The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

This is great and makes perfect sense:
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/19/12837776-submit-designs-for-off-the-cliff-campaign

QuoteAnd so The Last Word "Off the Cliff" campaign begins, and we need your help. We're looking design ideas for #OffTheCliff campaign buttons.

Congressional Democrats are going to need courage to do this because it's a bold strategy and boldness isn't exactly their style. (No offense.) So we've decided congressional Democrats should all get buttons made and slap bumper stickers on their cars saying "Off the Cliff" so that when Republicans see the Democratic cars in the House and Senate garages they'll start to think, 'maybe the Democrats are serious this time.'

We know it sounds bat crap crazy to go off the cliff, all Thelma and Louise-style. It sounds totally reckless, it sounds downright Republican to have a legislative strategy that says, 'hey, let's just go off the cliff — neat!' That was the tea party strategy in the House by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. This cliff is different, and it's the only way to restore sanity and fairness in taxation.

If Congress and the president do not agree on $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by New Year's Eve then budget cuts amounting to $1.2 trillion will go into effect on January 1, and half of those cuts will be in defense spending – which would trigger an extreme chain of events.

Lawrence broke it down the importance of cheering on the Dems to do the unthinkable in the latest Rewrite.

But we won't need to do that when Rmoney gets elected. A certifiable genious and "did it all by myself" businessman, he will throw us back on course in a jiff!

Let's be fair. Romney, unlike many of his supporters, is willing to acknowledge the fact that the success of his companies depends on government services.

Shall we go off the cliff? I say forward!

You mean the only logical solution to massive deficits?  Reduce spending AND raise revenue?  Preposterous!

Seriously though, the fact of the matter is that this drop in the bucket decrease in rate of increase combined with expiration of old tax cuts is just a fiscal fart in the wind, not a fiscal cliff.  And the media has apparently signed on to overselling this?

If a third party ever emerges, it needs to be a collection of positives, not a third list of negatives.

Some have taken to calling it the "fiscal slope," noting that it will take some time for the spending cuts to filter through to the economy. Boehner and the media are just pissy because the Republicans agreed to a deal that put Obama in the drivers' seat if he won reelection. (I guess the Republicans assumed Romney would win) The fiscal landscape looks a lot more like Obama wants in a post-sequester world than it does the Republicans' vision.

I think it's about 6-12 months too early to raise taxes and cut spending, at least as far as the economy is concerned. We've had a year of reasonably decent job growth, housing is turning the corner, and the discouraged are finally rejoining the workforce. It should be completely self-sustaining in not too much longer, to the point where the government can't really love it up except by driving inflation higher with too much "juice".

Unless the Eurozone completely implodes, that is. They are our second or third largest trading partner, after all.

QuoteI don't have a ready estimate of how much capping deductions for those earning more than $250,000 would raise. But you can ballpark it by looking the Tax Policy Center's estimates for capping itemized deductions at $50,000. It would raise $749 billion over 10 years, within the $800 billion that Mr Boehner has previously agreed to. That's also more than the $429 billion yielded from returning the two top rates to their pre 2001 levels. The appeal for Republicans is that no one's rates go up, and the preferential rate for capital gains and dividends is preserved. The appeal for Mr Obama is that it is highly progressive. According to the TPC, less than 1% of the bottom 60% of households would pay more tax while the top 1% would pay 79% of the additional revenue. The average tax rate for the bottom 60% wouldn't change, while it would go up 2 percentage points for the top 1%. It's worth noting that Mr Obama's budgets proposed capping the value of deductions for upper income households at 28%, which would have raised $584 billion over 10 years. Prior to 2001, the personal exemption and itemized deductions phased out for upper income taxpayers; those phaseouts were eliminated by the Bush tax cuts. Mr Obama's budget would reinstate them, raising $164 billion over a decade. (These provisions would raise considerably less revenue if the two top rates did not go up.)

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-tax-deal-2012-11#ixzz2BqsF2Se4

Boehner and Cantor sort of remind me of Thelma and Louise at this point. "Over the cliff on January 1st" is definitely hard core all-in poker.
I might well play it that way myself, but don't see that being Obama's brand or style. 

I'll happily bet anybody even money until Monday that we don't "go over the cliff" on January 1st.

Simpson-Bowles Fans Once Again Reveal Ignorance of Simpson-Bowles Plan

(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/13/lindsey_graham_loves_simpson_bowles_but_doesn_t_know_what_s_in_it/149132192.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/13/lindsey_graham_loves_simpson_bowles_but_doesn_t_know_what_s_in_it.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/13/lindsey_graham_loves_simpson_bowles_but_doesn_t_know_what_s_in_it.html)

QuoteOver the weekend on Face The Nation, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) begged the president to endorse the Simpson-Bowles plan (emphasis added):

"Say yes to Simpson-Bowles, Mr. President. I'm willing to say yes to Simpson-Bowles," Graham said. Graham said Washington needs more revenue, but that the revenue should come from closing tax loopholes and deductions for the rich, not from raising tax rates. "Mr. President, if you will say yes to Simpson-Bowles when it comes to revenue, so will I and so will most Republicans. We can get revenue without destroying jobs," Graham said.
I can never tell if the reason so few people understand the content of the Simpson-Bowles plan is that Simpson and Bowles themselves are dishonest or just extraordinarily bad at explaining their own work, but this simply isn't how the plan works. To understand the math of the Simpson-Bowles proposal you have to understand that they start from the baseline assumption that Obama gets his way on income taxes:

Second, when the Bowles-Simpson plan listed the savings that its proposed policies would achieve, it used a revenue baseline that assumed that the tax cuts President Bush and Congress enacted in 2001 and 2003 would expire for incomes over $250,000 for couples ($200,000 for singles).  After Bowles and Simpson issued their plan (and starting with the budget negotiations of 2011), policymakers of both parties decided to measure revenue changes from a different, "current policy," baseline — i.e., a baseline that assumes that policymakers would extend all of the Bush tax cuts and almost all other expiring tax provisions.
Get it? The way this works is that they start from the assumption that tax rates on the rich go up, and then from that new higher baseline they raise even more revenue through base-broadening reform paired with rate cuts. What's more, of the $2.1 trillion in discretionary cuts they proposed $1.5 trillion have already been enacted.

Summed up, this is another reason for Obama to call John Boehner's bluff. Simpson and Bowles didn't use that baseline for no reason. They use that baseline because they know it's much simpler to get Republicans to agree to a mathematically workable tax plan when you lock that baseline in. Mitt Romney just tried to run an entire presidential campaign based in tax reform assuming the current policy baseline and we saw over and over again that he couldn't make it work. But in terms of affect, both the Romney plan and the Simpson-Bowles plan are the same. You cut raise and broaden the base. Where this gets you numbers-wise all comes down to the baseline. Obama can unilaterally set a new baseline that's more favorable to reform, and he should.

Poll: If government careens off fiscal cliff, GOP to shoulder blame

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/13/15141771-poll-if-government-careens-off-fiscal-cliff-gop-to-shoulder-blame?lite (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/13/15141771-poll-if-government-careens-off-fiscal-cliff-gop-to-shoulder-blame?lite)

(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/121113_boehner_4x3_1120a.photoblog600.jpg)

QuoteIf the U.S. government ends up careening off the "fiscal cliff," Republicans in Congress stand to shoulder most of the blame, according to a new poll released Tuesday.
A majority of Americans said in a new, post-election poll that they do not expect President Barack Obama and members of Congress to reach an agreement to avoid the effects of the fiscal cliff, the combination of automatic spending cuts and tax hikes set to take effect at the beginning of the year.

Fifty-three percent of Americans said Republicans in Congress would be more to blame in that instance, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in the days following the election. Twenty-nine percent said that Obama would be more to blame, while 10 percent said both the president and Republicans would share blame.

Those kinds of numbers help set the political landscape heading into the impending fight to resolve the long-running fiscal standoff, which features an emboldened Obama fresh off a re-election victory and a Republican Party looking to regain its footing in Washington after losing seats in the House and Senate in addition to Mitt Romney's White House loss.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill returned to work on Tuesday to begin sorting out these issues and beginning to work on some internal affairs, including choosing their own leadership teams for the next two years.
But just a few weeks separate the U.S. from the onset of the fiscal cliff, as the 2001 Bush tax cuts and the 2010 payroll tax cut are set to expire at the end of this calendar year. On top of that, the automatic spending cuts -- which fall heavily on the defense budget -- will also take place beginning in January unless Congress acts first.

Sixty-eight percent of Americans said in the Pew poll that they would expect the impact of the fiscal cliff to be major, and 70 percent said they expect the fallout from the fiscal cliff to be mostly negative.
The president hosted labor leaders at the White House on Tuesday morning in anticipation of the upcoming negotiations, and Obama will host business leaders on Wednesday. Leaders in Congress from both parties head to the White House for talks on Friday.

Both Obama and Republicans in Congress have begun laying out parameters for those negotiations, and White House press secretary Jay Carney reiterated on Tuesday afternoon that the president would not sign any law extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Obama has instead called on Congress to extend all tax rates except for those in the top income bracket.
(Republicans have called for broader talks that link an overhaul in the tax code to entitlement program reforms.)
The Pew poll was conducted Nov. 8-11 and has a 3.7 percent margin of error.

4 years without a budget.

The House has put fourth 3 budget proposals.  The president has offered two budget "frameworks."  The senate has offered no proposals of their own and refused to bring others to a vote.

The can is likely to be kicked to next year.

No matter your political affiliation, the impasse rests on the senate.  They are clearly not doing their job and require replacement.

None of the house budgets were serious attempts at legislation...they were political statements.

It's time to walk out of the corners and into the middle and make concessions on both sides. We need to reduce spending (everywhere, not just in "Medicare/Medicade") and raise revenues. We need serious policy discussions instead of idealoguing.

Quote from: carltonplace on November 13, 2012, 04:00:24 PM
None of the house budgets were serious attempts at legislation...they were political statements.

It's time to walk out of the corners and into the middle and make concessions on both sides. We need to reduce spending (everywhere, not just in "Medicare/Medicade") and raise revenues. We need serious policy discussions instead of idealoguing.

I agree, but that is unlikely to happen. 

We need to go off the cliff to enable
the GOP/TEABAGGERS cause of lowering tax rates.
Win win....you don't get it Carl?

No, we shouldn't. We should not plunge the country into recession out of spite.

Quote from: carltonplace on November 14, 2012, 09:44:05 AM
No, we shouldn't. We should not plunge the country into recession out of spite.

What? Why do you think we'd "plunge" into recession? I'm just trying to help GOPeer/Teabagger save face and have a reason to exist in 2014.
They let this cabal mature to this edge after all. They can fall back on "we lowered taxes." This will not make anything worse.


It's now Obama's fault!  ;D http://www.businessinsider.com/the-obama-tax-hikes-that-will-hurt-2012-11
I've heard more whining this week than the past 4 years combined. if you make over $250,000 in California then counting all taxes your rate is closer to %67. Nobody saw this coming? War is hell and it made us poor.

Carlton is right!

The Dow has now lost 500pts since the election and seems to be on a steady decline.  Every day, more company's are announcing layoffs and at this point a second recession is almost inevitable. . .unless lawmakers can figure out how to do their jobs and avoid the automatic tax hikes that will halt the anemic growth we are attempting to hold on to.  Even with an agreement it will be difficult to quell the uncertainty, but without it, it will very likely lead to deep recession or even depression.  Our constitution requires congress to agree on a budget.  They need to do their job, plain and simple.

Now with that said, I think everyone knows that a group of 535 people will pull each other in hundreds of different directions.  That is why it is absolutely necessary that the president lead, control, and moderate the dialoge.  Speeches, grandstanding, and other media events do not qualify as leadership.  Sure, budget is the responsibility of the congress, but when their is such division, it is expected that a president step in and act as executive, setting timelines, milestones, and brokering deals.  For the past 4 years, liberals in the media have run interference for president Obama on his detachment from economic issues.  We are beginning to see this again as the media is ramping up to lay 100% of the responsibility for an agreement on Republicans in Congress, rather than acknowledging the role of the president as a leader in the process.
 

Quote from: Gaspar on November 14, 2012, 10:33:38 AM
Carlton is right!

The Dow has now lost 500pts since the election and seems to be on a steady decline.  Every day, more company's are announcing layoffs and at this point a second recession is almost inevitable. . .unless lawmakers can figure out how to do their jobs and avoid the automatic tax hikes that will halt the anemic growth we are attempting to hold on to.  Even with an agreement it will be difficult to quell the uncertainty, but without it, it will very likely lead to deep recession or even depression.  Our constitution requires congress to agree on a budget.  They need to do their job, plain and simple.

Now with that said, I think everyone knows that a group of 535 people will pull each other in hundreds of different directions.  That is why it is absolutely necessary that the president lead, control, and moderate the dialoge.  Speeches, grandstanding, and other media events do not qualify as leadership.  Sure, budget is the responsibility of the congress, but when their is such division, it is expected that a president step in and act as executive, setting timelines, milestones, and brokering deals.  For the past 4 years, liberals in the media have run interference for president Obama on his detachment from economic issues.  We are beginning to see this again as the media is ramping up to lay 100% of the responsibility for an agreement on Republicans in Congress, rather than acknowledging the role of the president as a leader in the process.
 

Please don't force me to search your posts from 2008.

The market was due for a correction. And because of rate changes, there will be plenty of portfolio calibration. But don't fear chicken little as the Europeans appear to be getting their houses in order and if that were to become reality then we will see upward trends the next several years.

I'd be more in fear of "shadow" banks if I were you: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/concern-over-lack-of-regulation-of-shadow-financial-institutions-a-866763.html

ah, good ole Okie Bill Moyers read my mind:

"...In fact, if you were choosing an image based on the coming fiscal
dust-up, it probably wouldn't be a cliff but an obstacle course - a series
of federal spending cuts and tax increases all scheduled to take effect as
2013 begins..."

http://billmoyers.com/content/why-washingtons-fiscal-cliff-is-a-myth/

QuoteAs a start, relax. Don't let the headlines get to you. There's little reason for anyone to lose sleep over the much-hyped fiscal cliff. In fact, if you were choosing an image based on the coming fiscal dust-up, it probably wouldn't be a cliff but an obstacle course — a series of federal spending cuts and tax increases all scheduled to take effect as 2013 begins. And it's true that, if all those budget cuts and tax increases were to go into effect at the same time, an already weak recovery would probably sink into a double-dip recession.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 14, 2012, 10:33:38 AM
Carlton is right!

The Dow has now lost 500pts since the election and seems to be on a steady decline.  Every day, more company's are announcing layoffs and at this point a second recession is almost inevitable. . .unless lawmakers can figure out how to do their jobs and avoid the automatic tax hikes that will halt the anemic growth we are attempting to hold on to.  Even with an agreement it will be difficult to quell the uncertainty, but without it, it will very likely lead to deep recession or even depression.  Our constitution requires congress to agree on a budget.  They need to do their job, plain and simple.

Now with that said, I think everyone knows that a group of 535 people will pull each other in hundreds of different directions.  That is why it is absolutely necessary that the president lead, control, and moderate the dialoge.  Speeches, grandstanding, and other media events do not qualify as leadership.  Sure, budget is the responsibility of the congress, but when their is such division, it is expected that a president step in and act as executive, setting timelines, milestones, and brokering deals.  For the past 4 years, liberals in the media have run interference for president Obama on his detachment from economic issues.  We are beginning to see this again as the media is ramping up to lay 100% of the responsibility for an agreement on Republicans in Congress, rather than acknowledging the role of the president as a leader in the process.
 

I don't agree that meeting with constituents, labor leaders and business leaders amounts to "media events" or grandstanding.

Quote from: carltonplace on November 14, 2012, 11:29:22 AM
I don't agree that meeting with constituents, labor leaders and business leaders amounts to "media events" or grandstanding.

I do to some extent.  If there was a question as to what needs to be done, than an effort to court answers would be necessary.  If he comes out of these meetings with new answers or ideas, then I will be wrong and he was actually making an honest attempt to offer solutions, but I suspect his efforts are designed to generate political capital through courting agreement for his own policies instead.  He should be meeting with congress and hashing out an agreement.

There will be a press conference in about 2 minutes.  It's been 8 months now since he last took questions from the WH Press Corpses.

I suppose we will see what happens. 

Quote from: Gaspar on November 14, 2012, 12:15:57 PM
I suspect his efforts  

You always have and you always will.  Nothing will change that.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 14, 2012, 12:15:57 PM
I do to some extent.  If there was a question as to what needs to be done, than an effort to court answers would be necessary.  If he comes out of these meetings with new answers or ideas, then I will be wrong and he was actually making an honest attempt to offer solutions, but I suspect his efforts are designed to generate political capital through courting agreement for his own policies instead.  He should be meeting with congress and hashing out an agreement.

There will be a press conference in about 2 minutes.  It's been 8 months now since he last took questions from the WH Press Corpses.

I suppose we will see what happens. 

I can see your point. He is holding on to the "tax the rich" mantra. I think everything needs to be on the table: Increased income tax, closing loopholes that don't hurt the middle class, restrain entitlements, reduce military spending, even taking a hard look at tax exempt entities (NGO and Not for profits). 

Quote from: carltonplace on November 14, 2012, 12:38:08 PM
I can see your point. He is holding on to the "tax the rich" mantra. I think everything needs to be on the table: Increased income tax, closing loopholes that don't hurt the middle class, restrain entitlements, reduce military spending, even taking a hard look at tax exempt entities (NGO and Not for profits). 

The President has specifically stated that all those things are on the table except extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Congress and the President have already enacted $1.5 trillion of the $4 trillion or so in budget cuts the Bowles-Simpson commission asked for. The Republicans, unfortunately, have been trying to avoid any tax rate increases even though the arithmetic simply doesn't work without it.

According to his press conference he has met with "Civic Leaders and Labor leaders"  and the "CEOs of the nation's largest companies."  That's not who he needs to meet with.  Small business owners are what comprises most of the job creation and economic growth in this country.  They are the ones that have been hardest hit by his policies and will be hardest hit by his tax increase.  They have the most to lose in complying with Obamacare, and will be affected the most by limitations on their abilities to compete with the "nation's largest companies."  It seems that he is avoiding a conversation with representatives from that group, instead, he is meeting with his standard stable of cronies and donors.  

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/484937_525827054102836_312242708_n.jpg)

Gaspar, your entire post is divorced from the facts. Most people are employed by large employers. The vast majority of "small businesses" (by the usual Republican definition) have zero employees other than the owner. I agree that small businesses are important. After all, they collectively employ around 40% of the workforce, although the majority of that employment is among the few percent of small businesses that are close to being large businesses.

As long as you believe that businesspeople pay tax on their gross receipts you will be unable to understand how taxation and the economy intersect.

No, the real problem for small business has nothing to do with the federal government and the policies they will or will not implement, and everything to do with state and local governments subsidizing their competition through tax incentives, subsidized loans, development deals, and simply funneling cash from workers' paychecks directly back into the owners' pockets. All this is, of course, funded with the tax dollars of existing businesses in the community.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 14, 2012, 12:45:11 PM
According to his press conference he has met with "Civic Leaders and Labor leaders"  and the "CEOs of the nation's largest companies."  That's not who he needs to meet with.  Small business owners are what comprises most of the job creation and economic growth in this country.  They are the ones that have been hardest hit by his policies and will be hardest hit by his tax increase.  They have the most to lose in complying with Obamacare, and will be affected the most by limitations on their abilities to compete with the "nation's largest companies."  It seems that he is avoiding a conversation with representatives from that group, instead, he is meeting with his standard stable of cronies and donors.  

And our back and forth illustrates the over arching problem: I tried to meet you half way and then you ran back to your FOX Noise corner.

Quote from: nathanm on November 14, 2012, 01:00:25 PM
Gaspar, your entire post is divorced from the facts. Most people are employed by large employers. The vast majority of "small businesses" (by the usual Republican definition) have zero employees other than the owner. I agree that small businesses are important. After all, they collectively employ around 40% of the workforce, although the majority of that employment is among the few percent of small businesses that are close to being large businesses.

As long as you believe that businesspeople pay tax on their gross receipts you will be unable to understand how taxation and the economy intersect.

No, the real problem for small business has nothing to do with the federal government and the policies they will or will not implement, and everything to do with state and local governments subsidizing their competition through tax incentives, subsidized loans, development deals, and simply funneling cash from workers' paychecks directly back into the owners' pockets. All this is, of course, funded with the tax dollars of existing businesses in the community.

Sorry, no time for more sock puppets today.

Not sure where you get your numbers but the SBA must be wrong.
Fully 99 percent of all independent enterprises in the country employ fewer than 500 people. These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Some 19.6 million Americans work for companies employing fewer than 20 workers, 18.4 million work for firms employing between 20 and 99 workers, and 14.6 million work for firms with 100 to 499 workers. By contrast, 47.7 million Americans work for firms with 500 or more employees. http://economics.about.com/od/smallbigbusiness/a/us_business.htm http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24

Quote from: carltonplace on November 14, 2012, 01:17:11 PM
And our back and forth illustrates the over arching problem: I tried to meet you half way and then you ran back to your FOX Noise corner.

He's still talking and it's tanking the market again.  Sorry, no FOX at work, CNBC again.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 14, 2012, 01:20:06 PM
Sorry, no FOX at work, CNBC again.

He's so broken he thinks FOX is CNBC.

It's just a market correction, down almost 10% in the last  month is nothing, TTAC  says so, so it must be true.  ::)

Quote from: Gaspar on November 14, 2012, 01:17:37 PM
Not sure where you get your numbers but the SBA must be wrong.
Fully 99 percent of all independent enterprises in the country employ fewer than 500 people. These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Some 19.6 million Americans work for companies employing fewer than 20 workers, 18.4 million work for firms employing between 20 and 99 workers, and 14.6 million work for firms with 100 to 499 workers. By contrast, 47.7 million Americans work for firms with 500 or more employees. http://economics.about.com/od/smallbigbusiness/a/us_business.htm http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24

The SBA numbers are derived like ADP's numbers, which overcount small businesses by including divisions of larger companies that handle payroll separately from the parent. Not that that has anything to do with the actual objections I raised to your post, which is that there is no evidence that higher marginal tax rates have any effect on overall economic growth.

Sorry Nate, but new economics just doesn't fly.

Any time you remove money from the economy, you have a negative effect on economic growth.  Period!  

If you remove fuel from a car, you decrease it's range.

If you remove food from your diet, you decrease the growth of your a$$.

If you remove wood from the fire you decrease the amount of warmth.

You can't get around the fact that when you remove capital from any market, you limit the ability for that market to expand.  The liberal argument is to say that the wealthy simply hord income, but the reality is that the wealthy buy things, and when they don't buy things they invest in financial instruments that also increase economic growth.  Allowing taxes for $250Kers to increase to Clinton levels only creates about $90 billion in new revenu a year according to the CBO, but the CBO has no mechanism for measuring the across the board revenue decreases as a result of slowed, stalled, or decreased economic growth.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 14, 2012, 02:42:06 PM
Sorry Nate, but new economics just doesn't fly.

Any time you remove money from the economy, you have a negative effect on economic growth.  Period!  

You offer much prognostication, but zero evidence. Moreover, you make the rather basic mistake of assuming that the government is a black hole into which money falls and never escapes. That is not the case. The money collected through taxes does not disappear, it just gets moved around. Generally speaking, back out to the private sector in short order, whether by hiring a construction company to build a road, paying a teacher, paying a shipyard to build an aircraft carrier, paying Social Security benefits, or buying food for poor people.

You have often argued in the past when discussing income inequality that wealth isn't a zero sum game. I'm not sure why you're now arguing that it is. You have also argued in favor of the theory that public borrowing crowds out private investment. Yet here you are arguing against the very existence of that effect. It's bizarre how your economic views seem to hinge on your ideological preferences.

Quote from: dbacks fan on November 14, 2012, 01:57:46 PM
It's just a market correction, down almost 10% in the last  month is nothing, TTAC  says so, so it must be true.  ::)

%10? Huh? Explain how you got there.

