It's almost as if there was never a cliff!
२ जानेवारी, २०१३
Yes, yes, I know, fiscal cliff jumped back from.
We'd gone off, we were told yesterday, but somehow, from mid-air, we scrambled back. We were Wile E. Coyote out off the cliff, suspended, despite gravity, but unlike Wile E. Coyote, we already knew it, we'd been obsessing and blabbing about it for weeks. Unlike Wile E. Coyote, we didn't stay up because of ignorance of where we were and realization of where we were didn't make us plummet. We were somehow able to get back on the cliff, and it was exactly as if we'd never gone off the cliff.
It's almost as if there was never a cliff!
It's almost as if there was never a cliff!
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५६ टिप्पण्या:
The sound of a can bouncing down the road.
Wonder what's in that can?
There is outrage from NY area leaders over failure to vote on a NY area spending bill.
The outrage seems to be georegional in nature.
Oh, there was a cliff. And the cost for getting back to the edge is that the canyon is now about $4,000,000,000,000 deeper than it was before. (That much money will pay for a LOT of excavation.) But that's okay, because now we have a few more cliff edges to negotiate in coming months! On to sequestration and debt ceilings! Woo AND hoo, bitchez!
Oh, good. Now our grandchildren won't have to pay for all of our spending because the rich are paying their fair share and the budget will be in balance.
Ha! My husband compared the whole thing to Wile E. Coyote, too.
Inga. Inga. Inga.
It looks like President Let-Them- Eat-Cake, just returned to Hawaii on the tax payer dime.
Did I say dime? Not really a dime per say, but a few millions tax payers dollars. Good thing he hiked taxes.
What do you have to say about them apples?
I suggest that for your "country a day" project you make an exception and jump ahead to Greece (or Zimbabwe, or the Weimar section of the Germany entry).
Added: Ryan, the (LOL) radical, caved again. He always votes for big gov't. Loser.
I think of it more like we're diving out of a plane without a parachute and we're quibbling about which time of pillow to use. So we were able to agree on a moderately fluffy pillow I guess.
It's good to see the tax code get stabilized but there was no real fiscal improvement in this bill our annual debt dwarfs the revenue acquired by tax increases. What this proves is spending cuts are politically untenable, so were in trouble although it might not be so clearly defined as a "cliff". The looming fiscal disaster is the retirement of the baby boomers with too few workers around to support them. Add to that the large number of able bodied adults who won't work or can't find work and we have a huge growing dependent class supported by a shrinking productive class. Finally to top it off we add in all the excess spending over the years that have accrued debt to surreal proportions. I can't see any signs of leadership on this from any politician of any party because the reality of long term fiscal irresponsibility is unpopular.
Given all this I can't see how we'll avoid the real down turn.
So Obama, Harry Reid, and Pelosi are crowing about preserving the Bush Tax cuts (they were for the rich!) for the "middle class" that they spent 8 years denouncing.
Happy New Year!
Hey remember when Obama, said the Bush Tax cuts caused the recession?
I do too.
So why is he bragging about keeping them in place?
In a sane country the voters would have sent in Jules to talk to Congress.
Jules [ after shooting some lobbyist]: I'm sorry, did I break your concentration? I didn't mean to do that. Please, continue, you were saying something about best intentions. What's the matter? Oh, you were finished! Well, allow me to retort. What does the American public look like?
Congress: What?
Jules: What country are you from?
Congress: What? What? Wh - ?
Jules: "What" ain't no country I've ever heard of. They speak English in What?
Congress: What?
Jules: English, motherfucker, do you speak it?
Congress: Yes! Yes!
Jules: Then you know what I'm sayin'!
Congress: Yes!
Jules: Describe what the American public looks like!
Congress: What?
Jules: Say 'what' again. Say 'what' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say what one more Goddamn time!
Of course, the reality is that the American public is a bitch, and gets fucked like a bitch all the time by our ruling class.
I have a corollary to "If something can't go on forever, it won't". It's "It can go on for much longer than you ever thought it would."
Likely this deficit spending will continue (and grow), inflation will kick in, even if the Fed grows a pair (unlikely) and stops "quantitative easing" the Treasury will start minting trillion dollar coins and placing them on deposit at the fed to keep funding the spending.
A better metaphor would have been a road tunnel except it's just black paint.
So, now that the rich are paying their fair share, increasing taxes on anyone else would be unfair?
So what? It was all about political point-scoring anyway. Who won? Who cares. Our Leaders nibbled away at the edge of the problem but made sure they wouldn't be held responsible for taking away anyone's goodies. Meanwhile, the real problem remains and grows: Debt, debt, endless unrepayable debt. Hooray, we took care of 5% of this year's increase in the debt. Let's celebrate, and hand out more goodies.
Nope, never was a cliff. It's an artificial creation, a media friendy phrase that's served its purpose of getting lots of politicians' names in the news.
Hey remember when Obama, said the Bush Tax cuts caused the recession?
I do too.
And guess what? He'll be blaming them for the next recession too! And the majority will believe him!
Why? Because he has no effective opposition.
Kabuki.
I almost feel like we're Groundhogging that Murphy Brown eppy where she testified in front of Congress & they showed the sausage making.
Added: Ryan, the (LOL) radical, caved again. He always votes for big gov't. Loser.
I don't know much about Ryan, and the media didn't cover him much during the prez campaign. But he didn't deliver Wisconsin in the election, and I would guess his blue consitutents want him to make the comfortable choice over the necessary one. He may have good ideas, but they are not seeing the light of day, and his constituency is forcing him to go along to get along. So far he's not a real game-changer in my book.
The fiscal cliff is simply the latest example of congress's manipulation of the fact the most people keep forgetting that today's congress can't make tomorrow's congress do anything.
Ripley: These people are here to protect you. They're soldiers.
Newt: It won't make any difference.
