So...what's going to happen?

[OldArmy]

And who owns it when there is no deal made?

Seems like we have an intransigent administration that has to have new taxes but won't put forth their notions of the other side of the equation--spending cuts. And since the Republicans don't want to be forever painted as the ones who chopped entitlement programs, they don't want to jump first. Who will blink first? Will we just go ahead and crash the system and see what happens?

[Fox128i]

Irresistible force, meet the immovable object. Both side are going to have to give ground.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Problem is, it seems Obama wants the right to give ground on their principles right now as far as tax increases go, and then the left will agree to some vague, unspecified cuts to some entitlements at some later date. That's hardly meeting in the middle, or even negotiating transparently in good faith.

If I was selling you food, and I said you give me $100 today, and I will give you some undefined amount of food at some later date, would you go for that unless the terms were more explicit ? Of course not.

Perhaps if the Democrats had regained control of the house last month, then there might be an argument that he has the mandate of the people to push legislation thru, but since that didnt happen, he has to stop acting like it did happen.

They want the Republicans to move on tax cuts, OK fine, then specify exactly what entitlements will be cut by how much, and when, and link it with tax increases so that everyone knows what will happen, and when. Basically, guarantee that one cannot happen without the other.

Until there is more clarity on what each side is willing to do to meet in the middle, I can't see much movement.

[gary88]

The sequester will kick in, democrats will propose a bill that cuts taxes for everyone except those making $250k+, then if the GOP votes against that it'll really look bad for them.

[OldArmy]

Well, as we near the end of this just plain wonderful year, I think the endgame is shaping up enough to make the call.

Republicans have to be realizing the direction of the country. It will be years before they can even hope to grab both sides of congress, much less the presidency. More likely they will get blamed for whatever goes down so their stock price probably isn't going up. Sooooo...perhaps the fatalists will see that crashing the car into the abutment is really the only way to effect change. Here we go---I predict no deal on the fiscal cliff but the real fight will occur when they deny the prince any growth in the debt ceiling and he tries to do it by fiat. And oh yeah, sequester actually hits.

Yup, logic says nothing to lose, why not go ahead and bring this all to a crash? For the republicans the old saying applies "I didn't say you were at fault, I said I was going to blame you!"

[elistan]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Problem is, it seems Obama wants the right to give ground on their principles right now as far as tax increases go, and then the left will agree to some vague, unspecified cuts to some entitlements at some later date. That's hardly meeting in the middle, or even negotiating transparently in good faith.

Problem is, it seems Boehner wants the left to give ground on their principles right now as far as spending cuts go, and then the right will agree to some vague, unspecified revenue increases at some later date. That's hardly meeting in the middle, or even negotiating transparently in good faith.

Whichever statement somebody agrees with probably has more to do with which news outlets they pay attention to, rather than anything to do with reality.

It's actually somewhat difficult to find the ACTUAL proposals that are being floated by both sides. I was able to find the Administration's proposal for a 2013 budget - http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/overview It includes a 205 page PDF detailing "Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings." It even gets to the detail of stating the Alaska Conveyance Program gets cut from $29 million to $17 million.

My searches for Boehner's proposals only turn up news and opinion articles about them, rather than the actual text of a proposal, so it's hard to make any judgment about them.

Update: I have found some references to the House passing a Budget Resolution, which I surmise is their cliff proposal. Gah. I hate reading though such legalese. It only has a passing resemblance to US English. Maybe I'll take a stab at reading it later on, if I'm bored, and if I can find any place that has the actual text of the bill.

[OldArmy]

My concern is that even if the Speaker wants to make a deal sufficient (conservative/tea party) members will revolt which will keep him from being able to deliver the house. Then things will get real interesting.

[Fox128i]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

My concern is that even if the Speaker wants to make a deal sufficient (conservative/tea party) members will revolt which will keep him from being able to deliver the house. Then things will get real interesting.

You might be on to something there. Hope not, but it's a distinct possibility.

[M3Denver]

When we go over the cliff taxes are increased on everyone no?
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17907791

Increase in taxes by 500 billion in 2013 alone, this sounds like something both parties are willing to go over a cliff for. I have no doubt both parties are simply putting on a dog and pony show blaming each other for the stalled negotiations to keep some face for both sides.

Then go over the cliff ... If we can sustain it then in 10 years that's 5 trillion the government will spend and get more ppl on government programs and probably not put towards any towards decreasing what we owe. However still won't fix the inflation we should be experiencing due to our liquidity issues.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by Fox128i

You might be on to something there. Hope not, but it's a distinct possibility.

Looks like the night of the long knives is about to happen. If they "no-confidence" Boehner it's the end of a deal. The republicans will not be able to bring together enough votes to make a deal happen. I'd say the odds are going up, not for a definitive rejection of a deal but for a collapse leading to inaction.

And of course one can't assume the dems will all get in line either. We haven't heard from the left yet.

