Economy

Dec 24, 2012

What’s over the fiscal cliff? We may be about to find out

Congress and Barack Obama have gone on holidays without a deal on the "fiscal cliff". The chances of anything more than a temporary fix now look remote.

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

The United States isn’t quite teetering on the edge of the fiscal cliff but it’s currently a whole lot closer than many would be comfortable with after Congress went home for the Christmas break and President Barack Obama flew to Hawaii with no deal.

14 comments

Leave a comment

14 thoughts on “What’s over the fiscal cliff? We may be about to find out

  1. CHRISTOPHER DUNNE

    Norquist became the Disney version of the sorcerer’s apprentice, having cast the spell over the GOP to never raise a tax, he couldn’t find the correct incantation to turn it off.

    Now lots of little brooms are marching them over the cliff. Dum,de dum, de dum de dit-ty dum…

  2. zut alors

    It’s becoming even more perplexing to follow the thought processes of Republicans. Where do they imagine it will all end?

    The US is light years removed from the noble sentiment in JFK’s 1961 inaugural address: If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

  3. Karen

    I think Obama should call the Republicans bluff, tell the American nation in a televised speech that due to Republicans blocking modest tax rises for super rich people (as well as blocking stimulatory tax cuts for the middle and lower classes), the Republicans have caused the nation to go over the fiscal cliff. Blame the Republicans for it. Also tell the nation that for there to be real economic improvement to the economy and services, they need to kick Republicans out of the House to get rid of the policy gridlock.

  4. Karen

    Zut, I agree with yours and the sentiments of JFK, however, I suppose the uber rich think that they can always relocate with their money while America crashes and burns. They might lose a few of their baubles along the way, like the value of their real estate as well as the existential notion of what they’ve always known as “home”, but them’s the breaks, it would appear for them. This is assuming they think they would ever be affected at all.

    I think these people are stupid for thinking this way because the actual losses to them, both financial and psychological, should a catastrophic upheaval result, will be much greater than what they could ever conceptualise. They won’t escape suffering.

  5. Steve777

    President Obama has to win this. Compromise is necessary but he can’t concede too much. If the Republicans are seen to win, his Presidency will be effectively crippled. Nothing that requires the consent of Congress could be done.

  6. Steve777

    And why is the USA in its current financial position? Well, George W Bush slashed taxes for the wealthy, started and botched two wars, at least one of which was unnecessary and largely fraudulently based. Add to that, the Republicans’ Wall Street mates running riot and destroying much the the USA’s (and the World’s) wealth, and there you have it. Of course the latter can’t be fully blamed on W, but it came to a head on his watch. Who’ll pay to clean up the mess? The poor and middle class. The wealthy are not prepared to contribute more from that part of their wealth that they haven’t been able to hide from the tax man.

  7. Karen

    Steve777 – Agree. However, I also blame W for the financial meltdown, as he refused to regulate the finance sector. How is it that the finance sector, aided and abetted by complicit rating agencies, were permitted to sell worthless derivatives on the back of loans they knew the working poor couldn’t pay? This is fraud. No-one from the finance sector has gone to gaol for this, despite the death and destruction this has caused around the world. Their poorer brethren who hold up convenience stores for cigarettes and bread, on the other hand, go in the slammer for years.

  8. gianni

    There’s a terrific comment by Charles P. Pierce on the devolution of the Republican Party. The context is the Republican’s negotiating stance towards President Obama and the fiscal cliff measures.

    If one looks at the statements by, say, Cory Bernardi (and Nick Michin before him), or Barnaby Joyce for the Nationals, one can see that the policy trajectory of the Coalition is taking them to the same place as the Republicans.

    The same processes are at work: The rejection of science and reason when it disagrees with their ideological stance, the embrace of truthiness> as the basis of policy development, and the proud disdaining of knowledge and expertise. We’re not so different from the USA. Which is why the opening paragraph of Charles Pierce’s column resonates.

    There is no possible definition by which the Republicans can be considered an actual political party any more. They can be defined as a loose universe of inchoate hatreds, or a sprawling confederation of collected resentments, or an unwieldy conglomeration of self-negating orthodoxies, or an atonal choir of rabid complaint, or a cargo cult of quasi-religious politics and quasi-political religion, or simply the deafening abandoned YAWP of our bitter national Id. But they are not a political party because they have rendered themselves incapable of politics.

  9. Hamis Hill

    Yes, never forgetting that Liberals in Australia have always been a franchise of the US Republicans.
    Given that they spent the Whitlam years touring the States, breathlessly informing one and all that a communist coup had taken place in Australia.
    The late Frank Devine had an article published in 1996 titled “Vatican in Van of New Cold War”, following the collapse of communism.
    Those who Devine quoted predicted that the secular US with its “Idolatry of Self” would be the next target for the Catholic Church after “its” victory over godless communism.
    Somehow this war of the 21st century collapdsed with the breaking of the world-wide pervert priest scandal.
    Nevertheless, Gerard Henderson, in his article “How Menzies Child Has Changed” described the rising influence of B A Santamaria proteges in the Liberal Party.
    Seems like the rise of Abbott has been long planned.
    Now shouldn’t those truth in advertising laws apply to political parties, now that “Menzies Child” has indeed changed?
    As the Ryans and Santorums in The States indicate, a certain, foreign, religious minority ( which likes to have its own schools , hospitals and universities, as well as an unaccountable clergy) does not quibble about destroying democracy and secularism with economic vandalism.
    It pays to remember that this crew provided the medieval, Totaltarian model for Communism and Fascism.
    Nah, she’ll be right mate! Just Sh-t all over the sacrifices of every WWII soldier, sailor and airman and women, by ignoring the lessons of history.
    It used to be Kruschev who wanted to bury The West and rise from the Ashes.
    Democracy and economic security? Collateral damage.
    Not the Abbott way? Is the coming Abbott Recession an actual policy? To destroy secular Australia and the Idolatry of self? Politico-religious dementoids’ll put the fear of god inta ya! Ya bunch of communists!

  10. Hamis Hill

    Frank Devine’s “Vatican In Van of New Cold War” and Gerard Henderson’s “How Menzies Child Has Changed” inform the policies of a certain, foreign religious minority.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...