--Aliens (1986)
"It can go on for much longer than you ever thought it would."
This is true, bpm. The third part is: it will end so suddenly.
The US is now the largest sub-prime mortgage ever given.
John Adams quotes:
The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.
All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
At least we don't have to hear about the "Bush Tax Cuts" anymore other than use it in sport to make liberals' heads explode.
Bad then, good now, what changed?
Weren't the increased revenues from the higher tax rates on the rich spent by midday yesterday?
98% of the Bush TAX Cuts are good enough for the leftwing liar cabal that runs our inept government.
The over-taxed are now over-taxed even more and it will do NOTHING to create jobs, and it will do NOTHING to lower the deficit.
This is why libertarians were idiots to vote 3rd party this last go around. Whether you think Romney is the same as Obama (which is ludicrous by the way) the dynamic of having a president who leans conservative and the House controlled by republicans is a lot different than having Obama controlling the White House and republicans being held over a barrel on the tax argument.
We just put a dab of Neosporin on the gangrene. Maybe it will hold off long enough to get to another doctor?
We're under Obamacare. Hope we personally know a specialist to get seen ASAP, GP's are a dying breed.
And don't think if you have an appointment for something else that you can talk about the gangrene, you'll need to make another appt.
Bungee jumping the fiscal cliff.
Cheers
Obama vows more tax increases because we can't cut our way to prosperity?
What an interesting experiment.
You don't notice that the elevator cable has been cut until you hit the basement.
The Speaker of the House telling the Senate Majority leader to go perform a sexual act on himself says a lot about where we stand and what we can expect for the next two years.
This is not going to end well.
Lib/Dems are shameless (like that TV show). There is nothing you can say to them about what the say or do that will cause them to slink away in shame - nothing.
The one great thing the Lib/Dems have learned is, playing by the rules gets you nowhere. Every victory is a victory, regardless of the method.
The GOP is full of inept, whiny little spoiled children, and they're certainly not the white knight come to save the nation.
Cheers
Wile E. always managed to survive his cliff falls. He would subsequently get knocked out by the anvil that fell on his head.
Now we're just waiting for the anvil.
It will end. It's gonna suck. But it will end.
Revenues have been goosed by the talk of the fiscal cliff & the option of converting IRAs to Roths.
A little upside from John Hinderacker with a positive take on the cliff deal. :
“It will soon become apparent that the fiscal cliff deal, including precisely the tax increases that Obama has been demanding for four years, makes hardly a dent in the deficit. At best, it will reduce the deficit by five or six percent. We will continue to run up deficits of close to $1 trillion a year, and the national debt will continue to grow, as Obama has always intended. This fact can’t be hidden; it will be reported. . . . All of this is another way of saying that, with the Democrats’ BS about raising taxes on the rich out of the way, we can have a rational debate about the country’s fiscal future. And that is a debate the GOP can win, as most voters continue to believe that it is better to cut spending than to raise taxes on them.”
I agree with this, and this is why I think we shouldn't punish repubs for raising taxes on people above 400,000. First of, a lot of rich people voted for Obsma and frankly I WANT those rich people to suffer the effects of putting their money where their mouth is.
But secondly, until the taxes are raised the dems can always make the argument that the rich aren't paying their fair share and that its a revenue problem and not a spending problem that is causing our issues.
NOw taxes can be raised and republicans can point out how raising those taxes didn't even make a dent on the deficit, but that we are still bspending far more than we take in.
So now that we got the demagoguery and fake solutions out of the way, lets address the real problem and that is spending.
Democrats have already said that entitlement spending is off the table. So what are their other solutions?
Plus, saying you want higher taxes is a lot different than paying those higher taxes.
Plus, we get the added bonus of democrats who previously argued that the Bush tax cuts were wrecking the economy now have to be preserved for 99% of the population. See, it wasn't really just tax cuts for the rich after all. Was it?
By the way dems, if you REALLY want to raise revenue, you're going to have to raise taxes on the middle class and people making under 250,000. Are you prepared to go there? We ARE talking about govt programs that need to be funded. Think of the children! (Though in fairness, even if you raised taxes on this portion of the population you STILL wouldn't be able fund govt bloat).
Whose prosperity is the question.
So GS gets their NYC headquarters basically tax-free, eh?
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.
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/eight-corporate-subsidies-in-the-fiscal-cliff-bill-from-goldman-sachs-to-disney-to-nascar.html#9Jf4piw63lh4t5xR.99
The Congressional Budget Office pins this new law as having 44:1 spending increases versus tax cuts. It will ADD $7.9 trillion tot he current $16 trillion deficit. And it does not address the $222 trillion shortfall in Social Security, Medicare and Medicare Drug Plan. Nor does it address the $64 trillion unfunded federal pension liability.
It does do one thing, though. It stabilizes the tax revenue side of the equation. The administration and the Democrats now have the tax plan they wanted and agreed to. It defines the revenue stream.
The federal government operates on a series of continuing spending resolutions, since Harry Reid has not introduced an annual budget in nearly five years. The next round of continuing resolutions will happen in February 2013.
The bill passed yesterday defines the revenue stream; the next round of negotiations will define the amount of spending, and that is where the larger problem lies, and where the larger battles will be fought.
There will be turmoil in the Republican ranks before February. A new Congress will be sworn in during January. Look for new leaders, Boehner may be gone, possibly Cantor a well.
Paul Ryan will play a larger and much more public role, as he is the Chair of the House Budget Committee. No one knows the budget better than Paul Ryan, and no one is more articulate in explaining the cuts that must be made, why they need to be made, and what will happen if they aren't made.
When you don't have a job, exactly where is this "revenue stream" coming from?
Ohhh, I wonder if the new Obamacare taxes will actually show up in health care or will they divert those as well?
Like the $63 head tax.
Obama personally caused this,
and the Republicans are not the only ones with hurt feelings.
