Fiscal Cliff

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

This is about pantomime politics - it's nothing to do with economics.

The fiscal cliff is very real. Even if agreement is reached now. Merely moves the problem a short period of time down the road.

Generali

I would never say "told you so" but I did tell you:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-01/senate-budget-pact-would-crimp-not-crush-u-s-growth.html

The budget deal passed by the Senate probably would crimp the U.S. economic recovery without stopping it.
The elimination of a 2 percent payroll tax cut, coupled with higher income taxes on the wealthy, will help reduce growth in the first quarter to 1 percent, from 3.1 percent in 2012’s third quarter, the latest data available, according to economists at JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Bank of America Corp. The expansion will strengthen later in the year as the housing market continues to rebound, they forecast.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6125fcaa-5395-11e2-bc9c-00144feab49a.html#axzz2GjHHjkD8 (needs registration)

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [EMAIL="ftsales.support@ft.com"]ftsales.support@ft.com[/EMAIL] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6125fcaa-5395-11e2-bc9c-00144feab49a.html#ixzz2GjHPxYUQ

The US Senate voted early on Tuesday morning to approve a bipartisan budget deal negotiated with the White House to avert the fiscal cliff after days of tense negotiations conducted in the shadow of the end-of-year deadline.

@ Thrugelmir - I agree with you, there are many very big fiscal challenges facing the US, mostly connected with old people and entitlements. Those same challenges look even worse in Europe IMHO.

lvader

It's just the senate that has agreed, the sentate is controlled by the democrats so was never going to be a problem. Now the republican controlled house needs to agree or send it back with requested changes. It is thought that if the house is allowed to vote there maybe enough moderate republicans that would vote it through with the democrats. It's not a done deal yet though.

StevieJ

And then there was the Republican House of Representatives?

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

I would never say "told you so" but I did tell you:

Bit premature old chap!

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

And then there was the Republican House of Representatives?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Bit premature old chap!

Maybe. It went through the Senate 89-8 or something which shows a high level of bipartisan support.

It is correct to say that the House could delay or prevent the passage of this bill. It seems unlikely with this level of support as why would a Republican Senator alienate a chunk of his party voting for a contentious bill that was unlikely to become law? I am using a working assumption that Republican Senators and House members talk to each other.

vivatifosi

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

It's probably somewhat more polarised than here, and the whole political spectrum is calibrated around a different centre point. But they have developed a similar dichotomy between those who believe that the state ultimately owes everyone an existence, and those who believe that individual responsibility and smaller government is the only way to proceed. A major party represents each group, and at major elections the voting is fairly even between the two. Sound familiar ?

Yes and no. I think the republicans also shoot themselves in the foot. Fiscal conservatism is one thing, but social conservatism is another. I have gay friends in the US who would be natural conservative voters here, but would never touch the Republican party due to its religious right and other slightly odd right-wing groups. Ironically the Republicans may pick more moderate candidates when it comes to election (well the last two anyway), but then the mudslinging starts.

Romney was actually quite a good, moderate middle-ground governor who initiated what's widely agreed to be the blueprint for Obamacare. Yet by the end of his campaign he was coming across as only slightly to the left of Genghis Khan. Madness. I'd so like these people to stick to their guns (possibly the wrong metaphor) rather than flipflopping all over the shop, but I guess they'd never get the candidacy that way.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

Yes and no. I think the republicans also shoot themselves in the foot. Fiscal conservatism is one thing, but social conservatism is another. I have gay friends in the US who would be natural conservative voters here, but would never touch the Republican party due to its religious right and other slightly odd right-wing groups. Ironically the Republicans may pick more moderate candidates when it comes to election (well the last two anyway), but then the mudslinging starts.

Romney was actually quite a good, moderate middle-ground governor who initiated what's widely agreed to be the blueprint for Obamacare. Yet by the end of his campaign he was coming across as only slightly to the left of Genghis Khan. Madness. I'd so like these people to stick to their guns (possibly the wrong metaphor) rather than flipflopping all over the shop, but I guess they'd never get the candidacy that way.

I find it incredible that a party of economic liberalism (in the older sense of the word - freedom) that basically trusts people to get on with their economic life can't find the same thing right for people's private lives.

If the state shouldn't interfere in the boardroom or gunroom (correctly IMHO) then why interfere in the bedroom? It's nuts.

Unfortunately you're right viva. There is no way to get the GOP nomination without carrying the nutters. What you have to say to connect to the GOP nutters alienates most decent Americans.

grizzly1911

vivatifosi wrote: »

slightly to the left of Genghis Khan. Madness. I'd so like these people to stick to their guns (possibly the wrong metaphor) rather than flipflopping all over the shop, but I guess they'd never get the candidacy that way.

For some reason I read this as Ghandi at the first pass, and thought how far left?:o

Guess they flip all over the place because they are politicians rather than statesmen.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Bit premature old chap!

It's gone through the House too.