The Fiscal Cliff

[DonDadda59]

The Background:

[INDENT]

[DonDadda59]

The predicted effects of us falling over the cliff if no deal is reached by the end of the year:

US NEWS report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKFzFUj_EV0)

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), along with the CBO, and anyone who lived through the stagnant economy during the Bush tax cuts era concluded:


Multiple CRS Reports Show Tax Cuts for Rich Will Not Harm Economic Growth

The New York Times recently reported that a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report was "withdrawn from circulation" at the behest of Senate Republicans. The CRS report finds no relationship between upper-income tax rates and economic growth, undercutting Republican claims that an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is necessary for economic growth. Senate Republicans called the report's validity into question, and CRS eventually withdrew it. However, the report's findings are only the latest in a series that suggest only a tenuous relationship between the economy and upper-income and capital gains tax cuts.

Rest of the Article (http://www.ombwatch.org/node/12273)

The Report (http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/pdf/CRS-Taxes_and_the_EconomyAn_Economic_Analysis_of_the_T op_Tax_Rates_Since_1945-R42729_-09-14-2012.pdf)

History and facts tells us that the times of highest economic growth coincide with the times of highest top tax rates. For a recent example, just compare the economy under the Clinton era tax rates with the economy under the Bush tax cuts. It's a no brainer, really.

[DonDadda59]

Barry O lays down the law:

[INDENT]Obama to open talks with $1.6 trillion plan to raise taxes on corporations, wealthy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/11/11/National-Enterprise/Images/Obama_Veterans_Day_04afc.jpg

By Zachary A. Goldfarb and Lori Montgomery, Published: November 13

President Obama is taking a hard line with congressional Republicans heading into negotiations over the year-end

[Droid101]

Barry isn't holding back.

Either they cave and leave taxes on the middle class/poor the same and raise them for the rich and impose new ones on millionaires, or taxes for EVERYONE go up when the Bush cuts expire.

Your move, House.

[DonDadda59]

Barry isn't holding back.

Either they cave and leave taxes on the middle class/poor the same and raise them for the rich and impose new ones on millionaires, or taxes for EVERYONE go up when the Bush cuts expire.

Your move, House.

Exactly, Grover Norquist and his minions have already been check-mated. It's either raise the taxes on 2% of Americans to levels similar to what they were when our economy was strong (which is what the vast majority of Americans agree with, 60-35) or let taxes go up on 100% of the population, drastic spending cuts to occur, unemployment to skyrocket, and a new recession to kick in.

How is Boehner (Norquist) going to explain to the American people that the reason they are losing jobs in droves and we are plunged into another deep recession is only because they don't want to raise income taxes on 2% of the population by a handful of percentage points? It's either get with the program or pay for it come election time.

[Godzuki]

More blame for GOP if a deal isn't reached...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/13/poll-public-concern-over-effects-of-the-fiscal-cliff/?hpt=hp_t2


i knew they would impede and fight Obama's actions to address the fiscal cliff like they have everything else until they get their way. i'm glad public sentiment is against them and putting blame on the House GOP if a deal doesn't get done, puts most of the pressure on them to give in, otherwise i don't think they would since they're so anti Obama stubborn.

its so annoying how they already lost the popular vote on raising taxes for the rich, and still able to fight it thru the House.

[rufuspaul]

Those fukcing rich people. Gotta hate them. Shame on them for making all that money and not giving us any of it.

[DonDadda59]

Those fukcing rich people. Gotta hate them. Shame on them for making all that money and not giving us any of it.

Tar and feather them! You didn't see the last Batman movie? There's a storm coming, Mr. Paul :D

But seriously though, has nothing to do with hate, shame, etc. Like I said, look at the top tax rates in this country for the past say 70 years, then check how they correlate with the GDP and other factors of economic health.

Watch Republican Ben Stein explain it to one of the innumerable blond ditzes on Fox News:

It's basic common sense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAtJaJf1mUI)

[Droid101]

Those fukcing rich people. Gotta hate them. Shame on them for making all that money and not giving us any of it.
:roll:

This old canard? Taxes are lower for rich people than any time in our history. Give us one good reason why their rates can't go back to Clinton levels (the same time we had our last economic boon). Go on, one reason.

[General]

Exactly, Grover Norquist and his minions have already been check-mated. It's either raise the taxes on 2% of Americans to levels similar to what they were when our economy was strong (which is what the vast majority of Americans agree with, 60-35) or let taxes go up on 100% of the population, drastic spending cuts to occur, unemployment to skyrocket, and a new recession to kick in.

How is Boehner (Norquist) going to explain to the American people that the reason they are losing jobs in droves and we are plunged into another deep recession is only because they don't want to raise income taxes on 2% of the population by a handful of percentage points? It's either get with the program or pay for it come election time.
Let him go wild I say to my fellow Republicans, The country will learn the hard way that socialism does not work. Once Obama gets his tax hikes HE WILL OWN THIS ECONOMY, I don't want to hear Bush's name ever again from a liberal stating this was his fault. This is Obama's economy from now on.

[DonDadda59]

Let him go wild I say to my fellow Republicans, The country will learn the hard way that socialism does not work. Once Obama gets his tax hikes HE WILL OWN THIS ECONOMY, I don't want to hear Bush's name ever again from a liberal stating this was his fault. This is Obama's economy from now on.

So if I'm hearing you correctly, whatever happens from the point of Obama getting the concessions from Congress on, is on him?

I'll bookmark this so in 4 years when (as the CBO, Moody's Analytical, and other organizations) the country has added a record 12-12.3 million jobs, there is a housing boom, the dysfunctional healthcare system is fixed, the GDP has doubled, etc... you can eat a nice helping off hot off the stove crow :D

[Godzuki]

Let him go wild I say to my fellow Republicans, The country will learn the hard way that socialism does not work. Once Obama gets his tax hikes HE WILL OWN THIS ECONOMY, I don't want to hear Bush's name ever again from a liberal stating this was his fault. This is Obama's economy from now on.

it sure is and its been recovering quite well ever since just prior to the debates. the fiscal cliff is the one big obstacle we have to get thru, hopefully the Republicans won't keep trying to leverage our country's well being for their party agendas. i mean you lost, about time you back down to what the country voted for...

[Godzuki]

Those fukcing rich people. Gotta hate them. Shame on them for making all that money and not giving us any of it.


woe is rich people :lol:

taxing rich people is a whole lot better than screwing over old people who rely on SS to live...by the same guilt trip you must hate poor people. gotta hate them. shame on them for making a lot less money because they're all supposedly lazy :rolleyes:

[DonDadda59]

it sure is and its been recovering quite well ever since just prior to the debates. the fiscal cliff is the one big obstacle we have to get thru, hopefully the Republicans won't keep trying to leverage our country's well being for their party agendas. i mean you lost, about time you back down to what the country voted for...

The funny thing is, the recovery is pretty much unstoppable. The 'cliff' would be a major stumbling block but the CBO predicted that even if we go over with no deal, the economy is still due to add 9.6 million jobs in the next 4 years. So no deal would mean a loss of up to 3 million jobs and another recession, but the economy will still chug along. Barry's work during his first term, much to the chagrin of anti-American Civil War reenactor neo-secessionists such as some on this board, saved us from another great depression and put us on the road to a strong recovery.

