Seeking Alpha

House Republicans won't bring their "Plan B" tax-cut proposal to a vote tonight, as Speaker John...

House Republicans won't bring their "Plan B" tax-cut proposal to a vote tonight, as Speaker John Boehner says he doesn't have the votes; the House will recess until after Christmas. DJIA futures slip 0.2%. Boehner: "Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff." Updated: S&P 500 e-Mini futures dive, limit down.
Comments (420)
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    ROFL @ Tea Party Republicans.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Pinocchio1
    , contributor
    Comments (206) | Send Message
     
    I don't find it funny at all
    It will take the markets another 3 years to recover from this Black Christmas.
    Can't wait to kick all these idiots out of congress to try to get a real job.

     

    Watch the futures... it's NOT funny
    20 Dec 2012, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Futures are short term. This has weakened the Republicans and strengthened the President and we may get to a compromise that favors the President tremendously, passed in the House with primarily Democrat votes with non Tea Party Republicans crossing over.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • Robin Heiderscheit
    , contributor
    Comments (1779) | Send Message
     
    Macro, I don't think so because (1) Boehner will get one more chance to pass the bill before being forced to resign and (2) even if he must resign the Senate bill will never be allowed to come to floor by GOP leadership.

     

    This is a full blown political crisis coming on the heels of based on my sentiment measures a blow off top in the market. I believe a nasty correction and possible bear market are at hand. I have been long since last December and am no permabear.
    20 Dec 2012, 09:11 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    "I don't know what in my retirement account, but I know there is less than in yours"

     

    Man of the Year
    20 Dec 2012, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • The Fox
    , contributor
    Comments (623) | Send Message
     
    Yes...Pinocchio. It IS funny. Those blowhards in Washington are to be laughed at. Your holdings will go down in value. That's OK...laugh anyway.
    20 Dec 2012, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Macro - I have to laugh on the floor with you! The United States of America has survived weather disasters, several wars (warranted and un-warranted), two depressions (1929 and now), and will survive the Republican party and succeed in spite of it...
    20 Dec 2012, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Hold you cash and wait for the crash!
    20 Dec 2012, 09:54 PM Reply Like
  • untrusting investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9923) | Send Message
     
    Hmmmm, thought markets were always supposed to go up, especially given massive Fed & central bank interventions and ongoing ZIRP. Will be a very interesting options expiration day tomorrow.
    20 Dec 2012, 10:38 PM Reply Like
  • richandmer
    , contributor
    Comments (157) | Send Message
     
    sijimmy,

     

    Not sure why you are blaming the republican party for standing up to Obama and his failed plan to destroy America. We all know that raising taxes will not solve our problem. In fact, it will hurt us. So why do you continue to applaud our president even tho he is doing everything wrong. The republicans are trying to reduce spending, lower taxes, make a smaller government and you think this is bad. Well, unless someone can show where logical financial thinking is bad, then best to take issue with Obama's plans. Haven't you figured out that after 4 years, his plans have not worked?
    20 Dec 2012, 11:52 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    I agree. If taxes go up on people making more than $400k/year then the terrorists have won already.
    20 Dec 2012, 11:54 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (3514) | Send Message
     
    Obama is so powerful that he manages to make all his opponents voluntarily self destruct by acting like congenital idiots. Hillary. McCain. Palin. Romney. Ryan. And now Boehner and the GOP members of the Congress.

     

    Amazing.
    21 Dec 2012, 12:14 AM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    No, Obama isn't that crafty. His cronies in the mainstream media and the fact that he is Santa Claus to the handout crowd is what makes him as powerful as he is. A fool voted in by an entire country of fools.
    21 Dec 2012, 12:54 AM Reply Like
  • limitless
    , contributor
    Comments (84) | Send Message
     
    If you don't find it funny it's because you care about money too much.
    21 Dec 2012, 12:58 AM Reply Like
  • limitless
    , contributor
    Comments (84) | Send Message
     
    Better yet put another plan forward to cut taxes for people making under $100,000. Let them vote it down and get voted out of office.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:03 AM Reply Like
  • Timeisup
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    I agree. Futures are coming back up. Can't understand why the market is so short-sighted. You think we may actually end up with a deal or a statement before Christmas?
    21 Dec 2012, 01:09 AM Reply Like
  • HoldAndBuyInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (146) | Send Message
     
    Why all these drama for tax increase by democrats. Obama gov spends billions on things like free cell phones for people on food stamp. These tax increase won't make a dent if spending is not cut.

     

    Most of people I know have 1 cell phone. Under the free cell phone program Obama supports (Bush introduced 1 landline per family), people on foodstamp have 3-4 cell phones.

     

    Billions being handed out to solar companies who donates most to Obama campaign. They files bankruptcy and sell assets to Chinese companies. Great ways to waste tax payers money.

     

    Rule 1 of wealth building is by saving but not by earning. Unless you know how to save, it will never be wealthy. Does not matter how much you earn. Obama knows well how to waste tax-payers money on buying votes.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:49 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8354) | Send Message
     
    Stocks can't really go down so long as Bernanke continues spending tomorrow's money to keep them from sinking. His ploy is to destroy the Dollar, so it will look like asset prices are buoyant. It's all a magic show. Everything owned and traded and traded in US Dollars is losing value as the Dollar is carved away.

     

    Let's go over the cliff. We need both massive spending cuts and massive increases in taxes on the rich -- a penalty tax if you wish, not for being succcessful, but for being successful by inflating debt, which is a false wealth.

     

    Cut the debt. Nothing else matters at the moment. Debt is like snow on the roof of your house. A thin layer means nothing; it begins to build up, and one doesn't even sense the damage being done; actually, one has no sense of anything being wrong, until the roof caves in (2008). Bernanke is continuing to add more snow to the broken roof (cheap money is snow, in this sense, more water). We need to dry out (in the alcoholic sense also). There is only one way to dry out the world: higher interest rates.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:52 AM Reply Like
  • HoldAndBuyInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (146) | Send Message
     
    Michael, all these tax increasing will have with 4-5% of debt cut. Thats all about it. How about we reduce stuff and implement rules on foodstamp like canada has.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:58 AM Reply Like
  • denverlobo
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I'm hoping your true. Cause a hit like this to the stock market is not something we need in the midst of a slowly improving economy. I can't believe these things come down the minute every single time. This is comparable to the debt ceiling debacle last year. Politicians must be exhausted playing this game of cat and mouse, I hope Washington can figure this one out.
    21 Dec 2012, 02:11 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    Michael, for every Buffett that gets rich by inflating assets, there are thousands of hard working entrepreneurs and small business owners that create wealth though hard work and taking on risk. If you want to tax inflating assets then do so, but don't be dishonest about it and attack those that are creating wealth by delivering goods and services.
    21 Dec 2012, 02:15 AM Reply Like
  • galhacham
    , contributor
    Comments (241) | Send Message
     
    Barack Hussein Obama??????????
    21 Dec 2012, 03:36 AM Reply Like
  • uncommon sense investing
    , contributor
    Comments (226) | Send Message
     
    Sounded like Chavez from his first innaugural speach.
    We need to make several million bumper stickers:

     

    "Obama=Chavez"

     

    Devious plans behind a charismatic front. One positve, he has only 4 years to ruin our economy, while we and our cildren and grandchildren have several life times to fix it.
    21 Dec 2012, 06:31 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3130) | Send Message
     
    Don't you know.... Chavez actually endorsed Obama during the election....

     

    http://reut.rs/TcAvaZ

     

    http://fxn.ws/12tLOk9
    21 Dec 2012, 08:54 AM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (354) | Send Message
     
    CLUELESS
    21 Dec 2012, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (354) | Send Message
     
    Your Left Wing political IDIOCY is the laughing stock of these comments

     

    Hugo Chavez
    Fidel Castro
    Barack Obama
    21 Dec 2012, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    Richandmer, so you are standing up against Obama and his plan to raise taxes on people making over $250k, by......in effect raising taxes on EVERYONE!! Good plan there buddy.