Harry Reid can't be happy about Obama sidelining him and taking over "the negotiations" himself and sending in Joe Biden as his mouthpiece.
This is traditonal Chicago politics maybe, but I am sure the Majority Leader's office will manage to get even somewhere along the line.
The charts are scary, DBQ.
The FL did say WE'D have to do more with less.
She never said she would or DC would.
That Boehner and Ryan voted "aye" does not mean they were for this; it just says in the footnotes of Robert's Rules of Order that in their positions, they are supposed to do that in this kind of situation.
And no, I don't think either of them will be gone in the new Congress; far from it!
It's just that the cliff is a little higher now.
I think the better analogy is that the fiscal cliff was Lois Lane falling out a window. You know what happens next.
jr.... I agree. But the Republicans have a problem. They just got their arses whupped and everybody knows it. Even though they are the majority in the House, they are fractured, in a way I'm not sure I've seen in my lifetime in regard to either party. What they need to do is come back in the new session and draft a bill proposing immediate cut to many areas of spending. including specific entities within the structure of the Federal Government. Name names. And those cuts have to be felt by the special interests on both sides of the isle.
The problem is, the Republicans, instead of doing that, are almost certainly going to spend the next six months finger-pointing and tearing themselves apart instead of getting over this defeat and getting back in the game.
Jay said...
Hey remember when Obama, said the Bush Tax cuts caused the recession?
I do too.
So why is he bragging about keeping them in place?
Because they're causing a recession.
Never let a crisis go to waste. Especially if you can keep that crises going.
I think that there is going to be a bit of Obama declaring Congress dysfunctional and "forcing him" to act unilaterally by executive power, going forward.
Hollywood, Of course got their tax cuts.
Why? we should start asking people in Hollywood whether they agree with taxes going down for Hollywood. At every movie junket and every time someone in Hollywood is at a press conference. Ask if they, the 1% think its fair that they don't have to pay their fair share?
Seriously. Breitbarters get on the cae. For those that are not Breitbarters, become Breitbarters.
People are going to be in for a rude shock once they realize that their take home pay is going down - think Social Security payroll tax holiday expiring, and Obamacare changes kicking in. I believe that Republicans should have just given Obama and Reid everything they wanted, and offer up a limit on state and local tax deductions. Let the people in New York and California that voted for Obama pay their fare share on local taxes, instead the rest of us paying for it. With the SS payroll tax going back up AND having limits on flex spending accounts AND the medical expense deduction floor going from 7.5% to 10%, I have to find around $300 per month out of my budget to cover the new taxes.
I remember Obama saying we needed the Affordable Care Act in order for middle class families to NOT go bankrupt because of high medical expenses from chronic or catastrophic illnesses. But one of the larger “revenue” items in Obamacare hits those families that have high medical expenses because of severe illnesses. Even though I have great insurance (and I’ve changed jobs before just to keep good insurance), when you have to use it a lot, you can still have $8 to $10K per year in copays and deductibles, not even including the $300 more per month I pay to get the better insurance plan. There are going to be a lot of middle class families declaring bankruptcy by the end of the year or early next year because of Obamacare. Isn’t it great that I have to pay one or two thousand more in taxes per year so someone can have their free birth control pills.
I would like someone on the Democratic side explain to me how this makes sense – someone gets free birth control, while I may have to tell my wife, sorry, we can’t afford the co-pay this month for one of your medications (nerve pain management or bladder control medicine or controlling tremors). Sorry for the rant, but when you have to figure out how to cough up another $3 or $4 K per year from an already tight household budget, you might get a little steamed as well.
Half the tax increases go for more spending and we go through this again in March.
At some point, there's going to be a vote of no confidence.
Some frog wrote:
jr.... I agree. But the Republicans have a problem. They just got their arses whupped and everybody knows it. Even though they are the majority in the House, they are fractured, in a way I'm not sure I've seen in my lifetime in regard to either party. What they need to do is come back in the new session and draft a bill proposing immediate cut to many areas of spending. including specific entities within the structure of the Federal Government. Name names. And those cuts have to be felt by the special interests on both sides of the isle.
true, and I was just watching Byron York on one of the news shows saying that he had spoken to repubs prior to this current fiscal cliff deal saying they had a losing hand on taxes, but had a much stronger hand on spending. S at the NEXT fiscal cliff deal they believe they have a lot more leverage and think they can get spending cuts when it comes to the question of raising the debt ceiling.
But I blame a lot of this on libertarians. WHY do they have such a losing hand? because they don't control the White House.
Now think of all the libertarians who voted for Gary Johnson saying that Mitt Romney was the same as Obama.
I can guarantee you that if Mitt Romney controlled the White House there wouldn't be the same outcome. Not only wouldn't he have pushed the tax hikes on the top 2%, republicans wouldn't have had to cave on people earning more than 400,000. And it would have been a lot easier getting spending cuts passed. There would barely be a debate about it except in the Senate.
Now, I will agree that if the millions voting for Johnson instead voted for Romney, it probably wouldn't hVe shifted the results of the election.
but it just shows that a good chunk of people supposedly on the cut govt side do not understand the dynamic and are out tilting at windmills.
Now they're going to come back and say that this means we need to do away with the Republican Party. I think it might mean instead that we stop listening to libertarians since they are fundamentally unreliable.
Remember, Obama’s first offer was for a $1.6 trillion tax hike and an infinite debt limit hike. Boehner countered with $800 billion. The final deal was for only $600 billion.
How is that not a “win” for Republicans?
41:1 tax to cut ratio maybe?
Seeing Red said...
We're under Obamacare ... And don't think if you have an appointment for something else that you can talk about the gangrene, you'll need to make another appt.
Those of us already on Medicare know that once you are in a specialists office what you say is exactly the case. It is a mind boggling system of redundancy of record keeping alone, and duplicated tests.