Key the sound of screeching tires, breaking glass.

Of course Day One of cliff diving nothing actually happens that can't be undone. I'm waiting for the debt ceiling mud wrestling to start.

[bosstones]

Compromise is achievable, but I think only if there is more concession on the debt ceiling issue. The striking down of Plan B was a major blow both to negotiations and the GOP. As bad a spot as the GOP was in before, they are digging that hole so much deeper. Perhaps I am not well read on everything going on with this, but the Dems really need to flex on their stance over the debt ceiling. If these cuts are in place to reduce spend and debt, why would the debt ceiling get raised? It's kind of like deciding on what to use to fill a bucket that has a hole in it, but, at the same time, arguing for a bigger hole.

[reelop19]

You know what baffles me? Even in a forum where nice cars would seemingly be owned by the more intelligent class of people the obvious still escapes you all and you end up having the conversation that everyone in DC wants you to have. Now, what if we all pretended for a minute that we were not mindless drones and realized the real issue here. THERE HAS BEEN NO BUDGET FOR 4 YEARS!!! Was the caps too much? You intelligent young gentlemen must understand that without a budget, there is a crisis every few months. Has nobody noticed this? Who cares about the fiscal cliff and the band aide they will put on it when we are just going to have another crisis in March or April. You speak with your vote people

[OldArmy]

Ok, time for updated prediction, getting down to the wire. If they can't work out something then the administration will be forced to allow agency planned focused cuts rather than across the board. Defense can manage it if that happens and won't have to furlough or lay off workers. And if that happens then, well, nothing happens--much ado about nothing.

[Team Plutonium]

We live in a country where we loose power during the Super Bowl, we have a third world power grid, the schools rank low compared to other schools in the world, and the only other country that has a debt ceiling is Denmark. So I'm not really surprised that nothing is getting done, and that they can't figure this shit out.

[gary88]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

We live in a country where we loose power during the Super Bowl, we have a third world power grid, the schools rank low compared to other schools in the world, and the only other country that has a debt ceiling is Denmark. So I'm not really surprised that nothing is getting done, and that they can't figure this shit out.

'Murica #1

[JAM3S]

Its both sides doing political theatre to pander to their base and make the other side look bad for election purposes. Nobody cares about doing whats right for the country anymore.

I honestly cant wait for the economic collapse. We deserve it as a stupid and dumbed down nation.

[Mss396]

But when one side says that this will lead to a layoff of 800,000 Pentagon employees is a plain lie. Do they not think we as Americans can't look up how many people work at the Pentagon. It's public knowledge and is easily found on the web. Why would anyone make such a statement...?

[Templar]

Originally Posted by Mss396

But when one side says that this will lead to a layoff of 800,000 Pentagon employees is a plain lie. Do they not think we as Americans can't look up how many people work at the Pentagon. It's public knowledge and is easily found on the web. Why would anyone make such a statement...?

Source?

The Secretary of Defense did send out a memo last week saying that there will be a furlough for DoD employees. He said that the "DoD will be forced to place the vast majority of its civilian workforce on administrative furlough."

So Pentagon employees will likely be included in that, among many others. Yes, a lot of people within the DoD will go without pay for a period of time (or certain days at a time). Saying 800,000 "Pentagon employees" isn't a plain lie, it's just a slight exaggeration, since all DoD employees in some way, shape, or form work for the Pentagon (or for someone that works there).

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by Templar

Source?

The Secretary of Defense did send out a memo last week saying that there will be a furlough for DoD employees. He said that the "DoD will be forced to place the vast majority of its civilian workforce on administrative furlough."

So Pentagon employees will likely be included in that, among many others. Yes, a lot of people within the DoD will go without pay for a period of time (or certain days at a time). Saying 800,000 "Pentagon employees" isn't a plain lie, it's just a slight exaggeration, since all DoD employees in some way, shape, or form work for the Pentagon (or for someone that works there).

Last I heard the furlough was going to be one day a week for 22 weeks, starting in April. Basically a 20% pay cut for four months. The side consequence is a hiring freeze.

[Mss396]

Originally Posted by Templar

sourcs?

800,000 "Pentagon employees" isn't a plain lie, it's just a slight exaggeration

Brian Williams NBC News.

Then "say what you mean, not what you say"

[Templar]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Last I heard the furlough was going to be one day a week for 22 weeks, starting in April. Basically a 20% pay cut for four months. The side consequence is a hiring freeze.

That's a possibility, but department heads will likely be able to manage their own furloughs as long as they meet some sort of standard set forth by the higher ups. For example, we haven't been provided a lot of data yet on how it will be handled.

I did hear the same thing you did, though. So it is possible that will apply on a more consistent basis throughout different departments.

[Curt2000]

The executive branch is not interested in passing a budget, they are interested in making congress look as bad as possible before mid term elections so they can remove checks and balances.