You Can Relax Now, the Fiscal Cliff Has Been Bridged

[DMC]

It's been passed. Let the partying and home buying begin anew.

[boutons_deux]

Boner very probably doesn't have a majority of a Repug majority so he won't bring the bill to a vote.

[CosmicCowboy]

Did anyone see what they did on inheritance tax? I saw that the rate went up but couldn't find what the lower limit was.

[ElNono]

Did anyone see what they did on inheritance tax? I saw that the rate went up but couldn't find what the lower limit was.

This is what I could find:
Although the White House won an agreement to raise the tax rates on larger estates from 35 percent to 40 percent, Republicans successfully insisted that the exemption should be adjusted annually for inflation, a provision that would increase the exemption amount to $7.5 million for individuals and $15 million for couples by 2020, said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

He called the final agreement a “sweetheart giveaway to the wealthiest 7,200 estates in the country.”

[CosmicCowboy]

Found it. Five Million per person. Rate went up but threshold stayed the same.

[CosmicCowboy]

Whoopie!

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/12-2/Tax%20Hike%20In%20Perspective.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Whoopie!

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/12-2/Tax%20Hike%20In%20Perspective.jpg

Deficits Don't Matter

-- dickhead

Jobs (and stimulus) are the priority

-- 99%

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao deficits don't matter.

[EVAY]

Found it. Five Million per person. Rate went up but threshold stayed the same.

This is correct. Rate went from 35% to 40% on single person estates of $5M or couples' estates of $10M, with some sort of inflation adjustment. Lots of American seniors were out looking under their cars for bombs placed by their children if it had gone back to the $1M and 55% on everything thereafter. :lol

[DMX7]

:lmao deficits don't matter.

That's what ya boi Dick said.

[boutons_deux]

This is correct. Rate went from 35% to 40% on single person estates of $5M or couples' estates of $10M, with some sort of inflation adjustment. Lots of American seniors were out looking under their cars for bombs placed by their children if it had gone back to the $1M and 55% on everything thereafter. :lol

The threshold should have been lowered to $1M, which is enough TAX-FREE gift for anyone. If the parent(s) are too fucking stupid to dump their estate, then the wealth should be taxed heavily and used for USA.

[CosmicCowboy]

Taxes are great as long as someone else pays them and deficits are fine as long as I keep getting my goodies from the gubment.

[DMX7]

Some stupid ass repug please defend why the estate tax should exempt estates $5M or below. It's just so fucking stupid.

[ElNono]

Cheney was right though. To the general electorate, deficits don't matter.

[CosmicCowboy]

Some stupid ass repug please defend why the estate tax should exempt estates $5M or below. It's just so fucking stupid.

Simple, really. It kills small family businesses and family farms. Put in perspective a 500 acre farm in Iowa is worth 5 million just for the land. Tax that at 55% and you kill it.

Of course, your big financial and insurance companies love the estate tax because it forces people to buy ridiculously expensive life insurance policies as part of estate planning which starves cash flow.

[Th'Pusher]

List the eight senators that voted against the bill

[exstatic]

:lmao deficits don't matter.

He was on the undercard in 2000 and 2004. You voted for him.

[exstatic]

Simple, really. It kills small family businesses and family farms. Put in perspective a 500 acre farm in Iowa is worth 5 million just for the land. Tax that at 55% and you kill it.

Of course, your big financial and insurance companies love the estate tax because it forces people to buy ridiculously expensive life insurance policies as part of estate planning which starves cash flow.
Like Con Agra, via the GOP largesse isn't already killing family farms in Iowa.

[Th'Pusher]

Whoopie!

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/12-2/Tax%20Hike%20In%20Perspective.jpg
Yeah. A 20% across the board tax cut would have really addressed those deficits huh CC? You may have voted for Gary Johnson but you're on record saying a 5T tax cut is preferable to ANY tax increase.

[DMX7]

Simple, really. It kills small family businesses and family farms. Put in perspective a 500 acre farm in Iowa is worth 5 million just for the land. Tax that at 55% and you kill it.


Ok, you do know that's not really who the Repugs are trying to protect, right? The farmer vote isn't exactly their top priority.

Ok, so the land alone is entirely tax exempt in your scenario since the first $5.12 million is exempt from the estate tax. Then another $120,000 worth of farm equipment is also tax exempt, and the remainder is taxed at an addition "whatever percent". Keep in mind that so many farmers are already subsidized through the ass but fine. That's the worst case scenario and you could always write some type of exemption for farms, but that isn't the goal. It's just so silly that repugs get CC and others to buy this shit.

[EVAY]

Simple, really. It kills small family businesses and family farms. Put in perspective a 500 acre farm in Iowa is worth 5 million just for the land. Tax that at 55% and you kill it.

Of course, your big financial and insurance companies love the estate tax because it forces people to buy ridiculously expensive life insurance policies as part of estate planning which starves cash flow.

This is actually why a lot of smaller family farms have in fact been sold to the agribusinesses...the corporations don't have a problem with estate taxes ever. And unless the life insurance policies are bought when the small farm owner is young (and therefore unlikely to die in the immediate future), the premiums are prohibitively expensive on the policy holder.

The other reason that economists use against estate taxes is that the assets in an estate were taxed when they were earned, and the same asset should not be taxed twice. Others argue that assets in estates often have unrealized capital gains that should be taxed before the estate is inherited. I personally don't have a problem with that argument...just go ahead and tax the capital gains in the estate at the capital gains rate. That makes some sense to me.

Personally, I was happy that my parents didn't leave me with debts when they passed; there was never an issue of taxes on the size of their 'estates' (I use the term estate loosely).

[EVAY]

Ok, you do know that's not really who the Repugs are trying to protect, right? The farmer vote isn't exactly their top priority.

Ok, so the land alone is entirely tax exempt in your scenario since the first $5.12 million is exempt from the estate tax. Then another $120,000 worth of farm equipment is also tax exempt, and the remainder is taxed at an addition "whatever percent". Keep in mind that so many farmers are already subsidized through the ass but fine. That's the worst case scenario and you could always write some type of exemption for farms, but that isn't the goal. It's just so silly that repugs get CC and others to buy this shit.

But if the estate tax exemption had gone back to $1M, the additional $4M that the land was worth would have been taxed at a 55% rate, meaning that the only way the heir could hold on to any of the land was likely to sell enough (to agribusiness) to pay the tax debt on the entire amount.

I agree with you about the subsidies to farms, although that has been going on for so long it is in the same category as oil company tax exemptions.

[boutons_deux]

The priority for the 99% is jobs, not the deficit

http://www.epi.org/m/?src=http://www.epi.org/files/2012/EPI-top-charts-2012-01.png&w=608



http://www.epi.org/publication/top-charts-2012/

9M jobs short, that's 9M jobs not paying down the deficit with SS, Medicare, income taxe contributions, and NOT stimulating the economy with spending of 95% of their income.

[scott]

Fi$cal Cliff would be a good rapper name.

[DMC]

Some stupid ass repug please defend why the estate tax should exempt estates $5M or below. It's just so fucking stupid.

How big is your estate btw?

[DMC]

A good portion of the problem comes from the twitchy population being constantly bombarded with end of the world talk and reminders that the economy is in bad shape. If it weren't for these reports, I wouldn't have any idea what the economy was like, the deficit, the debt, anything, because it doesn't apparently affect my personal life.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah. A 20% across the board tax cut would have really addressed those deficits huh CC? You may have voted for Gary Johnson but you're on record saying a 5T tax cut is preferable to ANY tax increase.

You are full of shit. Your claim.

Prove it.

I am on record to saying it's going to take across the board tax increases, major military cuts, and major reforms to entitlement programs including SS and medicare to ever make any headway on balancing the budget.

taxing the rich alone ain't gonna do it. The middle class is where the money is.

