The Fiscal Cliff Poll

[CountDeMoney]

There are two ways to do that: reduce spending and increase revenue.

That's really just one way, not two.  Unfortunately, not everybody sees that.

[Admiral Yi]

wut?

[CountDeMoney]

wut?

You wrote there's two ways to do it;  I say, you can't have one without the other.  Need 'em both.  Which makes them one, like a Reese's Cup of Economic Love.

I'm still working through my first cup of coffee and cigarette.

[Razgovory]

No, I don't see how extending the tax cuts could concievably be hawkish.

Well, if you don't remember, you don't remember.  And now that I've refreshed your memory by telling you I've been arguing for letting the tax cuts lapse since 2010, you can choose to believe me or not.

You could cut all spending.  Then extending the tax cuts would be part of the hawkish program.  Not realistic, but we already discussed the Ryan plan so I was thinking that fantasy was on the table.

[Sheilbh]

Too soon to tell.  If Europe's largely resolved their crisis and China's okay then I think you should let them expire, if not extend them.

[CountDeMoney]

By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Natalie Cucchiara

*** Battling over the Bush tax cuts (again): The last time we left you on this topic was back in late 2010, when President Obama agreed to temporarily extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all income groups -- including the wealthy -- which he had campaigned against in '08. That move disappointed his base, but it also won him GOP concessions (on payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance), and it paved the way to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and approve the New START treaty. But the president vowed not to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy at the end of 2012, when he would have more leverage (because it would be after his re-election bid). "When they expire in two years, I will fight to end them," he said at a Dec. 7, 2010 press conference. And today, Obama makes his first chess move in this new tax-cut battle: At a White House press conference at 11:50 am ET, the president will call for a one-year extension of the tax cuts for ONLY those making less than $250,000. House Republicans, the New York Times notes, plan a vote later this month to extend the tax cuts for ALL income groups.

** Obama's opportunity and challenge: For Obama, today's move allows him to change the subject after Friday's weak jobs report. Perhaps more importantly, it enables him to draw a contrast with the Republicans and Mitt Romney, who just yesterday was raising money from wealthy folks in the Hamptons and who had spent his July 4 vacation at his New Hampshire lake house. But this is also dangerous ground for the president. We've been down this road before, and Obama has already caved once. The reason: Unlike Republicans, Democrats aren't unified on this issue. Some of them want the threshold to be $1 million; others are open to extending them TEMPORARILY for the wealthy. This time around, Obama has much more leverage -- with the expiration coming after the election -- but he still faces the situation where not all Democrats are unified. Here's what we're watching for today: Does he draw a line in the sand that he would VETO any legislation that extends all of the tax cuts? He's said before he opposes extending them for those making more than $250,000. He said in 2008 and in 2010 and yet he extended ALL of them in 2010. But what does he say this time?

*** Have the Bush tax cuts worked? Here's an entirely different question: Have these tax cuts worked? Have they promoted economic growth? Have they created lots of jobs? The Bush-era tax cuts have been in existence for 11 years now. During that time period, George W. Bush presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades; the Great Recession took place; and job creation during Obama's presidency has been lackluster. In this renewed debate over the Bush tax cuts, we're going to hear Republicans claim that not extending them -- especially for the wealthy -- will hurt the economy. And we'll hear the same from Obama when it comes to extending them for the middle class. But what evidence is there that these tax cuts have truly benefited the U.S. economy? This is one of these accepted pieces of conventional wisdom that doesn't get much study on the policy front because, politically, it's so lethal.

[MadImmortalMan]

I think Obi Wan Bernanke should quantitatively ease away all our mortgages.

[Iormlund]

He might as well do the same with ours while he's at it.

[Neil]

Once again, Obama proves that he is stupid and cowardly, while the Republicans prove themselves just really, really stupid.  Then again, I suppose Obama's stupidty is derived from the American people.  The cowardice is all his own though.

[CountDeMoney]

Once again, Obama proves that he is stupid and cowardly, while the Republicans prove themselves just really, really stupid.  Then again, I suppose Obama's stupidty is derived from the American people.  The cowardice is all his own though.

The $250,000+ crowd of "job creators" have had their tax cuts for 11 years.  And guess what: there ain't no fucking jobs being created by the Ed Angers, so it's time to go back to 1999 and bring back a revenue stream.

[Neil]

Once again, Obama proves that he is stupid and cowardly, while the Republicans prove themselves just really, really stupid.  Then again, I suppose Obama's stupidty is derived from the American people.  The cowardice is all his own though.

The $250,000+ crowd of "job creators" have had their tax cuts for 11 years.  And guess what: there ain't no fucking jobs being created by the Ed Angers, so it's time to go back to 1999 and bring back a revenue stream.

Yeah, but the consumers have also had their tax cuts for 11 years, and the only thing they did with their money was melt down the housing market.  So fuck 'em, raise taxes on everybody.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, but the consumers have also had their tax cuts for 11 years, and the only thing they did with their money was melt down the housing market.  So fuck 'em, raise taxes on everybody.

Yes, because consumers approved their own mortgages and subsequently bundled them into credit default swaps.   

  Douche.

[The Minsky Moment]

I must say I'm very pleased with the poll results.  Good on ya Languish.

You did partially game the poll.
No self-respecting Keynsian would have designed tax legislation a la Bush 01/03 and there isn't any place in poll for a true Keynsian position.

However, I forgive you because even if the labelling is misleading, you accurately describe what unfortunately are the only likely viable options.  And of those, full extension is the least worst option.

[Neil]

Yeah, but the consumers have also had their tax cuts for 11 years, and the only thing they did with their money was melt down the housing market.  So fuck 'em, raise taxes on everybody.

Yes, because consumers approved their own mortgages and subsequently bundled them into credit default swaps.   

  Douche.

The consumers overinflated the market.  Sure, once again part of that is the fault of predatory lenders, and the federal government is also blame with their mortgage interest tax deduction, but the consumers were the ones paying half a million dollars for a bungalow in Las Vegas or Phoenix.  The mortgages and CDSes might have melted down the economy as a whole, but the inflation of the housing market was the fault of the consumers.  In fact, they rejoiced as their property values went up and they took out home equity lines of credit.

See, your problem is that you think of everything in terms of politics and class warfare.  And that you buy wargames that never come out of the shrink wrap.

[CountDeMoney]

See, your problem is that you think of everything in terms of politics and class warfare.  And that you buy wargames that never come out of the shrink wrap.

  They do so come out of the shrink wrap.

Douche.