.
Not going to happen, wasn't going to happen.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. This deal is just plain bad.

We're giving up too much for too little in return. The truly bad part is after these concessions, the Republicans are still going to demand entitlement cuts out the wazoo to raise the debt ceiling.

[No Compromise]

7. we need to start over and have the American people start calling the shots

See how easy it is! NY Times Budget Puzzle- You fix the budget
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022103899

[bigtree]

13. what is this shit?

Congress is ultimately going to determine the outcome, not the WH. He's bound, mostly, by what they'll accept, in the end.

Besides Josh Marshall says it's $100 billion.

I'm really going to bail this tearfest if it continues to get ridiculous in here

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Obama may be playing chess after all:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/31/heres-what-republicans-really-hated-about-obamas-news-conference/

If Obama sticks to his guns and demands even more tax revenue in the face of the upcoming manufactured debt ceiling crisis, then this latest deal could be a good thing.

[kentuck]

18. This bill stinks all the way out here...

...in Colorado.