In today's edition of "Off the Cliff" news, both President Obama and Mitt Romney laid out their respective economic visions in dueling stump speeches this afternoon. Their talk of America's economic future could not come at a more appropriate time.
A new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office details exactly what going off the fiscal cliff would mean. Spoiler alert: recession!! (If you need a refresher on what going off the cliff entails, please to read this.)
The report states if we went off the cliff and stayed off the cliff, "Such fiscal tightening will lead to economic conditions in 2013 that will probably be considered a recession."
If you really want to go crazy with all 89 wonktastic pages of the report, it can be found in its entirety here. But what the CBO's analysis seeks to do is lay out the different sets of probable consequences of going off the cliff versus what the report calls "an alternative fiscal scenario." What's the difference?
I leave that to wonkier folk than myself. From the Wall Street Journal:
The CBO painted two starkly difference scenarios for next year, depending on what path lawmakers decide to take.
Under current law, the Bush-era tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of this year, raising tax rates on more than 100 million Americans.
These tax increases, combined with roughly $100 billion in planned spending cuts on military and other government programs, would reduce projected deficits from $1.13 trillion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 to $641 billion for the year that ends Sept. 30, 2013.
That would reduce the deficit from roughly 7.3% of the nation's gross domestic product to roughly 4.0% of GDP, the CBO said, the largest one-year reduction since 1969...
If Congress were to postpone the tax increases and spending cuts, the deficit would shrink just slightly in the next fiscal year, to $1.037 trillion, or 6.5% of GDP.
If nothing changes (as in we go off and stay off the cliff), the CBO states "real GDP (will decline) by 0.5 percent between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2013 and the unemployment rate (will rise) to about 9 percent in the second half of calendar year 2013."
That's bad.
Under the CBO's "alternate fiscal scenario" as explained above the CBO report explains, "The economy would be stronger in 2013: Real GDP would grow by 1.7 percent between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2013, and the unemployment rate would be about 8 percent by the end of 2013, CBO projects."
That's better.
What will make the difference? Yeah, the CBO answered that question in its report, too. Buried in there is a big fat one sentence economic truth bomb.
"Whether lawmakers allow scheduled policy changes to take effect or alter them will play a crucial role in determining the path of the federal budget over the next decade and the outlook for the economy."
Oh... and if the Off the Cliff movement needs a theme song (and what good movement doesn't?), I suggest this:
EMI Music/YouTube
Leave a Comment:
HOME SALES TAX - BEGINS 2013
When does your home become part of your health care? After 2012!
Your vote counts big time in 2012, make sure you and all your friends and family know about this!
HOME SALES TAX I thought you might find this ...
interesting.The National Association of Realtors is all over this and working to get it repealed, -- before it takes effect. But, I am very pleased we aren't the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners. How many realtors do you think will vote Democratic in 2012? Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It's in the health care bill, -- and it goes into effect in 2013. Why 2013? Could it be so that it doesn't come to light until after the 2012 elections? So, this is 'Obama change you can believe in'? Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% sales tax. If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation, -- who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November, 2012 vote more important? Oh, you weren't aware that this was in the ObamaCare bill? Guess what; you aren't alone! There are more than a few members of Congress that weren't aware of it either. You can check this out for yourself at:www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home
Meto999: Why don't you share the facts rather than your lack of understanding??? ()
Hey metoo..you're fibbing in your #1 post. This Republican email falsehood was disproven quite a while ago. Read the following to educate yourself a bit, as you evidently don't get out to much to see what's going on.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/
http://factcheck.org/2012/04/realtors-the-3-8-sales-tax-and-247-medicare-premiums/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/chain-email/3-8-percent-tax-real-estate-transactions-health-ca/
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/article/2012/jul/26/debunking-chain-emails-claim-health-reform/
There's more, but take all the time you may need to wade through these, metoo...your lie isn't going anywhere but down. Anyone with a bit of smarts, looking at the name of the link you provided, should be able to see where this fabrication originated. Your childish attempt at deflection is duly noted.
Do you have any more fables to spin, Aesop? Or is "troll" a better name for you?
Nice catch you guys...
I'm working on a piece of science stuff and the DNA of such perpetrators...
Do you think the new designation should be Teabot or Teabought?
There will also be that tax applied to the proceeds of the sale of stock, or a bond that leads to a capital gain: all to support ObamaCare.
And there will be a new payroll tax (formerly just Medicare and Social Security taxes were considered payroll taxes) to help finance ObamaCare also.
And is all on top of the penaltys (now taxes) being assessed individuals and employers who don't toe the line of mandted purchasing the proscribed expensive, bells and whistles one size fits all Washington, D.C. designed Health Insurance policies on federal or forced state insurance markets. And on top of the raiding of $716 billion of Medicare Trust Funds over the next 10 years to pay for this experiment and Washington, D.C. designed ObamaCare.
I can hardly keep from laughing as I write this, but I'll ask you to (shuckle-chuckle) prove your statement about "that tax". I'm not expecting anything in the way of corroboration from you about this mind you, but I thought I'd take a flyer.
Still regurgitating the Romney/Ryan lie about that $716B, eh? You should back away from the keyboard once in a while and get some fresh air. You wear "stale" all too comfortably, it appears.
Have you ever considered stand-up comedy? No? Just as well...
You deny that there is a 3.8% surtax on Capital Gains included in the (Un)affordable Care Act? Better tell the Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Bloomberg Business News, and Baron's magazine that have been advising investors in real estate and stocks and bonds to take their capital gains this year, or pay that tax next year if ObamaCare is still alive and well into 2013 after this election, Eyes Wide Shut. And if you don't believe that in your ignorance, its your job to go find any evidence that disproves that statement. Good luck with that, fool!
