They are politicians and it's political suicide to raise taxes on the middle class. Same reasons GOPers vote for all sorts of added spending.
Yes and no. They pushed the sequester out for two months, but the sequester was about $100B / yr. The taxes are resolved permanently, and they were $500B / yr. So from a "cliff" perspective, the sequester is a fairly minor piece of the puzzle. At the end of the day, if the sequester happens, it's not going to really affect anything - the only "fix" will be changing where the $100B / yr comes from rather than the total amount.
You know the Republicans are going to end up asking for a flesh pound more spending cuts than that. The sequester isn't huge numerically, but it could be devastating for specific sectors and services. http://www.businessinsider.com/10-d...at-people-are-afraid-will-happen-2012-12?op=1 Also, I'm pretty sure given the $400,000/$250,000 tax compromise, more cuts will be required to bridge the difference.
Resolving the sequester has never been about increasing the cuts - the top line number was decided back in 2011. It was always about trying to find different cuts to enact. I agree in terms of the specific impacts - I'm more referring to the overall net effect because *something* will get cut. The debt ceiling fight, though, is a different story. There, you're certainly right that the GOP will put up a stand. It sounds like Biden promised unhappy Dems that Obama will demand more revenues in exchange for cuts there, but we'll see what happens there. Given that Dems are pissed that they had to vote for this deal, and the GOP is even more livid about the deal, the debt fight seems like it's going to be uglier than the 2011 disaster. No one at all seems like they'll be in a mood to compromise. How the filibuster gets changed may be a big piece of the puzzle here, because significant reform + having 55 Dems in the Senate could neuter McConnell to some extent.
Hmm. Hopefully. That said, I think the House is the big problem here. The Senate seems like it could come together (that 89-9 vote line was pretty damn good in my eyes). The House to me seems to be where extremists can hold this whole thing up, and sink everything to hell. don't think there's much to do for that except to wait it out for 2014.
The debt ceiling is going to be a b**** to deal with. Obama should have insisted that any deal about "The Cliff" include taking care of the debt ceiling. He mentioned it, mentioned wanting to do that, but he didn't stick to his guns. That's a mistake. We'll go through a bunch of crap again in two months that will damage our credit rating and have a negative affect on the markets, IMO, thanks to the stupid GOP's extremists. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Oh I agree that the House will be the key. But just having fewer players makes it a bit easier because at least Dems can pass something in the Senate so there can be a unified "Dem" bill to match up with the House GOP bill. Sadly, it's not even 2014. Redistricting has made it virtually impossible for Dems to control the House - you'd need a landslide Democrat election, which doesn't seem likely anytime soon. As an example, Dems won over a million more votes this year in House elections than the GOP, but they still control the House comfortably. Plus, midterms favor the GOP because their voters (white, older, etc) come out much more than the Dem voters. GOP probably controls the House for the near future. The House probably is in the hands of the GOP until 2022 at the earliest.
Whoops - meant to delete this. This would be my best guess simply because a Dem win in 2020 could open the door to fixing the redistricting disadvantage. But a landslide in 2016 or 2020 could open the door earlier.
Commodore brings up a good point---if tax increases had extended to the $250,000 income level, the scale of that would have been much greater. time to wait for exponential growth to kick in around mid-2013, if current debt trends hold, and debt delveraging holds constant (never an easy bet).
One account of the past month. Sociopath blooper reel. http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2013/01/the_cliff_deal_that_almost_was.html
You do realize that your graph clearly shows exactly what I said, right? During the period in the graph when taxes were raised under Bush the elder and Clinton, revenues increased.
Was there ever any doubt that this would not be the end of the world? #Y2k #MayanCalendar Rocket River Woke up this morning . . no significant difference than yesterday
I am not surprised at all that they only put in a partial fix and pushed off many issues down the road.
Can somebody explain to me the possible rationale of Republicans being in favor of a payroll tax increase other than to spite the middle class & working poor? It makes no logical sense otherwise - they oppose every tax increase in the universe, yet they are in favor of what amounts ot about a 50% raise of the most regressive tax on the books - IMMEDIATELY.
The chart doesn't show whether revenue increased or decreased so that would be impossible. It shows revenue as a percent of GDP.
