Some in Congress look to $55 billion fiscal cliff 'fallback'

Comments (26)
AlkalineState wrote:

‘Fiscal cliff.’ That’s Boehner terminology. More fear and hype from the fear and hype professionals within the GOP. Most sensible Americans call it a ‘fiscal cleanse.’

Oct 22, 2012 1:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
neahkahnie wrote:

The Congress is a joke. They call for across the board cuts, then they back off. They haven’t a clue about anything if it’s beyond the committee rooms and the floor of their respective houses.

Oct 22, 2012 1:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ronryegadfly wrote:

What a surprise, (sarcasm). They want to cut it by half today, tomorrow they’ll eschew spending cuts altogether, regardless that it threatens to absolutely RUIN our country. Rather protect their precious political careers it would seem. The word of a politician means NOTHING.

Oct 22, 2012 1:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Vuenbelvue wrote:

neahkahnie I think you are giving them to much credit after they went through almost two years with a stalled 10% approval rating. It is amazing how much large contribution’s used to purchase hate mail ads have improved their (R) poll numbers though. A Sucker born every minute is still true.

Oct 22, 2012 1:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

Fiscal Cliff scares investment brokers and military contractors, but one suspects the American people are resigned to austerity and favor taxes that impact the deficit. Per CBO, the hit may contract the economy by 4% by cuts the annual deficit by 1/2.

Oct 22, 2012 1:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

Nibbling around the margins won’t fix anything. We have annual deficits of more than a TRILLION DOLLARS, so 100 billion is in the ‘noise level’ and is a waste of time. This government and this nation is incapable of living within it’s means. The only solution is to have the FED monetize the debt and we all eat the resulting inflation as our punishment.

Oct 22, 2012 2:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

CBO estimates Obama’s “tax the rich” plan to yield $40B in incremental revenue. Considering Obama blew his last annual budget by $1,600B+, I don’t see this is a genuine effort to tackle the deficit but rather a political ploy.

Additionally, it stands that Ryan and the GOP stepped out of the SimpsonBowles talks because Obama specifically ordered the commission not to touch Medicare. Given that Medicare is our LARGEST long term fiscal issue to address, I find this to be another disingenuous political ploy; not a genuine attempt at resolution nor compromise.

What little agenda/plans Obama has put forth have only been political red herrings. We have a SPENDING problem and a bloated inefficient government that Obama has no plan to address. While liberals and the liberal media call for more detail and specifics of Romney’s plan they fail to recognize or hold Obama accountable for his utter lack of a plan; hard to elaborate on specifics of a non-existent plan. At least Mitt has put forth an agenda, Obama has not.

We need a leader who knows how to create jobs, who knows private industry, who knows how to balance a budget, who isn’t afraid to make tough decisions regardless of political blowback – that man is Mitt Romney.

Oct 22, 2012 2:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@Alkakine said “‘Fiscal cliff.’ That’s Boehner terminology. More fear and hype from the fear and hype professionals within the GOP. Most sensible Americans call it a ‘fiscal cleanse.’”

Perhaps you find this bogus assertion to be clever; I can assure it is no more clever than it is accurate or correct.

Fiscal cliff is NOt just Boehner’s term, it’s a term coined and now used by the vast majority of polticians and media outlets.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you fail to recognize that a “fiscal cleanse” is EXACTLY what Boehner and the res tof the GOP are seeking.

You can speak on fear and hype until your heart is content. The truth is we have mounting fiscal issues. romney-Ryan have put forth a feasible plan to tackle this issue and offered ot work with both parties; they are prepared to tackle issues like spending and MEdicare regardless of the poltical blowback. Obama, although he promised differently, has not worked across the aisle and his most ambitious attempt to tackle the deficit amounts to $40B in incremental revenue; some “leadership”, huh?

Oct 22, 2012 2:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Buelligan wrote:

Is it too much to ask that people start to govern and stop playing politics?

Oct 22, 2012 3:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

This congress has to go down as one of the WORST in American history.