The Russell was up almost %20 ytd.

Take it to your broker....

Quote from: nathanm on November 14, 2012, 03:20:17 PM
You offer much prognostication, but zero evidence. Moreover, you make the rather basic mistake of assuming that the government is a black hole into which money falls and never escapes. That is not the case. The money collected through taxes does not disappear, it just gets moved around. Generally speaking, back out to the private sector in short order, whether by hiring a construction company to build a road, paying a teacher, paying a shipyard to build an aircraft carrier, paying Social Security benefits, or buying food for poor people.

Boy, that would be nice in a world where government debt, intrest, administration, waste, and government growth didn't exist. With over 1,300 agencies, many with overlapping responsibilities, a significant amount of that capital is spent before it arrives.  Over the past 20 years, federal spending grew 71 percent faster than inflation.  Entitlement spending more than doubled over the past 20 years, growing by 110 percent (after adjusting for inflation). Discretionary spending grew by 60 percent.  For every $6.80 the federal government collected in taxes in 2012, it spent $10. Consequently, $3.20 out of every $10 spent was borrowed.  Interest on the debt is the fifth largest federal spending category, even at today's low interest rates.

I know you think government is the model of efficiency, but there we simply have to disagree.  Here are a few examples of waste/opportunities for consolidation or efficiency that would have a far more pronounced effect on deficit reduction than just saying "bleed the rich."

From the Heritage Foundation's budget and spending report for 2012:
In 2011, the federal government wasted $115.3 billion of taxpayers' money in improper payments: money paid in the wrong amount, to the wrong person, or for the wrong reason. Most of these excess payments—$107 billion, or 93 percent—were in just 10 programs, including Medicare fee-for-service ($28.8 billion), Medicaid ($21.9 billion), the Earned Income Tax Credit ($15.2 billion), and Unemployment Insurance ($13.7 billion). Implementation of updated computer systems and fraud detection methods and stricter documentation requirements would reduce payment errors.

Federally subsidized Amtrak lost $84.5 million on its food and beverage services in 2011, and $833.8 million over the past 10 years. It has never broken even on these services.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified 34 areas in which federal agencies or initiatives have overlapping goals or duplicative services, which cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year. There are:

More than 80 economic development programs operating out of four different agencies: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development, and the Small Business Administration;

More than 100 economic development programs spread across five agencies within the Department of Transportation;
Seven federal agencies, including the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, which have more than 20 programs addressing homelessness;

44 employment and training programs in the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor; and

82 programs on teacher quality run through the Departments of Defense, Education, and Energy, as well as NASA and the National Science Foundation.

In 2008 and 2009 alone, the Department of Justice spent (DOJ)$121 million to host or participate in 1,832 conferences.

At one conference, petite Beef Wellington made the hors d'oeuvres menu, at a cost of $7.32 per serving.

An internal audit found DOJ did not keep costs to a minimum, despite federal guidelines. The most expensive conference reviewed in the audit was held in Istanbul, Turkey, and cost $1.18 million.

The General Services Administration (GSA), which is responsible for managing federal buildings and helping to cut costs, held a conference costing $822,751 in Las Vegas. At more than $2,500 per employee, it included $44-per-person breakfasts and commemorative coins for conference participants that cost $6,325.

In fiscal year 2010, the federal government spent nearly $1.7 billion to maintain 77,700 underused or unused buildings.

Eliminating both the New Starts and Small Starts transit grants programs would save taxpayers $5.6 billion over the next five years and $16.3 billion over 10 years. It would get the federal government out of the business of subsidizing high-cost, low-value local transit projects, such as $900 million for a 10-mile extension of the Bay Area rail system in San Jose and a $1.6 billion grant to construct a Honolulu rail line.

The Department of Agriculture's Office of the Chief Information Officer funded a $2 million intern program. Only one intern was hired full time as a result.

Fifteen federal agencies are involved in administering 30 food safety laws, resulting in fragmented food safety oversight.

The U.S. Navy bought 450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12 million, or almost $27 per gallon, to conduct exercises to showcase the fuel and bring it closer toward commercialization. It is the largest biofuel purchase ever made by the government.

The Internal Revenue Service stored 22,486 items of unused furniture in a warehouse at an annual cost of $862,000.

An Inspector General audit found that the Department of Energy cannot locate $500,000 worth of "green energy" manufacturing equipment that was bought with stimulus money.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs funded a fish hatchery that never saw a fish hatch for fourteen years, continuing funding even after the land had been converted to office space. Taxpayers spent $46.1 million in fiscal year 2012 to operate the national fish hatchery system.

The Department of Agriculture endorsed the "Meatless Monday" initiative and then a few weeks later announced plans to purchase $170 million worth of meat from drought-stricken livestock producers.

The Labor Department spent $495,000 in stimulus money on 100 television commercials to advertise the Obama Administration's Jobs Corps Initiative for green jobs.

The Department of Veterans Affairs spent $6.1 million, or $3,389 for each of the 1,800 employees that attended two training conferences last year in Orlando, Florida.

The agency Inspector General's office is investigating the conference organizers for possible ethics rules violations. The department also spent nearly $50,000 to make a video parodying General Patton that was shown at the conferences and $98,000 on promotional items. The items included pens, highlighters, hand sanitizers, and USB flash drives with VA's logo.

The State Department began a Diplomatic Culinary Partnership program in 2012. Over 80 American chefs have been inducted into the American Chefs Corps and will support the State Department by preparing food for visiting officials and traveling around the world to engage in "culinary diplomacy."

The Department of Veterans Affairs spent $221,540 on an 11-day conference at a resort—enough to pay annual disability compensation for six totally disabled combat veterans.

Department of Agriculture and Department of Energy officials approved a $76 million grant for a wood-to-ethanol plant in Soperton, Georgia, despite concerns among the project's researchers and other officials. The plant closed within a year of receiving the loan guarantee, without producing any ethanol.

The Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program gave $55,660 to a New York State dairy farm to package its butter in smaller, eight-ounce containers.
A grant totaling $25,000 was used to transcribe a Maldivian love ballad.

Taxpayers funded a National Institutes of Health study costing $55,382 in 2011, and $170,000 over three years, to study the hookah smoking habits of Jordanian university students.

The Department of Agriculture's Market Access Program spends $200 million a year to help U.S. agricultural trade associations and cooperatives advertise their products in foreign markets. In 2011, it funded a reality TV show in India that advertised U.S. cotton.

The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure and a $1.2 million grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that some people are double-dipping from unemployment and disability benefits programs. This lack of coordination among government agencies is costing taxpayers $850 million annually. GAO found one individual who drew $62,000 from unemployment insurance and disability insurance at the same time she was working and earning an additional $7,000 in income.

In 2011, the top 20 percent of farm subsidy recipients received almost 80 percent of all premium subsidies. Twenty-six farm businesses each collected over $1 million worth of subsidies.

Taxpayer losses from the failed solar cell manufacturing company Solyndra, which received a federal loan guarantee, totaled $528 million. Beacon Power and Abound Solar, two other failed alternative energy companies, cost taxpayers $46.5 million and $73.1 million, respectively.

A Congressional Research Service report revealed that among individuals earning $1 million or more, 2,840 received unemployment benefits in 2008 and 2,362 received the benefits in 2009.

The Conservation Reserve Program pays farmers $2.1 billion annually not to farm their land for a period of at least ten years.


So, to say that government redistribution represents efficiency is stretching the truth a bit.

I never said the word efficiency or said anything about the topic. Nice distraction. Even if all that is true, which I doubt given the ideological slant of the source, it does nothing to refute my argument, which was that the money flows back into the economy almost as soon as it is collected. Nor does it speak to any of the criticisms of your logic on the subject that I brought up.

We're not talking about the shiny thing you are trying to distract the conversation with, we're talking about whether increased marginal tax rates lower economic growth.

Why Passing the "Middle-Class" Tax Cuts Benefits the Wealthy, Too

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/why-passing-the-middle-class-tax-cuts-benefits-the-wealthy-too/ (http://www.offthechartsblog.org/why-passing-the-middle-class-tax-cuts-benefits-the-wealthy-too/)

QuotePresident Obama today clarified an important, and often misunderstood, point:  the so-called "middle-class Bush tax cuts" also benefit high-income people.  So, if the House were to approve the Senate-passed bill to extend the middle-class tax cuts (as the President favors), "that would prevent any tax hike whatsoever on the first $250,000 of everybody's income," he said at his press conference.

That's because the middle-class tax cuts do not just apply to people making less than $250,000 but to incomes — for everybody — up to $250,000 ($200,000 for singles).

In fact, as this chart based on Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center data shows, extending the "middle-class" tax cuts would be worth about $12,000 next year to people making between $200,000 and $500,000.

(http://www.offthechartsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/7-13-12bushcuts.jpg)

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 14, 2012, 03:31:01 PM
%10? Huh? Explain how you got there.

The Russell was up almost %20 ytd.

Take it to your broker....

Quote


Re: OFF THE CLIFF!

« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2012, 12:08:33 am »

Quote


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shall we go off the cliff? I say forward!

QuoteBoehner and Cantor sort of remind me of Thelma and Louise at this point. "Over the cliff on January 1st" is definitely hard core all-in poker.
I might well play it that way myself, but don't see that being Obama's brand or style. 

I'll happily bet anybody even money until Monday that we don't "go over the cliff" on January 1st.

QuoteWe need to go off the cliff to enable
the GOP/TEABAGGERS cause of lowering tax rates.
Win win....you don't get it Carl?

QuoteWhat? Why do you think we'd "plunge" into recession? I'm just trying to help GOPeer/Teabagger save face and have a reason to exist in 2014.
They let this cabal mature to this edge after all. They can fall back on "we lowered taxes." This will not make anything worse.


It's now Obama's fault!  http://www.businessinsider.com/the-obama-tax-hikes-that-will-hurt-2012-11
I've heard more whining this week than the past 4 years combined. if you make over $250,000 in California then counting all taxes your rate is closer to %67. Nobody saw this coming? War is hell and it made us poor.

QuotePlease don't force me to search your posts from 2008.

The market was due for a correction. And because of rate changes, there will be plenty of portfolio calibration. But don't fear chicken little as the Europeans appear to be getting their houses in order and if that were to become reality then we will see upward trends the next several years.

I'd be more in fear of "shadow" banks if I were you: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/concern-over-lack-of-regulation-of-shadow-financial-institutions-a-866763.html

Quoteah, good ole Okie Bill Moyers read my mind:

"...In fact, if you were choosing an image based on the coming fiscal
dust-up, it probably wouldn't be a cliff but an obstacle course - a series
of federal spending cuts and tax increases all scheduled to take effect as
2013 begins..."

http://billmoyers.com/content/why-washingtons-fiscal-cliff-is-a-myth/

Okay Al Sharpton, go back to your ways.

My guess is that "it" will happen.  (and I don't think it will cause a lot of problems for the economy)  Then they will begin negotiating adjustments to lessen this part and increase that part, which will keep them busy hollering bad things at each other for quite some time.

Quote from: TheArtist on November 16, 2012, 07:11:36 AM
My guess is that "it" will happen.  (and I don't think it will cause a lot of problems for the economy)  Then they will begin negotiating adjustments to lessen this part and increase that part, which will keep them busy hollering bad things at each other for quite some time.

This seems most likely. Boehner has made some noises about a compromise that includes at least some rate increases, but I don't see how he delivers any of his increasingly intransigent caucus. They seem to think they can force Obama into a bad deal. I can't rule that out given Obama seemingly buying into the apocalyptic rhetoric. I think that once the sequester takes place and the Bush cuts expire in their entirety, which seems likely since the Republicans seem (understandably) not to be taking Obama up on the offer to do the extension for the under-$250,000 set now, Boehner will be in a better position to make a deal and deliver 30 of his caucus since they won't actually have to vote for any tax increases.

Maybe they'll surprise and do the under-$250s before going home for Christmas.

Quote from: nathanm on November 16, 2012, 07:19:45 AM
This seems most likely. Boehner has made some noises about a compromise that includes at least some rate increases, but I don't see how he delivers any of his increasingly intransigent caucus. They seem to think they can force Obama into a bad deal. I can't rule that out given Obama seemingly buying into the apocalyptic rhetoric. I think that once the sequester takes place and the Bush cuts expire in their entirety, which seems likely since the Republicans seem (understandably) not to be taking Obama up on the offer to do the extension for the under-$250,000 set now, Boehner will be in a better position to make a deal and deliver 30 of his caucus since they won't actually have to vote for any tax increases.

Maybe they'll surprise and do the under-$250s before going home for Christmas.

He just did a press conference with dirty Harry.  They have both agreed on compromise.  Not too many details, but it made the market happy.

Quote from: dbacks fan on November 16, 2012, 04:31:21 AM
Okay Al Sharpton, go back to your ways.

I get it now....db stands for dick bump.


SURGE! http://www.businessinsider.com/markets-rally-after-fiscal-cliff-meeting-2012-11

Republicans can actually fight for tax decreases if the Bush Tax cuts expire since everyone's taxes will rise. I'm sure this will be as divisive as preventing the expiration will be.

House Republicans launch their own PR offensive on fiscal cliff

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/27/house-republicans-launch-their-own-pr-offensive-on-fiscal-cliff/?cid=sf_twitter (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/27/house-republicans-launch-their-own-pr-offensive-on-fiscal-cliff/?cid=sf_twitter)

QuoteWashington (CNN) - As President Obama kicks off a series of events and meetings this week to pressure Congressional Republicans to reach a deal to avert the fiscal cliff, top House GOP leaders are planning their own public campaign to frame Democrats as the ones who are unwilling to budge.

House Speaker John Boehner's office announced Tuesday that leaders and rank and file Republicans will roll out a series of events in Washington and in their districts across the country with small business owners to frame Democrats demands to oppose upper income tax cuts as a threat to new jobs.

Although GOP aides stress the outreach was in the works before details of the President's campaign-style efforts were outlined, they aren't hiding the fact that they don't appreciate the White House effort to try to box them in on taxes.

The top Senate Republican slammed the President's decision to travel to Pennsylvania for a public event on the fiscal cliff on Friday.

"Rather than sitting down with lawmakers of both parties and working out an agreement he is back on the campaign trail presumably with the same old talking points that we are all quite familiar with," Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor.

The post-election tone of compromise that leaders from both parties stressed as they predicted a compromise was close at hand appeared to fade as McConnell questioned whether the President was capable of working across the aisle.

"We already know the president is a very good campaigner. We congratulate him on his re-election. What we don't know is whether he has the leadership qualities necessary to lead his party to a bipartisan agreement on big issues like we currently face."

Boehner's spokesman suggested the President's focus was misplaced.

"The target of the president's rallies should be the congressional Democrats who want to raise tax rates on small businesses rather than cut spending," said Michael Steel in a written statement

House leaders from both parties are meeting separately on Wednesday with several CEOs involved in the "Fix the Debt" coalition that is pushing for a deal to avoid the year end fiscal cliff. House Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy announced that GOP leaders will meet with small business owners next week in his office.

While President Obama continues to argue that allowing the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans to expire should be part of a deal, GOP leadership aides are preparing talking points and events with local businesses to hammer home their argument that tax rate increases will cost more jobs.

Republicans on Capitol Hill also complained that the major focus on the negotiations was on how willing GOP members were willing to give in on taxes while Democrats continued to dig in on opposing any major structural changes to entitlement programs. They maintain their offer to give some on revenue should be met with some flexibility on changes to Medicare and Social Security.

This was one message GOP leaders planned to deliver to the CEOs attending Wednesday's meeting on Capitol Hill.

One senior GOP aide summarized the appeal from GOP members to business leaders, "when you guys are pushing a balanced approach don't forget about spending. Let's not keep this whole entire conversation centered on tax rates."

And then there's this:

Fiscal cliff debate shifts to campaign-style tactics

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/27/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29&cid=sf_twitter (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/27/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29&cid=sf_twitter)

QuoteWashington (CNN) -- It helped get him re-elected, so President Barack Obama is again employing campaign-style tactics to increase pressure on congressional Republicans to compromise to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.

Failure to reach a deal means tax increases and deep spending cuts take effect in five weeks, a scenario analysts fear could push the country back into recession.

While aides on both sides have been talking, no follow-up meeting between Obama and congressional leaders has been scheduled after their initial post-election discussion on November 16.

Instead, Obama meets with small business owners on Tuesday, the first in a series of events this week intended to highlight his push for raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans while maintaining current rates for everyone else.

On Wednesday, Obama meets with the chief executives of major corporations while congressional Republicans and Democrats will talk separately with deficit-reduction gurus, including former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and Maya MacGuinneas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group advocating fiscal reform.

The president also will meet with those described by the White House as middle class Americans who face a major impact if higher taxes and automatic reductions in military and discretionary federal spending take hold.
Obama concludes the week with a trip Friday to Hatfield, Pennsylvania, to visit a manufacturing operation and deliver a speech.

The series of meetings involving all parties showed the high-profile tactics underway to demonstrate efforts to reach a deficit reduction compromise that signals to the nation, including financial markets, that a deal can happen.
Stocks opened lower Tuesday due in part to concerns about prospects for a deal, which remains front and center for investors with the U.S. economy showing more signs of improvement in its long recovery from recession. Economists point to fears about higher taxes in 2013 as a potential threat to rising consumer confidence.
Asked why Obama was meeting with business leaders and traveling to Pennsylvania instead of negotiating directly with Republicans in Congress, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday it was important to bring the broader American public into the discussion.
The fiscal cliff resulted from a failure to reach a deficit reduction agreement in the past two years due to longstanding differences between Democrats and Republicans on taxes -- particularly whether to extend tax cuts from President George W. Bush's administration.
Obama made the issue a central theme of his election campaign, and now the White House believes the president's re-election validated his call for including more tax revenue in addressing the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt.
"This topic was perhaps the most debated, the most discussed, the most analyzed, for a year," Carney told reporters on Tuesday, adding that the election result showed Americans supported Obama's approach.
"To suggest that we should, now that the election's over, stop talking to the American people about these vital issues is, I think, bad advice," Carney said.

Last week, Obama's former campaign manager, Jim Messina, said the president's re-election campaign and its grassroots resources will "live on," most likely as a tool to promote the president's second-term policies.

Obama for America, the name of the campaign, already released an e-mail to its distribution list, in an attempt to educate readers on the president's fiscal cliff argument and rallying supporters to get behind him.

The president wants to let tax rates for income over $250,000 for families or $200,000 for individuals return to higher 1990s levels, while maintaining current rates for the rest of the country.

Republicans oppose increasing any tax rates, but House Speaker John Boehner and other influential GOP figures have declared their willingness to consider other ways to boost tax revenue as part of a broader deal that includes entitlement reforms and spending cuts.

That position undermines the no-tax increase pledge championed by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, which Democrats consider to be a major impediment to a deficit reduction deal.

Some Republicans including conservative Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina as well as Rep. Peter King of New York and Scott Rigell of Virginia have dropped their adherence to Norquist's pledge.

Norquist responded harshly Monday night, telling CNN that those denouncing the pledge were breaking their commitment to voters. He targeted King for saying a pledge signed years ago no longer applied.
King "tried to weasel out" of the pledge, adding: "I hope his wife understands commitments last a little longer than two years or something."

According to Norquist, King knew when he signed the pledge that it applied to "as long as you're in Congress."

"It's only as long as you're in the House or the Senate. If he stayed too long, that's his problem," Norquist added.

To CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger, the softening tone by some in the GOP was explained by new poll numbers that showed 45% of Americans would blame Republicans for failing to avoid the fiscal cliff, while 34% would blame Obama.

Republicans insist Democrats must agree to cut discretionary spending and make significant reforms to Medicare and Social Security as part of a deficit reduction deal.

However, organized labor and other elements of the Democratic base oppose any major reforms to the popular entitlement programs. While some Democratic legislators express willingness to reform Medicare and Medicaid, they reject making Social Security reform part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, saying it is self-funded and therefore doesn't add to the deficit.

Obama spoke by phone over the weekend with Boehner and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, Carney said Monday, and he rejected a reporter's assertion Tuesday that no progress was taking place in efforts to avoid the fiscal cliff.

On Capitol Hill, a Senate Democratic leadership aide said Monday that behind-the-scenes talks have "haven't been tremendously productive."

Negotiations were not at a point "where people are huddled in a conference room with spread sheets" but are instead at the early "dancing stage," the Democratic aide said.

Congressional Republican leadership aides declined to characterize the state of the talks, though one noted the fact that discussions continued could be interpreted as progress.

The CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also showed that a solid majority of respondents -- two-thirds -- supports the Democratic stance that any agreement should include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Of that total, Republicans favor such an approach by 52%-44%.

Without a deal, tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 -- when George W. Bush was president -- will expire, raising rates for everyone starting in January. In addition, spending cuts would reduce spending on the military, national parks, the Federal Aviation Administration and other government services.

However, the government and Congress still would have time to prevent draconian effects from the fiscal cliff when a new Congress convenes in January.

William Galston, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, called that a form of brinksmanship best avoided.

"To be sure, no one believes that non-agreement by December 31 would be the end of the story. After a period of finger-pointing, discussions would resume," he wrote last week in a New Republic opinion piece. "But equally, no one knows how the failure to reach agreement before the end of 2012 would affect the dynamics of the negotiations."

In addition, "we can be reasonably sure ... that national and global markets would react adversely and that businesses, which are already retreating from planned investments in new plant and equipment, would become even more uncertain and risk-averse."

GOP/Teapotty better wise up....

QuoteOP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: November 25, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html
SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. "This is a good one," he says enthusiastically. "I'm in it, and I think you should be, too."

Would your reply possibly be this? "Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you're saying we're going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent." Only in Grover Norquist's imagination does such a response exist.

Between 1951 and 1954, when the capital gains rate was 25 percent and marginal rates on dividends reached 91 percent in extreme cases, I sold securities and did pretty well. In the years from 1956 to 1969, the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent — and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered.

Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross domestic product (a measure of the nation's economic output) increased at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground.

So let's forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if — gasp — capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities.

And, wow, do we have plenty to invest. The Forbes 400, the wealthiest individuals in America, hit a new group record for wealth this year: $1.7 trillion. That's more than five times the $300 billion total in 1992. In recent years, my gang has been leaving the middle class in the dust.

A huge tail wind from tax cuts has pushed us along. In 1992, the tax paid by the 400 highest incomes in the United States (a different universe from the Forbes list) averaged 26.4 percent of adjusted gross income. In 2009, the most recent year reported, the rate was 19.9 percent. It's nice to have friends in high places.

The group's average income in 2009 was $202 million — which works out to a "wage" of $97,000 per hour, based on a 40-hour workweek. (I'm assuming they're paid during lunch hours.) Yet more than a quarter of these ultrawealthy paid less than 15 percent of their take in combined federal income and payroll taxes. Half of this crew paid less than 20 percent. And — brace yourself — a few actually paid nothing.

This outrage points to the necessity for more than a simple revision in upper-end tax rates, though that's the place to start. I support President Obama's proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so.

Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.

Above all, we should not postpone these changes in the name of "reforming" the tax code. True, changes are badly needed. We need to get rid of arrangements like "carried interest" that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains. And it's sickening that a Cayman Islands mail drop can be central to tax maneuvering by wealthy individuals and corporations.

But the reform of such complexities should not promote delay in our correcting simple and expensive inequities. We can't let those who want to protect the privileged get away with insisting that we do nothing until we can do everything.

Our government's goal should be to bring in revenues of 18.5 percent of G.D.P. and spend about 21 percent of G.D.P. — levels that have been attained over extended periods in the past and can clearly be reached again. As the math makes clear, this won't stem our budget deficits; in fact, it will continue them. But assuming even conservative projections about inflation and economic growth, this ratio of revenue to spending will keep America's debt stable in relation to the country's economic output.

In the last fiscal year, we were far away from this fiscal balance — bringing in 15.5 percent of G.D.P. in revenue and spending 22.4 percent. Correcting our course will require major concessions by both Republicans and Democrats.