[CosmicCowboy]

The "fiscal cliff" deal that was designed to save money actually includes $330.3 billion in new spending over the next decade, according to the official estimate the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday afternoon.
CBO said the bill contains about $25.1 billion in new cuts, but those are swamped by the new spending on extended unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and other new refundable tax credits that President Obama fought for.
Of those cuts, only $2 billion are scheduled to take effect in 2013.
And CBO also warned that some of the cuts Congress is counting are from programs on which CBO never expected the money to be spent anyway — such as cuts to the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan, which was part of Mr. Obama's health care law.
All told, the bill deepens the deficit by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade, when the new tax cuts and spending are combined.
The bill also delays by two months the automatic spending cuts slated to take effect Wednesday, with a promise to reduce spending in the future to cover for them.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/jan/1/deficit-fiscal-cliff-bill-actually-spends-330-bill/#ixzz2GkySvTqF
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[ElNono]

The suggestion that no bill should pass that doesn't address every single deficit/revenue problem is kinda silly. I mean, it would be nice, but its simply unrealistic. Plus this isn't the last deal that will ever be negotiated. Heck, next week we should start hearing about the debt limit 'cliff'.

[boutons_deux]

A good portion of the problem comes from the twitchy population being constantly bombarded with end of the world talk and reminders that the economy is in bad shape. If it weren't for these reports, I wouldn't have any idea what the economy was like, the deficit, the debt, anything, because it doesn't apparently affect my personal life.

A good portion of the problem is from myopic dumbfucks like you who think because your boat is floating, everybody's boat is floating. Same shit with CC. 40M+ on foodstamps, 20M+ under/unemployed, 10Ms in poverty, poor people dying 4 years earlier than non-poor for want of access to medical care, Ms of homes stolen by the banks through MERS/robo-signing mortage fraud. But your boat floats.

[Wild Cobra]

List the eight senators that voted against the bill
Roll call #251 isn't published yet in Thomas for some reason.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The only thing that actually addresses the fiscal cliff would be a complete reformation of the tax code in this country and slashing of all kinds of spending.

CC is right that everyone is gonna need to pay more taxes for this problem to be solved, but the middle class is not where the money is in this country. Over 75% of the country lives paycheck to paycheck and has almost no net worth. The current tax code in this country has led to a significant shift of wealth towards the top but even though the rate schedule is progressive the tax code as a whole has had regressive results.

[ElNono]

List the eight senators that voted against the bill

It was on a NY Times article. IIRC, Rubio and Rand Paul were two of them.

[Wild Cobra]

A funny thing about this bill. This is the one the House sent to the senate 8/1/12. It had a 256 to 171 vote in the house. it took the senate 3 months to act.


8/1/2012 6:20pm:
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 256 - 171 (Roll no. 545).
8/1/2012 6:20pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
9/10/2012:
Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
9/11/2012:
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 502.
1/1/2013:
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent.
1/1/2013:
S.AMDT.3448 Amendment SA 3448 proposed by Senator Reid.
In the nature of a substitute.

[DMC]

A good portion of the problem is from myopic dumbfucks like you who think because your boat is floating, everybody's boat is floating. Same shit with CC. 40M+ on foodstamps, 20M+ under/unemployed, 10Ms in poverty, poor people dying 4 years earlier than non-poor for want of access to medical care, Ms of homes stolen by the banks through MERS/robo-signing mortage fraud. But your boat floats.

I don't want everyone's boat floating. I don't want socialism. Even as a country we've prospered because other nations have not. Even you likely buy the cheapest quality products you can find, often made in 3rd world countries. Their boats are not floating and because of that, you have room to float yours.

It's a small lake, not all boats will get on. I don't pretend, like you do, that I am concerned with the entire country or world. I am honest in my stance that I will prosper even if you don't.

[DMC]

The only thing that actually addresses the fiscal cliff would be a complete reformation of the tax code in this country and slashing of all kinds of spending.

CC is right that everyone is gonna need to pay more taxes for this problem to be solved, but the middle class is not where the money is in this country. Over 75% of the country lives paycheck to paycheck and has almost no net worth. The current tax code in this country has led to a significant shift of wealth towards the top but even though the rate schedule is progressive the tax code as a whole has had regressive results.
The middle class is the largest percentage of income, and it's the least likely to affect policy through lobbyists, even though they are comprised of many writers and journalists and other professionals. The lower class is a drain and the upper class is basically the puppet master. The middle class will always get fucked, we are the sheep.

[boutons_deux]

"Even as a country we've prospered because other nations have not."

There isn't a USA anymore economically. There's the 2% taking a monstrous, exorbitant, relentlessly increasing slice of the natiaonal income, while the 98% pockets less and less.

This is not accidental or "natural". It's directly the intended result of the govt policies, dictated by the VRWC, to game the system and the govt, going back 35 years.

[CosmicCowboy]

Boutons...WTF do you do for a living? Do you even work? Are you just so fucked that you think that everything "bad" that happens to you is someone else's fault?

[Wild Cobra]

Shazbot.

Do you realize that as a statistical group, the more welfare type programs we have, the less chance the bottom classes of people have of growing in any statistical means that are positive?

There is a difference in wealth and income. Income is a facet of wealth, but that's about where it ends. To claim the rich are soaking up other people's wealth is flat out wrong. Those relying on social handouts will never be wealthy, and it's because of their work ethics. Not because of any thing that anyone else does to them, except to enable them to be lazy, by advocating more handouts.

[DJ Mbenga]

Politicos, Mike Allen says gop gonna submit spending cuts they know won't pass its gonna die.

[DMC]

"Even as a country we've prospered because other nations have not."

There isn't a USA anymore economically. There's the 2% taking a monstrous, exorbitant, relentlessly increasing slice of the natiaonal income, while the 98% pockets less and less.

This is not accidental or "natural". It's directly the intended result of the govt policies, dictated by the VRWC, to game the system and the govt, going back 35 years.




Taking?

The Earth has resources and human resources are part of that. Many people decide early on that they just want to earn a living. Others don't settle for that and work harder to get more than standard forms of living. Some are born into money, not their fault, and somewhere down the line someone made that money by hook or by crook. Those who are content to point fingers and complain about unlevel playing fields are usually the lower end of the spectrum by default, because they do not do the things necessary to overcome their disadvantages.

Low rent apartments all across the US are littered with deadbeats who sit on computers all day complaining about their lot in life. You guys are, imo, the most likely to go postal if you weren't too lazy to acquire and learn to use a firearm.

[rascal]

Shazbot.

Do you realize that as a statistical group, the more welfare type programs we have, the less chance the bottom classes of people have of growing in any statistical means that are positive?

There is a difference in wealth and income. Income is a facet of wealth, but that's about where it ends. To claim the rich are soaking up other people's wealth is flat out wrong. Those relying on social handouts will never be wealthy, and it's because of their work ethics. Not because of any thing that anyone else does to them, except to enable them to be lazy, by advocating more handouts.

You believe wealth is a direct sole result of work ethic. Many people are working hard but not making much money.

[CosmicCowboy]

You believe wealth is a direct sole result of work ethic. Many people are working hard but not making much money.

There are ways to change that but they require planning and effort. Work at WalMart while getting a degree in a lucrative field for instance instead of working at WalMart and going home and playing video games and burning weed.

Except for inherited wealth, yes, wealth is a product of intelligent expenditure of labor and resources and in some cases deferred gratification.

[Wild Cobra]

You believe wealth is a direct sole result of work ethic. Many people are working hard but not making much money.
I don't know why I bother answering people like you.

I say one thing, and you ask me if I believe something at the extreme opposite end.

Wealth can be because of many things, but is seldom limited to one. Work ethics is a key for most, but will not make one of the richest people. Wealth is often inherited, and is often the result of good luck. At any extent, someone who is lacking work ethics or self control is more likely to lose any wealth they gain.

Increasing ones wealth is dependent on many things, and lacking in one can be the cause of losing all wealth.

I reject your far end opposite question.

[CosmicCowboy]

And yeah, got a feeling that the House is gonna fuck this deal up.

[Wild Cobra]

And yeah, got a feeling that the House is gonna fuck this deal up.
I wonder what details of the senate re-write we haven't seen. Maybe the house should reject it?

[boutons_deux]

And yeah, got a feeling that the House is gonna fuck this deal up.

me, too. I'm looking forward to it.

[ElNono]

Wealth moving up and concentrating at the top isn't a fairy tale, it's real and historically measurable.

