Oh, got it now. So, Obama’s commitment in his campaign to address entitlement reform and the debt, so long as the strategy was balanced with increased taxes on the rich–that was all bullshit then?
Yes, it is. If only there were some way to resolve this impasse–if the candidates had debated, perhaps; or if they had websites or if their campaigns had been covered by columnists and reporters. Alas! 
Seriously, did you think the president was hallucinating when he was ranting at Romney during the debates about (gasp!) vouchers?
Thus, far from making the tax code more progressive, the percentage tax increase on workers is about the same as on the very rich.
I think it’s good that a deal was reached before deadline – otherwise confidence of financial markets and foreign countries in U.S. government would suffer. Obama gave up more (e.g. on estate tax) than I’d have liked: Please remember that the estate tax largely taxes unrealized capital gains that never get taxed without the estate tax.
The relatively minor tax changes at stake seemed less important than political perception. Naturally I wanted the rationalists to gain prestige at the expense of right-wing fanatics. Did that happen? (I’m doubtful.)
Not going off the fiscal cliff saved my husband’s business and probably prevented layoffs.
HAHAHAHA! That’s a good one! But anyway, the well of ignoring FICA has been truly poisoned by those who want to have it both ways: pretend that the rich pay by far the highest rate of taxes in America, AND imply that we are just giving away money to retirees (i.e. much if not the majority of the “Taker” 47% Romney referred to), which ignores their FICA contributions not once but TWICE.
I notice that Boehner himself actually voted for the compromise last night. That’s strange, Speakers by tradition do not vote (but of course, may), and the vote wasn’t so close as to require his vote to pass.
That really shocked me to be honest. This wasn’t that controversial of a compromise. Most people agree it’s not much better in the grand scheme of things than just letting the cliff happen, but it protects the all important middle class form a massive tax increase, which was the point. Note that in the Senate it had 89 votes, an overwhelming majority of Republicans there voted for it.
I can’t believe the House Republicans are so recalcitrant as to force their Speaker to call a vote in which less than a majority of them went along with it. I suspect Cantor and Boehner to be at odds for the entire 113th Congress…I’d even suspect Cantor of starting a campaign for the Speakership but it’s so late in the game now I doubt that will happen.
I think this is 90% of the reason the vote happened Jan 1 rather than 12/31. Political cover.
Where did he say that? I’m not seeing it on politifact or the guardian.
Anyway, the demographic threat to Social Security is largely illusory. Those without a high school diploma, probably most likely to be reliant on Social Security for retirement, have an average lifespan of 67.5 years - drawing full retirement money for two and a half years. Social Security would remain solvent as is for 75 years if the payroll tax cap were eliminated.
I interpret the Boehner vote as being the price he had to pay to get some of the GOP votes. I suspect he was told more than once “You want my vote Mr. Speaker? Then put yours on the record, too!”
I’m skeptical of Obama’s claim not to be willing to compromise on the debt ceiling. Many a time, he’s drawn a line in the sand only to erase it and step backwards.
From the debate: “MR. ROMNEY: What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare and the president supports taking $716 billion out of that program. . . . What I’d do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan – their choice. They get to – and they’ll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them. So they don’t have to pay additional money, no additional $6,000. That’s not going to happen.”
Romney’s plan, therefore, was to increase Medicare spending by $716 billion and then decades from now institute a plan in which people could continue to choose traditional Medicare. And because he said that in a debate (and virtually nowhere else), you maintain that he campaigned on reforming entitlements? That is not within the same solar system as a fair assessment. It is based on a pre-existing worldview in which Republicans are fiscal saviors and big bad Obama just wants to stick it to the rich is an ideological construct. It does not accord with the facts.
The fact that even I, a non-politician, knew how absurd it was for House conservatives to torpedo Plan B tells me that there really are some idiotic politicians in Washington. Maybe I should run for Congress.
Why was it idiotic to not vote for a plan that had no chance of Senate approval?
Uh, what? As far as I can tell, in the history of the U.S. revenues as a percentage of GDP have never been even close to 25% of GDP (more like 21% at a peak and less than 18% currently). Discretionary spending was 9.3% of GDP in 2010. And you are just hand waving off entitlements increasing to only 25%? Don’t you see the massive gap? This doesn’t even count interest expense. What’s your plan on closing this gap, doubling taxes?
Well, if they are making their $400,000 from investments then they are likely getting their income from dividends and capital gains, which have taxes increasing by 5% as part of this deal. On top of this they will still have the 3.8% increase in capital gains taxes that was part of the PPACA.
It’s not great, but it does a few good things:
Eliminates the massive questions regarding future income tax rates - almost everything is made permanent now except for some deductions. This solidifies future projections and gives a solid base for future revenue.
Increases progressiveness and brings investment income rates up towards earned income rates (particularly at the high end where the 3.8% surtax comes in).
Locks in estate tax rates, finally. The year-by-year variation was just idiotic. I think the current rate is too low and the exemption too high, but at least it’s set (for now).
Extends unemployment insurance and a few other stimulative devices.
On the downside:
Removes the leverage of mandatory tax hikes entirely while not raising the debt ceiling. It will be very hard for Democrats to get any more revenue in exchange for debt ceiling increases. The wild card here is the sequester. If it painful enough for the GOP that they will raise the debt ceiling just to avoid it then perhaps progress can be made. Holding on the the chained-CPI card for SS helps too - that’s a pretty big chit to play in negotiation.
In the end, I would have to vote for it. Whether it is better than going over the cliff and working from that baseline remains to be seen.
How is it that this originated in the senate and then went to the house? I’m not a constitutional scholar but I thought that it was precisely this type of bill that had to originate in the house and then receive a vote in the senate. What’s the technicality here?
Also, Boehner voting yes and Cantor voting no is very dramatic.
As I understand it this was technically a House Bill - HR8, I think. It was amended in the Senate to remove all of it’s language and replace it with the compromise language. Then sent back to the House for approval.
You do what you can with the Congress you have. Obama didn’t lie, but he didn’t think the House GOP was going to 1) hold office, and 2) be so insipid as to throw the entire country off the cliff in an all-or-nothing tantrum
Not to sound snarky, but I hope you realize what most of us non-Republicans have been seeing for the last few years. These GOPers absolutely cannot be trusted to govern. I couldn’t believe it either that Boehner essentially sided with the Dems over a majority of his own party, knowing a speakership vote was coming up, knowing this own 2nd in command was going after him and publicly disagreeing with him, knowing that his band of House Republicans are some of the most stubborn in memory. Boehner looks to me like he pretty much told his own party to stuff it and sided with the Dems to save Christmas…er, I mean, save America. This is how its going to look to most people watching this. And this only 2 weeks after he tried to avoid embarrassment by pulling that Plan B vote
Now I know the world really did end on Dec 21! :eek: This must be Limbo…
I think the technicality is that the bill didn’t raise revenue, it blocked revenue from being lowered by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. I’m not sure how that squares with raising capital gains and other items in the bill re Article I section 7.