Oct 22, 2012 3:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Jaham, if your republican politicians were serious about a fiscal cleanse, they would not be calling it a ‘fiscal cliff’ now that it is upon us. The GOP refuses to do anything but INCREASE military spending (by two trillion dollars), even on projects that the military has not asked for. You are being fed a line by the GOP and it sounds like you’re swallowing it whole. Which is fine, but don’t ask thinking people to do it just because you did.

Oct 22, 2012 3:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@fromthecenter…and what is your opinion of the POTUS?

Give credit where credit is due; Both Obama AND Congress deserve responsibility….heck, maybe you and I deserve responsbility considering ‘we the people’ voted these buffoons into office.

Let’s not make that same mistake again; time to let someone else take a swing at it – someone with extensive experience both public and private and the leadership to steer this country in the right direction.

Oct 22, 2012 3:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Alkaline, if your Democractic politicians hadn’t pulled a bait and switch and whittled the grand bargain down to/below a 2:1 (spending cuts:revenue increases) then we wouldn’t have imposed these indiscriminate cuts.

The term used, whether “cliff” or not, does not distract me from the fact that Obama has no plans to address it, has no plan for fiscal balance, has no plan for economic growth and has no plan for job creation – heck, he didn’t do anything for job creation or the middle class when he had a supermajority; why would he now?

The GOP refuses to CUT the military to the degree currently proposed by Democrats because Panetta says it would be “devastating”. Romney is not planning to increase military spending, he’s planning not to cut it. The $2 trillion comes from ALREADY instated growth of the military budget over 10 years. Considering Obama blew his budget by $1,600B in ONE YEAR, I find your concerns for $2T over 10 years to be disingenuous.

YOU are being fed a line by the Obama admin in order to distract you from his abject failure as POTUS and you seem to be buying it: not holding Obama accountable but rather deflecting to Romney’s bank account and the like.

Good thing we’ve got ONE party that is genuine in their concern and desire to address America’s most pressing issues.

Oct 22, 2012 3:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

So jaham: speaking of spending cuts and the GOP, does the Romney/Ryan ticket support the stimulus or oppose it. They won’t say outright now. Seems the oppose it in public but support it in private? But that can’t be. After all, you said above that the GOP is ‘genuine in their concern and desire to address America’s most pressing issues.’

Here are some letters from Paul Ryan begging for federal stimulus money. What’s the latest from AM radio on these ‘genuine concerns’:

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-stimulus-money-letters-2012-10

Oct 22, 2012 4:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

Simple solution, cut the military budget by 75%. If we would stop butting our nose in other people’s business, we would not need a large military.

Oct 22, 2012 4:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
johnnyjr wrote:

Right on, Speaker2! If the “fiscal cliff” is the only way to cut military spending then so be it. We wouldn’t be in nearly the mess we are if we hadn’t spent 1.4 trillion on Bush’s wars and tax cuts! Rise the Social Security & Medicare eligibility age to 72, cut military spending, end Bush’s tax cuts.

http://costofwar.com/

Oct 22, 2012 5:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Domsayshi wrote:

From NBC news: “Technically, the tax cut hasn’t robbed money from Social Security. When the law was enacted, Congress agreed to reimburse Social Security for the lost revenue, estimated at $103 billion in 2011 and $112 billion in 2012. But Congress didn’t cut spending or raise other taxes to offset the lost revenue, so the payroll tax cut is being financed with borrowed money, adding to the national debt.
That has raised concerns that borrowing from Peter to pay Paul will only make it harder to get the trust fund back on a sound footing.”

This is the two percent payroll tax cut that we have been enjoying, adding about eighty dollars a month for me. But I was living without it. The obligation to preserve Social Security, which will make up half of my retirement as it makes up the whole of so many others needs to be met.

Oct 22, 2012 5:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Domsayshi wrote:

From NBC news: “Technically, the tax cut hasn’t robbed money from Social Security. When the law was enacted, Congress agreed to reimburse Social Security for the lost revenue, estimated at $103 billion in 2011 and $112 billion in 2012. But Congress didn’t cut spending or raise other taxes to offset the lost revenue, so the payroll tax cut is being financed with borrowed money, adding to the national debt.
That has raised concerns that borrowing from Peter to pay Paul will only make it harder to get the trust fund back on a sound footing.”