The old time Internists, now usually primary care providers, are soon to be a thing of the past. Mine is the same age as I am and I am, selfishly, hoping he does not retire. He doesn't want to, but the impact of Obamacare may force him to do so.
We are so fucked. We didn't fall of a cliff yesterday, we frigging well threw ourselves off it....and we call that a solution?
What the hell...if a "penalty" can become a "tax" in the mind of a feeble jurist, then why not, eh?
Michael Haz said...
The Congressional Budget Office pins this new law as having 44:1 spending increases versus tax cuts.
If 44:1 is a cure, I want every dollar I have to be worth $44. Everything Michael Haz said fits my outlook to a tee. So I can end my epistle here and now.
With the cliff avoided, the top of the first inning is now over.
The game continues with the debt ceiling and the sequester in a few weeks. Unfortunately, the congeniality and cooperation that characterized the fiscal cliff negotiations will be conspicuously absent in the later innings.
rehajm said ...
The game continues with the debt ceiling and the sequester ...
Maybe. What would prevent the Administration, Obama himself, from declaring the debt ceiling his prerogative to raise unilaterally? What would prevent him from ignoring the sequester as he sees fit?
Answer: Nothing. No one.
Ahh, for the days of Ross Perot and his $2-in-spending-for-every-$1-in-tax chart.
Good times, good times.
I think that document put together by the dead old white slave owners.
Of course, what's wrong with 1 person having all the power?
It worked so well for thousands of years. RME
Loki: I said kneel! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.
Seeing Red said...
I think that document put together by the dead old white slave owners.
Ha ha. :-)) Pieces of paper do not enforce anything. That document supported the Affordable Care Act because a semantically challenged and gutless jurist redefined the fundamental meaning of a word....and said the paper thingee made him do it.
Now who, specially, will act to prevent a unilateral debt ceiling increase?
Answer: The same people who have assured us a Congressional Budget annually. IOW...NO ONE.
Sequester? (Pardon my hilarious laughter) Under Continuing Resolutions...what sequester? Executive Branch agencies have authority to spend 95% of last year's expenditures without Congressional oversight. It is a delightfully self-perpetuating machination. How many years are required for it to be default precedent law?
Hmmm, what is Wall Street's reaction? Dow surging 230 points.
Paul Ryan will play a larger and much more public role, as he is the Chair of the House Budget Committee. No one knows the budget better than Paul Ryan, and no one is more articulate in explaining the cuts that must be made, why they need to be made, and what will happen if they aren't made.
Haz, since I assume you are a WI resident, you know Ryan a lot better than I do. But Ryan hasn't successfully made the case yet. It's time for him to make something happen rather than rely on his supporters to vouch for his abilities. They are not obvious to the nation at large.
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.”
That Boehner and Ryan voted "aye" does not mean they were for this; it just says in the footnotes of Robert's Rules of Order that in their positions, they are supposed to do that in this kind of situation.
That don't make no sense.
Actually this might be a republican victory.
MORE: Was the left taken to the cleaners? “The Democrats have made the Bush tax rates permanent for 98 percent of the public, which Republicans couldn’t even do when they controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency.”
Thanks George Bush! Thanks lefties and Obama for showing that the Bush tax cuts were something that needed to be preserved. And thanks for showing that raising taxes on the top earners will bring in almost no revenue (this will be shown later).
Yes, it doesn't address the real issue which is spending, but the dems can no longer use taxes to he that issue hostsage.
Fine, we've now raised taxes on the evil rich, now what are you going to do about the deficit, since clearly these taxes ain't going to pay for them.
And from Conn Carrol:
Remember, Obama’s first offer was for a $1.6 trillion tax hike and an infinite debt limit hike. Boehner countered with $800 billion. The final deal was for only $600 billion.
How is that not a “win” for Republicans?
So what are the benefits of running your household debt at 44-1?
Hope you don't lose your job.
Inga, the Dow surging or falling after an event almost always represents the reaction of the individual, i.e. low information, investor. The fallingafter the election meant nothing more than individual despair. The Dow "surging" today means nothing more than individual relief.
Remember, stock prices are nothing more than the price of the last share sold/bought. The stock doesn't know the knowledge of the person selling/buying it.
"This does not worry the looters of the moment. Their plan -- like all the plans of all the royal looters of the past -- is only that the loot shall last their lifetime. It has always lasted before, because in one generation they could not run out of victims. But this time -- it will not last."
John Galt, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, 1957.
Less the fact that market volume is down 20% is it?
Is is more people or computer?
And if the low information voter thinks this agreement does the trick, well, they just might be surprised down the road.
Hmmm, what is Wall Street's reaction? Dow surging 230 points.
I thought Democrats hated Wall Street and the investor class. Now, they're the bellwethers for economic success?
Let's see how this shakes out on Main Street, where people have left the workforce in droves since 2008.
Thanks seeing red,
Market volume down suggests individual rather than institutional trading. The "smart money" almost always trades before the event.
A positive market bounce could be due to the fact that the tax increases weren't as bad as originally feared.
And as all the ratings agencies will tell you, anything that adds stability and removes ambiguity from the market is considered positive.
A friend's son just lost his job because of low trade volume.
There is no budget, therefore there is no fiscal cliff. There is only a progressive devaluation of capital and labor. However, as there are mitigating circumstances, it's not obvious when the consequences will be fully realized.
Inga said...
Hmmm, what is Wall Street's reaction? Dow surging 230 points.
Means very little, really.
They just wanted a deal, any deal. If you follow the markets, you know that since September '08, the Dow has been jumping at every headline, no matter how ephemeral.
jr565 said...
And from Conn Carrol:
Remember, Obama’s first offer was for a $1.6 trillion tax hike and an infinite debt limit hike. Boehner countered with $800 billion. The final deal was for only $600 billion.
How is that not a “win” for Republicans?
