Obama's opening "fiscal cliff" bid seeks debt limit hike, stimulus

[Parkbandit]

The Obama administration's opening bid on Thursday in negotiations to avert a year-end fiscal crunch included a demand for new stimulus spending and authority to unilaterally raise the U.S. borrowing ceiling, a Republican congressional aide said.
The proposal, made by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to congressional Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, was seen as offering little the Republicans could agree to and was greeted with laughter, the aide said.
"We can't move any closer to them because they're not even on our planet," the aide said. "It was not a serious proposal."
Obama and congressional Republicans are returning to the bargaining table to prevent across-the board tax increases and deep spending cuts, the so-called fiscal cliff, from taking effect next year.
The president wants Bush-era tax breaks to be extended for all but the wealthiest earners, but Republicans have balked at tax hikes of any kind.
In the maiden bargaining session, Geithner, the president's lead negotiator, proposed raising tax revenues by $1.6 trillion, congressional aides confirmed. That figure is in line with what Obama has said is necessary to achieve long-term deficit reduction of $4 trillion over 10 years.
The administration also sought at least $50 billion in new economic stimulus spending.
Obama's negotiators also sought the ability to raise the nation's borrowing limit unilaterally. Currently, Congress must approve an increase in the debt ceiling, and it was an impasse over that issue that brought the country perilously close to default in 2011.
The administration's proposal would put off across-the-board spending cuts for a year.
In exchange the administration agreed to make $400 billion in spending cuts to entitlement programs, an aide confirmed.
The White House had no comment on the details of the offer.
"The only thing preventing us from reaching a deal that averts the fiscal cliff and avoids a tax hike on 98 percent of Americans is the refusal of congressional Republicans to ask the very wealthiest individuals to pay higher tax rates," a White House official said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-usa-fiscal-offer-idUSBRE8AT02C20121130

http://media.syntheticremarks.com/2011/08/wtf.gif

[Kastrel]

Maybe he got the idea from Romney this morning during their meeting.

I'm not sure I entirely get the plan here; give me money to spend so I can decrease the debt by spending money?

[Parkbandit]

Maybe he got the idea from Romney this morning during their meeting.

I'm not sure I entirely get the plan here; give me money to spend so I can decrease the debt by spending money?

I got his plan as: Give me the tax increases that I want, give me the power to raise the debt limit to whatever I need, give me another 500 billion dollars to spend on liberal pet projects and call it stimulus.. and I pinky promise to talk about cutting spending next year.

Sad part is... the Republicans will probably cave and take it. "BUT HE PROMISED!"

[Back]

Republicans need to step aside and let America catch up to the present.

[Rallorick]

I got his plan as: Give me the tax increases that I want, give me the power to raise the debt limit to whatever I need, give me another 500 billion dollars to spend on liberal pet projects and call it stimulus.. and I pinky promise to talk about cutting spending next year.

Sad part is... the Republicans will probably cave and take it. "BUT HE PROMISED!"

What a shocker! You're usually so level-headed and balanced in matters involving Obama, but this almost sounds like daft political rhetoric opinion....

[Archigeek]

Wait, you weren't expecting any political theater? The stage was set when both parties said political crap phrases like "we're willing to listen to revenue increases" and "entitlement's are on the table"

Step two of course, is for one party to put out some stale idea, as if it's what they really are aiming for, giving the other party an opportunity for rightous indignation. Look familiar?

It's a dance. The real question is will it result in something substantive or just posturing and the claim that they bargained hard and didn't give up too much.

At this point, I'm liking the cliff. Let's just jump over it and see what happens. I'm starting to suspect it's only slightly more dangerous than Y2K.

[Warriorbird]

Raising the debt ceiling is only apparently bad when Democrats do it.

[Kembal]

I got his plan as: Give me the tax increases that I want, give me the power to raise the debt limit to whatever I need, give me another 500 billion dollars to spend on liberal pet projects and call it stimulus.. and I pinky promise to talk about cutting spending next year.

Sad part is... the Republicans will probably cave and take it. "BUT HE PROMISED!"

Hardball negotiation. Republicans now have to make an offer, and if they don't concede something that makes sense on taxes, no one will consider their offer serious.

Also, I think it's $50 billion in spending, not $500 billion. (it's infrastructure spending.)

[Parkbandit]

Raising the debt ceiling is only apparently bad when Democrats do it.

It's like you have only short term memory.

Here's a refresher:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

Both sides do it... to think otherwise makes you look incredibly foolish.

[Parkbandit]

Hardball negotiation. Republicans now have to make an offer, and if they don't concede something that makes sense on taxes, no one will consider their offer serious.

What is it that Obama is "offering" in these "hardball negotiations"? To think about entitlement cuts once the Republicans agree to raise taxes?

No one takes Obama seriously... hell, he's not even engaged. He's out campaigning and golfing..

Personally, I'm with Archgeek... let's go over this cliff together. Everyone needs to feel pain, not just the middle class.


Also, I think it's $50 billion in spending, not $500 billion. (it's infrastructure spending.)

Yea, that was a typo. :(

[ClydeR]

What is it that Obama is "offering" in these "hardball negotiations"? To think about entitlement cuts once the Republicans agree to raise taxes?

I am infuriated that the lamstream media is making it appear that Republicans want to cut Medicare.

Everybody knows that Republicans don't want any cuts to Medicare. Just a few months ago, every Republican was up in arms over a Congressional Budget Office report (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf) that said if Congress repealed Obamacare, then "Spending for Medicare would increase by an estimated $716 billion over that 2013–2022 period." The Republican campaign said Obama "stole" $716 billion from the Medicare Trust Fund.

After that, it's completely crazy to suggest that Republicans want to cut Medicare. You know I'm right because they wouldn't have been so mad about Obama cutting Medicare if they wanted to cut it themselves.

[Parkbandit]

Maybe the Democrats have finally realized that trying to meet Republicans half-way, with serious compromises, only causes the Republicans to say "Okay, that's your opening position," and then they veer off FAR RIGHT, and call the ensuing compromise that's eventually reached "bipartisan" or "centrist" when, in fact, it's far right of center, or call the moderate plan that's pushed through (such as Obamacare, which lacked the leftist public option liberals wanted, and included the conservative individual mandate Republicans originally wanted) "partisan" or a "government takeover."

So, Obama opens with nothing to compromise on and expects there to be a deal worked out by Christmas? Sounds like Obama doesn't want a plan and really doesn't care what happens to the economy in 2013. Awesome.


Aww. The GOP doesn't like a party shifting far to their direction to change people's expectations about what constitutes "middle ground"? Maybe that shouldn't have been their gameplan for the last 10 years.

What?


Oh, and Parkbandit? Here's a refresher for your short-term memory. Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling under W. Bush repeatedly. McConnell, Boehner and Cantor all voted in total agreement for a total of trillions of dollars of increases in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007.. while simultaneously voting for tax cuts, during two wars. But, no, no. Republicans are the serious "fiscal conservatives" who care about the debt--now that a Democrat is in the office, and they've got someone to rail against.

Follow along in the thread, It. "It" is not that difficult.

And I've never stated that that Republicans are fiscal conservatives... but they are far closer to it than liberals.



And also:

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/21861008.jpg

ok...

[Warriorbird]

It's like you have only short term memory.

Here's a refresher:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

Both sides do it... to think otherwise makes you look incredibly foolish.

No. If you'd actually read my post you'd see that I was suggesting it was stupid to criticize it when the Republicans have done it numerous times themselves.

[Parkbandit]

No. If you'd actually read my post you'd see that I was suggesting it was stupid to criticize it when the Republicans have done it numerous times themselves.

And equally stupid for the Democrats to do it with Bush.. given their current stance on it now.

Like I said, both sides do it. Being critical of only one side makes you look foolish.

[Methais]

I got his plan as: Give me the tax increases that I want, give me the power to raise the debt limit to whatever I need, give me another 500 billion dollars to spend on liberal pet projects and call it stimulus.. and I pinky promise to talk about cutting spending next year.