You're twisting the argument to suit yourself, but it won't work. The sources I provided refute the comments made in post #1, nothing more, nothing less.
Cite some actual sources of which you speak or continue being known as a tool and a fool. Oh...can't do that, can you? (shock)
Tip for you...you can't find what doesn't exist. You must really like the feeling of a flat forehead...the one you get when you keep banging your head into a wall as you continually seem to do.
Hmmm...wonder what "860" stands for...
Meto999 You should be so embarrassed......but that probably isn't in your dna.
This is a viral e-mail that has been going around since the Health Care Act was passed and been DEBUNKED over and over by mythbuster, snopes, factcheck etc etc.
Are you saying there is not an additional 3.8% capital gains tax assesed solely for the purpose of supporting ObamaCare, liberals? Please...show us! Comon eyes Wide Shut..come on Cab Driver. Show us that the (Un)affordable Care Act does not include the provision of a 3.8% additional capital gains tax solely for the purpose of supporting ObamaCare.
Unfortunately for you, "Liar" Longey, the same rules still apply...you make the accusation, you prove it. And no, I won't do your "work" (chortle, snicker) for you...watching you squirm is a comedy act just too highly entertaining to miss.
One would think you'd get so tired of losing that argument and seeing all your straw man arguments incinerated, but, as I've come to realize, that's simply...you.
Besides, the idiotic post in question (from someone other than you, for a change), was a bogus story about a 3.8% tax on HOME SALES.
Missed that little factoid in your blatant inept attempt at childish deflection...yet again, didn't you?
Hmmm...'sposed to be a high of about 86 degrees with a small chance of precip in your neck of the woods today, I hear.
Don't you wish you had an accuracy rating anywhere near that temperature?
The sale of a home may still yield a capital gain in some, if not most cases after the housing bubble burst. There are parts of the country where primnary residences and second homes and investment and rental properites are still valued higher than what they were say 10 years ago, Eyes Wide Shut. Did you not realize that the 3.8%was a capital gains surtax over an above the 15% capital gains tax presently applied, and soon to go to 20% if the 2003 tax cuts aren't extended before Jan, 2013?
Then why don't you just trot out some irrefutable proof of what you say? Oh...can't do that, can you? You long ago passed the point of believability because you never back up anything you say with actual facts that support them.
You're grasping to make an argument out of the much-debunked GOP claim specified in post #1.
You've got nothing...as usual. Must really suck to be you...
Meto999,
Figures you would get info from a GOP blog instead of hard facts. He wasn't President yet according to the date of the so called blog!!!!
Getting back to the theme of this post topic...the CBO's startling (to some) realization that the intended course of action by the Democrats in the Senate to take this nation over the Fiscal Cliff of tax hikes (income, dividend and capital gains) for all and an outsized across the board spending reduction in the sequestration provision (which will seriouly harm our nations Defense capabilities facing an increasingly troubled world as we are)...all because they want to extend the tax cuts of 2001 for the "middle class", but not the tax cuts of 2003 for the upper Middle Class and so called "rich" or investor class in our nation. In other words, like some juveniles, they are a minority in Government who if they can't set the rules, they will take their bat and ball and sit out the Washington D.C. game of getting the nation's moribund economy growing again and resolve our disaterous fiscal situation.
Remember that when you go to the polls in November.
Thanks Keith, I will do that very thing...that should just about be the iceberg the Romney/Ryan ship is sailing towards at full speed.
Romney/Ryan Plan is to reform the tax code to do away with preferential deductions and tax credits (mostly for the well to do and corporations) and flaten the rates to a 10% and 25% two tier rate in this country. That is estimated to be revenue neutral, but with lower corporate and small business tax rates, will spur economic growth in the private sector, leading to higher employment, and hence higher tax revenues. This has the course of action of Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, Democrat and Republican Presidents before.
Obama and the Senate Democrats plan is to extend the 2001 tax cuts for the working an middleclass, but raise the taxes on upper middleclass wage and salary earners (which would include 15% of small businesses), and the capital gains and dividend taxes would also be raised to pull more out of the private sector and from the investor class (which includes pension funds, union funds, college and university endowments, hospital endowments, and non-profit endowmenents. The purpose of the higher taxes would not be to lower deficit spending, but rather to have more money from taken from a spiraling downward private sector to "invest" in government urged companies in green energy, boondogle "non shovel ready projects", and shoring up state and local public unions with moneys for all those extra, unneccessary holdover public employees from the fattened tax revenue days of the housing market bubble still on the rolls after the $800 billion stimulus spending of 2009 sent the largest portion of its deficit spending out to the states for that purpose.
So you make the choice...what has failed in the recent past, or what has succeeded before.
Still believe in that old Republican "trickle down" fable, eh? Hasn't worked yet or we should have enjoyed record job growth ever since Bush II first enacted the cuts. But...strangely...that didn't happen in the 7 years of the reign of Bush.
It appears you're plagiarizing somebody else...again.
That's all-too-easy enough to see, given your track record with truth.
5.6% average Unemloyment Rate under Bush's 8 years, and the highest rate 6.3% in Dec, 2008.
8.7% average Unemployment Rate under Obama's going on 4 years, with the highest rate in 2010 at 10%.
Average family income down $4,500 since the end of the Bush Administration under Obama's anti business rhetoric, excessive regualtions, disasterous fiscal policies and energy policies, and threats to raise taxes.
So you do the math!