[rufuspaul]

:roll:

This old canard? Taxes are lower for rich people than any time in our history. Give us one good reason why their rates can't go back to Clinton levels (the same time we had our last economic boon). Go on, one reason.


:lol I'm not crying for rich people, but I don't think they should be vilified either. Yeah a few percentage points here and there won't mean the end of the world but what happens after that? Come back the next year and say we still need to squeeze you more? Where does it end?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: A country cannot tax itself into prosperity.

[Droid101]

:lol I'm not crying for rich people, but I don't think they should be vilified either. Yeah a few percentage points here and there won't mean the end of the world but what happens after that? Come back the next year and say we still need to squeeze you more? Where does it end?

It ends when our deficit and debt is looking a little better. You get there by reducing spending and increasing revenue. I know it's hard for most conservatives to understand.

I'm content going back to Clinton era tax rates, making capital gains the same as regular income regarding taxes, creating some new brackets with higher rates for income after 1 million, 5 million, 10 million, 100 million, and 1 billion.

A good start.

[DonDadda59]

It ends when our deficit and debt is looking a little better. You get there by reducing spending and increasing revenue. I know it's hard for most conservatives to understand.

I'm content going back to Clinton era tax rates, making capital gains the same as regular income regarding taxes, creating some new brackets with higher rates for income after 1 million, 5 million, 10 million, 100 million, and 1 billion.

A good start.

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/121031_grover_norquist_ap_605.jpg

"Say increasing revenue and higher rates one more goddamn time. I dare you"

[Droid101]

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/121031_grover_norquist_ap_605.jpg

"Say increasing revenue and higher rates one more goddamn time. I dare you"
Grover Norquist is a weaselly little idiot and I have no idea how his essay he wrote when he was 12 years old became the mantra of the modern Republican party.

[rufuspaul]

It ends when our deficit and debt is looking a little better. You get there by reducing spending and increasing revenue. I know it's hard for most conservatives to understand.

I'm content going back to Clinton era tax rates, making capital gains the same as regular income regarding taxes, creating some new brackets with higher rates for income after 1 million, 5 million, 10 million, 100 million, and 1 billion.

A good start.

I'm with you there to a degree but sticking it to the wealthy much more beyond that is counter productive and won't reduce the deficit by any noticeable amount. But no doubt true reform is needed. I think the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was fair and balanced (no pun intended) and should be looked at as a map for further reform.

[General]

So if I'm hearing you correctly, whatever happens from the point of Obama getting the concessions from Congress on, is on him?

I'll bookmark this so in 4 years when (as the CBO, Moody's Analytical, and other organizations) the country has added a record 12-12.3 million jobs, there is a housing boom, the dysfunctional healthcare system is fixed, the GDP has doubled, etc... you can eat a nice helping off hot off the stove crow :D
I'll bookmark this so in two years when there is a double dip recession and there are massive job losses you can eat crow.

That will never happen though because the Republicans won't let Obama go wild. They got elected too and they have their own mandate to keep taxes low. They are the last defense to stop Obama from destroying this nation.

[DonDadda59]

Grover Norquist is a weaselly little idiot and I have no idea how his essay he wrote when he was 12 years old became the mantra of the modern Republican party.

It is strange that he somehow has the entire Republican party by the balls, isn't it? I'm no conspiracy theorist but if people are still looking for the leader of the 'illuminati' or whatever shadowy organization is controlling the world, start by checking this dude out :roll:

He killed the American Jobs Act which would've added 2-2.6 million jobs to the economy, 1.5% to the GDP and now he wants to plunge the country into another recession... and Boehner and co. will ride with this guy until the end even though they must know better by now. Very strange. Take a look cons- if anyone is going to 'destroy' the country (and by extension the world at large), it's not Barry, it's your republican overlord Norquist.

[DonDadda59]

I'll bookmark this so in two years when there is a double dip recession and there are massive job losses you can eat crow.

That will never happen though because the Republicans won't let Obama go wild. They got elected too and they have their own mandate to keep taxes low. They are the last defense to stop Obama from destroying this nation.


That will only happen if Lord Norquist gets his wishes. All of the forecasts concerning from now until 2014 say jobs will be added, the unemployment rate will decrease, the GDP will grow, housing will strengthen. Everything is bullish outside of the fox news keep em scared and ignorant bubble. There's only one way we suffer a setback, and if that happens the Repubs will get a new mandate:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NYJjoT-A8C0/UAP7JsS9DVI/AAAAAAAAB6g/S_VVq2I21BU/s1600/jeremy-piven-gtfo.gif

[raiderfan19]

I don't really understand how the main GOP can be so stupid and do such a poor job of solidifying its base. I consider myself an independent but I have seriously conservative leanings. At several times throughout history, I'd have been a clear cut republican but they've just gotten so hypocritical.

You can't simultaneously cry about the debt being too high and steadfastly refuse to increase revenue. The fact of the matter is when you overspend your means you have to either increase your income or decrease your expenses. At this particular point in time there is no way a spending cut alone could get us back to where we need to be. We have to increase taxes. The fact that it's being fought so hard just boggles my mind. Ask for spending cuts to go with it? Sure, but to go in saying that raises aren't an option is just stupid. You back yourself into a corner where you are forced to either screw the country or give your future opponent a golden campaign video showing that you didn't do what you promised.

I really don't understand why they haven't come in saying. We realize there need to be tax/revenue increases. While we believe these increases go against our general party policy, we realize that they are at least temporarily necesarry and therefore we will agree to them on a basis to be a reevaluated at a later date. While we are willing to make these cuts, we also need dems to understand that some spending cuts will also need to take place(and while some of them will be military in nature, some also need to be entitlement programs)

[Bucket_Nakedz]

I don't really understand how the main GOP can be so stupid and do such a poor job of solidifying its base. I consider myself an independent but I have seriously conservative leanings. At several times throughout history, I'd have been a clear cut republican but they've just gotten so hypocritical.

You can't simultaneously cry about the debt being too high and steadfastly refuse to increase revenue. The fact of the matter is when you overspend your means you have to either increase your income or decrease your expenses. At this particular point in time there is no way a spending cut alone could get us back to where we need to be. We have to increase taxes. The fact that it's being fought so hard just boggles my mind. Ask for spending cuts to go with it? Sure, but to go in saying that raises aren't an option is just stupid. You back yourself into a corner where you are forced to either screw the country or give your future opponent a golden campaign video showing that you didn't do what you promised.

I really don't understand why they haven't come in saying. We realize there need to be tax/revenue increases. While we believe these increases go against our general party policy, we realize that they are at least temporarily necesarry and therefore we will agree to them on a basis to be a reevaluated at a later date. While we are willing to make these cuts, we also need dems to understand that some spending cuts will also need to take place(and while some of them will be military in nature, some also need to be entitlement programs)
i like dis guy :applause:

[DonDadda59]

I don't really understand how the main GOP can be so stupid and do such a poor job of solidifying its base. I consider myself an independent but I have seriously conservative leanings. At several times throughout history, I'd have been a clear cut republican but they've just gotten so hypocritical.