     

    This is about living in reality or living in fantasy land. This is about realizing the effects of your political actions or clinging to idealogical purity. After the "Plan B" fiasco, everyone will rightly blame the GOP for us going over the cliff.
    21 Dec 2012, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • diadochi
    , contributor
    Comments (197) | Send Message
     
    The Republican's are cooked. They aren't going to win this unpopularity contest...and are destined to come out smelling of skunk no matter what they do. Personally, I find it extremely funny. :)

     

    From the Dec. 15th edition of the Economist:

     

    Republicans have little leverage of their own. If the Bush tax cuts expire, Democrats will presumably simply propose to restore them in January for those earning less than $250,000, daring Republicans to block them. A recent poll by the Pew Research Centre and the Washington Post found that 53% of voters would blame Republicans if the nation toppled off the fiscal cliff, while just 27% would blame Mr Obama. Some Republicans have suggested giving up the fight on tax rates, and instead insisting on entitlement cuts as the price of raising the debt ceiling, which the Treasury is expected to hit in February or March. But Democrats consider that an empty threat; if the Republicans don’t want to be blamed for a recession-inducing rise in tax rates, they certainly do not want to be held responsible for a panic over possible default.

     

    These dynamics all work in favour of a deal, largely on Mr Obama’s terms. But there are two big risks. The first is that it will not be big enough. Negotiators have long thought a “grand bargain” would involve cutting spending and raising taxes by $4 trillion over the coming decade, relative to what they otherwise would be. The $4 trillion amounts to roughly 2% of GDP. But when all the future obligations of the federal government are counted, Alan Auerbach, an economist the University of California at Berkeley, reckons it would actually take higher taxes and reduced spending worth 8.4% of GDP to stabilise the debt at its current share of GDP. The reason is that America’s real fiscal problems relate not to the current deficit, which mostly derives from the weakness of the economy, but from the growth of entitlements over future decades. Republicans have been more serious about addressing that problem, but neither party has a credible proposal on the table.
    21 Dec 2012, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Careful there brady. You risk being flagged for racism.
    21 Dec 2012, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    Quite the opposite diadochi. Once we go over the cliff Obama will own the problem. The media won't be able to focus on Boehner as the guy that "needs" to come up with the solution. Once people see the impact of the tax increases in their paychecks and on their monthly budgets they'll begin to keenly focus their anger and frustration on the one individual that they know more than anyone else can get the job done if he wants to do so - and that person will be Obama.

     

    Boehner's playing the strategy well. Push for a deal and come off as the guy trying to make things happen, and once we're over the cliff the focus will be on the guy that sat back and was disengaged and uncompromising, and that guy is Obama.
    21 Dec 2012, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    ROFL!
    21 Dec 2012, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (3514) | Send Message
     
    Boehner is very good at nine-dimensional chess. The Kenyan socialist can never match him in such games that require brains.
    21 Dec 2012, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    Macro, do you believe average Joe is going to look for "the most powerful man in America" and come to the conclusion Boehner is the guy? If so you should be "ROFL!" because you're ready to be placed in the rubber room for your own safety. Ultimately the media aren't going to be able to put lipstick on this pig, or they'll try, but we'll all know it's still a pig.
    21 Dec 2012, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Did you see the latest polls? Even Republicans are now blaming the GOP for this mess. ROFL!

     

    Boehner did this country a huge favor last night by exposing the Tea Party Patriots for what they are. I salute him!
    21 Dec 2012, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    Forget the polls, look at the latest election results. Yes, Cincinnatus, people are blaming GOP for everything.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Election results are meaningless because the Dems won by giving the people what they wanted. So of course people voted for them. If the Dems actually promised to do exactly what the people do not want them to do and still won, then that would be the triumph of democracy.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (3514) | Send Message
     
    Election results are meaningful only when Republicans win.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    I fully agree.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    Who cares about the current polls? Take a look at the polls in Jan/Feb once this starts kicking in. Have you ever owned a stock where when things went bad you blamed anyone other than the top executive? Time to take a sip of reality.
    21 Dec 2012, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    varan, time for a reality check. Not everyone that won in Nov was a Dem. There were Republicans as well. Each is representing their side. You and MSNBC can whine about it all you want. Let's wait until next year and find out how this is working out for Obama once the tax hikes and cuts kick in. The bad part for saps like you is Obama really couldn't give a crap - he's a lame duck and doesn't have to worry about a vote from your sorry arse, just like Boehner doesn't have to worry about losing your vote.
    21 Dec 2012, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Macro. I knew some of you would come around.
    21 Dec 2012, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (3514) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus

     

    I agree. The Kenyan Socialist Muslim will bring this country to ruin, just as he did in the last four years. Markets down. Multiple wars abroad. thousands of people dying. That all happens only during Dem administrations. Compare that with GWB's eight years.
    21 Dec 2012, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    "Who cares about the current polls? Take a look at the polls in Jan/Feb once this starts kicking in. Have you ever owned a stock where when things went bad you blamed anyone other than the top executive? Time to take a sip of reality. "

     

    Have you ever heard of a saying that hope springs eternal, but options expire?
    21 Dec 2012, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Touchy! Touchy!
    21 Dec 2012, 04:05 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    richandmer - Interesting summary....however, I've seen, and heard, all of the same argument before. 1) - I used to be a republican..believed all the hype, believed Limbaugh, et al......however, life has a way of revealing the truth to those who wish to find it....You talk about "logic." Well, by your parties "logic," the philosophy of Hoover would be used, and had that been the case, we would have +30% unemployment, bread lines, soup kitchens, etc. For some reason, that seems to be what republicans want. What also is amazing, is that your parties "logic" started this entire economic collapse in the first place (gotta remember history..even if its so, so, so long ago..approx. 5 years???) Your party believe in "De-regulation..." Lets see, Mr. Nixon passed the clean air and water act..yet, your party believes that is "over-regulation" and should be repealed (just one of many examples)....financially, what's wrong with Glass-Steagal????! Finally, how about one that's in the news right now, how about the infamous oil pipeline? The one that's gonna save us from the Saudis, et al.??? Not so much..the reality is that the K.O.C.H brothers (pronounced "erectile dysfunction") will be the sole beneficiaries of the pipeline once it's completed...it will be transporting nice and "clean" tar sands "oil" to Texas refineries and the gasoline sold to Caribbean nations at a hefty profit for the K.O.C.H brothers....and, little to no benefit what so ever to the U.S.A (pronounced "American Citizens") at all...this in the name of "De-regulation." So, based on your parties "logic" (which would work in oppositte world), this is failure...sorry, in reality, this is progress..what Obama has done, and will keep doing is progress....unless, of course, you like bread lines, soup kitchens, and the like, then vote republican.
    21 Dec 2012, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    uncommon sense - your name matches your logic....get the memory upgraded next time..
    21 Dec 2012, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    So what?
    21 Dec 2012, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    diadochi - even though I disagree with the republicans 100%, I would beg them to read your post and actually use it do something, anything, to get this passed.......the republicans make me laugh so hard it hurts!
    21 Dec 2012, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Boehner lost......
    21 Dec 2012, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Couldn't agree more!
    21 Dec 2012, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Yeah,

     

    GWB brought us peace and prosperity..no wars, money, fame, and fortune...absolutely..he was so smart....
    21 Dec 2012, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    varan, I don't understand the cynicism. We're just going back to the Clinton tax rates. I suspect it wasn't a problem for you then, so no reason it should bother you now.

     

    The reality is that Obama can't sustain the Big Government socialism he wants without a hefty and broad-based tax increase. The revision to the Clinton tax rates is only a starting point. He actually needs higher rates than that to close the deficit. You and the other saps that thought $50 billion or so was all he wanted were scammed.
    21 Dec 2012, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Obama wants to take all the money that we have and give it to the poor, right Cincinnatus? Seriously, who does he think he is? Jesus Christ? I stand with the rich.
    21 Dec 2012, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • minecanary
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    Den, A hit to the market is exactly what we need. The market should be at 900 the way the world's economy is. The current level is only because of central bank printing. The best thing would be to let a crash occur and get back to a realistic business cycle.
    22 Dec 2012, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Exactly. Before the Central Banks started to manage the economy we had a predictable 7 year boom bust cycle with high unemployment. Let's get back tot hat.
    22 Dec 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    Macro, what Obama needs is the Clinton tax rates back, and then quite a bit more on top of that. He can't pay for what he's already put in place, let alone what he still wants to shove through, without a broad based rise in taxes. If you didn't understand that then Obama made you his chump - yet again.
    22 Dec 2012, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    I disagree. I think taxes should go up on the poor and the middle class and not on the rich. Someone has to stand up for the rich who have forever been oppressed in the USA. Finally the Tea Party Patriots had the guts to stand up for the rights of those who earn more than a million a year. Clinton tax rates? They taxed the rich too much. Don't be a chump Cincinnatus, ask your Congressman/woman to campaign in 2014 on the platform of lower taxes on the rich, higher taxes on the poor and the middle class so that everyone has skin in the game, and spending cuts on the poor and middle class as well.
    22 Dec 2012, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    "I think taxes should go up on the poor and the middle class and not on the rich."