Sad part is... the Republicans will probably cave and take it. "BUT HE PROMISED!"

Sometimes I wonder if Tsin is one of his advisors.



Raising the debt ceiling is only good when Democrats do it.

Fixed.

[Warriorbird]

Fixed.

Given as I'm sane, I understand that the government has to raise the debt ceiling sometimes.

The big difference between the Republican and Democratic political showmanship is that the Democrats knew that the Republican controlled Congress would win, versus the current anti debt ceiling actions of the Republicans, which damaged our credit rating and may get them over the fiscal cliff that they claim not to want.

[Tgo01]

Given as I'm sane, I understand that the government has to raise the debt ceiling sometimes.

The big difference between the Republican and Democratic political showmanship is that the Democrats knew that the Republican controlled Congress would win, versus the current anti debt ceiling actions of the Republicans, which damaged our credit rating and may get them over the fiscal cliff that they claim not to want.

Why didn't the Democrats raise the debt limit when they controlled Congress then? Can't they vote to raise the debt limit whenever they want? Not sure I want such short sighted people in Congress.

[Latrinsorm]

And equally stupid for the Democrats to do it with Bush.. given their current stance on it now.

Like I said, both sides do it. Being critical of only one side makes you look foolish.You believe people here criticized the Bush administration and/or Congress for raising the debt ceiling? Do you have any citations? I can't even find a mention of the term before 2009.

[Tgo01]

You believe people here criticized the Bush administration and/or Congress for raising the debt ceiling? Do you have any citations? I can't even find a mention of the term before 2009.

Come on, without even having to use the search function I know Back criticized the Bush administration for it.

[crb]

And Obama is back on the campaign trail again, someone tell him he can't get a third term.

Despite everything else, I had hopes, secret hidden hopes, he wouldn't be like this in his second term, he'd change, aim for the middle, stop he 24/7 campaigning and rhetoric bullshit and lead.

Not only is he not proposing any real cuts. He isn't even proposing the fake DC cuts where a cut is defined as a reduction in future spending growth, not an actual reduction in future spending. Instead, he wants to raise taxes so he can spend more money.

Fuck you, lets go over the cliff. My taxes appear to be going up anyway, and I'm tired of being attacked like I'm a criminal for being successful and paying the vast majority of federal taxes already. So fuck it, let taxes go up on all the ninnies who asked for this president. We'll get spending cuts too, though, not on entitlements where they're most needed, but it is a start.

[Latrinsorm]

Come on, without even having to use the search function I know Back criticized the Bush administration for it.Ha!

But seriously.
Fuck you, lets go over the cliff. My taxes appear to be going up anyway, and I'm tired of being attacked like I'm a criminal for being successful and paying the vast majority of federal taxes already.Somehow I suspect you have never actually been arrested or incarcerated.

[Kembal]

What is it that Obama is "offering" in these "hardball negotiations"? To think about entitlement cuts once the Republicans agree to raise taxes?

No one takes Obama seriously... hell, he's not even engaged. He's out campaigning and golfing..

Personally, I'm with Archgeek... let's go over this cliff together. Everyone needs to feel pain, not just the middle class.

Right now, he looks more engaged than the Republicans do. He's submitted an offer. Boehner's saying there's a stalemate without even having given a counteroffer.

Look, I suspect that Obama is perfectly fine with going over the "cliff". (it's not really a cliff, but anyway) He can turn right around and offer any type of tax cut in the first week for January, and everyone in Congress will vote for it because they can kiss their seat goodbye otherwise. Same thing with the spending cuts...he can choose which cuts to reverse, and most everyone in Congress will vote for it.

The Republicans are painted into a corner. If they don't work toward a deal, most everything indicates that they'll get blamed for it, not Obama and the Democrats. If it weren't for the need for the debt limit to increase, Republicans would have no leverage at all.

[Warriorbird]

Why didn't the Democrats raise the debt limit when they controlled Congress then? Can't they vote to raise the debt limit whenever they want? Not sure I want such short sighted people in Congress.

They did. Since that time we've seen the most filibusters ever done by a minority party in Congress.

[Warriorbird]

And Obama is back on the campaign trail again, someone tell him he can't get a third term.

Despite everything else, I had hopes, secret hidden hopes, he wouldn't be like this in his second term, he'd change, aim for the middle, stop he 24/7 campaigning and rhetoric bullshit and lead.

Not only is he not proposing any real cuts. He isn't even proposing the fake DC cuts where a cut is defined as a reduction in future spending growth, not an actual reduction in future spending. Instead, he wants to raise taxes so he can spend more money.

Fuck you, lets go over the cliff. My taxes appear to be going up anyway, and I'm tired of being attacked like I'm a criminal for being successful and paying the vast majority of federal taxes already. So fuck it, let taxes go up on all the ninnies who asked for this president. We'll get spending cuts too, though, not on entitlements where they're most needed, but it is a start.

Given how Obama's President and Romney isn't the middle might be at a slightly different location that you think.

With that said I think we should "go over the cliff." too.

[Methais]

the current anti debt ceiling actions of the Republicans, which damaged our credit rating

Right, I'm sure the credit rating was 100% republicans fault and democrats had absolutely nothing at all to do with it. They were innocent bystanders that were just trying to save us from ourselves.

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk209/Kabong30/worf-startrek-facepalm.gif

[crb]

Ha!

But seriously.Somehow I suspect you have never actually been arrested or incarcerated.

If I hadn't been would that be a point against me? Does it change the fact that Obama goes on TV at every opportunity and decries that the 1%, that pays 37% of the federal income tax burden, isn't pay a fair share, with rhetoric that makes us seem like we're cheating the system somehow, standing on the backs of others, so on and so forth, very marxist all that. You're right though, as an adult, never arrested. As a teen, once.

If the douchebag said things like "Hey, rich people, I'll admit we already have a more progressive tax system than Europe, and I'll admit you already shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden, but I'm going to ask you for more, because you've got more, and you're a relatively small group of voters. Sorry, but someone has to pay for my spending, and you're it."

But he doesn't say that. Much the same way he bullshits about being serious about cuts then proposes more new spending.

So lets go over the cliff, I'll drive, we're all in this together right? We can hold hands like Thelma and Louise.

True story, Obama has said he is okay with lowering the top tax rate on corporations to 25%, but he wants the top rate on small businesses to be 40% (really more with his new obamacare surcharge). So, he wants to tax small local successful businesses at a higher rate than Exxon and Apple and GE.

[Methais]

I think everybody will feel better about going over the cliff if they picture it being like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eXSIsNS4tw

[Aluvius]

You don't have to guess why, I googled "US credit downgrade statement" and the first result was from a USA Today article that quoted S&P's statement on the downgrade. The Republicans using the previously bipartisan debt ceiling votes as a hostage in fiscal negotiations was the main driver behind the credit rating downgrade. They fucked with the bond market and it fucked back.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-08-05-s-and-p-downgrades-credit_n.htm


"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process," the ratings firm said."

[Methais]

You don't have to guess why, I googled "US credit downgrade statement" and the first result was from a USA Today article that quoted S&P's statement on the downgrade. The Republicans using the previously bipartisan debt ceiling votes as a hostage in fiscal negotiations was the main driver behind the credit rating downgrade. They fucked with the bond market and it fucked back. Do people not know this shit is saved and that others can look it up?


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-08-05-s-and-p-downgrades-credit_n.htm


"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process," the ratings firm said."

I didn't see the word republican mentioned once in that link. I didn't see democrat either, so I'm pretty sure they were basically saying that both parties are made of fail, which is pretty much the case.

It's not hard to see what Obama's trying to do...intentionally making incredibly ridiculous demands (like that Congress give him absolute control over the debt ceiling, etc.) so that they'll get shot down in order for him and the media to play their usual game and blame it solely on republicans as he begins campaigning for the democrats for the 2014 midterms, in which case he hopes voters will continue their stupidity, give democrats back total control of Congress, and then the fail will go into overdrive.

