Fiscal Cliff

[FrazeeDK]

ah KD, aren't you forgetting that Clinton "moved to the middle" and cut the deals with a Republican controlled Congress to "balance the budget" and "reform welfare".. If you're going to give credit, give it to all parties who worked together to attain it... The current impasse will certainly require the Repubs to give in on the revenue side but conversely, the Adminstration needs to give more on spending cuts and not juggle the books or "backload" cuts 5-8 years down the road.. We need realistic revenue reform as well as significant curbs on federal spending to include entitlements.

[nkstan]

The general public and Obama are so focused on taxing the ''rich'',they are blind to the FACT that they are taxing the JOB PROVIDERS!!!
Are they so jealous and obsessed that they don't realize that the Government created jobs are a drag on the economy,can not sustain themselves and will be the demise of the Nation as a whole!
The very rich will survive will survive,but small businesses,jobs,middle class lifestyles will shrink and the welfare state will expand until it is exhausted.The pressure by debt holders will undermine our strength and foreign relations!
The World will lose the the power base to generally protect basic freedoms and reasonable basic human rights!
Obama will have accomplished his goal of making this Nation more equal with other nations,it's people more equal in wealth,although at a much lower level!
A big congratulations to all those that have always wanted the USA to be lowered in status!Your jealousy and lack of support will now give your descendants new World leaders!What would you prefer Islam Sharia leaders or Chinese?

[bumper]

One has to wonder will we last as long as the Roman Empire, probably not.

[rick]

Rich people don't create jobs; they give their money to someone else to invest it for them. These days, that investment is likely to be in another country, or maybe to automate a process and make a few more redundant. It is the middle class who create jobs - and the middle class is being squeezed - they cannot afford to educate their children, pay for healthcare, and compete against a foreign company who can cut corners. For the last 10 years, incomes of the middle and working class have stagnated in the USA; only the rich got richer. Giving money to the rich won't help; it will be creamed off to the Cayman islands, Switzerland or the likes; maybe spent on an imported car. The middle class and the working class will spend it mainly in their home country.

In the UK, the revelation that many multi-nationals do not pay tax in the UK has come to light. They register in low tax countries, and charge royalties to the UK operations which neatly cancel out the profit. What benefit are they to the home economy? But in these days of electronic funds transfer, money can be the other side of the world in seconds.

It is the parasites who can avoid taxes who are ruining there home countries. I cannot say there is an easy answer, but throwing money at them is not the answer.

[parrot]

"A big congratulations to all those that have always wanted the USA to be lowered in status!Your jealousy and lack of support will now give your descendants new World leaders!What would you prefer Islam Sharia leaders or Chinese?"

Because Obama won the election, or because he's in favor of health insurance for those who otherwise can't afford it, or because he's in favor of taxing the upper 2%..........is that what the US is facing.....Islam Sharia leaders or Chinese?
Sounds like a good episode of Doomsday Preppers.

[KHONDAHM]

ah KD, aren't you forgetting that Clinton "moved to the middle" and cut the deals with a Republican controlled Congress to "balance the budget" and "reform welfare".. If you're going to give credit, give it to all parties who worked together to attain it...

C'mon...tsk, tsk, tsk. You should know better than to contradict me with absolutely ZERO facts to back up your position. Such a silly thing to attempt.

Here are those annoying facts.

1. Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy during his FIRST year.
2. Democrats controlled BOTH Houses of Congress during his first and second years when work got done!
3. When Republicans won both Houses, they fought Clinton tooth and nail to make the cuts THEY wanted, but Clinton either vetoed or pocket vetoed all such attempts. Republicans shutdown the government multiple times over the budget empasses during the 104th Congress (Republican controlled). Clinton held is ground. THAT, boys and girls, is how he succeeded. No thanks to Republicans.
4. In fact, REPUBLICANS in the 105th Congress (Republican controlled) passed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (which had a bunch of goodies for the rich) using a procedural trick called reconciliation. That Act had the affect of INCREASING the deficit.
5. The 106th Congress (Republican controlled) was almost entirely consumed by the Blue Dress. A travesty of Congress, IMO. In a deal to avoid impeachment in the Senate and already at the end of his term, Republicans pushed for - and Clinton signed into law - The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. THIS is the Act which set up the eventual 2008 collapse and all the crap countries around the world are dealing with now. THIS is the Act which "repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company." After it's passage, it was VIVA LAS VEGAS! in the financial markets.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-bu ... r-clinton/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_Unit ... s_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... 5_and_1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconcilia ... 8Senate%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leac ... zation_Act



So, let's try NOT to contradict KD without FACTS. Ok? Ok.

[FrazeeDK]

wouldn't want to do that KD.. Maybe I'll throw another softball your way and you'll spend several hours researching.....

[nkstan]

Rich people don't create jobs; they give their money to someone else to invest it for them. These days, that investment is likely to be in another country, or maybe to automate a process and make a few more redundant. It is the middle class who create jobs - and the middle class is being squeezed - they cannot afford to educate their children, pay for healthcare, and compete against a foreign company who can cut corners. For the last 10 years, incomes of the middle and working class have stagnated in the USA; only the rich got richer. Giving money to the rich won't help; it will be creamed off to the Cayman islands, Switzerland or the likes; maybe spent on an imported car. The middle class and the working class will spend it mainly in their home country.

In the UK, the revelation that many multi-nationals do not pay tax in the UK has come to light. They register in low tax countries, and charge royalties to the UK operations which neatly cancel out the profit. What benefit are they to the home economy? But in these days of electronic funds transfer, money can be the other side of the world in seconds.

It is the parasites who can avoid taxes who are ruining there home countries. I cannot say there is an easy answer, but throwing money at them is not the answer.

Do you consider everyone that makes $250 K a year,the rich?Where is your cut off for the middle class?

The ''middle class'',to me,are the employees and they are not the job creators.My position is that if you want create jobs,keep the environment FRIENDLY for the ''job creators''.If you want to find revenue from the ''rich'',tax luxury items,not business!

[nkstan]

Rich people don't create jobs; they give their money to someone else to invest it for them. These days, that investment is likely to be in another country, or maybe to automate a process and make a few more redundant. It is the middle class who create jobs - and the middle class is being squeezed - they cannot afford to educate their children, pay for healthcare, and compete against a foreign company who can cut corners. For the last 10 years, incomes of the middle and working class have stagnated in the USA; only the rich got richer. Giving money to the rich won't help; it will be creamed off to the Cayman islands, Switzerland or the likes; maybe spent on an imported car. The middle class and the working class will spend it mainly in their home country.

In the UK, the revelation that many multi-nationals do not pay tax in the UK has come to light. They register in low tax countries, and charge royalties to the UK operations which neatly cancel out the profit. What benefit are they to the home economy? But in these days of electronic funds transfer, money can be the other side of the world in seconds.

It is the parasites who can avoid taxes who are ruining there home countries. I cannot say there is an easy answer, but throwing money at them is not the answer.

Do you consider everyone that makes $250 K a year,the rich?Where is your cut off for the middle class?
I don't see the value of billionaires,do you.Pure greed and ego in my book.I have no problem taxing them and closing loopholes that help them avoid taxes!

The ''middle class'',to me,are the employees and they are not the job creators.My position is that if you want create jobs,keep the environment FRIENDLY for the ''job creators''.If you want to find revenue from the ''rich'',tax luxury items,not business!

[KHONDAHM]

wouldn't want to do that KD.. Maybe I'll throw another softball your way and you'll spend several hours researching.....

LOL! Actually, it took less than 20 minutes; and do I enjoy it as it refreshes my memory and often leads me to take a look into other things with the benefit of hindsight. Politics is the most interesting reality show and cast of conflicting characters ever. Never a dull moment!

[parrot]

nkstan "The ''middle class'',to me,are the employees and they are not the job creators.My position is that if you want create jobs,keep the environment FRIENDLY for the ''job creators''.If you want to find revenue from the ''rich'',tax luxury items,not business!"

I'm not faulting your position, but that was the line the Republican presidential ticket ran on.........they lost. It's not to say they're wrong, it's just that they lost.

[KHONDAHM]

Do you consider everyone that makes $250 K a year,the rich?Where is your cut off for the middle class?

The ''middle class'',to me,are the employees and they are not the job creators.My position is that if you want create jobs,keep the environment FRIENDLY for the ''job creators''.If you want to find revenue from the ''rich'',tax luxury items,not business!

I have always taken issue with legislation which proposes a fixed number as a means of categorization, but gotta start somewhere. $100 in San Francisco or Honolulu is not going nearly as far as $100 in Parkersburg, WV. Yet, the tax code thinks so.

