Slog Comments
House Drama Queens Finally Pass "Fiscal Cliff" Bill
1
They are going to have their man-panties in a twist in time for the sequestration cuts and the debt ceiling. We'll be here again.
2
Well, the Republican leadership saw the polling, and did the smart thing. The system does work, sometimes.
3
I'm feeling a little ill about this whole thing. They made permanent some of the Bush tax cuts. As much as everyone goes on about not raising the taxes on the middle class, the middle class has never ever paid such a low amount. We are screwed. Truly screwed. Nothing difficult was done. Nothing that made sense was done. We are headed to the toilet and everyone is soooo happy that taxes haven't gone up on the middle class. Crap. Crap. Crap. (I'm all for keeping them low on low income folks. But I know how much better off I am today because I haven't paid much tax - and I have saved it all. Spent nary a penny of it.) We are a nation of children. I swear.
6
Everyone just lost $1000 or more...even the lowest paid workers.
The workers’ share of the Social Security payroll tax had been lowered by two percentage points for the past two years, to 4.2% from 6.2%, amounting to an annual income boost of $1,000 for a typical U.S. family earning $50,000 a year. It provided an increase of as much as $2,202 this year for a worker earning $110,100, the maximum wage subject to the payroll tax.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/01/0…
7
Isn't that 2% payroll tax our Soc Sec investment? We get that back if the fuckers don't spend it illegally on the permanent wars.
8
#7
Social security is not a savings account. Those paying now, fund those on social security now.
And $1000 taken out of the paychecks of people making $50,000 or less -- core Obama supportesr (!) -- is a big tax bite!
Social security is not a savings account. Those paying now, fund those on social security now.
And $1000 taken out of the paychecks of people making $50,000 or less -- core Obama supportesr (!) -- is a big tax bite!
9
Ah, the children finally turned in their homework a day after the due date, after a last minute, late night cram session.
I'm guessing we'll get a deal on the next "cliff" a day or two late also. Such outstanding role-models.
Seriously, just because the due date is the end of February, doesn't mean they can't pass the next deal tomorrow. They wait because they're childish and wish to avoid responsibility at all costs. If a student does this, he gets never ending shit. But this? Nah, can't do anything about it...
I'm guessing we'll get a deal on the next "cliff" a day or two late also. Such outstanding role-models.
Seriously, just because the due date is the end of February, doesn't mean they can't pass the next deal tomorrow. They wait because they're childish and wish to avoid responsibility at all costs. If a student does this, he gets never ending shit. But this? Nah, can't do anything about it...
10
You guys are all falling into the Republican game plan. A temp tax cut for one purpose suddenly becomes a tax increase when it expires.
And yes, that social security tax is to fund social security. I was livid when they passed that. You know what it really meant? That folks making $100K saved over $2000. And low income folks got a pittance, because they make a pittance.
They had a Worker's Credit that phased out for higher income people that they replaced with starting to gut social security funding.
I have watched this for years.... Republicans do temp tax cuts, then point fingers at the Dems for "raising taxes." Then Obama did the social security thing -- and Goldy is saying -- oh, look the taxes are going up.
Crap crap crap. We are screwed. Like it was said above -- those spending cuts are still coming. But the tax cut has been made permanent. The Republicans won the fucking war.
Crap.
And yes, that social security tax is to fund social security. I was livid when they passed that. You know what it really meant? That folks making $100K saved over $2000. And low income folks got a pittance, because they make a pittance.
They had a Worker's Credit that phased out for higher income people that they replaced with starting to gut social security funding.
I have watched this for years.... Republicans do temp tax cuts, then point fingers at the Dems for "raising taxes." Then Obama did the social security thing -- and Goldy is saying -- oh, look the taxes are going up.
Crap crap crap. We are screwed. Like it was said above -- those spending cuts are still coming. But the tax cut has been made permanent. The Republicans won the fucking war.
Crap.