All of America is waiting for Congress to offer a realistic and concrete plan for getting back to this fiscally sound path. Nothing less is acceptable.

In the meantime, maybe you'll run into someone with a terrific investment idea, who won't go forward with it because of the tax he would owe when it succeeds. Send him my way. Let me unburden him.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

Cole Offers Advice to Party of Fiscal Cliff

http://kwgs.com/post/cole-offers-advice-party-fiscal-cliff (http://kwgs.com/post/cole-offers-advice-party-fiscal-cliff)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201211/Tom%20Cole.jpg)

QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) — The first cracks are developing among Republicans over whether to accept a quick deal with President Barack Obama on allowing the top two income tax rates to expire.

Conservative Oklahoma GOP Rep. Tom Cole has told GOP colleagues that it's better to make sure that tax cuts for the 98 percent of taxpayers who make less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year are extended than to battle it out with Obama and risk increasing taxes on everyone.

His comments drew a rebuke from Speaker John Boehner, who is standing firm against Obama's demand that tax rates go up on individual income exceeding $200,000 and family income over $250,000.

A Cole spokeswoman confirmed comments made to Politico, which first reported them.

You don't see a political bias when KWGS runs a headline referring to the GOP as the "Party Of The Fiscal Cliff"?

Last I checked, I don't think either party had a sole lock on pushing us to the brink.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 28, 2012, 02:40:06 PM
You don't see a political bias when KWGS runs a headline referring to the GOP as the "Party Of The Fiscal Cliff"?

Last I checked, I don't think either party had a sole lock on pushing us to the brink.

I think you might've read that incorrectly.

He's offering advice of fiscal cliff to the party.

The line was poorly written now that you mention it.

The same story was on AP, NYT, and a few others but this was the shortest one so I chose it.

Quote from: Townsend on November 28, 2012, 02:43:22 PM
I think you might've read that incorrectly.

He's offering advice of fiscal cliff to the party.

The line was poorly written now that you mention it.

The same story was on AP, NYT, and a few others but this was the shortest one so I chose it.

This is what it is:

"Cole Offers Advice to Party of Fiscal Cliff"

In the story:

"Tom Cole has told GOP colleagues"

I read it as the GOP being the Party of Fiscal Cliff.

Maybe Yoda is the headline editor at KWGS these days.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 28, 2012, 02:40:06 PM
You don't see a political bias when KWGS runs a headline referring to the GOP as the "Party Of The Fiscal Cliff"?

Last I checked, I don't think either party had a sole lock on pushing us to the brink.

On that note though, I think they're going to be saddled with the blame either way.

If it happens it'll be due to their inability to compromise.

If they do raise taxes they'll be called dishonest when it's time to run for re-election because they ignored their pledge.

Quote from: Townsend on November 28, 2012, 02:48:56 PM
On that note though, I think they're going to be saddled with the blame either way.

If it happens it'll be due to their inability to compromise.

If they do raise taxes they'll be called dishonest when it's time to run for re-election because they ignored their pledge.

Senator Coburn did a good job addressing the Norquist pledge he signed 20 years ago.  He said, essentially, that these are different times and anyone who signed it needs to realize they can't bind themselves to some stupid (my words) pledge they signed 20 years ago.

Personally I happen to agree.  Anyone who is holding fast to that pledge should expect to be working at a different job in another two years.  If all it takes is a tax increase on 2% to get spending cuts (assuming the Democrats will also work a real compromise) to get entitlement cuts and other budgetary cuts, then so be it.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 28, 2012, 02:40:06 PM
You don't see a political bias when KWGS runs a headline referring to the GOP as the "Party Of The Fiscal Cliff"?

Last I checked, I don't think either party had a sole lock on pushing us to the brink.

You have to pay the piper or the rats return.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed by the president on August 2, 2011 as a method to satisfy budgetary requirements without addressing a budget (for three freeking years).  That piece of legislation along with Obamacare are what Bernanke coined "The Fiscal Cliff."  At the time, two budget proposals approved by the house sat in the Senate awaiting debate.  The "cliff" is the president's product.

Instead of leading with a carrot, the president chose a stick, then simply kicked the can down the road a third time in order to get another debt limit increase to hold the boat together through another election.  Unfortunately most of the people are simply too stupid to understand what is happening.  To the typical MSNBC viewer, the "Fiscal Cliff" is some etherial apocalyptic deadline that is caused by not taxing rich folks enough. In reality it's a hobgoblin of president Obama's own design, and wether avoided or not, will surely be his finest moment.

President Obama is in the catbird seat.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 28, 2012, 03:12:21 PM

The Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed by the president on August 2, 2011 as a method to satisfy budgetary requirements without addressing a budget (for three freeking years).  That piece of legislation along with Obamacare are what Bernanke coined "The Fiscal Cliff."  At the time, two budget proposals approved by the house sat in the Senate awaiting debate.  The "cliff" is the president's product.

Instead of leading with a carrot, the president chose a stick, then simply kicked the can down the road a third time in order to get another debt limit increase to hold the boat together through another election.  Unfortunately most of the people are simply too stupid to understand what is happening.  To the typical MSNBC viewer, the "Fiscal Cliff" is some etherial apocalyptic deadline that is caused by not taxing rich folks enough. In reality it's a hobgoblin of president Obama's own design, and wether avoided or not, will surely be his finest moment.

Got some of that dain bramage kickin' in today I see.

In the daily email update from Tulsa World I noticed that under the headline of:

"Obama says debt-cutting deal can be reached soon"

is

"Powerball jackpot boosted again to $550 million"

I wonder if he's buying lottery tickets?

Quote from: Conan71 on November 28, 2012, 04:23:46 PM
In the daily email update from Tulsa World I noticed that under the headline of:

"Obama says debt-cutting deal can be reached soon"

is

"Powerball jackpot boosted again to $550 million"

I wonder if he's buying lottery tickets?

I hope you're being facetious.

Kinda sad I even have to ask...

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 16, 2012, 11:14:25 AM
I get it now....db stands for dick bump.


SURGE! http://www.businessinsider.com/markets-rally-after-fiscal-cliff-meeting-2012-11

That means so much from a buttmunch like you.

Quote from: dbacks fan on November 28, 2012, 06:27:37 PM
That means so much from a buttmunch like you.

13 days later.... no, you're not slow. :D

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 28, 2012, 06:56:24 PM
13 days later.... no, you're not slow. :D

That's because I have a life in the real world, instead of trolling for garbage like you  Sharpton.

Congressman Torn Between Meaningless Pledge To Anti-Tax Zealot, Well-Being Of Nation

(http://o.onionstatic.com/images/18/18880/16x9/635.jpg?9009)

http://tinyurl.com/bsl2kjo (http://tinyurl.com/bsl2kjo)

QuoteWASHINGTON—Amid ongoing negotiations in Congress over the looming "fiscal cliff," Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) told reporters Wednesday he is "completely torn" between his commitment to conservative activist Grover Norquist's meaningless anti-tax pledge and the general welfare of the entire country. "On the one hand, you have a nonsensical promise to blindly oppose tax increases regardless of circumstances, but on the other, you have the well-being of more than 300 million people and the long-term stability of the entire U.S. economy," said Reed, adding that he is "really stuck between a rock and a hard place" now that he must decide between his loyalty to a dogmatic political lobbyist and his responsibility to serve the best interests of his constituents. "At the end of the day, it's a question of whether a nonbinding signature on an outdated and worthless pledge written 26 years ago is more important than preventing the nation from completely going to hell. I just don't know what to do here." When reached for comment, Norquist urged the pledge's signatories in Congress to "remember what's really important" before sacrificing utterly irrational principles for the sake of the country's future.

Kudos to Cole and Coburn!

But don't expect Mitt to be sharing a beer with POTUS today....maybe tea but no WH brewski.

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 29, 2012, 09:37:31 AM


But don't expect Mitt to be sharing a beer with POTUS today....maybe tea but no WH brewski.

No caffeine.

Mitt's going to go in there with bile spilling down his throat, and that's a sad thing.  :-\

Quote from: Townsend on November 29, 2012, 09:40:01 AM
No caffeine.

You may wish to verify that.  I have been told by a Mormon co-worker that coffee and tea are specifically prohibited but caffeine is not.

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 29, 2012, 09:42:17 AM
Mitt's going to go in there with bile spilling down his throat, and that's a sad thing.  :-\

A little OTC Zantac will take care of that.

;D

Another look at it:

Leading House GOP figure's compromise plan gets shot down

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/28/politics/cole-taxes/index.html?sr=fbmain (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/28/politics/cole-taxes/index.html?sr=fbmain)

QuoteWashington (CNN) -- House Speaker John Boehner and other conservatives shot down a proposal from a senior congressional Republican who suggested that his GOP colleagues break from their firm anti-tax position and agree to a demand from Democrats to immediately renew middle-class tax cuts.

Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a member of the leadership team that helps round up House votes, told fellow GOP lawmakers that he thought they should, as a matter of political strategy, extend just the tax-rate cuts for those making $250,000 or less before the end of the year -- a position being pushed by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats.

Cole first floated the idea at a closed-door meeting of the Republican whip team on Tuesday and his comments were first reported by Politico.

Cole told reporters after another meeting on Wednesday with House Republicans that he believed giving certainty to the majority of American taxpayers now was important. But he emphasized that he still opposed increasing tax rates for upper-income Americans.

"In my view, we all agree that we're not going to raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000. We should just take them out of this discussion right now, continue to fight against any rate increases, continue to work honestly for a much bigger deal," Cole said.

Cole added that major issues should be worked out in the debate next year.

"We need to deal with entitlement spending. We need to deal with job creation. Rates are intimately tied to that. So let's have that discussion. But I think it's easier to have without a lot of people whose taxes we don't intend to raise being worried they might get raised."

Cole's Tuesday comments were reported and distributed broadly by Democrats as a major development in the fiscal cliff talks. But they were quickly rejected by Boehner, who is negotiating with the White House and Democratic leaders on a way to avert the combination of spending cuts and tax increases set to take effect without an agreement by year's end.

"I told Tom earlier in our conference meeting that I disagreed with him," Boehner told reporters after meeting with GOP rank and file. "He's a wonderful friend of mine and a great supporter of mine but raising taxes on the so-called top 2 percent -- half of those taxpayers are small business owners that pay their taxes through personal income tax filing every year."

At the Wednesday meeting in the Capitol, Boehner also made a point in his opening remarks to tell members he disagreed with Cole, according to two GOP sources who were in the meeting.

One of these sources said Cole brought up his idea with GOP members in the meeting, saying he did not support raising any rates.

Conservatives immediately rejected Cole's idea, and seemed annoyed that the attention on his comments was taking away from their focus to press Democrats to agree to some major entitlement reforms as part of a broad agreement to address tax rates and the automatic spending cuts.

Idaho Republican Rep. Raul Labrador didn't mince words when asked by CNN about Cole's idea.

"I think he's wrong and I think most of the conference thinks that he's wrong," Labrador said. "I think he's, you know, he's a good man who's served here for a long time. But he's also a man who has voted for a lot of the increased spending in Washington, D.C., and that's the problem."

"I think this is a false choice between running off the fiscal cliff and damaging the economy, or raising rates on small businesses and professionals that also damages the economy," Texas Republican Kevin Brady, a senior member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said.

Cole said he would continue to discuss his suggestion with colleagues, and predicted that if it came up for a vote, it would pass the Republican-led House. But GOP aides made it clear there are no plans for any vote on a bill to separate the middle-class tax cuts from those for higher-income earners.

Even though Republicans criticized the idea, Democrats praised Cole. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, highlighted his shift in a speech on the Senate floor.

"I applaud Representative Cole for that common-sense and brave position. I am hopeful that he can persuade other Republicans to do the right thing for our families, small business owners and communities across the country who have so much at stake and who are looking to us to solve this problem," Murray said.

That kind of endorsement probably won't help Cole make his case with fellow Republicans. Asked about potential backlash to his idea from anti-tax groups focused on enforcing a "pledge" not to raise taxes, Cole seemed nonplussed.

"My job is to get the best deal from the American taxpayers that I can get," he said. "If by keeping the pledge taxes go up on everybody, then I don't know if that's a very good idea. If, on the other hand, we can negotiate a deal, which I think we can, which keeps rates where they are but provides revenue and certainly protects people below $250,000, I think we have a responsibility to try and do that."

After the meeting with the rank and file, House Republican leaders were sitting down in the Capitol with several CEOs who are part of the "Fix the Debt" coalition chaired by Erskine Bowles, the former head of Obama's deficit reduction committee.

Boehner delivered a message to his members that he planned to reiterate to the CEOs, "We won't be party to a deal that protects big businesses and preserves special-interest tax breaks while raising tax rates on the small businesses we're counting on to create jobs."

After the meeting Bowles told reporters he did not see the GOP showing any flexibility in their opposition to any tax rate increases.

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 29, 2012, 12:40:41 PM
You may wish to verify that.  I have been told by a Mormon co-worker that coffee and tea are specifically prohibited but caffeine is not.

Started off as "hot drinks".  I remember reading that caffeine was added later.

edit:  I'm not sure my memory is serving as this does not mention caffeine so you may be right.  Although it could defer state to state.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0692f73c28d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____ (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0692f73c28d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____)

QuoteIn the Word of Wisdom, the Lord revealed that the following substances are harmful:

Alcoholic drinks (see D&C 89
Tobacco
Tea and coffee (see D&C 89:9; latter-day prophets have taught that the term "hot drinks," as written in this verse, refers to tea and coffee).
When people purposefully take anything harmful into their bodies, they are not living in harmony with the Word of Wisdom. Illegal drugs can especially destroy those who use them. The abuse of prescription drugs is also destructive spiritually and physically.

The Lord also declared in the Word of Wisdom that the following foods are good:

Vegetables and fruits, which should be used "with prudence and thanksgiving" (see D&C 89:10–11).
The flesh "of beasts and of the fowls of the air," which is "to be used sparingly" (see D&C 89:12–13).
Grains such as wheat, rice, and oats, which are "the staff of life" (see D&C 89:14–17).
To those who keep the Word of Wisdom, the Lord promised:

"All saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;

"And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;

"And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.

"And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them" (D&C 89:18–21).

The best course is to completely avoid the substances that the Lord prohibits in the Word of Wisdom. Those who have engaged in addictive behaviors can stop and become free from addiction. Through personal effort, strength from the Lord, help from family members and friends, and guidance from Church leaders, anyone can overcome addiction.

To think that these clowns could have been in the White House....

The first topic on the agenda was the IRS audit of all those tricky tax evasions that got exposed during the campaign.  Romney tried to set the tone after that but the discussion sadly went quiet. All indications is that not only is Mitt completely out of touch with any realistic view of reality, but he represents everything that's wrong with our economy.There were no new ideas discussed and no petting Bo....

There was zero point to meeting with this doosh nozzle.

Meanwhile, back at the crapitol, the leaders continued to waffle....

Off the cliff I dare say!

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 29, 2012, 01:57:01 PM


Off the cliff I dare say!

You may be right.  Bowls seems to think it may be unavoidable.
The president typically runs away at times like this.  I'm willing to bet he disappears on some extravagant and expensive vacation in a couple of weeks and we don't see him until 2013.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 29, 2012, 02:43:37 PM
I'm willing to bet he disappears on some extravagant and expensive vacation in a couple of weeks and we don't see him until 2013.

I'm sure you'll bank on this one too.

Quote from: Townsend on November 29, 2012, 02:55:51 PM
I'm sure you'll bank on this one too.

Scott's 'prognostications' are like when I decide to see a movie based on Roger Ebert's review.  Usually if he hates a movie, I'll like it.

A Huge Pay Cut For Doctors Is Hiding In The Fiscal Cliff

http://kwgs.com/post/huge-pay-cut-doctors-hiding-fiscal-cliff (http://kwgs.com/post/huge-pay-cut-doctors-hiding-fiscal-cliff)

QuoteYesterday, in the Bronx, Chris Veres took his grandfather to see Dr. Bob Murrow. He was worried about his grandfather's heart. Dr. Murrow talked to the family and ordered a cardiogram, which came back normal.

It was a pretty routine visit. But what happens next for the doctor — getting paid by Medicare, the government-run health insurance program for the elderly — is suddenly sort of a big deal.

Included in the fiscal cliff is a 30 percent pay cut to doctors who treat Medicare patients. It's set to kick in on Jan. 1. Lawmakers from both parties say they want to prevent the cut. But the cut is part of a plan Congress put in place 15 years ago to contain healthcare costs, then proceeded to postpone again and again.

After he sees the patient, Dr. Murrow writes what he did on a form and then sends it to his billing guy, who turns the form into codes. The codes are what the doctor needs to get paid by Medicare.

First visit with a new patient is code #99204. That's worth $144.96. The cardiogram is worth another $17. That's a total of about $162.

Hundreds of thousands of doctors like Dr. Murrow bill for every service and procedure they provide for Medicare patients. And every year, they bill for more and more services and procedures.

So back in 1997, Congress said that if doctors' bills per patient increase beyond a certain rate, then Medicare would start paying a little less for each bill. There's a whole formula to figure it out. In 2002, the formula said fees for each procedure should be cut by 4 percent

"Doctors were somewhat grumpy about this," says Joseph Newhouse, who teaches Health Policy at Harvard University. "Some of them started to talk about, 'Well maybe we won't be happy about taking Medicare patients.'"

People on Medicare didn't like the sound of that. People in Congress didn't like to hear complaints from senior citizens, who vote in high numbers.

And then, the next year, 2003, same thing: The formula said cut doctor fees another 4 percent. People in Congress got very nervous about how their senior citizen constituents would react.

So instead, Congress passed a bill to ignore the formula that year. Instead, they raised doctors' fees. And then for the next year. And the next...

The formula is cumulative. So if you ignore a 4 percent cut two years in a row, the following year the formula will call for an 8 percent cut. And so on. The formula now says doctors' pay should be cut by 30 percent next year — which means that $160 Dr. Murrow made for treating Chris Veres's grandfather should, according to the formula, be only about $120.

Congress is very likely override the formula once again, and prevent doctors' pay from being cut next year. But Congress is much less likely to get rid of the formula altogether.

That's partly because projections of the long-term budget deficit assume that the formula will kick in eventually, and the federal government will spend less money paying doctors. Those projections — clearly based on a fiction — make the long-term deficit picture look brighter than it really is.

POTUS Obama and our country stand to see significant positive momentum coming into his fifth year....must really make some people squirm. ;)

QuoteThe White House Presents Its Fiscal Cliff 'Opening Bid' And It Contains Four Excellent Ideas

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-white-house-fiscal-cliff-opening-bid-2012-11
But there are 4 smaller things that Obama is pushing that are all good.
A permanent end to the debt ceiling. Under the new plan, there would be a law change such that Congress has to vote to BLOCK a debt ceiling hike, rather than vote to increase it. The debt ceiling is a stupid idea, and preventing it from being a hostage tool is a great idea.
An extension to the payroll tax holiday for another year (with 8% unemployment, this is still a justified stimulus, and we had not thought it was on the table).
An extension to emergency unemployment benefits (same, good idea, justified)
Some other modest stimulus including more infrastructure spending and mortgage relief.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-white-house-fiscal-cliff-opening-bid-2012-11#ixzz2Dft76n3X

It's about to be made worse...

From a TW post - "OKLAHOMA CITY– Gov. Mary Fallin and the National Governors Association executive committee on Tuesday will be at the White House to discuss the impact that the "fiscal cliff" will have on states."

Republican Doomsday Plan: Cave on Taxes, Vote 'Present'

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/republican-doomsday-plan-cave-on-taxes-vote-present/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/republican-doomsday-plan-cave-on-taxes-vote-present/)

QuoteRepublicans are seriously considering a Doomsday Plan if fiscal cliff talks collapse entirely.  It's quite simple:  House Republicans would allow a vote on extending the Bush middle class tax cuts (the bill passed in August by the Senate) and offer the President nothing more:  no extension of the debt ceiling, nothing on unemployment, nothing on closing loopholes.  Congress would recess for the holidays and the president would face a big battle early in the year over the debt ceiling.

Two senior Republican elected officials tell me this doomsday plan is becoming the most likely scenario.  A top GOP House  leadership aide confirms the plan is under consideration, but says Speaker Boehner has made no decision on whether to pursue it.

Under one variation of this Doomsday Plan, House Republicans would allow a vote on extending only the middle class tax cuts and Republicans, to express disapproval at the failure to extend all tax cuts, would vote "present" on the bill, allowing it to pass entirely on Democratic votes.

By doing this, Republicans avoid taking blame for tax increases on 98 percent of income tax payers.  As one senior Republican in Congress told me, "You don't take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot."  Republicans aren't willing to kill the middle class tax cuts, even if extending them alone will make it harder to later extend tax cuts on the wealthy.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., an influential conservative House Republican, is already on record supporting extending the middle class tax cuts — with or without the upper income tax cuts.  On Sunday, he said Republicans should embrace the extension of the middle class tax cuts and take credit for it.

"That's a victory, not a loss," Cole said on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.  "And then we're still free to try and fight over higher rates, offering revenue, which the Speaker has put on the table."
Last week, Boehner said he disagreed with Cole.  But now a version of what Cole has called for looks more and more likely to happen.

Still unclear under this plan is what would happen to the automatic defense cuts — "sequestration" — scheduled to go into effect on January 1 without a deficit deal.  During the campaign, the President promised the cuts would not happen.  As part of the deal to allow the House vote on taxes, those automatic defense cuts could be put off for a year.

Pressure mounts for a House vote on tax cuts

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html)

QuoteWashington (CNN) -- The Senate passed it. President Barack Obama says he'll sign it. Polls show most Americans want it.

Now Democrats say they will try to force House Republicans to hold a vote on a proposal to prevent higher income taxes for 98% of the nation starting next year while raising the rate on income over $250,000.

With Republicans opposing any kind of tax-rate increase, the fight continues to stymie congressional negotiations on reducing chronic federal deficits and debt.

This time, the public brinksmanship comes with a looming year-end deadline for the fiscal cliff of automatic tax hikes and deep spending cuts.

Without a deal, taxes for everyone go up on January 1, when lower rates enacted during the administration of George W. Bush are set to expire.

Fresh off his re-election victory, Obama demands that the GOP-led House immediately pass a Senate measure that keeps tax rates at current levels for income up to $250,000, while allowing the rate to rise for earnings above that threshold.

A central theme of Obama's first term and re-election campaign, the plan would increase revenue by almost $1 trillion over 10 years, providing a significant portion of the $4 trillion in overall deficit reduction sought by both sides.

However, Republicans led by House Speaker John Boehner object to any increase in tax rates, even for higher levels of income earned by 2% of Americans.

Republicans, instead, propose eliminating unspecified tax deductions and loopholes to generate more revenue as part of a broader deficit-reduction plan.

For the GOP, an agreement must include major reforms of entitlement programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid government-run health care programs for senior citizens, the disabled and the poor.

On Sunday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi threatened a procedural move that would, at the least, require Republicans to publicly state their opposition to avoiding the fiscal cliff tax hike on everyone.

"If Speaker Boehner refuses to schedule this widely-supported bill for a vote, Democrats will introduce a discharge petition to automatically bring to the floor the Senate-passed middle class tax cuts," Pelosi said in a statement. "We must find a bold, balanced and fair agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. The clock is ticking and stalemates are a luxury we cannot afford."

Under a "discharge petition," a bill can be brought to the floor without going through a committee or without approval of House leadership. The bill would need majority support -- or 218 votes -- to pass.

In the current lame-duck session of Congress, there are 192 Democrats in the House, so at least 26 Republicans would have to defect for Pelosi's motion to succeed.

Some House Republicans, including Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma and other conservative voices, have called for passing the tax plan sought by Obama and Democrats to allow the broader negotiations to move forward.

Cole and fellow conservative Rep. Tim Scott both said last week they believed that Senate tax measure would pass if brought to a vote in the House.

However, Cole made clear he would follow the directions of the leadership, tamping down the chances of a GOP revolt against Boehner over the issue.