On the matter of what the wealthy do with their tax savings: they save it, invest in equities, or move it off-shore. I do not know anyone who is near or comfortably above $250k (typical for foreigners in Thailand, btw) is going to rush out and buy luxury items or create new jobs JUST because of a tax cut. Most above that threshold are fanancially sophisticated, have all they need, and would rather invest the savings and be taxed at the capital gains rate for earnings made with that money. If I were to create jobs, I would take out a loan - which isn't taxed, btw - and grow my business with the bank's money - not mine. Mine would be invested elsewhere.

And THAT is exactly what is happening on a grand scale. If I were to be taxed a little more, I wouldn't even miss it. To be clear, I am certainly no dollar gazillionaire. If I wouldn't miss it, they certainly wouldn't either.

The arguement about affecting "job creators" is nothing more than a red herring.

[gudtymchuk]

If I were to be taxed a little more, I wouldn't even miss it. To be clear, I am certainly no dollar gazillionaire. If I wouldn't miss it, they certainly wouldn't either.

None of us would have to be taxed more if only Washington would borrow and spend less.... something very foreign to the "New Progressive Movement" and their European Socialization paradigm.

[nkstan]

If I were to be taxed a little more, I wouldn't even miss it. To be clear, I am certainly no dollar gazillionaire. If I wouldn't miss it, they certainly wouldn't either.

I DID NOT WRITE THE ABOVE QUOTE!

[bumper]

So far business as usual, hung up on the same things as before I believe. Maybe Jimbo is right time will tell.

[gudtymchuk]

If I were to be taxed a little more, I wouldn't even miss it. To be clear, I am certainly no dollar gazillionaire. If I wouldn't miss it, they certainly wouldn't either.

I DID NOT WRITE THE ABOVE QUOTE!

Whoops, my editing mistake. The quote should have been wholly attributed to KD and not nkstan. Sorry Stan

[JimboPSM]

I find it interesting that (based on its recent history) the most likely Congressional choice of “doing nothing” is the one choice that most politicians are showing the greatest reticence in discussing, debating or even acknowledging as a possibility – although it is creeping into the talking points of the "punditocracy".

In idle moments (with the almost total absence of any meaningful dialogue) I do wonder whether the "doing nothing" choice of actually going over the cliff may already actually be a "behind the scenes" agreement by both sides - it does save them from having to do a lot of work before the holidays (sometimes I may be just too cynical)

With the clock running out (and with the Christmas holidays approaching that is even faster than most people think) most of the politicians of each party grandstand about how reasonable their position is and just how unreasonable the position of their opponents is – truly pathetic.

Even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scarcely gives “doing nothing” a mention, in their recent report “Choices for Deficit Reduction” if you go to the third line of the second column of page 2 you will find this throwaway sentence which covers the “doing nothing” choice:

For example, CBO projects that the significant tax increases and spending cuts that are due to occur in January will probably cause the economy to fall back into a recession next year, but they will make the economy stronger later in the decade and beyond.

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ ... _print.pdf

In my opinion the CBO should have put considerably more emphasis on analysing the impact of “doing nothing” – at least it would recognise both the political reality and the degree of dysfunction in Washington.

[parrot]

I may be way off the mark here, but I'm viewing the fiscal cliff negotiations as I might a football/basketball/baseball game. Two teams, two strategies going into the game......but as the game proceeds, each side has to adjust their strategy. Even when it becomes obvious you're not going to win the game, you still adjust your strategy to minimize your losses.
In this particular game, unlike last year, it appears President Obama has the upper hand.....a newly won election by the majority of American people along with an impending fiscal cliff that the Republicans know full well they can't allow to happen. That doesn't mean he's going to win the fight, but, at least at this point, the game seems to be in his favor. 3rd quarter, still plenty of time outs left on both sides.

[parrot]

When Republicans start making comments like the one below, that, to me, is an indication that they're losing the fight. Maybe too early to tell, but a good indication, none the less.

"But Republicans also know they have a problem: many liberal Democrats are more than willing to return to the Clinton-era tax code, and to allow across-the-board spending cuts to take effect, which disproportionately affect the military, rather than compromise too much with Republicans after the strong Democratic showing in the elections.

“It’s a terrible position because by default, Democrats get what they want,” said Representative James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, who admitted his party is boxed in.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/us/po ... ml?hp&_r=0)

[bumper]

No matter what they do things will change one way or another. Either way sounds like the Bush tax cuts are doomed.