• Post-Pew poll: Fiscal cliff negotiations predicted to fail
    9 replies, posted
[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/11/Fiscal-Cliff-Infographic1.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Most Americans doubt President Obama and congressional Republicans will avoid hurtling over the fiscal cliff before January 1, 2013, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll. By 51 to 38 percent, more predict Obama and Republicans will not reach an agreement in time, and the survey finds widespread anxiety over the consequences of such a failure. More than six in 10 believe a missed deadline would have an overall negative impact on the U.S. economy, and about the same number anticipate a blow to their personal finances, including 74 percent of those with incomes of at least $100,000. Without a deal, taxes will jump for nine in 10 Americans, with the steepest hikes for top income brackets. The public is sharpening its focus on the issue, but Republicans are paying more attention than others and are more worried about the fallout of failed negotiations. Nearly half of Republicans are following the issue “very closely,” and more than seven in 10 Republicans anticipate negative consequences for their finances and the overall economy. Only about half of Democrats see a mostly negative outcome for either the economy or their finances, and 31 percent say passing the cliff will actually help the economy. Economists predict inaction will throw the economy into recession. But Republicans in Congress may face more public pressure to make concessions. Should negotiations break down to avoid the $500 billion rash of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts, 53 percent are inclined to blame Republicans in Congress while 29 percent single out Obama. If New Year’s Day 2013 comes without a deal, a panoply of fiscal band-aids — from the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts to broad spending cuts — would take effect. Even with all the moving parts, nearly six in ten Americans says they understand the impact of impending tax increases and spending cuts at least “fairly well.” Still, only about a quarter are “very well” informed and four in 10 report little or no understanding of the consequences. The poll was conducted Nov. 8 to 11 among a random national sample of 1,000 adults using conventional and cellular phones. The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Click here for full question wording, results, and interactive breakdowns by group.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/13/post-pew-poll-fiscal-cliff-negotiations-predicted-to-fail-embargoed-for-9am-1113/[/url]
I'm NOT surprised.
[video=youtube;tIdQBqstcqY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIdQBqstcqY&hd=1[/video] I'm not sure how biased this video is. Anyone got more accurate information? Seems to me like it would be better to just go off the fiscal cliff rather than pass the current compromise.
My body is ready. Cant say the same about my bank account.
[QUOTE=Lilyo;38452315][video=youtube;tIdQBqstcqY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIdQBqstcqY&hd=1[/video] I'm not sure how biased this video is. Anyone got more accurate information? Seems to me like it would be better to just go off the fiscal cliff rather than pass the current compromise.[/QUOTE] There isn't a 'current compromise', hency why Obama's talking about raising taxes on the rich and Republicans are talking about not doing that. Negotiations haven't begun yet
I'm not surprised, Congress's performance with this whole budget thing has been a spectacular failure.
