Fiscal Cliff MEGATHREAD: Wile E. Economy falls off, lands in cloud at bottom

[Faeelin]

How many people are really opposed to a tax increase for people making over a million dollars? From the latest WSJ Poll:

Q28 If the plan to avoid the fiscal cliff and reduce the deficit included an income tax rate increase for people who earn more than $250,000 per year would that be acceptable or unacceptable to you?*
Acceptable ................................................................................................76
Unacceptable ..............................................................................................22
Not sure ..................................................................................................2

[derspiess]

How many people are really opposed to a tax increase for people making over a million dollars? From the latest WSJ Poll:

Q28 If the plan to avoid the fiscal cliff and reduce the deficit included an income tax rate increase for people who earn more than $250,000 per year would that be acceptable or unacceptable to you?*
Acceptable ................................................................................................76
Unacceptable ..............................................................................................22
Not sure ..................................................................................................2

Cool.  So do you have the breakdown by congressional district and campaign contributors?  Didn't think so-- TAKE A HIKE, KID

[The Minsky Moment]

The Democrats want taxes raised on people earning 250K plus.

Obama's most recent offer was $400K+.

Is that AGI?

[Faeelin]

Cool.  So do you have the breakdown by congressional district and campaign contributors?  Didn't think so-- TAKE A HIKE, KID

Obviously the perspective is being skewed by the moochers in blue districts.

I hate to break it to you, but Obama just won a national election campaigning on a platform of a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts. To pretend that most Americans don't agree with him more than the GOP is kinda silly.

[The Minsky Moment]

Cool.  So do you have the breakdown by congressional district and campaign contributors? 

Good point.
And yet also a devastating one for the long-term viability of the US political system.

[derspiess]

Obviously the perspective is being skewed by the moochers in blue districts.

Moochers? 

I hate to break it to you, but Obama just won a national election campaigning on a platform of a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts. To pretend that most Americans don't agree with him more than the GOP is kinda silly.

There you go again.  I didn't say that.

[CountDeMoney]

The Democrats want taxes raised on people earning 250K plus.

Obama's most recent offer was $400K+.

Is that AGI?

Wasn't he using AGI as the original $250K threshold?

[derspiess]

Serious question: what do you guys think the president means by having the rich pay their "fair share"?  The pre-Bush cut rates as he's pushing for right now, or do you think he has more tax hikes on his mind longer term?

[Admiral Yi]

I hate to break it to you, but Obama just won a national election campaigning on a platform of a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts. To pretend that most Americans don't agree with him more than the GOP is kinda silly.

And all those guys voting against just won re-election, presumably while campaigning on not raising taxes. 

[CountDeMoney]

Serious question: what do you guys think the president means by having the rich pay their "fair share"?  The pre-Bush cut rates as he's pushing for right now, or do you think he has more tax hikes on his mind longer term?

No.  He's stated since 2008 that returning to the Clinton-era rates would be just fine and dandy for the nation, just like they were back then when everybody prospered and plenty of millionaires were to be made. 
I don't think he has ever said more than that, and I see no reason to think he'd go beyond that.

[derspiess]

No.  He's stated since 2008 that returning to the Clinton-era rates would be just fine and dandy for the nation, just like they were back then when everybody prospered and plenty of millionaires were to be made. 
I don't think he has ever said more than that, and I see no reason to think he'd go beyond that.

Is he going to create another tech bubble to help re-create the Clinton years as well?  Anyway I'd be fine going back to Clinton-era tax rates if we went back to Clinton-era spending.

[merithyn]

Is he going to create another tech bubble to help re-create the Clinton years as well?  Anyway I'd be fine going back to Clinton-era tax rates if we went back to Clinton-era spending.

This works in theory, but doesn't in reality. We have far more elderly and disabled now than we did then. It would be impossible to cover them under the same budget as Clinton pushed through without cutting the military more unless we plan to leave the elderly and disabled out in the cold.

[Admiral Yi]

We have far more elderly and disabled now than we did then.

We do? 

[MadImmortalMan]

Well, we have more population, so it stands to reason.

[sbr]

No.  He's stated since 2008 that returning to the Clinton-era rates would be just fine and dandy for the nation, just like they were back then when everybody prospered and plenty of millionaires were to be made. 
I don't think he has ever said more than that, and I see no reason to think he'd go beyond that.

Is he going to create another tech bubble to help re-create the Clinton years as well?  Anyway I'd be fine going back to Clinton-era tax rates if we went back to Clinton-era spending.

But that wouldn't get us anywhere because we weren't running a surplus back then, right?