We can discuss class mobility, or how does a person (not wealth) moves from a lower to a higher class, but that's a different topic altogether.

[DMC]

Wealth moving up and concentrating at the top isn't a fairy tale, it's real and historically measurable.

We can discuss class mobility, or how does a person (not wealth) moves from a lower to a higher class, but that's a different topic altogether.

It's really impossible to acquire wealth without someone losing it. Just like the stock market, there are winners and losers. Everyone cannot be a winner, it's impossible. The Earth has a finite amount of wealth available. The wealthy in this country are mostly those who found a way to offer a product that everyone wants, and offered a smaller amount of wealth to people willing to trade their time. Anyone here has the option to risk everything they have, leave that comfortable private sector job and start a business. Very few private sector jobs will make you wealthy, and most new businesses fail within the 1st year or two. Those who find ways to get around that can end up being wealthy.

There's nothing covert about it. Just quit your job and start your business. I thought about starting a multimillion dollar business but I realized that would be a wasted effort, why not just start a multibillion dollar business instead?

[CosmicCowboy]

Let us know how that multibillion dollar business you thought of works out grasshopper..

[boutons_deux]

House Republicans sharply divided on 'fiscal cliff' deal

key members said they could not support the compromise

Eric Cantor, #2, won't support it

Other Republicans said the bill would have to be amended and returned to the Senate.

“The lack of spending cuts in the Senate bill was a universal concern amongst members,”

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/718/article/p2p-73873809/

Repugs want more austerity during the Banksters' Great Depression. What ignorant assholes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The only thing that actually addresses the fiscal cliff would be a complete reformation of the tax code in this country and slashing of all kinds of spending.

CC is right that everyone is gonna need to pay more taxes for this problem to be solved, but the middle class is not where the money is in this country. Over 75% of the country lives paycheck to paycheck and has almost no net worth. The current tax code in this country has led to a significant shift of wealth towards the top but even though the rate schedule is progressive the tax code as a whole has had regressive results.

We are not going to get the deficit under control until the Boomer's die off. They are never going to allow their entitlements to be cut and there ar emore of them then there are people paying for said entitlements. Over the next 20 years all of them will be retiring and then as they sail off into the sunset the electorate in terms of fiscal responsibility will change.

THEN, thos of us that are left need to have the intellectual and moral courage to pay our fair share and not leave a shit pile for our kids.

[ElNono]

It's really impossible to acquire wealth without someone losing it. Just like the stock market, there are winners and losers. Everyone cannot be a winner, it's impossible. The Earth has a finite amount of wealth available. The wealthy in this country are mostly those who found a way to offer a product that everyone wants, and offered a smaller amount of wealth to people willing to trade their time. Anyone here has the option to risk everything they have, leave that comfortable private sector job and start a business. Very few private sector jobs will make you wealthy, and most new businesses fail within the 1st year or two. Those who find ways to get around that can end up being wealthy.

There's nothing covert about it. Just quit your job and start your business. I thought about starting a multimillion dollar business but I realized that would be a wasted effort, why not just start a multibillion dollar business instead?

What does that has to do with the post you responded to?

[DMC]

What does that has to do with the post you responded to?

Because you say it like it's some covert fact that isn't based on common sense. Anyone who understands the laws of conservation should be able to figure that out for themselves. Sure wealth moves up, but it also moves in other directions. Those at the top are able to make it grow, instead of burning it to keep warm.

[ElNono]

Because you say it like it's some covert fact that isn't based on common sense. Anyone who understands the laws of conservation should be able to figure that out for themselves. Sure wealth moves up, but it also moves in other directions. Those at the top are able to make it grow, instead of burning it to keep warm.

I'm talking strictly numbers (ie:country produces X wealth in Y time, what's the distribution of X by socioeconomic class). Wealth certainly didn't used to concentrate at the top 30-40 years ago. Common sense and the laws of conservation applied just the same back then.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Acting like economics follows the first rule of thermodynamics..... And when I hear appeals to 'common sense' in place of analysis that tells me all I need to know: someone fails at articulating an argument. Even if in economics it did hold true that wealth was neither created nor destroyed --which is false-- human economies are not closed systems. That to me is 'common sense.'

[DMC]

I'm talking strictly numbers (ie:country produces X wealth in Y time, what's the distribution of X by socioeconomic class). Wealth certainly didn't used to concentrate at the top 30-40 years ago. Common sense and the laws of conservation applied just the same back then.
Inflation explains that pretty well. Look at the rates 40 years ago and now. Prices go up, more money goes to those who produce goods and services. The cheating on rates (business owners push the envelope constantly) means the cost always exceeds the actual proper inflation adjustment rate, and gets far ahead of pay rate increase. When everyone makes money, those who have the supply will find a way to end up with it. It's Monopoly on a grand scale and most of us have Baltic and Mediterranean.

[ElNono]

Inflation explains that pretty well. Look at the rates 40 years ago and now. Prices go up, more money goes to those who produce goods and services. The cheating on rates (business owners push the envelope constantly) means the cost always exceeds the actual proper inflation adjustment rate, and gets far ahead of pay rate increase. When everyone makes money, those who have the supply will find a way to end up with it. It's Monopoly on a grand scale and most of us have Baltic and Mediterranean.

I'll disagree inflation explains it. After all, inflation rates were historically worse right around when Reagan took power about 30-40 years ago. Personally, I think mobility is much more easily attainable when the economy is in a expanding state and there's simply more opportunities for that to happen. On the other hand, when the economy sucks, like right now, the top guys are much more savvier exploiting the non-job markets. Your comment about puppet-masters earlier in the thread I thought applied here too.

[DMC]

Acting like economics follows the first rule of thermodynamics..... And when I hear appeals to 'common sense' in place of analysis that tells me all I need to know: someone fails at articulating an argument. Even if in economics it did hold true that wealth was neither created nor destroyed --which is false-- human economies are not closed systems. That to me is 'common sense.'

Ok, then we should be able to pay off the debt in just a few months. We shouldn't need to acquire wealth before we can pay anything.

At it's roots, it's about supply and demand. There's is a limited amount of supply.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Scarcity does not imply zero sum. Most accounts that I have read give a similar debt ~1950 and the increase in this nations wealth that was taxed along with an inflationary policy was what got us out of the debt.

Any notion of having a responsible taxation policy like we had under the Eisenhower thru Carter administrations is dismissed. I sometimes wonder what it is that conservatives are seeking to conserve. Certainly not our heritage.

[DMC]

Scarcity does not imply zero sum. Most accounts that I have read give a similar debt ~1950 and the increase in this nations wealth that was taxed along with an inflationary policy was what got us out of the debt.

Any notion of having a responsible taxation policy like we had under the Eisenhower thru Carter administrations is dismissed. I sometimes wonder what it is that conservatives are seeking to conserve. Certainly not our heritage.

Scarcity does imply finite.

[DMC]

Let us know how that multibillion dollar business you thought of works out grasshopper..

I should be able to retire in a year or so, since most businesses fail in the first year, I should be a mutlibillionaire by 2014 since most other businesses will fail.

[Latarian Milton]

The middle class is the largest percentage of income, and it's the least likely to affect policy through lobbyists, even though they are comprised of many writers and journalists and other professionals. The lower class is a drain and the upper class is basically the puppet master. The middle class will always get fucked, we are the sheep.
the problem is not that middle class don't have the power to make their voices heard but that they're rather content with their lives hence they lack the incentive to join the protest with the people whom they often see as ghetto dogs, people whom they always despise.

[EVAY]

There are ways to change that but they require planning and effort. Work at WalMart while getting a degree in a lucrative field for instance instead of working at WalMart and going home and playing video games and burning weed.

Except for inherited wealth, yes, wealth is a product of intelligent expenditure of labor and resources and in some cases deferred gratification.

With respect, CC, it is more than that. Luck plays a part. For example, my brother (now deceased) was far more intelligent than me. But through no fault whatsoever of his own, he had to quit college in order to support our family after my father passed away at a young age. My brother ended up going into the retail business and was very successful in that arena; he was required, however, to work 6 days a week and twelve hours per day in order to continue that business. Had he been able to finish college I have no doubt that he would have ended up with far more financial resources than I have...but, thanks to his sacrifice and the luck of being much younger than him, I was able to get through college and graduate school on scholarships and loans, and had a successful career in the field of finance.