The simple act of delaying the spending cuts for 2 years would be enough to put down the chance of another recession starting. However, the same might not be able to be said for unemployment. If one is more concerned about people in the short run, then keeping the spending cuts and extending the bush-era tax cuts only for those making less than 250K/year would be more than enough to ensure short-term growth in GDP and keep employment at an amount able to accommodate population growth. Bear in mind that the trade-off is that the deficit will take far longer to be lowered in any given length of time. As odd as it seems, the first option is actually better in the long run (from now until 2020) while the second option is only better in the short run.(now until the end of 2013)
[QUOTE=smurfy;38452452]There isn't a 'current compromise', hency why Obama's talking about raising taxes on the rich and Republicans are talking about not doing that. Negotiations haven't begun yet[/QUOTE] Isn't that what the Grand Bargain is? [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/fiscal-cliff-grand-bargain_b_2115597.html[/url]. Right now if they reach no bargain, $1.2 trillion in spending cuts are set to take place and HALF would come from defense, and there's no way defense contractors will allow that to happen. If the Bush Tax cuts expire, we would get $1 trillion from the top making over $250,000 alone. Obama's Grand Bargain plan aims to decrease spending by $3 trillion and increase taxes by $1 trillion, but the point of the Grand Bargain is to shift the spending cuts away from defense contractors and big corporations and onto the middle class if I understand correctly. Things like medicare and medicaid will suffer big cuts. Am I missing something? This is Obama's proposition and yes, the negotiations haven't started yet, but this is what is being proposed. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/Fiscal_Tightening_Infographic.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Lilyo;38452907]Isn't that what the Grand Bargain is? [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/fiscal-cliff-grand-bargain_b_2115597.html[/url]. Right now if they reach no bargain, $1.2 trillion in spending cuts are set to take place and HALF would come from defense, and there's no way defense contractors will allow that to happen. If the Bush Tax cuts expire, we would get $1 trillion from the top making over $250,000 alone. Obama's Grand Bargain plan aims to decrease spending by $3 trillion and increase taxes by $1 trillion, but the point of the Grand Bargain is to shift the spending cuts away from defense contractors and big corporations and onto the middle class if I understand correctly. Things like medicare and medicaid will suffer big cuts. Am I missing something? This is Obama's proposition and yes, the negotiations haven't started yet, but this is what is being proposed. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/Fiscal_Tightening_Infographic.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] I watch The Young Turks, and I've seen Cenk Uygur talk constantly about the Grand Bargain, and usually I think he's got shit like this figured out, but it confuses me because I've never seen the 'Grand Bargain' anywhere else. I've never seen Obama 'say over and over again that the ratio would be $3 in spending cuts to $1 in tax increases.' I assume he's talking about the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform]Simpson-Bowles plan[/url] but from what I can tell Obama's response to that was pretty lukewarm? I'm just really thrown because Uygur always seems to talk about 'this Grand Bargain plan' as if I should know what he's talking about, but I don't. I've never heard of this before, and he doesn't really explain it or give any sources. It's like if someone just suddenly said 'I can't believe Obama is going to ban ice cream! I mean he's constantly talking about how he hates ice cream!' I'm not really an expert in this area and I guess I only really started following it in 2011 or so. So I looked it into it just now and here's what I could dig up. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/us/politics/obama-tells-labor-leaders-hell-stand-tough-in-budget-talks.html]According to New York Times[/url] Obama's plan going into the negotiations is 'the 80-page deficit-reduction package that Mr. Obama sent Congress in September 2011' Then I found [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/politics/obama-plan-to-cut-deficit-will-trim-spending.html]another NYT article[/url] which explains what that is. At the bottom of the article, it says this: 'The plan calls for reducing the budget deficit by $3 trillion over 10 years, half of it from tax increases and half from spending cuts. It would not cut spending by $3 trillion.' Uygur in that HuffPost article on the other hand says 'According to the president's own plan that would be $3 trillion in spending cuts' So either Cenk Uygur, or the New York Times has to be wrong here Then I found [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/19/fact-sheet-living-within-our-means-and-investing-future-president-s-plan]this 'fact sheet' on the White House site[/url] which explains the plan, and says there will be 'a spending cut to revenue ratio for the entire plan (including discretionary cuts) of 2 to 1' So either the White House with 2-to-1, or Uygur with 3-to-1 has to be wrong Like I said, I usually trust Cenk Uygur but I just don't see where he's getting this stuff from. I would definitely look into it some more because I have been meaning to do this for a while now, but it's late
