Market Currents
Plan C. Acknowledging there is no time to craft a "grand bargain" before year end, the President...
-
Saturday, December 22, 2012, 7:10 AM ETPlan C. Acknowledging there is no time to craft a "grand bargain" before year end, the President urges Congress to pass a stopgap measure, saying he'll immediately sign a bill allowing unemployment benefits to continue and preventing tax hikes on those with income under $250K/year.
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 182 comments:
11,000 new recipients every day for the last 4 years , though September was the biggest month ever +600,000 new recipients
Hugo Chavez would be proud
http://reut.rs/UR2RHb
When it comes to a choice between providing food for the hungry and buying fine killing machines, WWJD? (hint: Buy the killing machines of course.) That's why religious conservatives are for F-35, money to come from cutting out foodstamps for kids.
So this is how you Obamaittes plan to spin this disaster.
Thanks for the DNC talking point .
From food stamps to $20 trillion of debt, we have elected officials who don't care about this country!
Obama has doubled gas prices, food stamps, tripled the debt, doubled the deficit, assassinated americans, detained Americans without trial, droned pakistani kids to death.
Just be quiet, you don't know your facts.
I agree. Republicans and Conservatives should get behind Obama just like all the democrats and liberals got behind Bush after he won two elections?
Does that also mean no name calling like you all did to Bush?
That way, the House will go back to the Democrats in 2014. I love it!
The Democratic controlled Senate has already passed a bill that extended the tax cuts for incomes $250K and lower. (Obama has stated he would support legislation even extending to $400K income)
Speaker of House Boehner attempted to get the Republican controlled House to pass a bill extending tax cuts for incomes less than $1MM but not extending the cuts for $1MM + incomes. The Republicans failed to pass this measure.
http://huff.to/12zgX5C
Anyone arguing about parties is an idiot. They're all the same. They need to expelled from office. ALL OF THEM.
democratic parties did this, GOP did this. PLEASE. Grow up and grow a pair. These politicians are ALL liars and thieves.
You citizens should educate yourselves and start demanding more and throwing these bums out.
Fox news. don't insult me cartoon cat. How cute.
That seemed like a great compromise to me! I still have NO idea why the repubs refused...
1. He wants to spend $50 billion a month above and beyond the Fed for public works programs that were suppose to funded and public ready under Tarp 1/2/3 or Quantitative Easing 1/2/3 or Twist 1/2/3.
2. He wants to take the power away from the Senate for control of the DEPT CEILING. He wants to be able to run the printing presses 24/7 and spend as much as he wants to float the country to $30 trillion of debt.
So you can only imagine how bad things really are if he is gonna get $1.4 trillion plus $600 billion plus print as much as he wants!
DEPRESSION, INFLATION, GREECE HERE WE COME!!!
Lets see if I have this right. The 1% can be treated differently because they are 1 and we are 99. So the moral imperative lies with the 99 because, there are 99 of you ? So moral means, "they have it and I want it". Of course you want it to do "good" things with it, right ?
I can see no moral argument for the idea of "progressive" taxation. If you walk into a store, buy a package of gum and walk up to the counter to pay, does the cashier first ask you, "I'll tell you how much it costs after you first tell me how much your salary is".
Perhaps you will argue that the rich man gets more from the government than the less rich man. His personal safety is worth more to him ?
But thats not really the spending question in America today is it. The spending demand is entitlements. The whole entitlement logic today is fundamentally about the many taking from the few. If it was simply the few taking from the many, it would not be a problem, the productive elements of society could support that. But thats not really the issue is it.
Policy is in uncharted territory and to pretend that you have instrumentation that can say anything certain about 5 years from now is simply too convenient.
Debasement of currency by governments is nothing new. The facts - apart from fed rhetoric- appears to support the idea that the main aim of the fed is to facilitate treasury borrowing....period.
For four years I read from your ilk that the Bush tax cuts were only for the "rich". Now if we don't extend them 99% will be impacted. So they really did help the little guy after all.
More proof of your democratic pals lying again.
So, unfortunately for them, but its the Repubs who will bear the entire burden of the fiscal cliff.
No one wants to see the tax increases go through but if there's no bill on Obama's desk for him to sign - or not - it's pretty clear who failed.
The only reason it will be clear that the Republicans failed is because the liberal mainstream media will blame the Republicans until they're blue in the face.
The Republicans should bear 1/3 of the blame since they control the House, then the Dems should bear the other 2/3 considering they control the Senate and White House.