You can't simultaneously cry about the debt being too high and steadfastly refuse to increase revenue. The fact of the matter is when you overspend your means you have to either increase your income or decrease your expenses. At this particular point in time there is no way a spending cut alone could get us back to where we need to be. We have to increase taxes. The fact that it's being fought so hard just boggles my mind. Ask for spending cuts to go with it? Sure, but to go in saying that raises aren't an option is just stupid. You back yourself into a corner where you are forced to either screw the country or give your future opponent a golden campaign video showing that you didn't do what you promised.

I really don't understand why they haven't come in saying. We realize there need to be tax/revenue increases. While we believe these increases go against our general party policy, we realize that they are at least temporarily necesarry and therefore we will agree to them on a basis to be a reevaluated at a later date. While we are willing to make these cuts, we also need dems to understand that some spending cuts will also need to take place(and while some of them will be military in nature, some also need to be entitlement programs)

Someone should forward this to the death star so Emperor Norquist and Darth Boehner can read it.

Repped :applause:

[rufuspaul]

That will only happen if Lord Norquist gets his wishes. All of the forecasts concerning from now until 2014 say jobs will be added, the unemployment rate will decrease, the GDP will grow, housing will strengthen. Everything is bullish outside of the fox news keep em scared and ignorant bubble. There's only one way we suffer a setback, and if that happens the Repubs will get a new mandate:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NYJjoT-A8C0/UAP7JsS9DVI/AAAAAAAAB6g/S_VVq2I21BU/s1600/jeremy-piven-gtfo.gif


I certainly hope the forecasts are right. Remember very few people saw 2008 coming.

[Math2]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Barry O lays down the law:

[INDENT]Obama to open talks with $1.6 trillion plan to raise taxes on corporations, wealthy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/11/11/National-Enterprise/Images/Obama_Veterans_Day_04afc.jpg

By Zachary A. Goldfarb and Lori Montgomery, Published: November 13

President Obama is taking a hard line with congressional Republicans heading into negotiations over the year-end

[Math2]

That will only happen if Lord Norquist gets his wishes. All of the forecasts concerning from now until 2014 say jobs will be added, the unemployment rate will decrease, the GDP will grow, housing will strengthen. Everything is bullish outside of the fox news keep em scared and ignorant bubble. There's only one way we suffer a setback, and if that happens the Repubs will get a new mandate:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NYJjoT-A8C0/UAP7JsS9DVI/AAAAAAAAB6g/S_VVq2I21BU/s1600/jeremy-piven-gtfo.gif

The "growth" we are seeing now would not exist if Republicans didn't own the House.

[General]

I certainly hope the forecasts are right. Remember very few people saw 2008 coming.
The forecasts before the stimulus passed were all saying unemployment would be below 6% by now. Take anything the liberals cite with a grain of salt. The complete opposite is usually true. The only reason unemployment is not at 10-11% percent now is because the labor force shrunk so much, it's in a 30 year low.

[Math2]

I don't really understand how the main GOP can be so stupid and do such a poor job of solidifying its base. I consider myself an independent but I have seriously conservative leanings. At several times throughout history, I'd have been a clear cut republican but they've just gotten so hypocritical.

You can't simultaneously cry about the debt being too high and steadfastly refuse to increase revenue. The fact of the matter is when you overspend your means you have to either increase your income or decrease your expenses. At this particular point in time there is no way a spending cut alone could get us back to where we need to be. We have to increase taxes. The fact that it's being fought so hard just boggles my mind. Ask for spending cuts to go with it? Sure, but to go in saying that raises aren't an option is just stupid. You back yourself into a corner where you are forced to either screw the country or give your future opponent a golden campaign video showing that you didn't do what you promised.

I really don't understand why they haven't come in saying. We realize there need to be tax/revenue increases. While we believe these increases go against our general party policy, we realize that they are at least temporarily necesarry and therefore we will agree to them on a basis to be a reevaluated at a later date. While we are willing to make these cuts, we also need dems to understand that some spending cuts will also need to take place(and while some of them will be military in nature, some also need to be entitlement programs)

It's different when raising revenue is taking from one group and giving to another.

[Jailblazers7]

It's different when raising revenue is taking from one group and giving to another.

That is essentially what Medicare and SS does. Take from young workers and give to old folks.

What people generally think of as welfare (aid to the poor/lazy or w/e you want to call it) is prob comparable in terms of spending to our national defense budget.

[Droid101]

Does that not discourage growth by punishing the successful?
Yep, you're right. If I get my taxes increased, and only take home $1,500,500 instead of $1,675,000 this year, I quit. I'm going to quit my job and go on Food Stamps. It's just so much easier to NOT be rich!

[Math2]

Yep, you're right. If I get my taxes increased, and only take home $1,500,500 instead of $1,675,000 this year, I quit. I'm going to quit my job and go on Food Stamps. It's just so much easier to NOT be rich!

It doesn't matter how you put it, you're discouraging success just like you discourage work when you give to the poor. That $1675000 you mentioned becomes less and less as welfare costs rise and rise and rise. It's unsustainable without having the rich pay upwards of 90% by 2050.

[Math2]

That is essentially what Medicare and SS does. Take from young workers and give to old folks.

What people generally think of as welfare (aid to the poor/lazy or w/e you want to call it) is prob comparable in terms of spending to our national defense budget.

And that's why Medicare and SS need to be abolished.

[Jailblazers7]

And that's why Medicare and SS need to be abolished.

Medicare and SS were created because there was a massive problem of poverty in older age groups in America. I think the current estimate is that SS keeps 35-40% of the 65+ year old American population out of poverty.

[Droid101]

It doesn't matter how you put it, you're discouraging success just like you discourage work when you give to the poor. That $1675000 you mentioned becomes less and less as welfare costs rise and rise and rise. It's unsustainable without having the rich pay upwards of 90% by 2050.
It's not encouraging poverty or discouraging success.

Nobody on welfare wants to be on welfare.

Nobody making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars wants to make less.

Guess what they both have in common? They'll both try to make more money.

[Droid101]

"Oh, if only the stupid masses would listen to our good ideas! We'd get this country back on track!"

"Okay, lay out these 'good ideas' for us."

"THE DUMBOCRAPS ARE DOING IT ALL WRONG!"

"Uh, that's not an 'idea' per se."

"Tax cuts! More and more tax cuts!"

"Yeah, we've tried that lots of times. Doesn't work."

"WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?"

"Okay, then. See you later."

"WHY ARE ALL OF THESE STUPID PEOPLE NOT LISTENING TO US ANYMORE?"

[Math2]

"Oh, if only the stupid masses would listen to our good ideas! We'd get this country back on track!"

"Okay, lay out these 'good ideas' for us."

"THE DUMBOCRAPS ARE DOING IT ALL WRONG!"

"Uh, that's not an 'idea' per se."

"Tax cuts! More and more tax cuts!"

"Yeah, we've tried that lots of times. Doesn't work."

"WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?"

"Okay, then. See you later."

"WHY ARE ALL OF THESE STUPID PEOPLE NOT LISTENING TO US ANYMORE?"


And spending unsustainable amounts of money on welfare works....how?

[Droid101]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Employment_growth_by_top_tax_rate.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Income_tax_rates_i n_history


Employment has grown with higher top marginal tax rates.
Where is your god now, Norquist?