Boehner has so far rejected any increase in tax rates, even if only for the wealthiest Americans, saying his offer to include additional revenue by eliminating some loopholes and deductions was a major concession.

On Sunday, he described the latest Democratic proposal for a broader deficit reduction plan as one-sided and unworthy of discussion.

"The president's idea of a negotiation is, 'Roll over and do what I ask,'" Boehner told Fox News Sunday, describing himself as "flabbergasted" by the plan put forward last week by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. "I looked at him and I said, 'You can't be serious.'"

Such posturing on both sides reflects the mistrust built up over two years of deficit wars that have left Congress with a reputation of dysfunction.

Failure to reach a deal to avert the fiscal cliff and devise a framework for a broader deficit reduction package to be negotiated when the new Congress is seated in January would cause certain economic turmoil and threaten the U.S. credit rating.

The Bush administration tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 already were extended by two years as part of budget negotiations earlier in Obama's term.

In addition, spending cuts of $1 trillion over 10 years also kick in next year, the result of the Republican-led standoff over raising the federal debt ceiling in 2011 that led to a U.S. credit rating downgrade.

Sharp tax increases and automatic spending cuts would cut the projected federal budget deficit nearly in half -- but also would threaten millions of jobs, especially those dependent on government contracting, and risk a return to recession, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates middle class families would pay about $2,000 a year more in taxes without another extension of all the Bush tax cuts, as sought by Republicans.

Without a deal in the lame-duck Congress, each side wants the other to get the lion's share of public blame for higher taxes and economic uncertainty.

The plan that Geithner presented to Republicans last week called for $1.6 trillion in new taxes, including the rate hike for income over $250,000.

"There's not going to be an agreement without rates going up," Geithner told CNN in an interview aired on Sunday. "If they are going to force higher rates on virtually all Americans because they're unwilling to let tax rates go up on 2 percent of Americans, then, I mean that's the choice they're going to have to make.

Obama also wants to close loopholes, limit deductions, raise the estate tax rate to 2009 levels and increase taxes on capital gains and dividend taxes.

In addition, the Obama proposal calls for a new $50 billion stimulus package, a home mortgage refinancing plan, and an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. It also would extend the payroll tax cut passed early in Obama's administration.

In return, multiple sources told CNN that Obama is offering $400 billion in new cuts to Medicare and other entitlement programs -- with specifics decided next year.

According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released last week, 56% of people said taxes should be kept high to help lower-income people, while 36% said taxes should be kept low to create jobs.

Another survey, by ABC News and the Washington Post, showed two-thirds of respondents supported Obama's call for holding down tax rates for everyone but the wealthiest Americans.

Boehner, however, blamed Obama for what he described as avoiding the tough steps needed to achieve significant deficit reduction.

"We've put a serious offer on the table by putting revenues up there to try to get this question resolved, but the White House has responded with virtually nothing," Boehner said.

To Geithner, Republicans "are in a hard place, and they're having a tough time trying to figure out what they can do, what they can get support from their members for."

"That's understandable," Geithner said. "This is very difficult for them, and we might need to give them a little more time to figure out where they go next."

Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics, predicted on the CBS program "Face the Nation" that lawmakers would reach a short-term deal that would limit the economic damage, extend the U.S. debt ceiling to avoid another standoff like the one in 2011 and lay down a framework for future deficit reduction talks.

BREAKING: House GOP offers fiscal cliff counterproposal

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/03/breaking-house-gop-offers-fiscal-cliff-counterproposal/?cid=sf_twitter (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/03/breaking-house-gop-offers-fiscal-cliff-counterproposal/?cid=sf_twitter)

Quote(CNN) – House Republicans are making a counter-offer Monday to the White House on a fiscal cliff deal, but they continue to reject President Barack Obama's call for higher tax rates on the wealthy.

The new proposal to avoid the fiscal cliff would bring $2.2 trillion in savings over the next decade. These would include $800 billion from tax reform, $600 billion from Medicare reforms and other health savings, and $600 billion in other spending cuts, House GOP leadership aides said Monday.

Quote from: Townsend on November 29, 2012, 02:55:51 PM
I'm sure you'll bank on this one too.

Oh!  Hey!  Look! It's that time again?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/30/despite-cliff-preparations-obama-hawaii-vacation/

The prospect of pitching over the federal "fiscal cliff" isn't stopping the White House from moving forward with President Obama's year-end Hawaii vacation plans.

Even as Republicans and Democrats report minimal progress so far in talks to meet a deadline to avoid sharp tax hikes and spending cuts, the White House was moving forward with the first family's and friends' $4 million vacation to Mr. Obama's native state.

Residents living near the beachfront homes in Kailua where President Obama has vacationed every year since 2008 received alerts this week about the restrictions and expected travel disruptions associated with the president and first family's visit, according to a story in the Hawaii Reporter.



http://www.examiner.com/article/kailua-hawaii-welcomes-barack-obama-5th-year-vacation

Quote from: Gaspar on December 03, 2012, 03:35:46 PM
Oh!  Hey!  Look! It's that time again?

Is he on vacation or are there plans being made?

There are no proposals and counters?  Nothing being said from either side?

Should there be no plans made until everything is locked and signed or should SS and the rest of the offices make plans so that all things can go as smoothly as possible?

Quote from: Townsend on December 03, 2012, 02:48:48 PM
BREAKING: House GOP offers fiscal cliff counterproposal

That didn't take long:

White House: GOP offer 'does not meet the test of balance

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/white-house-gop-offer-does-not-meet-the-test-of-balance-150949.html (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/white-house-gop-offer-does-not-meet-the-test-of-balance-150949.html)

QuoteThe White House rejected the House Republican counter offer on solving the fiscal cliff — leaving both sides in stalemate over tax rates.

"The Republican letter released today does not meet the test of balance. In fact, it actually promises to lower rates for the wealthy and sticks the middle class with the bill," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer.

Congressional GOP leaders rejected President Obama's $1.6 trillion dollar deficit reduction offer last week, proposing their own $2.2 trillion package. The House-backed package does not raise taxes on the wealthy — something that the White House has insisted on in order to bring "balance" to the overall package.

"Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve. Independent analysts who have looked at plans like this one have concluded that middle class taxes will have to go up to pay for lower rates for millionaires and billionaires.  While the President is willing to compromise to get a significant, balanced deal and believes that compromise is readily available to Congress, he is not willing to compromise on the principles of fairness and balance that include asking the wealthiest to pay higher rates," Pfeiffer said.

"President Obama believes – and the American people agree – that the economy works best when it is grown from the middle out, not from the top down.  Until the Republicans in Congress are willing to get serious about asking the wealthiest to pay slightly higher tax rates, we won't be able to achieve a significant, balanced approach to reduce our deficit our nation needs," he said.

The stalemate leaves both sides clinging to their original negotiating positions on tax rates — with the White House demanding upper income bracket tax increases and the House Republicans refusing to cave.

Without any action by Congress, tax rates will automatically revert to 2001 rates on all tax payers.

UPDATE: "Republicans have once again offered a responsible, balanced plan to avoid the fiscal cliff, and the White House has once again demonstrated how unreasonable it has become.  If the President is rejecting this middle ground offer, it is now his obligation to present a plan that can pass both chambers of Congress," House Speaker John Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement.

Quote from: Townsend on December 03, 2012, 03:56:52 PM
Is he on vacation or are there plans being made?

There are no proposals and counters?  Nothing being said from either side?

Should there be no plans made until everything is locked and signed or should SS and the rest of the offices make plans so that all things can go as smoothly as possible?

Well of course not, and I'm sure he wouldn't' dream of up-and-leaving without taking the reigns and getting all parties to agree on a compromise.

I mean the last few years when the budget went down to the wire he stuck around and hammered out. . .Oh! Wait!  No, he kicked the can, headed for the islands, and well here we are again.

Lets see.  So far he offered a $1.6 trillion deal with no specifics on the cuts (just a framework as he put it).  The House Countered with a $2.2 trillion dollar plan just moments ago http://thehill.com/homenews/house/270649-house-republicans-make-22t-counter-offer-to-obama-in-debt-talksklj with very specific cuts and $800 billion in new tax revenues from cutting deductions. But there was no new taxes on businesses and the evil rich, so it was flat rejected.

Now here we sit all broken hearted tried to . . .

He has nothing to lose and everything to gain from heading off the cliff.  It will be played out as the fault of congress, and it will open the door for continued campaigning for new Dem mid-term challengers.  The president will continue to be able to do what he does best, campaign, while at the same time gaining a new group to blame for EAVVVERYTHING.  It's a freekin Win/Win for him.  The only people that pay for it are the peasants.

Rejoice, your Lord and Saviour shall be exalted on Kauai!  ;)

Quote from: Gaspar on December 03, 2012, 04:33:37 PM
He has nothing to lose and everything to gain from heading off the cliff.  It will be played out as the fault of congress, and it will open the door for continued campaigning for new Dem mid-term challengers.  The president will continue to be able to do what he does best, campaign, while at the same time gaining a new group to blame for EAVVVERYTHING.  It's a freekin Win/Win for him.  The only people that pay for it are the peasants.

Oh my god, a Democrat seems to have outwitted the Republicans politically! Isn't that illegal? (Welcome to 2011, glad you finally made it)

Seriously, he's doing exactly what he said he'd do when out on the campaign trail. Sorry that less than 48% of the electorate agreed with you. Given how much you complained about how little he actually said about a second term, I'm surprised you aren't commending him for following through on the thing he ran on.

QuoteSo, the President Is Standing Up to the GOP. Huh.
Monday, 03 December 2012 11:16
By John Aravosis, AMERICAblog | Op-Ed

So this is fun.
I was listening to NPR the other morning, and they were saying that the Republicans are livid that President Obama stuck to his guns on his "fiscal cliff" offer regarding phasing out the tax cuts for the rich.
You see, NPR explained, the Republicans figured the President would make an offer, then start negotiating with himself, undercutting his own position, while the Republicans just sat back and watched.
But a funny thing happened this time. He didn't. The President is sticking to his guns and demanding the GOP let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire. And Democrats are pleasantly surprised to be able to say, "now that's the guy I voted for."
It shouldn't be a surprise in principle that the President is standing up to the GOP. The President won the election, and he was quite clear throughout that if he was re-elected, he'd get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
What's probably motivating the White House more are the polls. Not only have recent polls shown that a large majority of Americans, 67%, want tax increases included as part of the budget deal, but even Republicans support the notion 52-44, and even conservative Republicans are on board, 51-45. That means, congressional Republicans don't even represent conservatives in their party, let alone the rest of their party or the rest of the nation.
And the President knows it, and he's playing it. The poll also showed that the public at large, and independents in particular, would blame the GOP more than the President if the talks fail.
Now, the President has had polls on his side before, and not quite seemed to have taken full advantage of them. Back in 2010, the polls were showing that the public wanted Washington to cut the deficit, keep entitlements and tax the rich.
The public wants Congress to keep its hands off entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. They oppose cuts in most other major domestic programs and defense. They want to maintain subsidies for farmers and tax breaks like the mortgage-interest deduction. And they're against an increase in the gasoline tax.
Peter Baker in the NYT has a delicious "news analysis" of the current standoff entitled, "Pushing G.O.P. to Negotiate, Obama Brings End to Giving In."
Obama brings end to giving in. Imagine that.
Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.
Disciplined and unyielding, he argues for raising taxes on the wealthy while offering nothing new to rein in spending and overhaul entitlement programs beyond what was on the table last year. Until Republicans offer their own new plan, Mr. Obama will not alter his. In effect, he is trying to leverage what he claims as an election mandate to force Republicans to take ownership of the difficult choices ahead.
His approach is born of painful experience. In his first four years in office, Mr. Obama has repeatedly offered what he considered compromises on stimulus spending, health care and deficit reduction to Republicans, who either rejected them as inadequate or pocketed them and insisted on more. Republicans argued that Mr. Obama never made serious efforts at compromise and instead lectured them about what they ought to want rather than listening to what they did want.
You know what? Bite me. The Republicans long ago taught themselves that lying is the best medicine. The only way to win over the public, the GOP figured, was to lie to them. That's why they created Fox News. And it's why they regularly lie about science (be it climate change or evolution), and pretty much every position they hold. Tax cuts won't balloon the deficit. Iraq really has WMD (and the war will be a snap). Gay marriage will force straight men to divorce their wives. And the President has always refused to compromise with Republicans.
When has the President ever refused to compromise with Republicans? If anything, Democrats have been annoyed with the President's seemingly endless efforts to compromise with both Republicans and himself. The stimulus was a compromise (and then the Republicans voted against it anyway). Health care reform was as compromise (and then the Republicans pretended it was a federal takeover of health care when it wasn't). Backing off of climate change was a compromise. Proposing off-shore drilling was a compromise. When hasn't this President compromised?
Though, the President's compromises did become less compromising in the last two years of his first term, as he grew to fully appreciate how duplicitous the Republicans really were. So now, he's actually standing up to them, full bore, and they don't like it one bit.
This is what the President refused to do at the beginning of his first term – use his electoral mandate, use the polling in his favor, and fight from a position of strength for what he thinks is right.
Oh, and I read that the President is also demanding that Republicans let Medicare negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma, so that we can stop paying the exorbitant 300% to 500% mark-up that Big Pharma charges Americans to help pay for subsidized drug prices in Europe. If the President is serious about this, this is a battle, even in the face of Big Pharma big money, that he can win (good luck explaining to the American people why they, and their government, should continue to pay 5x the price for Advair in order to subsidize cheap prices in France).
Now, will he hold firm? I dunno. And to some degree, that's our job to help hold him firm. But having the President recognize his own strengths in this negotiation is a darn good beginning to a second term, and it's just the change I've been needing.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13118-so-the-president-is-standing-up-to-the-gop-huh

Off the cliff!

Quote from: Gaspar on December 03, 2012, 04:33:37 PM
The House Countered with a $2.2 trillion dollar plan just moments ago http://thehill.com/homenews/house/270649-house-republicans-make-22t-counter-offer-to-obama-in-debt-talksklj with very specific cuts and $800 billion in new tax revenues from cutting deductions.

Here's a simple question.  Cutting what deductions?

Quote from: Townsend on December 04, 2012, 09:51:05 AM
Here's a simple question.  Cutting what deductions?

Did you not read the letter to the president from The Boner?

It combines the 2013 budget passed by the house with the eliminations in deductions from the President's own Simpson Bowels plan.  Damn! That sounds like compromise.

Eliminate all tax expenditures—for both income and payroll taxes—except for the child credit, the earned income tax credit, foreign tax credits, a few less common preferences (retain reduced preferences for mortgage interest, employer-sponsered health insurance and reitrement savings in the third variant listed above).

Eliminate the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

Eliminate the phaseout of personal exemptions and the limitation of itemized deductions.

Replace the current six-bracket individual tax rate schedule with a three-bracket schedule with rates of 9, 15, and 24 percent (12, 20, and 27 percent in the third variant listed above).

Tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income.

Index tax parameters using the chained Consumer Price Index.

Increase the Social Security wage base by 2 percent per year more than the growth in the average wage (making the FICA cap $140,100 in 2015).

Phase in an increase in the federal excise tax on gasoline of 15 cents per gallon (13.5 cents per gallon on average in 2015).

Eliminate corporate tax expenditures and reduce the corporate tax rate to 26 percent (27 percent in the third variant listed above).

The plan is no longer listed on the White House website, but you can find it here: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

MSNBC probably didn't want to post the letter, so here it is: http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/house-gop-leaders-make-new-offer-avert-fiscal-cliff

Quote from: Gaspar on December 04, 2012, 10:37:47 AM


The plan is no longer listed on the White House website, but you can find it here: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

MSNBC probably didn't want to post the letter, so here it is: http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/house-gop-leaders-make-new-offer-avert-fiscal-cliff

That plan's from 2010 and the letter doesn't outline any deduction cuts.

Quote from: Townsend on December 04, 2012, 10:45:53 AM
That plan's from 2010 and the letter doesn't outline any deduction cuts.

I suppose you would have to read it.

"With the fiscal cliff nearing, our priority remains finding a reasonable solution that can pass both the House and the Senate, and be signed into law in the next couple of weeks.  The best way to do this is by learning from and building on the bipartisan discussions that have occurred during this Congress, including the Biden Group, the Joint Select Committee, and our negotiations leading up to the Budget Control Act.

For instance, on November 1 of last year, Erskine Bowles, the co-chair of your debt commission, presented the Joint Select Committee with a middle ground approach that garnered praise from many fiscal watchdogs and nonpartisan experts.  He recommended that both parties agree to a balanced package that includes significant spending cuts as well as $800 billion in new revenue.

Notably, the new revenue in the Bowles plan would not be achieved through higher tax rates, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect small businesses and our economy.  Instead, new revenue would be generated through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates.  On the spending side, the Bowles recommendation would cut more than $900 billion in mandatory spending and another $300 billion in discretionary spending.  These cuts would be over and above the spending reductions enacted in the Budget Control Act."

Quote from: Gaspar on December 04, 2012, 10:52:10 AM

"With the fiscal cliff nearing, our priority remains finding a reasonable solution that can pass both the House and the Senate, and be signed into law in the next couple of weeks.  The best way to do this is by learning from and building on the bipartisan discussions that have occurred during this Congress, including the Biden Group, the Joint Select Committee, and our negotiations leading up to the Budget Control Act.

For instance, on November 1 of last year, Erskine Bowles, the co-chair of your debt commission, presented the Joint Select Committee with a middle ground approach that garnered praise from many fiscal watchdogs and nonpartisan experts.  He recommended that both parties agree to a balanced package that includes significant spending cuts as well as $800 billion in new revenue.

Notably, the new revenue in the Bowles plan would not be achieved through higher tax rates, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect small businesses and our economy.  Instead, new revenue would be generated through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates.  On the spending side, the Bowles recommendation would cut more than $900 billion in mandatory spending and another $300 billion in discretionary spending.  These cuts would be over and above the spending reductions enacted in the Budget Control Act."

How is that outlining the cuts?

QuoteInstead, new revenue would be generated through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates.  On the spending side, the Bowles recommendation would cut more than $900 billion in mandatory spending and another $300 billion in discretionary spending.  These cuts would be over and above the spending reductions enacted in the Budget Control Act."

What special-interest loopholes and deductions?

Gaspar, this is what I'm seeing as a descriptive of your plan:

QuoteThe offer made the following proposals to achieve $2.2 trillion in new deficit reductions over 10 years:

* $800 billion in new revenue through tax reform;

* unspecified healthcare program savings of $600 billion;

* other savings from changes to unspecified mandatory spending programs of $300 billion;

* tying cost-of-living increases for federal benefit programs to the Consumer Price Index to get savings of $200 billion;

* and further unspecified savings to domestic spending programs of $300 billion.

"unspecified" seems to be there in most all of them.

Governors Look Over Fiscal Cliff

http://kwgs.com/post/governors-look-over-fiscal-cliff (http://kwgs.com/post/governors-look-over-fiscal-cliff)

QuoteMembers of the National Governors Association's Executive Committee met with President Obama to discuss the pending fiscal cliff. Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin is the Vice-Chair of the Association and attended the meeting. The discussion was held this morning at the White House

After the meeting, the governors met with reporters outside the White House.  Governor Fallin said there were questions about potential federal cuts creating more unfunded mandates. She says the states need flexibility to address  cuts and be able to keep critical programs in operation, if the budget cuts come to pass.

Six governors in all, three Democrats and three Republicans, met with the President in what was described as a cordial meeting.

(He waved at them through a window)

QuoteGovernor Fallin said there were questions about potential federal cuts creating more unfunded mandates.

Like what?

It really doen't matter.  The president is not interested in coming to the table and hashing any of that out.  He's not interested in any simplification of the tax code.  He's not trying to do a single thing except raise taxes on the wealthy and small businesses.  He promised that when he was elected in 2008 as part of his class warfare platform, and he has campaigned for it ever since.  The economy has always been quite secondary to him.  That is the only specific that exists from either side.  Simpson Bowels is an analysis and report.  They identify loopholes and deductions, but make no specifics because that would have painted a target on their heads and given the special interests a plan of attack.

They have to sit down with the president and identify the things that both sides are willing to give up.  That's how this sh!t works, or at least is supposed to work.  The president says "I'm not considering anything unless I can raise taxes."  The Republicans ask "are you interested in increasing revenue or just increasing taxes?"  

I'd like to see them work together and come out with something that solves the spending problems, but the administration does not see any spending problems, in fact they want more spending, additional stimulus, and more complexity.  

At this point, I'm with Teatown.  President Obama has already won!

Over the cliff!

Quote from: Gaspar on December 04, 2012, 12:28:46 PM
It really doen't matter.  

Sure it matters.  No specifics and you might as well not do anything.  "No no, we'll cut the loopholes."  Which ones?  "Don't you worry your pretty little head about it."

QuoteHe's not trying to do a single thing except raise taxes on the wealthy and small businesses

The wealthy will get the same tax breaks as the rest of us.  If your household makes $249,999, your taxes will be the same as the wealthy and the small business' first $249,999.

(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/12/04/119651577_wide-20478aa19112bbcb64e446418475d2a28cabb2ff-s4.jpg)

Lookin' like it's going great.

Quote from: Townsend on December 04, 2012, 12:35:02 PM
Sure it matters.  No specifics and you might as well not do anything.  "No no, we'll cut the loopholes."  Which ones?  "Don't you worry your pretty little head about it."

The wealthy will get the same tax breaks as the rest of us.  If your household makes $249,999, your taxes will be the same as the wealthy and the small business' first $249,999.

You are missing the spending cuts.  Increasing taxes only on the wealthy will not correct our situation.  If "you" are unwilling to make spending cuts, increased taxes will get to most of us.  Maybe not you since you are broke.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 04, 2012, 04:30:08 PM
You are missing the spending cuts.

How am I missing spending cuts?  Which part of the conversation are you joining?

Quote from: Townsend on December 04, 2012, 04:44:55 PM
How am I missing spending cuts?  Which part of the conversation are you joining?

Gee, I thought we were talking about going over the cliff.  Going over the cliff is due to spending we cannot afford. When you cannot afford what you want you either get more money, cut spending somewhere, or a combination.  Raising revenue isn't good enough for President Obama (now, it was earlier), he demands rate increases on the rich or there will be no talks of spending cuts.  Republicans have offered tax revenue increases but not rate increases.  Republicans have not stated explicit loophole closures.  President Obama has only suggested non-specific spending cuts in the future in exchange for tax rate increases now.  We are going nowhere.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 04, 2012, 07:45:24 PM
President Obama has only suggested non-specific spending cuts in the future in exchange for tax rate increases now.  We are going nowhere.

There are across the board cuts to the discretionary budget under current law. That's in addition to the rate increases that result from the Bush cuts expiring. If the Republicans would like to cancel some of those cuts or rate increases, it would behoove them to agree to a plan that meets the points Obama has outlined. Obama gets mostly what he wants out of current law, so why should he negotiate away things that are important to him? Is there some reason you think he ought to give up the one thing he ran on?

That makes no more sense than it would (politically, anyway) for the Republicans to agree to extend the Bush cuts in the less than $250,000 brackets without Obama giving up some military cuts or something.

Quote from: nathanm on December 04, 2012, 07:59:19 PM
There are across the board cuts to the discretionary budget under current law. That's in addition to the rate increases that result from the Bush cuts expiring. If the Republicans would like to cancel some of those cuts or rate increases, it would behoove them to agree to a plan that meets the points Obama has outlined. Obama gets mostly what he wants out of current law, so why should he negotiate away things that are important to him? Is there some reason you think he ought to give up the one thing he ran on?

I don't remember the entire list of cuts but I believe there are some that Obama really would like to avoid.  The present law revokes the Bush cuts for everyone, including those under $250,000 for married folks, less for those filing single (me).   Although Obama may get most of what he wants, I think there is enough on the table to behoove him to try to deal with the Republicans.  I have been told enough times on this forum that compromise means both sides not getting all they want.

QuoteThat makes no more sense than it would (politically, anyway) for the Republicans to agree to extend the Bush cuts in the less than $250,000 brackets without Obama giving up some military cuts or something.

