[RhetoricThug]

I love the label, I really do... Its fear mongering too. Fiscal Cliff my dear country. Is there a river at the base, rocks, land? I'm getting ready to jump.

If the U.S. raises the debt ceiling, are they just avoiding the unavoidable? What rational suggestions have been taken into consideration. To whom can we hold responsible for the death of our economy.

I declare an all out currency collapse. America spends enough on their military to come out of a crisis such as currency collapse. Replace the dollar and poof! there goes all the debt. Whats stopping us? The Petro-dollar, IMF, and FED reserve. Sounds like the U.S. needs to learn (extreme case) from the Weimar Republic .

What real concerns face the U.S. if they were to collapse their dollar?

[Malatant of Shadow]

The "fiscal cliff" has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. It's also completely misnamed; fiscally, in terms of the deficit, going over the "fiscal cliff" would be a GOOD thing.

What it means is that, absent Congressional action, as of January 1, 2013, all of the Bush tax cuts expire and we go back to Clinton-era levels; also, automatic spending cuts on many federal programs, including the military, kick in. Going over the fiscal cliff means that taxes go up and spending comes down, which means the deficit shrinks accordingly.

What's more, going over the fiscal cliff will FORCE the Republicans in Congress to negotiate seriously with the Democrats about deficit reduction and taxes and spending. The Democrats will want to reduce taxes on everyone making under $250k per year, and they will NOT be trying to raise taxes on rich people because that will have ALREADY HAPPENED. On the spending side, the Republicans will be desperate to restore some military spending and the Democrats will be in a position to trade some of that for other things.

The best thing that can happen for the U.S., fiscally speaking, is for Congress to do nothing at all for the rest of the year. The best thing that can happen to us (barring a return to reality-based sanity for the GOP) will be to go over the fiscal cliff.

[RhetoricThug]

The "fiscal cliff" has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. It's also completely misnamed; fiscally, in terms of the deficit, going over the "fiscal cliff" would be a GOOD thing.

What it means is that, absent Congressional action, as of January 1, 2013, all of the Bush tax cuts expire and we go back to Clinton-era levels; also, automatic spending cuts on many federal programs, including the military, kick in. Going over the fiscal cliff means that taxes go up and spending comes down, which means the deficit shrinks accordingly.

What's more, going over the fiscal cliff will FORCE the Republicans in Congress to negotiate seriously with the Democrats about deficit reduction and taxes and spending. The Democrats will want to reduce taxes on everyone making under $250k per year, and they will NOT be trying to raise taxes on rich people because that will have ALREADY HAPPENED. On the spending side, the Republicans will be desperate to restore some military spending and the Democrats will be in a position to trade some of that for other things.

The best thing that can happen for the U.S., fiscally speaking, is for Congress to do nothing at all for the rest of the year. The best thing that can happen to us (barring a return to reality-based sanity for the GOP) will be to go over the fiscal cliff.

This doesn't address the debt ceiling. And Clinton era levels would take at least a decade to return. Also, Clinton era promoted deregulation which in my argument leads to the boom and bust we saw that led to Gov bailout. I don't think that will solve the debt crisis the U.S. is in. We can't possibly pay our interest, so why not just collapse the dollar. This geopolitical BS is making America crumble under international pressure. We can't be the supposed "Global force for Good" while paying our bills.

Do you doubt that the current admin will do anything to avoid going over the cliff? just like raising the debt ceiling, its all procrastination. We are 50/50 politics, nothing gets done when two people can't even agree on pizza toppings or afford to put both on

[Malatant of Shadow]

This doesn't address the debt ceiling.

As I said, the fiscal cliff has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. If you want to talk about the debt ceiling, you've misnamed your thread. Not only that, but you're also not doing it. You're talking about all kinds of other things and not about the debt ceiling at all.

And Clinton era levels would take at least a decade to return.

Clinton era levels of what? Clinton era tax rates, which is what I mentioned, will return in less than two months.

The rest of what you said also has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. Do you know what the debt ceiling is? Or the "fiscal cliff"? In short, do you have a clue what you're talking about?

[Lagrange]

I declare an all out currency collapse.

Talk about fear-mongering. The government is borrowing at record low interest rates, investors are still piling into Treasuries. For better or worse, the dollar is still the reserve currency.

[RhetoricThug]

Sure, CBO's effect on GDP (cliff) and interest owed on bonds/loans (debt)
But doesn't avoiding the cliff increase overall debt?

So you are just talking about Clinton era taxes, not the Clinton era balanced budget?

[RhetoricThug]

Talk about fear-mongering. The government is borrowing at record low interest rates, investors are still piling into Treasuries. For better or worse, the dollar is still the reserve currency.

Of course it is the reserve currency. Fiat is inflated and deflated upon printing.
I don't think a currency collapse is plainly fear mongering. It solves U.S. extraordinary debt. Its the international consequences that create fear if we did collapse the dollar.

[Lagrange]

Fiat is inflated and deflated upon printing.

There's not such a clear-cut relation between monetary policy and inflation. Think about all the quantitative easing efforts and look at the rate of inflation in the US the past few years. Pretty flat.

[RhetoricThug]

Lagrange- But isn't fiat more favorable because there is that connection? even if it is not clear cut? As for it being flat. agreed.

[quetzalcoatl]

Talk about fear-mongering. The government is borrowing at record low interest rates, investors are still piling into Treasuries. For better or worse, the dollar is still the reserve currency.

The "reserve currency" idea is wildy overplayed by all sorts of people. Consider the FRED chart above, which charts UK sovereign debt yields versus their US counterpart. Their is virtually no difference despite the US alleged status as reserve currency. And no difference despite the UK's hard hitting austerity measures and US high spending.

There is no cliff. It is a manufactured crisis, the "solution" of which will be designed to shift tax loads away from high to middle incomes while heavily cutting social security and medicare/medicaid.

[Figlio di Moros]

If we do hit the "Fiscal Cliff", the ramifications aren't clear. I don't believe the increases on high-income families will hurt, but low- and middle-income families will cause a problem. One, of course, being labor costs; the other with personal finance. Repayment of household debt will become more difficult, either hurting consumption or debt levels; it might drive up social programs use as well.

On the other hand, driving down spending will certainly reduce circulation, which means GDP will dip. The underlying problem is that businesses were driven into negative equity, so they need to pay down their debts before borrowing to expand. Depending on what exactly is cut under the fiscal cliff, it would hurt circulation, reducing the capacity of businesses to restore equity and begin growing again. Or, in simpler terms, force a double-dip recession.

[Malatant of Shadow]

The real reason the "fiscal cliff" terminology is scare-mongering nonsense is because the dire effects predicted are not those of reaching next January 1 without a deal to amend the automatic changes. They're the consequences of reaching December 31, 2013 without such a deal.

So the taxes go up across the board and spending is automatically cut on January 1. A few days later, the new Congress goes into session, comes to an arrangement and fixes the problems, making the legislation retroactive back to the first of the year. The problems that emerge in that scenario are minimal.

Its not a cliff.

[Oldmanonfire]

The "fiscal cliff" has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. It's also completely misnamed; fiscally, in terms of the deficit, going over the "fiscal cliff" would be a GOOD thing.

What it means is that, absent Congressional action, as of January 1, 2013, all of the Bush tax cuts expire and we go back to Clinton-era levels; also, automatic spending cuts on many federal programs, including the military, kick in. Going over the fiscal cliff means that taxes go up and spending comes down, which means the deficit shrinks accordingly.

What's more, going over the fiscal cliff will FORCE the Republicans in Congress to negotiate seriously with the Democrats about deficit reduction and taxes and spending. The Democrats will want to reduce taxes on everyone making under $250k per year, and they will NOT be trying to raise taxes on rich people because that will have ALREADY HAPPENED. On the spending side, the Republicans will be desperate to restore some military spending and the Democrats will be in a position to trade some of that for other things.

The best thing that can happen for the U.S., fiscally speaking, is for Congress to do nothing at all for the rest of the year. The best thing that can happen to us (barring a return to reality-based sanity for the GOP) will be to go over the fiscal cliff.

And the so-called fiscal cliff is actually Congressional law, put in place because Congress and Obama are incapable of fiscal management of the nation. Wasn't this the caveat for again and again raising the debt ceiling? IMO when Congress and presidents agree to fiscal policy then they must abide by those policies...they cannot change their penalties for fiscal mismanagement! Congress and the president are idiots and American voters are idiots as well...all of them demand more government but none of them are willing to pay for the government they demand. Today's American citizen refuses to cut spending, yet refuses to pay for government, but are happy as pigs in shit because the collective we can just pass this mess to future generations to resolve...and pay for...and this is disgusting...

[Oldmanonfire]

If we do hit the "Fiscal Cliff", the ramifications aren't clear. I don't believe the increases on high-income families will hurt, but low- and middle-income families will cause a problem. One, of course, being labor costs; the other with personal finance. Repayment of household debt will become more difficult, either hurting consumption or debt levels; it might drive up social programs use as well.

On the other hand, driving down spending will certainly reduce circulation, which means GDP will dip. The underlying problem is that businesses were driven into negative equity, so they need to pay down their debts before borrowing to expand. Depending on what exactly is cut under the fiscal cliff, it would hurt circulation, reducing the capacity of businesses to restore equity and begin growing again. Or, in simpler terms, force a double-dip recession.