My brother ( very religious) raised 6 children and worked all his life harder than lots of folks ever imagine working. However, before he passed away, he was in the position of having to choose between food and medicine at times. HIs experience is one of the reasons that I was/am in favor of universal health care, but my point here is specifically that some people work hard and have the best work ethic in the world, but because of some bad breaks, are not able to take advantage of some of the things that others of us are.

It used to kill me that he was too proud to accept help from others of us who were younger and luckier, but I respected his choices.

All of which is to say that sometimes, hard work and the best work ethic in the world is just not enough. Often it is, but sheer unadulterated luck plays a big part.
I always hope that he comes back in a next life as a very wealthy man, because he was such a great man in this life, but not very well off financially.

[Latarian Milton]

Taking?

The Earth has resources and human resources are part of that. Many people decide early on that they just want to earn a living. Others don't settle for that and work harder to get more than standard forms of living. Some are born into money, not their fault, and somewhere down the line someone made that money by hook or by crook. Those who are content to point fingers and complain about unlevel playing fields are usually the lower end of the spectrum by default, because they do not do the things necessary to overcome their disadvantages.

Low rent apartments all across the US are littered with deadbeats who sit on computers all day complaining about their lot in life. You guys are, imo, the most likely to go postal if you weren't too lazy to acquire and learn to use a firearm.
you've immigrated to a country where your free to say whatever you like to make your wealth look justified but the fact is that there's no real justice in the world. we're in a system where people can't get properly rewarded for their efforts. some people have the power to fix this corrupt system but no way would they tear down the system that paved their ways to wealth, and such a corrupt system is such a disadvantage against the poor people that they cannot overcome, except by a socialist revolution which should be the last resort that they're not gonna take as long as they still have the meagre subsistences to sustain their lives

[Latarian Milton]

It's really impossible to acquire wealth without someone losing it. Just like the stock market, there are winners and losers. Everyone cannot be a winner, it's impossible. The Earth has a finite amount of wealth available. The wealthy in this country are mostly those who found a way to offer a product that everyone wants, and offered a smaller amount of wealth to people willing to trade their time. Anyone here has the option to risk everything they have, leave that comfortable private sector job and start a business. Very few private sector jobs will make you wealthy, and most new businesses fail within the 1st year or two. Those who find ways to get around that can end up being wealthy.

There's nothing covert about it. Just quit your job and start your business. I thought about starting a multimillion dollar business but I realized that would be a wasted effort, why not just start a multibillion dollar business instead?
so you must also agree that efforst aint the only element to make someone succeed imho. poor people are being poor but it's not necessarily because they're lazy or shit. they just don't have the equal chance or they don't have the luck. you could start your own business in the 70s or 80s and make a fortune instantly in a blooming economy but most small business will fail within 1 or two years in a shitty economy like today it is. its not our guilt to be born in the 90s or 2000s and grow up in the midst of economic crisis, we haven't done nothing to deserve such shit but we're stuck in it anyways. the old fucks have used up the money of the following generations so that its all on our shoulders to fill the financial gap dug by our parents' generation. the world has been overspending for a few decades now but we cannot pass the debt on to the next generation like the old fucks did because we're celibates

[CosmicCowboy]

so you must also agree that efforst aint the only element to make someone succeed imho. poor people are being poor but it's not necessarily because they're lazy or shit. they just don't have the equal chance or they don't have the luck. you could start your own business in the 70s or 80s and make a fortune instantly in a blooming economy but most small business will fail within 1 or two years in a shitty economy like today it is. its not our guilt to be born in the 90s or 2000s and grow up in the midst of economic crisis, we haven't done nothing to deserve such shit but we're stuck in it anyways. the old fucks have used up the money of the following generations so that its all on our shoulders to fill the financial gap dug by our parents' generation. the world has been overspending for a few decades now but we cannot pass the debt on to the next generation like the old fucks did because we're celibates

Well, at a minimum you could learn to write in complete sentences with correct grammar you fucking dumbass. Hell, you might even be able to get a decent job.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao @ celibates.

[LnGrrrR]

So did the military escape unscathed? I'm assuming so.

[spursncowboys]

Wow. Does anyone have a link to a good spending to tax ratio

or a percentage amount of who's getting their taxes raised?

Or what they did to Defense?

Sorry I never have done this. I just don't really want to read through the MSM bull

[boutons_deux]

House Repugs folded like limp dicks when confronted with the majority of Americans polled and ready to blame them for killing it.

[LnGrrrR]

I wonder if they're doing meet and greets at the airport when Obama comes by here at Hickam.

[DMX7]

Blue team won! We win!!!

In yo face, bitches!

[DMX7]

John Bonner broke the Hastert Rule.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/senate-clears-fiscal-cliff-deal-89-8-85640.html

[boutons_deux]

Eight Corporate Subsidies in the Fiscal Cliff Bill, From Goldman Sachs to Disney to NASCAR

One of the core shifts in the Reagan era was the convergence of wealthy individuals who wanted to pay less in taxes – many from the growing South – with corporations that wanted tax breaks. Previously, these groups fought over the pie, because the idea of endless deficits did not make sense. Once Reagan figured out how to finance yawning deficits, the GOP was able to wield the corporate sector and the new sun state wealthy into one force, epitomized today by Grover Norquist. What Obama is (sort of) trying to do is split this coalition, and the extenders are the carrot he’s dangling in front of the corporate sector to do it.


Most tax credits drop straight to the bottom line – it’s why companies like Enron considered its tax compliance section a “profit center”.

This is what the fiscal cliff is about – who gets the money. And by leaving out the corporate sector, nearly anyone who talks about this debate is leaving out a key negotiating partner.

1) Help out NASCAR - Sec 312 extends the “seven year recovery period for motorsports entertainment complex property”, which is to say it allows anyone who builds a racetrack and associated facilities to get tax breaks on it. This one was projected to cost $43 million over two years.


2) A hundred million or so for Railroads - Sec. 306 provides tax credits to certain railroads for maintaining their tracks. It’s unclear why private businesses should be compensated for their costs of doing business. This is worth roughly $165 million a year.


3) Disney’s Gotta Eat - Sec. 317 is “Extension of special expensing rules for certain film and television productions”. It’s a relatively straightforward subsidy to Hollywood studios, and according to the Joint Tax Committee, was projected to cost $150m for 2010 and 2011.


4) Help a brother mining company out – Sec. 307 and Sec. 316 offer tax incentives for miners to buy safety equipment and train their employees on mine safety. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to bribe mining companies to not kill their workers.


5) Subsidies for Goldman Sachs Headquarters – Sec. 328 extends “tax exempt financing for York Liberty Zone,” which was a program to provide post-9/11 recovery funds. Rather than going to small businesses affected, however, this was, according to Bloomberg, “little more than a subsidy for fancy Manhattan apartments and office towers for Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Corp.” Michael Bloomberg himself actually thought the program was excessive, so that’s saying something. According to David Cay Johnston’s The Fine Print, Goldman got $1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds.


6) $9B Off-shore financing loophole for banks – Sec. 322 is an “Extension of the Active Financing Exception to Subpart F.” Very few tax loopholes have a trade association, but this one does. This strangely worded provision basically allows American corporations such as banks and manufactures to engage in certain lending practices and not pay taxes on income earned from it. According to this Washington Post piece, supporters of the bill include GE, Caterpillar, and JP Morgan. Steve Elmendorf, super-lobbyist, has been paid $80,000 in 2012 alone to lobby on the “Active Financing Working Group.”


7) Tax credits for foreign subsidiaries – Sec. 323 is an extension of the “Look-through treatment of payments between related CFCs under foreign personal holding company income rules.” This gibberish sounding provision cost $1.5 billion from 2010 and 2011, and the US Chamber loves it. It’s a provision that allows US multinationals to not pay taxes on income earned by companies they own abroad.