     

    Macro, the issue here is you need someone to hate, and the "rich" make a good target. Obama is in permanent campaign mode, and that means appealing to your tribalist instincts and finding a "they" target to demonize that you can then direct your hate towards. For Obama it's not about solving a problem - the idea that $40 or $50 billion is going to solve Obama's $1.3 trillion deficits is a joke. For Obama it's about finding a target group that he can get the sheeple like you to hate to justify a vote. The "rich" make an easy target for you to blame for your sorry life and lack of purpose.
    23 Dec 2012, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • Topcat
    , contributor
    Comments (412) | Send Message
     
    Thanks much Boehner. Your grandstanding today on Plan B has caused the Dow Futures to drop like a rock, as investors realize that as crazy and right wing as the Plan B bill was, it was STILL not good enough for the wingnuts and Tea Party. Looks like a big market drop, then Senate passes Obama's "$250k" plan first week in January, including dropping carried interest, fixing AMT, eliminated debit ceiling crap, and dare the House not to pass it.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • JLesinski
    , contributor
    Comments (137) | Send Message
     
    Bills regarding revenue have to originate in the House, at least that's what Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution says.

     

    Also, the markets rallied after Boehner's press conference today because at least someone was trying to do something. Hopefully he and Obama can work out a deal before Congress comes back from Christmas. It should be Reid and Boehner working together though. The President should stop inserting himself in the legislative process. That's not his job.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Reid should not even put up a pretense of compromise. He should offer Obama's original plan and tell the Republicans to take it or leave it.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • joe kelly
    , contributor
    Comments (1725) | Send Message
     
    Boehner keeps calling on the President for "leadership" JL. Tell that idiot to lead his party to a good compromise deal.

     

    20 Dec 2012, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • WisPokerGuy
    , contributor
    Comments (777) | Send Message
     
    All Boehner did tonight was prove how impotent he really is. Since he apparently he can't get enough votes on even a Republican bill, if you are the President tonight you have to be asking, who do I negotiate with?

     

    If I was Obama, I'd be making phone calls to centrist Republican House members tonight to see if he can get enough of them to break away to support a compromise bill. I don't see how anyone can take Boehner serious after this fiasco. Who is Boehner negotiating for?
    20 Dec 2012, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Joe,

     

    This marks the beginning of the end of the republican party as a political force in the United States...mark my words..
    20 Dec 2012, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Poker guy - well said! Boehner has no power of a party ruled by zealots blinded by devotion to a facist names Norquist....That republican senator from Georigia is correct..republicans should be that loyal to the constitution, and not to some paid facist media boy like Norquist..
    20 Dec 2012, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • Robin Heiderscheit
    , contributor
    Comments (1779) | Send Message
     
    Regarding "centrist Republicans," that is not how the House works. The Speaker controls what comes to the floor and unless Boehner wants to pass the Senate bill and then resign (which is possible) the Senate bill can't get to the floor.
    20 Dec 2012, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • WisPokerGuy
    , contributor
    Comments (777) | Send Message
     
    I understand that Robin. However, Boehner basically painted himself (and his Party) into a serious political corner tonight. Let's assume that enough centrist Republicans break away and support some compromise bill (big assumption), it would be political suicide for Boehner to block any kind of a vote on it. He already looks like a complete idiot. If he blocked a vote on a bill that enough Republicans supported, I can't see his Party letting him take the rest of them down with him. Once the "Average Joe" gets a paycheck in January with a big tax deduction, watch the sh*t hit the fan.

     

    Whether you are a Dem or a Rep... What Boehner did tonight was really bad. He basically made himself look like he has no political support. Like I said above, Democrats have to be asking themselves "who is in charge over there?" It's hard to strike a deal when you don't know who you are suppose to negotiate with. I guess we will find out how bad Obama wants this to come to some type of reasonable conclusion now. Because he is basically going to have to carry the water for both sides. What a mess.
    20 Dec 2012, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Aside from political theatrics I'm not sure I agree tonight was a disaster.

     

    A bill that all Democrats indicated they wouldn't vote for plus enough Republicans - was shelved. So what.

     

    There is legislation already passed that indicates what will happen in 2013. That bill was a BIPARTISIAN bill. It contains actual spending cuts in defense and tax increases across the board. The only thing missing are the needed deep cuts in entitlements.

     

    Obama has overplayed his hand. During the campaign he kept saying either 2-1/2 spending cuts to one dollar tax increases or 3 to 1. Now he's more tax increases than spending cuts and again the cuts (outside of today's COLA change) are all "allowances" - ie not really identifiable cuts, just promised cuts in the future.

     

    Pretty soon liberals are going to realize that if we don't cut entitlement spending there will be very little discretionary spending left once we get into the next decade.

     

    When Congress reconvenes the republicans are likely to pass Obama's bill - 98% and 2% - with some democrats supporting. But I don't know that the debt ceiling will be included and conservatives will gear up for a huge fight in February on spending. I'm not sure why this wasn't their plan from the beginning - give Obama his tax increases - call them Obamacaresaboutyourmoney tax increases. Then let him own the results..... Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. And simply refuse to increase the debt ceiling until a balanced budget is proposed by Obama and the Democrats - no proposal simply shut it all down. And keep it shut... for months and months. That would allow all the screaming to subside and an actual debate about the size of our government and whether or not we want to have programs other than entitlements in 10 years.

     

    At this point Republicans have little to lose. They have leaders that can't communicate a vision of success and optimism - without that they've got nothing as the other side are experts at the fear mongering game.

     

    Shut the whole damn thing down!!!
    20 Dec 2012, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    This worked like a charm when Gingrich did this and ended up with a huge political win for Democrats. Lets play it again, Sam!
    20 Dec 2012, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (412) | Send Message
     
    David,

     

    This process started back during the debt ceiling debacle when to get a deal done the President agreed to $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years. The $1 trillion, plus his proposed cuts this time around does indeed constitute a ratio of cuts and revenues very close to what the President has been calling for. For some reason Republicans have been pretending that those previous cuts never happened and they think that this negotiation is brand new and not related to the previous deal that was all cuts and no revenues.
    20 Dec 2012, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    "For some reason Republicans have been pretending that those previous cuts never happened."

     

    Pure bs. Everyone knows those "cuts" were fiction and only pledged to happen far into the future when Obama was long gone.
    20 Dec 2012, 11:58 PM Reply Like
  • Boxed Merlot
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    Speaking of the "other side" as being "experts", the following note sent to AG Holder from no one less than Barney Frank, dated 12/18/12 is absolutely priceless in the art of deflection.

     

    Dear Mr. Attorney General:

     

    I note several instances recently in which Administration officials have proceeded civilly against blatant violations of our important financial laws, in part because of the difficulty of proving cases beyond a reasonable doubt, especially where the law may have been somewhat uncertain, but also because of a concern that the criminal conviction—and even indictment—of a major financial institution could have a destabilizing effect. This latter consideration does not apply, similarly, to individuals. It is, of course, the case that no corporation can have engaged in wrongdoing without the active decision of individual officers of that entity. I believe it is also the case that prosecuting individuals has more of a deterrent effect than prosecuting corporations.

     

    I am writing to you as well as to financial regulators, understanding that the decision to pursue criminal proceedings rests with the Justice Department, so I ask that there be a series of consultations involving law enforcement officials and regulators with the goal of increasing prosecution of culpable individuals as an important step in seeing that the laws that protect the stability and integrity of our financial system are better observed.

     

    BARNEY FRANK

     

    Too bad the same solution isn't being pursued for individual legislators for their own blatant violations of our important financial laws and other criminal activities at subverting the nation's economy by transferring title to frn40B per month of real estate to an illegal, unconstitutional and private currency creating enterprise controlled by foreign and domestic terrorists.

     

    End the fed and restore constitutional currency.

