Is that a fiscal cliff ahead in the distance?

[Jacob]

I was just been reading this (oldish) article: http://nymag.com/news/politics/elections-2012/obama-romney-economic-plans-2012-10/index3.html

Bipartisan agreement is not necessary to fix the debt. Nothing is necessary to fix the debt. It is as if the network of activists, wonks, business leaders, and Beltway elder statesmen who have devoted themselves to building cross-party support for a deficit deal have grown more attached to the means of bipartisanship than to the ends for which it was intended. The budget deficit is a legislatively solved problem. It is, indeed, an oversolved problem. In the absence of any agreement between the president and Congress, the deficit will shrink to less than one percent of the economy by 2018, and remain below that level through 2022. The budget deficit declines so sharply and so drastically, and in ways that neither party is entirely comfortable with, that the task for Washington is to pull back on deficit reduction.

It's not certain that Obama will have the fortitude to make it to January without surrendering to demands to cut a deal. He will have to endure a concerted persuasion campaign by the business lobby and the cries of the fiscal scolds, which will grow to a deafening volume by December. But if he does, Obama will have a stronger hand than he has had at any time before. On the eve of his inauguration, he will find himself holding the political high ground in the midst of a perceived economic crisis. He will demand that Republicans retreat on their refusal to increase taxes on the rich, and join him at the table.

How off is this? Or is it not relevant?

[Jacob]

Here's another more recent article on the same subject: http://www.slate.com/blogs/spitzer/2012/11/08/fiscal_cliff_and_tax_cuts_president_obama_shouldn_t_do_a_tax_deal_in_the.html

[crazy canuck]

The second article sets out the reason a deal with probably get done.  The Dems probably dont care much about the tax increases.  They care about the large spending cuts.  The Republicans probably dont care as much about the size of the spending cuts so long as there are some cuts.  They probably care most about what the tax increase will be.

Seems a good enviornment for compromise.


Also the first article and the second article disagree on the fundamental issue of whether the misnamed cliff is a bad thing in the long run.

[Agelastus]

I also thought Brown was a tank and the best man to be PM and Darling by some distance the most credible Chancellor. 

Brown was a terrible prime-minister and the worst chancellor we've ever had by a mile (I will admit my opinion on this is influenced by all the accountants in my family.)

On the other hand, to my own surprise, I've come to agree with you about Darling; the man was, and is, "sound".

I don't think I've ever flirted with the Tories

Aaaaaaaaaw...and here the above post was getting my hopes up.

I kind of like Clegg 

I feel sorry for Clegg - and contempt for about half of the people who voted LibDem at the last election (the same half who have abandoned him for doing what he had to do.)

Well tonight they were second in two of them.  In Rotherham the Lib Dems were in 8th place and the Tories were behind Labour, UKIP, the BNP and Respect

Yeah...seeing Respect and the BNP ahead of the LibDems can only be adequately expressed with the smiley...

I'm slightly worried at how avowedly populist UKIP is becoming; policy just seems like a collection of prejudices.

I found their manifesto to be the most sensible, attractive and resonant at the last election (although I voted Tory in the end.) However, since that was their first full manifesto it's difficult to see if it was a sign of politicial maturity or not; since the election they do seem to have reverted to more populist type in an attempt to garner votes in fairly meaningless by-elections, a mistake often made by newish minor parties.

I find it really, really mindboggling that the Tories have their most Eurosceptic PM ever, their most Eurosceptic Foreign Minister ever and want to renegotiate our membership, but it seems like the major problem the Tory grassroots have with their leadership is that they're too pro-European

The trouble is that none of the really Euro-sceptic Tories actually believe that he (Cameron) is a Euro-sceptic; he's a populist for whom professing Euro-Scepticism is an advantage at the moment. I also don't think the Euro-Sceptics believe that he has the "bottle" to go through with any of his statements; that he'll concede and sign a deal that includes more of a compromise than was strictly neccessary between his position and that of our European "partners". That's what history tells them will happen anyway.

Hague is, of course, a confirmed Euro-Sceptic. He is, however, also tarred by leadership and electoral failure, hence I suspect the grass roots don't credit him with having as much influence as he seems to have.

Indeed, Cameron tendency to policy making on the hoof, with an eye to what will look good in tomorrows papers is worrying, but then again that's was a major part of his previous 'profession'.

Yep. He's a populist, as I said. The sort of politician we need a few less of (it's a sad sign for a democracy when the time comes that most of your politicians have never done anything but politics - where's there connection to the 99%+ of their fellow citizens who are not politicians?)

The contrast with Cameron is one of the reasons that my respect for Ken Clarke has gone up over the past few years (despite my disagreement with many of his views.) At least with him what you see is what you get.

[Jacob]

Also the first article and the second article disagree on the fundamental issue of whether the misnamed cliff is a bad thing in the long run.

Yeah... I wonder what the consensus (hah!) is on languish.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah... I wonder what the consensus (hah!) is on languish.

I kinda agree with what Rattner said yesterday morning;  going over the cliff is the 2nd worst option, with the worst being doing nothing about any of it in the long run.

But what bothers me is that there are growing voices (on both sides) thinking that, well, maybe going over the cliff isn't so bad:  that sort of mentality means that bipartisan compromise towards a long-term solution is becoming less of a palatable option, which is a real shame.

Unfortunately, the House Republicans still don't believe in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, so there's no real need to work with him any more than there was during his first term;  they'll be happily returned to Washington by their gerrymandered Dumbfuckistani electorates regardless of what happens.  And just like I said during the deficit ceiling debate the summer before last, the GOP can play as many games as they want to with this situation, because whatever happens to the economy and regardless how much the GOP sandbags it all, it'll be the President saddled with the blame.  And that's fine by them.