[DonDadda59]

^Pssht, everyone knows facts have a liberal leaning. Disregard everything we've seen from a Bush tax cut era economy, everyone knows if you raise taxes on 2% of the country there will be job stagnation and the economy will be destroyed. Trickle down, people, trickle down.

[DonDadda59]

The "growth" we are seeing now would not exist if Republicans didn't own the House.


The Republicans in Congress shut down the American Jobs Act which according to several agencies would've created 2-2.6 million jobs and added 1.5% in growth to the GDP. So the Republicans 'owning' the house has slowed down the economy significantly. If it's up to them, we'll see another deep recession.

[rufuspaul]

The Republicans in Congress shut down the American Jobs Act which according to several agencies would've created 2-2.6 million jobs and added 1.5% in growth to the GDP. So the Republicans 'owning' the house has slowed down the economy significantly. If it's up to them, we'll see another deep recession.


Bullshit. I'm sorry but that act was so full of pork I could hear the oinking from here. Thank God it didn't pass.

[DonDadda59]

Bullshit. I'm sorry but that act was so full of pork I could hear the oinking from here. Thank God it didn't pass.

Don't take my word for it.



An Analysis of the Obama Jobs Plan

By Mark Zandi in West Chester
September 9, 2011
SHARETHIS

President Obama's jobs proposal would help stabilize confidence and keep the U.S. from sliding back into recession.

The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point.

The plan would cost about $450 billion, about $250 billion in tax cuts and $200 billion in spending increases.

Many of the president's proposals are unlikely to pass Congress, but the most important have a chance of winning bipartisan support.

http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=224641&src=mark-zandi



A quick look at the job impact of the president’s proposals
Posted September 8, 2011 at 9:45 pm by JOHN IRONS

Overall the package would increase employment by about 4.3 million jobs over the next couple of years. The new initiatives would boost employment by about 2.6 million jobs, while the continuation of the two temporary provisions (EUI and the payroll tax holiday) would prevent a backslide of over 1.6 million jobs.

http://www.epi.org/blog/quick-job-impact-president%E2%80%99s-proposals/


American Jobs Act: A Significant Boost to GDP and Employment

We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.
The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:

Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.

Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline.

The program works directly to raise employment through tax incentives and support to state & local governments for increasing hiring; it works indirectly through the positive boost to aggregate demand (and hence hiring) stimulated by the direct spending and the increase in household income resulting from lower employee payroll taxes and increased employment.

http://macroadvisers.blogspot.com/2011/09/american-jobs-act-significant-boost-to.html


–Based on our preliminary estimates, using the various multipliers, the fiscal lift to 2012 growth might be around 1.8 percentage-points, all else equal, from the “Jobs Act”. All in all, this program could potentially offset the expiring provisions coupled with the fiscal drag from the debt ceiling deal of roughly 1.5 percentage-points in total in 2012. –Thomas Lam, OSK-DMG

–President Obama’s jobs plan, if implemented, would boost employment by around 4.3 million jobs (yes, 1.6 million of those jobs would come from continuing temporary policies that are already in place and supporting the economy today, but the new initiatives alone would generate 2.6 million jobs). –Heidi Shierholz, Economic Policy Institute

The only reason it didn't pass is the same reason we might be dragged into another recession.

[heyhey]

It doesn't matter how you put it, you're discouraging success just like you discourage work when you give to the poor. That $1675000 you mentioned becomes less and less as welfare costs rise and rise and rise. It's unsustainable without having the rich pay upwards of 90% by 2050.

not everything is about growth.

social welfare appeals to an intuitive sense of fairness. if we truly believe in equal opportunity then curtailing intergenerational wealth transfer is necessary to achieve that goal. we all can agree that some people are born into luckier situations then other. If life was somehow a complete market in which people can take out insurance to hedge against the possibility of being born into a shitty situation, then people would do that. Wealth redistribution is but an ex post expression of that insurance.

[joe]

:roll:

This old canard? Taxes are lower for rich people than any time in our history. Give us one good reason why their rates can't go back to Clinton levels (the same time we had our last economic boon). Go on, one reason.

Taxes are lower for the rich than at any time in our history? Does that include the first 125 years, when we didn't have an income tax at all?

[rufuspaul]

Taxes are lower for the rich than at any time in our history? Does that include the first 125 years, when we didn't have an income tax at all?


Good point. The sad thing about vilifying the rich and essentially holding them responsible for the deficit is that it won't solve anything. Even if you took 100% of the income of all the millionaires and billionaires in this country (something all the Karl Marx clones on this board probably want) it wouldn't make a significant dent in the deficit.

[Droid101]

Taxes are lower for the rich than at any time in our history? Does that include the first 125 years, when we didn't have an income tax at all?
Yeah, because the 1800's are totally relevant and comparable to the past 112 years of existing in this country. :facepalm

[Godzuki]

Taxes are lower for the rich than at any time in our history? Does that include the first 125 years, when we didn't have an income tax at all?


lol are you really going to talk about times when people were riding horses through towns, playign cowboys and indians, and our government or infrastructure was nowhere near what its at today? never mind how much more of a civilized society we are today thanks to government programs and law enforcement to create order from the chaos of earlier civilizations.

i swear you independents always hearken back to some unrealistic stuff to constantly use as examples for us to live by today :facepalm

[rufuspaul]

Yeah, because the 1800's are totally relevant and comparable to the past 112 years of existing in this country. :facepalm


True. I don't think they had a shot clock back then.

[Godzuki]

Good point. The sad thing about vilifying the rich and essentially holding them responsible for the deficit is that it won't solve anything. Even if you took 100% of the income of all the millionaires and billionaires in this country (something all the Karl Marx clones on this board probably want) it wouldn't make a significant dent in the deficit.


how wouldn't it solve anything? the more money the government collects the more goes towards paying off our deficit....

one things for sure, they aren't going to pay the deficit off by not taxing anyone.

[rufuspaul]

lol are you really going to talk about times when people were riding horses through towns, playign cowboys and indians, and our government or infrastructure was nowhere near what its at today? never mind how much more of a civilized society we are today thanks to government programs and law enforcement to create order from the chaos of earlier civilizations.

i swear you independents always hearken back to some unrealistic stuff to constantly use as examples for us to live by today :facepalm


I think his point was a little tongue-in-cheek jab. Still the US was able to win wars and provide mail service, etc. without taxing what the citizens earned. Totally unsustainable in today's world but worth remembering, especially since "government" and "efficiency" are 2 words that don't go hand in hand nowadays.

[rufuspaul]

how wouldn't it solve anything? the more money the government collects the more goes towards paying off our deficit....

one things for sure, they aren't going to pay the deficit off by not taxing anyone.


No. The way to raise revenue is to get people back to work. Specifically promote policies that are favorable to small business and encourage investment. You can raise taxes to a degree and certainly reform the idiotic code, but that alone won't really solve the problem.

Spending is another issue and sadly I don't think congress will ever get it right. There's such an entrenched habit of attaching pork projects to bills on both sides of the aisle that I don't see it ever getting any better. I hope I'm wrong.