11
Ironically, this makes Heil one of the few SEOs, and certainly one of the few white hats, to have admitted ever being banned.-Texas Lending
12
@8 Oh, but it is an interest bearing trust fund and Congress is legally obligated to pay that blood money back to beneficiaries. Any fucker who says different, including our "progressive " friends like Reagan 2.0, is a lying fuck.
13
Good lord people the world is not coming to an end, stop being such drama queens that elect drama queens to govern. The reason there is this drama is because America can afford the drama. There are NOT starving millions rioting in the streets. There are NOT destitute millions screaming in the streets for anything. In fact only 120 million Americans bothered to vote. That means most Americans don't give a damn. They must be comfortable enough not to care.
14
This is still, more or less, the governemnt we deserve. You can bitch about how good a job the Democrats do at get-out-the-vote and all, but if people really wanted better government, they could cut out the middleman and just get themselves out to vote.
Could flip the House in the midterms if young people and minorities got themselves out to vote. Not holding my breath, but it could happen. And then we'd have a better tax scheme, and a better budget. Until then, enjoy.
Could flip the House in the midterms if young people and minorities got themselves out to vote. Not holding my breath, but it could happen. And then we'd have a better tax scheme, and a better budget. Until then, enjoy.
15
@8 Partially correct. What you missed is that for the last few decades, the system has been collecting more than it pays out, which goes into something notionally called "the social security trust fund." While it's not a separate fund, it is a surplus that the Treasury credits to Social Security. The extra two or three trillion bucks at the moment is invested in T-Bonds. It's almost enough to get us over the intergenerational hump, which is why it's there.
In the meanwhile, Congress wrote themselves some new accounting rules back in the '80s, which allows them to count the Social Security excess collections as part of the asset side of the national budget, thereby reducing the appearance of the actual budget deficit.
So, here's the real rub. In order for the SSA to tap into their own surplus, Congress has to be willing to pay back the money they borrowed and admit the actual size of the budget deficit, and right now they look like they're more in the mood to just steal the whole thing and pretend it was "their" money all along. That's what all this blathering about "cutting entitlements" is really all about.
In the meanwhile, Congress wrote themselves some new accounting rules back in the '80s, which allows them to count the Social Security excess collections as part of the asset side of the national budget, thereby reducing the appearance of the actual budget deficit.
So, here's the real rub. In order for the SSA to tap into their own surplus, Congress has to be willing to pay back the money they borrowed and admit the actual size of the budget deficit, and right now they look like they're more in the mood to just steal the whole thing and pretend it was "their" money all along. That's what all this blathering about "cutting entitlements" is really all about.
16
#15-- Thank you for that cogent explanation. Makes me even madder. Goddamn those parasitic, lying, duplicitous Congressional thieves.
17
It's hard to make too many cuts when you're waging so many wars. Happy slightly belated 100 year anniversary of the Federal Reserve!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-01…
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-01…
18
@16 At this point it's not so much the thieving that's the problem as the inability of the Tea Party Republicans to compromise. They're not liars. They're trying to destroy large parts of the federal government just like they said they would.
19
@14: There is no way the House will flip in the midterm elections. It is estimated that due to gerrymandering that the Democrats would need to win roughly 5% more of the popular vote to have a statistically even chance of parity. Add in the fact that Democrats vote less during midterm elections, and it is obvious that the Republicans are going to make some gains. The changing demographics are working against the Republicans, but the Tea Party motivated gerrymandering is going to be something that will stay with us for most of this decade.
20
I was kind of hoping republican intransigence would save us from this 'deal'. Glad to hear my rep wasn't fooled, at least.
But i am afraid that we will be looking back at this day and wishing we had held out for a real deal.
But i am afraid that we will be looking back at this day and wishing we had held out for a real deal.
21
Wow. Dems now.ratify bush tax.cuts helping to permanently defund govt. What dems call victory is bush program! By defunding and legitimating the whine that "we are overtaxed" yhe dems help put govt on weaker finamcial footing which will lead to cuts. Iow dems are mow helping to starve the beast.