Barry blinked rather badly on the $250,000 limit and almost screwed the whole thing with his incessant, "I won", but, as there are no spending cuts, no entitlement reform, and we go through this again in 2 months, as far as wins go, it's like kissing Oop.
Let's see how this shakes out on Main Street, where people have left the workforce in droves since 2008.
Why is it that we're not hearing anything about the unemployment rate anymore? It was the single most important talking point during the election and now...new normal?
Scott M said...
Let's see how this shakes out on Main Street, where people have left the workforce in droves since 2008.
Why is it that we're not hearing anything about the unemployment rate anymore? It was the single most important talking point during the election and now...new normal?
Unemployment is no longer important. Now you just collect umem bene's for a few years, pickup your food stamps and your Obamaphone, and wait for your permanent disability to kick in. This is the Zero American Dream.
The Dow is up because the tax uncertainty is over for the moment. Also the level at 400k versus the 200k level that Obama shreiked about for two years is a victory for the Republicans. Inga and her cohorts blamed the bad economy on the evil Bush tax cuts for the last six or eight years. They have now been made permanent. And the Dems made it happen. Insisted on it.
@phx,
The leaders made the deal behind closed doors. Their votes were not required for passage, but they are telling the troops they accept responsibility.
A very interesting article on how this used up all of the ammo that the left had in the coming year, at link below.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336709/left-and-cliff-yuval-levin#
When I was 12 years old, I went skating with another boy on a bay of Lake Mjøsa. There was an inch or two of snow over the ice, so I did not hear it cracking under me until it broke and I went under. I still vividly remember looking up and seeing the hole in the ice where I went through and everything else dark green around me.
Well, I could not swim yet (it's a long story), but I dog-paddled myself up, and fortunately having just read an article on what to do in such cases, managed to pull myself onto the ice again, and got to shore, no thanks to the other boy, undoubtedly a future Liberal Democrat, who just stood there helpless and crying his heart out.
Obama, lickspittle to the 1%, has fucked us again.
Actually, they brought back the Pease Amendment so those at the $300K level start getting clipped.
I wish they had removed the deductibility of state & property taxes, but that's me.
The leaders made the deal behind closed doors. Their votes were not required for passage, but they are telling the troops they accept responsibility.
Yes, that's how I understand it.
We're going to do more with less. DC or The King, however, they will party like it's 1999.
Notice how no one suggests standing with the proles? We suffer so they suffer?
They'll take & take & take until the world refuses to buy more US debt or there's nothing left.
Keep an eye out for rumblings for 401Ks. The opening salvo might have been this transfer to Roths.
Or they'll directly let all that cash sitting in the 401ks be backed by the full faith & credit of the US Treasury and free the investment banks from the requirement of holding cash.
Good times ahead.
Zero interest rates, inflation, letting the banks play with our money in them while not lending us anything.
ZIRP all around!
I find it near hilarious that anyone anywhere is calling a 44:1 tax increase versus expenditure cuts a success.
When was the last time any significant financial or socially concerned act by Congress done anywhere but behind closed doors and in secret?
Financial sodomy of the populace is now the norm for our leaders in Washington.
Does this now mean you are no longer a millionaireandbillionaire if you only make 300 k per year?
edutcher wrote:
Barry blinked rather badly on the $250,000 limit and almost screwed the whole thing with his incessant, "I won", but, as there are no spending cuts, no entitlement reform, and we go through this again in 2 months, as far as wins go, it's like kissing Oop.
But only if you assume that we needed to resolve all of these issues right now in one big bundle.
There is some merit in having the tax issue resolved, so that we can now address the spending. And because they kicked the can down the road they will now have to address things like the debt ceiling in only a few short months. So, republicans can actually fight for cuts then.
Plus they can make the argument that they gave some concessions on taxes, why can't the dems give consessions on spending?
Part of the problem with the republicans is that Obama and the media has been pegging them as the intractable ones, when really it's the dems. Because some repubs didn't back Boehner's plan B dems could argue "see, its the republicans who are being unreasonable they wont even back their speaker". Now dems can't make that argument any more.
Taxes will go up, but there is also a lesson to be learned there. We get to see the results of taxes going up.
For rich people who voted for Obama I hope it hurts really good. For middle class people relying on rich people for jobs, it may hurt really good. But sometimes the lessons best learned are the ones that cause you suffering.
Via Vodkapundit:
That’s President Obama, speaking of his “balanced approach” of tax hikes coupled to not a goddamn thing. But does he think we can tax our way to prosperity? Apparently:
President Obama this morning pocketed the Republican concessions on tax hikes included in the Fiscal Cliff deal and promised that it was only the beginning of new taxation to be assessed on the American people.
That’s Keith Koffler. Here’s Jim Pethokoukis:
So adding it all up, it would seem the president’s second term goal is for roughly $2 trillion in new taxes. We’re only one-third of the way there.
--------------
I don't think this includes the Obmamcare taxes.
Now nurses will be able to dispense birth control in some areas & SF has primary dr. shortage so nurses will be able to handle more general diagnoses, I think if I read it correctly.
Well, I have never gone skating on snow-covered ice again.
دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا
Dude, few if any here read hillbilly Iraqi Arabic. I'm familiar with it because I live among Iraqis locally...and I've been involved with Iraqi affairs since early 2002 by virtue of participation, at the time, in Life for Relief and Development.
So...What the fuck is your point? Other than SPAM that is?
Inga said...
Hmmm, what is Wall Street's reaction? Dow surging 230 points.
is the reaction to the Bush middle class tax cut extension or the Obama tax hike on thousandaires idiot?
•Return of the exemption and itemized deduction phase-outs on taxpayers with income over $300,000 (joint) and $250,000 (single).
Inga said...
Hmmm, what is Wall Street's reaction? Dow surging 230 points.