[Godzuki]

I think his point was a little tongue-in-cheek jab. Still the US was able to win wars and provide mail service, etc. without taxing what the citizens earned. Totally unsustainable in today's world but worth remembering, especially since "government" and "efficiency" are 2 words that don't go hand in hand nowadays.


nah its consistent with a lot of stuff Joe says that aren't very applicable to the current reality, but its the same with some of the stuff Ron Paul says as well. i don't think its tongue n cheek more than what they believe.

there is a lot more infrastructure to upkeep now, a much larger population, way more civil/domestic issues where comparing old times to now isn't realistic. our government isn't efficient and bloated which i think both parties know, but its not like there aren't issues everywhere else as well, like the rich vs poor gap constantly widening.

[DonDadda59]

lol are you really going to talk about times when people were riding horses through towns, playign cowboys and indians, and our government or infrastructure was nowhere near what its at today? never mind how much more of a civilized society we are today thanks to government programs and law enforcement to create order from the chaos of earlier civilizations.

i swear you independents always hearken back to some unrealistic stuff to constantly use as examples for us to live by today :facepalm

Yeah it's the same faulty reasoning some use to justify our antiquated gun laws. 'I need these guns to fight against tyranny' like they're going to gather muskets to join a militia to fight against the King of England and it's the 18th century :lol

Times change and society has to adapt accordingly.


No. The way to raise revenue is to get people back to work. Specifically promote policies that are favorable to small business and encourage investment. You can raise taxes to a degree and certainly reform the idiotic code, but that alone won't really solve the problem.

But the President has made it clear that tax reform/increase is just the first step, a necessary step. He laid out his spending reduction plan which included less borrowing, entitlements, etc. The idea is that the House approves the Senate bill that would raise taxes on 2% of the population, the President signs it into law, then the two sides get together to hammer out a spending reduction deal.

[DonDadda59]

And right on cue, the weeper of the house throws a ridiculous wrench into the game :facepalm

[INDENT]Boehner: Obamacare on table for 'fiscal cliff' talks

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/08/02/t1larg.boehner.jpg

(CNN)

[DonDadda59]

Finally, some real progress :applause:


White House says Boehner offered tax increase for entitlement cuts

(Reuters) - U.S. House Speaker John Boehner has offered to raise tax rates on high earners to break the "fiscal cliff" deadlock in exchange for major cuts in entitlement programs, but President Barack Obama is not ready to accept, a source said late Saturday.

While the White House considers Boehner's offer "progress," the source said more remained to be worked out between the two.

Tax rates are a major sticking point in negotiations to avert steep automatic tax hikes and budget cuts set for the end of the year if a deal isn't reached. Republicans have resisted Obama's demand to extend lower tax rates for everyone except top earners, preferring to extend them for all taxpayers.

The Boehner offer was the first departure from the position the House speaker has held for months.

(Editing by Fred Barbash and Todd Eastham)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/16/us-usa-fiscal-boehner-idUSBRE8BF01I20121216

*Obama is 'not ready to accept' because Boehner wants the cut off to be those earning $1 mil+ instead of $250K and they haven't released info on the rate increase proposed. But the fact the Boehner is willing to go against the Norquist pledge is a major breakthrough IMO. Now it's just about the details since the House Republican leader has agreed to rate increases and the President has put entitlements on the table.

[Jailblazers7]

Haven't been following the fiscal cliff stuff lately but raising the Medicare age to 67 would be a really bad idea imo. That's the only policy change that I've seen discussed heavily.

[raiderfan19]

Haven't been following the fiscal cliff stuff lately but raising the Medicare age to 67 would be a really bad idea imo. That's the only policy change that I've seen discussed heavily.
Why?

[Jailblazers7]

Why?

Because all it would really do is shift the burden of that cost onto seniors age 65-67 by forcing them to pay for private (and more expensive) health insurance. It would be a way for the federal government to cut spending but is that really the spending that should be cut? If anything, that spending is the most social beneficial thing the government does.

[knickballer]

We all know what spending needs to be cut, it's the big elephant standing in the corner of the room but yet none of them will even mention it.. But instead we have clowns debating on cutting welfare programs or education to cut spending :facepalm

[DonDadda59]

We all know what spending needs to be cut, it's the big elephant standing in the corner of the room but yet none of them will even mention it.. But instead we have clowns debating on cutting welfare programs or education to cut spending :facepalm

Didn't Obama already sign into law $1 trillion in spending cuts last year (haven't gone into effect yet). I think they included cuts to military spending.

[Cangri]

We all know what spending needs to be cut, it's the big elephant standing in the corner of the room but yet none of them will even mention it.. But instead we have clowns debating on cutting welfare programs or education to cut spending :facepalm
CBS? trololol

[Math2]

Haven't been following the fiscal cliff stuff lately but raising the Medicare age to 67 would be a really bad idea imo. That's the only policy change that I've seen discussed heavily.

:facepalm Taxes, perhaps?

[Jailblazers7]

e
:facepalm Taxes, perhaps?

I meant as far as specific spending cuts. Obviously taxes have been discussed endlessly.

[longhornfan1234]

We need to extend the tax cuts only for income below $400,000 or $500,000 for the current time. After the economy stabilizes a little better, we need to let all of the tax cuts expire.

[longhornfan1234]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20121219_ap_obamasocialsecurityofferatoddswithtopd ems.html

Obama puts SS on the table. Libs are mad. :lol

[rufuspaul]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20121219_ap_obamasocialsecurityofferatoddswithtopd ems.html

Obama puts SS on the table. Libs are mad. :lol


It should be on the table. It's not a sustainable system. In preparing for my own retirement I've always worked under the assumption that Social Security won't be around by then.

[Rose]

It should be on the table. It's not a sustainable system. In preparing for my own retirement I've always worked under the assumption that Social Security won't be around by then.
That's how I feel as well.

[longhornfan1234]

Nancy Pelosi said she can "sell" Obama's SS plan to Democrats in the House.

Obama and head Dems are making progress. :applause:

[Droid101]

It should be on the table. It's not a sustainable system. In preparing for my own retirement I've always worked under the assumption that Social Security won't be around by then.
It would be around for 75+ years more if we just took the cap off... right now SS tax is regressive and regressive taxes are pretty stupid.

[longhornfan1234]

Just In


Cantor ~ GOP will have the votes to pass 'Plan B'
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/20/16044470-cantor-gop-will-have-the-votes-to-pass-plan-b?lite

The No. 2 House Republican said Thursday that the GOP would have the votes to pass its "Plan B" solution to the fiscal cliff, and urged the Democratic Senate to follow suit.


House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said that Republicans intended to follow through with their vote to pass a pair of bills which would preserve tax rates on income less than $1 million and approve new spending cuts in place of the automatic cuts -- many to defense -- set to take effect on Jan. 1.

Absent a balanced option from the president, this is our nation's best option," Cantor told reporters on Capitol Hill.
"And Senate Democrats should take up both of these measures immediately."


President Barack Obama has promised to veto the legislation; it is virtually dead-on-arrival in the Senate, where Democrats oppose the proposal.


With less than 12 days until the tax hikes and spending cuts which compose the "fiscal cliff" will snap into place, Republicans remain locked in a stalemate with Obama over the extent of the expiring tax rates they should extend, as well as how deep of cuts should be made -- and to which programs.