[QUOTE=Lilyo;38452907]Isn't that what the Grand Bargain is? [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/fiscal-cliff-grand-bargain_b_2115597.html[/url]. Right now if they reach no bargain, $1.2 trillion in spending cuts are set to take place and HALF would come from defense, and there's no way defense contractors will allow that to happen. If the Bush Tax cuts expire, we would get $1 trillion from the top making over $250,000 alone. Obama's Grand Bargain plan aims to decrease spending by $3 trillion and increase taxes by $1 trillion, but the point of the Grand Bargain is to shift the spending cuts away from defense contractors and big corporations and onto the middle class if I understand correctly. Things like medicare and medicaid will suffer big cuts. Am I missing something? This is Obama's proposition and yes, the negotiations haven't started yet, but this is what is being proposed. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/Fiscal_Tightening_Infographic.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] You clearly haven't paid attention to the very video that fed you this drivel. It seems that TYT has stretched the truth, as it says the cuts will take place [B]over 10 years.[/B] Divide the numbers provided, and the initial $1.2 trillion in cuts turning into $3 trillion becomes $120 billion turning into $300 billion, coupled with the $100 billion gained from raised taxes would amount to a $400 billion decrease in the deficit. Your infographic further specifies the amount of money being cut as $487 billion. The problem the fiscal cliff presents is that these cuts and tax hikes are too much, too fast. With the government buying less and people having less money to spend so suddenly, businesses won't have enough time to react and this uncertainty will throw us into a recession. So, whether by delaying spending cuts or extending some tax cuts, Congress is forced to either come to an agreement or we go through an extremely painful 2013 to reach a better 2020. Given that the amount of money that needs to stay in the deficit isn't too high, future spending cuts will be possible and easier to pull off every year, since then they wouldn't be coinciding with tax increases. These cuts would continue until the deficit turns into a surplus, where we can, finally, pay off our debt, which would take a very long time. Even if the surplus could rise to a rosy $2 trillion, it'd take us over 10 years to pay off the debt. [editline]14th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;38453750]I watch The Young Turks, and I've seen Cenk Uygur talk constantly about the Grand Bargain, and usually I think he's got shit like this figured out, but it confuses me because I've never seen the 'Grand Bargain' anywhere else. I've never seen Obama 'say over and over again that the ratio would be $3 in spending cuts to $1 in tax increases.' I assume he's talking about the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform]Simpson-Bowles plan[/url] but from what I can tell Obama's response to that was pretty lukewarm? I'm just really thrown because Uygur always seems to talk about 'this Grand Bargain plan' as if I should know what he's talking about, but I don't. I've never heard of this before, and he doesn't really explain it or give any sources. It's like if someone just suddenly said 'I can't believe Obama is going to ban ice cream! I mean he's constantly talking about how he hates ice cream!' I'm not really an expert in this area and I guess I only really started following it in 2011 or so. So I looked it into it just now and here's what I could dig up. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/us/politics/obama-tells-labor-leaders-hell-stand-tough-in-budget-talks.html]According to New York Times[/url] Obama's plan going into the negotiations is 'the 80-page deficit-reduction package that Mr. Obama sent Congress in September 2011' Then I found [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/politics/obama-plan-to-cut-deficit-will-trim-spending.html]another NYT article[/url] which explains what that is. At the bottom of the article, it says this: 'The plan calls for reducing the budget deficit by $3 trillion over 10 years, half of it from tax increases and half from spending cuts. It would not cut spending by $3 trillion.' Uygur in that HuffPost article on the other hand says 'According to the president's own plan that would be $3 trillion in spending cuts' So either Cenk Uygur, or the New York Times has to be wrong here Then I found [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/19/fact-sheet-living-within-our-means-and-investing-future-president-s-plan]this 'fact sheet' on the White House site[/url] which explains the plan, and says there will be 'a spending cut to revenue ratio for the entire plan (including discretionary cuts) of 2 to 1' So either the White House with 2-to-1, or Uygur with 3-to-1 has to be wrong Like I said, I usually trust Cenk Uygur but I just don't see where he's getting this stuff from. I would definitely look into it some more because I have been meaning to do this for a while now, but it's late[/QUOTE] Trust Cenk's 3-to-1 numbers. The other sources are older while this video was made not two days ago. Obama must have figured that Republicans would be more willing to accept a deficit reduction plan in this form.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.