22
wow again. overall, dems and obama ratify the bush tax cut program, or 98% of it, legitimizing the notions of taxes are bad, whine whine whine, ie govt. is bad, whine whine whine and this will lead to futher cuts as we have now told the top 50% or at leat 48 points of them they shouldn't have to pay for what they get. incredible. and on top of that:
cap gains still not taxed as high as wages!
the lower class, those workers, are going to be hit with a 2% reduction in take home pay! way to go dems, very progressive of you! (under the conservative fiction social security is a pay it forward program, not a redistributionist program; again the dems adopting the conservative frame sets us all up for more cuts later! social security and medicare are very sound if you put them on the basis of tax the rich!) and best of all
--since the income threshold is $400K for single people, thank god a one percenter like me won't have a tax bump in the rate of income tax, ohmygod what a fiscal cliff that would have been had I been forced to fork over an exra coupla thousand bucks. Why it means only four weeks a year at Sun Valley instead of six! Ah yes, far better to have fifty million people lose 2% of their take home pay than to make us near rich pay a tad more.
funny thing....liberals are actually counting this as a win. iow, the republican plan to take the economy hostage worked like a charm, and dems, in negotiating the ransom down from X to "50% of X" are fooled into thinking this is a win.the better headline would be "98% of Dems and Liberals Now Support Bush Economic Program Designed ot Starve The Beast in Incredible Move to Self Disempower Government Delegitimize Government and Legitimize the 'Taxes are Theft' Conservative Meme!!!1"
why is adoping Bush Tax Cuts, or 98% of them, a win?
More...
cap gains still not taxed as high as wages!
the lower class, those workers, are going to be hit with a 2% reduction in take home pay! way to go dems, very progressive of you! (under the conservative fiction social security is a pay it forward program, not a redistributionist program; again the dems adopting the conservative frame sets us all up for more cuts later! social security and medicare are very sound if you put them on the basis of tax the rich!) and best of all
--since the income threshold is $400K for single people, thank god a one percenter like me won't have a tax bump in the rate of income tax, ohmygod what a fiscal cliff that would have been had I been forced to fork over an exra coupla thousand bucks. Why it means only four weeks a year at Sun Valley instead of six! Ah yes, far better to have fifty million people lose 2% of their take home pay than to make us near rich pay a tad more.
funny thing....liberals are actually counting this as a win. iow, the republican plan to take the economy hostage worked like a charm, and dems, in negotiating the ransom down from X to "50% of X" are fooled into thinking this is a win.the better headline would be "98% of Dems and Liberals Now Support Bush Economic Program Designed ot Starve The Beast in Incredible Move to Self Disempower Government Delegitimize Government and Legitimize the 'Taxes are Theft' Conservative Meme!!!1"
why is adoping Bush Tax Cuts, or 98% of them, a win?
23
People are complaining that Obama conceded too much, but what exactly did he give away in exchange?
The Republicans agreed to a big tax hike in exchange for - get this - an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, action on the farm bill, no cuts to entitlements, and all of this while keeping drastic cuts to the military and a vastly increased estate tax as future hostages.
That's some serious jujitsu right there.
The Republicans agreed to a big tax hike in exchange for - get this - an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, action on the farm bill, no cuts to entitlements, and all of this while keeping drastic cuts to the military and a vastly increased estate tax as future hostages.
That's some serious jujitsu right there.
24
@23
the bottom fifty percent of all families will see taxes go up by a thousand or two thousand dollars a year, a huge hike. the top fifty percent of all families is in the main, protected. only the tippy top sees taxes go up. what obama gave away was the baseline notion that taxes are bad and should be cut, that somehow going to the clinton era tax rates is unfair and can't be done, thus permanently ensuring the % of gdp for gummint is lower than it needs to be, undercutting the financial premise of the entire liberal program and moving thewhole debate over to the right again. btw the big tax hike? includes lots of things that keep taxes lower for the top than they were under clinton. the extension of unemp bennies is good, true, but all we did was rescue that from hostage takers setting us up for more ransom in teh future. no cuts to entitlements? well we should cut them in the form of lifting the cap on the income subject to fica. avoiding drastic cuts to miliarty is now a good thing? okay, let's keep adopting more and more of the gop program. nice rightward shift you display there. a vastly increased estate tax? not really, it's still far lower than under clinton, a lower rate and a higher thresshold. we're just retreating all the time it's two steps back one step forward and you and obama and all the dems point to the one step forward and call it progress. we basically adopted MOST of the bush tax cuts PERMANENTLY so to speak. how is this a gain?