Are you talking about extending the cuts for under $250,000 without extending for over $250,000?

In the big scheme of things, I am old enough that even if you young guys totally screw up the country I will probably not live long enough to see the full effect.  I have no children. My brother and sister have no children.  There are obviously no grandchildren.  If you guys want to pass this mess on to your kids and grandkids, have fun. 

Quote from: nathanm on December 04, 2012, 07:59:19 PM
There are across the board cuts to the discretionary budget under current law. That's in addition to the rate increases that result from the Bush cuts expiring. If the Republicans would like to cancel some of those cuts or rate increases, it would behoove them to agree to a plan that meets the points Obama has outlined. Obama gets mostly what he wants out of current law, so why should he negotiate away things that are important to him? Is there some reason you think he ought to give up the one thing he ran on?

That makes no more sense than it would (politically, anyway) for the Republicans to agree to extend the Bush cuts in the less than $250,000 brackets without Obama giving up some military cuts or something.

You hit the nail on the head!
This is political, and based in ego.  We, the people, are simply caught in the crossfire.

Most economists, and the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform created by President Obama agree that we must have far more reduction in spending to get back on solid footing.  Neither party is willing to face that yet.  The Republicans are offering a plan that anemic, and the president's push for revenue is even more anemic because it barley scratches spending.  "The Cliff" will likely prove a remedy to spending and revenue, but only for a very short period of time because the backlash will reduce recepts drastically by causing certain recession, unemployment, and all of the other things that have become the new norm for this president. 

The only hope we really have is that President Obama would prefer to spend the rest of his days on the golf course without having to hear all of this economy stuff.  It is difficult to focus on your game when your subjects are unhappy.

Interesting language CBS uses today:
On "fiscal cliff", Obama appeals to former foes

". . .The president's remarks today represent his latest appeal to business leaders to get behind his approach to avoiding the "fiscal cliff," a series of tax hikes and spending cuts set to go into effect next year. As lawmakers search for ways to avert the "cliff" while still bringing down the deficit and keeping up economic growth, they've sought the input of business leaders. Mr. Obama and congressional Republicans are both hoping the support of the private sector will bolster their respective economic agendas." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57557160/on-fiscal-cliff-obama-appeals-to-former-foes/

Why would CBS classify "Business Leaders" as "Foes"?  I know it's simply a headline but it indicates that the media classifies the president as at-odds with business.  Each time he addresses the business roundtable he finds himself on the defensive.  This shouldn't be.  His focus should be on developing and promotig economic prosperity, and that starts by expanding business and therefore employment.  Instead, the president adresses this group to defend what he sees as a class war, where the private sector is an enemy that he must defend the people against.  That's the wrong paradigm. Unfortunately we have a growing populous that believes that is reality and President Obama is their Lord and Saviour. 

Each new hobgoblin this president rolls out creates increasing fear, we have increasing uncertainty, and we have growing dependence. Quietly, last week the Federal Reserve purchased 90% of the treasury bonds as the debt increased.  We are printing money like wildfire to keep the curtan of economic normalcy before the public.  Cliff or no cliff, the new year promises a wave of regulation, tax, and government growth that few can successfully sugar-coat.

I would like to see a president that can appear before business leaders and be celebrated for programs that spur growth.  A man or woman who is applauded by the people for creating economic opportunity, inovation, jobs and security.  A person willing to accept that difficult, and in many cases unpopular, decisions must be made, not just to preserve what is left of a free market economy, but to grow it.  A leader that sees congress as a vital tool and partner in doing the work of the people.  A flawed and imperfect person that realizes he or she alone is nether responsible or capable of producing fair policy without the assistance, debate, and involvement of congress and the input of the people.

Perhaps we can elect someone like that in 2016.

(http://cdn.conservativebyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Obama-Halo_0.jpg)

(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/QvzXjSigGzwsu68caiE3nw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9ODY1O2NyPTE7Y3c9MTI5ODtkeD0wO2R5PTA7Zmk9dWxjcm9wO2g9NDIwO3E9ODU7dz02MzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/ca296e1d1c55bf22220f6a706700b229.jpg)

"You look familiar.  Were you ever on the Oklahoma Highway Patrol?  Why you gotta keep both hands above the table?  Lookit, I'm makin' some googly eyes atchu."

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 04, 2012, 09:07:30 PM
If you guys want to pass this mess on to your kids and grandkids, have fun. 

We're already passing on a mess caused by the relentless drive to reduce tax revenue even if it means running large deficits.

I think the Republicans expected that he would be out in January, so didn't really care that the deal was worse for them than it was for the Democrats. I suspect Obama will end up giving away some of his advantage. That's just the sort of person he has been.

Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2012, 02:18:22 PM
We're already passing on a mess caused by the relentless drive to reduce tax revenue even if it means running large deficits.

I think the Republicans expected that he would be out in January, so didn't really care that the deal was worse for them than it was for the Democrats. I suspect Obama will end up giving away some of his advantage. That's just the sort of person he has been.

Funny, I thought the mess was caused by spending.  My bad. 

Quote from: Gaspar on December 05, 2012, 02:33:10 PM
Funny, I thought the mess was caused by spending.  My bad. 

Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows, so no, it's not only about spending. Unless you're one of those loons that believe that all government spending is illegitimate and immoral?

Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2012, 02:18:22 PM
We're already passing on a mess caused by the relentless drive to reduce tax revenue increase spending even if it means running large deficits.

Fixed it.

QuoteI suspect Obama will end up giving away some of his advantage. That's just the sort of person he has been.

Earth to Nathan... come in Nathan.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 02:45:21 PM
Fixed it.

Earth to Nathan... come in Nathan.

Yesterday the president consulted with Al Sharpton on tax increases at the White House.  Sharpton must be a tax expert after all the tax evasion he's been indicted for.
It's going to be four more years of facepalm.

(http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/86/52/1333422486_al_sharpton.jpg)

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 02:45:21 PM
Fixed it.

You have a problem with paying promised benefits to Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries?

Quote
Earth to Nathan... come in Nathan.

It makes it hard to have a conversation when you can't even acknowledge that Obama has regularly adopted a conciliatory stance towards the Republicans and has often pissed off the left wing of his party as a result. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2012, 03:16:09 PM
You have a problem with paying promised benefits to Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries?

It makes it hard to have a conversation when you can't even acknowledge that Obama has regularly adopted a conciliatory stance towards the Republicans and has often pissed off the left wing of his party as a result. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

You do remember who it is you're talking to, right?

Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2012, 03:16:09 PM
You have a problem with paying promised benefits to Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries?

Got it. There are no expenditures except Defense and Medicare/Social Security.   Don't even ask about the frustrations of finding a new Primary Care Physician for my mom due to insurance changes.

QuoteIt makes it hard to have a conversation when you can't even acknowledge that Obama has regularly adopted a conciliatory stance towards the Republicans and has often pissed off the left wing of his party as a result. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

It makes it hard to have a conversation when you cannot even acknowledge the arrogance and condescending nature of President Obama and the fact that he is just as obstinate as the right wingers on too many items. You too are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.   And that's the facts Jack. (Or Bucko if you prefer.)

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 04:26:41 PM
arrogance and condescending nature of President Obama

How many presidents have you met that haven't been arrogant or condescending?

Quote from: Townsend on December 05, 2012, 04:32:25 PM
How many presidents have you met that haven't been arrogant or condescending?

Obama is making an art-form of being both.

I have never personally met any of the Presidents of the USA.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 04:38:33 PM
Obama is making an art-form of being both.

I have never personally met any of the Presidents of the USA.

I saw them in concert once.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 05, 2012, 04:44:22 PM
I saw them in concert once.

DAMMIT!  I just had "Peaches" out of my head. You do this on purpose, you southie!

;)

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 04:26:41 PM
Got it. There are no expenditures except Defense and Medicare/Social Security.

Those together make up almost 2/3rds of the total budget. Somewhat over if you add the money that gets spent on defense at agencies other than the DoD. (nuclear weapons programs at DOE are a large part of that)

Quote
It makes it hard to have a conversation when you cannot even acknowledge the arrogance and condescending nature of President Obama and the fact that he is just as obstinate as the right wingers on too many items. You too are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.   And that's the facts Jack. (Or Bucko if you prefer.)

Yep, the guy that has given Republicans their spending cuts and tax cuts, even if not in amounts as great as they would prefer, is such an obstinate fellow. Maybe you're confusing Obama with the Congressional Democrats?

Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2012, 06:05:40 PM
Yep, the guy that has given Republicans their spending cuts and tax cuts, even if not in amounts as great as they would prefer, is such an obstinate fellow. Maybe you're confusing Obama with the Congressional Democrats?

A President that wants the wealthy to pay more but only by increased marginal rates and will not accept any other method is obstinate.  Take the fingernail polish off your glasses lenses.  Congressional Democrats are another group just as terrible as the extreme right but obviously on the other side.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 06:43:57 PM
A President that wants the wealthy to pay more but only by increased marginal rates and will not accept any other method is obstinate.

No more obstinate than the Republicans refusing to entertain the thought of higher rates on the top end income of top earners. It's not as if he's calling for a minimum tax rate like some are, so they still get the benefit of continuing the lower rates on income below $250,000. As we went over during the campaign when we were talking about the Ryan plan, there simply aren't enough loopholes to close to make up even half the deficit.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 04:26:41 PM
It makes it hard to have a conversation when you cannot even acknowledge the arrogance and condescending nature of President Obama and the fact that he is just as obstinate as the right wingers on too many items. You too are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.   And that's the facts Jack. (Or Bucko if you prefer.)

So, having a conversation with YOU means I have to acknowledge the "arrogance and condescending nature of President Obama?"

That explains a lot.    :P

Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2012, 07:14:30 PM
No more obstinate than the Republicans refusing to entertain the thought of higher rates on the top end income of top earners. It's not as if he's calling for a minimum tax rate like some are, so they still get the benefit of continuing the lower rates on income below $250,000. As we went over during the campaign when we were talking about the Ryan plan, there simply aren't enough loopholes to close to make up even half the deficit.

And do you think raising the marginal rates on those over $250,000 to the Clinton rates is going to cover more than closing loopholes?  I don't.  I saw a clip recently of Obama (words from his mouth) in 2011(?) calling for closing loopholes rather than raising the marginal rates.  What a flip-flop.  And now the lemmings are following.   In the long run, you and I are going to end up paying more.  Maybe Townsend won't until he gets his degree and a decent job.   I believe in the past you said you wouldn't mind paying 30%.  I don't remember if that was 30% of your AGI or the marginal rate.  I have certain savings goals so that some day I can retire.  If my taxes go up much (approximately 16% of my AGI last year for Federal Income Tax), I will be forced to stop some of my spending.  I'm talking about little things that add up.  Last weekend I bought a $15 round-over bit for a router because I didn't like the radius of the one my brother has.  That kind of stuff will end.  

On the other hand, maybe I can make a case that flying is required for my mental balance and get the Federal Government to pay for my Avgas.

My full SS retirement begins at age 66.  I'm OK with that.  Maybe it needs to be increased gradually even more.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 07:47:28 PM
And do you think raising the marginal rates on those over $250,000 to the Clinton rates is going to cover more than closing loopholes?  I don't.  I saw a clip recently of Obama (words from his mouth) in 2011(?) calling for closing loopholes rather than raising the marginal rates.  What a flip-flop.  And now the lemmings are following.   In the long run, you and I are going to end up paying more.  Maybe Townsend won't until he gets his degree and a decent job.   I believe in the past you said you wouldn't mind paying 30%.  I don't remember if that was 30% of your AGI or the marginal rate.  I have certain savings goals so that some day I can retire.  If my taxes go up much (approximately 16% of my AGI last year for Federal Income Tax), I will be forced to stop some of my spending.  I'm talking about little things that add up.  Last weekend I bought a $15 round-over bit for a router because I didn't like the radius of the one my brother has.  That kind of stuff will end.  

On the other hand, maybe I can make a case that flying is required for my mental balance and get the Federal Government to pay for my Avgas.

My full SS retirement begins at age 66.  I'm OK with that.  Maybe it needs to be increased gradually even more.

Since YOUR opinion is gold, we'll all abide by it.

::)

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on December 05, 2012, 07:38:50 PM
So, having a conversation with YOU means I have to acknowledge the "arrogance and condescending nature of President Obama?"
That explains a lot.    :P

Whew, no more responses from you.  That was easy.  Staples was right about the easy button.

edit:

I forgot to say that yes, you "have to acknowledge the "arrogance and condescending nature of President Obama?""  But only you.  No one else, because you are the only one arrogant enough to say it first.

Quote from: Hoss on December 05, 2012, 07:48:52 PM
Since YOUR opinion is gold, we'll all abide by it.
::)

All of the cuts, from both sides, involve things like 10 years.  Nothing is going to happen overnight or even in a couple of years.  When I hear things like $1 Trillion in cuts or tax increases and then hear 10 years I quickly divide by 10 and say we are getting no where.

I am glad you finally recognize the superior nature of my opinion.  It's about time.   ;D

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 07:50:30 PM
Whew, no more responses from you.  That was easy.  Staples was right about the easy button.

And right wingers are so predictable, if nothing else.  If it's good for you all, it MUST be good for everyone.

Quote from: Hoss on December 05, 2012, 07:55:14 PM
And right wingers are so predictable, if nothing else.  If it's good for you all, it MUST be good for everyone.

You are learning.  I didn't think that was possible.  There is hope for you yet, but not much.  :D but  not  ;D

Just for you, I'm going to lose my sense of humor for a few milliseconds and say that the left wingers have the same attitude.  End of milliseconds.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 07:50:30 PM
Whew, no more responses from you.  That was easy.  Staples was right about the easy button.

edit:

I forgot to say that yes, you "have to acknowledge the "arrogance and condescending nature of President Obama?""  But only you.  No one else, because you are the only one arrogant enough to say it first.

Yeah, that made sense.  Thanks for the clarification.   ::)
Oh... and you don't like soccer... which didn't seem to keep you from responding to everything I post, soccer related or not...

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on December 05, 2012, 08:02:33 PM
Yeah, that made sense.  Thanks for the clarification.   ::)
Oh... and you don't like soccer... which didn't seem to keep you from responding to everything I post, soccer related or not...

I usually stay away from soccer because I don't care about it.  Please find a negative post from me about soccer other than to say I don't care one way or the other about it.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 07:47:28 PM
If my taxes go up much (approximately 16% of my AGI last year for Federal Income Tax), I will be forced to stop some of my spending.

Unless most of your income is from investments to get that rate, your taxes won't go up at all if Obama actually gets his way. I recently mentioned how it wouldn't benefit the Republicans to take away that threat, though. That's the hold up.

And yeah, you will have to cut out a couple of router bits a month if you have an AGI of $50,000 and Congress fails to pass a bill with the stuff that both Democrats and (most) Republicans agree on.

Tom Colburn just signed on to support a balanced approach with cuts, entitlement reform and increased taxes on the top two percent with a small business caveat.

Quote from: carltonplace on December 06, 2012, 09:16:58 AM
Tom Colburn just signed on to support a balanced approach with cuts, entitlement reform and increased taxes on the top two percent with a small business caveat.

Republican Senator Tom Coburn backs tax rate hike on wealthy

http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/political/republican-senator-tom-coburn-backs-tax-rate-hike-on-wealthy (http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/political/republican-senator-tom-coburn-backs-tax-rate-hike-on-wealthy)

Quote(CNN) -- In a significant development in the fiscal cliff standoff, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, a leading deficit hawk, said Wednesday he would support higher tax rates on wealthier Americans as part of a broader deal with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to avoid the crisis.

"I know we have to raise revenue," the senator from Oklahoma told MSNBC. "I don't really care which way we do it. Actually, I would rather see rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us a greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future."

Coburn, who served on the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission and participated in the Gang of Six deficit talks, was one of the first Republicans a couple of years to embrace raising revenue to reduce the deficit. At that time, he wanted to do it through reforming the tax code by eliminating loopholes and deductions that he argued favored the rich and powerful. But now he appears to be the first GOP senator to say publicly he would back increasing the tax rates on the wealthy, as long as that increase is coupled with spending cuts and entitlement reforms.

Coburn thinks its better to raise rates now, which will generate the money needed to get beyond the fiscal cliff and then negotiate broad reforms to the tax code - such as eliminating deductions and loopholes - that both Republicans and Democrats argue is necessary.

He is worried that if some reforms are made now as part of the fiscal cliff talks, Congress might never return to the table to do comprehensive reform.
Not surprisingly, Democrats seized on Coburn's unexpected new position.

"Senator Coburn is an unquestioned conservative," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, in a news release. "If he doesn't provide cover for the Republicans to finally shift on tax rates, I don't know who does."
"Welcome to the Club," read a news release issued by House Democrats.


Read more: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/political/republican-senator-tom-coburn-backs-tax-rate-hike-on-wealthy#ixzz2EHnFeley

Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2012, 11:17:37 PM
Unless most of your income is from investments to get that rate, your taxes won't go up at all if Obama actually gets his way. I recently mentioned how it wouldn't benefit the Republicans to take away that threat, though. That's the hold up.

And yeah, you will have to cut out a couple of router bits a month if you have an AGI of $50,000 and Congress fails to pass a bill with the stuff that both Democrats and (most) Republicans agree on.

You must have missed the part where I said that eventually increased taxes will get down to you and me.  Right now, if Obama gets his way, you are correct.  I am looking a little further on.  The router bit was just a for-example.  It might get down to avgas too.

Turn the lights out kids, another GOP leader says to capitulate...

Ann Coulter Says GOP Should Give In To Obama On Taxes: 'We Lost The Election'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/ann-coulter-gop-taxes-obama-hannity_n_2249545.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/ann-coulter-gop-taxes-obama-hannity_n_2249545.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003)

QuoteAnn Coulter shocked Sean Hannity on Wednesday when she conceded that she thinks Republicans should let tax rates for the rich go up.

House Republicans are currently battling President Obama over whether or not to hike taxes on the top 2 percent of earners in the negotiations over the so-called "fiscal cliff."

After Coulter started to say that Republicans should concede on taxes on the very rich, Hannity wondered why the House didn't just pass a bill extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone.

"OK fine, let's do that, but in the end, at some point, if the Bush tax cuts are repealed and everyone's taxes go up, I promise you Republicans will get blamed for it," she said. "It doesn't mean you cave on everything, but there are some things Republicans do that feed into what the media is telling America about Republicans."

"So are you saying that, for PR purposes, that they should give in to Obama on the tax rate?" Hannity asked.

"Not exactly, I--" Coulter said, before stopping herself and saying, "Well, yeah, I guess I am."

"You're saying capitulate to Obama?" Hannity stammered. "We don't have a revenue problem, Ann."

"We lost the election, Sean!" Coulter replied.

Other right-wing pundits, such as Bill Kristol, have echoed Coulter's argument. Kristol famously said that it wouldn't "kill the country" if taxes on millionaires went up.

Quote from: Townsend on December 06, 2012, 11:45:29 AM
Turn the lights out kids, another GOP leader says to capitulate...
Ann Coulter Says GOP Should Give In To Obama On Taxes: 'We Lost The Election'

Here's another thought for you.

Do what the Democrats want.  If it works fine.  If it doesn't, Oh well.  At least the Democrats will get the responsibility, good or bad, for their program.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2012, 12:45:40 PM
Here's another thought for you.

Do what the Democrats want.  If it works fine.  If it doesn't, Oh well.  At least the Democrats will get the responsibility, good or bad, for their program.

Well yes, that is another thought.

I'd really have a hard time siding with anyone if it wasn't for all the "help, there's a war on Christmas, my version of family values, I hate other faiths, etc." going on in the socially conservative screams.  They've really messed things up for their side.

Oh, what a difference a year makes.  Remember this old ditty?



The one gift President Obama will certainly be remembered for is the ability to CHANGE without having to worry about his subjects noticing.

^^^^ Gaspar, you listen to talk radio on KRMG far too much. Find new talking points. Look forward not back....something might be gaining on you. Leave the nuts that got us here behind.

Just go over the damned cliff already. I'm ready for tax increases for everyone. So is the Screamer, since we are posting Coulter comments:

http://www.mrctv.org/node/118889

If every one pays more, great.

Quote from: Teatownclown on December 06, 2012, 04:06:42 PM
^^^^ Gaspar, you listen to talk radio on KRMG far too much. Find new talking points. Look forward not back....something might be gaining on you. Leave the nuts that got us here behind.

Um, the nuts that got us here have been in office since 2008. Sorry to break that to ya.

--QUOTED---

For all the people who like to drink the government's Kool-Aid, here is your poison:

•Medicare: $24.8 trillion

•Social Security: $21.4 trillion

•Federal debt: $9.4 trillion

•Military retirement/disability benefits: $3.6 trillion

•Federal employee retirement benefits: $2 trillion

•State, local government obligations: $5.2 trillion

THESE ARE UNSECURED OBLIGATIONS AND DO NOT INCLUDE OUTSTANDING  SECURED DEBTS.

This represents many times the GNP.

Did you take your glass of Kool-Aid to drink on you way down?



   

^^^^^ What was the point of that with regards to the fiscal cliff?

Quote from: guido911 on December 07, 2012, 08:27:07 PM
^^^^^ What was the point of that with regards to the fiscal cliff?

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Good buddy you must be kidding.   Surely you have read the news or some one turned on the TV and your sub-conscious mind recorded that the US is bankrupt for the tune of $15 trilling dollar to as much as $211 trillion dollars while the gross nation product could be as little $15 trillion dollars. 

The thread is based on like we are standing on the rim of a cliff ready to jump if no solution is found.   How would you feel if you lost all necessary resources (stocks, bonds, money deposits, pensions and SS) to carry on your present quality of life. It happened in the 30’s. and could happen tomorrow as the FDIC cannot cover the loses.

The saving my folks had finally paid .03 cents for each dollar on deposit.  Do you think people should be informed that it is being reported everyday.?       

I am beginning to believe we should go "off the cliff"

It will make every one recognize they have a stake in our future.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 07, 2012, 10:41:12 PM
I am beginning to believe we should go "off the cliff"

It will make every one recognize they have a stake in our future.

I am all for it.

(http://www.kcconfidential.com/userfiles/bandit.jpg)

10-4 Good Buddy.  I'm thinking that the only way to wake the people and force both Republicans and Democrats to face their spending problems is the Cliff.  I think it will also cause the tax and spend revolt necessary to reform the tax laws, and flush out members of the house and senate that cannot control their spending habits. 

26 states have now rejected Obamacare.  Depending on how may states you think their are (50 or 57), that puts more than half the financial burdon on the Federal government to develop and administrate the exchanges.  The program is already on the path to be more than twice as expensive as the charlatans promised, now, like every single government program in the history of the planet, it is becoming exponentially more expensive than estimated.  With sequestration there is little chance it will have an opportunity to be implemented in the president's second term, and the likelihood  that it can be completely defunded and replaced with a reasonable free market solution agreed upon, and passed with the people's consent is far greater.

Because so much is riding on this, I am confident that President Obama will express the leadership necessary to get a deal done!  ::)

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 07, 2012, 10:41:12 PM
I am beginning to believe we should go "off the cliff"

The only thing that bothers me about this is that those with very low incomes get hit the hardest The first $8750 of income will be taxed at 15% instead of 10%, leaving those who make very little paying the greatest (rate) increase. No other bracket increases that much. I don't mind the $150ish more a month that will be going to the tax man that much because we have it. I worry about the people who don't.

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2012, 01:38:51 PM
The only thing that bothers me about this is that those with very low incomes get hit the hardest The first $8750 of income will be taxed at 15% instead of 10%, leaving those who make very little paying the greatest (rate) increase. No other bracket increases that much. I don't mind the $150ish more a month that will be going to the tax man that much because we have it. I worry about the people who don't.

I find it interesting that when the Bush cuts were put in place, the lament of the day was that the cuts did virtually nothing for the lowest income earners.  Now the screams (not just you Nathan) are that the little guy will really get hammered.