     

    imo.
    21 Dec 2012, 12:49 AM Reply Like
  • Playdeep
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    They are not cuts in actual sending. They are cuts in the projected increase in spending. All they are doing is cutting the rate of the spending increase, not a cut.
    21 Dec 2012, 12:55 AM Reply Like
  • RacerX1225
    , contributor
    Comments (125) | Send Message
     
    Thats a fairly bold prediction. If Obama's policies do what the Republicans assert, it will be tough even with the MSM brainwashing the public for the Reps to take both Houses again. You know, like when Clinton was Prez ;).
    21 Dec 2012, 01:27 AM Reply Like
  • RacerX1225
    , contributor
    Comments (125) | Send Message
     
    Thats not how Clinton was successful.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:27 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Come on, we are all thinking adults here. We all know that Obama's policies won't do anything near the doomsday scenario the Republicans like to paint. It will only make the economy grow with low inflation rates, just as it has done this past 4 years. Why do you think Romney lost? People can see the impact of Obama's policies over the past 4 years and they like it.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:33 AM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    Incorrect. Obama won because this country is filled with indifferent, low intelligence voters, who like Obama because the media painted his opponent as a women-hating rich snob who lied and cheated his way into being wealthy.

     

    Ask your average Obama voter why they voted for Obama, and all they'll say is that because he isn't a Republican. No other reason. Also, because Obama is Santa Claus- handing out unemployment checks, and food stamps, and healthcare. All at the expense of somebody else. Who? Doesn't matter. Obama is handing out goodies from his stash.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:52 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    CS,
    You need to do some research. What occurs when bills are passed promising to cut spending in future years without identifying the programs impacted, is that the CBO enters a line item under allowances to represent cuts to be made that year..... but they are then supposed to become actual cuts WHEN A BUDGET IS PASSED.

     

    When was the last time a budget was passed????? Oh, three years ago.

     

    Even with these allowances showing in out years, the CBO is projecting Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

     

    The history of allowance line items turning into spending cuts is ...... nonexistent!!

     

    I read in the news that today Obama said he'd agree to a change in COLA's for SS. That would be the first actual cut proposed by him. If I heard the newscast correctly this is a couple hundred billion over a decade - so about 20-25 Billion a year.

     

    IF we kept the 100 Billion in defense dept cuts (and through in another 10-20 billion from related agencies like CIA, Homeland Security, etc, etc) that leaves about 900 Billion left. That requires real, actual cuts - to real, actual programs and agencies.

     

    When Obama makes a proposal that identifies the agencies consolidated and eliminated.... the programs to be slashed by 50%..... the reduction in disability rolls by 50%..... etc, etc. I'll be the first person to stand up and support his plan. But since he vilified the only person to actually propose a plan (which IMO still fell far short of what is needed), I'm not holding my breath.

     

    We don't need more political BS - we need actual, practical, tough decisions that result in less government spending by large percentages - and not in the distant future - now.
    21 Dec 2012, 02:24 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    Macro, the folks that voted in Obama are those like the young woman that claimed Obama was going to help her pay her rent and to put gas in her car. That if she "helped" (voted for) Obama, then Obama was going to "help" (give freebies to) her. We have a corrupted populace, most prominently in our urban centers, that will vote for whoever promises to loot from someone else and give it to them. They have no work ethic and they believe this is a forever-after fairy tale with no long-term consequences.
    21 Dec 2012, 02:27 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Obama won in 2008 on a positive message that things could be different and much better. He built support - across the board.

     

    Obama won in 2012 on identifying the board and dividing it up and making sure the pieces that were blue all got to the polls.

     

    Very different. He convinced a small majority of voters that somehow they need the government to economically protect them from their fellow citizens. And he benefitted from running against someone that was so out of touch with the average citizen that it wasn't funny. Romney became rich by trading other people's debt for his equity - folks might not truly understand private equity - but they understood that he wasn't the one really taking risks - that he identified how to make the game heads he wins, tails he wins.

     

    I know of very few people that really have any idea of what Obama wants to accomplish in his second term - raise taxes and then what?
    21 Dec 2012, 02:33 AM Reply Like
  • machiavelli
    , contributor
    Comments (414) | Send Message
     
    You guys just don't get it. Don't fret though. It's not your fault that your brain can't comprehend reality.
    21 Dec 2012, 03:39 AM Reply Like
  • uncommon sense investing
    , contributor
    Comments (226) | Send Message
     
    No congressman or senator should be allowed to yun for re- election unless we have balanced budget
    21 Dec 2012, 06:39 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (412) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus, our fiscal problems are in the future and the tragectory of spending over he next 10 year is what needs to be lowered. No one is suggesting that we can cut hear and now enough to balance the budget because that would tank the economy and the deficit would worsen. Just look at the U.K. right now.
    21 Dec 2012, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    This is precisely why Republicans should campaign for cutting all assistance to the poor and in fact raising taxes on them, preferably right before the 2014 elections.
    21 Dec 2012, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    cstauffer, I was responding to your claim that the "cuts" have been made. They haven't, and in fact they aren't cuts at all, they're proposed reductions in the rate of growth. And our problems are here now. Just like the family with $40k in credit card debt that can't be paid off, just because you haven't yet received the "past due" notice doesn't mean your problem doesn't already exist.
    21 Dec 2012, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    LMAO!
    21 Dec 2012, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (412) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus, our problems are not here yet and may not be here for another 7 to 10 years. In the history of a country like ours 7 to 10 years is certainly near-term, but it is a problem that needs to be delt with by narrowing the budget deficit over time. We need to run surpluses when the economy is growing and we are at full employment, but the majority of the time we will run a deficit, but that deficit cannot be allowed to grow faster than the long-term growth of the economy. You cannot however compare a nation like ours to a individual when it comes to budgeting issues because a government is perpetual and an individual retires and dies.
    21 Dec 2012, 10:37 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Govt is not perpetual. Remember the Romans? The ancient Greeks? Perhaps, just perhaps, if they raised taxes on the poor, slashed food stamps on kids, and built better war machines (think the F-35s of the day) they would still be here? Hmm?

     

    I am just saying.
    21 Dec 2012, 10:42 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (412) | Send Message
     
    David, I have seen the CBO forecasts and there are two scenarios, one which assumes the fiscal cliff occurs and nothing is done legislatively to reallign the cuts and tax increases and the second is that all the current tax rates are permanently extended and spending stays on the current tragectory. Scenario one results in a projected budget surplus by 2022 and scenario two shows deficits of around 5% of GDP over the next 10 years. Also, knowing what I know about the CBO, these projections are static and not dynamic, meaning that economic growth rates are not projected to impacted by either spending cuts and higher taxes. Of course the economy is not static and will definite by effected by tax rates and spending levels. In reality the truth will probably lie somewhere in between these two projections and that does not result in trillion dollar plus deficits for as far as the eye can see.
    22 Dec 2012, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (412) | Send Message
     
    Macro, a country such as the U.S. is perpetual under virtually any rational set of scenarios. If you can make a rational case where our country is not perpetual looking forward, not backwards toward the Roman Empire which was built upon military conquest, therefore built upon seizing power over populations who would otherwise not choose to be a part of the vast Roman Empire, then go for it. Otherwise, I prefer to work under scenarios built upon rational realistic assumptions.
    22 Dec 2012, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • Bigfloridafish
    , contributor
    Comments (91) | Send Message
     
    Then why does Boehner keep saying it's up to the President to submit a bill? Is it the House Republicans who cannot do their job, then we should vote them all out and put someone in there that will.
    22 Dec 2012, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    Just because the Chinese haven't yet stopped buying government paper doesn't mean we're not there yet. Take a look at our figures and compare them with Greece. The only difference between us and Greece is we can print our currency, and Greece can't. There's a difference between bankruptcy and insolvency. Technically we're already insolvent. They entitlement liability alone can't be covered. Nor can Obamacare. It's only a matter of time before the denial ends.
    22 Dec 2012, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    "Macro, a country such as the U.S. is perpetual under virtually any rational set of scenarios."