He's been sitting on that bill for 5 months and won't let it come to the floor
danf, yes, revenue starts in the House. However, there is generally no reason for the minority to offer up a bill unless the majority, i.e. currently the Republicans, fail. So, unless Boehner pulls a rabbit out of his hat and magically comes up with a passable bill, it is indeed likely that the miority in the House will produce something.
More interestingly, I suspect that House Republicans are actually in favor of the sequestration. I suspect the issue is less about taxing $1m+ is fair and appropriate and more about forcing the government towards a smaller budget and fiscal responsibility.
It's a pretty painful approach of course by forcing the economy into recession, but I also suspect House Republicans in favor of the sequestration already see they have zero negotiating power here, and will try and use the debt ceiling as leverage.
Scorched earth politics.
A minority of House Republicans are going to burn everyone - and most especially the reputation of the Republican party, since Republicans will bear the brunt of the blame for the failure to compromise - with increased tax burden and spending reductions in order to achieve their goal of smaller government.
I expect the sequestration to initially pass in full, with eventual small adjustments made: middle class tax cuts for Obama, in exchange for perhaps some spending reform. And this will come during the debt ceiling vote, not before.
Absolutely ridiculous.
The trouble is in the tricameral system. The House, the Senate, and the Presidency all can want different things. We need a simple system where there is one decision making body, no one can vote out of party lines, and one party rules at any given point in time. Like say the British Parliamentary system. Otherwise you get the current gridlock.
Both FICA and health insurance must be provided for all in order to have a healthy capitalistic environment. How its paid for needs to be addressed. I don't have the answers but as a prior business owner I do understand the problems. It is especially frustrating when gov't spends excess of SS receipts vs payment obligations ever year. In 2023, latest estimate, obligations will be more than receipts. By raising age for eligibility does not solve the problem when they keep spending the excess. These problems can be resolved if both parties would work together.
Don't stop there....imagine if companies didn't needed to pay wages at all! Balance sheets would be phenomenal! Imagine if companies didn't needed to obey regulations and could just dump toxic waste without paying fines. Profits would boom! Capitalist utopia!
What we really have is a consequence of decades and decades of gerrymandering that render most seats "safe". If you really wanted to see change - you would have a computer draw congressional districts that enclosed populations based only on populations and nothing else. You would return to the way it was 100 years ago and have senators elected by state legislatures pledged to represent the interests of the state.
Capitalism in it's purest form would eventually concentrate all wealth to a very select minority of people. That is why we have regulations, unions, redistribution, etc. Don't misunderstand me. I think it is kind of like Democracy. They are both horrible systems filled with problems. But, they are still FAR better than any other system out there...
If you remember, the Supreme Court decision allowing Obamacare to stand, said it was legal as a tax. That is the true tax increase. This Plan B failure is political theater.
Now we return to kick-the-can, and govern by crisis for the foreseeable future. I see no reason whatsoever to return my congressman (a Republican) to his long held seat in 2014.
I want all Americans to have access to health care -- but not in the current system which is not working -- not with increases of premiums of 10% per year for the last 10 years.
We need to POP bubbles, not create more bubbles. Bernanke is about creating and preserving bubbles. Pop bubbles and bring prices back down to earth. That's what deflation is for. Without this deflation process, nothing will work.
How do you pop bubbles? Only one way: higher interest rates.
But instead we keep on chasing policies that grows the GDP and lowers unemployment. For shame!
Recent photos of Boehner are that of a dead man walking. He tried; booted tea partiers from key committees. He's up for reelection for house speaker Jn3rd; 1rst knife he will feel in his back will be Cantors who is all smiles these days.
We can't have organic growth again -- real spending increase -- until we empty the glass of consumer and corporate debt first. This is the stage Bernanked (and all the central bankers of the world are trying to avoid); but you can't add more water to a full glass (filled with debt) -- if you do, you get a flood -- which is what ZIRP gives us.
Our economy CANNOT grow until we destroy our full cup of debt. And that is going to be painful, no matter how or when it happens.
There is nothing wrong with debt as long as debt begins to become more expensive when the business cycle expansion ends (2001). It is evil to make debt less expensive when the business cycle expansion ends, because the goal is to sucker people into more debt when the economy is starting to contract.
Only in Washington.
Let the fiscal cliff kick in. Let's go over the fiscal cliff. We need to begin facing reality some time.
Oh, yes. Force Bernanke into retirement.
Wake up and start voting everyone out.
Come together and screw politicians for once.
We need to elect people who actually understand what is going on in the world, not within their political group. We need elected officials to work for the people and resolve issues fairly, justly and expediently.
The aftermath of the repeal of glass Steagall coupled with Alan Greenspan's bubbles?
