Guest Post: Thought Experiment: Why Obama Wants The Fiscal Cliff

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Lance Roberts of Street Talk Live,

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Flakmeister's picture

Happy, no, hardly....

Relieved that Mittens didn't get it, yeah, probabaly...

Colonial Intent's picture

Sorry to repeat myself but...

Why the hell didnt the repubs run ron paul, do they not get new media, oh wait the election debacle.

I guess the repubs dont get new media, RP could have stopped the demographic (youth/women/immigrants) rot even if he had lost, whats more important winning an election or keeping your party relevant?

Repubs ran on a policy of hoping the enemy would run out of ammo if they sent enough troops 'over the top' If they had changed their policy instead of doubling down on it.....

Improvise, adapt, overcome.

Dr. Sandi's picture

The people who remote control the Republicans would rather have a Drano enema than let a straight shooter have a shot at being president.

Same for the Democrats, except for the fact that Obama is looking more and more like a Drano enema anyway.

Diogenes's picture

The scary part is Romney stood a good chance of winning. The Republicans  had to make a bunch of witless remarks about abortion and birth control to scare enough voters into voting for Obama. They weren't going to let Obama  skate when they can force him to ride this shit storm right into the ground.

By 2016 American will be BEGGING for a right wing strongman to take over. See if they aren't.

LawsofPhysics's picture

The entire thesis here is flawed as it depends on the old "growth" meme.  Humanity is a fucking ponzi, infinite growth of any organism with finite resources and numerous manditory inputs and biological cycles that must be maintained in order to sustain said organism is beyond fucking stupid.

Where the fuck have all the adults gone?  Oh yeah, back to work...

Flakmeister's picture

People have a real hard time dealing with this....

It forces a reevaluation of the inbred value system that western Capitalism has been built upon...

God forbid anyone ever came straight with the electorate....

Tirpitz's picture

"Where ... have all the adults gone?"

Come on. 'Growth is possible.' the Congo Cannibal said, padding his round belly, showing us a way into a more sustainable future.

midtowng's picture

Wow! Did you have to consult Fox News before writing this article, or have they let you off the leash?

PoliticalRefugeefromCalif.'s picture

Not everyone has to listen to Fox to recognize a tyrant when he shows his hand.. stick with the comfortable, simplistic argument tho.. it makes you all warm and superior inside doesn't it?

GeorgeHayduke's picture

Yeah, right, it's Marxist Obama's plan to have more government control and not that of his owners. And of course Romney would have been different. People believe this crap, as posts above indicate. No wonder this country is going off the cliff. We are too stupid, simple and ignorant to deserve anything better.

Urban Redneck's picture

The "socialism lite" party will lose, because they don't offer an alternative and won't hold out long enough to demand real change, despite the fact that the opposition can't hold out until Nov 2014 on depreciating welfare, instead of appreciating .gov paychecks.

JohnFrodo's picture

When your borrowing .40 of every 1.00 dollar, the fiscal cliff is a very sensible plan to recover. Especialy a less than 10% cut in defense.

blunderdog's picture

     The reality that "taxing the wealthy" does not increase revenue or promote economic growth is lost on the 80% of Americans that are economically uninformed and are just struggling to maintain their current standard of living.

Maybe that's because it's not true.  Practically speaking, you'd actually have to try it out to see what would happen in the current circumstances.  In some cases, increasing taxes increases revenue, and in some, it's revenue neutral, and in still other cases, it reduces revenue.

But the relationships and dependencies are far too complex for someone to make a useful prediction about the outcome in the absence of experimental data.  It's just a faith-based claim.

Tirpitz's picture

Got to go after the tax-havens to make a major impact.

Tombstone's picture

Bravo; you have read the mind of a socialist dictator.  More welfare/entitlements for all of you komrades, except those who didn't vote for get a slave-cave free from the politburo.

SeanJKerrigan's picture

While I agree there may be an argument to make with regard to Obama wanting the fiscal cliff not to be resolved, you make several assumptions that I simply cannot accept. Most notable of these is your insistance that he wants to redistribute wealth (with the implication he wants to redistribute it down).  I think this is pretty ridiculous. He's done nothing of the sort in his time in office.

More realistic, is that he is a "pragmatic" (read: unprincipled) "centrist" (read: statist) who is so full of himself he believes all his own bullshit and the bullshit given to him by people like Geithner. We know this is true by looking at his record with things like the Citibank breakup (Obama ordered it to happen. Geither explicitly ignored the order. Nothing happened) and the various times he's pointed to Glass Steagal not being necessary according to his advisors (again, Geithner's talking points).

Ultimately, I just don't think these people are that thoughtful, despite their ruinous personalities.