8) Bonus Depreciation, R&D Tax Credit – These are well-known corporate boondoggles. The research tax credit was projected to cost $8B for 2010 and 2011, and the depreciation provisions were projected to cost about $110B for those two years, with some of that made up in later years.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/eight-corporate-subsidies-in-the-fiscal-cliff-bill-from-goldman-sachs-to-disney-to-nascar.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

what all these corporate gifts will cost:

https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3715

the lying FixTheDebt 1%ers and corporations ALWAYS in practice EnrichThemSelves. iow, NOTHING to do about the debt, exactly like Ryans twice passed budget than INCREASED the debt by $5T.

[DMC]

There seems to be increased "emergency" legislation that comes on the heels of a media buildup to scare the nation into accepting the legislation as a life line. When the smoke settles, the rich got richer and we are still in the same shit we were in before only now with less money. It's just a funneling of wealth under the guise of leadership. It's been accelerated in the past few years.

The reason the wealthy stay that way or get richer while others are treading water is because the federal government shields the wealthy from repercussions of bad decision making. We buy a home we cannot afford, we go broke and file bankruptcy. The wealthy do it and they end up with the home and the money they originally paid for it as a bailout. Now they've doubled their net worth.

[Winehole23]

The reason the wealthy stay that way or get richer while others are treading water is because the federal government shields the wealthy from repercussions of bad decision making. We buy a home we cannot afford, we go broke and file bankruptcy. The wealthy do it and they end up with the home and the money they originally paid for it as a bailout. Now they've doubled their net worth.bullshit. under what government program? be specific if you can.

[The Reckoning]

would have been nice to see it fail so everyones taxes go up and the national deficit is lower imo

[DarrinS]

would have been nice to see it fail so everyones taxes go up and the national deficit is lower imo


Taxes aren't the only variable in that equation.

[Winehole23]

TR mentioned the deficit; what else would you include?

[DarrinS]

TR mentioned the deficit; what else would you include?

Do you think that $1 in spending cuts for every $41 in taxes will reduce the deficit? Me neither.

[DMC]

bullshit. under what government program? be specific if you can.

lol

As if wealthy bankers and Wall Street types didn't get a windfall from bad business then they bailed before it crashed, and the feds just gifted the businesses that made these people wealthy trillions of dollars.

What program... lol

[Winehole23]

you suggested wealthy homeowners were bailed out; nothing could be further from the truth. wealthy defaulters did not "keep their homes" because of a bailout.

[Winehole23]

Do you think that $1 in spending cuts for every $41 in taxes will reduce the deficit? Me neither. neither does TR; he was talking about the counterfactual: if the deal had failed and we went off the so-called fiscal cliff.

are you talking to yourself?

[DarrinS]

neither does TR; he was talking about the counterfactual: if the deal had failed and we went off the so-called fiscal cliff.

are you talking to yourself?


No, that's your bailiwick.

[DMC]

you suggested wealthy homeowners were bailed out; nothing could be further from the truth. wealthy defaulters did not "keep their homes" because of a bailout.
Well no shit. Next you're going to tell me people didn't actually eat a cake they wanted to have as well.

It's my fault, I didn't realize the capacity for abstract thought was so low here.

[Winehole23]

DarrinS: however that may be, your reply to TR was pretty much a non-sequitur.

[Winehole23]

Well no shit. Next you're going to tell me people didn't actually eat a cake they wanted to have as well.

It's my fault, I didn't realize the capacity for abstract thought was so low here.what you said was literally wrong.

people will take you at your word. not saying what you really mean is just lazy and not indicative of anyone else's incapacity for anything.

[DarrinS]

however that may be, your reply to TR was pretty much a non-sequitur.

whatever, dude

[DMC]

what you said was literally wrong.

people will take you at your word. not saying what you really mean is just lazy and not indicative of anyone else's incapacity for anything.

Wanting to have your cake and eat it too is literally wrong, but it's called a figure of speech. We didn't land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us. Wait, Plymouth Rock wasn't even airborne, how's that even possible?

[boutons_deux]

would have been nice to see it fail so everyones taxes go up and the national deficit is lower imo

I'd like this, too, only if the increase tax revenue was immediately spent on economic stimulus to attack the 8M jobs deficit, and NOT to pay down the deficit, which can wait until the economy, and esp jobs, are at top speed.

[Winehole23]

Wanting to have your cake and eat it too is literally wrong, but it's called a figure of speech.a misleading one if it is that. seems more like a dodge, tbh.

[DMC]

a misleading one if it is that. seems more like a dodge, tbh.

No. Wealthy people don't buy homes and default. Their company buys a billion in shitty loans for pennies on the dollar, the individual gets rich from the bonuses then bails, leaving the company struggling as the feds come to the rescue with our money. In essence the company has it's cake and eats it too, although that's just a metaphor so no actual cake was harmed in the making of this post.

[boutons_deux]

Do you think that $1 in spending cuts for every $41 in taxes will reduce the deficit? Me neither.

the deficit has been building since Repug 2001 tax cuts forced through by reconciliation, then more tax cuts in 2003, two wars, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part D, and Banksters Great Depression.

Deficit tripled under the Repugs.

That's 12 years of deficit increase. It will take up to that long to reverse it. But it will never be zero. doesn't have to be zero.

[Winehole23]

Tuesday’s tax increase is the biggest in decades Posted by Zachary A. Goldfarb on December 31, 2012 at 3:37 pm


The broad increase in taxes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fiscal-cliff/most-will-face-a-rare-tax-increase-with-or-without-fiscal-cliff-resolution/2012/12/31/31d4bf0a-5259-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html?hpid=z2) likely to occur Tuesday is highly unusual by historical standards.


Based on data from the Treasury Department (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/OTA-Rev-Effects-1940-present-6-6-2011.pdf) and Moody’s Analytics, here’s a chart showing, for tax increases since 1940, the magnitude of the tax hike in the year following enactment as a percentage of gross domestic product. The three red bars represent options for what will happen starting tomorrow.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/image1.jpg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/31/tuesdays-tax-increase-is-the-biggest-in-decades/image1/)

But tax hikes have been a rarity recently. Also drawing on data from the Treasury study, here is a chart showing the one-year revenue effects, as a percentage of GDP, of different policy actions.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/image2.jpg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/31/tuesdays-tax-increase-is-the-biggest-in-decades/image2/)

Assuming we have a fiscal cliff deal, a little over half of the tax hike next year will come from the expiration of the payroll tax cut, which affects every American worker. That tax cut has been in place for two years, replacing a similar tax cut that was in effect in 2008 and 2009.


Because of the expiration of the payroll tax cut, all workers will pay 2 percent more in tax on their salary next year. A worker earning $50,000, for instance, would pay $1,000 more in taxes in 2013 than in 2011 or 2012.

Payroll taxes haven’t gone up since the late 1980s, as this chart based on data from the Social Security Administration shows.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/image3.jpg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/31/tuesdays-tax-increase-is-the-biggest-in-decades/image3/)


It’s been even longer since middle-class Americans have experienced an income tax hike. On the other hand, wealthy Americans have seen both sizable tax cuts and increases over the past 20 years, as this chart (http://owenzidar.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/lessons-from-a-half-century-of-federal-individual-income-tax-changes/) from Owen Zidar of the University of California, Berkeley, shows.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/image4.jpg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/31/tuesdays-tax-increase-is-the-biggest-in-decades/image4/)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/31/tuesdays-tax-increase-is-the-biggest-in-decades/

[Winehole23]

No. Wealthy people don't buy homes and default. Their company buys a billion in shitty loans for pennies on the dollar, the individual gets rich from the bonuses then bails, leaving the company struggling as the feds come to the rescue with our money. In essence the company has it's cake and eats it too, although that's just a metaphor so no actual cake was harmed in the making of this post.you should have said that instead of using such clumsy, misleading figurative language.

[Winehole23]

btw, your thread title is misleading, too. the debt ceiling and sequestration come up again within a couple of months, so it's not strictly true to say "the cliff has been bridged," whatever that means.

(another crappy metaphor, tbh.)