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS - A lesson in "Fair"
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
It assumes stagnant financial mobility, and that 'beer consumed' is the same over a long period of time, and that each individual drinks the same amount.... etc etc on the assumptions.
But it is cute, and I can see how it would confuse people very readily into buying what it sells.
Tea Party Patriots should run on this platform in 2014, and force all other Republicans to run on the same platform as well. A flat tax of $10k per head is the only way to go irrespective of how much a person makes. If anyone doesn't understand, tell them the beer story.
"For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. "
That says all that can be said. Libs will never "get it".
The fact that you will make the decision for your grandson and not him making a decision for himself (or at least his parents) just indicates your liberal mind; you know what is best for everyone.
http://bit.ly/TgO7oZ
people whine that food stamps "aren't enough"... as though you're supposed to be able to eat 100% on the government dole. food stamps should supplement the money you earn by actually working.
what's destroying the american way of life is the overhead of carrying so much dead weight. it's the enemy from within, and the biggest challenge our society faces.
yes, raise taxes on the wealthy.. and also cut entitlements to the lazy. is the fiscal cliff such a bad thing?
any "deal" is just prolonging and expanding deficit spending.
If indeed we go into recession as a result, more folks will be living on government programs. And since the books aren't even close to balanced now, what may actually happen is that recession will cause the government to borrow more to fund those social programs. And increase the debt rather than reduce it.
Europe, where austerity/spending cuts were touted as the cure to profligate spending, would be the example we would be attempting to emulate. Under Bush/Obama, we labored under the belief the the US economy was resilient enough that with some stimulus we could cause growth. Up until not so long ago, a lot of folks suggested that stimulus/growth was the better strategy as we watched Europe implode over austerity/cuts.
Personally, I believe that there's enough lard and pork in the US budget that there is room for cuts. But I also don't believe that austerity/recession will solve the debt problem, and will in fact more likely exacerbate it.
And I have consistently suggested that encouraging consumption growth via growing both the size of the middle class as well as its income will be the ultimate solution. Bring more of the country's wealth down to the middle from the top and create more opportunity for the bottom to enter and want to stay in the middle. Broaden the tax base while encouraging increasing economic activity.
if the rich pay a few more bucks, does that mean they're going to quit trying to make money? i don't see it. they were trying to make money when the economy boomed under clinton, when tax rates were what they'd go to now.
and the helpless poor who need to be spoon fed their entire living? let them be cheap labor rather than dead weight deficit overhead. let them scramble to earn a living instead of sucking the life out of working people.
it's fear mongering to decide this is the next great depression. it isn't. growth will resume after a period of adjustment. you can scream the sky is falling, but i think we're better off not spending money we don't have in the long run. can we borrow prosperity? really?
what needs to be addressed is tax rates and spending. the cliff does both. that it's been puffed by the media as a "cliff" is the real disaster.
Anyway, I think Tea Party Patriots should definitely campaign on the premise of making slaves/cheap labor out of people who, for example, are getting unemployment benefits today. I hope they do so in 2014. We so need a Democrat House.
The interest rates need to be raised as without that it is hard to have a good Greater Depression. You do not want the Feds to counter the good work done by Tea Party Patriots, now do you?
Now, sarcasm aside, I do agree with you that raising taxes on the rich will not hurt economic activity one bit. The rich will just save less.
Concept: "Luxury Tax" to make wealthy pay more taxes
Plan: Price threshold for "luxury" items
Cars: $30,000
Boats: $100,000
Aircraft: $25,000
Jewelry and furs: $10,000
Tax: 10% on part of price over threshold
Projection: Raise $9 billion over 5 years
History: Implemented in 1990
What Actually Happened?
Lots of Unintended Consequences
Wealthy boat-buyers simply bought boats overseas
U.S. boat sales collapsed
at least 7,600 boat-building jobs lost in first year
Total job losses up to 30,000
Government paid unemployment benefits to laid-off workers
Boat tax yielded only $3 million in 1991
Income tax and FICA revenue lost
U.S. boat-building industry badly damaged
Losses probably exceeded tax revenue
Luxury tax repealed in 1993
Did anybody think about what might happen?
Almost certain result of static analysis will repeat with this stupid tax the rich ploy, but the Dem will sure feel good strutting around because they showed those rich people who is boss and that they need to pay their fair share. Stupid is as stupid does
Giving the Democrats more money will not stop the problem for it will not stop the spending.
I know a lot media folks are looking for charge numbers after the November 6th election as their previous numbers had expired. But that does not justify an exercise in futility and eating up valuable resources on Congress to do useful work, such as energy and immigration policies.
I salute the Tea Party Patriots.