the bottom fifty percent of all families will see taxes go up by a thousand or two thousand dollars a year, a huge hike. the top fifty percent of all families is in the main, protected. only the tippy top sees taxes go up. what obama gave away was the baseline notion that taxes are bad and should be cut, that somehow going to the clinton era tax rates is unfair and can't be done, thus permanently ensuring the % of gdp for gummint is lower than it needs to be, undercutting the financial premise of the entire liberal program and moving thewhole debate over to the right again. btw the big tax hike? includes lots of things that keep taxes lower for the top than they were under clinton. the extension of unemp bennies is good, true, but all we did was rescue that from hostage takers setting us up for more ransom in teh future. no cuts to entitlements? well we should cut them in the form of lifting the cap on the income subject to fica. avoiding drastic cuts to miliarty is now a good thing? okay, let's keep adopting more and more of the gop program. nice rightward shift you display there. a vastly increased estate tax? not really, it's still far lower than under clinton, a lower rate and a higher thresshold. we're just retreating all the time it's two steps back one step forward and you and obama and all the dems point to the one step forward and call it progress. we basically adopted MOST of the bush tax cuts PERMANENTLY so to speak. how is this a gain?
26
You all seem confused by the fact that Americans are generally happy with the size of our government but just want it paid for, with lower deficits. The tit sucking nanny state you all want has never been offered, get over it. Obama is a centrist. It's why I voted for him. Want the state to wipe your asses move to Cuba or Greece.
27
@24 - And just going over the fiscal cliff would have given us all of that and more: a higher tax rate for these families you speak of (in addition to the payroll tax expiring), plus millions of unemployed suddenly without any income, which would be personally disastrous to those affected while taking billions out of the consumer economy.
Also, without passing the farm bill, even families who remain exempt from paying taxes would spend hundreds more a year on milk. Passing the farm bill also takes the food-stamps hostage away from Republicans in future negotiations.
And if you think only after such a cliff that Republicans could be shamed into lowering taxes for the middle class in exchange for nothing at all, or not holding the unemployed and those on food-stamps hostage for tax cuts on the rich, you haven't been paying attention to Republicans. They have no such shame to draw upon.
When we complain about the Republicans' my-way-or-the-highway approach to compromise, it's hypocritical to complain when Obama doesn't take the same course.
Also, without passing the farm bill, even families who remain exempt from paying taxes would spend hundreds more a year on milk. Passing the farm bill also takes the food-stamps hostage away from Republicans in future negotiations.
And if you think only after such a cliff that Republicans could be shamed into lowering taxes for the middle class in exchange for nothing at all, or not holding the unemployed and those on food-stamps hostage for tax cuts on the rich, you haven't been paying attention to Republicans. They have no such shame to draw upon.
When we complain about the Republicans' my-way-or-the-highway approach to compromise, it's hypocritical to complain when Obama doesn't take the same course.
28
Shocker of shockers, Obama gives too much, once again, to his buddies, those neocons:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/e…
Obama has now repeatedly repeated the neocon talking point that SS has something (actually nothing) to do with those deficits which made a fortune for the Wall Streeters.
My prediction (if it hasn't already occurred): By the end of Obama's term, the US Chamber of Commerce has the official lease to the White House.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/m…
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/e…
Obama has now repeatedly repeated the neocon talking point that SS has something (actually nothing) to do with those deficits which made a fortune for the Wall Streeters.