Omen IV's picture

pure fabrication - not economic analysis - tax rates for individuals and corporations have been as high as 90% and 48% respectively and the economy grew at a good rate - the entire problem is due to the WTO terms and conditions - change the rules of engagement and people will be re-employed in manufacturing, disposable income will increase and service economy will go up as well  - eliminating the deficit

dscott8186's picture

What is pure fabrication is your ignorance of omission:  Under those rates in that time period, you had a reinvestment tax deduction.  Thus every penny that would have been subject to those taxes escaped that high tax by purchasing more stock.  

The rich always had a loophole because the politicians get their campaign money from the rich.  This illustrates your stupidity for listening to Obama and Democrats in general, they are the corporatists, the party of corruption.  Why do you think corporate fat cats give such large sums of money to Democrats?  Don't know why?  Sticking your head in the sand so as not to see?  Power = Money.  

Flakmeister's picture

Wow, are you doing your best to:


  1. Demonstrate you are a small minded bigot?
  2. Show that you enjoy buggering black people?
  3. Pass your KKK initiation rite?
  4. All of the above?


Tirpitz's picture

"are you doing your best"

Not that I'd like the man in the White House either, but wasn't the battle cry something like this:

'Each according to his abilities...'? ;)

blunderdog's picture

I suspect some of the most vocal bigots/loonies here are just trying to marginalize the website by polluting the message boards.

If you want to cite ZH as a source of information, and someone takes a look at the site and sees pages of neo-Nazi and John Bircher and nigger-hating comments, they're far more likely to dismiss the information (and ZH overall) as just a bunch of ranting on some website run by assholes.

Bastiat's picture

Yep. But some of them are just being themselves.

Dr. Sandi's picture

Everybody, look sharp. The neighbors are coming over to look at the website.

Stop being yourselves or you KNOW what people will say about us.

moonstears's picture

Dr, exactly. Though I've little time or intelligence which I'd devote to racial hatred, or bigotry, personally... FREEDOM of speech SHOULD be excersized, as long as it can, while it can, no matter how idiotic. My motto: Question IT all and let 'em rant, it IS fight club. 

blunderdog's picture

I'm here because I want to hear what people think, even the assholes. 

There's always some element of doubt when you consider whether someone is sincere or sarcastic, paid shill or honest square, but since you can only see FILTERED data in most places, this is obviously the site to visit.

(I lived at FuckedCompany for a good long while, too, if any of the old regulars are still around.  The world seemed so different a decade ago...)

Tirpitz's picture

"the path towards completing Obama's long term objectives of complete socialization of the American economy."

So, comrades, what part did the blackhearted teleprompter-in-chief socialize? Let's take a look:

- military: illegal drone wars staged with private mercenary thugs are flourishing more than under his often maligned predecessor;

- sickness industry: the patients were led like sheep right into the voracious jaws of his pharmaceutical buddies;

- financial overlords: the losses were socialized, true, but the profits were kept very private, and off-shored, all the while the fraud is continuing unababed under the nose of a benevolent Department of Injustice;

- small and medium sized companies: granted, someone without the proper lobby in D.C. has to take the brunt. Sorry for you, folks, you get it as deep and hard as the rest of us.

Just -- with socialization the dark parth of Obummer has nothing to do. And more so with the destruction of the productive middle layer, which gets squeezed to keep monopolized profits of international corporations intact and flourishing.

IamtheREALmario's picture

As I recall, Edgar Cayce predicted a financial collapse in December of 2012. Coincidence? He also predicted that most of the southeastern US would be under water ... but no timeframe given.

moonstears's picture

Jennie Taylor Martin, sat down with A.R.E.’s executive director and CEO, Kevin J. Todeschi, to talk about Edgar Cayce and 2012.

Jennie Taylor Martin: Kevin, we’re asked this question all the time here at A.R.E. What did Edgar Cayce say about 2012?

Kevin Todeschi: Well, the bottom line is, the numbers 2012 are not in the Edgar Cayce readings. What Edgar Cayce did talk about is the change of an age, or the New Age, the Aquarian Age. He gave quite a bit of information on what this New Age will be about, what this transitional period is all about, and what we can expect.

From their website. I Live very close to Cayce's "church". Admittedly I've never stepped inside.

Joebloinvestor's picture

The Republicans should start taking credit for the cliff as they are gonna get blamed anyway.

Actually, I would expect it (going off the cliff) a good thing.

It would show the rest of the world that despite the US political parties bickering, the US is addressing its' debt and spending contrary to the EU.


shovelhead's picture

I'm opening a bottle of J&B, and spreading out in the backseat for this one...



dscott8186's picture

the negative impacts of rising taxes and sharply reduced government spending will seriously erode economic prosperity.

The first part I agree, however, the second part will only affect the politically connected but yes, workers are going to get laid off in those politically connected areas. It is the politically connected that gets the bulk of government largess.