Using 2012 numbers:
The first $8700 of taxable income will go from 10% to 15% for single taxpayers.  The standard deduction ($5800) and one personal exemption ($3700) make the lowest $9500 not subject to Federal Income Tax.  Married, filing jointly the numbers are $11,600 + 2*($3700) = $19,000 not subject to Federal Income Tax.  For married filing jointly, the 10% bracket also goes to $17,400.  Being over 65 an/or blind increases the amount of income not subject to Fed Income Tax.

Back to the person filing single.  $8700. x .15 = $1305.  $8700 x .10 = $870.  ($1305-$870)/12 = $36.25/month increase.  I guess you figured your personal increase to get the $150/mo number. I expect that the person who would really be affected by $36/mo probably won't see that increase due to other benefits already in place to over come that amount.

Social Security benefits are not taxed if your overall income is below a certain amount.  That helps my mom out a bunch.  She doesn't get a free ride though.

The Bush tax cuts created the 10% bracket out of the lowest part of the Clinton 15% bracket.  The dollar levels for the brackets were also changed so a direct comparison to the Clinton tax becomes tedious.


http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Edit:
A person filing single making $18,200 would pay $1305 (using 15%) for an overall Federal Income Tax rate of .0717 or approximately 7.2%.
A person filing single making $10,000 would pay $75 (using 15%) for an overall Federal Income Tax rate of .0075 or approximately 0.75%.

Quoted
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.- Albert Einstein
_____________________________________________________________________
In order to pay off the US debts it would require a 100% tax rate for years.  The system whereas those who supposedly represent the citizens have the choice of voting to increase the national debt or being confronted with “Do you want to get paid”.  China, our largest debtor,  has warned us that they are not to be paid by inflating the dollar.  We will not need to jump off the cliff because we are going be pushed off.. Ripley marching Chinese marching at six abreast, military speed, can march off a cliff forever. 

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2012, 01:38:51 PM
The only thing that bothers me about this is that those with very low incomes get hit the hardest The first $8750 of income will be taxed at 15% instead of 10%, leaving those who make very little paying the greatest (rate) increase. No other bracket increases that much. I don't mind the $150ish more a month that will be going to the tax man that much because we have it. I worry about the people who don't.

If by hit the hardest you mean they will have to pay a little more? Because being hard hit when it comes to the government taking property from someone is relative. Still, does it really matter how they are affected? In the words of heiron, too bad. If they don't like it, they can pack up and leave. I'm sure France would love to have those folks move on in.

Taxes are not supposed to be pain free or painFUL for people. It's supposed to pay for things our government is supposed to provide.

Bring on the cliff right now please.

You know, we created the cliff. Through all of the tax breaks and deductions over the last 30 years we have created this problem. It's like a business that keeps cutting the price of an item, while the cost of producing the item has gone up. We are beyond the break even point, the gov't is spending more than it takes in, and the intake from revenue from taxes, fees, tarriffs, import taxes, export taxes, revenue from producers, consumers, and citizens can not keep up with our spending. If this was a business, it would create a $4.00 part, but it's sold for $1.95 in hopes of selling enough to compensate for the price, but it won't work. This is where we are now.

Quote from: guido911 on December 09, 2012, 03:55:01 AM

If by hit the hardest you mean they will have to pay a little more? Because being hard hit when it comes to the government taking property from someone is relative. Still, does it really matter how they are affected? In the words of heiron, too bad. If they don't like it, they can pack up and leave. I'm sure France would love to have those folks move on in.

Taxes are not supposed to be pain free or painFUL for people. It's supposed to pay for things our government is supposed to provide.

Bring on the cliff right now please.

With standard deductions and credits, most in that bracket currently pay nothing.  In fact, many in that bracket actually receive more than they pay.  Nate is still correct though, because the impact on the middle class will create less spending, and therefore fewer low income jobs, and the impact on the high income (job creators) will be passed along in the form of price increases for goods and services, as well as reduction in labor expenses to balance against the increased loss.

This holds true of taxation, regulation, and trade restriction.  The impact is rarely felt by the wealthy, and always becomes a yolk on the poor.

So, cliff or no cliff, no matter what bracket is adjusted, the primary effect is always felt most dramatically by the working poor.

The higher entry standards imposed by licensing laws reduce the supply of professional services ... The poor are the net losers, because the availability of low-cost service has been reduced. In essence, the poor subsidize the information research costs of the rich. – S. David Young



 

Lindsey Graham to Republicans: 'Be quiet'

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/graham-to-republicans-shut-up-84840.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/graham-to-republicans-shut-up-84840.html)

QuoteSen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Monday that it's time for Republicans "to be quiet for a while" and wait to see if Democrats are willing to negotiate reducing entitlements in the fiscal cliff negotiations.

"I'd put revenue on the table only if they do entitlement reform. Here's what I don't hear: I don't hear any Democrat of note saying, 'Here's what I would do on the entitlement side,'" Graham said on Fox News. "So if I were Republicans, I would be quiet for a while and see what the Democrats put on the table for entitlement reform."

Graham also had tough talk for President Barack Obama, saying that Obama would be in for a "rude awakening" if Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling.

"Here is where the President is going to have a rude awakening: We'll get to the end of the year, there will probably be a small deal to get to the end of the year," Graham said.

He continued: "[But] I can tell you this: there is a hardening on the Republican side. We're not going to raise the debt ceiling. We're not going to let Obama borrow anymore money or any American Congress borrow anymore money until we fix this country from becoming Greece."

Since Obama has won reelection, his administration has said that since he campaigned on increasing taxes on the wealthiest of Americans, that he has a mandate to do so.

Graham's take: "How about manning up, Mr. President, and use your mandate to bring this country together to stop us from becoming Greece?

"There'll come a day – and it's called the debt ceiling debate – when Republicans will have leverage to save this country from becoming Greece. I hope we're strong enough as a party to seize that moment," Graham said.

The fiscal cliff has across-the-board spending cuts of $110 billion per year. This is from wikipedia...

The effect on both defense and non-defense discretionary spending will be significant if the cliff is not avoided. Cuts totaling $110 billion per year will be applied from 2013 to 2022, split evenly ($55 billion each) between defense and non-defense discretionary spending. For scale, discretionary funding for 2011 totaled $1,277 billion: budget authority of $712 billion for defense and funding totaling $566 billion for non-defense activities.

During 2013, defense and non-defense discretionary spending would be maintained around 2012 levels due to the sequester. However, the spending begins to rise thereafter, but not at the pace projected prior to the sequester. In other words, the trajectory of spending increases is reduced, but spending is not frozen at 2012 levels. Defense and non-defense discretionary spending increases from 2013–2021 would be about 1.5% annually, significantly below the prior decade.

For example, according to the CBO Historical Tables, defense spending (including overseas contingency operations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) grew from $295 billion in 2000 to $700 billion in 2011, an annual growth rate of 8.2%. Non-defense discretionary spending grew at a 6.6% annual rate during that time, from $320 billion to $646 billion.

The austerity represented by the sequester is not unprecedented; from 1990–1999, defense spending actually declined by about 1% annually, from $300 billion to $276 billion, although non-defense discretionary spending grew by 4.5% annually, rising from $200 to $297 billion.

The CBO estimated the possible impact on defense spending in October 2011 testimony: "Compliance with the caps on discretionary funding could occur through many different combinations of defense and non-defense funding. For example, defense and nondefense appropriations might be cut proportionally relative to the funding that would be necessary to keep pace with inflation. In that case, funding for defense programs apart from overseas contingency operations would drop from $552 billion in 2011 to $538 billion in 2012 before rising again and reaching $637 billion in 2021.

Between 2012 and 2021, such funding would be $445 billion less than the amount that would occur if the amount of funding for 2011 grew at the rate of inflation. When measured as a share of GDP, funding for defense would decline by about 1 percentage point from 2011 to 2021, or by more than one-fourth. Funding for defense in 2021 (excluding overseas contingency operations) would represent 2.7 percent of GDP; by comparison, annual funding for defense (excluding overseas contingency operations) has averaged 3.4 percent of GDP during the past decade."

We have to cut defense spending. We spend more than the next 18 countries combined. We are at peace (relatively). I can see increased spending during war, but why can't we consider decreased spending when we are not at war?

Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 10, 2012, 11:54:19 AM
I can see increased spending during war, but why can't we consider decreased spending when we are not at war?

Lobbies.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 10, 2012, 11:54:19 AM
We have to cut defense spending. We spend more than the next 18 countries combined. We are at peace (relatively). I can see increased spending during war, but why can't we consider decreased spending when we are not at war?

___________________________________________________________________________________________

It seems for a nation with such highly educated citizens should be able to find the total obligation to it citizens seeing the danger of the cliff before addressing it.   Official figures place a total of over $200 trillion dollars.  We want to reduce National Debt obligation by decreasing the national debt of $200+Trillion dollars at $1150 billion dollars yearly and pay for it by increasing the national debt ceiling. 

This must be the new math being taught.  It is like writing a check to cover a overdrawn check.   



           

$200 trillion seems like a lot of money. Are you sure about that amount?

Quote from: shadows on December 11, 2012, 10:05:19 PM
___________________________________________________________________________________________
This must be the new math being taught.  It is like writing a check to cover a overdrawn check.

It seems to work until the creditors say enough is enough.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 11, 2012, 10:17:46 PM
$200 trillion seems like a lot of money. Are you sure about that amount?

Must be Old Math.    ;D

Perhaps next time it would be a good idea to read it before you pass it?
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/MedDeviceLetter12102012.pdf
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/reu/d/2007%5C3%5C2007-01-03T221631Z_01_WAS306_RTRIDSP_0_PELOSI.jpg)

Merry Cliffmas

On 'Fiscal Cliff,' Majority Of Public Sides With Democrats, Pew Poll Says

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/13/167159547/on-fiscal-cliff-majority-of-public-sides-with-democrats-pew-poll-says?sc=tw&cc=share (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/13/167159547/on-fiscal-cliff-majority-of-public-sides-with-democrats-pew-poll-says?sc=tw&cc=share)

QuoteAs the end-of-year tax increases and spending cuts known as the "fiscal cliff" near, "Democrats are in a strong position with the public," the Pew Research Center reports.

A new national poll Pew released this morning shows that:

— "When it comes to the reaching an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff, 55% say Obama is making a serious effort to work with Republicans. But just 32% say Republican leaders are making a serious effort to work with Obama on a deficit deal."

— President Obama's "first post-reelection job approval rating has risen to 55%, up five points since July and 11 points since the start of the year. Obama's job rating is markedly higher than George W. Bush's first job measure (48%) after he won reelection in 2004."

— "By a 53% to 33% margin, the public sees the Republican Party, rather than the Democratic Party, as 'more extreme in its positions.' Democrats, on the other hand, are seen as "more willing to work with leaders from the other party" by roughly two-to-one (53% vs. 27%)."

The national survey of 1,503 adults was conducted Dec. 5-9. Pew says that "900 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 603 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 300 who had no landline telephone." The margin of error on results from the full survey is +/- 2.9 percentage points.

The results echo those of a survey Pew did for The Washington Post in late November and earlier in December. In that poll, 53 percent of those surveyed said Republicans would be "more to blame" if there's no agreement reached to avoid going over the so-called cliff. Twenty-nine percent said Obama would be to blame.

Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, is due to speak with All Things Considered this afternoon about the latest poll results. We'll add the broadcast-version of that conversation to the top of this post later. Click here to find an NPR station that broadcasts or streams the show.

Quote from: Townsend on December 13, 2012, 10:46:26 AM
On 'Fiscal Cliff,' Majority Of Public Sides With Democrats, Pew Poll Says

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/13/167159547/on-fiscal-cliff-majority-of-public-sides-with-democrats-pew-poll-says?sc=tw&cc=share (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/13/167159547/on-fiscal-cliff-majority-of-public-sides-with-democrats-pew-poll-says?sc=tw&cc=share)

Yep!  The masses like stuff.  The masses do not like to pay for stuff.

The masses believe that you can cure a spending problem with taxes and spending.

Perfect storm.  Here kitty kitty kitty kitty.

(http://reason.com/assets/mc/_ATTIC/mattwelch/krugman.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on December 13, 2012, 12:35:53 PM
Yep!  The masses like stuff.  The masses do not like to pay for stuff.

The masses believe that you can cure a spending problem with taxes and spending.

All masses?  Well then the GOP is on the wrong path.  Probably need to figure out from the masses what they should cut then.

Meeting with corporate heads and lobbyists might not be the way to figure out what the masses want and are willing to do without.

Shoot, the democrats are way off too.

As an example, I'm betting there are some weapons and bases we could do without.  Probably could shut down a few other things but I have a feeling there's some powers beyond the masses controlling those decisions.

We'd better just fight about how to tax the money over $250,000 in a household.  That'll make the difference.

Quote from: Townsend on December 13, 2012, 12:45:50 PM
All masses?  Well then the GOP is on the wrong path.  Probably need to figure out from the masses what they should cut then.

Meeting with corporate heads and lobbyists might not be the way to figure out what the masses want and are willing to do without.
Shoot, the democrats are way off too. Agree!

As an example, I'm betting there are some weapons and bases we could do without.  Probably could shut down a few other things but I have a feeling there's some powers beyond the masses controlling those decisions.  Agree!

We'd better just fight about how to tax the money over $250,000 in a household.  That'll make the difference. Wrong!

Our debt exceeds our GDP! Any increase, especially one that creates such a small amount of revenue will be gone in a puff of smoke, in fact, according to the proposal from the President 75% of the new tax on the evil rich is to go to new spending, not 'making a difference" through deficit reduction.
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/image003.preview.png)

. . .then, just like last year, and the year before, and the year before,  the conversation will shift to debt ceiling increase, then in 10 months we will be back to discussing the wild and crazy idea of actually passing budget reforms, and get another couple of budgets passed by the house that will sit on the table in the senate with the other three budgets, and we will have this same discussion again, except our debt will be close to 20 trillion, and we will be knee deep in attempting to police and fund a health entitlement program that is beyond the size and scope of any entitlement program our government has ever managed.

I understand that the president does not want to let a crisis go to waste, and now is his best opportunity to make good on his eat the rich promises, but that has little to do with the spending problem, and the revenue from that is minuscule, even if it were used to pay down debt, which of course he has no intension of doing.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 13, 2012, 01:33:26 PM
Our debt exceeds our GDP! Any increase, especially one that creates such a small amount of revenue will be gone in a puff of smoke, in fact, according to the proposal from the President 75% of the new tax on the evil rich is to go to new spending, not 'making a difference" through deficit reduction.

. . .then, just like last year, and the year before, and the year before,  the conversation will shift to debt ceiling increase, then in 10 months we will be back to discussing the wild and crazy idea of actually passing budget reforms, and get another couple of budgets passed by the house that will sit on the table in the senate with the other three budgets, and we will have this same discussion again, except our debt will be close to 20 trillion, and we will be knee deep in attempting to police and fund a health entitlement program that is beyond the size and scope of any entitlement program our government has ever managed.

I understand that the president does not want to let a crisis go to waste, and now is his best opportunity to make good on his eat the rich promises, but that has little to do with the spending problem, and the revenue from that is minuscule, even if it were used to pay down debt, which of course he has no intension of doing.

Well you better call your guys in Washington to get this all handled.  They give a rat's exit about you and the rest of us.  Call them and tell them you have some ideas.

Quote from: Townsend on December 13, 2012, 01:44:34 PM
Well you better call your guys in Washington to get this all handled.  They give a rat's exit about you and the rest of us.  Call them and tell them you have some ideas.

Wouldn't do a lick of good. . .and it's not "my guys" it's all of them!

Grover Norquist: GOP Will Keep Obama On 'Short Leash,' Leave Him To 'Blow Up Small Countries'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/grover-norquist-obama_n_2293896.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/grover-norquist-obama_n_2293896.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003)

QuoteGrover Norquist expressed confidence on Thursday that Republican adherents to his rigid anti-tax hike platform would emerge victorious in upcoming budgetary scraps, joking that it would leave a bitter President Barack Obama to engage in a campaign of indiscriminately bombing "small countries" for his personal entertainment.

Speaking on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal," Norquist argued that congressional Republicans had a number of weapons ready to wield against Obama and Democrats in order to ensure that there would be no spending increases or tax hikes.

"Obama will be on a very short leash, fiscally speaking, over the next four years," Norquist said. "He's not going to have any fun at all; he may just have to go blow up small countries he can't pronounce because it won't be any fun to be here, because he won't be able to spend the kind of cash he was hoping to."

Norquist said that Republicans would be willing to use the threat of the sequester -- large spending cuts paired with tax hikes scheduled to kick in if a deal to avert the fiscal cliff isn't met by the end of the year -- to leverage Democrats, whom he said were fearful of that possibility. Norquist also claimed that GOP lawmakers would utilize continuing resolutions, or temporary appropriations bills used in the absence of an official budget, in order to chip away at spending.

The upcoming battle over raising the debt ceiling could also be used by Republicans who would decide how long to extend it for, Norquist said.

Democrats have tried to strip the debt ceiling power away from Republicans in recent negotiations, but GOP lawmakers have so far resisted, clinging to it as one of their strongest mechanisms to resist spending increases.

WTH does Norquist think he is? To my knowledge, he's never had the balls to be an elected official.  Why do all these legislators feel beholden to this troll regardless of the carnage they leave behind?

C'mon Fonzi, you can do it!

(http://www.internetweekly.org/images2/norquist_jumping_shark.jpg)

HERE WE GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                                                                             !!
                                                                             !!
STOCKS TUMBLE AFTER BOEHNER'S ANGRY PRESS CONFERENCE: Here's What You Need To Know

http://www.businessinsider.com/closing-bell-19-2012-12#ixzz2FXG4y6lL

They have 48 hours....then, it's off or the world ends!

United States conservatives are a mess. Leaderless fools who can't take care of their responsibility to their country. It's really amazing how their poor abilities make for everyone's dismay. These people know nothing of progress. They are impotent.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 10, 2012, 11:54:19 AM
We have to cut defense spending. We spend more than the next 18 countries combined. We are at peace (relatively). I can see increased spending during war, but why can't we consider decreased spending when we are not at war?

Because we didn't listen to President Eisenhower.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 13, 2012, 01:56:55 PM
Wouldn't do a lick of good. . .and it's not "my guys" it's all of them!

But mostly your guys...starting in 1981.

Quote from: guido911 on December 09, 2012, 03:55:01 AM

If by hit the hardest you mean they will have to pay a little more? Because being hard hit when it comes to the government taking property from someone is relative. Still, does it really matter how they are affected? In the words of heiron, too bad. If they don't like it, they can pack up and leave. I'm sure France would love to have those folks move on in.

Taxes are not supposed to be pain free or painFUL for people. It's supposed to pay for things our government is supposed to provide.

Bring on the cliff right now please.

Using the $8750 example, if we go back to year 2000 tax rates compared to 2011, the increase is $37 per month.  5% increase. 

Versus not going over the cliff and the top bracket going up 3%, so for someone making $300,000, the tax will go up $125 a month.  On $50,000 more income (than the $250,000 spoken of as the increase threshold). 

Wonder who is gonna feel it hardest...the one whose taxes go up an $125 per month on the extra $50,000 income, or the one paying $37 extra per month on $8750 total income...??  Yeah, let's bring that cliff on...let's show those poor people...  that will teach them not to make hundreds of thousands per year!

Quote from: Teatownclown on December 20, 2012, 08:11:27 PM
United States conservatives are a mess. Leaderless fools who can't take care of their responsibility to their country. It's really amazing how their poor abilities make for everyone's dismay. These people know nothing of progress. They are impotent.

____________________________________________________________________

The US has got to make a choice whether to start the printing presses turning out trillions of dollars in unsupported paper money, throwing all caution to the winds and take a chance of the banks closing, stock market closing, and those countries we depend on for merchandise, demanding payment in gold.

Or we start a campaign convincing our debtors the dollars will be keepsake trophies in time like the currency printed by the south in the war of 1860.

The bank deposits are secured by the same unsupported paper currency as soon as the ink is dry on it.   And we are talking about falling off a cliff??  What is the solution??   Is this why the Maya's are being called home??

Quote from: shadows on December 20, 2012, 10:34:19 PM
____________________________________________________________________

The US has got to make a choice whether to start the printing presses turning out trillions of dollars in unsupported paper money, throwing all caution to the winds and take a chance of the banks closing, stock market closing, and those countries we depend on for merchandise, demanding payment in gold.

Or we start a campaign convincing our debtors the dollars will be keepsake trophies in time like the currency printed by the south in the war of 1860.

The bank deposits are secured by the same unsupported paper currency as soon as the ink is dry on it.   And we are talking about falling off a cliff??  What is the solution??   Is this why the Maya's are being called home??

You discount the underlying assets of the USA way too much.

And what happens when we achieve fusion in 15 years? Huge game changer.

You can't foresee the future. And yes, print more money. We need to move the can economy forward.

Read the first post of this thread. LD has it right!

Quote from: Teatownclown on December 21, 2012, 12:04:14 AM
You discount the underlying assets of the USA way too much. We should mortgage them, right?

And what happens when we achieve fusion in 15 years? Huge game changer.  Something for nothing?  Still can't get past the "energy necessary" argument.  Perhaps we should just "go for broke" with everything since we will cure cancer, live forever, and food and energy will be free.

You can't foresee the future. ^^ Isn't that what that was?. . .never mind.  And yes, print more money. We need to move the can economy forward. That is stealing from the poor, and taking advantage of the fact that most of them won't understand how or why.

Read the first post of this thread. LD has it right!

Boy am I glad you have it figured out.

Proof that Gaspar knows nothing about economics. THIS IS NOT HOME EC. To compare the US deficit to home economics is a jump in logic and theory.

What does the fact that we all die have to do with the continuity of the US economy?

Stealing from the poor? Really? Not giving a hand up to our citizens unable to rise above poverty because you feel it is sapping our resources shows what's really wrong with our political mindset.

Off the cliff! Now POTUS OBAMA will have real power and authentic leverage to change the tax code. The GOP/Teabaggers have set their own trap. This is classic.

Quote from: Teatownclown on December 21, 2012, 08:12:28 AM

Off the cliff! Now POTUS OBAMA will have real power and authentic leverage to change the tax code. The GOP/Teabaggers have set their own trap. This is classic.

Power?  Is that what this is about?

Ok, now I get it.

BTW, the president leaves for Hawaii today.

I'm willing to bet that the Senate comes up with another delay tactic or the president issues an executive order delaying "the cliff."  But, of course I already predicted that.

If it's a POWERFUL RULER you seek, I fear you won't find him in this one.  ;D

Steve Inskeep tweet:

QuoteAfter House failed to pass plan that wasn't likely to become law anyway, House GOP leader Cantor urges Senate to "get serious"

Boehner: 'We'll Continue To Work' On Avoiding Fiscal Cliff

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/21/167784430/coming-up-boehner-news-conference?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/21/167784430/coming-up-boehner-news-conference?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

QuoteOn this morning after he couldn't get fellow Republicans to support his "Plan B" for avoiding the year end "fiscal cliff" of automatic tax increases and spending cuts, House Speaker John Boehner took some questions from reporters.


— Update at 10:12 a.m. ET. House Will Come Back "If We're Needed":

Asked about the recess the House is going on, Boehner says lawmakers "will come back if we're needed" during the Christmas break.

The news conference ended moments later.

— Update at 10:08 a.m. ET. He And The President Laid Out Their "Bottom Lines":

Boehner says that on Monday "I told the president, 'these are my bottom lines' " [reportedly, $1 trillion in new revenues and $1 trillion in spending cuts]. Obama, he says, responded that the administration's bottom lines were $1.3 trillion in revenue (tax) increases and $850 billion in spending cuts.

— Update at 10:04 a.m. ET. "We Only Run The House":

Saying that "we only run the House, Democrats continue to run Washington," Boehner lays the burden of responsibility for avoiding year-end tax increases and automatic spending cuts on the other party. But, he adds, "we'll continue to work with our colleagues in the House and the Senate."

Quote from: Gaspar on December 21, 2012, 08:47:18 AM
Power?  Is that what this is about?

