General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKrugman: Conceder In Chief?
OK, Ive had my own sorta-kinda briefing on the apparent fiscal cliff deal, and Im pretty much with Noam Scheiber. Viewed on its own, its a bad and upsetting deal but not as terrible as initial rumors had it. But the strategic consequences are likely to be very bad indeed, and in very short order too.
As background, its important to understand what Obama clearly could have gotten just by going over the cliff. Basically, he could have gotten the whole of the Bush high-end tax cuts reversed, which would mean close to $800 billion in revenue over the next decade...So what Obama appears to have done is trade away part of the revenue from high-income taxpayers in return for some of the spending items he wanted. Extended unemployment benefits for a year, and the refundables either extended in perpetuity or for 5 years.
<...>
At that point he can redeem himself by holding firm but because the Republicans dont think he will, they will play tough, almost surely forcing him to actually hit the ceiling with all the costs that entails. And look, if I were a Republican I would also be betting that hell cave.
So Obama has set himself and the nation up for a much uglier confrontation than we would have had if he had set a negotiating position and held to it.
Update: I should mention that on one issue, the estate tax, the problem is apparently with the Senate; there are, unfortunately, some heartland Dem Senators who are extremely solicitous of the handful of super-wealthy families in their states, so that Obamas people dont think they can get a majority for higher taxes here. Its bizarre: states like New Jersey have far more large estates, not just total but per capita, than states like Montana, but its the Senators from the latter that are eager to preserve the inherited privileges of the few.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/conceder-in-chief-2/
Ugh!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)the Senate Democrats who are using Republicans for cover.
Disgusting!
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)"Middle America" is completely run by Hate Radio, while in the blue states there is still some semblance of sanity.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)He's quoted like he is a God and omniscient. These are just one economist's opinions.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)why listen to him?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)He was wrong about that. And much more. When you talk and write as much as Krugman, you will be right about a lot of things and wrong about a lot of things.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)and an economist who has been more right than nearly all the others about things after 2008. No, he's not omniscient, but he's been better than the rest.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Negotiations and outcomes--not so much.
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)He's not omniscient, he's not an expert on every side of things, and more often than not he winds up pointing out the dire consequences of some direction or other that we wind up not going toward.
But I like him because his heart is in the right place, he has a very thorough grasp of those things he does know about, and he generally keeps his hair on the "medium-low" setting.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)He generally doesn't simply assert opinions. Instead, he cites facts and explains his reasoning, far more than do most pundits. He does very well at it, considering the constraints imposed by the space limitation of his regular column.
bigtree
(85,996 posts)not for the squeamish
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Just like ACA was not horrible on the surface, but signaled to the Repukes that Obama has no ideological or moral core - and so they pummeled him after that (tax cut extensions).
So Obama has set himself and the nation up for a much uglier confrontation than we would have had if he had set a negotiating position and held to it.
This is like saying a cat would have done better if he'd barked like a dog. My cat will bark before Obama stakes out a Dem position and holds firm to it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)helping. As Krugman mentions, they're part of the problem with the taxes on the rich. I bet Schumer is in on this.
"The estate tax would exempt estates up to $10 million and tax them at 40 percent above that."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022104810
These were the original choices:
1) Accept the President's proposal with "dividends to be taxed as ordinary income" and the "estate tax to be levied at 45 percent on inheritances over $3.5 million."
2) Pass the Senate bill, "which currently taxes inheritances over $5 million at 35 percent," but excludes Obama's dividend proposal.
3) Go over the cliff when "the estate tax is scheduled to rise to 55 percent beginning with inheritances exceeding $1 million."
In each case, the tax cuts for the rich end.
G.O.P. Balks at White House Plan on Fiscal Crisis
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/politics/fiscal-talks-in-congress-seem-to-reach-impasse.html
nilram
(2,888 posts)Especially since a friend is on the last dregs of his unemployment and this deal extends some unemployment benefits.
Still, concerned about Obama's negotiating stance. But I just take it as it comes along. It's important to pressure congress & the senate to do the right thing, there's not going to be progress without people making themselves heard.
Although I take Krugman's point about future implications. As is, it was a good negotiation and Obama "lost" exactly what I expected him to lose through negotiation. The 250,000 threshold was important as a good starting point. If they started with 500,000 and negotiated that away, I would be more weary. The fact is, the future is dependent on a complete overhaul of Congress. We need to raise tax revenues several more times to make up for the damage that has been done over the past 30 years. The only way to ensure this happens is to get to work on taking back state legislatures and ousting tea partiers while promoting more progressive candidates.