The Fiscal Cliff? Let's Rush Off Of It (The choice is recession now, or recession later)

RCM ^ | 11/26/2012 | Jeffrey Dorfman

[SeekAndFind]

Washington, the media, and many economists are consumed by the looming fiscal cliff-a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that are set to occur on January 1. Many economists, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke among them, predict that if we go over the fiscal cliff the country will go into recession. I say let's do it.

In fact, we should take more action to cut the deficit than the fiscal cliff will accomplish. The fiscal cliff would reduce the current federal deficit by less than one-third, still larger than any deficit ever run by a president not named Barack Obama. The spending cuts would be only around $100 billion per year with tax increases being larger, in the $200-300 billion range.

Take the end of President Clinton's term as the point of comparison since the budget was balanced. Annual federal spending was $1.94 trillion, revenue was $2.10 trillion. Adjusting for inflation and population growth since the start of 2001, today's equivalents would be $2.77 trillion in spending and $3.00 trillion in revenue. That would be a nice budget surplus of $230 billion.

So where did it go? Was it the Bush tax cuts? The Obama stimulus? The recession? Yes, yes, and yes; but the blame is not shared equally.

Today the federal government is collecting $2.67 trillion in revenue ($330 billion short of the Clinton-equivalent) and is spending $3.76 trillion. Yes, that's right; we are spending $987 billion more than if we increased the last Clinton budget for inflation and population growth. It sure looks to me like spending is the main culprit.

The fiscal cliff would raise taxes by enough to replace much or all the missing revenue, but would only eliminate about 10 percent of the new spending. We need to get serious about spending cuts.

[SeekAndFind]

The warnings that the fiscal cliff will cause a recession are delivered as if the government can decide whether or not we have a recession. In fact, the government does not have that power, or we would never have recessions. At the most, the government can influence when, not if, we have a recession.

W e will most likely undergo a recession when we wean ourselves off the unsustainable deficit spending of the last four years. The choice is not recession or no recession. The choice is recession now or recession later.

[Obadiah]

Hit the gas pedal and go off the cliff! Give Obama what he wants. Let the place burn to the ground! This is the government people wanted, give it to them.

[MrB]

Be prepared, though...
if you own ANYTHING, and/or are lighter than a brown paper bag,

you will be blamed for the hardship that follows a fiscal collapse.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Today the federal government is collecting $2.67 trillion in revenue ($330 billion short of the Clinton-equivalent) and is spending $3.76 trillion. Yes, that's right; we are spending $987 billion more than if we increased the last Clinton budget for inflation and population growth. It sure looks to me like spending is the main culprit.
The fiscal cliff would raise taxes by enough to replace much or all the missing revenue, but would only eliminate about 10 percent of the new spending. We need to get serious about spending cuts.
The warnings that the fiscal cliff will cause a recession are delivered as if the government can decide whether or not we have a recession. In fact, the government does not have that power, or we would never have recessions. At the most, the government can influence when, not if, we have a recession.
We will most likely undergo a recession when we wean ourselves off the unsustainable deficit spending of the last four years. The choice is not recession or no recession. The choice is recession now or recession later.”

Exactly!

Ironically Republicans seem to be the ones demanding that the automatic spending cuts be repealed, the same cuts that the Bohner House passed last year's 2011 August. This just gives Dems even more leverage.

The idea that reducing the deficit NOW is a destructive ideabut will painless LATER is just a typical ploy of the elected.

[douginthearmy]

Uhm, I just wonder how many people realize that “averting” the fiscal cliff will actually mean a larger debt.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Barky owns it.

[kenmcg]

Have no fear the spineless pubbies will bail out the RATS by agreeing to tax hikes and will get no concessions on spending. This country needs to go over the so-called fiscal cliff to induce a much needed case of diahrea.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Once our “representatives” run for a second, third or more terms, they lose track of why we sent them to Washington...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

We went past the point of no return a long time ago.

The sooner we have the inevitable train wreck, the sooner we can start picking up the pieces.

After we properly deal with the traitors who caused the train wreck, of course.

[molson209]

The fiscal cliff is doing just what the Dems designed it to do ,they have the GOP running around going Blah Blah , AHHHHHHHHH ,while the Dems just sit back and LAUGH . The Dems want taxes to go up on everyone ,so they can blame the whole mess on the GOP

[stephenjohnbanker]

The Republicowards should not give Obama ANYTHING. Let Obama wallow in his own vomit. Of course, Boehner will cave.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The Republicowards should not give Obama ANYTHING. Let Obama wallow in his own vomit. Of course, Boehner will cave.”

Republicans have lost the debate on taxes for the time being. Republicans will see the polls and then cave just as they did last year, and NO they wont believe Morris or Rove when they say that everyone is on their side.
I thought Rs were losing on taxes (to voters)before but Romney made cutting taxes his #1 campaign issue (and almost his only one) against O and look how that turned out in the election .

Now the Rs only know repeating their pre-election talking points and then caving again. And the caving is where they will go again.

I really think a surprise devious move is necessary but it must be played correctly.
A different strategy here at #8, don't save Obama.

Over on the Dem channel a number of them are saying that they are worried that Obama will give in something on entitlements.
Even if this is true, I see little positive in that. I see little positive in what Rs are doing.