     

    That's the most irrational statement I've ever seen. The US isn't perpetual, we just don't know when it will end.
    22 Dec 2012, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    I agree. Obama won because the low intelligence voters voted for him. Should such an election result be allowed to stand or should we impeach him for winning?
    22 Dec 2012, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    I agree with you Cincinnatus, we need a better quality of populace who will vote for people who want to cut spending that benefits them and raises their taxes at the same time. Republicans need to reach out to this populace in 2014 and campaign on this platform.
    22 Dec 2012, 06:12 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    I completely disagree. The President is the leader of the country. If he cannot lead even the Tea Party Patriots and come up with a bill that makes the Tea Party Patriots happy, then how can he lead the country? It is not hard to do what the Tea Party Patriots want. they want deep cuts on spending that benefits about 90% of the country, while protecting those that make a million dollars or more each year. This is a completely reasonable position and all Obama has to do is lead the Patriots by agreeing with whatever they say.
    22 Dec 2012, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Didn't the Holy Bible predict that USA will end if Obama won the 2012 Presidential election?
    22 Dec 2012, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    I agree Cincinnatus. We are already Greece. We just need to convince the world that we are, because they don't seem to agree. What's the best way to do that, you think? Announce it on Rush's radio show? We somehow have to stop the whole world from buying Treasuries. It is just screwing up a good thing, the bankruptcy of the USA, which we all know should happen but is just not happening. Very frustrating, no?
    22 Dec 2012, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Please direct me to a CBO report with a 2022 budget surplus.
    Regards
    22 Dec 2012, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Here is the May 2012 report:

     

    http://1.usa.gov/Ultvup

     

    No mention of budget surplusses.

     

    November report:

     

    http://1.usa.gov/U44aBP

     

    No mention of surplusses.

     

    Please direct me to the CBO report that shows budget surplusses in 10 years.
    22 Dec 2012, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Here is the March report on the deficit. They assume the tax cuts are allowed to expire and all schedule spending reductions happen. And there is NO surplus - heck the report only goes until 2021.

     

    http://1.usa.gov/Wybd7R

     

    And remember this report assumes all promised spending cuts happen - and that leaves you between 2.9 to 3.4 % according to the CBO. Thats ALL promised spending cuts - including all the make believe allowances that have never actually turned into a reduction in spending. So even fantasy land budgetting doesn't get you a surplus!

     

    Please share the report with us that shows budget surplusses.
    22 Dec 2012, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    BigFlorida,

     

    Well, the House Republicans can rightly point to the fact they have passed budgets each of the past three years. The Senate has refused to pass a budget. The legislative process is that the House originates spending bills and they go to the Senate. The Senate then passes a bill and the two houses get together and reconcile the bill and each pass the agreement.

     

    So while I think both sides are crooks and idiots, I don't think its unreasonable that the Republicans simply say they are fine with the law as it exists and if the President wants something different he proposes something that the Democrats in the Senate might actually act on.

     

    Personally, if I were the House Republicans I would have passed Obama's exact campaign request and raise the rates on those making over 200K to whatever number he promised. I would have done it November 7th. With no strings attached. No spending cuts. No entitlement reform. Nothing. Then two weeks later after the CBO produced their latest budget scoring I'd ask the president "ok you promised the American people to get a handle on fiscal situation - you've got your tax increase - now what do you want done to balance the budget???" And I'd keep repeating it ad nauseum for the next six months and continually show people that the Democrats aren't intending on cutting a dime of social spending.
    22 Dec 2012, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (412) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus, insolvency means that an person or organization cannot service its own debt. There is no indication at that we cannot service our debt obligations. If that were the case our interest rate would resemble Greece's interest rates. The fact is that we will always service our debt for exactly the reason that you already mentioned, we control the printing of our currency, which also happens to be the primary reserve currency in the world. That is also another reason why China has to hold such signficant amounts of our currenty. We run a trade surplus with China, meaning that they end up with net U.S. dollars as a result, thus they accumulate dollars which are then used for international trade because international trade is done predominately in U.S. dollars. Another reason China must continue to hold significant U.S. dollar reserves is to keep the value of their currency in check as they peg their currency against the U.S. dollar.

     

    We are not insolvent nor bankrupt or even close on either account.
    22 Dec 2012, 07:48 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    would it be OK for you if the budget was balanced by cutting military spending or is it social spending that must be cut?
    22 Dec 2012, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Which is a shame, no? After all, economy is a morality play. We need a Greater Depression so that people understand that life is not fair. So let's cut foodstamps already - and the house did exactly that and gave the military the money saved to buy F-35s.
    22 Dec 2012, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    I'd cut it all.

     

    I was alive in 1980 and life was pretty good. We had much smaller government involvement in our daily lives. Local organizations had much fewer regulations to discourage them from helping their fellow citizens. People saved 10% of their incomes. We had inflation, but Volker took care of that (with a recession by the way).

     

    Tell me that any citizen can ever hope to have an idea of what our federal government does. How many cabinets are there today? Does anyone actually know?

     

    The government declared war on poverty in the 1960's.... I'd say we lost. We have multiples of government programs compared to 40 years ago and yet solved what exactly? I guess we have enriched a bunch of bureaucrats but somehow I missed that as the goal.

     

    The budget can't be balanced by just cutting the military despite your simple attempts to portray the choice as military or social programs. Cut overseas bases by 50%. Get rid of one command next year and another in three years. Cut the amount of weapons purchased by 50% over the next two-three years. Cut the amount of support personnel by 50% (and that includes contractors). Leave Iraq and Afghanistan totally. The army should be used to fight wars - which means actually fighting and destruction I might add - not to chase ivory tower dreams of what might happen in a foreign land.

     

    So its perfectly ok with me to balance the budget by cutting the military, Social Security, and Medicare.
    22 Dec 2012, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Well we seem to need something. And again dramatics - CBO indicates that there will be a recession if the current law isn't changed.

     

    In case you weren't alive, Paul Volker incurred a deep recession to cure inflation. If we need to do the same to turn around our fiscal situation then thats what is needed.
    22 Dec 2012, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    How about this instead? Cut the military, remove the cap on SS and Medicare taxes, means test SS and Medicare, and raise taxes on the top 5% by about 20% or so? Instant balanced budget and no harm tot he economy as 95% won't be impacted at all.
    22 Dec 2012, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Won't we need inflation first though?
    22 Dec 2012, 11:21 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (412) | Send Message
     
    david, you are correct, the CBO baseline does not show a surplus in 2022, it shows a deficit narrowing to around 1% of GDP. I will state again that CBO projections are very limited in that they are basically static accounting excises. Remember the CBO did not project the surpluses of the late nineties in the early 1990's, in fact the CBO projected growing deficits as far as the eye could see and when we found ourselves with surpluses, the CBO did not project that we would have record deficits within 10 years. CBO projections are very good at extrapolating a current trend.
    23 Dec 2012, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (412) | Send Message
     
    david, pushing a country into a recession to bring inflation down is an entirely different and much easier trick to pull off than pushing us into a recession in an economy teatering on deflation. In an inflationary environment, inflation inherently rewards consumption today versus tomorrow which is stimulative, however in a deflationary environment the consumer is rewarded by putting off consumption. A recession or worse will lead to deflation and that deflation will typically lead to a deflationary spiral and it becomes very difficult to extract an economy from such a scenario.
    23 Dec 2012, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    @cstauffer, Why is that a problem? Don't we need a Greater Depression just as a punishment for the people for voting Obama into power? Do you really believe that economics is not a political morality story?
    23 Dec 2012, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5328) | Send Message
     
    Under our monetary system, bal the budget shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be allowing fed notes to be created for productive purposes. Cancelling fed notes by bringing them into the treas via higher income taxes will lead to asset deflation and possibly a recession.
    23 Dec 2012, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    How about this instead? Cut the military, remove the cap on SS and Medicare taxes, means test SS and Medicare, and raise taxes on the top 5% by about 20% or so? Instant balanced budget and no harm tot he economy as 95% won't be impacted at all.
    ----------------------...

     

    Please show how the numbers work. They don't.
    23 Dec 2012, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    It's simple. Raising taxes by 20% on the top-5% raises about $550B. Cutting the DoD budget can raise another $400B. Means testing SS and Medicare raises about $200-300B. That itself closes the budget gap. But just to be on the safe side I would remove the cap on SS and Medicare taxes which would raise another $100B or so. That's buffer.
    23 Dec 2012, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3130) | Send Message
     
    Sorry macro, but the only way it'll work is for everyone to pull their weight, not just the 53%
    23 Dec 2012, 06:59 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Oops. Federal income taxes totalled 1.1-1.2 Trillion last year. The top 5% is about $155K in AGI. They paid between 55-60% of all taxes - depending on source of data and definition.

     

    So that means the top 5% paid approximately 600-700 Billion in taxes in round numbers.

     

    Raising their taxes by 20% (assuming you got the 20%) results in........drum roll please........120-140 Billion in additional revenue.

     

    So your already 400 Billion short.