This is the two percent payroll tax cut that we have been enjoying, adding about eighty dollars a month for me. But I was living without it. The obligation to preserve Social Security, which will make up half of my retirement as it makes up the whole of so many others needs to be met.

Oct 22, 2012 5:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
diluded0000 wrote:

I always thought this compromise was a stroke of genius, and still do. Both parties can blame the other, and we start getting closer to a balanced budget. There is no easy path to a balanced budget, this is a good place to start.

Oct 22, 2012 6:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

diluded, I agree. I think this is one of the few smart things Congress has done in recent years. Basically a deal that says, “since we can’t agree on anything, let’s just make the cuts across the board. Clock starts now. Go.”

Oct 22, 2012 6:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Onerioi wrote:

“Democrats, who voice confidence in an Obama victory despite a late Romney surge, warn that they will stick to their demands that the wealthy share more of the burden of getting the U.S. fiscal house in order.” Top rate history: 1950 91%, 1960 91%, 1970 71.75%, 1980 70%, 1990 31%, 2000, 39.6%, 2010 35%. We’ve lowered the rates from 91% in 1950 to 35% in 2010. How well has that worked out to improve our employment and economy? (Graph from taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213)

Oct 22, 2012 6:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

1Onerioi, 1950 and 1960 were pretty good years economically. So what’s your point? We should make the top rate 91% again? Ok, let’s do it. I don’t care. I only make $210,00 per year so I won’t have to pay it anyway. Bring it on.

Oct 22, 2012 7:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@Jaham

The USA does not have a SPENDING problem. That is just you parroting GOP/Fox News nonsense, and hugely two-faced coming from the people who increased the US debt by 89%.

The US has an EARNING problem. Increasing GDP would fix everything, but the GOP work against that, and Romney has no credible plan to do anything to change that.

Oct 22, 2012 9:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Wassup wrote:

Typical of Congress and the Exective branch who prefer “kicking issues like this down the road” to actually earning their money taking on and solving fiscal issued confronting this country. Americans are tired of the political bickering and agenda polishing with no apparent sane workable compromise being offered. Congress (the do nothing) incum bents need to be dismissed as “dead wood” and replaced with actual legislative leadership going forward to demonstrate to the constituents that they deserve to hold office.

Oct 22, 2012 11:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
zerohedger1 wrote:

Johnnyjr wrote: “We wouldn’t be in nearly the mess we are if we hadn’t spent 1.4 trillion on Bush’s wars and tax cuts!”

Get REAL junior: $1.4 TRILLION is the average of Obama’s annual deficit – and he didn’t even start a war. SO what did he waste $1.4 TRILLION PER YEAR on???? In 4 years, Obama has added $5 TRILLION in total debt – think that has added to the mess???

And I’m not a Romney supporter – I think they are both frauds. Romney thinks he’ll balance the budget by cutting PBS’s $400 million budget??? What a laugh! Of course, Obama hasn’t said he’d cut ANYTHING! Yup, just keep on running those $1.4 TRILLION ANNUAL DEFICITS.

Face it folks, we’ve been hosed!

Oct 23, 2012 7:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
justine184 wrote:

This article misses the point of the sequester. It says “Republicans and Democrats alike oppose the approach of the large spending cuts, which are split evenly between military and non-military programs, in part because they land on almost every account in those two categories, depriving Congress of the ability to think through the choices.”

Right! Unfortunately Congress does not have the ability to think through the choices in a way that gets a meaningful bill signed into law. Both parties “think through the choices” much differently, and the only way to get meaningful cuts is to use force. That is what the sequester is, and it is what they intended last year. This is particularly true of much-needed Defense cuts, which almost cannot happen in regular votes on spending bills. This is the only way we can cut the military, which is so very necessary. Indeed we need more cuts that these, and we really need the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts. In other words, the US really does need to go over this cliff if we are ever going to get back to a balanced budget (gasp). And that is the goal I support – a balanced federal budget.

Oct 25, 2012 9:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.