And if that doesn't work, he'll just do everything via executive order for his remaining two years as he signs us over to the UN.

[Parkbandit]

You believe people here criticized the Bush administration and/or Congress for raising the debt ceiling? Do you have any citations? I can't even find a mention of the term before 2009.

Go back.

Re-read the thread.

If you still require special assistance, call someone who has the patience do deal with people like you.

[Parkbandit]

Right now, he looks more engaged than the Republicans do. He's submitted an offer. Boehner's saying there's a stalemate without even having given a counteroffer.

How, to you, does Obama look engaged in this mess? Aside from charisma, he's probably one of the worst actual leaders to hold the Office in my lifetime. He's not engaged.. he's out talking to people, blaming someone else for whatever is the problem du jour. That's not being engaged and that certainly isn't leadership.


Look, I suspect that Obama is perfectly fine with going over the "cliff". (it's not really a cliff, but anyway) He can turn right around and offer any type of tax cut in the first week for January, and everyone in Congress will vote for it because they can kiss their seat goodbye otherwise. Same thing with the spending cuts...he can choose which cuts to reverse, and most everyone in Congress will vote for it.

I don't doubt any of that actually. The Democrats are still star struck with Obama and the Republicans are too scared of what the liberal media will call them. There are very few people in Congress that actually have a backbone IMO.



The Republicans are painted into a corner. If they don't work toward a deal, most everything indicates that they'll get blamed for it, not Obama and the Democrats. If it weren't for the need for the debt limit to increase, Republicans would have no leverage at all.

Blaming someone isn't leadership... but it's all Obama has ever had.

[Parkbandit]

Given how Obama's President and Romney isn't the middle might be at a slightly different location that you think.

What?


With that said I think we should "go over the cliff." too.

Agreed. Like CRB said, my taxes are going up no matter what.. so I say let everyone pay their "fair" share.

[Tgo01]

Raise taxes slightly (whether a direct tax increase of closing loopholes/limiting deductions), cut the defense budget, increase the social security retirement age by another year, reduce the amount of time someone can receive welfare/food stamps by a month. BOOM! I just solved our fiscal cliff. I think? Someone crunch the numbers for me?

[Kembal]

Raise taxes slightly (whether a direct tax increase of closing loopholes/limiting deductions), cut the defense budget, increase the social security retirement age by another year, reduce the amount of time someone can receive welfare/food stamps by a month. BOOM! I just solved our fiscal cliff. I think? Someone crunch the numbers for me?

Zero impact from Social Security. Sorry. (In technical terms, SS does not add to the deficit.)

Raise the Medicare age by a year, and you'd have something, though.

[Parkbandit]

Raise taxes slightly (whether a direct tax increase of closing loopholes/limiting deductions),

WHY DO YOU HATE THE MIDDLE CLASS SO MUCH!?!?!


cut the defense budget,

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA????


increase the social security retirement age by another year,

YOU MOTHER FUCKING AGEIST!


reduce the amount of time someone can receive welfare/food stamps by a month.

WB's Favorite: YOU ARE A RACIST!


BOOM! I just solved our fiscal cliff. I think? Someone crunch the numbers for me?

You solved nothing but your own political demise.

[Tgo01]

Zero impact from Social Security. Sorry. (In technical terms, SS does not add to the deficit.)

Pretty sure if the social security fund dried up it would.

[Parkbandit]

Zero impact from Social Security. Sorry. (In technical terms, SS does not add to the deficit.)


This isn't entirely true.

[Warriorbird]

This isn't entirely true.

I think you're hitting Rocktar levels of expert debating.

[Tgo01]

You solved nothing but your own political demise.

But I solved all of our problems! I should be president for life :(

[Parkbandit]

I think you're hitting Rocktar levels of expert debating.

It's well above your pay grade, Simpleton. I never expected you to understand it.

It was directed at Kembal, who probably already knows what I mean.

[Parkbandit]

But I solved all of our problems! I should be president for life :(

You would never be elected if you were Republican.. because you "insulted" about 84.6666666666666666% of the voting public.

[Warriorbird]

It's well above your pay grade, Simpleton. I never expected you to understand it.

It was directed at Kembal, who probably already knows what I mean.

Insult based political post number how many?

I'm thinking somebody else is simple.

[Parkbandit]

Insult based political post number how many?

Hypocrite much? Seriously, if you don't want to be insulted, it's probably a good idea not to initiate it, dipshit.

[Warriorbird]

Hypocrite much? Seriously, if you don't want to be insulted, it's probably a good idea not to initiate it, dipshit.

That's funny. You just doubled down on being repetitive. Let's see how many more we get. Are you going to claim to be a pundit now?

[Latrinsorm]

If I hadn't been would that be a point against me? Does it change the fact that Obama goes on TV at every opportunity and decries that the 1%, that pays 37% of the federal income tax burden, isn't pay a fair share, with rhetoric that makes us seem like we're cheating the system somehow, standing on the backs of others, so on and so forth, very marxist all that. You're right though, as an adult, never arrested. As a teen, once.I'm merely pointing out that hyperbole is your enemy here. If you had said "I don't like the way the President talks about me and people of my ilk because of x, y, and z reasons" your position is a lot more credible than when you say "I'm being attacked like a criminal".
Go back.

Re-read the thread.

If you still require special assistance, call someone who has the patience do deal with people like you.Ok!

1. Warriorbird said: "Raising the debt ceiling is only apparently bad when Democrats do it."
2. You said, in response to Warriorbird: "Both sides do it... to think otherwise makes you look incredibly foolish."
3. I asked, in response to your statement: "You believe people here criticized the Bush administration and/or Congress for raising the debt ceiling?"
4. Rather than provide a simpler answer to a simple question, you said: "Go back. Re-read the thread."
5. I said: "Ok! 1. Warriorbird OH NO TIME LOOP SAVE ME TIM TEBOW
Raise taxes slightly (whether a direct tax increase of closing loopholes/limiting deductions), cut the defense budget, increase the social security retirement age by another year, reduce the amount of time someone can receive welfare/food stamps by a month. BOOM! I just solved our fiscal cliff. I think? Someone crunch the numbers for me?The fiscal cliff doesn't refer to the deficit. It refers to the consequences of Congress not agreeing. Here's how Congress would respond to your proposals: No, no, maybe, no. So the cliff goes on, unless they decide that it doesn't, which they have a 100% chance of doing.

[Methais]

I wish Obama were more like President Camacho.

[Parkbandit]

That's funny. You just doubled down on being repetitive. Let's see how many more we get. Are you going to claim to be a pundit now?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SWF9i3Vzpac/TMdlSYS0SwI/AAAAAAAAA2Y/LSS-6cOc4qM/s1600/Edward+Norton+blinking.gif

[Parkbandit]

Everyone in Washington fears the fiscal cliff. The White House has no interest in going over. Democrats understand they’ll never have more power than they do now. Delaying a budget deal until after January means getting less of what they want.
Republican leaders, meanwhile, live in fear of another 1995 government shutdown. When two sides fail to reach a deal, the media blame Republicans. That’s the lesson Republicans learned 17 years ago. They shudder imagining the headlines if negotiations were to break down next month: “Norquist-controlled GOP forces America off cliff.” Nothing terrifies them more than that. They’ll do anything to avoid it, as Obama knows well. (Hence his advantage.)

The business community fears the cliff too. Federal contractors stand to lose millions if budget cuts take effect. And nobody wants to see unemployment rise or the economy fall back into recession, both of which would likely happen if Republicans and Democrats can’t make a deal.

So there’s a lot to worry about with the fiscal cliff. Congress should leap off anyway. At a full run. Face first. Yes, it’s a scary prospect. But not as scary as the alternatives.