My prediction (if it hasn't already occurred): By the end of Obama's term, the US Chamber of Commerce has the official lease to the White House.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/m…
29
@23, try reading the legislation for once in your frigging, paltry existence (some of us have actually been doing it for many, many decades, which is why the rest of you morons appear to be exactly that!!!!@).
Or read my links in the comment above.....
Or read my links in the comment above.....
30
@23, you sound like such a complete and total simpleton....
"That's some serious jujitsu right there."
You couldn't even begin to find your vagina, sonny.....
A serious question for your mentally-challenged pea brain:
Who owns JPMorgan Chase? Goldman Sachs? ExxonMobil? AT&T? Morgan Stanley?
What court case was brought by the US government against the banksters, claiming a criminal conspiracy going back to 1915, following the study by Congress called TNEC (Temporary National Economic Committee)?
Who owns Bank of America? Citigroup? GE?
Who owns Northrop Grumman?
(PS --- please don't waste any valuable time searching for your genitals.)
"That's some serious jujitsu right there."
You couldn't even begin to find your vagina, sonny.....
A serious question for your mentally-challenged pea brain:
Who owns JPMorgan Chase? Goldman Sachs? ExxonMobil? AT&T? Morgan Stanley?
What court case was brought by the US government against the banksters, claiming a criminal conspiracy going back to 1915, following the study by Congress called TNEC (Temporary National Economic Committee)?
Who owns Bank of America? Citigroup? GE?
Who owns Northrop Grumman?
(PS --- please don't waste any valuable time searching for your genitals.)
31
@10, bareboards & @17, Spindles ,
While @10 makes some very cogent points, he or she is still mired in the idea that it's team #1 versus team #2, or the Red Team against the Blue Team, instead of what it really is, political theater of the absurd, with five neocons in a row in the White House (Reagan, Bush#1, Clinton, Bush#2, Obama). Obama and Clinton both have/had 100% neocon administrations; you don't have a 100% neocon administration without being a neocon yourself.
Spindles, as usual, makes the most on target comment --- his only problem is most likely youth, and since such is his condition he mistakes Ron Paul for being a populist, especially since Paul has co-opted the traditional populist antipathy against the banksters' front office, the Federal Reserve.
The truly great populist to come out of Texas was Wright Patman, who has never been written about often enough or with enough depth, as Patman's life exemplies the problems we are facing with America today, the battles he constantly fought against Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the banksters, while Ron Paul has consistently been anti-worker, and introduced anti-worker legislation in congress from time to time, definitely not the definition of a populist!
While @10 makes some very cogent points, he or she is still mired in the idea that it's team #1 versus team #2, or the Red Team against the Blue Team, instead of what it really is, political theater of the absurd, with five neocons in a row in the White House (Reagan, Bush#1, Clinton, Bush#2, Obama). Obama and Clinton both have/had 100% neocon administrations; you don't have a 100% neocon administration without being a neocon yourself.
Spindles, as usual, makes the most on target comment --- his only problem is most likely youth, and since such is his condition he mistakes Ron Paul for being a populist, especially since Paul has co-opted the traditional populist antipathy against the banksters' front office, the Federal Reserve.
The truly great populist to come out of Texas was Wright Patman, who has never been written about often enough or with enough depth, as Patman's life exemplies the problems we are facing with America today, the battles he constantly fought against Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the banksters, while Ron Paul has consistently been anti-worker, and introduced anti-worker legislation in congress from time to time, definitely not the definition of a populist!
32
@18, the moron mehlman....
"They're not liars." They began after a crying rant by Santelli --- they most certainly are liars.
"They're not liars." They began after a crying rant by Santelli --- they most certainly are liars.
35
Actually, @10 is correct.
Capital gains rates and carried interest did not reset to the true median tax level of 40 percent taxes they have been for most of the last 100 years, so basically we middle class got screwed so rich people could get richer.
Capital gains rates and carried interest did not reset to the true median tax level of 40 percent taxes they have been for most of the last 100 years, so basically we middle class got screwed so rich people could get richer.
36
One more thing about the payroll tax "increase."
