Wouldn't raising the age to 67 be grandfathered in for much younger people who probably be working longer if recent trends continue??
Printable View
Wouldn't raising the age to 67 be grandfathered in for much younger people who probably be working longer if recent trends continue??
[QUOTE=MMM]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.
[B]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.[/B][/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234].
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 f[SIZE="2"]u[/SIZE]ck 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[URL="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph"]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph[/URL]
And these people have brainwashed a lot of people into fighting against their own self interests for them!
It's coming...
I'm shocked. I thought Obama would cave. :biggums:
[QUOTE=longhornfan1234]I'm shocked. I thought Obama would cave. :biggums:[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=rezznor]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.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:
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.
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:
We're offically going off the fiscal cliff via AP, CBS, others on twitter
[url]https://twitter.com/AP[/url]
[QUOTE=longhornfan1234]We're offically going off the fiscal cliff via AP, CBS, others on twitter
[url]https://twitter.com/AP[/url][/QUOTE]
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.
Long-term, I think the fiscal cliff will be a "good" thing. Short term, uh oh.
[QUOTE=DonDadda59]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.[/QUOTE]
Let's be real, Dems refusal to talk about spending cuts killed the deal.
[QUOTE=longhornfan1234]Let's be real, Dems refusal to talk about spending cuts killed the deal.[/QUOTE]
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 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.
[QUOTE=longhornfan1234]Let's be real, Dems refusal to talk about spending cuts killed the deal.[/QUOTE]
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.
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
[QUOTE=DonDadda59]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?[/QUOTE]
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:
[QUOTE=longhornfan1234]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:[/QUOTE]
"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.
[INDENT][B][U]House staves off fiscal cliff, but more squabbles lie ahead[/U][/B]
(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. [B]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.[/B]
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.
[B]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.[/B] 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.
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t1[/url][/INDENT]
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:
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.