Ok, now I get it.

BTW, the president leaves for Hawaii today.

I'm willing to bet that the Senate comes up with another delay tactic or the president issues an executive order delaying "the cliff."  But, of course I already predicted that.

If it's a POWERFUL RULER you seek, I fear you won't find him in this one.  ;D

You, along with the impotent conservatives, must not understand how this works after Dec. 31st. It's great! It's then at that time the heroes come forward to lower taxes. Problem is Obama, the almighty, will only lower those brackets who report less than 250k income. Then there's the obstinate children who will stop everything to get their way. Should be fun!!! "No, we're not cutting taxes on just the middle class!" Send lawyers, guns, and money....the sh!tz about to hit da fan.

Gaspar, who won the election? http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/21/1370961/boehner-conservative-republicans-who-opposed-plan-b-are-drowning-the-country/ I guess the Baggers beat themselves?

Quote from: Gaspar on December 21, 2012, 08:47:18 AM
Power?  Is that what this is about?

Ok, now I get it.

BTW, the president leaves for Hawaii today.

I'm willing to bet that the Senate comes up with another delay tactic or the president issues an executive order delaying "the cliff."  But, of course I already predicted that.

If it's a POWERFUL RULER you seek, I fear you won't find him in this one.  ;D

Because we know the level of WIN your powers of clairvoyancy have.

:o

The first rule of economics is “don’t take out in your plate more than you can eat”.  Those who remember the recession of the thirties that was caused by overproduction from the farm, industrial and mineral production should be informants of how the landing off the cliff was.  Entering into WWll was the catalyst that began the recovery lasting into the‘50 when unions organized.  Government bought all production during the period. 

Government started by paying $20 a head for the cattle which they killed and  buried.  They subsidized the farmer to leave the farmlands vacant.  Government established the WPA giving the workers a small income.  Under the guise of the war effort government bought or controlled the sale of all products including wages.

I would be impossible to raise the taxes to where the working poor could pay off the nation debt that they are planning to put on there shoulders.  You can raise the ceiling on the debt but you are only kidding your selves.  These countries we owe have some smart accountants and we will have a hard time maneuvering around them.

The solution is give all government employees a 6% raise.       

Quote from: shadows on December 22, 2012, 02:17:57 AM
... the recession of the thirties that was caused by overproduction from the farm, industrial and mineral production...

You are the gift that keeps on giving.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 22, 2012, 07:54:14 AM
You are the gift that keeps on giving.

I sometimes wonder if Shadows and Sauerkraut aren't related.

The latest posts by these two are classics. Not that there is untruth in their statements. Simply that they lack context and come up with the strangest conclusions.

How do you arrive at public employees should get a 6% raise? Its like reading unrefined Saturday Night Live scripts.

There is no association between this poster and any other poster on this form but there seems to be a relation, by chance, of two posters using non-programmed thoughts. 

As pointed the this cliff hanging is a very serious economic condition that sooner or later has happened when any group establishes a government of the people, employ by election or appointment, give them the check book,  tell them to “Just write you a check for what you are worth and don‘t forget to provide for yourselves a 6%” cost of living increase ever so often“.  “Now these 26 Senators and 50 some representatives will go to Washington in the spring (13 states)get off their asses (donkeys) and conduct the business of the States after the crops are in. How could we be facing a possible bankruptcy?

Greece has faced its cliff.  US total debts are hidden under FOI which is being estimated to range from .5 million dollars each person to 5 million.  Although we have laws that require release of total debt, nation security clause protect the general public from getting the total figure.

Merry Christmas to all     

Quote from: shadows on December 23, 2012, 01:44:47 AM
There is no association between this poster and any other poster on this form but there seems to be a relation, by chance, of two posters using non-programmed thoughts. 

As pointed the this cliff hanging is a very serious economic condition that sooner or later has happened when any group establishes a government of the people, employ by election or appointment, give them the check book,  tell them to "Just write you a check for what you are worth and don't forget to provide for yourselves a 6%" cost of living increase ever so often".  "Now these 26 Senators and 50 some representatives will go to Washington in the spring (13 states)get off their asses (donkeys) and conduct the business of the States after the crops are in. How could we be facing a possible bankruptcy?

Greece has faced its cliff.  US total debts are hidden under FOI which is being estimated to range from .5 million dollars each person to 5 million.  Although we have laws that require release of total debt, nation security clause protect the general public from getting the total figure.

Merry Christmas to all     

Try $70,000 per person. I think it rises to ~$95,000 in 2021.

You seem correct in your assessment of what happens next. The big thing here is to eliminate the ability to blackmail which means the debt ceiling handle must be treated the way it was in times before obstinate politics.

And the Teabaggers/GOP need to stop with the "Bush-Obama " tax cuts bs. It would help if they'd get on with what the prevailing voters desired in November. This theatrical process has hit the wall. You won't be able to blame Obama for a sideways market. I'm amazed at how strong equities have been the last 4 years. The clan of obstinate reactionaries has to wait now until the new soldiers get in place to "lower" taxes come the end of January.

Why are all the people so upset about the cliff the US is standing on when  the US has the world's most robust economy it ever produced.    These world leaders that we owe the trillions of dollars in the balance of trade will be taken care of by increasing our debt limit allowing us to continue to print some more of the cheep green backs, since the papers market is falling because of the phone texing.  Those countries that show on their books the balance we owe them as a unpaid profit possibly need to list them by another listing and not use such figure if they consider bankruptcy.     

Everything You Know About The Deficit Is Wrong — And Fixing It Will Be Painless

http://www.businessinsider.com/closing-the-deficit-is-painless-2012-12


Sorry, Folks, We Don't Just Have 'A Spending Problem'


http://www.businessinsider.com/government-spending-and-taxes-2012-12 (see graphs....I miss Nate!)


The shadow knows!

The meeting just started 4 minutes ago.  We will have to see where this goes.

Yesterday while no one was looking, the president signed an executive order giving congress and administration staff a pay-raise.
http://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/2012/2013PAY_Attach.pdf

I suppose it is the president's prerogative to reward the incompetence in Washington any way he pleases, but I am of a very different opinion.  I think that the president should have signed an executive order to withhold pay from congress until they pass a budget (their primary constitutional duty).  Enough is enough.  The American economy has hemorrhaged trillions of dollars due to the uncertainty produced by a dysfunctional federal government.   

Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2012, 02:13:44 PM
The meeting just started 4 minutes ago.  We will have to see where this goes.

Yesterday while no one was looking, the president signed an executive order giving congress and administration staff a pay-raise.
http://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/2012/2013PAY_Attach.pdf

I suppose it is the president's prerogative to reward the incompetence in Washington any way he pleases, but I am of a very different opinion.  I think that the president should have signed an executive order to withhold pay from congress until they pass a budget (their primary constitutional duty).  Enough is enough.  The American economy has hemorrhaged trillions of dollars due to the uncertainty produced by a dysfunctional federal government.  

Haven't seen/heard any news in the last 4 hours, but I would guess that it ain't gonna happen until after the 1st.  Then, there will be agreement, the tax cuts will be re-instated for all income under 250k.  Capital gains will be left at 25% - where it should be.  Both sides will be self-congratulatory in praising the tax cuts they got for everyone.  So even the 1% get a big piece of their tax cut back.  Let's everyone claim victory and still shave off that pesky capital gains stupidity.

Farm bill - well, the "milk cliff" will be fixed, too as part of the "clean up the mess" work done in that first week.  

The big question in my mind is whether Boehner is gonna get re-selected as House leader.  I think yes, but only if he waits until after that selection to make the compromise he's gonna have to make to get this through - go to Democrats and go around those 40 or so real obstructionist Tea Baggers in the house that want the whole thing to cave in.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2012, 02:13:44 PM
The meeting just started 4 minutes ago.  We will have to see where this goes.

Yesterday while no one was looking, the president signed an executive order giving congress and administration staff a pay-raise.
http://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/2012/2013PAY_Attach.pdf

I suppose it is the president's prerogative to reward the incompetence in Washington any way he pleases, but I am of a very different opinion.  I think that the president should have signed an executive order to withhold pay from congress until they pass a budget (their primary constitutional duty).  Enough is enough.  The American economy has hemorrhaged trillions of dollars due to the uncertainty produced by a dysfunctional federal government.   

did you ever consider not whining? Try to be less bitter. Wr will survive, we will get by.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2012, 02:13:44 PM

I suppose it is the president's prerogative to reward the incompetence in Washington any way he pleases, but I am of a very different opinion.  I think that the president should have signed an executive order to withhold pay from congress until they pass a budget (their primary constitutional duty).  Enough is enough.  The American economy has hemorrhaged trillions of dollars due to the uncertainty produced by a dysfunctional federal government.   

So, you WERE awake and aware of your surroundings during the Bush years...!!

We still got many trillions to go, though....sadly!  So every time you put your kids to bed, and look at their innocent little faces lying there peacefully asleep with no clue of the freight train heading their way, you can stew - as I do - about what we have done to them!  And THEIR kids!!  And their kids kids!!  We just gotta be so proud of the last 32 years...!!

Any minute now we technically go off the cliff as the Senate GOP refuses to set the change at $250,000 .... we might see that compromise at $400,000 income. All else reverts? Estate taxes?


Edgy!

This One Chart Shows That The Fiscal Cliff Fiasco Is The Republicans' Fault


http://www.businessinsider.com/this-one-chart-shows-that-the-fiscal-cliff-fiasco-is-the-republicans-fault-2012-12

The logic of the Donald and Faux News....American's follow the stupid Carneys.

Extortionists, Traitors and bigots.

Never let a crisis go to waste, even if it's a manufactured crisis.

All of this smoke has been good for the president.

First congressional pay raises, now, in the dark of the night, he has renewed the George Bush Warrentless Wiretap program for 5 more years.

It will be exciting to see what he signs tonight at midnight.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_SURVEILLANCE_LAW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-30-17-49-22

Quote from: Gaspar on December 31, 2012, 07:14:59 AM
Never let a crisis go to waste, even if it's a manufactured crisis.

All of this smoke has been good for the president.

First congressional pay raises, now, in the dark of the night, he has renewed the George Bush Warrentless Wiretap program for 5 more years.

It will be exciting to see what he signs tonight at midnight.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_SURVEILLANCE_LAW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-30-17-49-22

I am sure relieved seeing that congrees is getting their well earn pay increase to help the working who are very near succumbing to the 50% poverty data list. 

Do you ever get the feeling that Eric Cantor has been programmed by some foreign power? Or that he's been blackmailed into screwing up everything   by Obama foes? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/us/politics/house-takes-on-fiscal-cliff.html?_r=1& It's angry people that need the help. And to think EC is the future. The horror.

And then there's John McCain. Feel lucky this Manchurian candidate never got to be President:

WOLF BLITZER (HOST): Are you going to use the raising of the debt ceiling in February or March, Senator McCain, as leverage to get what you want from the president?
McCAIN: I think there's gonna be a whole new field of battle [laughs] when the debt ceiling rolls around. Most of us have pledged that we're gonna have to... before we vote again to address the debt ceiling — even though it may be at great political cost — we've got to address spending, and that means entitlements. We've got to sit down together and get us back on a path... look, we just added, what was it, $2.1 trillion in the last increase in the debt ceiling, and spending continues to go up. I think there's gonna be a pretty big showdown the next time around when we go to the debt [limit].
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/01/1381771/john-mccain-gop-will-destroy-americas-solvency-unless-entitlements-cut-drastically/

Both Cantor and McCain will help the minority of recalcitrant Americans screw it up for everyone else.

I guess I am a little bit curious how Medicare is an entitlement when recipients pay $100 a month for the coverage.  Sounds like an insurance policy more than a handout...

I wonder how much the members of Congress have to pay for their insurance coverage?  I bet it's a whole lot less than $100 a month.  And the pay is certainly several times the average Medicare recipient.

So, what was in the bill?

Well, they simply delayed sequestration, kicking the can down the road to March when we will have to go through this game of "Chicken" again, and discuss debt ceiling increases.  Unfortunately this means that we maintain economic uncertainty at its current level again, with little hope that the Senate will take up a budget at all this year.

It increased taxes for individuals and most small businesses making $400,000 or more.  Estates worth as much as $5 million — $10 million for married couples — will go untaxed. And an inflation adjustment will guarantee that the size of the exemption will grow to $15 million for couples by the end of the decade, so the very wealthy not pulling down a salary are spared from this legislation.  Taxes on capital gains taxes and dividends will increase from 15% to 20% (plus a 3.8% surcharge from the Affordable Care Act), but only for  high earners so they will seek shelter in other investments, and likely be more encouraged to move money overseas or just keep it out of taxable inventsments.


The pee-ons (the middle class) will not see a change in rates, but all of our taxes will go up starting on your next paycheck because they eliminated the current payroll deduction. Because the majority of small businesses will see a tax increase, the price of goods and services will rise or a reduction in labor to fill the gap. 

The final result according to the CBO is that the bill contains $41 in new taxes for ever $1 reduction in spending, and ultimately adds $4 Trillion in new debt.  BUT. . .without a debate in 2 months on the debt ceiling, we are right back where we started, so basically nothing productive came out of this.

The only POSITIVE part of the bill is that the House rejected President Obama's executive order to give them all pay raises.  Congress also learned that the only way to bring President Obama to the negotiating table is to hold out until the very last second.  Unfortunately that's not how anything productive gets done. 

Knock yourself out reading it: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr8eas/pdf/BILLS-112hr8eas.pdf

You can't sustain spending at this level.  You just can't.  We're making money far too cheap, and it's forcing other countries to do this same.  This is the road to all bad things. We've been down it before.  So have many other countries. http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1879735_1846041,00.html

http://www.suntimes.com/business/17339509-420/house-ends-fiscal-cliff-drama-in-257-167-vote.html

Good news!  Now that the President has signed another bill increasing the deficit, it looks like he's ready to reduce it, but probably not until after March when he will demand an increase in the debt ceiling so that he can continue to spend more.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MVDwvrxADUc/Tg8NT8H2VfI/AAAAAAAAAzg/sMwR3yF-SMg/s400/Scooby.jpg)

Gives you an idea of how well the Congress is working:

John Boehner Told Harry Reid 'Go F--- Yourself' Outside the Oval Office

http://news.yahoo.com/john-boehner-told-harry-reid-f-yourself-outside-103332376.html (http://news.yahoo.com/john-boehner-told-harry-reid-f-yourself-outside-103332376.html)

QuoteThe fiscal austerity crisis has been temporarily averted, but given the apparent animosity between the current leaders of Congress its a miracle that any deal was made at all. Politico has a rather lengthy breakdown of the last week or so of negotiations that led to last night's budget bill and it leads off with an anecdote illustrating the current state of American politics. As they arrived for a much-hyped meeting with the President last Friday afternoon, Speaker of the House John Boehner spotted House Majority Leader Harry Reid approaching just steps from the Oval Office. According to "multiple sources," Boehner pointed his finger at Reid and without any other fanfare said, "Go f*** yourself." When Reid asked him what he was talking about, Boehner simply repeated his curse and moved on.

To be fair to Boehner, just hours earlier Reid had called him a dictator on the floor of the Senate, telling the whole country in a widely-televised speech that the Speaker cared more about protecting his job than doing what was right for the American people. And it won't be the first nor the last time a Congressperson swore a fellow lawmaker. Still, it maybe helps explain why the two sides seem more intent on destorying each other than actually passing useful laws.

The Politico story also has plenty of other tidbits on the back room shenanigans the lead to the deal, if you're into that sort of thing.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 02, 2013, 08:14:32 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/business/17339509-420/house-ends-fiscal-cliff-drama-in-257-167-vote.html

Good news!  Now that the President has signed another bill increasing the deficit, it looks like he's ready to reduce it, but probably not until after March when he will demand an increase in the debt ceiling so that he can continue to spend more.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MVDwvrxADUc/Tg8NT8H2VfI/AAAAAAAAAzg/sMwR3yF-SMg/s400/Scooby.jpg)

Sounds like someone is obsessed. Like they say in the military..."this sounds like a personal problem"...

Quote from: Townsend on January 02, 2013, 10:22:35 AM
Gives you an idea of how well the Congress is working:

John Boehner Told Harry Reid 'Go F--- Yourself' Outside the Oval Office

http://news.yahoo.com/john-boehner-told-harry-reid-f-yourself-outside-103332376.html (http://news.yahoo.com/john-boehner-told-harry-reid-f-yourself-outside-103332376.html)

Would be a nice change since he's been F--- us for way too long.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 02, 2013, 11:39:25 AM
Would be a nice change since he's been F--- us for way too long.

OK, since that's what you take away from this, how so?

Quote from: Townsend on January 02, 2013, 11:42:18 AM
OK, since that's what you take away from this, how so?

Come on. Don't you know that Gas went to the Grover Norquist School of Business?

Check your pay stubs people. I read the payroll tax is going back to 6.2% on everyone (who of course pays those taxes).  

Quote from: guido911 on January 02, 2013, 11:47:46 AM
Check your pay stubs people. I read the payroll tax is going back to 6.2% on everyone (who of course pays those taxes).  

There's more.  It's a bit of a soul crusher considering the headshake inducing spending that will occur.

T. It must freak you out to have Hoss constantly kissing your donkey in this forum.

Quote from: Townsend on January 02, 2013, 11:51:58 AM
There's more.  It's a bit of a soul crusher considering the headshake inducing spending that will occur.

You would know better than I since I have not really followed, or really cared, about this mess. We have been so close to complete and total collapse of our economy and life as we know it so often I am immune.

Quote from: guido911 on January 02, 2013, 11:54:34 AM
You would know better than I since I have not really followed, or really cared, about this mess. We have been so close to complete and total collapse of our economy and life as we know it so often I am immune.

I've moved toward the same as you.  There's nothing I can do about it and I'm tired of it taking up my time.

I will either be taxed more or taxed less.  I can't control it and at the moment, it's depressing.

Quote from: Townsend on January 02, 2013, 11:42:18 AM
OK, since that's what you take away from this, how so?

He is everything that is wrong with Congress.  He will not bring a permanent budget to the floor of the senate for debate, not his, not the president's, nor any of the three passed by the house.  This inaction on budget activity is what has forced a "patchwork" of temporary measures over the last three years who's expiration combined with the law requiring sequestration if congress fails to act on a budget ( Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985) created what Ben Bernanke eloquently analogized as "The Fiscal Cliff."

Now is he solely responsible? No!  The fact that the president failed over and over again to push the senate towards a budget, giving Reid a pass on his almost treasonous refusal to even mantle the responsibilities of his job is also to blame.

Then you have the fact that Harry is historically one of the prime defenders of pork.
"I've done earmarks all my career, and I'm happy I've done earmarks all my career. "-Harry Reid, January 31st 2012

Therefore his primary career achevement has been F------ the American people.

Now the media is going to flutter around to convince the typical low information voters that Reid and the President should get an award for averting the fiscal cliff.
That's like giving an arsonist an award for putting out his own fire!

Harry. . .
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/551135_490350977674207_2078584854_n.jpg)

That phrase "low information voter" really pisses me off. Rush Limbaugh uses it to bash liberals all the time. It is insulting and inaccurate. 

Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 02, 2013, 01:37:34 PM
That phrase "low information voter" really pisses me off. Rush Limbaugh uses it to bash liberals all the time. It is insulting and inaccurate. 

I don't listen to rush.  I use it to describe any voter (Liberal or otherwise) who simply relies on the media rather than doing their own research, or taking time to understand the actions of government.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 02, 2013, 01:42:02 PM
I don't listen to rush.  I use it to describe any voter (Liberal or otherwise) who simply relies on the media rather than doing their own research, or taking time to understand the actions of government.

Where are you doing your research?

Quote from: Townsend on January 02, 2013, 01:47:12 PM
Where are you doing your research?

Read the summery of every important bill, then read each proposed amendment: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php
Get the impact projections: http://www.cbo.gov/

Sprinkle with analysis from a little HuffPo, WSJ, Fox, and CBS, and you find the real story.

You have to be critical of every source.  The sad thing is that a majority of Americans get their political education from a single news source, or worse, a growing number are so disengaged that they require constant entertainment, and therefore only get their news from comedy or music outlets. They are the ADD side of the low information population.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 02, 2013, 02:06:18 PM
Read the summery of every important bill, then read each proposed amendment: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php
Get the impact projections: http://www.cbo.gov/

Sprinkle with analysis from a little HuffPo, WSJ, Fox, and CBS, and you find the real story.

You have to be critical of every source.  The sad thing is that a majority of Americans get their political education from a single news source, or worse, a growing number are so disengaged that they require constant entertainment, and therefore only get their news from comedy or music outlets. They are the ADD side of the low information population.

They also don't know how to change a spare tire, what RSVP stands for or what a derivative is. IOW, a lot of people are simply enjoying having a life.

Quote from: AquaMan on January 02, 2013, 03:36:05 PM
They also don't know how to change a spare tire, what RSVP stands for or what a derivative is. IOW, a lot of people are simply enjoying having a life.

You don't have to be interested in politics, but understand that politics is always interested in you!
The less the people know, the more powerful the politicians become.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 02, 2013, 03:56:39 PM
You don't have to be interested in politics, but understand that politics is always interested in you!
The less the people know, the more powerful the politicians become.

I obviously am interested in politics and love discussion when I'm well armed to do so. But, don't you have faith? Don't you believe in leveraging? Without those life is really hard cause you have to know everything about everything and those who do are insufferable because they really can't and they don't really have a life.

Relax for heaven's sake. The smartest, most conservative guy I ever knew told me in 1975 that if Carter was elected the next year I would lose my mortgage interest deduction! Now 37 years later Republicans want to do just that! Had I obsessed and believed him I would have rented an apartment instead of buying a home back then.

I trust that the people we elect, have our best interests at heart because they are similar to the electorate's interests. Even Boehner, Inhofe and Coburn. I could spend inordinate amounts of time learning arcane economic principles and spout off on a forum where absolutely no one important gives a rodents rearend what I say, or I could soak up as much as possible from MY favorite sources and reconcile myself to the idea that my leaders are getting even more knowledge on the subject than I am. I can then choose who sounds the best informed. Even so my opinion is likely dust in the wind. I wouldn't for a moment think that those who disagree with me are less intelligent, less informed or being led astray by ignorant agendas.

I replace my own brakes on my Kia because I know how and I'm cheap. $37.99. I don't think those who pay $200 to have a shop do it are just poorly informed.

Quote from: AquaMan on January 02, 2013, 04:48:40 PM
I replace my own brakes on my Kia because I know how and I'm cheap. $37.99. I don't think those who pay $200 to have a shop do it are just poorly informed.

Those who have a shop do the work are probably well informed... that they don't know how, don't have the tools, or just don't want to do it.

It's the guys who think they know how but really don't know how that are poorly informed.  It may be the driver behind you at the next intersection.   :D

Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 02, 2013, 01:37:34 PM
That phrase "low information voter" really pisses me off. Rush Limbaugh uses it to bash liberals all the time. It is insulting and inaccurate. 

I doubt the term "low information voter" was intended to be a compliment any more than the names the left calls the right.   Just let it go as politics.  At least it's something you could say in front of your Grandmother. (Stereotype intended.)

As for accuracy.  There are "low information voters" all over the political spectrum.  To claim there are no liberal "low information voters" is to bury your head in the sand.

I don't listen to Rush either.  I do occasionally catch some of his sound bites though.

Quote from: Red Arrow on January 02, 2013, 06:17:47 PM
Those who have a shop do the work are probably well informed... that they don't know how, don't have the tools, or just don't want to do it.

It's the guys who think they know how but really don't know how that are poorly informed.  It may be the driver behind you at the next intersection.   :D

Better move over quickly if you see a blue Kia behind you on the B.A.!

Quote from: guido911 on January 02, 2013, 11:47:46 AM
Check your pay stubs people. I read the payroll tax is going back to 6.2% on everyone (who of course pays those taxes).  

Which, as you well know, is everyone on a W2.  And yet, someone here we all know and love gets to stop paying those taxes after the first 100k or so...in other words, the vast majority of his income....