The progressive argument (which I agree with) is that social security isn't an "entitlement," it is insurance that was bought and paid for. You can argue whether the insurance is a good bargain or not, but indeed -- you pay into the system, if you live long enough or leave dependents behind, you will get a return for those "insurance premiums".
No progressive who whines about the "payroll tax increase" can ever again say -- "hey, that isn't an entitlement, we paid for it". STOP WHINING. If you don't stop whining about it, then you are sounding exactly as if it is indeed an "entitlement" and not something that you "paid for."
Crap.
We live in a great country with great ideals about helping each other, and helping the world. IT TAKES MONEY. And we need to pay for the things we want. So let's pay our "fair share" of taxes and stop acting as if we are horribly burdened. We pay a pittance compared to other developed nations, and a pittance compared to what we used to pay.
And yeah, it isn't red vs blue. But there is a pattern -- the reds pass "temporary" tax cuts when they have the power and the blues are probably quite happy, at least politically, to let them extend once they have "the power". Over and over.
And the debt climbs. And the deficit climbs. And everyone points at everyone else, rather than take responsibility and PAY THEIR FRIGGING TAXES like grownups. Dang, am I pissed.
The progressive argument (which I agree with) is that social security isn't an "entitlement," it is insurance that was bought and paid for. You can argue whether the insurance is a good bargain or not, but indeed -- you pay into the system, if you live long enough or leave dependents behind, you will get a return for those "insurance premiums".
No progressive who whines about the "payroll tax increase" can ever again say -- "hey, that isn't an entitlement, we paid for it". STOP WHINING. If you don't stop whining about it, then you are sounding exactly as if it is indeed an "entitlement" and not something that you "paid for."
Crap.
We live in a great country with great ideals about helping each other, and helping the world. IT TAKES MONEY. And we need to pay for the things we want. So let's pay our "fair share" of taxes and stop acting as if we are horribly burdened. We pay a pittance compared to other developed nations, and a pittance compared to what we used to pay.
And yeah, it isn't red vs blue. But there is a pattern -- the reds pass "temporary" tax cuts when they have the power and the blues are probably quite happy, at least politically, to let them extend once they have "the power". Over and over.
And the debt climbs. And the deficit climbs. And everyone points at everyone else, rather than take responsibility and PAY THEIR FRIGGING TAXES like grownups. Dang, am I pissed.
37
There are some unregistered comments above that are well worth reading about exactly how we just got screwed. I agree with virtually everything, except the whine about social security taxes going up.
If you are truly low income, the tax isn't going to be much. And if you are truly low income, you will continue to get the Earned Income Credit, which was designed to offset paying into the social security system.
If you are making $100K -- sorry, zero sympathy here. That is a lot of income, if you haven't bought a bunch of stuff you can't afford. The bargain period is over, time to go back to the real world and pay your insurance premiums.
If I sound like a Republican, I'm not. See @22 above. This is NOT A VICTORY. The starve-the-government Republicans have won the whole war and I am sick to my stomach about it.
If you are truly low income, the tax isn't going to be much. And if you are truly low income, you will continue to get the Earned Income Credit, which was designed to offset paying into the social security system.
If you are making $100K -- sorry, zero sympathy here. That is a lot of income, if you haven't bought a bunch of stuff you can't afford. The bargain period is over, time to go back to the real world and pay your insurance premiums.
If I sound like a Republican, I'm not. See @22 above. This is NOT A VICTORY. The starve-the-government Republicans have won the whole war and I am sick to my stomach about it.
38
@22, Liberals.....
"why is adoping Bush Tax Cuts, or 98% of them, a win?"
Well, not to repeat myself for the 1,000th time, but as I routinely rant at the Stranger staff,
PLEASE READ THE FRIGGING LEGISLATION ! ! !
"why is adoping Bush Tax Cuts, or 98% of them, a win?"
Well, not to repeat myself for the 1,000th time, but as I routinely rant at the Stranger staff,
PLEASE READ THE FRIGGING LEGISLATION ! ! !
Comments (38) RSS