     

    We spend approx 700 Billion on defense (again depending on what is classified as defense). I would agree we can reduce by 1/3 to 1/2 over a three to four year time period. Keep in mind that I've seen estimates that we will spend approximately $50 billion a year on medical services for our returning servicemen from 2015 through 2035. So its likely that a goal of getting to 400 billion a year on defense in today's dollars is probably an aggressive goal.

     

    So $300 Billion is probably achievable with effort. That leaves you 100Billion short there.

     

    Means testing SS & Medicare - to what extent? I think SS spending (on both disability and retirement) is about 800 billion (thats off the top of my head so if I'm wrong feel free to find the right numbers). HHS data shows that 15% of seniors report income of over 50K. Its much better if you look at households where 45% report income over 50K. So maybe you can cut out the top 10% - not sure where the cut off would be but my guess is somewhere around 75K - and you have the problem of do you measure (and penalize) married couples - ie household income or do you measure individual income.

     

    Medicare means testing will be similarly complicated but I'd agree you can cut off the top 3-5% without much pushback. The problem will become are you going to measure income and is it household income.

     

    So you can probably get your 100 Billion by means testing SS/Medicare (probably more if we'd sweep clean the bloated disability rolls - just remove everyone jumping out of their SUV at the grocery store).

     

    The longer term problem with the means testing is now its another welfare program - especially on the SS side.

     

    So optimistically using your ideas your halfway home. Now you have to either find another 500 Billion in revenue or another 500 billion in cuts........
    23 Dec 2012, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3130) | Send Message
     
    Correct David. The middle class will have to pay more
    23 Dec 2012, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    I just showed you the math. Did you find any errors in the math?
    23 Dec 2012, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    All right, I got the first part wrong, so I need to do the numbers again.

     

    Raise taxes on the top-5% - get $150B

     

    Cut DoD budget to $200B (still the highest in the world by a long shot) - get $500B

     

    Means test SS and Medicare - get $300B

     

    Eliminate cap on payroll taxes - get $100B

     

    So we got slightly $1.05T so far, is that right? Almost makes up for the 2012 budget deficit of $1.1T.

     

    I guess adjusting estate taxes for estates above a couple million dollars will do the trick?

     

    This is not very satisfying for me though, as I would have liked to spend some money on education. That I guess will have to wait till we come out of the recession and the social safety net spending drops.

     

    Anyway, it is entirely doable. The real deal is cutting the defense budget.
    23 Dec 2012, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    david,

     

    Leaving to one side the issue of whether cuts of the scope and magnitude you describe should be made, we should be cautious about assuming that such cuts could be achieved within the short timeframes you envision without incuring many unintended negative consequences. The old saying that one can never really go home comes to mind.

     

    For starters, international trade patterns have changed radically during the intervening years since the 1980s. It is highly doubtful that the US, a without painful transition over several decades, could service its public debt and international obligations faced with the cuts in question. The capacity to buy foreign inputs and finance the selling of exports would be seriously disrupted if the pace of reductions was forced as you suggest.

     

    Similar observations can be made concerning the management of public debt at the federal, state and local level. Likewise, the management of personal debt obligations and credit arrangements.

     

    The economic, monitary and fiscal environment together with the nature of economic production have changed radically and this fact precludes a return to a 1980s state of affairs. Even an approximation of the 1980s involves a long term and difficult period of transition and adjustment.
    23 Dec 2012, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Anyway, it is entirely doable. The real deal is cutting the defense budget.
    ----------------------...
    I agree the Defense budget needs to be cut - but can you provide some details on how you get down to $200 Billion? Keeping in mind we will spend 50 billion on health services yearly for wounded veterans for at least the next two decades.

     

    I'm not an expert at defense spending and there is a lot to be cut, but I find it hard to see us getting much below $400 billion in a short time frame.
    24 Dec 2012, 01:34 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Bob,
    I'm sure your correct that there would be unintended consequences (I'd argue over the long haul the vast majority would be positive).

     

    But what about the consequences about what are currently doing? I'm certainly not excited about the prospects for my grandchildren in comparing them to the opportunities I had in my life. And I think it is entirely wrong that we leave our children and grandchildren in a fiscal position that leaves them living in a weakened country with fewer opportunities than we had.... all because we want to vote ourselves programs to take care of everything and tell no-one the word NO.

     

    I'll take my chances with the consequences. I should shoulder them - not my children and certainly not my granchildren.

     

    I will believe to my dying day that the removal of government from our health care system would remove so much "costs" its not even funny. And yes, you would be able to find the people that don't receive "free" care that they now receive.

     

    Our federal workforce is huge and overpaid in general. I have no issue gutting things like Homeland security, cutting Defense over three to four years, capping federal pensions at 55K period - no exceptions, raising the SS retirement age to 70, raising Medicare retirement age the same amount, and even the small things like Congressional pay by 50% and removing all of their lifetime "benefits". I'd try to remove 70-80% non-violent people from our prisons. I'd break the teacher's union. The list could go on and on!!

     

    Money spent would be what is needed to protect OUR country - not the entire world. NASA, NIH for research, Education loans for actual universities and colleges (not the I can attend college in my pajamas for profit crap) - with reasonable limits - which would constrain tuition and force higher education to cut administrations. Infrastructure directed towards things like a new electricity grid, preserving our fresh water, RESEARCH for renewable energy, Justice department. I'd totally reorganize our bureaucracy - we need to eliminate and combine departments and agencies and move from paper pusher to regulators in the field where they are needed.

     

    The list of "opportunities" in our federal government is beyond belief - and until we start doing some drastic things in regards to change we will continue on our downwards slope in comparison to the rest of the world, and more importantly in regards to our liberty and freedom.

     

    If I was magically the Vladimir Putin of the USA we would get to find out what all those unitended consequences are.
    24 Dec 2012, 01:52 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5328) | Send Message
     
    "Raising taxes by 20% on the top-5% raises about $550B"

     

    But that's just it, you won't raise 550B. You have to understand how our system works. The gov is not like you or me, it doesn't close deficits by earning more. A gov is not like a person or a collection of people in a business activity. Additional revenue is not more earnings. When a gov under, especially under our monetary system, raises revenue it doesn't do it by producing more products for the economy, it does it by taking from the collective savings accounts of the populace. Our gov is more of an accounting entity like a HC with a bunch of subs.

     

    What you are saying with this statement is that a company with a loss on a consolidated basis can fix that loss by having the HC charge more mgmt fees to subs. This just simply can't be done with the system that we have. We are not using gold as money mediums and we don't have a currency backed by gold anymore. You have to leave these archaic notions and start understanding how our system works.
    24 Dec 2012, 01:59 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    It is really easy to cut. Tell the Pentagon they have $200B to spend and then let them live within their means. The choice is theirs on what to cut. Let's earmark the $50B for care of wounded veterans. The Pentagon will have to make do on $150B per year, still more than that of China, the #2 in defense spending.

     

    Look, other countries are doing it just fine, the USA can as well. No one asks the question how the kids whose food stamps got cut is going to buy food, but everyone worries how the DoD is going to make their ends meet. It is rather eye opening.
    24 Dec 2012, 06:02 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Got it. Cutting spending balances the budget but raising taxes do not because of the gold fairy.
    24 Dec 2012, 06:05 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5328) | Send Message
     
    I realize our gov schools have failed to educate most people, and this is why most people don't understand it, but income taxes are not earnings for a gov. They represent savings for the economy. If you take those fed notes out of the economy, asset prices will fall. If the fall enough, you will get a recesion.
    24 Dec 2012, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Macro,
    The DoD budget apart from Iraq and Afghanistan (which I agree can basically be cut to zero simply by packing up and leaving - we do have some commitments to Central Asia bases where we have leases), is about $550 Billion.

     

    $53 Billion is for the military hospital system. By reducing our force size there is some residual savings. But that number isn't going to change much

     

    1/3 of the budget is basically pay, health care, pensions for our forces. By reducing the size of the force you get a corresponding savings. If we cut our forces in half we'll save about $65-$70 Billion in this category.
    $50 Billion is for the Reserves. If we said we'd cut that in half thats another $25 Billion.

     

    200 Billion is Operations and Maintenance. This includes all our bases, maintaining our equipment, running our ships, planes, etc. Although there would be a time lag we could theoretically draw that down by half as troops were drawn down. I think you'd find this challenging but lets say it can be done. Thats another $100 Billion.