[DonDadda59]

Boehner is such a clown. The guy wasted precious time with his plan b (the b is short for bullshit) and he couldn't even get the necessary vote from his own party. Instead of taking a hint from his own party, like he's failed to do with the electorate, I'm sure this goof will find another way to waste more time instead of doing the right thing.

[longhornfan1234]

Nm.

[Rasheed1]

this is a little off the subject, but Obama is such a f*ckin chump for not nominating either Rice or Chuck Hagel. GOP keeps having a fit, and Obama keeps caving. Everyone knows why they are doing it and he just caves anyway.


when will his set drop? :facepalm

[longhornfan1234]

this is a little off the subject, but Obama is such a f*ckin chump for not nominating either Rice or Chuck Hagel. GOP keeps having a fit, and Obama keeps caving. Everyone knows why they are doing it and he just caves anyway.


when will his set drop? :facepalm

Obama is not a leader of men.

[Jailblazers7]

I like this idea by Tyler Cowen a lot:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/business/in-fiscal-debate-a-little-symbolism-may-go-a-long-way.html?_r=0

[ShaqAttack3234]

I like the idea of raising Medicare to 67. The so-called spending cut offer being tossed around is deceptive and refers to cutting the increase in spending, which isn't good enough, imo.


this is a little off the subject, but Obama is such a f*ckin chump for not nominating either Rice or Chuck Hagel. GOP keeps having a fit, and Obama keeps caving. Everyone knows why they are doing it and he just caves anyway.

Nominating Rice after Benghazi would have been inappropriate and insulting. I'm pleasantly surprised that he didn't do it.

[Rasheed1]

I like the idea of raising Medicare to 67. The so-called spending cut offer being tossed around is deceptive and refers to cutting the increase in spending, which isn't good enough, imo.

I think thats a terrible idea. Those people are getting thousands of dollars taken out of their pockets when you move the retirement age.

there are plenty of other "oxes to gore" without offering up the people on medicare first.

Plus Obama won the election and the majority of people in the country (including republicans) are opposed to medicare cuts

there is no need to go there right now.


Nominating Rice after Benghazi would have been inappropriate and insulting. I'm pleasantly surprised that he didn't do it.


That doesnt make any sense...

Condaleeza Rice told bigger more important lies on a regular basis.

Susan Rice was qualified for the job, and she wasnt reason for the break down. The GOP only plays these juvenile games because they want to open up a seat for scott brown in the senate.


Its totally political and Obama is bargaining with the GOP when they have no leverage and no clout


Obama is dumb for caving to GOP.


It makes all the more ridiculous when republicans pretend he is some left wing marxist :oldlol:

The guy is trying to capitulate, but the republicans wont let him :facepalm

[MMM]

I like this idea by Tyler Cowen a lot:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/business/in-fiscal-debate-a-little-symbolism-may-go-a-long-way.html?_r=0

Yes, people need to be aware that in 5 years or a decade down the road that taxes will need to be much higher. Borrowing cost will also increase during the same time period but that is a different discussion.

With that being said is the current system efficient or effective in collecting tax revenue?? For example, I would like to see higher consumption rates and off set partially by personal income tax cuts. People would actually have a choice in whether they would spend, invest, or save.

However, not to contradict my first statement, people should accept that the low tax era of the last decade and a half needs to end if they are serious about slaying the deficit.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I think thats a terrible idea. Those people are getting thousands of dollars taken out of their pockets when you move the retirement age.

there are plenty of other "oxes to gore" without offering up the people on medicare first.

Plus Obama won the election and the majority of people in the country (including republicans) are opposed to medicare cuts

there is no need to go there right now.

67 isn't particularly old these days, I think it makes sense. I'm not saying it should be the first priority by any stretch, though.


That doesnt make any sense...

Condaleeza Rice told bigger more important lies on a regular basis.

Susan Rice was qualified for the job, and she wasnt reason for the break down. The GOP only plays these juvenile games because they want to open up a seat for scott brown in the senate.


Its totally political and Obama is bargaining with the GOP when they have no leverage and no clout


Obama is dumb for caving to GOP.


It makes all the more ridiculous when republicans pretend he is some left wing marxist :oldlol:

The guy is trying to capitulate, but the republicans wont let him :facepalm

I don't see why nominate Rice, there are qualified people without the baggage. Going all over TV and telling blatant lies is not something I think should be ignored. I would have seen a nomination for Rice as nothing more than a **** you to the Republicans. Why her right after Benghazi? The nomination never made sense to me. Obama often comes off as arrogant to me so I was expecting him to do it, but I'm happy he didn't.

[MMM]

Wouldn't raising the age to 67 be grandfathered in for much younger people who probably be working longer if recent trends continue??

[DonDadda59]

Yes, people need to be aware that in 5 years or a decade down the road that taxes will need to be much higher. Borrowing cost will also increase during the same time period but that is a different discussion.

With that being said is the current system efficient or effective in collecting tax revenue?? For example, I would like to see higher consumption rates and off set partially by personal income tax cuts. People would actually have a choice in whether they would spend, invest, or save.

However, not to contradict my first statement, people should accept that the low tax era of the last decade and a half needs to end if they are serious about slaying the deficit.

True, but the House Republicans won't even agree to raising taxes on those earning $1 mil+, which is only like 0.3% of the population, so I wouldn't hold my breath on them agreeing to across the board increases (especially since Boehner's 'plan B' nonsense was just a veiled tax increase on the middle class and featured more tax breaks for the top bracket).

The truth that should be apparent to everyone watching the events unfold is that the House Repubs have no interest in getting a deal done, not even put forward by their 'leader'. All they've managed to do is give the President even more leverage than he came in with. The Teabaggers have gone on record that they will take themselves out of the discussion and let the White House and Boehner fix the mess they contributed to creating.

All this will do is allow Obama to swoop in and look like the night in shining armor when he presents the bill that saves 98% of the country from the tax hikes. Anyone who votes against that in the New Year will be crucified by the press, and voting public.

[Knoe Itawl]

.



I don't see why nominate Rice, there are qualified people without the baggage. Going all over TV and telling blatant lies is not something I think should be ignored. I would have seen a nomination for Rice as nothing more than a **** you to the Republicans. Why her right after Benghazi? The nomination never made sense to me. Obama often comes off as arrogant to me so I was expecting him to do it, but I'm happy he didn't.

First of all, you completely dodged the point that the hypocrite Mccain didn't seem to have a problem with Condoleeza Rice's misstatements about intelligence in Iraq that lead us into a misguided war that inflicted considerable damage to the country. He didn't seem to have a problem with Rice being nominated despite that, and what do you think was worse? Susan Rice on Bengazi, or Condoleeza Rice on Iraq? Yet he readily approved her for SOS. And unless you're in some Fox News echo chamber there is no evidence that she told "blatant lies" as opposed to parroting what was given to her by the CIA. Bengazi was just a political smokescreen designed to hurt Obama's foreign service cred before the election. Nothing more, nothing less. Not that there aren't questions to be asked about it, however it was certainly elevated for political reasons.

Second of all, given that Kerry is now vacating his senate seat in Mass, and Brown lost his seat to Warren earlier, does it not seem at least plausible that all of this faux outrage on Rice's statements was more likely a ruse to create enough of a scene around her to damage the likelihood of her being nominated so that the ensuing available senate seat would be open for Scott Brown to pursue?