I do agree the GOP is stupid enough to get the blame because they really can't see the end game here. They just can't believe someone would be so cynical to destroy the country just to win.  The GOP should just draft legislation as Obama directs without the crony stimulus and spending increases and then promptly vote PRESENT allowing Democrats to take the fall for the resulting economic Depression from the $1.6 trillion tax increase.  If they follow that advice in 2014 the GOP will take the Senate and Hold the House with a veto proof majority allowing them to repeal everything since 2007.

OneTinSoldier66's picture

"...and sharply reduced government spending will seriously erode economic prosperity."


Read that far and then stopped reading right there... rated it a 1

woggie's picture

the beast is on the gobble
and all that matters is we're all headed for it's belly

LFMayor's picture

will someone please find this damn machine and put a refridgerator magnent on the side of it?

VisualCSharp's picture

Give it up spamming this, will ya? It's gettin' quite old.

Oh, and please learn to use the proper form of its before you pretend to write something witty.

orangegeek's picture

Barry can drive it off the cliff.


Only one problem. 


After Barry drives it off the cliff, he's probably going to get assassinated.


What a terrible mess we are in and what an even worse mess we are headed toward.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

From an outside position:

Romney was a strong roll of the dice (read: $), and managed to get 47% (after his famous "47% will never vote for us" comments, this is the cruel barbs to the loser's crown), but the GOP is basically over. As an outsider, the issue seems to be that any Republican has to pander to the extremes of the party in the primaries, and then attempt to flip-flop to appeal to semi-moderates during the Presidential running.

Libertarians (quite correctly) realise that grass-roots activism in attempting to influence the Republican party will be met by a) rule changes, b) not adhering to the rules and c) out-right cheating, while Tea-Party people (who are all astroturf) got sucked back in, with Koch dumping them for Romney. So both of these groups really have no say in the GOP, and so are likely to vote [other].

The average % population of the traditional GOP voter is now out-numbered (that being white / religious / male by other minorities) and is getting ever older ~ and some of the bottom economic voters who go Republican don't have long lifetimes anyhow. Others are seeing the connection between out-sourcing and Romney (finally), and thus switching sides.

Added to this is the % of millenials who are over-whelmingly Democrat [or other]:

Fifty percent of eligible young voters cast a vote in the 2012 election, accounting for 23 million votes.

Millenial's share of the vote was ~19-21% in 2012

Barack Obama won among young voters by 24 points in a head-to-head matchup with Mitt Romney, 60-36%.

This basically means that the GOP is dead. Obama knows that if he pushes the cliff, the GOP is caught in either a Pyrric Victory, or a crushing blow-back from the voters of 2016.  This has nothing to do with "Socialism", it's basic statistics. The GOP ignored / trashed young voters, and it's dying out anyhow. And I'll have you know, people spent a lot of money attempting to stop this inevitable outcome. Obama even had to throw a debate. Either way, The Republic is changing, if only via that one thing no-one can stop: aging. It'll do it either the easy way or the hard way, but there we go. 


"The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others."

blunderdog's picture

Most of what you cite can be applied (with a find/replace of the names) to the Democrats as well, though.

Our two parties are dinosaurs at the top of the food-chain.  I don't think they're going anywhere, myself--I suspect their platforms will be *unrecognizable* (by today's standards) by the time the last Baby Boomer dies.

If the Republican party were really in deep trouble, it wouldn't be dominating the House, which is by far the political body that is most responsive to changes in voter sentiment.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

From my reading, that was due to 2010's Koch attack and the peculiarities of the US system [extreme gerrymandering from both sides, where only 8-12 seats are actually swing seats]. If the US had sane voting boarders, the Democrats would have approx 40 more seats in Congress [looking at voter / population distribution].

My point was wider than that ~ I don't think it's actually statistically possible for a Republican candidate to win a Presidential race now, without something huge happening, be it a shift in the party form or an external jolt [ring a bell?].


I agree both are dinosaurs at this point though.

Flakmeister's picture

Yes, but there is no real core to the Dems, they could split into two factions cum parties  and not commit ideological suicide...

Oh and I agree, the Nixon southern strategy has finally run it's course...

blunderdog's picture

    I don't think it's actually statistically possible for a Republican candidate to win a Presidential race now

We only have the two parties.  All that has to happen is this administration has to continue to suck for another 4 years and the 'Pubs have to run a challenger who isn't a total loser.

The parties are very similar, which is why the Presidential elections are always so close.

JustACitizen's picture

Holy Crap! Reading this thread - you would think that the R's were the party of fiscal rectitude - demonstrably false. The only difference between the R's and the D's - is who gets to receive the government largesse (our tax dollars/productivity/etc). If someone is robbing you at gunpoint - does it matter "what kind" they are?