Quote from: Gaspar on January 02, 2013, 01:29:09 PM
He is everything that is wrong with Congress.  He will not bring a permanent budget to the floor of the senate for debate, not his, not the president's, nor any of the three passed by the house.  This inaction on budget activity is what has forced a "patchwork" of temporary measures over the last three years who's expiration combined with the law requiring sequestration if congress fails to act on a budget ( Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985) created what Ben Bernanke eloquently analogized as "The Fiscal Cliff."

For someone who claims to watch so closely, there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of some fundamentals.  There is no such thing as bringing a permanent budget to the floor of the Senate for debate - nor the House for that matter.  There is only voting on bills.  And spending bills are by definition supposed to originate in the House.  And we see here in the last few months that the Senate actually DID pass a bill that really can only be viewed as a recommendation or template for something the House might do.

So, why has the House, under Boehner been dragging it's feet for so long??


Fox and WSJ are the same thing....

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 02, 2013, 07:43:49 PM
For someone who claims to watch so closely, there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of some fundamentals.  There is no such thing as bringing a permanent budget to the floor of the Senate for debate - nor the House for that matter.  There is only voting on bills.  And spending bills are by definition supposed to originate in the House.  And we see here in the last few months that the Senate actually DID pass a bill that really can only be viewed as a recommendation or template for something the House might do.

So, why has the House, under Boehner been dragging it's feet for so long??


Fox and WSJ are the same thing....

So are we going to change the debate and attempt to push the idea that there is now "no such thing" as the budgeting process or requirement?  :D

Article I, section 9, clause 7 of The Constitution of the United States provides: "[n]o money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." 

In addition, Article I, section5, clause 2, of the Constitution reserves to each House of Congress the authority to determine the rules governing its procedures. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 forms the requirement, and, The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (the Budget Act), which contains several titles and sections that affect the internal procedures of the House and Senate.  The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985 imposes concequences to the development of uncontrolled spending in the event that a budget is not ratified.

Here's how it works: The Congressional Budget Process (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34649.pdf)

If the new way to defend uncontrolled spending is to push the idea that budgets aren't important, and that congress has no responsibility to produce a budget, I doubt you'll get much traction.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 03, 2013, 10:04:27 AM
So are we going to change the debate and attempt to push the idea that there is now "no such thing" as the budgeting process or requirement?  :D

Article I, section 9, clause 7 of The Constitution of the United States provides: "[n]o money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." 

In addition, Article I, section5, clause 2, of the Constitution reserves to each House of Congress the authority to determine the rules governing its procedures. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 forms the requirement, and, The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (the Budget Act), which contains several titles and sections that affect the internal procedures of the House and Senate.  The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985 imposes concequences to the development of uncontrolled spending in the event that a budget is not ratified.

If the new way to defend uncontrolled spending is to push the idea that budgets aren't important, and that congress has no responsibility to produce a budget, I doubt you'll get much traction.

You just can't resist the temptation to "Fox-ify" stuff can you?  First sentence - YOUR words, not mine...what I actually DID say, as reminder - "There is no such thing as bringing a permanent budget to the floor of the Senate for debate - nor the House for that matter."

Not what you are trying to change it into.  Yes, the budget process is significant and important - not just in Federal government, but business and personal life.  But that is not what you said, either...your complaint was a disparagement that Reid had not brought a budget to the floor for a vote.  Reminder:  "He is everything that is wrong with Congress.  He will not bring a permanent budget to the floor of the senate for debate, not his, not the president's, nor any of the three passed by the house."

Additionally, the Senate is not really the ones responsible for initiating spending bills, but since the House has abdicated their responsibility, the Senate presented a bill for them to adopt if they wanted - then it could be, by slight of hand, said to originate in the House....heard the term for that the other day and forgot... blue ticket???  or something...

As for not bringing the House passed bills to a vote, well that was a whole lot like Boehner not bringing up a bill to vote that probably would have passed, but not without the 30 or 40 hard core obstructionists.  He didn't want to lose the job as Speaker.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 03, 2013, 10:50:53 AM
You just can't resist the temptation to "Fox-ify" stuff can you?  First sentence - YOUR words, not mine...what I actually DID say, as reminder - "There is no such thing as bringing a permanent budget to the floor of the Senate for debate - nor the House for that matter."

Not what you are trying to change it into.  Yes, the budget process is significant and important - not just in Federal government, but business and personal life.  But that is not what you said, either...your complaint was a disparagement that Reid had not brought a budget to the floor for a vote.  Reminder:  "He is everything that is wrong with Congress.  He will not bring a permanent budget to the floor of the senate for debate, not his, not the president's, nor any of the three passed by the house."

Additionally, the Senate is not really the ones responsible for initiating spending bills, but since the House has abdicated their responsibility, the Senate presented a bill for them to adopt if they wanted - then it could be, by slight of hand, said to originate in the House....heard the term for that the other day and forgot... blue ticket???  or something...

As for not bringing the House passed bills to a vote, well that was a whole lot like Boehner not bringing up a bill to vote that probably would have passed, but not without the 30 or 40 hard core obstructionists.  He didn't want to lose the job as Speaker.

Sorry.  As usual I failed to recognize that you would parse.
The House has passed and sent 3 budgets to the Senate.  The president has presented two budget proposals.
The Senate's duty would be to bring those to the floor for debate, or kick them back to the house with changes.  
I know why this didn't happen.  Can you figure it out?

Quote from: Gaspar on January 03, 2013, 02:41:16 PM
Sorry.  As usual I failed to recognize that you would parse.
The House has passed and sent 3 budgets to the Senate.  The president has presented two budget proposals.
The Senate's duty would be to bring those to the floor for debate, or kick them back to the house with changes.  
I know why this didn't happen.  Can you figure it out?

Not parsing at all.  It's called "English"...the predominant language of the land (for now....) and when you say one thing but mean another, well don't be surprised if the message is muddied.  Like the "joke" - that really isn't - in technical circles; "oh, no...you did what I said instead of what I meant..."  With hands to head and a distressed look upon the face.  (You can't possibly be this imprecise in your business dealings and be as successful as you imply.  Or do you only sell to the Fox-ify types in Oklahoma and Texas??)

And still.... you use the word budget.  If that what you really mean, then yes, I can figure it out - it's really very simple.  Neither house votes on budgets, they vote on spending bills.

As for any spending bills the House has passed, the Senate just let them die without response, since they were so ridiculous as to not be worth reply.  What happened to Boehner having a vote on the agreement he and Obama had worked out?  It is very likely that would have passed the House a couple weeks earlier.  Why did he decide to let it ride?  

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 03, 2013, 06:01:05 PM
Not parsing at all.  It's called "English"...the predominant language of the land (for now....) and when you say one thing but mean another, well don't be surprised if the message is muddied.  Like the "joke" - that really isn't - in technical circles; "oh, no...you did what I said instead of what I meant..."  With hands to head and a distressed look upon the face.  (You can't possibly be this imprecise in your business dealings and be as successful as you imply.  Or do you only sell to the Fox-ify types in Oklahoma and Texas??)

And still.... you use the word budget.  If that what you really mean, then yes, I can figure it out - it's really very simple.  Neither house votes on budgets, they vote on spending bills.

As for any spending bills the House has passed, the Senate just let them die without response, since they were so ridiculous as to not be worth reply.  What happened to Boehner having a vote on the agreement he and Obama had worked out?  It is very likely that would have passed the House a couple weeks earlier.  Why did he decide to let it ride?  

You are priceless.  Don't ever change.  :-*
The Lord has truly given you a special purpose.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 04, 2013, 07:18:19 AM
You are priceless.  Don't ever change.  :-*
The Lord has truly given you a special purpose.

As you!  Keep trying, though!  It's too early in life to give up yet!

This made me smile this morning.

http://twitchy.com/2013/01/04/hope-and-less-change-americans-cringe-at-first-paychecks-of-2013-stunned-lib-asks-what-happened/

Quote from: guido911 on January 04, 2013, 08:08:21 AM
This made me smile this morning.

http://twitchy.com/2013/01/04/hope-and-less-change-americans-cringe-at-first-paychecks-of-2013-stunned-lib-asks-what-happened/

Just wait about 11 more days.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 04, 2013, 08:33:27 AM
Just wait about 11 more days.

Our pay period crossed over the new year.  I'll find out, in part, next Friday.

It's "skin in the game" people. Something to think about for all you folks pissed off that your paying more in taxes...

Quote from: guido911 on January 04, 2013, 12:26:36 PM
It's "skin in the game" people. Something to think about for all you folks pissed off that your paying more in taxes...

Who was solicited to invest?

Quote from: Townsend on January 04, 2013, 12:28:57 PM
Who was solicited to invest?

We all were, whether you voted last election cycle or not. That, or you are an evil rich person (meaning you have a job and pay payroll taxes).

Quote from: Townsend on January 04, 2013, 12:28:57 PM
Who was solicited to invest?

You didn't check out his (depressingly hateful) link I gather. He, and they, have constructed a little fantasy that libs are all in a tither about a 2% increase in payroll deductions that they thought was horribly anemic and destructive when first put into place. I think it saved me enough to buy a Starbucks each month. Now, he thinks my budget is stressed.

Quote from: AquaMan on January 04, 2013, 01:42:14 PM
You didn't check out his (depressingly hateful) link I gather. He, and they, have constructed a little fantasy that libs are all in a tither about a 2% increase in payroll deductions that they thought was horribly anemic and destructive when first put into place. I think it saved me enough to buy a Starbucks each month. Now, he thinks my budget is stressed.

My link was hateful....Waahhh. This country is filled with too many thin-skinned wusses.

Quote from: guido911 on January 04, 2013, 02:49:44 PM
My link was hateful....Waahhh. This country is filled with too many thin-skinned wusses.

I didn't see any complaints about the link.  Just that it was so hateful as to be depressing.

I agree there are thin skinned folks here in the USA.  We just had a large quantity of them speaking up about a war on a holiday.  It made no sense but they sure were crying about it.

Quote from: Townsend on January 04, 2013, 02:53:37 PM
I didn't see any complaints about the link.  Just that it was so hateful as to be depressing.
We just had a large quantity of them speaking up about a war on a holiday. 

The word you were searching for instead of "holiday" is "Christmas". Your skin is that much more thicker now.  :o

Quote from: Townsend on January 04, 2013, 02:53:37 PM
I didn't see any complaints about the link.  Just that it was so hateful as to be depressing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29BoqCMRBFk

Quote from: guido911 on January 04, 2013, 03:39:48 PM
The word you were searching for instead of "holiday" is "Christmas". Your skin is that much more thicker now.  :o

Bring back the lord's prayer!
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/04/1397651/indiana-lawmaker-wants-to-give-schools-the-power-to-mandate-prayer-in-classrooms/

End the war on classrooms!

Quote from: Teatownclown on January 04, 2013, 03:46:25 PM
Bring back the lord's prayer!
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/04/1397651/indiana-lawmaker-wants-to-give-schools-the-power-to-mandate-prayer-in-classrooms/

What if the instructor is a Satanist?  Those prayers would be mandated?

Quote from: Townsend on January 04, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
What if the instructor is a Satanist?  Those prayers would be mandated?

He'd be struck dead not by an automatic fire arm but the arm of God!

Quote from: Teatownclown on January 04, 2013, 03:55:49 PM
He'd be struck dead not by an automatic fire arm but the arm of God!

On the other occasions would the kids need to learn the Aramaic version?

Quote from: guido911 on January 04, 2013, 01:19:40 PM
It's "skin in the game" people. Something to think about for all you folks pissed off that your paying more in taxes...

We all were, whether you voted last election cycle or not. That, or you are an evil rich person (meaning you have a job and pay payroll taxes).

That's some pretty wicked spin...

The only way conservatives can come up with the "47%" figure for those who don't pay "federal taxes" is to leave out the working poor who have always had payroll taxes withheld from every paycheck... something about having your cake and eating it too seems apropos here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/31/obamas-wrong-this-cliff-deal-still-raises-taxes-on-the-middle-class/

Quote...the paychecks for more than 160 million Americans will be 2 percent smaller starting in January, as the payroll tax will jump from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent. And a huge number of those hit will be middle class or working poor (Two-thirds of those in the bottom 20 percent would be affected by a payroll tax hike.).

Obama had proposed extending the payroll tax holiday, or something similar, in the first phase of the negotiations. But he dropped that demand weeks ago as his stimulus proposals shrunk rapidly. He's not revisited the idea since then, and Republicans didn't want it in there in the first place.

So whether this particular deal passes or not, it's basically a given that the payroll tax holiday is going away, which means a $115 billion fiscal contraction this year directly from the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans. To put that in perspective, the sequester cuts that are so dreaded would cut about $110 billion this year — more or less the same amount. While the fiscal cliff deal will save middle-class families an extra $2,000 in tax pain by extending the Bush tax cuts, anyone who earns $50,000 a year will still be hit with a $1,000 higher payroll tax burden.

Having a job and seeing your payroll taxes increase means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to Republicans or charlatans like Grover Norquist who don't get their big political contributions from those deadbeats anyway... the very same earned income tax credits that Republicans once touted have now become conservative chattering class talking points to stereotype the TRUE MIDDLE CLASS in this country as "takers," not "makers.".... instead, fake Tea Party Republicans are busy working on behalf of a mythical "middle-class" who make over $250k per year and want to use the social security surplus (taxed only on their earnings of up to $110k) for generic "deficit reduction"... while simultaneously claiming payroll taxes don't count as federal taxes and crying like little pampered babies about the need for "entitlement reform."

...and the usual suspects will continue to pigeon-hole most full time retail, janitors, fast-food workers, working single mothers, full time college students, Vietnam vets on SSI disability benefits, retirees.... as people who don't have "skin in the game".... ooohh, a flow chart...

(http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/2012/10/maker-taker/maker-taker-flowchart6.jpg)

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on January 06, 2013, 02:39:59 PM
The only way conservatives can come up with the "47%" figure for those who don't pay "federal taxes" is to leave out the working poor who have always had payroll taxes withheld from every paycheck... something about having your cake and eating it too seems apropos here...

 Mitt Romney, "47 percent," May 17
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/10/romneys-47-comment-named-quote-of-the-year/

Quote from: Red Arrow on January 06, 2013, 03:04:43 PM

Mitt Romney, "47 percent," May 17
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/10/romneys-47-comment-named-quote-of-the-year/

1.  A big chunk of that "47 percent" voted for Romney.
2.  Most of the "people who pay no income tax" are folks who either/both paid income tax in previous years or will be paying federal income tax in the future.
3.  The working poor who paid no income tax due to the earned income tax credit are far more likely than other income groups to have kids who opt to join the military.
4.  Many of the working "47 percent" who aren't retired or on SSI are unaware of their federal tax status, since any tax refund check from their payroll deductions will not include FICA or medicaid.  They also pay regressive sales taxes and are subject to state, local and county taxes as well.  They don't need Mitt Romney to lecture them on personal responsibility.  
5.  To imply that 47% of the country is unwilling to take personal responsibility and care for their lives is a slap in the face; especially when it comes from a patrician politico who knows NOTHING about the personal responsibility required from someone who punches a time clock every day and makes less than $10 per hour.

---I'll agree to a flat tax the day our government comes to the conclusion that we need a salary cap... trade a few CEO's making 200x the pay of their workers to Japan or India for their lower paid, higher performing CEO's... and a couple of first round draft pics...   ;D

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on January 06, 2013, 04:06:36 PM
1.  A big chunk of that "47 percent" voted for Romney.
2.  Most of the "people who pay no income tax" are folks who either/both paid income tax in previous years or will be paying federal income tax in the future.
3.  The working poor who paid no income tax due to the earned income tax credit are far more likely than other income groups to have kids who opt to join the military.
4.  Many of the working "47 percent" who aren't retired or on SSI are unaware of their federal tax status, since any tax refund check from their payroll deductions will not include FICA or medicaid.  They also pay regressive sales taxes and are subject to state, local and county taxes as well.  They don't need Mitt Romney to lecture them on personal responsibility.  
5.  To imply that 47% of the country is unwilling to take personal responsibility and care for their lives is a slap in the face; especially when it comes from a patrician politico who knows NOTHING about the personal responsibility required from someone who punches a time clock every day and makes less than $10 per hour.

---I'll agree to a flat tax the day our government comes to the conclusion that we need a salary cap... trade a few CEO's making 200x the pay of their workers to Japan or India for their lower paid, higher performing CEO's... and a couple of first round draft pics...   ;D

I was just wondering if you understand the difference between "who don't pay "federal taxes"" and "who pay no income tax".

A less "hateful" website for the thin skinned folks worried about tone and people upset their paychecks are smaller.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/

Quote from: guido911 on January 06, 2013, 07:19:20 PM
A less "hateful" website for the thin skinned folks worried about tone and people upset their paychecks are smaller.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/

Sheep alert!

Just calculated my payroll change. The elimination of the payroll benefit means $227 less a month to my paycheck.  That's a car payment, or electric bill, or grocery bill, or gas for the cars.

OMG! I just realized that's about 3 times what we pay for birth control.

Curious how this affects female law students?

(http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Tshirt_Sandra_Fluke.jpg)

Hey, it was temporary, and served its purpose for the election.  Everyone back on your heads!

Quote from: Gaspar on January 07, 2013, 10:40:04 AM
Just calculated my payroll change. The elimination of the payroll benefit means $227 less a month to my paycheck.  That's a car payment, or electric bill, or grocery bill, or gas for the cars.
OMG! I just realized that's about 3 times what we pay for birth control.

You need to get a lower paying job.   ;D

Quote from: Red Arrow on January 07, 2013, 12:47:51 PM
You need to get a lower paying job.   ;D

Need the money, especially now that we're probably going to end up pregnant again since this cuts into our birth control budget.

Poor Sandra was only pulling 60K a year, the hike equals $1,200 off her yearly pay, and you know she can't afford to go without, else she be walkin round the office all clappy with a sad face.

Edit: I mean if her schedule allows for vertical time.

I am going to Washington DC this summer to show my kids where my money went.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 07, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
I am going to Washington DC this summer to show my kids where my money went.

Don't drink the water!

Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 07, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
I am going to Washington DC this summer to show my kids where my money went.

You can show the kids where the money went but the money moved on.  The money isn't there anymore.   :D

Quote from: Red Arrow on January 06, 2013, 06:24:19 PM
I was just wondering if you understand the difference between "who don't pay "federal taxes"" and "who pay no income tax".

Yes.  I do.  Romney was whining about 47% who technically did not pay federal income tax last year... to say they have no "skin in the game" is disingenuous and condescending.
I was wondering if you understand the difference between "who pay no income tax" and "who pay no federal income tax."

Fact Check: Mitt Romney's '47 Percent' Claims Wildly Inaccurate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/fact-check-mitt-romney-47-percent_n_1893537.html

QuoteRomney's 47 percent figure lumped together separate groups that have little relation to one another. Most Americans do pay taxes: The poorest fifth of Americans paid an effective tax rate of 17 percent last year, and the second-poorest fifth paid an effective tax rate of 21 percent, when factoring in payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes, among others, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

It is true that 46 percent of American households did not pay federal income taxes last year, according to the Tax Policy Center. But that number is unusually high, in part because of the recession -- and a majority of that 46 percent still paid payroll taxes. Only 18 percent of American households paid no income taxes and no payroll taxes last year. It is largely low-income seniors and very poor people that legally don't pay federal income taxes or payroll taxes, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Tax Policy Center.

It was also inaccurate for Romney to claim that those who don't pay federal income taxes would vote for President Obama "no matter what." Nearly all states with a high percentage of Americans that don't pay federal income taxes vote Republican in presidential elections, according to the Washington Post.

Moreover, Republican policy -- on the part of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush -- has pushed to move poorer people off of the federal income tax rolls, as noted by the Washington Post's Ezra Klein and Newsweek's Matt Zeitlin.

As for entitlements, contrary to Romney's portrayal, more than 90 percent of entitlement benefits go to the elderly, seriously disabled or members of working households, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

(http://www.taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg)

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on January 07, 2013, 07:40:13 PM
Yes.  I do.  Romney was whining about 47% who technically did not pay federal income tax last year...

Is not the same as:

QuoteThe only way conservatives can come up with the "47%" figure for those who don't pay "federal taxes" is to leave out the working poor who have always had payroll taxes withheld from every paycheck

Quote from: Gaspar on January 07, 2013, 10:40:04 AM
Just calculated my payroll change. The elimination of the payroll benefit means $227 less a month to my paycheck.  That's a car payment, or electric bill, or grocery bill, or gas for the cars.

Curious how this affects female law students?

Or, considering that the median annual wage fell in 2010 (couldn't find 2011) to a little over $26,000 - and based on an increase of the payroll tax by 2%, that would put you at about 5.4 times that median wage.  That would put you where...somewhere in the top 3% or so of income in the US...??  Not too shabby.  When one looks at the cup, and tries to decide whether it is half full or half empty - that would have to be completely full - by any measure.  Well,... except when comparing to guido...


I guess all these 1 or 2 or 3%ers could move to Australia or Canada, like there was talk of a couple months ago....that would make them feel all better!  LOL!!







 

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on January 07, 2013, 07:40:13 PM
Yes.  I do.  Romney was whining about 47% who technically did not pay federal income tax last year... to say they have no "skin in the game" is disingenuous and condescending.
I was wondering if you understand the difference between "who pay no income tax" and "who pay no federal income tax."

Fact Check: Mitt Romney's '47 Percent' Claims Wildly Inaccurate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/fact-check-mitt-romney-47-percent_n_1893537.html

(http://www.taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg)

You might want to use their updated map and note their disclaimer. "we're looking only at the percentages of households filing a return and don't account for the "non-filers."
(http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/non_payers_small.png)

There is some good data on that site!

A Tax Protester Left This Infuriating Note Instead Of Giving The Server A Tip


http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-protest-tip-note-2013-1


(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/50ed8ab669bedd4f4200001c-623-624-620-/enhanced-buzz-20673-1357626454-20.jpg)




warning! Tarantino's content!

It's been about a month now.  We should start seeing the retail sales reports rolling in, and realize the effects of the payroll tax increase.

Should hit the jobs numbers in March.

Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2013, 02:05:17 PM
It's been about a month now.  We should start seeing the retail sales reports rolling in, and realize the effects of the payroll tax increase.

Should hit the jobs numbers in March.

Well, just in case they aren't falling off the cliff like you hope, here is the suicide hotline to help you with your grief and disappointment - they can help you through it!!

1-800-SUICIDE
1-800-784-2433

Wal-Mart Stocks Crash

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/02/15/wal-mart-stocks-crash.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/02/15/wal-mart-stocks-crash.html)

Quote"Where are all the customers? And where is all their money?" That was the plaintive tone struck by a Wal-Mart executive concerned about the giant retailer's early February results, which he called "a total disaster" in a memo leaked by Bloomberg News. Investor panic caused the stock of America's largest retailer to drop 3.8 percent at its low-point Friday, and led other retailers' stocks to fall in sympathy. The obvious answer: the people at the lower rungs of the income ladder who constitute Wal-Mart's customer base have been hit disproportionately by the increase in the payroll tax that took effect on January 1.

I don't think I would call it a panic as the beast does, and Wally World is not the only discount retailer that lost ground today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc)

QuoteWal-Mart: is it really "the worst start to a month I have seen in my seven years with the company," as Jerry Murray, Wal-Mart's VP of Finance and Logistics is reported to have said in an email?

Whether the Wal-Mart emails were accurate or not, it does reflect a concern: that retail sales have been tougher thanks in part to the two percent payroll tax increase.

Reported January Retail sales were tepid at best.

There are other issues facing Wal-Mart:

1.Higher energy prices
2.Tougher comps: sales were pulled forward last year due to warm weather
3.Tax refund checks are late this year; that could be a major factor for customers



There were a couple of other issues affecting retail stocks this morning:

First, traders tell me that Cleveland Research was out with a comment this morning saying Wal-Mart same-store sales were negative for February so far; this is why Wal-Mart gapped down at the open while the overall market was up;

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100464833 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100464833)