Which has nothing to do with the "fiscal cliff"
Mankiew today:
The fiscal deal struck last night makes one thing clear: President Obama must have really hated the recommendations of the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission that he appointed. The commission said that we needed to reform entitlement programs to rein in spending and that increased tax revenue should come in the form of base broadening and lower marginal tax rates. The deal appears to offer no entitlement reforms, no tax reform, and higher marginal tax rates. After all the public discussion over the past couple years of what a good fiscal reform would like like, it is hard to imagine a deal that would be less responsive to the ideas of bipartisan policy wonks.
Obama:
I want to make clear that any agreement we have to deal with these automatic spending cuts that are being threatened for next month, those also have to be balanced, because, remember, my principle always has been let’s do things in a balanced, responsible way.
Wake me up when Barry offers $2 trillion in spending cuts concurrently with tax increases.
Spending cuts will always be "later."
See 1986 Tax Reform.
Which led us into Perot's charts for the 1992 election.
Inga said...
Hmmm, what is Wall Street's reaction? Dow surging 230 points.
Hysterical.
I love when you silly, ignorant leftists pretend "the Dow" is indicative of the economy.
Hey, remember how those evil Wall Street people caused the recession?
Coherence much?
How is that not a “win” for Republicans?
Um, because it increases federal spending and adds to the debt.
What a silly question.
Dow surges 230 points on news of Hugo Chavez coma.
jr565 (quoting Powerline)...
...with the Democrats' BS about raising taxes on the rich out of the way, we can have a rational debate about the country's fiscal future.
Do you seriously believe the Democrats or their water carriers in the MSM will ALLOW a rational debate about anything, never mind something as vital as the country's fiscal future? We are in a moment when the Democrats must be opposed, frontally, at the cost of ones political career if that is the price. A price the current leadership of the Republican Party is clearly not willing to pay. Barring an internal Tea Party coup the Republicans are and will remain in non-opposition to the Democrat, read marxist, agenda.
From Yuval's link, posted earlier (suggesting that this in fact neuters the left):
They wanted about $1.6 trillion in revenue — a trillion from rate increases and $600 billion from the elimination of deductions. They wanted $400 billion in exactly the wrong kind of Medicare cuts — provider cuts that not only make the health-care system less efficient but also tend to increase spending in the long run due to increases in the volume of services — to blunt Republican criticism of Obamacare and to make real (if incremental) structural reform far more difficult. And they wanted control of the debt ceiling, so Republicans would never have that leverage again. That would not only have given them relatively significant new revenue, it would also have strengthened their hand to get even more later.
But that hasn’t happened here. This deal is projected to yield $620 billion in revenue over a decade — increasing projected federal revenue by about 1.7 percent over that time. And that’s about it. The Democrats have made the Bush tax rates permanent for 98 percent of the public, which Republicans couldn’t even do when they controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. They did not get to pick and throw away the low-hanging fruit that could be used in future rate-reducing tax reform (in fact, they retained some “extenders” of tax credits and deductions that could better enable such reform, and the new and more honest CBO baseline that results from this deal eases the way for it), they did not get to claim that they have reformed Medicare without touching its structure, and they now have to move immediately into a debt ceiling fight. Right after a tax-only deal, and just as people start to notice higher payroll taxes, they’re not in a great position to demand more rate increases in that fight, or others to come.
If even under the conditions of the past month — with a very liberal president just re-elected, Republicans in disarray, public opinion on taxes seemingly friendlier to them than it has been in decades, and higher tax rates automatically taking effect — the Democrats can’t get more than a tiny pittance of revenue and no chips to use later, then their basic approach to fiscal issues just won’t work. The idea that they will raise rates again in the Obama years when they don’t have all these factors working in their favor is a fantasy. And the notion that the politics of taxes has decisively changed in their favor has been disproven by their own behavior: Many Democratic senators were as relieved as Republicans to see the threshold for higher rates rise well above $250,000, and would not have stood for it dropping below that level to where their upper middle class voters are. Having discovered an effective political wedge in the tax debate, the Democrats have now basically used it up and gotten awfully little in return. They can’t begin to acknowledge that the levels of spending they want to sustain will require a far greater tax burden on far more people (and in a far more regressive way) than today’s code, and if they can’t even state what they want out loud then they’re not likely to get it. Their bluff has been called. The welfare state they want to retain and expand cannot be funded, and they apparently have no way to do anything about that.
That's about right. And now they can't use the tax the rich argument to avoid dealing with spending.
Lets not expect that all battles be solved with a single bill. This was the first battle. It did cause taxes to go up and not decrease spending, but nowhere near as badly as it could have and it sets up another debate we're going to have to have a few months from now where we do address the spending.
Or can have the repubs peg dems as the party that refuses to cut spending.
Dow surges 230 points on news of Hugo Chavez coma.
I feel sorry for Sean Penn. He must be in mourning right about now.
Via Drudge:
Senators Got 154-Page 'Fiscal Cliff' Bill 3 Minutes Before Voting on It
Guess they had to vote on it to find out what was in it.
Shelving the Sandy relief funds turned out to be an awesome choice by the House GOP. The clown car rolls on.
Garage. Was glad to see Alaska got in on the Sandy relief dough. You must be proud.
Now dividends and long-term capital gains will be taxed at 20%, instead of 15%.
So Warren Buffet's secretary is going to pay federal taxes at the same rate as Buffett.
The working rich are getting a big tax hike between this and the new 2.35% Medicare part A tax, from 1.45%, on all earned income above 250,000.
Mccullough. Capital gains tax collections will decline. As a voluntary tax most will hang on for a better day to elect to pay. Many dividending companies paid 2013 anticipated dividends in 2012 so those collections will disappoint as well
"Hmmm, what is Wall Street's reaction? Dow surging 230 points."
When inflation is likely--or as now, a dead certainty--the stock market rises. Every other investment is a guaranteed loser.
Hey Garage,
Didn't the House vote on legislation passed by the Senate? How were they going to modify Hurricane Sandy funding when they did not have a chance to add amendments and sent it to Conference?
Yes indeed, the clown car is in the Garage and rolling on!
McCullough, you forgot the 2.3% that was going into effect on 1/1/2013 that was passed in the Obamacare legislation. Make that 23.8%!
What's even better about those dividends is how many companies borrowed money at 0% to pay them in 2012?
So how long do we think Bernake can keep pumping is it $80 BILLION a month into the economy?
So when do they start collecting the $63 head tax for Obamacare?
Shelving the Sandy relief funds turned out to be an awesome choice by the House GOP. The clown car rolls on.
Well, they also prudently overturned the pay hikes, so let's call it even.
Michael,
The Republicans won big on dividends. Obama wanted to raise them to ordinary income rates. That's why they had the special payouts. Republicans also won on capital gains. Reagan lowered the top rate to 28% on cap gains and Clinton lowered them to 20%, where they are now. (Although there is also now a 3.8% increase on invest income above 250,000 a year from Obamacare, so wealthy investors will be paying 23.8%).
So investors are protected. The only ones who were fucked are the working rich. The ones who live in New York or California will be paying marginal rates above 50%. The Yankees will never win another World Series.
The only ones who were fucked are the working rich.
I have no problem with celebs being fucked over. They want to pay, they beg to pay.
Mccullough. I agree that these are wins for Republicans under the circumstance. The collections will, as warned, disappoint the Dems. Greatly disappoint I predict.
The only ones who were fucked are the working rich
I'm sure they'll be okay.
Hmmm, what is Wall Street's reaction? Dow surging 230 points.
Difficult to say with certainty what the cause of any rally is. Though I'd make the case a dividend rate of 20% instead of 39.5% could have something to do with it, but...
I'd argue today is more of a reaction to Japan's decision to print Yen at an unprecedented pace. Unprecedented for the Yen, anyways. They're pretty much just aping the US Fed. Today, European markets moved more than those in the US. Is that because they are more sensitive to changes in US fiscal policy? Not likely...
garage mahal said...
The only ones who were fucked are the working rich
I'm sure they'll be okay.
Taxes are funny, though. Who pays a tax and who bears the burden of a tax are often quite different. The burden of higher marginal rates on the working rich won't be borne exclusively by the working rich.
Garage. The working rich will indeed be OK. But those who work in industries that benefit from the spending of the rich might not be. The shortened vacation might amuse and satisfy you but the waiter or housekeeper who counted on those extra days of tips and salary might not find it funny. The problem with class warfare is that the poor always get screwed. And the so-called defenders of the poor do not give one shit about it.
Michael,
The amount projected in tax revenue, about $60 billion a year, is trivial, even if they dont raise even this much. This is pure symbolism for Obama, as are any of his achievements.
Obama campaigned mostly on demagoguing the investor class like Romney (he did demagogue some CEOs as well, but not the barely literate actors, athletes, and rappers who supported him). The investor class are the ones whose effective tax rates are lower than Buffet's secretary. And now they equal Buffet's secretary's effective tax rate, at best.
Obama is a fortunate politician because his supporters are barely literate. They think this is a victory. Ignorance is rewarded again.
Uh, oh, did the definition of "full-time employee" change?
Via Insty from the paper of record about an new IRS interpretation of Obamacare:
...The new rules apply to employers that have at least 50 full-time employees or an equivalent combination of full-time and part-time employees. A full-time employee is a person employed on average at least 30 hours a week. And 100 half-time employees are considered equivalent to 50 full-time employees.
Thus, the government said, an employer will be subject to the new requirement if it has 40 full-time employees working 30 hours a week and 20 half-time employees working 15 hours a week....
LOLOLOL So I can see another 1 full-timer or 2 part-timers being let go.
But those who work in industries that benefit from the spending of the rich might not be
Something tells me the uber rich dumping hundreds of millions into the election weren't doing it on behalf of the poor.
HOT DIGGITY DAMN - Where's my tax credit?
mcullogh wrote:
So investors are protected. The only ones who were fucked are the working rich. The ones who live in New York or California will be paying marginal rates above 50%. The Yankees will never win another World Series.
California and New York are blue states. So, f em if they pay more in taxes (I actually live in NY, but I don't earn 400,000 a year).
Just heard rumor that Boehner will resign tonight at 5 PM.
and anything that drives rich people from California and shows that it' unsustainable as an economy works for me. Make the tax rate even higher. LImit all deductions, but make sure it applies to Hollywood. Then make sure that the carbon taxes go into effect and also the taxes that Californians voted into law already.
Coup led by Eric Cantor?
garage mahal said...
Shelving the Sandy relief funds turned out to be an awesome choice by the House GOP.
The majority of the funds in that bill have nothing to do with hurricane relief.
Oh, and FEMA already has about $7.8 billion in an emergency relief fund.
You fat idiot.
The majority of the funds in that bill have nothing to do with hurricane relief.
If that were true you would have linked it. But you're a bootlicking hack, so no surprise.
You could link it, GM, and prove him wrong.
Via ZeroHedge:
We already knew that the US crossed the debt ceiling on New Year's day. It is, however, one thing to read a Geithner press release, it is another to see America's ridiculous debt it in action. So here it is, courtesy of TreasuryDirect, in all its debt ceiling glory: $16,432,730,050,569.12, with the debt subject to the ceiling at the limit of $16.394 trillion.
And with that we can close the books on the first quarter of Fiscal 2013, in which US public debt grew by $366 billion, some $122 billion per month on average.
------------
So how is spending 103% of income sustainable again?
Why is this good?
Total Debt: $16,432,730,050,569.12; Debt To GDP: 103%
In the spirit of the bipartisan compromise that just fucked the intermediate and longterm future of The United State's economy, and in the spirit of the new year, I offer this olive branch and good tidings to Garage and Inga.