[boutons_deux]

"Wealthy people don't buy homes and default"

:lol

eg:

http://www.noticeofdefaultcalifornia.com/luxuryhomes.html

[Winehole23]

yeah, DMC's trying to cover more than a bit of careless generalization here

[boutons_deux]

Reich give the background on why the 1% and United Corporations of America were financing the FixTheDebt campaign, and what really going on witht the Repugs/tea baggers since 2010.


The Ongoing War: After the Battle Over the Cliff, the Battle Over the Debt Ceiling

(http://robertreich.org/post/39402888541)"`It's not all I would have liked," says Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, speaking of the deal on the fiscal cliff, "so on to the debt ceiling."

The battle over the fiscal cliff was only a prelude to the coming battle over raising the debt ceiling - a battle that will likely continue through early March, when the Treasury runs out of tricks to avoid a default on the nation's debt.

The White House's and Democrats' single biggest failure in the cliff negotiations was not getting Republicans' agreement to raise the debt ceiling.

The last time the debt ceiling had to be raised, in 2011, Republicans demanded major cuts in programs for the poor as well as Medicare and Social Security.

They got some concessions from the White House but didn't get what they wanted - which led us to the fiscal cliff.

So we've come full circle.

On it goes, battle after battle in what seems an unending war that began with the election of Tea-Party Republicans in November, 2010.

Don't be fooled. This war was never over the federal budget deficit.

In fact, federal deficits are dropping as a percent of the total economy.

For the fiscal year ending in September 2009, the deficit was 10.1 percent of the gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced in America. In 2010, it was 9 percent. In 2011, 8.7 percent. In the 2012 fiscal year, it was down to 7 percent.

The deficit ballooned in 2009 because of the Great Recession. It knocked so many people out of work that tax revenues dropped to the lowest share of the economy in over sixty years. (The Bush tax cuts on the rich also reduced revenues.) The recession also boosted government spending on a stimulus program and on safety nets like unemployment insurance and food stamps.

But as the nation slowly emerges from recession, more people are employed - generating more tax revenues, and requiring less spending on safety nets and stimulus. That's why the deficit is shrinking.

Yes, deficits are projected to rise again in coming years as a percent of GDP. But that's mainly due to the rising costs of health care, along with aging baby boomers who are expected to need more medical treatment.

Health care already consumes 18 percent of the total economy and almost a quarter of the federal budget (mostly in Medicare and Medicaid).

So if the ongoing war between Republicans and Democrats was really over those future budget deficits, you might expect Republicans and Democrats to be focusing on ways to hold down future healthcare costs.

They might be debating how to make the cost controls in the Affordable Care Act more effective, for example, or the merits of moving to a more efficient single-payer system, as every other advanced country has done.

But they're not debating this, because the federal deficit is not what this war is about.
It's about the size of government. Tea-Party Republicans (and other congressional Republicans worried about a Tea-Party challenge in their next primary) want the government to be much smaller.

"My goal," says conservative guru Grover Norquist, "is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

What's behind this zeal to shrink government? It's not that the U.S. government has suddenly become larger. In fact, non-military government spending relative to the size of the U.S. economy remains the smallest of any other rich nation.

Apart from the military, Medicare and Social Security account for almost everything else the federal government does - and these programs continue to be hugely popular, as Republicans learn every time they threaten them.

The animus toward government has more to do with the growing frustrations of many Americans that they're not getting ahead no matter how hard they work.

Government is an easy scapegoat, utilized by much of corporate America to convince average Americans to cut taxes, spending, and regulations - and divert attention from record-high corporate profits and concentration of income and wealth at the top.

The median wage continues to drop, adjusted for inflation, even though the economy is growing. And the share of the economy going to wages rather than to profits is the smallest on record.

Increasingly it's looked like the game is rigged, especially when people see government bailing out Wall Street (the Tea Party movement grew out of the bailout, as did the Occupiers), and handing out corporate welfare to big agriculture, big pharma, oil companies, and the insurance industry, to name but a few of the recipients.

The outrage grows when average working people are told - falsely - that a growing portion of Americans don't pay taxes and live off government handouts.

The battle over the fiscal cliff is over, but the trench warfare will continue.

http://robertreich.org/post/39402888541

[DMC]

you should have said that instead of using such clumsy, misleading figurative language.

If you weren't in "nuh uh" mode, you''d likely have gotten it the first time.

[DMC]

btw, your thread title is misleading, too. the debt ceiling and sequestration come up again within a couple of months, so it's not strictly true to say "the cliff has been bridged," whatever that means.

(another crappy metaphor, tbh.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bridging-the-fiscal-cliff-gap-over-spending/2012/11/20/d82ed942-3352-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_blog.html

Bridging the ‘fiscal cliff’ gap over spending





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rock/fiscal-cliff-brain-science_b_2136054.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rock/fiscal-cliff-brain-science_b_2136054.html)

Bridge the Fiscal Cliff Through Brain Science


Must be some shit I made up.



I could go on but by now you get the idea, hopefully.


Regardless it was satirical, probably lost on you.

[EVAY]

Can anyone explain to me why Republicans don't just declare victory with this Fiscal Cliff vote and shut up? I mean, they got 98% of the Bush tax cuts, which were responsible for between $1T and $2T contribution to the debt load over the last decade made PERMANENT?

Isn't that what their mantra is always? "The way to grow the economy is to reduce taxes". "What we need to do is reduce taxes to put more money into people's hands". etc. etc. etc.

So having gotten POTUS and the Democrats to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone under $400-450K per year, isn't that success? They even kept the Estate tax essentially the same.

I honesty don't get why they aren't happy. It's not as though they won't get a chance to hack spending in the next few months.

[ElNono]

I was going to ask where does this thing leaves Norquist, but I guess I just don't care that much.

[EVAY]

^^^He claimed last night on TV that he was happy about it. It is another reason why I am so puzzled about why more Republicans are claiming victory.

I can hardly believe that they have let this POTUS claim the mantle of 'tax-cutter away from them...but so it seems.

[CosmicCowboy]

Can anyone explain to me why Republicans don't just declare victory with this Fiscal Cliff vote and shut up? I mean, they got 98% of the Bush tax cuts, which were responsible for between $1T and $2T contribution to the debt load over the last decade made PERMANENT?

Isn't that what their mantra is always? "The way to grow the economy is to reduce taxes". "What we need to do is reduce taxes to put more money into people's hands". etc. etc. etc.

So having gotten POTUS and the Democrats to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone under $400-450K per year, isn't that success? They even kept the Estate tax essentially the same.

I honesty don't get why they aren't happy. It's not as though they won't get a chance to hack spending in the next few months.

I don't think it's the Republicans who are declaring defeat as much as Obama and the democrats and their media minions declaring victory. You get it. Republicans scored big by getting those tax cuts made "permanent" (obviously nothing is permanent in Washington) while only putting sequestration off for two months. That means that they can say they gave Obama what he wanted (tax hikes on the rich) and now it's time for him to get serious about reducing expenditures before the across the board cuts hit in two months.

[EVAY]

I don't think it's the Republicans who are declaring defeat as much as Obama and the democrats and their media minions declaring victory. You get it. Republicans scored big by getting those tax cuts made "permanent" (obviously nothing is permanent in Washington) while only putting sequestration off for two months. That means that they can say they gave Obama what he wanted (tax hikes on the rich) and now it's time for him to get serious about reducing expenditures before the across the board cuts hit in two months.

Well, that is exactly how I read it. In my opinion, the only thing that would have been better for them would have been to pass the Plan B bill, which I actually thought was pretty brilliant on Boehner's part (the bill was brilliant - not the rejection of it). And then his caucus blows the whole thing up. I really don't get some of those guys. Oh, let's be real. I don't get almost any of those guys.

[Th'Pusher]

I don't think it's the Republicans who are declaring defeat as much as Obama and the democrats and their media minions declaring victory. You get it. Republicans scored big by getting those tax cuts made "permanent" (obviously nothing is permanent in Washington) while only putting sequestration off for two months. That means that they can say they gave Obama what he wanted (tax hikes on the rich) and now it's time for him to get serious about reducing expenditures before the across the board cuts hit in two months.
The sequestration is particularly tough on defense. Medicare and Medicaid benefits are Exempt. Republicans really have no leverage there either. What they do have is the debt ceiling. They will use the full faith and credit of the US as a bargaining chip to get additional cuts because it's all they have and they are, by an large, a bunch of irresponsible morons.

[Th'Pusher]

Well, that is exactly how I read it. In my opinion, the only thing that would have been better for them would have been to pass the Plan B bill, which I actually thought was pretty brilliant on Boehner's part (the bill was brilliant - not the rejection of it). And then his caucus blows the whole thing up. I really don't get some of those guys. Oh, let's be real. I don't get almost any of those guys.
Just wait till the economy goes in the shitter now that we're taxing all those job creators...

[EVAY]

Just wait till the economy goes in the shitter now that we're taxing all those job creators...

yeah, right.

[CosmicCowboy]

Just wait till the economy goes in the shitter now that we're taxing all those job creators...

good point....:)

[CosmicCowboy]

We are just damn lucky to live in Texas. Oil and natural gas will drive the hell out of our economy for the next 20 years+ even if those fucking liberal yankee states go to shit.

[ElNono]

We are just damn lucky to live in Texas. Oil and natural gas will drive the hell out of our economy for the next 20 years+ even if those fucking liberal yankee states go to shit.

Yankee states will probably make 4x as much money by trading futures on those oil contracts, tbh. Now, if you're Mississippi, you're probably screwed.

[EVAY]

Yankee states will probably make 4x as much money by trading futures on those oil contracts, tbh. Now, if you're Mississippi, you're probably screwed.

Yeah, but Mississippi natives have been screwed forever. All of the people in all of the other southeastern states start their daily prayers with "Thank you god, that I was not born in and do not now live in Mississippi". :lol Hell, most of us should start our days with that prayer.

[DMC]

Yankee states will probably make 4x as much money by trading futures on those oil contracts, tbh. Now, if you're Mississippi, you're probably screwed.

I don't think their food stamps tax will go up.

[spursncowboys]

Yeah, but Mississippi natives have been screwed forever. All of the people in all of the other southeastern states start their daily prayers with "Thank you god, that I was not born in and do not now live in Mississippi". :lol Hell, most of us should start our days with that prayer.
Welcome to Arkansas: Our state motto: Thank God For Mississippi!

[ElNono]

I don't think their food stamps tax will go up.

whose?

[EVAY]

Welcome to Arkansas: Our state motto: Thank God For Mississippi!

I heard the same thing in Alabama and Louisiana! :lol

[Stringer_Bell]

Hell nah, I ain't gonna relax. My check was short over this bullshit. Sure, it wasn't enough to put me in the poor house...but I'm sick and tired of Obama taking my money and just giving it away to welfare mommas and dope-fiend daddies. It's pitifulll!!

On a more serious note, I heard yesterday that after the Democrat controlled Senate compromised on taxing ONLY the 400,000-450,000+ people which lowered the 1Trill revenue amount to 600b or so, THEN the Republican controlled House said "Nah, bitch, we ain't gonna pass that shit til we put our own stamp on it" and delayed passing the bill until they made sure there was an additional 15b in budget cuts or whatever. IS THAT FUCKING TRUE?!?!? If so, lol demopussies and hooray fur my Tea Party friends that actually managed to get something done.

[Winehole23]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bridging-the-fiscal-cliff-gap-over-spending/2012/11/20/d82ed942-3352-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_blog.html

Bridging the ‘fiscal cliff’ gap over spending





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rock/fiscal-cliff-brain-science_b_2136054.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rock/fiscal-cliff-brain-science_b_2136054.html)

Bridge the Fiscal Cliff Through Brain Science


Must be some shit I made up.



I could go on but by now you get the idea, hopefully.


Regardless it was satirical, probably lost on you.So then, you were being a copycat, or being satirical? Which is it? Can't be both.

[Winehole23]

blank satire?

[Winehole23]

you keep shifting the goal posts. CYA for lazy generalizations?

[Wild Cobra]

Hell nah, I ain't gonna relax. My check was short over this bullshit. Sure, it wasn't enough to put me in the poor house...but I'm sick and tired of Obama taking my money and just giving it away to welfare mommas and dope-fiend daddies. It's pitifulll!!
[QUOTE]
Yep, my check is short too. Not sure exactly how much since I took a day off, and worked Xmas, but I figure it's going to be a notable drop in pay. I can deal with it, I was preparing myself to go back into the "tween" area of the 28% and 31% marginal rates as well. As it stands, I will stay in the 25% marginal rate and see the 28% rate on overtime checks.

I was really hoping the SS insurance would increase to about 7%, but also go there slowly. Maybe each quarter increase by 0.2%. 4.4% first quarter, 4.6% 2nds, 4.7%, 5% by the end of the year, and so on. This sudden 6.2% will be a budget shock to quite a few families.
[QUOTE=Stringer_Bell]
On a more serious note, I heard yesterday that after the Democrat controlled Senate compromised on taxing ONLY the 400,000-450,000+ people which lowered the 1Trill revenue amount to 600b or so, THEN the Republican controlled House said "Nah, bitch, we ain't gonna pass that shit til we put our own stamp on it" and delayed passing the bill until they made sure there was an additional 15b in budget cuts or whatever. IS THAT FUCKING TRUE?!?!? If so, lol demopussies and hooray fur my Tea Party friends that actually managed to get something done.

I hope the Tea party types held out for more spending cuts. That said, I'm very, very disappointed that the unemployment insurance compensation is being extended for so long. Historically, every time we had a recovery, it was after they ended the unemployment extensions.

I myself was guilty of being comfortable with the unemployment at one time. Collecting max compensation, and not having any car payments, credit card payments, etc. I was able to live quite comfortable on it. I know I can't be the only one guilty of taking advantage of the system. It was a nice vacation from work, for over a year for me.

[Winehole23]

I'm very, very disappointed that the unemployment insurance compensation is being extended for so long. Historically, every time we had a recovery, it was after they ended the unemployment extensions.I'm from Missouri. Show me.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm from Missouri. Show me.
I can't believe anyone like you, interested in politics, hasn't noted the trend.

I'm sure I could find the info if I wanted, but I don't feel like it. If you think I'm wrong, I'll just challenge you to find the comparative timelines yourself.

[Winehole23]

I'm sure I could find the info if I wanted, but I don't feel like it.your claim, your burden. I'm not surprised you failed at delivery.

[Winehole23]

again . . .

[Wild Cobra]

your claim, your burden. I'm not surprised you failed at delivery.
maybe I don't give a shit if someone who acts constantly drunk wants me to prove anything.

[Winehole23]

Roubini in FT: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8f45b6c8-54f5-11e2-a628-00144feab49a.html#axzz2GtJIbgIy

[EVAY]

Roubini in FT: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8f45b6c8-54f5-11e2-a628-00144feab49a.html#axzz2GtJIbgIy

WH, I tried to read the article, but the link immediately requires a sign-in to the Financial Times website, which I am unwilling to do (I don't want the associated cookies). I wondered if you could give us a mini-account of the gist of the article. The title itself seems self-evident (of course the leaders of this country have let us down), and I am aware that Roubini is generally pessimistic (to put it mildly) about the financial future, but I would actually like to know which things he had in mind when he wrote that title. Can you help?

[DMC]

So then, you were being a copycat, or being satirical? Which is it? Can't be both.

Are you fucking retarded? You stated "another crappy metaphor" and "whatever that means"

I was showing you that the "crappy metaphor" is proper for most people. Of course when you thought I pulled it out of my ass you were all over it.

The satire was in that it's not even close to be solved. It's like saying "David Ash is in a QB, everyone can relax now, he's got this".

If you cannot come to grips with the fact you've gone down the wrong road, you won't ask for directions and you refuse to turn around, then you can stay lost. Take pictures.

[DMC]

I'm from Missouri. Show me.

What part of Missouri?