First, consider how we got here. The fiscal cliff is a creation of the Budget Control Act of 2011, one of the most remarkably one-sided deals ever cut in Washington. Discretionary spending represents only 35 percent of the federal budget, yet the agreement calls exclusively for cuts to discretionary programs, half in the defense sector. Entitlements, the undisputed drivers of the budget crisis, remain untouched.

For the Obama campaign, the deal was a godsend. What might have been a vigorous debate over government’s growth all but disappeared until after the election. Obama was free to spend a full year attacking Romney as a handmaiden to the rich. Congressional Republicans had virtually nothing to say.

You’d think the people responsible for signing off on a deal like this would have fled to Paraguay in shame. But no. They’re still on Capitol Hill, cowering and outmaneuvered by their counterparts at the White House. In a normal year, Republicans might be able to negotiate a deal to keep the current top tax rates in place and shift some of the cuts slated for defense to entitlements and wasteful discretionary programs. (Sayonara, Obama phone.) This is not a normal year. Republican leadership isn’t just weak in this negotiation; it’s submissive. This is Fifty Shades of Grey, the Congressional edition. Leaping off the cliff is probably the best deal Republicans are capable of getting.

Hapless Republican leaders exacerbated this crisis, but they didn’t cause it. A radically progressive tax code did. Ever wonder why government has grown larger even during periods when tax rates have gone down? Maybe it’s because the average person has no real idea what government costs. As of today, the top one percent of earners pay nearly 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The richest 10 percent pay more than 70 percent of all federal income taxes. In other words, most people have very little skin in the game.

A system like this is popular with the majority — why wouldn’t it be? — but it is unsustainable. When the bulk of the country has no stake in fiscal restraint, expectations become unmoored from reality and spending explodes.

All of which leads inevitably to our current condition. Here’s one measure: In famously bankrupt Greece, the national debt amounts to about $39,000 per Greek. In the United States, federal debt runs to over $53,000 per American. America is now the most indebted nation in the history of the world, a country about to post its fourth consecutive trillion-dollar budget deficit, a place that owes more to creditors than the sum total of its entire economy. We are going under, for real.

And almost nobody in our political system really cares. Sure, some in Congress make the right noises. But at this point there is no sizable constituency for reducing federal spending. By contrast, entitlements are more popular than ever, and most voters favor sending an ever-larger portion of the bill to a relatively tiny group of people. When Obama says we ought to soak the rich, he is speaking for the majority.

Going over the cliff won’t stop this trend, but it might spur a much-needed conversation about the actual cost of government. Nobody wants to see middle class families pay thousands a year more in taxes. On the other hand, that’s money the government has already spent on programs they likely support. It might be useful for them to know that, and to consider the consequences of it. Until they do, there is no hope for spending reform.

There is no question that going over the fiscal cliff would shock the economy, at least in the short run. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the combination of spending cuts and tax increases would cause real GDP to contract by a full half-percent in 2013, pushing unemployment back over nine percent.

These are bad numbers, but they’re not catastrophic. And they’re likely to be temporary. The CBO found that going over the cliff would in fact strengthen the economy within a year, bringing unemployment down to 5.5 percent by 2018.

Granted, by Washington standards that’s an eternity, which is to say, more than a presidential election cycle away. Republicans could get hammered in the meantime. They might even lose seats in Congress. But at least they’d have the facts on their side.
That’s worth something. No matter what happens in Congress next month, regardless of what Obama tells audiences as he stumps for his plan around the country, the basic equation won’t change: Entities that spend more than they take in eventually go under. That is true for businesses, and ultimately it is true for governments, too, because math is immutable. It’s a species of physics, baked into the fabric of the universe and impervious to election results.

In the long run, math is worth running on. Republicans don’t have a lot of good choices right now. They might as well try it.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/30/tucker-carlson-and-neil-patel-congress-should-dive-headlong-off-fiscal-cliff/#ixzz2DleOSCmx

[Parkbandit]

1. Warriorbird said: "Raising the debt ceiling is only apparently bad when Democrats do it."
2. You said, in response to Warriorbird: "Both sides do it... to think otherwise makes you look incredibly foolish."
3. I asked, in response to your statement: "You believe people here criticized the Bush administration and/or Congress for raising the debt ceiling?"
4. Rather than provide a simpler answer to a simple question, you said: "Go back. Re-read the thread."
5. I said: "Ok! 1. Warriorbird OH NO TIME LOOP SAVE ME TIM TEBOW

It's unlikely that Tim Tebow can save the Jets.. let alone perform a miracle to make you normal.

I'm in a patient mood tonight.. so let me spell it out for you:

WB: It's only bad to raise the debt ceiling when Democrats do it.
PB: This is incorrect. Here is an example of a Democrat saying it's bad to raise the debt ceiling when Bush was President. (here is the part you don't get.. so pay attention) When a Republican President wants to raise the debt, the Democrats complain. When a Democrat President wants to raise the debt, the Republicans complain. To think there is any difference makes you look incredibly foolish".

Hopefully that cleared it up for you.

[Back]

What I want to know is how the fuck can the Speaker of the House hold an entire nation hostage? Its fucking shameful.

[Parkbandit]

What I want to know is how the fuck can the Speaker of the House hold an entire nation hostage? Its fucking shameful.

What's really shameful is that you obviously didn't take a civics class. Ever.

[Back]

What's really shameful is that you obviously didn't take a civics class. Ever.

What is really shameful is your complicity.

[Methais]

What I want to know is how the fuck can the Speaker of the House hold an entire nation hostage? Its fucking shameful.

Hostage from what exactly? Giving Obama total control?

[Back]

Hostage from what exactly? Giving Obama total control?

From finding a compromise.

[Back]

And you know what? Fuck that guy. Fuck him. Fuck him for complaining and then not finding a solution because he would not get re-elected. Fuck him because Obama got re-elected saying we would finally make taxes equitable.

Fuck.

[Methais]

From finding a compromise.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/FB3D6F9C-187B-4434-897D-D3802D580430-5738-0000066A698AEC26.jpg

Feel free to tell me what exactly Obama is doing for his end of the compromise.

[Back]

Feel free to tell me what exactly Obama is doing for his end of the compromise.

Sorry, but I feel like a second term president of the people should have more power than a speaker of the house. A stupid fucking asshole America hostage taking speaker of the house.

[Tgo01]

Sorry, but I feel like a second term president of the people should have more power than a speak of the house.

You can't make this shit up people!

[Back]

You can't make this shit up people!

You could have voted.

[Some Rogue]

Damn Back, drunk two nights in a row?

[Back]

Damn Back, drunk two nights in a row?

Are you keeping count? Less than I used to be. Besides. That does not derail the point.

[Some Rogue]

Yes, I have been counting. We're watching and waiting. Soon you will be contacted, be ready.

[Parkbandit]

Are you keeping count? Less than I used to be. Besides. That does not derail the point.

If the point is you are drunk posting again and making very little sense.. then ok.

If the point is you are actually making a political point.. then you are way off the mark.

By the way, I am not a Boehner fan. I think he's a self serving Party elitist who wouldn't know what fiscal conservative is if it punched him in the face.. but your version of events is laughable and shows very little understanding of our actual governmental processes.

:cheers:

[Parkbandit]

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geither told CNBC Wednesday that Republicans are "making a little bit of progress" in Fiscal Cliff talks but said the Obama administration was "absolutely" ready to go over the cliff if the GOP doesn't agree to raise tax rates on the wealthy.

"I think they're making a little bit of progress," Geithner said. "They're clearly moving and figuring out how to try to move further."

But Geithner said the White House would "absolutely" go over the fiscal cliff — triggering over $600 billion in automatic spending cuts and tax increases — unless tax rates increase on the top 2

"What we're trying to do is put in place a comprehensive, balanced set of fiscal reforms that put us back on the path of living within our means," Geithner told "Closing Bell"
Geithner, who is the Obama administration's lead negotiator in the cliff talks, added that if Republicans are willing to accept higher rates, "we think we can do something really good for the economy. We can make the government use the taxpayers money much more efficiently, lock in some spending savings and do some long-term reforms to entitlements."

President Barack Obama told business leaders earlier in the day that a deal could be reached in a week if Republicans would accept higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans.

"We're not insisting on rates out of spite, but rather we need to raise a certain amount of revenue," Obama told the Business Roundtable, an association representing chief executives of large U.S. firms.

After the meeting, Geithner told CNBC, "there's very broad support out there for not just extending these tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans, but for an agreement that has rates going up with tax reforms that limit deductions alongside a set of substantial long-term savings on the spending side."

Geithner said the administration also wants an agreement on raising the debt ceiling. "We are not prepared to have the American economy held hostage to periodic threats that Republicans will force the country to default on our obligations," he said. "That would be a terrible thing for the financial security of the average American, for business, for confidence around the world in the United States."

The Republicans have proposed $800 billion in additional tax revenues over 10 years as part any solution to the country's fiscal problems. Geithner said that Republicans haven't told us how they would raise the $800 billion dollars and what the mix of rates and limitations on deductions they would support.

Republicans were quick to hit back on talk that the administration was willing to go off the fiscal cliff if tax rates don't rise.

"This is one of the most stunning and irresponsible statements I've heard in some time," Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said in a statement. "Going over the fiscal cliff will put our economy, jobs, people's paychecks and retirement at risk,but that is what the White House wants, according to Secretary Geithner, if they don't get their way."

The president has proposed raising taxes by $1.6 trillion over the coming decade, cuts to Medicare and another $50 billion in stimulus spending, but has largely exempted Social Security from budget cuts.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100281263

The Republicans will either cave as normal and rates for top earners will get increased.. or we will go over the fiscal cliff and a Democrat will propose a reduction in all but the top tier tax rate and the Republicans will be forced to vote yes for it. Either way, enjoy another recession.

[Methais]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/6962_492415970802950_2117236480_n.jpg

[Back]

Also, say good bye to any credibility the republicans had. They screwed the pooch big time.

[Parkbandit]

Also, say good bye to any credibility the republicans had. They screwed the pooch big time.

How exactly did they "screw the pooch"?

[Archigeek]

The Republicans are going to have to introduce some reality to their proposal. "We'll raise revenue" without saying how didn't go over during the election and it won't go over now.

And PB is right about plan B, and I'm sure it's commonly known to all the players in this little game of chicken. And in spite of all the weeping and gnashing of teeth, plan B will end up retroactive to the 1st of the year and everyone will agree to it. If the Republicans want to get something out of this process better than plan B, they're going to have to get busy and make the proposal in the next couple of weeks.

[Latrinsorm]

The Republicans will either cave as normal and rates for top earners will get increased.. or we will go over the fiscal cliff and a Democrat will propose a reduction in all but the top tier tax rate and the Republicans will be forced to vote yes for it. Either way, enjoy another recession.As near as I can tell, the increase in the top tier tax rate looks to be about +3.5%. Is it your contention that such an increase will cause a recession? It seems pretty mild to me.

[Warriorbird]

As near as I can tell, the increase in the top tier tax rate looks to be about +3.5%. Is it your contention that such an increase will cause a recession? It seems pretty mild to me.

Grover Norquist told him so.

[Parkbandit]

As near as I can tell, the increase in the top tier tax rate looks to be about +3.5%. Is it your contention that such an increase will cause a recession? It seems pretty mild to me.

You believe that 3.5% is the only taxes being levied against the evil rich?

You're funny.

[Parkbandit]

Grover Norquist told him so.

Is that what Rachel Mandow told you?

[Latrinsorm]

You believe that 3.5% is the only taxes being levied against the evil rich?

You're funny.Those are the figures I've found for the increase in tax rate, yes. Do you have something different? If so, what?

[Warriorbird]

Is that what Rachel Mandow told you?

Lesbians don't threaten my masculinity, so I don't have to attempt to demean them to feel virile. This'd be an appropriate analogy if Norquist were, say, O'Reilly or Limbaugh. He's not, and extraordinarily influential in your party's current identity crisis.

While you may be unaware of it (you often seem blissfully uniformed about the actual issues of the Republican Party) Norquist's pledge holds a lot of sway with Republican members of Congress, thus leading to the OMG NO TAX INCREASES EVER OR WE'RE DOOMED, (Don't forget to buy gold!) camp, which you just espoused. Those buy gold people should love Obama just as much as the gun dealers.

I know that you weren't against closing loopholes (though Norquist is) so it amuses me to label you that way. You're going to argue ZOMG I never said that! But 99% of your members of Congress march along in lockstep with Norquist, so is there really a distinction?

[~Rocktar~]

As near as I can tell, the increase in the top tier tax rate looks to be about +3.5%. Is it your contention that such an increase will cause a recession? It seems pretty mild to me.

So what is the current tax rate on the top 1%?

The top tax rate is 35% so you want a 10% increase in taxes on the top earners, right? So those that already pay 37% of all the tax burden need to now pay 10% more of the tax burden? Somehow a 10% rate increase on taxes is more than "mild" to me.

[Bobmuhthol]

So what is the current tax rate on the top 1%?That's not how tax schedules work...
The Republicans will either cave as normal and rates for top earners will get increased.. or we will go over the fiscal cliff and a Democrat will propose a reduction in all but the top tier tax rate and the Republicans will be forced to vote yes for it. Either way, enjoy another recession.I will take any wager at any odds that there will not be a recession in the next 5 years and I will laugh my way to the bank in every case.

[Jarvan]

Those are the figures I've found for the increase in tax rate, yes. Do you have something different? If so, what?

Isn't the Estate Tax going up a good deal? Also the amount you can avoid paying taxes on. (Dad owns a decent farm or ranch, hell a business and dies, hope you have a few mill in cash to "buy back" your own shit) Then there is the Obamacare taxes hitting the rich, doesn't the SS taxes go up on higher earners as well? (not even to pay for SS, just to pay for Obamacare) Lets not forget about captial gains taxes going up.

In all honesty, the Rich really can "afford" to pay a bit more in taxes. It does depend on your definition of rich. The issue could be simplified if they created a new bracket for those making 1 million or more a year in "income". Small businesses wouldn't be as impacted, but then the revenue would go from a staggering 80 billion a year to likely less then 50 billion.

That is the big fucking stupid ass issue here. We are bitching about 80 Billion a year, when the government wastes more then that in a week of binge spending.

Obama stated two surprising things really when the GOP presented their proposal.

1) Rates HAD to go up. Period. No negotiation. (talk about compromise)
2) Changing the age of Medicare eligibility is not possible. -it's evil dammit!-

I can't retire till 67 currently, by the time I get close to 67, it will likely be 72. Maybe 75.

But I can get medicare at 65!! Can't use it really till 75 though if you get insurance through work. As currently if you get insurance from work, (the way most Americans currently get insurance) and your employer has more then 20 workers, your work insurance is primary and you don't NEED medicare part B. Though it seems that if you have private insurance, which they may consider the exchanges private insurance, medicare is then primary once you hit 65.

Frankly, I think the entire issue is stupid. Dems cry and complain and say that the rates under Clinton were so much better, then let them all expire. That is "fair". The republicans should produce a balanced intelligent proposal, and pass it in the house, fuck what the president thinks. Let the Senate and Dems vote it down or say no. Then go over the cliff and see who gets blamed.

My proposal --

Increase Rates - top tax rate of 39%. (.6 less then what they want)
Raise medicare age to be equal with SS age requirements for those who are under 55 years of age. (temp fix really won't hugely impact the medicare issue)
Cut waste and abuse from military budget. (stop paying 3-5x contract price for shit you fucking morons. If someone says they can design a plane for 2 billion, and it costs them 10, they fucking get 2!!)
Cut waste in reg federal programs. We don't need 5 departments that do the same job.

Pass this in the house then see if the Dems have the balls to hold the middle class tax "cuts" hostage over spending.

[Parkbandit]

Those are the figures I've found for the increase in tax rate, yes. Do you have something different? If so, what?

I'm pretty sure you understand that the rise in the top percentage tax isn't the only tax that the evil rich will be taking on starting in 2013.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you also realize I didn't say that the increase in the top tier tax rate will cause the next recession.

[Parkbandit]

Lesbians don't threaten my masculinity, so I don't have to attempt to demean them to feel virile. This'd be an appropriate analogy if Norquist were, say, O'Reilly or Limbaugh. He's not, and extraordinarily influential in your party's current identity crisis.

If Norquist was a Democrat and Madow was a Republican, our back and forth would be reversed. Nice attempt at climbing up on a pedestal though.


While you may be unaware of it (you often seem blissfully uniformed about the actual issues of the Republican Party) Norquist's pledge holds a lot of sway with Republican members of Congress, thus leading to the OMG NO TAX INCREASES EVER OR WE'RE DOOMED, (Don't forget to buy gold!) camp, which you just espoused. Those buy gold people should love Obama just as much as the gun dealers.

I know that you weren't against closing loopholes (though Norquist is) so it amuses me to label you that way. You're going to argue ZOMG I never said that! But 99% of your members of Congress march along in lockstep with Norquist, so is there really a distinction?

So, by your "logic", no matter what you post here, all I have to do is find a quote of a Democrat and attribute it to you, since you are a lock step Democrat?

Good to know.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm pretty sure you understand that the rise in the top percentage tax isn't the only tax that the evil rich will be taking on starting in 2013.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you also realize I didn't say that the increase in the top tier tax rate will cause the next recession.I mean, you did say "...or we will go over the fiscal cliff and a Democrat will propose a reduction in all but the top tier tax rate and the Republicans will be forced to vote yes for it." I think it would be easiest if you just posted what specific values of what specific taxes you have in mind.
Isn't the Estate Tax going up a good deal? Also the amount you can avoid paying taxes on.Yes. However, you only die once, while you generate income many times. For a toy problem...

$250,000 a year, increase of perhaps $9,000 a year in income taxes. You work for 50 years -> $450,000.
You accrue $2m in total estate at the time of death. Again it's hard to find specifics, but by my count under the 2009 law with a $1m exception this works out to -> $330,800.

And that's assuming you leave your estate sitting around to get taxed like a dope.
Then there is the Obamacare taxes hitting the rich, doesn't the SS taxes go up on higher earners as well?Everything I can find on the payroll tax claims that it being lower favors lower incomes over higher incomes. Indeed, speaker Boehner's proposal specifically includes a de facto payroll tax increase, and given their zealous opposition to de facto increases on higher earner tax rates that reinforces the point.
In all honesty, the Rich really can "afford" to pay a bit more in taxes. It does depend on your definition of rich. The issue could be simplified if they created a new bracket for those making 1 million or more a year in "income". Small businesses wouldn't be as impacted, but then the revenue would go from a staggering 80 billion a year to likely less then 50 billion.

That is the big fucking stupid ass issue here. We are bitching about 80 Billion a year, when the government wastes more then that in a week of binge spending. I don't know the exact amount any individual piece will generate or save, but according to this site (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/06/fiscal-cliff-fact-check-boehner-geithner/1750691/) the President's plan would cut the yearly deficit in half. That seems pretty good.
Cut waste and abuse from military budget. (stop paying 3-5x contract price for shit you fucking morons. If someone says they can design a plane for 2 billion, and it costs them 10, they fucking get 2!!)It has always baffled me how Congress has the power to order military equipment that the military expressly does not want.

[Parkbandit]

Next time, I should just listen to my inner voice and not give certain people the benefit of doubt..........…

[ClydeR]

Next time, I should just listen to my inner voice and not give certain people the benefit of doubt..........…

You forgot to capitalize Certain People.

[Warriorbird]

If Norquist was a Democrat and Madow was a Republican, our back and forth would be reversed. Nice attempt at climbing up on a pedestal though.



So, by your "logic", no matter what you post here, all I have to do is find a quote of a Democrat and attribute it to you, since you are a lock step Democrat?

Good to know.

A. There's a huge difference between influential political philosophers and political entertainment commentators. You must've missed that.
B. You already do.

[Parkbandit]

A. There's a huge difference between influential political philosophers and political entertainment commentators. You must've missed that.
B. You already do.

A) I would say that someone who is invited to the White House to meet with the President regarding his tax policy is pretty influential.

B) how fucking dumb are you that you actually believe that an island can capsize.

[Jarvan]

$250,000 a year, increase of perhaps $9,000 a year in income taxes. You work for 50 years -> $450,000.
You accrue $2m in total estate at the time of death. Again it's hard to find specifics, but by my count under the 2009 law with a $1m exception this works out to -> $330,800.

And that's assuming you leave your estate sitting around to get taxed like a dope.

You can't plan for everything you know. Frankly, I find the idea of having to pay tax on something your family worked to get a second time incredibly stupid. Lets say your family owns a modest farm in Kansas.. 5000 acres. Smartly, your family has always passed it down in a way that avoids all death taxes (I am surprised people wouldn't call this Tax Evasion). Your working the farm you own, and at 37, have a stroke and die in the field. Your single, and have no kids. So it goes to your younger brother. Your Land value alone is roughly 11 Million. So lets say your brother now has a choice of selling the farm.. or paying roughly 4 million in taxes. Where will he get 4 million? How many decades would it take working that farm to pay back 4 million?

Hell, just look at your 2 million example. Lets say that is 2 million business. Well.. who has 331k sitting around to pay the tax so they can keep it? Isn't it much more likely that they sell it so they can pay the tax?


Everything I can find on the payroll tax claims that it being lower favors lower incomes over higher incomes. Indeed, speaker Boehner's proposal specifically includes a de facto payroll tax increase, and given their zealous opposition to de facto increases on higher earner tax rates that reinforces the point.

I was pretty sure that the Obamacare law added an increase to top earns SS tax. I was wrong tho, it's actually Medicare taxes. .9% more on people earning 200k single or 250k family. AND 3.8% medicare tax on investment incomes. All for his healthbill, not Medicare.


I don't know the exact amount any individual piece will generate or save, but according to this site (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/06/fiscal-cliff-fact-check-boehner-geithner/1750691/) the President's plan would cut the yearly deficit in half. That seems pretty good.It has always baffled me how Congress has the power to order military equipment that the military expressly does not want.

Had to read all the way down, then at the bottom, it says 1 trillion plus deficit in 2013, but then steadily down to 488 bill in 2017. Of course they assume a lot of things, not to mention use some savings twice. Last time I looked at Obama's budget, it claimed that he would have over 4% growth each and every year. So when that doesn't happen, those numbers will be way off. Then lets look at something else. Last year, Obama agreed to 1 trillion or so in savings to get the debt ceiling raised. I am sure you remember that. Well, he now wants to use that 1 trillion again in these negotiations. Doesn't really work that way. Then there is the war ending issue. It's scheduled to end, planned to end, and apparently will end. This has NOTHING to do with spending cuts. You can't claim the savings from this as well. He may as well claim to save 800 billion over the next ten years by not having another Sandy hit the NE.

The ONLY cuts he proposed is maybe someday in the future to discuss maybe cutting medicare some.. maybe. By 400 billion. The funny thing is, he uses medicare savings to lower the deficit, not fix medicare. Go figure.

[Latrinsorm]

You can't plan for everything you know. Frankly, I find the idea of having to pay tax on something your family worked to get a second time incredibly stupid. Lets say your family owns a modest farm in Kansas.. 5000 acres. Smartly, your family has always passed it down in a way that avoids all death taxes (I am surprised people wouldn't call this Tax Evasion). Your working the farm you own, and at 37, have a stroke and die in the field. Your single, and have no kids. So it goes to your younger brother. Your Land value alone is roughly 11 Million. So lets say your brother now has a choice of selling the farm.. or paying roughly 4 million in taxes. Where will he get 4 million? How many decades would it take working that farm to pay back 4 million?