From your beloved New York Times, this is excellent news for both of you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html?ref=science&_r=0
Republican Rep. Peter King of New York said Wednesday that House Speaker John Boehner has promised a vote Friday on $9 billion in disaster aid for Superstorm Sandy and then another vote on $51 billion in aid on January 15.
230 points is not a Dow surge. Even at the end of today it is only a 2.35% increase. BFD. Five day change only a little more than 2% up. Over the last 3 months DOWN 1.2%.
Only suckers watch the market on a daily basis and try to make decisions on short term trends.
Via ZeroHedge:
LOLOLOLOL
Nope, can't cut anything otherwise the US crashes:
A cargo train filled with biofuels crossed the border between the US and Canada 24 times between the 15th of June and the 28th of June 2010; not once did it unload its cargo, yet it still earned millions of dollars... The companies “made several million dollars importing and exporting the fuel to exploit a loophole in a U.S. green energy program.” Each time the loaded train crossed the border the cargo earned its owner a certain amount of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), which were awarded by the US EPA to “promote and track production and importation of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.”
For the last half of many of our lives the question "Wonder what being a Roman as the empire unraveled?" Will now be answered. Obama as Nero.
As a instructor told me "it's not the fall but the stop that hurts"
Inga said...
Just heard rumor that Boehner will resign tonight at 5 PM.
And the republicans will still be in the majority, but this time with a real fiscal conservative as speaker.
Jay wrote:
Hey remember when Obama, said the Bush Tax cuts caused the recession?
I do too.
So why is he bragging about keeping them in place?
Exactly! We got the dems on the record supporting 98% of the Bush tax cuts, which also coincidentally were for the middle class and not the rich. That's a win.
Yes, we didn't get the spending. YET. But having this passed doesn't mean that the latter can't happen.
Exactly! We got the dems on the record supporting 98% of the Bush tax cuts, which also coincidentally were for the middle class and not the rich. That's a win.
This is not just on this current issue, by the way. This is on war powers as well. Obama has pretty much conceded that Bush was right in everything, save perhaps water boarding. Indenfinite detention. Check. Drone strikes. CHeck. Tribunals instead of trials. Check. War powers act is non binding. CHeck. etc etc etc.
Make a note of it for when the next republican president comes into power.
For the vast majority of libs, they can't really make an argument about it, since they aren't now.
Well, they can, but Repubs can simply say they are continuing Obama's policies. And since the left was largely silent for 8 years, its purely hypocricy to suddenly grow a moral backbone when convenient.
If repubs hadn't made a deal they'd be the bad guys who let taxes go up on the middle class rather than on the rich because they can't play well and compromise.
Now we know that the raising taxes on the rich is in fact a bullshit argument, since it will pay for nothing, but optically, that's an extremely losing hand for repubs, even if they are ultimately right on the issue.
But condeding it and still getting 98% what they want on the tax side positions them to now be the party of compromise and the one actually addressing issues.
Plus, they can make the argument that they dindt' want to raise the taxes, and that they told the country it wouldn't raise revenue and would actually lead to people losing jobs. And now they can show the result.
Spending wasn't addressed, but because they kicked the can down the road, the issue of spending will now come up in a few months and not years when dealing with sequestration and the debt ceiling and beyond. So, they have the potential upper hand.
Stop thinking immediate short term and think long term. It's chess not checkers.
By the way, Obama himself is providing the ammunition to force the dems to start addressing cutting spending:
OBAMA: the vast majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements; would prefer, frankly, not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems. And I’m sympathetic to their concerns, because they’re looking after folks who are already hurting and already vulnerable, and there are a lot of families out there and seniors who are dependant on some of these programs. And what I’ve tried to explain to them is, number one, if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. I mean, it’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing.
I would include him in that list of dems reluctant to cut spending. (i.e. he's talking a good game). But now it will be dems that are refusing to deal with the REAL issues facing the country. And that's spending.
It's a ready made political commercial that will put democrats over a barrel. And repubs have the benefit this time of conceding in raising taxes, even though they've said its not going to work.
Removing the attack ad of the dems that repubs are just blocking Obama at all turns. Now if Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling they should use his own words to show that he knows that we need to cut spending, so why isn't he? They actually have a lot more leverage now.Demopcrats are now the party doing nothing even though Obama is saying NO AMOUNT of tax hikes will fund govt the way it's going. ANd not only wont dems cut what need to be cut. they can't even pass a budget for three years! Meanwhile republicans attually compromised and conceded on tax cuts for the rich (though not at the levels adovacated by the president). They did their part, why aren't the dems?
I'm not a fan of raising taxes, in this case. But it's probably the best that could be gotten in a bad situation. Next time, why dont the libertarianns not go all third party when conservatives need your votes. Maybe if someone else were in the white house you woudln't feel so disappointed in having to make less than ideal compromises.
Besides, a good portion of rich people actually voted for Obama. As Bill Kristol wrote:
“I don’t really understand why Republicans don’t take Obama’s offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000, make it $500,000, make it $1 million,” “Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile to Republican principles?”
Principally I agree that raising taxes,even on the rich is a bad Idea, but I should defend Jay Z not getting a tax hikewhen he's voting to elect Obama? F that.
Tough love bitches. Taxes suck, and the rich people who voted for Obama this time around might need to get that nasty taste in their mouth to remember that voting for higher taxes might end up hurting their wallets.
Seeing Red said...
We already knew that the US crossed the debt ceiling on New Year's day....
How many times do I need to say, Obama and his administration will ignore the debt ceiling, and sequestration, as they see fit.
They have already done it. Any window dressing legislation down the road on the subjects will be the same drill...Republicans go along or be the cause of default! A default that has already occurred, just not called out yet?
Somebody explain this higher math to me.
Seeing Red said...
You could link it, GM, and prove him wrong
That would require intellecutal curiousity that the silly fat troll simply does not posess.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा