Do you support the compromise regarding the fiscal cliff controversy that was passed by the United States Senate a few hours ago?
No! Bayonet the ruling class stooges of Wells Fargo…OK, all of them, but especially Wells Fargo…and install Himself as President for Life!
I’m getting too old for this shit, and so are you!
No. There is no reason to exclude people in the $250k-$400K range, and even those under $250K should have seen their taxes go up a little. The legislation should have included a debt ceiling increase good for the next 4 years, now the fuckers will be holding a knife to our throats over this and extracting demands.
I voted yes because I think in dysfunctional Washington this was the best we’ll see right now and I think that going over the fiscal cliff would be too much of a financial blow to middle class Americans (with people earning $50k estimated to pay over $2,000 more in taxes, that’s a major increase.)
But like I said in the other thread, I actually think going over the cliff would be better for the long term fiscal health of the country than this very weak compromise. So in principle I’m not real happy with the deal and maintain (barely) hope that they’ll work to come to a more holistic agreement at some point in the near future.
I agree about the debt ceiling, which is a silly and self-contradictory concept. But I don’t see any breakpoint at $250K really, unless it’s specifically 2-income families, who are at the point where they’d really start to get the benefits of the withholding cap. Whereas single income families are already at that point way before $250K, but still do not get the benefit of having substantial capital gains, which do start to make a big part of the income of those making more like $500K. So I think either $150K or $400K is a more logical point than $250K to start raising taxes.
Since the OP couldn’t be arsed to tell us what the compromise was:
I guess I’m kinda “meh” about it. That seems pretty much what Obama had agreed to earlier. It keeps unemployment benefits flowing for 2M Americans.
Not perfect, but better than nothing. I don’t really care that much about jiggering the tax rates around a few percentage points here and there. I just wish we could do it once and for all and quit fighting about changing them all the time.
If judged in terms of the possible, it’s fine. The House Republicans are going to make any policy shitty, and the House and Senate Dems aren’t helping much.
If judged in terms of the absolute merits, its weak. It doesn’t do anything serious to solve the medium-priority problem (long-term deficits). It only half-solves the high-priority problem created by earlier hamhanded attempts to deal with the medium-priority problem (sudden tax increases and spending cuts), leaving us 2% GDP less in the 1Q2013 than we otherwise would have been (returning a 2% tax to your paycheck).
I don’t want my kids to pay my debt, and I also don’t want to crash the economy while it’s weak. But apparently that’s too much to ask this Congress. We can’t even get chained CPI out of the Dems, or the so-called party of deficit hawkery to even propose a change to Medicare. So things will get worse in 2023, and yet worse in 2033. But by then maybe we’ll be in a new political world.
Also this, from here:
I like that part. Apparently there will also be a 3.8% increase due to Obamacare on capital gains, so it goes from 15% to 23.8%, which seems fairly significant, though still not back to the pre-1997 levels of 28%.
I don’t think it will pass the House, so it doesn’t matter. Boehner couldn’t get the votes to raise taxes on incomes over $1 million, how is he supposed to get them to vote for higher rates on incomes over $400k?
I hope Obama completely stonewalls the Tea Party on the debt ceiling. Don’t negotiate with terrorists. The way public opinion is turning, Republicans will own the chaos that results.
Two reasons: (1) Now it’s for real. Voting for a tax increase to avoid the cliff is one thing. Voting for a tax increase as a political symbol is another. If extreme GOP elements are going to raise taxes on the rich, they sure as shit aren’t going to take that vote symbolically. (2) The Senate GOP overwhelmingly supported it. That provides some cover, and it means Boehner might consider bringing it to a vote even without a GOP majority in the House.
- That presumes that the anti-tax caucus is capable of reasoned response, a conclusion not in evidence.
2)If he does, Boehner is toast. Possible, but not likely.
No, It accomplishes none of the vital things that are required. It ultimately will do squat about the debt, and entitlements are still not sustainable. We have spent weeks now debating a tax increase on the rich that would have accomplished virtually nothing, even if Obama got exactly what he asked for. The country has been held hostage over a meaningless “tax the rich” fetish. Since we apparently must increase taxes on the rich, pick a fucking line, increase above that line, then let’s move on and stop talking about such nonsense.