     

    $100 Billion on procurement - about half of that I believe is for weapons, planes, ships, etc. Lets say we can cut weapons purchases by 75%. And the other 50 billion can be cut in half due to troops being cut in half. That would get you another $60 Billion.

     

    $70 Billion on Research & Development and Testing. This is where you have.to decide, personally I want to keep developing the latest technology and weapons but buy much less of them. But lets be generous and say we can cut it 50%. Thats another 35 Billion.

     

    The rest of the budget is $15 Billion. Lets just say another 7 Billion there.

     

    That all adds up to about 300 billion in savings. To achieve that we have to have our allies take over many duties and activities (which I'm all in favor of) and it would bring our defense spending to a level of about 1.6% of GDP for defense spending. For comparison sake Russia spends 2.8%, UK 2.7%, China 2.4% (estimate), Germany 1.3%.

     

    All this leaves you with $250 Billion in spending. I don't believe it can be physically done tomorrow but the majority could be done quickly - say in 2-3 years. I would argue that $300 billion allows you to fully keep developing the latest military technology and maintain security while having a much smaller force.

     

    Practically speaking I don't see a path to $200 billion. We'd have to eliminate all our nuclear weapons, have no overseas bases, eliminate much R&D, have no reserves, etc. At a higher level I like 2% of GDP as opposed to the 1.3% your 200 billion represents.

     

    And finally, I'd also add that I'm all in favor of doing the tough stuff to reduce our military spending. Along with that comes the tough stuff to reduce health care spending, Social Security spending (especially cleaning out the disability rolls), and doing the same type of reform and downsizing throughout our federal bureaucracy.
    24 Dec 2012, 11:14 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    David,

     

    My real point was simply that cutting too rapidly and too deeply now would be destabilizing and that this would have negative consequences that would, amongst other bad things, even thwart many of the positive outcomes you envision. I would agree with you that there should be no delay in identifying programs and services that no longer serve a justifiable purpose or that are ill-designed to serve their purposes and that savings or reallocations there should be vigorously pursued.

     

    That said, there are many programs and services in the public sector that are needed and underfunded at present and this should also be addressed as part of the rebalancing process. Further, cutting public sector expenditure at a pace that exceeds the capacity of the private sector to pick up the resulting slack would itself slow the economy and, in addition to the resulting growth in unemployment etc., would itself cut tax revenue thereby increasing public deficits and debt. This needs to be avoided.

     

    In short, this all needs to be done intelligently over time.
    24 Dec 2012, 01:18 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Bob,
    I agree with much of what you say, but you replied without answering the one question I asked - But what about the consequences about what are currently doing?

     

    How intelligent is our current fiscal situation. I'll suffer the consequences of too quick of an action rather than suffer the consequences of more of the same.

     

    And sadly, those not interested in change will take your rationale (which I largely agree is true), and use it as the excuse to not change anything and string things along until the next diversion comes along and allows them to continue the path we are on.

     

    No solution will be pain free - and those in the generations that have created this mess should shoulder that pain - myself included. Lets get it over with!
    24 Dec 2012, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    David, I don't know if you are aware of this, but we have a spending problem. The military like everyone else has to learn how to live within its means. i would give the military $200B to spend and have it figure it out like big boys and girls how to make ends meet. If all other countries in the world can make do with far less than $200B a year, so can the US military.

     

    I am all for Medicare cuts as well. The way I would do it is give Medicare the right to bargain with the pharma companies. That will reduce Medicare spending tremendously. Medicare is the 800 lb gorilla and trust me, if unleashed it can negotiate down prices for doctors, hospitals, pharma companies, what have you. The Republicans have forbidden Medicare form negotiating with pharma companies, however. Remove that restriction see the costs fall.
    24 Dec 2012, 01:59 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Macro,
    I tried to show what other countries are spending in comparison - and where your 200 Billion would put us from a practical perspective.

     

    However, I agree completely that we need deep spending cuts in all programs and areas of our federal budget.

     

    Merry Christmas
    24 Dec 2012, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    David,

     

    Few if any, and certainly not me, would suggest that the fiscal pattern of the past four years (or of the last 40 years, for that matter) can or should continue into the future. The real question is how best to change direction. Arguably the optimum short and longer term measures differ and this paradox makes, I suggest, debate about annual US federal budgeting so fraught.

     

    Some, treating the question as largely one of bookkeeping, advocate steep cuts in government expenditure, the sooner the better. Within this group heated debate takes place whether such cuts should be accompanied by various mixes of tax cuts or increases. To my mind, focusing excessively on some version of this bookkeeping fixation poses the real and immanent risk of triggering a deflationary recession or depression for the reasons suggested in my earlier comments. On the other hand, serious efforts along the lines I suggested in my preceding comment to reassess public program suitability, efficiency and effectiveness and reassign fiscal resources accordingly should not be delayed and I agree with you that defense spending should be a prime target for such a streamlining review.

     

    The paradox rests on the current need, I would argue, for targeted increased fiscal expenditure on public infrastructure and to shore up transfer payments of a safety net nature in order that employment and necessary consumer spending by low income sectors of society are not savaged in the effort to begin addressing the longer term necessity of achieving a better fiscal balance.

     

    More controversially, I would also argue that to better achieve the longer term goal of a better fiscal, social and economic balance, the US needs to seriously consider increasing taxation focused upon corporations and the top 20% (with special attention to the top 1%) of the population. I’m a Canadian and I generally therefore try not to become too embroiled in the details of the heated US debate about the role of government; It’s for you Americans to work out after all. However, this is a question that we in Canada have, on balance, tended to resolve somewhat differently than you have and, arguably, we have benefited thereby.

     

    In short, a willingness to make hard choices and suffer the consequences where warranted is commendable but, if done without sufficient forethought and care, this can itself cause serious and depressing results.
    24 Dec 2012, 03:47 PM Reply Like
  • Pinocchio1
    , contributor
    Comments (206) | Send Message
     
    If I were the President I would hit the defense spending the hardest.
    stop all these F-35 projects and all the other stupid huge military expenses.

     

    All these Republican Macho's who send the poor/immigrants to fight stupid wars in places we never heard off, all for the Republican Industries' earnings.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • icandoitdon
    , contributor
    Comments (611) | Send Message
     
    absolutely on target. this country hasn't used the military in a responsible way since WWII. take their f***kng toys away.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2481) | Send Message
     
    Because no democrats voted for either war, and no one knew where Afghanistan or Iraq were? The defense budget could go from last year's $680 billion to 0, and there's still a $320 billion deficit.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:40 PM Reply Like
  • Pinocchio1
    , contributor
    Comments (206) | Send Message
     
    Mike

     

    Or... we can continue to make these stupid killing machines and have a $1T deficit. yes?

     

    And where do I take the missing $320? the tax rate above 250K gives what? 1.2T?

     

    Wall St, the banks, The Fed, The tea party ... all can go to...
    20 Dec 2012, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Correct! The Constitution says we are not to have a standing army....we have "enemies" all over the world (real and imagined) that are no match for 1 squadron of F-15's...why we need an F-35 is beyond...
    20 Dec 2012, 09:58 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    "send the poor/immigrants to fight stupid wars in places we never heard off"

     

    Looks like someone stopped going to school in the 3rd grade...

     

    Yes, the military budget needs to be cut, I'd like to see it cut gradually, over the next 10 years, by 2/3rds. Far too much money being spent to be the worlds police force, but we need to get energy independent before we go down to the skeleton crew that can defend our borders...
    20 Dec 2012, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2481) | Send Message
     
    According to math done by Barron's, ending the Bush tax cuts for those making above $250k raises the governments coffers by $66 billion a year. So far under your Pinocchio plan we have no military, and a deficit of roughly $260 billion a year. What else are we cutting?

     

    http://bit.ly/UgKbDo

     

    http://huff.to/UL3XUO
    20 Dec 2012, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • jamesbwood
    , contributor
    Comments (307) | Send Message
     
    We spend more than the next 13 countries combined on war mongering.

     

    We have been in a nearly continuous state of distance foreign warfare for at least 4 decades.

     

    How many Democracies have we setup in that time? How good are we, really, at nation building post WW2? Why do we go to war, spending trillions and losing the lives or our sons and daughters based on, at the best, shoddy intel?

