You Can Relax Now, the Fiscal Cliff Has Been Bridged

[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/71.../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 en lements to be cut and there ar emore of them then there are people paying for said en lements. 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 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 ed, 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 . 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 ty 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 but we're stuck in it anyways. the old s 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 s 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 . 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 ty 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 but we're stuck in it anyways. the old s 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 s did because we're celibates

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

[CosmicCowboy]

@ 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 s 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, es!

[DMX7]

John Bonner broke the Hastert Rule.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...9-8-85640.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/...+capitalism%29

what all these corporate gifts will cost:

https://www.jct.gov/publications.htm...rtdown&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.