[garbon]

But what bothers me is that there are growing voices (on both sides) thinking that, well, maybe going over the cliff isn't so bad:  that sort of mentality means that bipartisan compromise towards a long-term solution is becoming less of a palatable option, which is a real shame.

Yeah this is what strikes me as the danger of just allowing the automatic stuff to kick in.

[garbon]

Unfortunately, the House Republicans still don't believe in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, so there's no real need to work with him any more than there was during his first term;  they'll be happily returned to Washington by their gerrymandered Dumbfuckistani electorates regardless of what happens.  And just like I said during the deficit ceiling debate the summer before last, the GOP can play as many games as they want to with this situation, because whatever happens to the economy and regardless how much the GOP sandbags it all, it'll be the President saddled with the blame.  And that's fine by them.

I'll flip that around. Perhaps the Dems, anticipating this, should have caved and not re-elected a president that no one wants to play ball with.

[mongers]

Yeah... I wonder what the consensus (hah!) is on languish.

I kinda agree with what Rattner said yesterday morning;  going over the cliff is the 2nd worst option, with the worst being doing nothing about any of it in the long run.

But what bothers me is that there are growing voices (on both sides) thinking that, well, maybe going over the cliff isn't so bad:  that sort of mentality means that bipartisan compromise towards a long-term solution is becoming less of a palatable option, which is a real shame.

Unfortunately, the House Republicans still don't believe in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, so there's no real need to work with him any more than there was during his first term;  they'll be happily returned to Washington by their gerrymandered Dumbfuckistani electorates regardless of what happens.  And just like I said during the deficit ceiling debate the summer before last, the GOP can play as many games as they want to with this situation, because whatever happens to the economy and regardless how much the GOP sandbags it all, it'll be the President saddled with the blame.  And that's fine by them.

Well with the Benghazi Carseygate buried in the sand going nowhere, they have to attack him with something, so why not use the American economy as a blunt force instrument.

Think of it as economic warfare in a very civil war, where one side can't be assed to outline it's position, write a declaration/manifesto and can't man the barricades as it clashes with Saturday morning's 18 holes at the country-club.   

[mongers]

Unfortunately, the House Republicans still don't believe in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, so there's no real need to work with him any more than there was during his first term;  they'll be happily returned to Washington by their gerrymandered Dumbfuckistani electorates regardless of what happens.  And just like I said during the deficit ceiling debate the summer before last, the GOP can play as many games as they want to with this situation, because whatever happens to the economy and regardless how much the GOP sandbags it all, it'll be the President saddled with the blame.  And that's fine by them.

I'll flip that around. Perhaps the Dems, anticipating this, should have caved and not re-elected a president that no one wants to play ball with.

You're suggesting the democrats should have elected a republican.

[garbon]

Yeah... I wonder what the consensus (hah!) is on languish.

I kinda agree with what Rattner said yesterday morning;  going over the cliff is the 2nd worst option, with the worst being doing nothing about any of it in the long run.

But what bothers me is that there are growing voices (on both sides) thinking that, well, maybe going over the cliff isn't so bad:  that sort of mentality means that bipartisan compromise towards a long-term solution is becoming less of a palatable option, which is a real shame.

Unfortunately, the House Republicans still don't believe in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, so there's no real need to work with him any more than there was during his first term;  they'll be happily returned to Washington by their gerrymandered Dumbfuckistani electorates regardless of what happens.  And just like I said during the deficit ceiling debate the summer before last, the GOP can play as many games as they want to with this situation, because whatever happens to the economy and regardless how much the GOP sandbags it all, it'll be the President saddled with the blame.  And that's fine by them.

Well with the Benghazi Carseygate buried in the sand going nowhere, they have to attack him with something, so why not use the American economy as a blunt force instrument.

Think of it as economic warfare in a very civil war, where one side can't be assed to outline it's position, write a declaration/manifesto and can't man the barricades as it clashes with Saturday morning's 18 holes at the country-club.   

I guess that's a form of ridiculous analysis that could be made.

[garbon]

Unfortunately, the House Republicans still don't believe in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, so there's no real need to work with him any more than there was during his first term;  they'll be happily returned to Washington by their gerrymandered Dumbfuckistani electorates regardless of what happens.  And just like I said during the deficit ceiling debate the summer before last, the GOP can play as many games as they want to with this situation, because whatever happens to the economy and regardless how much the GOP sandbags it all, it'll be the President saddled with the blame.  And that's fine by them.

I'll flip that around. Perhaps the Dems, anticipating this, should have caved and not re-elected a president that no one wants to play ball with.

You're suggesting the democrats should have elected a republican.

I'm just suggesting that if was apparent what Dumbfuckistani electorates were going to do - perhaps Dems should have been more pragmatic.

[MadImmortalMan]

I have seen noone claim Obama's presidency is not legitimate. Nobody sane, anyway. And yes there are plenty of sane Republicans.

[Admiral Yi]

I have seen noone claim Obama's presidency is not legitimate. Nobody sane, anyway. And yes there are plenty of sane Republicans.

Seedy is using legitimacy as a proxy for mandate.  Or he's confusing the two.

Which is strange, given that the GOP to my eyes has very much been acting as if Obama has a mandate on raising taxes on the rich.

[Jacob]

I guess that's a form of ridiculous analysis that could be made.

Less ridiculous than your preceding post