I am not at all hopeful that we will do the things we need to. More bullshit.
This column should be a must read for all voters:
We will soon be $20 trillion in debt, and these idiots will be high-fiving over tax increases that would reduce the current year’s budget deficit to what–$1.1 trillion instead of $1.2 trillion? These tax increases would eliminate the debt in what–100 years? 150 years? More? That’s assuming the debt doesn’t keep growing–which it will…
If we all are as committed to SS, Medicare and Medicaid as we say we are, we have to create programs that are sustainable. There is no meaningful plan that does not address this. There seems to be zero possibility of that occurring. Washington is a fraternity of imbeciles, both sides of the aisle, and our president has only made matters worse. He has created a false debate. Okay, now he won that debate. We’ve raised taxes (or are about to) on those rotten MFers who already pay most of the Federal taxes in this country. Now what?
Debt reduction is not the most immediate problem we face.
Besides, cutting Medicare won’t balance the budget either, so we might as well not do that either, right?
This is an overly partisan read of the situation cultivated by those who want to blame Obama for a problem that is decades-old. The refusal of both sides to deal with entitlements and defense spending has nothing to do with whether its a good idea to increase taxes on income over 250k (or 450k).
Democrats have never said the $800 billion from their tax increases would solve the problem. But the full amount has to come from somewhere. And if we’re gonna cut the measly millions the NEA gets, we’re definitely going to bring the rich back to Clinton-era tax rates.
Compromises are always messy things. But at least the lights will be on and the markets not collapse (unless the house decides to push us over).
I for one do not know the details enough yet to know what to think.
“[T]ax deductions and credits would start phasing out on incomes as low as $250,000 …” This is a big deal depending on which deductions and how quickly they phase out.
Meanwhile the tough choices have just been kicked down the road, the conceit that the self-imposed deadline (cliff) would make them come to agreement given up on: “agreed to put off $110 billion in across-the-board cuts to military and domestic programs for two months while broader deficit-reduction talks continue.” Those cuts are the tough choices and the more difficult ones to do politically.
What’s your plan to eliminate the debt? Furthermore, do you think that going over the cliff, and/or defaulting on our debt, are preferable to the plan being considered now?
True, but at least income taxes for most Americans won’t go up. Let the new Congress deal with the tough stuff.
Getting Congress to do that (which is their job) is the hard part. Getting Obama to agree to it now, not so hard. He’s not going to be up for re-election.
And most Americans will be seeing taxes up - the payroll tax is going back to its previous level. The pain is shared.
I don’t care about cutting NEA funding. That one is the RW imbecilic fetish: eliminate waste. All that jive about Big Bird and fruit fly studies. It too is spitting in the ocean. If you want to participate in a “well, if you get to have an idiotic policy change, then we get one too” strategy, feel free. Not me.
I don’t blame Obama for the portion of this problem that wasn’t on his watch. But I think Samuelson put it perfectly: In our country, there’s one guy, if he’s a real leader, who can advance the national conversation on tough topics, topics we’d rather not deal with. That’s the president, who has failed us utterly in this regard. I blame Obama for crafting a false debate and refusing to do what we need him to, who spent the bulk of his campaign on cowardly pandering. That’s the irony. The guys who could actually have saved entitlements, who at least had a shot, lost the election at least in part because people believe all this horseshit about Obama protecting their programs, not changing a thing against the villainous assault from the Right. In reality, it’s bizarro world. Want to save SS and Medicare? Whatever you do, don’t vote for a Democrat. As a group, they’re perfectly happy watching these programs implode so long as they can convince you there’s no cause for alarm in the meantime. Who’d have thunk it?
The $800 billion–over 10 years, mind you–Obama originally proposed is so far from doing anything meaningful, it defies explanation. But what’s worse, it has not advanced us on a real strategy by so much as an inch. If anything, we’ve gone backwards. He held the country hostage over a tax change that doesn’t ultimately do shit.
Why wouldn’t creating sustainable entitlements balance the budget? 2/3 or so of the budget is SS, Medicare, Medicaid and defense. Let 'em all be on the table. Create a sustainable budget, a balanced one, that doesn’t add to the debt. How’s that for a crazy notion? Let’s start by not making it worse.
My sole complaint is the expiring payroll holiday.