[Winehole23]

WH, I tried to read the article, but the link immediately requires a sign-in to the Financial Times website, which I am unwilling to do (I don't want the associated cookies). I wondered if you could give us a mini-account of the gist of the article. The title itself seems self-evident (of course the leaders of this country have let us down), and I am aware that Roubini is generally pessimistic (to put it mildly) about the financial future, but I would actually like to know which things he had in mind when he wrote that title. Can you help?accessible to me through the Real Clear Markets website: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/

the gist is, our political leaders on both sides are too gutless to reform entitlements or raise taxes on the middle class. the recently concluded mini deal threatens to drag the economy to stall speed in the short term, while extending unsustainable tax cuts and fiscal deficits in the near to medium term.

[Winehole23]

my bad, DMC. the frames (e.g., sarcasm/satire) can be hard to perceive online, especially when not funny or particularly apt.

[TeyshaBlue]

WH, I tried to read the article, but the link immediately requires a sign-in to the Financial Times website, which I am unwilling to do (I don't want the associated cookies). I wondered if you could give us a mini-account of the gist of the article. The title itself seems self-evident (of course the leaders of this country have let us down), and I am aware that Roubini is generally pessimistic (to put it mildly) about the financial future, but I would actually like to know which things he had in mind when he wrote that title. Can you help?
I registered with these guys about 6 months ago. I've yet to receive one single related piece of email or adverts. Seems like they hold their data close.

[Drachen]

I registered with these guys about 6 months ago. I've yet to receive one single related piece of email or adverts. Seems like they hold their data close.

I have a separate email account for that sort of stuff. I had to create it to get into yahoo fantasy football leagues so I figured I might as well use it. It is extremely rare that I go over there and actually look at the email but when I do... well... you should see how small they think my (ahem) endowment is.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yeah, me too. I use: [email protected]

[Drachen]

Yeah, me too. I use: [email protected]

Eh, I learned how to drink when I was younger, plus I chew ice, so straws are a detriment to both of those activities.

Edit: so as it turns out I am not very good at cross-threadular conversation, even when I am the subject.

[EVAY]

accessible to me through the Real Clear Markets website: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/

the gist is, our political leaders on both sides are too gutless to reform entitlements or raise taxes on the middle class. the recently concluded mini deal threatens to drag the economy to stall speed in the short term, while extending unsustainable tax cuts and fiscal deficits in the near to medium term.

Well, hard to argue with it, isn't it? I am becoming inured to the embarrassment of being governed by these jerks.

[EVAY]

^^^^^But I will tell you, WH,your input before the last election about insisting on voting third party made me think long and hard....so I wasted my vote on the libertarian ticket. Not that I believe in the Libertarian philosophy about a lot of things, but then I don't believe totally in the platforms of either of the other parties, either. At least I don't mind the libertarian's social values!

Who do you think Roubini voted for? (Can he vote in American elections?)

[TeyshaBlue]

Eh, I learned how to drink when I was younger, plus I chew ice, so straws are a detriment to both of those activities.

Edit: so as it turns out I am not very good at cross-threadular conversation, even when I am the subject.

It was a stretch, admittedly.:lol


+10 Clarity for "Threadular"!

[Drachen]

It was a stretch, admittedly.:lol


+10 Clarity for "Threadular"!

Hey, my vocabulary is just like Apple's slogan. "It just works".

[Borat Sagyidev]

Simple, really. It kills small family businesses and family farms. Put in perspective a 500 acre farm in Iowa is worth 5 million just for the land. Tax that at 55% and you kill it.

Of course, your big financial and insurance companies love the estate tax because it forces people to buy ridiculously expensive life insurance policies as part of estate planning which starves cash flow.

Corporate owned farms provide by the vast majority of food already. I doubt it does much.

[Wild Cobra]

Corporate owned farms provide by the vast majority of food already. I doubt it does much.
Except to the families that I like shopping for my natural foods from.

[boutons_deux]

an economy that's producing some of the highest levels of inequality to be seen in 75 years, and essentially this estate tax deal that was just approved by the Senate and the House and signed by Obama raised the rate of exemption on the estate tax from what would have been from $1 million to $5 million. And if you're married, that's essentially $10 million. That's of relevance only to the top 0.1 percent of the wealth distribution in this country. They also have established a permanent—so-called permanent tax rate on estates at 40 percent, which, if you go back historically, it was 60 percent in 2000, it was 70 to 75 percent in the 1930s.

changes that were made by the Bush administration and then extended by Obama basically have almost made the estate tax go away. I mean, in 2011, the estates tax at the federal level generated a grand total of about $10.6 billion, which is a pittance.

at the top, a group of dynasties that essentially have accumulated enough wealth and influence at the same time being able to have, essentially, enough tax avoidance so that they are effectively able to get representation without taxation. And that's a system that I think undermines democracy.

we did a story when the Wisconsin protests were on—and we'll link to it; we'll put it below this video player—but we looked at just the billionaires of Wisconsin, and if you just went back to the year 2000 level estate taxes, and if those estates were to pay those taxes, you could pay off the entire debt of Wisconsin.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13716-american-dynasties-perpetuated-by-cliff-estate-tax-deal

[boutons_deux]

"Historically, every time we had a recovery, it was after they ended the unemployment extensions."

We're not in historical Kansas anymore, Toto.

Since September, America Has Lost One Government Job For Every Five Private Sector Jobs Created (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/04/1400861/since-september-america-has-lost-one-government-job-for-every-five-private-sector-jobs-created/)

But here’s a statistic that jumped out at me: 89,000 public sector workers lost their jobs in October, November, and December—with most of those losses, 66,000, occurring in October.

Large-scale layoffs of government workers continue across the United States. Such layoffs undermine local economies and stymie the recovery. For every five workers who were hired in the past three months, one was laid off by government.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/04/1400861/since-september-america-has-lost-one-government-job-for-every-five-private-sector-jobs-created/

and

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-frc0NNmMPGA/UObdEiRgG6I/AAAAAAAAXRs/rIHTNbKGOdo/s1600/EmployRecDec2012.jpg

[EVAY]

an economy that's producing some of the highest levels of inequality to be seen in 75 years, and essentially this estate tax deal that was just approved by the Senate and the House and signed by Obama raised the rate of exemption on the estate tax from what would have been from $1 million to $5 million. And if you're married, that's essentially $10 million. That's of relevance only to the top 0.1 percent of the wealth distribution in this country. They also have established a permanent—so-called permanent tax rate on estates at 40 percent, which, if you go back historically, it was 60 percent in 2000, it was 70 to 75 percent in the 1930s.

changes that were made by the Bush administration and then extended by Obama basically have almost made the estate tax go away. I mean, in 2011, the estates tax at the federal level generated a grand total of about $10.6 billion, which is a pittance.

at the top, a group of dynasties that essentially have accumulated enough wealth and influence at the same time being able to have, essentially, enough tax avoidance so that they are effectively able to get representation without taxation. And that's a system that I think undermines democracy.

we did a story when the Wisconsin protests were on—and we'll link to it; we'll put it below this video player—but we looked at just the billionaires of Wisconsin, and if you just went back to the year 2000 level estate taxes, and if those estates were to pay those taxes, you could pay off the entire debt of Wisconsin.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13716-american-dynasties-perpetuated-by-cliff-estate-tax-deal

Part of the above is inaccurate, b-d. The recent deal did NOT increase the level of exemption for estates. It had been at 5M for individuals and 10M for couples since some time during the last Bush administration. There was some TALK of taking it BACK to the levels it was before Clinton, when it was at 1M, and there was also talk of it going to 3.5M for individuals and a 45% to 50% tax rate above that.

So the only thing that happened with the estate tax as a result of this fiscal cliff thing was that the rate over 5M for an individual or 10M for a couple went from 35% to 40% on everything over the exempted portion.

Nothing else about it changed. If you want to look at is as a glass half-full (from your perspective), the rate went up on the non-exempt portion.

If you want to look at it from a glass half-empty (from your perspective), the exemption amount was left UNCHANGED from existing levels.

[boutons_deux]

" Put in perspective a 500 acre farm in Iowa is worth 5 million just for the land. Tax that at 55% and you kill it."

If the inheritors really want to keep farming, they finance the tax bill and keeping farming.

But an inheriting couple gets the first $10M exempt from estate tax, so no problem.