As for taxing the rich, anyone who disputes this idea please research just how much the discrepancy between the ultra rich and the rest of society has grown in the past thirty years. As opposed to making 40 percent more than the average worker in the 70s, the average CEO today makes like 4OO percent. If you look at any charts on the matter it shows the top 1 percent's wealth increasing at an extreme rate while everyone else's earning's have flatilined (though the cost of living has risen). People are working harder than ever and still having trouble making ends meet. Corporations are sitting on RECORD PROFITS. People need to wake up and realize that it's not about socialism or all of that crap that they throw at anyone who dares to raise the subject of societal inequities. Its about basic fairness, and the ability of a society to prosper and not face sharp decline when the vast majority of the population is having its resources plundered so that a few people at the top can increase their wealth to levels never seen before in human history.


For God's sake, please check out this link and then tell me why some of you think that the current situation is anything approaching fair.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

And these people have brainwashed a lot of people into fighting against their own self interests for them!

[Doctor Rivers]

It's coming...

[longhornfan1234]

I'm shocked. I thought Obama would cave. :biggums:

[rezznor]

I'm shocked. I thought Obama would cave. :biggums:
why would you be shocked? because you have been spot on with all of your political predictions so far right? you are the Konex of the GOP.

[tontoz]

why would you be shocked? because you have been spot on with all of your political predictions so far right? you are the Konex of the GOP.



:oldlol:

[Jailblazers7]

The inconsistencies by our politicians throughout this whole scenario is insane. Politicians are afraid of the fiscal cliff because it will hurt the economy by forcing across the board austerity measures, yet the two sides are bickering in favor of different forms of austerity measures (tax increases vs spending decreases). Obama did initially include new stimulus but that has been gradually whittled away during the bargaining process.

[DonDadda59]

Looks like they've hammered out an agreement on some key issues-

Repubs agree to return tax rates to the Clinton Era for individuals making $400K+ and households making $450K+. Unemployment benefits will be extended. There's also some sort of agreement over the estate tax and capital gains. They are still haggling over spending cuts.

Even if there is a deal agreed to and voted on in the Senate today, the House most likely won't tackle it until tomorrow so the GOP members can claim they voted to decrease taxes instead of hiking them (across the board tax increases go into effect at midnight). Nice little loophole for them so they can lie to themselves and sleep easier at night :oldlol:

[longhornfan1234]

We're offically going off the fiscal cliff via AP, CBS, others on twitter

https://twitter.com/AP

[DonDadda59]

We're offically going off the fiscal cliff via AP, CBS, others on twitter

https://twitter.com/AP

Looks like the only thing that could potentially derail the nation in the next few days is the House Republicans. If there's one thing they do well, it's throw a wrench into things. You won't find a more useless group of people anywhere else on Earth. So we'll see how the dysfunction there plays out.

[UConnCeltics]

Long-term, I think the fiscal cliff will be a "good" thing. Short term, uh oh.

[longhornfan1234]

Looks like the only thing that could potentially derail the nation in the next few days is the House Republicans. If there's one thing they do well, it's throw a wrench into things. You won't find a more useless group of people anywhere else on Earth. So we'll see how the dysfunction there plays out.
Let's be real, Dems refusal to talk about spending cuts killed the deal.

[DonDadda59]

Let's be real, Dems refusal to talk about spending cuts killed the deal.

Then why couldn't Boehner get his own party to agree to his proposal? On the surface it called for tax hikes on those making $1 million+ but in reality it was laden with loopholes that would've provided that bracket c. $50K on average in tax breaks while the burden would shift to middle class families.

Hint: Making sure millionaires don't have to pay a handful of points more in taxes (even with loopholes) supersedes any concern over spending for House Republicans.

You can't say that Democrats killed a deal when Republicans kill their own leader's proposals. They can't agree among themselves, but it's the Democrats' fault that a bipartisan agreement wasn't reached? Are you drunk right now?

[JellyBean]

Boehner should have taken the 2011 "fiscal cliff" deal. President Obama is a genius. Think about it. The Repugs on the House "Super Committee" crafted the budget bill known now as the "fiscal cliff." They were bluffing, thinking the cuts would never be allowed to happen. But the votes were real, and their bad bet is now the law of the land. Now the GOP geniuses are trying to weasel out of the deal by offering BS dressed up to look like concessions, to fool the teabaggers. No dice. They all voted for those tax increases and big cuts to the military. They get what they asked for. The joke's on them. Obama called their bluff. If the cuts and tax increases kick in - and it is probably too late to prevent that - it is the GOP's fault, and the American public isn't going to forget. President Obama called the GOP's bluff.

[boozehound]

Let's be real, Dems refusal to talk about spending cuts killed the deal.
they are actually the only ones who put any tangible language together. Sure, it may not have been enough, but its not like the house repubs even bothered to try.

[longhornfan1234]

Biden is expected to pay a visit to Capitol Hill tonight to talk to congressional Democrats about the outlines of a deal, according to multiple reports.

This may be be an effort by the White House to

[longhornfan1234]

Then why couldn't Boehner get his own party to agree to his proposal? On the surface it called for tax hikes on those making $1 million+ but in reality it was laden with loopholes that would've provided that bracket c. $50K on average in tax breaks while the burden would shift to middle class families.

Hint: Making sure millionaires don't have to pay a handful of points more in taxes (even with loopholes) supersedes any concern over spending for House Republicans.

You can't say that Democrats killed a deal when Republicans kill their own leader's proposals. They can't agree among themselves, but it's the Democrats' fault that a bipartisan agreement wasn't reached? Are you drunk right now?
Boehner couldn't get his own party to agree to the proposal because it had absolutely nothing to do with spending cuts, only about punishing the successful. :biggums:

[RedBlackAttack]

Boehner couldn't get his own party to agree to the proposal because it had absolutely nothing to do with spending cuts, only about punishing the successful. :biggums:
"Punishing the successful" by rolling back the top marginal tax rate to the Clinton era? What a complete crock of sh!t. You will just buy whatever your side puts out there, won't you? Do you ever deviate from the very basic, very flawed talking points on FNC?

Btw, the Republicans' position on this fiscal cliff discussion also involves tax hikes. They want to eliminate tax credits which benefit poor and middle class Americans, while increasing defense spending. They also want to eliminate the Obama payroll tax cut for the middle class.

It isn't just about spending cuts for the Republicans. If Democrats are only interest in "punishing" the successful, the Republicans are only interested in further widening the already absolutely massive gap between the haves and the have-nots, all the while throwing an even more ridiculous amount of money at the Pentagon.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama just win the election by a wide margin based on the policies that he is now attempting to enforce? The American people, by an absolutely massive margin, would like to see the rich pay more in taxes... Which still wouldn't be all that much when put in context of the history of our federal tax laws.

If the Republicans weren't marginalized enough already, they will do even more damage to their brand by continuing to take a hard-line stance on these matters. How will it look in a couple of years when these congresspeople are up for re-election and their stance on the fiscal cliff was to raise taxes on the poor and cut taxes for the super rich? Essentially holding our entire economy hostage to preserve under 3% lower taxes for their benefactors?