     

    Why is it that most fiscal conservatives on the right want to continue to expand the military? 70% of us, that is most of us and includes both sides, are tired of all this damn war mongering. I'm glad people are finally starting to talk about this huge bloated elephant in the room.
    20 Dec 2012, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    I think you need to differentiate between Republican politicians and fiscal conservatives. I don't see a lot of overlap. The vast majority of fiscal convervatives (myself included) want to see ALL spending reduced.

     

    I'd vote tomorrow for closing 50% of our overseas bases over the next two years. I'd vote tomorrow for reducing our weapons purchases by 50% over the next 2-4 years (keep developing but buy much less). I'd vote tomorrow to remove a command next year from the military infastructure with another one three years out.

     

    The goal should be to spend 50% less in three to four years.

     

    But the same is true for Medicare, and to a lesser extent SS.

     

    SS disability has become a truly abusive program. It is functioning as early retirement for those folks who go to the right judges. Medicare/Medicaid is simply driving UP prices and directing doctors to perform the medicine best rewarded by the government. Government needs to try to remove itself as much as possible and allow the marketplace to function.

     

    SS was introduced under FDR. The program was established to provide minimum level of income for those whose lives exceeded the average life expectancy. Over the years it was turned into a retirement program. Its fair to revisit this.

     

    Fiscal conservatives are ready, willing and able to address ALL spending. Its the politicians on both sides that want to look out for whomever is lining their pockets that week.
    21 Dec 2012, 12:12 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    I agree. F-35 is the bare minimum that the military needs in today's world. F-22 is so 20th century. If we need to cut food stamps to fund military spending - like the bill Republicans passed tonight - so be it.
    21 Dec 2012, 12:58 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    F-35 is a complete disaster. Major cost overruns and major delays.

     

    The ground assault version is too brittle and too fast. We have the A-10 which has performed like a champ in Afghanistan when helicopters could not provide air support due to the harsh mountain cross winds. It's a working system that is cheap and has performed admirably.

     

    The vertical takeoff engine also defeats the entire purpose of using an interchangable design to reduce cost.

     

    You could have stayed with the F-22 for air superiority and gone with a naval variant to meet the Navy requirement.

     

    It would also save a few trillion dollars if we didn't get into these stupid wars in the first place. I agree with icandoitdon, we have been totally irresponsible with our military.
    21 Dec 2012, 04:24 AM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Lightway,

     

    Good observations, but that's not how fascism works....government and BIG business, regardless of party affiliation, working together to make as much profit for themselves, at the expense of the country...
    21 Dec 2012, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    We need to cut food stamps because the government should not be involved in charity. Local groups can provide for the needy if the government would get rid of the many restrictions placed on those who want to help.

     

    Seems to me people are on food stamps because they need a job. Are you more likely to get a job from filling out a government form and having a swipe card sent to you every month (or however it works)? Or are you more likely to get a job by going to a food kitchen and interacting with people from your community - you know like the wife of a small business owner? The cousin of a HR manager at a local plant? The pastor that knows many local business people?

     

    Lets see government form versus interactions in your community?

     

    Your attempt to frame the question as one or the other is misplaced. All spending needs to be reduced.
    22 Dec 2012, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • machiavelli
    , contributor
    Comments (414) | Send Message
     
    "Seems to me people are on food stamps because they need a job" ... Are you the real Patrick Bateman?
    22 Dec 2012, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    But surely not military spending? Please don't tell me you are in favor of cutting the DoD budget. What will we do without the F-35s? Don't just say that all spending needs to be cut. People may get the wrong idea. Say that all spending that helps the people should be cut.

     

    This should be the campaign platform for Republicans in 2014. Cut all spending that helps anyone, especially the poor and the middle class.
    22 Dec 2012, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps you missed my initial reply where I said the goal should be to cut military spending by 50%. But thats ok, I guess its easier to make up stuff.

     

    I see absolutely no suggest from yourself as to how to get to a balanced budget. Just more of the campaign of calling your opponent a hateful person.

     

    Lets see, which type of life is better...... struggle, scrimp by, struggle, persistence, struggle, learn, advance, getting by a little better, learn, advance, achieve, live fairly well, hard work, hard work, adance, live well...... OR Fill out form, stand in that line, you missed a box, get a new form, go into that line, these are the instructions on what you can do, fill out another form next week, go to this agency, go to that agency, we'll mail you something, come back next week, fill out this form, go to that building, we put you on the list, go here, go there, do this, fill out this form.....

     

    Yeah, now who is it that actually cares about people - and who is willing to sacrifice lives so they can say they "care".
    22 Dec 2012, 10:48 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    First of all, I am not sure why we need to balance the budget. Every time we did that a recession soon followed. But if we must balance the budget, just raise taxes on the top 5% and be done with it. What's so hard about that?
    22 Dec 2012, 11:23 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5328) | Send Message
     
    Bal the budget should not be the goal. Inc taxes just cancel fed notes. Less fed notes mean less bidders for asset prices. That's what brings on the recession.
    23 Dec 2012, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • moneyTalksBSWalks
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    WOW. Amazing chutzpah. Boehner sure has a huge pair man!
    20 Dec 2012, 08:34 PM Reply Like
  • mike mohr
    , contributor
    Comments (451) | Send Message
     
    Wall Street controlling D.C. what a shame.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • Pat Stout
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    Nice timing of the announcement, the night before option expiration.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (10138) | Send Message
     
    Dow futures down 200 points.....
    20 Dec 2012, 09:47 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Pat,

     

    Get in early and cover your position(s).....no other way!
    20 Dec 2012, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (10138) | Send Message
     
    Tired of ALL of them playing with our kids futures..

     

    This is gonna be a big screw up...Playing chicken just ain't right!!

     

    Get them all out of office!!
    20 Dec 2012, 08:43 PM Reply Like
  • Alex Trias
    , contributor
    Comments (588) | Send Message
     
    Republicans are now going to take 100% of the blame if we go over the cliff - these guys have the political sense of a sack of hammers. Too bad for the country, since the House is still lamentably part of the legislative process. Maybe the voters will get it right next time and kick these jokers out of office.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5205) | Send Message
     
    Maybe buy a hammer maker tomorrow?
    20 Dec 2012, 09:06 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3130) | Send Message
     
    Um hardly.... Obama has been the one who refuses to compromise until now on the tax cuts.and he ignores the obvious fact that revenue is a small piece of the pie..... the bulk of the issue at hand is spending and entitlement reform
    20 Dec 2012, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    If the Republicans take 100% of the blame then we're cooked anyway. It doesn't take any brains to promise freebies to the masses, which is where we are at. The majority of Americans have been dumbed down to the point that fiscal collapse is inevitable. The last election proved that. Anybody that believes raising taxes on the "rich" (i.e. anyone making over $200k) is going to significantly close the deficit is a complete fool. Put 100 tax filers in a room and the top 5 to 10 of them are already paying 70+% of the bill for the entire room. We're well beyond the point where so few have skin in the game that this can be turned around without dealing with a great deal of pain. Obama simply wants to keep the game going a little longer, but the pain is still going to be there waiting.

     

    The solution to this is to go over the fiscal cliff. This is only going to be turned around by shock therapy for the mass of sheeple. They need to feel the consequences of a bloated government before they'll be willing to take real solutions.

     

    And Alex, it's foolish to believe the Republicans have anything to lose here. If they cave they're not going to pick up any voters that aren't already with them, and they'll lose those that know that the fantasy that is Obama's bloated government will end soon enough.
    20 Dec 2012, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (664) | Send Message
     
    chopchop.....he made and unpopular offer to cut entitlements and raised his lower limit on income tax from 250k to 400k. Looks like compromised to me.
    20 Dec 2012, 11:05 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3130) | Send Message
     
    What specific cuts? I don't see any proposals to raise the medicare age to 67. only the gop seems to acknowledge that elephant in the room. Remember, the average life span when medicare was passed was 68. Now it's closer to 78.

     

    shortsighted liberals never thought about that when they passed it in the 60s.

     

    Would solve things much more than some class warfare TaxCut.
    21 Dec 2012, 06:08 AM Reply Like
  • Mattster
    , contributor
    Comments (162) | Send Message
     
    I used to admire the GOP but their inability to cut a deal is really sad and impotent. GOP always used to be the party of businessmen who know something about making deals but now is just consumed by religious and tea party fanatics who know nothing about doing business. Lost my vote and I hope they lose the House next time around too.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:48 PM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5205) | Send Message
     
    Futures seem stable @ down 1 1/3%
    20 Dec 2012, 09:05 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4058) | