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

[Admiral Yi]

The article that came with it the table (from your favorite newsource!) said otherwise.

The deal cuts $737 billion from deficits over the coming decade, primarily through $618 billion of higher taxes on the rich and the resulting interest savings. But that barely dents the $10 trillion in deficits America was on track to accumulate in that time, roughly 5% of GDP on current policies, according to the Congressional Budget Office

So not much, but a little.

I think it's dishonest of The Economist to claim that making permanent tax cuts that were due to expire is deficit reduction.  They also appear to not be counting expenditure extensions, such as the unemployment benefits or the Medicare reimbursement rates.

[Fate]

Those Medicare reimbursement rates are going to be passed every year no matter what. Regardless of technicalities of budget rules I think they can be considered baseline. Unless you really believe having doctors dropping their Medicare patients by the millions is a viable outcome.

[Admiral Yi]

Those Medicare reimbursement rates are going to be passed every year no matter what. Regardless of technicalities of budget rules I think they can be considered baseline. Unless you really believe having doctors dropping their Medicare patients by the millions is a viable outcome.

I understand that.  But the other side of the see saw is the revenue neutrality of Obamacare.

[Jacob]

Of course not.  Look at Phil's little table.  The deal cost 197 billion in lost revenue on middle class income tax.  11 billion in delayed cuts in Medicare payments.  30 billion in another year of extended unemployment benefits.

Obama supporters were crowing back in the summer about his offer to Boehner of gigantic cuts in spending in exchange for minimal increases in taxes on the rich.  That has disappeared.  The sequester that was the result of the GOP holding the debt limit hostage is on life support.  The reduction in payments to Medicare providers that was supposed to make Obamacare revenue neutral is proving to be the sham it was predicted to be.

So I'm offering this opportunity for Obama deficit hawk cheerleaders to man up and admit they had it wrong.

I don't know if you count me in the Obama deficit hawk cheerleader camp - I don't think I'm in it - but I expect that the response is that given the tough negotiation season ahead, some of those things were held back.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't know if you count me in the Obama deficit hawk cheerleader camp - I don't think I'm in it - but I expect that the response is that given the tough negotiation season ahead, some of those things were held back.

That's an explanation that has the disadvantage of being easily proved or disproved in the near term.

[Jacob]

That's an explanation that has the disadvantage of being easily proved or disproved in the near term.

I'd think that's an advantage.

[The Minsky Moment]

Are there any Obama deficit hawk cheerleaders here?  Who is this challenge supposed to be directed at?

[Admiral Yi]

Are there any Obama deficit hawk cheerleaders here?  Who is this challenge supposed to be directed at?

I'd prefer not to rely on my faulty memory on such a serious accusation.  They were definitely vocal during the first debt limit crisis.

[The Minsky Moment]

I fault Obama for being too hawkish.  The SS tax break repeal is premature and should have been kept another year.  I give it a pass because going full bore over the cliff would have been clearly worse.

[Admiral Yi]

And for the record I was not thinking of either of you, Joan and Yake.

[derspiess]

I fault Obama for being too hawkish.  The SS tax break repeal is premature and should have been kept another year.  I give it a pass because going full bore over the cliff would have been clearly worse.

There we go.

[Razgovory]

The article that came with it the table (from your favorite newsource!) said otherwise.

The deal cuts $737 billion from deficits over the coming decade, primarily through $618 billion of higher taxes on the rich and the resulting interest savings. But that barely dents the $10 trillion in deficits America was on track to accumulate in that time, roughly 5% of GDP on current policies, according to the Congressional Budget Office

So not much, but a little.

I think it's dishonest of The Economist to claim that making permanent tax cuts that were due to expire is deficit reduction.  They also appear to not be counting expenditure extensions, such as the unemployment benefits or the Medicare reimbursement rates.

Okay, so you should only use the part of their article that you like but the parts the contradict your argument are now "dishonest".  Tsk, tsk.  And you started off with talking about "intellectual integrity".

[Admiral Yi]

Okay, so you should only use the part of their article that you like but the parts the contradict your argument are now "dishonest".  Tsk, tsk.  And you started off with talking about "intellectual integrity".

For Christ's sakes Raz. 

[Razgovory]

Okay, so you should only use the part of their article that you like but the parts the contradict your argument are now "dishonest".  Tsk, tsk.  And you started off with talking about "intellectual integrity".

For Christ's sakes Raz.

In the future, don't use an article that contradicts your argument if you want to try get me with your "Gotcha" thing.

[Admiral Yi]

:shakeshead: