posted
Obviously anyone much older than a ten year old kid knew this issue regarding taxation and spending would "go down to the wire", for if resolved too early, one side or the other would be accused of backing down.
However as of this morning there appears movement; apparently the Republican House leadership is willing to "bend" on tax rate increases for higher income taxpayers. Previously the Senate and the President have held that taxpayers (Joint) with income over $250K should be subject to higher Federal Income Tax rates on income exceeding that threshold. The House has contended that no taxpayer should be looking at increased tax rates or otherwise extend the existing rates set forth in legislation enacted during the Bush (II) administration.
At this time, I think that the President and the Senate should "give in" - even if with the incoming 113th Congress they could "have the votes" in the House to get what they want (Republicans will still have a smaller House majority, and those cleaning out their desks are of the "Tea Party" varietal).
The reason I'd like to see Obama and the Senate give in is that already under PPACA '10 (Obamacare), taxes on those with 250K will rise anyway so that a Medicare tax of 3.8% will be assessed on all income except retirement income. Some may say "this is for Medicare", I disagree and say that "a tax is a tax".
Mr. President, Mr. Majority Leader, time to give in to the House's compromise offer.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would hope that even though the election is over, the discussions of off-rail matters could continue here at this forum.
Nevertheless, regarding the "fiscal cliff", it appears that at best, there will be a "kick the can" to the 113th Congress, or more likely we will go "over the cliff".
Esteemed commentators believe the President has got the cards, and as I noted in the immediate post, he will have even more cards when the House not only loses a number of Republican seats, but those being lost are of the "Tea Party" varietal.
Well, I’d like to help the Republicans understand what’s going on in the other camp. First, Republicans should understand the mood in the White House. A month ago, the president and his team were gearing up for a fight. They were belligerent and tough-talking. Now, their mood is one of deep confidence. They’ve had a good month. The business community is on their side. Public opinion is breaking their way. Republicans are disorganized. The Obama folks project the self-assurance of a Duke basketball team warming up against a Division III school.
Speaker Boehner is a moderate, and I believe that if he were in full control of the existing House, there would be a deal in place. But it appears he is not, and while not likely, his Speakership during the 113th could be in jeopardy.
Since I last wrote, both Obama and Boehner have given ground; to go from $250K to $400K on one hand and from $0 to $1M on the other represents compromise and meant that they could come together at about $600K. All of these numbers represent where either a new bracket supplanting existing rates or a surtax atop those rates would apply; which has not been clear to me.
So as of now, it looks like "We the people" through the auspices of those folk we elect to attend to our business in Washington are about to do a "Thelma and Louise". I can only hope that once the 113th Congress convenes and with some of the radicals gone, a deal will be reached.
Stay tuned; we shall see.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole "fiscal cliff" thing was masterfully engineered by the Dems. Obama (or whoever pulls his puppet strings---George Soros?) has also done a masterful job of pulling the wool over the eyes of the public and making this whole thing look like the Republicans messed up. Truth be known, there is no tax cut no matter how you look at it. However, Obama will proudly go out before the microphones (and the Teleprompter) once a deal has been reached, and he will say how he championed the rights of 'the middle class' (a Marxist term) and cut taxes for the middle class, and that this is a "balanced approach" because "the wealthy" will be paying their fair share. Boy does this make me sick to my stomach, because the masses are going to fall for this malarkey. It's a complex topic that would take time to explain, however, in the end there will be no tax cut---but I guarantee Obama will make it sound like he 'won' and got tax cuts for everyone (except of course those horrible rich people). Shame on us for voting for this creep!
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boehner's "plan B" went down in flames because it INCREASED spending over the next 3 years. It was a stupid plan, concocted by the Elites in DC.
All spending has to start in the House, per our constitution. That gives the House a massive amount of power that the republican elite do not want to use. My bill would continue the Bush tax cuts through 2016, eliminate obama's foolish 2% SS cut, and decrease every federal department's budget by 1 penny on every dollar, with a caveat that the decrease could not affect the end users of every department. That would force the 1% cut to come out of each bureaucracy. I would use the House 2011 budget as a base. (The democrat Senate never passed a budget in 2011)
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A serious analysis should be able to squeeze out a lot of waste and rediculous spending.
My outstanding but near 40 year old example: In Nam I was running around in a jeep that had a little plate on the dash that said that this vehicle was purchased for Three Thousand something dollars under contract number I have long since forgotten. For this you got a four cylinder high maintenance four wheel drive vehicle. At the same time you could walk into any AMC-Jeep dealer in the US and buy a much modernized six cylinder version of the same vehicle for Two thousand six hundred something dollars.
Thus, with the wonders of volume purchasing the government was spending five hundred dollars a unit more than Joe Nobody would have to spend for a higher quality version of the same vehicle.
That sort of stuff should end, and could do wonders for government spending if it did. Another would be to quit wasting so much money on pointless studies. Every time some two bit politician wants something done or else wants something done differently to suit his own little wants a "study" gets done. Then there are things like spending huge money to build things more monumental than useful. The new east half of the San Francisco Bay Bridge is an outstanding example of that one. It is being built as a spectacular cable stayed span with the primary purpose being for people to look at it and say "Oh Wow!" A much more economical replacement for the existing bridge could have been built. That is not even mentioning that the only real need to replace the existing bridge at all was due to lack of real maintenance resulting in excessive corrosion in the joints in the trusses. The billion plus, or is it two plus, being spent on this bridge results in zero increase in capacity.
I would suspect that a 10 to 25 percent reduction in cost of the government could happen with no reduction in functionality.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a minute... I LIKED those old jeeps with the half-inch of seat cushion.
When I was discharged from the Army, they made me a reserve and sent me to Boise for two weeks during the summer after I got out. I was assigned to drive a light colonel and his 1st lieutenant around the desert southwest of Boise to observe the 2nd Cav tank exercises.
On the third day, the lieutenant had his hotel pillow under his butt and the Colonel was pointing out the prairie dog holes that I missed. I had about as much fun as a Spec4 could have at "summer camp". I was never invited back. Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I would hope that even though the election is over, the discussions of off-rail matters could continue here at this forum.
Nevertheless, regarding the "fiscal cliff", it appears that at best, there will be a "kick the can" to the 113th Congress, or more likely we will go "over the cliff".
Esteemed commentators believe the President has got the cards, and as I noted in the immediate post, he will have even more cards when the House not only loses a number of Republican seats, but those being lost are of the "Tea Party" varietal.
Well, I’d like to help the Republicans understand what’s going on in the other camp. First, Republicans should understand the mood in the White House. A month ago, the president and his team were gearing up for a fight. They were belligerent and tough-talking. Now, their mood is one of deep confidence. They’ve had a good month. The business community is on their side. Public opinion is breaking their way. Republicans are disorganized. The Obama folks project the self-assurance of a Duke basketball team warming up against a Division III school.
Speaker Boehner is a moderate, and I believe that if he were in full control of the existing House, there would be a deal in place. But it appears he is not, and while not likely, his Speakership during the 113th could be in jeopardy.
Since I last wrote, both Obama and Boehner have given ground; to go from $250K to $400K on one hand and from $0 to $1M on the other represents compromise and meant that they could come together at about $600K. All of these numbers represent where either a new bracket supplanting existing rates or a surtax atop those rates would apply; which has not been clear to me.
So as of now, it looks like "We the people" through the auspices of those folk we elect to attend to our business in Washington are about to do a "Thelma and Louise". I can only hope that once the 113th Congress convenes and with some of the radicals gone, a deal will be reached.
Stay tuned; we shall see.
You left out the fact that most of the "Blue Dogs" - Democrats who vote like Republicans - have been removed from Congress. And that a good number of Democrats coming in are much more Liberal than previous members. So the GOP will have an even weaker hand to play after January!
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The New York Times lends further credence to Mr. Nicholson's thought with their report that the Tea Party, i.e. radical right zealots, as distinct from reasonable and practical moderates like Speaker Boehner, will soon be diminished in numbers. Even if we have to go "over the cliff", there is reasonable possibility that the effects from such will be short lived.
The "Blue Dogs" may well vote like Republicans, but they vote like "traditional" Republicans, and not the varietal that came to Washington with no intent beyond defeating any initiative put forth by the President and otherwise making any move that would enhance the possibility of his defeat during the last Election.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Radical right zealots... Now that is hilariously funny! Only the leftoids at the NYT could possibly "think" (term used loosely) the people believing they are taxed enough already would be classified as radical right zealots. Does anyone working at the NYT possess an IQ above 80? Unlikely.
One trillion dollar deficits seem to be OK for the dimwits on the left. Increasing income taxes on the top 5% that pay over 40% of ALL income tax seems to be OK for the dimwits on the left. Taking 2% of all Social Security money from a program that is scheduled to go broke in the next few years seems to be OK for the dimwits on the left. Allowing the EPA to kill our coal industry and throttle our oil and gas industry driving the prices of electricity and gas up substantially for the poor and middle class seems to be OK for the dimwits on the left.
I could go on for another 40-50 paragraphs, but you should get the jist of this. Free clue: The TEA Party people are the normal people of this Nation. The leftoids are the takers of this Nation.
And Gilbert, you do remember that all 3 of "the President's" last 3 budgets have been defeated unanimously in the democrat-controlled Senate, right?
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this writing, it appears that "we" are about to make like Thelma and Louise; over we go.
Financial news outlet pundits are predicting a six percent drop in any of the major market indices. It is horrifying that "they can't come together'.
OK, simply because the Administration is confident public sentiment is on their side and that it will be the Republicans fault if we go over does not necessarily make that the case. I think it is time for Obama and other Democrats to "give in" on the matter of tax rates so that the existing income tax rates will stand for everyone. That means for Warren Buffett; that also means for me.
What is overlooked is that Social Security taxes will go up by 2% for every worker on the first $113K of earnings; lower and middle income taxpayers will feel the brunt of that most. Now the high end, comprising Mr. Buffett but not me, is also looking at tax increases as well, while enacted as part of the Health Care Act (Obamacare), there nevertheless is imposed upon all taxpayers with income of $250K an additional Medicare tax of .09% on earned income (salaries) and a 3.8% tax on investment income again for those with $250K or higher. This includes the "carried interest" dodge in which what most would hold is earned income but is taxed as a capital gain (investment income). The only major category of income excluded is retirement income (wonder why; us seniors do have a way of showing up to vote).
The argument could be made that these taxes are dedicated to pay for additional health care costs that will be incurred under Obamacare, but the fact remains it is a tax There is also the matter of the Alternative Minimum Tax and the annual "patch". For benefit of laymen, this "patch" simply represents a legislated adjustment to an exemption that applies when the AMT is computed. This matter could simply be addressed by indexing this exemption to inflation, but that would be too easy and deprive Congress of a point on which they can hold the people that sent them there in the first place hostage.
All told, I think any immediate legislation to be enacted should comprise:
1) Retention of existing income tax rates.
2) Enable Social Security Tax to rise the scheduled 2%
3) Make no change to existing AMT exemption.
4) Make no change to fees paid to health care providers for Medicare beneficiaries.
5) Extend Federally supported unemployment to the pre-existing 99 weeks.
This is doable; and I have set forth my reasons regarding income taxes why this should be the case.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the democrats dropped the SS by that 2%, I thought that was a really dumb idea, with SS on track to be in a deficit in the near future. However, I increased my 401k contributions by 2%, so I did not see any increase in my paycheck. If the SS reduction expires, I can reduce my 401k by 2%, IF i need to.
The only thing in your 5 items I disagree with is #5. I believe 79 weeks is long enough.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Smith, I simply don't know whether or not to concur with your position regarding my immediate point #5. It really is a "two headed Medusa".
On one hand, there are perfectly qualified people out there "on the street", but on the other, there is a degree of empirical evidence that some people will only really seek work, beyond whatever review and enforcement a State agency does with regards to "actively seeking work", when they know the "bennies" are gone.
I just don't know; but I do know that our society will take care of those people so it could be said, just like health care, un/under/employment is a social cost and "we all" bear the cost of such.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are some great points here. I want to reaffirm what Tea Party folks are----please remember that "TEA" stands for "Taxed Enough Already". Additionally, there is no "official" Tea Party---it's in name and spirit only. You can't register to vote as a Tea Party member!
I must admit that I find it both hilarious and disturbing that the left (which includes most of the media) opine that Tea Party people are extremists. They must have their heads buried pretty deeply up their you-know-whats to come up with a statement like that. I consider myself a Tea Party member, and I have attended numerous "rallies" here in Alameda County. When you consider the fact that I live in one of the most liberal/leftist areas of the nation, you might be shocked at how many people turn out for these things. It's ALWAYS standing room only, and the parking lots are always overflowing. And in these crowds, I have never felt safer in my life. ZERO arrests nationwide---Z E R O !!!!! We leave the place cleaner than it was when we arrived. No drunks. No marijuana. No public defecating. Leave all of that stuff to the left and the "Occupy" goons.
All we want are lower taxes, a smaller government, and more power and liberty to the people---now someone please explain to me, WHY IS THIS "RADICAL"???? I'd really like to know. Seriously.
Boehner: Reasonable?? Hah hah hah!!! He is a RINO who has got to go. He was negotiating with himself, making the GOP look weak and stupid (which they currently are). I'd love to see someone like Rand Paul or Marco Rubio in there as Speaker of the House. Then we could at least put a step forward in getting this nation back on track. We are so far off-track right now it's asinine. My stomach churns at what is taking place. I don't know how much longer I can take this without having a meltdown.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Smitty, it isn't your meltdown that concerns me. It is the financial meltdown the country is heading toward. When reality sets in we will be using dollar bills for wallpaper because we will be having inflation like that in Argentina in years past. We have such a huge number of people that are a couple of generations into a not working mindset much of our cities will be in flames because as Margaret Thatcher said, with Socialism you eventually run out of other people's money. We are essentially there.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think David Brooks writing in The Times yesterday has some sound thoughts for all of us to review. As always, the enactment (anyone think Obama is about to veto it?) of, I'm going to say, emergency legislation (emergency on account of those clowns WE elected to properly address our business) leaves more questions on the table than it does answers.
All of Mr. Brooks 800 or so words has meaning; but here are those that stand out and accordingly have selected those as the Brief Passage:
So Congress and President Obama set up the “fiscal cliff,” an artificial disaster scenario that would force them to do the right thing. Obviously, the fiscal cliff negotiations were not going to lead toward the deep structural reforms that will eventually be needed. But they could have begun the reform process.
They could have shown the world that the two parties can work together to avert the eventual calamity. They could have produced a balanced program that would have combined spending cuts and targeted tax increases. They could have reduced Medicare spending on the rich to free up more money for young families.
President Obama and Speaker John Boehner both earnestly wanted to achieve these things. But the deal we are heading toward is discouraging. Yes, the deal does raise $600 billion in revenue over 10 years from a tiny sliver of the population (compared with the $8 trillion in new debt likely to be accrued over that time).
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Medicare is for the young families? When did that happen? You would think someone working at the NYT could do some basic research or at least form a correctly worded sentence.
Brooks is delusional. Neither obama or Boehner are interested in reducing spending. The 60 billion a year from the rich means the deficit will be $1.17 trillion a year, instead of $1.2 trillion a year, while increasing spending $800 billion a year. It is an absurd tax on the producers of our society. The feds just stole 60 million dollars from working Americans.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Brooks: "President Obama and Speaker Boehner both earnestly wanted to achieve these things". What??? I agree--Brooks is delusional. I think it's a requirement in order to be employed at the NYT. Boy am I glad I don't pay much attention to mainstream news any more. No wonder so many people are ill-informed.
So we raised taxes on "the rich". Yay!!! Now we can fund the government for 8 days. Wow, what a genius Obama is. What a guy. So smart and intelligent.
And of course, here is the thing that liberals NEVER understand: "The rich" will, in all reality, not pay more in taxes. YOU AND I WILL. They will raise the price of their product in order to offset the cost of their new tax burden, thus burdening WE THE PEOPLE. Why doesn't the left get it? It's pretty simple stuff to understand. And if they're not going to raise the price of their product, then they'll achieve the same result in a different way---such as reducing the salary of the workers, or cutting their benefits, or having a hiring freeze.
I'm so sick of these jerks working in DC who continue digging the hole deeper and deeper. I don't get it---I don't understand how they get elected and reelected, and I don't understand how the masses are so brainwashed by a guy who is a master liar who smiles while doing it. I can't be the only one who sees through this???!!!!
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
While I respect that the "Smith Brothers' have differing views from mine with regards to quality journalism, I've been reading The Times since I was eight years old, and as such it represents my hallmark.
Finally, I note one provision that within ATRA '12, again presuming it is to be enacted (while Congress must be in their respective chambers with a session called to order and with a quoroum present there is nothing saying the President must be in his official office in order to enact it - he could be on a beach in Hawaii and address legislation), represents progress - and that is the indexing the exemption within the Alternative Minimum Tax to inflation. This means that "the patch" need not be sewn each year. Why such was not included within the originating AMT legislation, which was enacted during 1969, simply escapes me, but maybe if I were a "congresscritter" myself, I'd understand the necessity for such.
Addendum: in his Thursday Journal column, conservative Daniel Henninger makes reference to the railroad pork:
The section titled "Business Tax Extenders" gets ink because it is so ripe for "Daily Show" ridicule. Jon Stewart merely has to read the text: "Credits for certain expenditures for maintaining railroad tracks."
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