Gotta wonder how many trillion$ are spent by Americans each year on tobacco, alcohol, drugs, casino gambling, on-line gambling, designer clothing, jewelry, sports/concert events, etc.? And I'll assume that a majority of this spending is done by the lower and middle classes. Therefore, the ONLY reason why Americans refuse to pay for the government which they demand, is because they refuse to prioritize their spending! The collective we would rather spend on non-essentials than support our nation. SO...the so-called fiscal cliff won't take food and shelter from many; it will only cut into their non-essential spending...

[Figlio di Moros]

[youtube]tk2LJXJz3iE[/youtube]

Yeah, we should have to give up having a few beers on the weekend on top of having less each week for food, gas, etc, because you think the working class wastes too much money? Fuck, for that matter, what the hell makes you think the rich don't waste a hell of a lot more on all of that? There are bottles of wine that go for $3k, which can buy a hell of a lot of cheap 30-racks. Who spends more in a casino, a hundred old ladies with a spare $100, or one millionaire? You got no idea how much cash these people will blow.

Don't give me that crap about working and middle class wasting all this money on "non-essentials" that make their life slightly bearable. You know damn well corporations are the ones using the government for their profit-machines that are undermining the national interest.

[Someone5]

Sure, CBO's effect on GDP (cliff) and interest owed on bonds/loans (debt)
But doesn't avoiding the cliff increase overall debt?

So you are just talking about Clinton era taxes, not the Clinton era balanced budget?

Government borrowing is at--literally--all-time low rates. People are literally paying for the privilege of buying US treasury bonds right now. They're not expecting interest on them. This is essentially the best possible time for the government to borrow money. We have an economic downturn caused by a lack of demand, government borrowing rates at historic lows, and tremendous amounts of work that needs to be done on all sorts of projects. The government ought to be spending more right now--on infrastructure, if nothing else--not going into a round of austerity. You practice austerity when the economy is good and tax receipts are good... not when the economy is in the toilet and you need government spending to get the country out.

Jesus Christ people, do you actually want us to go down Greece's path? Can't you see where austerity in a recession takes you? Let the bush revenue cuts expire... then borrow piles of money for a new round of infrastructure investment to get people off the unemployment line.

[mikema63]

Government tends to fuck up everything it touches, reducing what it does is something I want to do independent of anything else.

Cut spending to zero.

[Figlio di Moros]

Really, mikema? So, computers, internet, GPS, the interstate highway, Hoover Dam, series of canals stretching across this continent, airports, national parks, hunting regulations- all shit? And since we slashed investments, taxes, and regulations from the 70's/80's on, the shitty economic conditions are clearly to be blamed on the government continuing to invest, tax, or regulate anything?

[mikema63]

If by invest you mean subsidize and bailout corporations at the expense of everyone else then yes. Secondly, if by regulate you mean allow corporations to dictate the rules they and their small competitors play by then yes as well.

First many of the things you laid out could easily have been invented without government involvement, where they aren't definitionally government projects like the national parks.

Secondly, those things were created with taxpayer money but many, like the interstate highway system, are used simply to subsidize massive chain stores like wallmart.

Further, even where corporations manage to be uninvolved politicians themselves do not have pure motives, they will rarely if ever know how to fix a problem without creating two more to replace it.

[Oldmanonfire]

Yeah, we should have to give up having a few beers on the weekend on top of having less each week for food, gas, etc, because you think the working class wastes too much money? Fuck, for that matter, what the hell makes you think the rich don't waste a hell of a lot more on all of that? There are bottles of wine that go for $3k, which can buy a hell of a lot of cheap 30-racks. Who spends more in a casino, a hundred old ladies with a spare $100, or one millionaire? You got no idea how much cash these people will blow.

Don't give me that crap about working and middle class wasting all this money on "non-essentials" that make their life slightly bearable. You know damn well corporations are the ones using the government for their profit-machines that are undermining the national interest.

Not surprised that you would deny the non-essential expenditures and try to change the subject. FACT is ALL people spend inordinate amounts of money on non-essentials. In the case of this OP they are doing it at the expense of the government which they demand yet refuse to fund.

For people like you who hate corporations, I'm curious how you and future generations will fare when you chase all the corporations away from the USA? You do realize that most mom/pop businesses are also corporations...don't you?

Lastly, when you refuse to fund the government which you demand, all you are doing is passing the debt onto future generations to pay. IMO your behavior is self-serving. How can you and others rationalize taking and never giving? If people can't pay then stop demanding...