Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   This cliff deal, which was to help the deficit, will add $4T to the deficit. You're doing it wrong   (politico.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Alternative Minimum Tax, Party leaders of the United States Senate, Mitch McConnell, tax credits, deficits, Congressional Budget Office, tax reform, tax cuts  
•       •       •

1475 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jan 2013 at 10:00 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-01-02 08:40:57 AM  
So Politico was for raising taxes substantially this whole time?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-02 08:44:19 AM  
For a more honest discussion, rename "extended unemployment benefits" to "welfare."
 
2013-01-02 08:44:40 AM  
That measurement is done with the baseline assumption the CBO uses - i.e. that all sequestration cuts take effect and that all tax rates revert to 2000 levels, It's not that it adds $4 trillion to the deficit directly, but rather, the US will take in $4 trillion less in income than it would've had all tax rates reverted.

If you make a different baseline assumption - i.e. all tax rates stay at the Bush levels, then under the same CBO logic, then the compromise deal is actually decreasing the deficit. How you interpret it really has to start with what assumptions you make.
 
2013-01-02 08:47:07 AM  
I haven't directly read the CBO 3 page report yet, but I'm also going to take a wild gander that the CBO did not factor in the feedback effects from a reversion of tax rates on the economy  and the tax revenues from the economic slowdown that will result, which was the assumption the CBO held for its previous report on the effects of letting the tax rates revert.
 
2013-01-02 08:47:56 AM  
It was "going over" the cliff that was supposed to fix the deficit.  The deal doesn't do that, and in a way is an acknowledgement that the cure (austerity) is worse than the disease (debt).
 
2013-01-02 08:55:47 AM  
Ha HA!  Subby thinks this was really all about the deficit!  How adorable.
 
2013-01-02 09:07:19 AM  

RexTalionis: I haven't directly read the CBO 3 page report yet, but I'm also going to take a wild gander that the CBO did not factor in the feedback effects from a reversion of tax rates on the economy  and the tax revenues from the economic slowdown that will result, which was the assumption the CBO held for its previous report on the effects of letting the tax rates revert.


Yeah, almost all the deficit increase is from not letting taxes rise.
 
2013-01-02 09:18:15 AM  
Depends on what you're comparing it against.

White House: Deal cuts deficits by $737 billion
 
2013-01-02 09:29:24 AM  

Bladel: It was "going over" the cliff that was supposed to fix the deficit.  The deal doesn't do that, and in a way is an acknowledgement that the cure (austerity) is worse than the disease (debt).


Austerity was supposed to be a cure for Obama, not the debt.
 
2013-01-02 09:31:33 AM  
So...rerecession?
 
2013-01-02 09:51:35 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Depends on what you're comparing it against.

White House: Deal cuts deficits by $737 billion


Those numbers assumed all the tax cuts would be extended.  The CBO assumed they would all lapse.
 
2013-01-02 09:54:50 AM  

Bladel: It was "going over" the cliff that was supposed to fix the deficit.  The deal doesn't do that, and in a way is an acknowledgement that the cure (austerity) is worse than the disease (debt).


A while back, the CBO put out a projection that showed that if we did go over the fiscal cliff, the short-term impacts would include a double-dip recession and a reduction in revenue from taxes (due to unemployment going back up, etc); but that in 5-10 years, the economy would be even *stronger* (and the debt smaller) than had we tried to NOT go over the cliff.

I suspect that projection and this current statement from the CBO are somehow interlinked.
 
2013-01-02 09:55:45 AM  

GAT_00: Those numbers assumed all the tax cuts would be extended.  The CBO assumed they would all lapse.


Right. Current law vs current policy.
 
2013-01-02 10:02:16 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: Those numbers assumed all the tax cuts would be extended.  The CBO assumed they would all lapse.

Right. Current law vs current policy.


Which brings up a pretty farked up point that the spread between past law and current policy was $4.3T - $3.6T from the CBO, $0.7 from the WH.
 
2013-01-02 10:11:42 AM  
Subby is adorable.
 