Hell, just look at your 2 million example. Lets say that is 2 million business. Well.. who has 331k sitting around to pay the tax so they can keep it? Isn't it much more likely that they sell it so they can pay the tax? I am not personally in the business of buying farms, but I would think you can buy a pretty damn good farm for 7 million. The other thing is that even under the current system you would have an estate tax bill in the 7 figures on an 11m estate, which is surely just as beyond the means of modest farmers. It's not an ideal system, but it seems to have worked reasonably well for the last 100 years, right? It doesn't seem like that massive an increase to me, especially when we're merely returning to recent historical levels. People got along somehow in 2001, the proposed system is more forgiving than that.
I was pretty sure that the Obamacare law added an increase to top earns SS tax. I was wrong tho, it's actually Medicare taxes. .9% more on people earning 200k single or 250k family. AND 3.8% medicare tax on investment incomes. All for his healthbill, not Medicare.Ok. I've got to say, that doesn't strike me as terribly punishing either. Investments will still be dramatically lower tax rate than regular income, right? And .9% isn't even a whole percent. I understand the distaste, I don't understand the panic.
Had to read all the way down, then at the bottom, it says 1 trillion plus deficit in 2013, but then steadily down to 488 bill in 2017. Of course they assume a lot of things, not to mention use some savings twice. Last time I looked at Obama's budget, it claimed that he would have over 4% growth each and every year. So when that doesn't happen, those numbers will be way off. Then lets look at something else. Last year, Obama agreed to 1 trillion or so in savings to get the debt ceiling raised. I am sure you remember that. Well, he now wants to use that 1 trillion again in these negotiations. Doesn't really work that way. Then there is the war ending issue. It's scheduled to end, planned to end, and apparently will end. This has NOTHING to do with spending cuts. You can't claim the savings from this as well. He may as well claim to save 800 billion over the next ten years by not having another Sandy hit the NE. I guess I'm looking at it less as who gets credit for what and more at the bottom line. President Obama personally killed Osama bin Laden with his (Obama's) bare hands and some people gave President Bush credit for that, credit in this arena is meaningless. The bottom line is we end up at a 0.5 trillion deficit instead of a 1 trillion deficit, and we do so by making some cuts to traditional Dem sacred cows. I remember a lot of people bringing up "mind the pennies" when Republicans wanted to cut PBS et al, I would think "mind the billions" would be even more compelling.

[Gompers]

PB...it's okay to be an asshole to the liberals on the PC, but don't take it out on the waitresses....

http://i.imgur.com/kzgjE.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

It's their own fault for being former semi-conservatives.

[msconstrew]

So lets say your brother now has a choice of selling the farm.. or paying roughly 4 million in taxes. Where will he get 4 million? How many decades would it take working that farm to pay back 4 million?


This example is just plain wrong. The inheritor of property - and this includes real property as well as personal property like jewelry, and stock too - receives the property with an adjusted basis. That is - if your father bought a house and land for $40,000 in 1950 and it is now worth $4m, and you inherit the property, you do not pay tax on the appreciation between $40,000 and $4m.

You inherit the property with the value of $4m (and I'm assuming for the sake of this issue that it is fair market value, although there are other ways to value real property, including special-use valuations), which is the stepped-up or adjusted basis. You don't pay capital gains tax on that property until and unless you sell it, and the capital gains are not taxed on the property's original value but, instead, on the difference between the stepped-up basis at the time of your inheritance and the sale price. If you sold the land for less than the FMV, then you would sustain a capital loss and would pay no taxes at all.

[Bobmuhthol]

Basis is only relevant for capital gains treatment. There's still estate tax, and there's still inheritance tax. Someone inheriting a large estate wouldn't be worried about capital gains since obviously capital gains taxes can't exceed the proceeds of the sale, but they might be forced to sell the inherited property because they can't afford the inheritance or estate taxes.

[Parkbandit]

PB...it's okay to be an asshole to the liberals on the PC, but don't take it out on the waitresses....



Actually, I imagine I tip far better than you ever would.

I worked in the service industry for 20 years.

[msconstrew]

Basis is only relevant for capital gains treatment. There's still estate tax, and there's still inheritance tax. Someone inheriting a large estate wouldn't be worried about capital gains since obviously capital gains taxes can't exceed the proceeds of the sale, but they might be forced to sell the inherited property because they can't afford the inheritance or estate taxes.

Well, the Estate pays the estate taxes, so the inheritor would not pay those in any event. If the issue is the inheritance tax changes in 2013, then there are different valuation methods that can lessen tax burden (and of course the $1m exemption). Jarvan used the example of a farm, which is particularly a bad example because farms are valued differently than estates and taxes are often calculated differently in order to encourage farmers to continue farming. There is an entire IRS section on how farms are treated in terms of inheritance.

[Warriorbird]

Actually, I imagine I tip far better than you ever would.

I worked in the service industry for 20 years.

Communist!

[Gompers]

I worked in the service industry for 20 years.

Lip service is considered an industry?

[Bobmuhthol]

Well, the Estate pays the estate taxes, so the inheritor would not pay those in any event. If the issue is the inheritance tax changes in 2013, then there are different valuation methods that can lessen tax burden (and of course the $1m exemption). Jarvan used the example of a farm, which is particularly a bad example because farms are valued differently than estates and taxes are often calculated differently in order to encourage farmers to continue farming. There is an entire IRS section on how farms are treated in terms of inheritance.An estate consisting entirely of taxable and tangible goods can't pay a monetary tax, but the inheritor can. Good luck hauling the estate off to debtor's jail.

[msconstrew]

An estate consisting entirely of taxable and tangible goods can't pay a monetary tax, but the inheritor can. Good luck hauling the estate off to debtor's jail.

The executor of the Estate would pay the taxes, in some cases reducing the inheritance of the various inheritors in order to meet the tax obligation. You're right, they can't haul the Estate off to debtor's prison; they can just tax it until it's empty if that's what needs to happen.

[Jarvan]

Well, the Estate pays the estate taxes, so the inheritor would not pay those in any event. If the issue is the inheritance tax changes in 2013, then there are different valuation methods that can lessen tax burden (and of course the $1m exemption). Jarvan used the example of a farm, which is particularly a bad example because farms are valued differently than estates and taxes are often calculated differently in order to encourage farmers to continue farming. There is an entire IRS section on how farms are treated in terms of inheritance.

OMG, so sorry I did not spend a few hours researching the special nature of a farm. I used it purely as an example and not a specific case. Lets change that farm, to an 11 million dollar mansion. Hows that? Or how about an 11 million B&B, or fuck, 11 Million in cash?

As for the estate itself paying the tax, fine.. but.. guess where that money comes from, it's not like it is just a magical thing that pops into being to take care of everything. If the tax is 4 million, and the estate pays it, that's 4 million less that gets passed on. These taxes are really just another way to punish the wealthy or successful. You rarely see a middle class person having to worry about them.

Why do you think tho, that so many uber wealthy donate huge portions of their wealth before they die? It's a better option then giving it to the Government.

[Bobmuhthol]

Yes, but again, you can't divide illiquid things or generate money from them without selling them.
Hows that? Or how about an 11 million B&B, or fuck, 11 Million in cash?Well now your example is trivial: you get the after-tax amount of cash. Way to fuck up being right for once. Actually, reading the rest of your post, maybe I thought you made a brilliant point that you didn't. You seem to just think that taxes are bad for the sake of being bad, so nevermind.

[Jarvan]

Yes, the cash part would mean that a business would not be broken up due to a stupid tax really. And no, I don't think taxes in general are bad. I do think taxing for the sake of punishment IS bad. I also thinking taxing more and more and more so the Government and keep increasing it's spending without really doing anything with said spending, is an issue.

But we are talking about a different thing here.