Good luck holding onto the House.

[DonDadda59]

House staves off fiscal cliff, but more squabbles lie ahead

(CNN) -- The bill that backs the United States away from its fiscal cliff awaited President Barack Obama's signature Wednesday, but new battles over taxes and spending await Washington in the next few weeks.

Congress averted that self-built precipice late Tuesday when the House voted to stave off widespread tax increases and deep spending cuts by accepting a brokered Senate compromise. It makes permanent the Bush administration's tax cuts for individuals earning less than $400,000 per year and couples earning less than $450,000.

It raises rates on those who make more than that from 35% to 39.6%, bringing back a top tax bracket from the Clinton administration, and will raise roughly $600 billion in new revenues over 10 years, according to various estimates.

The bill also extends unemployment insurance and delays for two months the threat of sequestration -- a series of automatic, across-the-board cuts in federal spending.

Economists had predicted the combination of those tax increases and spending cuts could have thrown the U.S. economy back into recession and driven unemployment back into the 9% range.

Meanwhile, a new Congress takes office on Thursday, and lawmakers will soon be confronted by the need to raise the federal debt ceiling and what to do about the still-hanging sequester -- a legacy of the last battle over the debt ceiling, in 2011.

Obama said he would sign the bill into law, but he did not say when. After the vote, he flew to Hawaii to rejoin his wife and daughters on their winter vacation.

"The sum total of all the budget agreements we've reached so far proves that there is a path forward that is possible, if we focus not on our politics but on what's right for the country," Obama told reporters late Tuesday. "And the one thing that I think, hopefully, in the new year, we'll focus on is seeing if we can put a package like this together with a little bit less drama, a little less brinksmanship, not scare the heck out of folks quite as much."

The Bush tax cuts expired at midnight Monday, while sequestration had been scheduled to start when federal offices reopened Wednesday.

Congress planned to send the bill to the White House on Wednesday, a Republican leadership aide told CNN, but there's no urgency on the president's signature in practical terms. It's up to the Obama administration to implement the budget and tax changes, and since the president has said he will sign the measure, the administration can begin planning for the changes immediately.
World markets rose after the late-night vote. U.S. stocks jumped, too, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average rising nearly 2% by mid-afternoon.

Tuesday night's 257-167 vote saw House Speaker John Boehner and about a third of his Republican majority lining up with the Democratic minority against most of the GOP, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor and party whip Kevin McCarthy.

Rep. Nan Hayworth, an outgoing Republican representative from New York, said she was a "reluctant yes."

"This is the best we can do, given the Senate and the White House sentiment at this point in time, and it is at least a partial victory for the American people," Hayworth said. "I'll take that at this point."

The Senate plan was brokered by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and it passed that Democratic-led chamber 89-8. But many House Republicans complained the bill did too little to cut spending while raising taxes for them to support it.

Conservative lobbyist Grover Norquist, whose Americans for Tax Reform pushes candidates to sign a pledge never to raise taxes, said the plan preserves most of the Bush tax cuts and won't violate his group's beliefs.
"The Bush tax cuts lapsed at midnight last night," Norquist tweeted Tuesday. "Every (Republican) voting for Senate bill is cutting taxes and keeping his/her pledge."

But Rep. Jeff Landry, R-Louisiana, told CNN's "Early Start" that Obama convinced Boehner "to undo everything he promised he would do" after the 2010 elections that gave the GOP control of the House.

"They did a debt ceiling deal, gave the president $2.1 trillion," Landry said. "They turned that deal off for two months. That's going to be another fight on top of the sequestration, a debt ceiling fight."

Other Republicans warned that as they did in 2011, they'll be demanding additional cuts before they agree to raise the federal cap on borrowing.

"The president has maxed out his credit card, and he is not going to get an unlimited credit card," Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, told CNN. "We're going to talk specifically about cuts and specifically focused on tax reform as well as helping to save and strengthen Medicare and Social Security. And that's the next discussion we're going to have in Washington."

The federal government bumped up against its $16.4 trillion debt ceiling on Monday and has about two months before it runs out of ways to shuffle money around to keep Washington within its legal borrowing limit. Obama had sought to resolve the issue as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, but the issue never made it to a final bill.

Tuesday night, the president warned Congress that he will not tolerate another round of brinksmanship that could have "catastrophic" effects on the global economy.

"While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they've passed," he said.

The last debt-ceiling battle led to the sequester, a kind of fiscal doomsday device that Congress was supposed to disarm by agreeing to more than $1 trillion in other cuts over the next decade. They didn't, leaving federal agencies preparing to slash spending by $110 billion by the end of the 2013 budget year.

Before Tuesday night, the Defense Department had been preparing to issue furlough notices for its entire civilian work force of 800,000. Those notices were stayed on Wednesday -- but Pentagon officials say they're worried that unpaid leave may be harder to implement later in the fiscal year.

"We hope Congress can find a way to end sequester once and for all," Pentagon spokesman George Little said.

While the deal gives Obama bragging rights for raising income taxes on the wealthiest Americans -- the first rate increase for any Americans since 1993 -- it also leaves him breaking a promise.

Obama had vowed to raise tax rates for the top-earning 2% of Americans, including those with household income above $250,000 and individuals earning more than $200,000.

Raising the threshold for higher tax rates shrinks the number of Americans affected. While nearly 2% of filers have adjusted gross incomes over $250,000, only 0.6% have incomes above $500,000, according to the Tax Policy Center.

By comparison, Census Bureau figures put the median U.S. household income at just over $50,000.

And despite the last-minute fiscal cliff agreements, Americans are still likely to see their paychecks shrink somewhat because of a separate battle over payroll taxes.

The government temporarily lowered the payroll tax rate in 2011 from 6.2% to 4.2% to put more money in the pockets of Americans. That adjustment, which has cost about $120 billion each year, expired Monday.

Now, Americans earning $30,000 a year will take home $50 less per month. Those earning $113,700 will lose $189.50 a month.


The legislation also caps itemized deductions for individuals making $250,000 and for married couples making $300,000. Taxes on inherited estates over $5 million will go up to 40% from 35%, and that threshold will be indexed for inflation.

The alternative minimum tax, a perennial issue, will be permanently adjusted for inflation. Child care, tuition and research and development tax credits will be renewed. The "Doc Fix" -- reimbursements for doctors who take Medicare patients -- will continue, but it won't be paid for out of the Obama administration's signature health care law.

CNN's Dana Bash, Rich Barbieri, Charles Riley, Dana Ford, Holly Yan, Josh Levs, Jessica Yellin, Deirdre Walsh and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

It's not the 'grand bargain' that Obama wanted, but it at least addresses the tax issue. The debt ceiling and sequester issues will have everyone doing the same song and dance in two month :rolleyes:

I think Joe Biden really made his case for a Presidential nominee in 2016. Nothing got done until he stepped in and had a pow wow with McConnell and the Senate Republicans. The man knows how to get a deal done :applause:

[MJ23forever]

The "fiscal cliff" compromise is stunning. Not only does it NOT protect the middle class...because payroll tax cuts were not addressed therefore taxes will go up for 77% of all Americans, but it DOES provide special interest tax breaks. Oh, and it gets better because the bill, while doing to cut spending], actually increases federal spending.