2013-01-02 10:15:23 AM  

Yakk: Subby is adorable.


Illiterate... But adorable.
 
2013-01-02 10:15:31 AM  
Boehner walked away from a much "better" deal earlier. The blame lies with the Republicans - as usual.
 
2013-01-02 10:16:02 AM  
I've decided to adopt the debate strategy of John Boehner.

CBO, go fark yourself.
 
2013-01-02 10:17:05 AM  
Darrel Issa (R-etarded Twat) says we're kicking the can.

So here's a picture of Ernest Hemingway drunkenly kicking his empty before he blows his head off with a shotgun.

www.calwatchdog.com
 
2013-01-02 10:17:23 AM  
I'm so very much looking forward to the future riots when they finally get around to the necessary austerity cuts  That's a bingo!
 
2013-01-02 10:18:32 AM  

RexTalionis: That measurement is done with the baseline assumption the CBO uses - i.e. that all sequestration cuts take effect and that all tax rates revert to 2000 levels, It's not that it adds $4 trillion to the deficit directly, but rather, the US will take in $4 trillion less in income than it would've had all tax rates reverted.

If you make a different baseline assumption - i.e. all tax rates stay at the Bush levels, then under the same CBO logic, then the compromise deal is actually decreasing the deficit. How you interpret it really has to start with what assumptions you make.


Exactly

And republicans typically score using current law (bush level taxes)

Apples to apples please
 
2013-01-02 10:38:54 AM  

RexTalionis: That measurement is done with the baseline assumption the CBO uses - i.e. that all sequestration cuts take effect and that all tax rates revert to 2000 levels, It's not that it adds $4 trillion to the deficit directly, but rather, the US will take in $4 trillion less in income than it would've had all tax rates reverted.

If you make a different baseline assumption - i.e. all tax rates stay at the Bush levels, then under the same CBO logic, then the compromise deal is actually decreasing the deficit. How you interpret it really has to start with what assumptions you make.


The other factor is that this bill fixes the AMT permanently and that alone adds about 1.2 trillion to the deficit over 10 years according to the Tax Policy Center (CBO doesn't break it out on its report). Now, we've been patching it every year for 40 years anyway so to pretend that it's adding to the deficit is ridiculous.
 
2013-01-02 10:40:11 AM  

Bladel: It was "going over" the cliff that was supposed to fix the deficit.  The deal doesn't do that, and in a way is an acknowledgement that the cure (austerity) is worse than the disease (debt).


This. Unless you're one of those folks who actually believe in Australian school economics.
 
2013-01-02 10:43:56 AM  
critics would argue that the deficit estimates now don't give enough credit to the improved economic growth that could result from the tax cuts.


This is like getting a Christmas bonus. It's great when it comes and happens but you're a farking moran if you actually plan to get it.
 
2013-01-02 10:49:29 AM  
For the last Farking time, as Bladel said, the cliff deal was about avoiding economically crippling austerity, NOT deficit reduction.

The cliff was supposed to be a terrible set of austerity measures that nobody wanted implemented to force negotiations on austerity measures that we economically can live with. All this deal shows is that Congress can't compromise or live with the consequences of their own actions. Who here is surprised?
 
2013-01-02 10:50:06 AM  
The deal was to minimize the size of deficit reduction and extend policies that benefitted the public, not cut the deficit compared to what it would be without the deal.

The idea that improving the economy is the same thing as cutting the deficit makes me tear my hair out because it seems like the vast majority of people I talk to believe it. When the economy goes south, it causes a revenue shortfall that causes the deficit to rise. Policies put in place to improve the economy according to the Keynesian model will increase spending and/or cut revenues further, increasing the deficit. When the economy improves, it increases revenues and lowers the deficit. That doesn't mean acting in a way to lower the deficit means you will improve the economy, and procyclical policies only serve to create bubbles and prolong recessions.
 
2013-01-02 10:51:18 AM  

nmrsnr: For the last Farking time, as Bladel said, the cliff deal was about avoiding economically crippling austerity, NOT deficit reduction.

The cliff was supposed to be a terrible set of austerity measures that nobody wanted implemented to force negotiations on austerity measures that we economically can live with. All this deal shows is that Congress can't compromise or live with the consequences of their own actions. Who here is surprised?


I for one do not buy into the chicken little stuff about how the austerity measures would be the end of the world. In my opinion it's the only way we'd *ever* get meaningful defense spending cuts.
 
2013-01-02 10:51:32 AM  
The deal wasn't to help the deficit. The cliff was. The deal was to avoid the self imposed cliff. Yes, congress now has to work until the zero hour to avoid the impact of legislation that they themselves created.
 
2013-01-02 10:52:03 AM  

lantawa: I'm so very much looking forward to the future riots when they finally get around to the necessary austerity cuts  That's a bingo!


Except, of course, that the austerity cuts aren't, in fact, necessary. Especially since austerity has not been shown to actually work. Recent (as in, from the last year) evidence from a number of countries shows this.

Especially when your "austerity" doesn't touch defense at all, and focuses on making sure the wealthiest don't share in the austerity.
 
2013-01-02 10:52:05 AM  

I_C_Weener: So...rerecession?


Where are you getting that?
 
2013-01-02 10:52:40 AM  

the_geek: nmrsnr: For the last Farking time, as Bladel said, the cliff deal was about avoiding economically crippling austerity, NOT deficit reduction.

The cliff was supposed to be a terrible set of austerity measures that nobody wanted implemented to force negotiations on austerity measures that we economically can live with. All this deal shows is that Congress can't compromise or live with the consequences of their own actions. Who here is surprised?

I for one do not buy into the chicken little stuff about how the austerity measures would be the end of the world. In my opinion it's the only way we'd *ever* get meaningful defense spending cuts.


you don't buy into basic economics? I suppose that's your prerogative.
 
2013-01-02 10:53:12 AM  

Grungehamster: When the economy improves, it increases revenues and lowers the deficit.


Heaven forbid we ever end up in the black, do you think any congress will allow that surplus to pay off the national debt?
 
2013-01-02 10:53:26 AM  

the_geek: I for one do not buy into the chicken little stuff about how the austerity measures would be the end of the world. In my opinion it's the only way we'd *ever* get meaningful defense spending cuts.


Well, it depends on whether or not your job is on the chopping block. It seems yours isn't, that's nice for you.
 
2013-01-02 10:54:28 AM  

ghare: lantawa: I'm so very much looking forward to the future riots when they finally get around to the necessary austerity cuts  That's a bingo!

Except, of course, that the austerity cuts aren't, in fact, necessary. Especially since austerity has not been shown to actually work. Recent (as in, from the last year) evidence from a number of countries shows this.

Especially when your "austerity" doesn't touch defense at all, and focuses on making sure the wealthiest don't share in the austerity.


meh. The US doesn't "need" austerity like Greece "needed" austerity. Our problems are significant, but they do not include junk status for our sovereign debt. Greece was forced into austerity before the EU would continue to prop them up.
In this regard, austerity did "worK" as it allowed Greece to receive outside help.
 
2013-01-02 10:57:51 AM  

MFAWG: Bladel: It was "going over" the cliff that was supposed to fix the deficit.  The deal doesn't do that, and in a way is an acknowledgement that the cure (austerity) is worse than the disease (debt).

This. Unless you're one of those folks who actually believe in Australian school economics.


It really depends on the exchange rate between shrimps on the barby to knives.
 
2013-01-02 10:59:12 AM  

ZAZ: For a more honest discussion, rename "extended unemployment benefits" to "welfare."


So instead of saying that we will spend less than one tenth of one percent of the federal budget on extended unemployment benefits, you think we should say that we spend less than one tenth of one percent of the federal budget on welfare?

OK
 
2013-01-02 11:00:00 AM  
Yeah the deal does nothing to address the cutting of spending and leaves a lot to be desired from both sides as far as far as the tax compromises go, but it averted the immediate problem and some positives can be taken from it.

The earned income tax credit patch is permanent, which has ended the yearly haggling over that. The tax debate is finally over. Might not be the optimal result for some on either side but compromises hardly are, but now business knows for certain and can plan around it. In my opinion I am glad the bill did not address spending cuts. The issue is too nuanced to be hastilly thrown together at the last minute. Hopefully now that they have found breathing room they will address the cuts in a more mature manner than they did with this "fiscal cliff" deal. I know that is asking a lot but the cuts will have to be dealth with.

But I think the biggest deal is that the House gave final approval to the deal, 257-167 with 85 Republicans voting yes and against the majority of their party. This is the first true bipartisan legislative victory for President Obama and hopefully the beginning of the political "center" working together to circumvent the obstructionists who have been taking the whole legislative process hostage.
 
2013-01-02 11:01:28 AM  

skullkrusher: but they do not include junk status for our sovereign debt.


Give it two months, and the GOP has an interesting offer for you.
 
2013-01-02 11:17:48 AM  

Ayn Rand's Social Worker: Darrel Issa (R-etarded Twat) says we're kicking the can.

So here's a picture of Ernest Hemingway drunkenly kicking his empty before he blows his head off with a shotgun.

[www.calwatchdog.com image 475x628]


We are kicking the can, and probably less effectively than Hemmingway.  They really only pushed the next fight back to February.
 
2013-01-02 11:38:09 AM  
And to think we were paying down the debt in 2000. We really need to get that Republican president back.
 
2013-01-02 11:41:52 AM  

heavymetal: This is the first true bipartisan legislative victory for President Obama and hopefully the beginning of the political "center" working together to circumvent the obstructionists who have been taking the whole legislative process hostage.


9/10. Should get a lot bites from all sides.
 
2013-01-02 11:48:39 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: heavymetal: This is the first true bipartisan legislative victory for President Obama and hopefully the beginning of the political "center" working together to circumvent the obstructionists who have been taking the whole legislative process hostage.

9I live with my mom. Should get a lot bites from all sides.


FTFY. Not a troll, it's the truth. The closest thing to one before that was the 2 symbolic Republican votes in the Senate on the stimulus bill.
 
2013-01-02 11:51:16 AM  

dervish16108: And to think we were paying down the debt in 2000. We really need to get that Republican president back.


no we weren't.
 
2013-01-02 11:56:36 AM  
i46.tinypic.com
After the 2010 debacle, I didn't think I'd get a chance to re-use this. Oh, how I was wrong.
 
2013-01-02 11:56:51 AM  
The lesson is nobody understands the difference between the words "deficit" and "debt" and that they don't mean even remotely the same thing.
 
2013-01-02 12:04:49 PM  

Shaggy_C: [i46.tinypic.com image 801x414]
After the 2010 debacle, I didn't think I'd get a chance to re-use this. Oh, how I was wrong.


George HW Bush was a tax cutter? shiat, he should get a redo on the 1992 election in light of that news
 
2013-01-02 12:11:28 PM  
This deal just punted the "helping deficit" part 2 months down the road...where it will be punted again.
 
2013-01-02 12:29:53 PM  
I'm not sure I like the capital T method. At this rate shouldn't we be using an exponential?

This cliff deal, which was to help the deficit, will add $4T $4x1012 to the deficit. You're doing it wrong
 
2013-01-02 12:36:51 PM  

skullkrusher: Shaggy_C: [i46.tinypic.com image 801x414]
After the 2010 debacle, I didn't think I'd get a chance to re-use this. Oh, how I was wrong.

George HW Bush was a tax cutter? shiat, he should get a redo on the 1992 election in light of that news


Read my lips, jackass. No new elections.
 
2013-01-02 12:39:31 PM  

lennavan: skullkrusher: Shaggy_C: [i46.tinypic.com image 801x414]
After the 2010 debacle, I didn't think I'd get a chance to re-use this. Oh, how I was wrong.

George HW Bush was a tax cutter? shiat, he should get a redo on the 1992 election in light of that news

Read my lips, jackass. No new elections.


he really could've used that cartoon back then
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report