As for taxing cash, yes you get the after tax amount. say you lose 4 million. You Still lost 4 million, for no real honest to good reason, other then the fact that the government wants to take it from you. The only real point I can see is to prevent families from amassing massive wealth over an extremely long time. Side effect is, it fucks over a lot of small business owners.

Course that is just my opinion, but if someone wants to claim that the government seriously needs this money for it's budget, well.. they haven't found a cure for stupid yet.

[Warriorbird]

Yes, the cash part would mean that a business would not be broken up due to a stupid tax really. And no, I don't think taxes in general are bad. I do think taxing for the sake of punishment IS bad. I also thinking taxing more and more and more so the Government and keep increasing it's spending without really doing anything with said spending, is an issue.

But we are talking about a different thing here.

As for taxing cash, yes you get the after tax amount. say you lose 4 million. You Still lost 4 million, for no real honest to good reason, other then the fact that the government wants to take it from you. The only real point I can see is to prevent families from amassing massive wealth over an extremely long time. Side effect is, it fucks over a lot of small business owners.

Course that is just my opinion, but if someone wants to claim that the government seriously needs this money for it's budget, well.. they haven't found a cure for stupid yet.

I know an excellent country with no taxes. The call it Somalia.

[Tgo01]

I know an excellent country with no taxes. The call it Somalia.

Looks like Somalia has taxes to me. (http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Africa/Somalia.html)

[Parkbandit]

I know an excellent country with no taxes. The call it Somalia.

Captain Hyperbole to the rescue?

[Warriorbird]

Captain Hyperbole to the rescue?

I heard you never spoke with hyperbole.

I also heard a poster claim that "taxes paying for the budget" was a lie cooked up by the government.

Then you chimed in even though you don't actually support that just because you want to have a target.

[Warriorbird]

Looks like Somalia has taxes to me. (http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Africa/Somalia.html)

I heard you use highly creditable sources.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html

Note the bit about no Constitution and different bits of the country being at war with each other.

Then again, you're actually arguing for taxation here, so carry on my wayward son?

[Tgo01]

I heard you use highly creditable sources.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html

Unless I'm missing something totally obvious I don't see the word "tax" at all at that link. It also doesn't say every citizen is vaporized at the age of 30 so we have to assume it's true.

The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7952205.stm) also says Somalia collects taxes.


Note the bit about no Constitution and different bits of the country being at war with each other.

A country needs a constitution in order to levy taxes? A country has no taxes when it's at civil war? I'm learning so many things today.


Then again, you're actually arguing for taxation here, so carry on my wayward son?

I think my other post was like my first or second post in this entire thread, calm down.

[Warriorbird]

Unless I'm missing something totally obvious I don't see the word "tax" at all at that link. It also doesn't say every citizen is vaporized at the age of 30 so we have to assume it's true.

The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7952205.stm) also says Somalia collects taxes.



A country needs a constitution in order to levy taxes? A country has no taxes when it's at civil war? I'm learning so many things today.



I think my other post was like my first or second post in this entire thread, calm down.

The country is split into roughly five regions, all of which are fighting according to most recent recollection. It has been referred to as a textbook example of a failed state. This is like arguing that Joseph Kony is a Christian revolutionary.

EDIT: And note, this is the BBC saying that Kenya will collect taxes for Somalia's government (because they can't handle it) to make your claim even more silly.


Somalia has not had a functioning national authority since 1991 and Islamist insurgents control much of the south of the country.

Announcing the deal, Kenya's foreign minister said tax collection was the cornerstone for a government to work.

Hmm.

[Tgo01]

So what is your claim exactly? That Somalia doesn't have taxes or that the Somalian government doesn't collect taxes? Those are two entirely different concepts.

[Parkbandit]

I heard you never spoke with hyperbole.

I also heard a poster claim that "taxes paying for the budget" was a lie cooked up by the government.

Then you chimed in even though you don't actually support that just because you want to have a target.

Just stop.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes, the cash part would mean that a business would not be broken up due to a stupid tax really. And no, I don't think taxes in general are bad. I do think taxing for the sake of punishment IS bad. I also thinking taxing more and more and more so the Government and keep increasing it's spending without really doing anything with said spending, is an issue.

But we are talking about a different thing here.

As for taxing cash, yes you get the after tax amount. say you lose 4 million. You Still lost 4 million, for no real honest to good reason, other then the fact that the government wants to take it from you. The only real point I can see is to prevent families from amassing massive wealth over an extremely long time. Side effect is, it fucks over a lot of small business owners.

Course that is just my opinion, but if someone wants to claim that the government seriously needs this money for it's budget, well.. they haven't found a cure for stupid yet.Ask crb, we tax what we want people to do less of. If you want rich people to die more, I mean, it's your right to say that. Personally I don't think rich people should be especially targeted by the President's death panels.

In seriousness, have you considered the concept of disproportional disposable income as an alternate explanation to taxes as punishment?

[Warriorbird]

Just stop.

Your rhetorical talents are impressive.

[Parkbandit]

Your rhetorical talents are impressive.

There isn't anything impressive about you at all.

[Warriorbird]

There isn't anything impressive about you at all.

And a perfectly predicted Parkbandit post. Keep it up.

[Parkbandit]

And a perfectly predicted Parkbandit post. Keep it up.

A typical useless Warriorbrd post. Please stop.

[Warriorbird]

A typical useless Warriorbrd post. Please stop.

I dunno. So far me suggesting you use your words generates a string of insults and "stop." I dunno that this is going well for you.

[Methais]

http://www.aetv.com/images/Hammertime-T-Shirt_106x157.png

[Warriorbird]

http://www.aetv.com/images/Hammertime-T-Shirt_106x157.png

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/92963_o.gif

[Parkbandit]

I dunno.

You should have stopped there.

[Methais]

You should have http://www.aetv.com/images/Hammertime-T-Shirt_106x157.png there.

Fixed.

[Methais]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/206663_10200239994345414_871340651_n.jpg

http://t.qkme.me/3ql9o5.jpg

[diethx]

God that new sig is hilarious, Methais.

[Methais]

God that new sig is hilarious, Methais.

I randomly noticed it last night while watching an old Tom Benson (owner of the Saints) HBO documentary and decided it was mandatory to make a gif out of it.

I'm pretty sure he's the You Gonna Get Raped guy before he was homeless. As you can tell, he's still thinking about rape.

[diethx]

I randomly noticed it last night while watching an old Tom Benson (owner of the Saints) HBO documentary and decided it was mandatory to make a gif out of it.

I'm pretty sure he's the You Gonna Get Raped guy before he was homeless. As you can tell, he's still thinking about rape.

You just gave me a belated Christmas gift, I think. I love you.

[ClydeR]

I dreamed last night that I was falling from a great distance. The cord on my parachute was blowing back and forth in the wind, and I couldn't grab it. As the rocky ground at the base of the cliff rushed upward to meet me, I woke in the nick of time.

[Tgo01]

Looks like they might actually come up with a deal soon. Included is another year of extended unemployment benefits. This is getting kind of silly now.

[Parkbandit]

Looks like they might actually come up with a deal soon. Included is another year of extended unemployment benefits. This is getting kind of silly now.

So instead of 2 years, you can collect for 3 years?

[Tgo01]

So instead of 2 years, you can collect for 3 years?

My bad, I phrased that badly. They're just talking about extending the program for another year. So the max one person can collect is still 2 years.

[Jarvan]

My bad, I phrased that badly. They're just talking about extending the program for another year. So the max one person can collect is still 2 years.

Actually, they reduces the max. In most states it is well below 2 years now. Well.. not well below, but more like 1.5 years or so. They eliminated the 4th or 5th extended period, and cut the second last by half.

Still.. I know a lot of former T-mobile employees at the local call center they closed 6 months ago that are cheering for this. Now they won't have to work for another year.

[Tgo01]

Actually, they reduces the max. In most states it is well below 2 years now. Well.. not well below, but more like 1.5 years or so. They eliminated the 4th or 5th extended period, and cut the second last by half.

I thought states that have high unemployment still get the full 99 weeks?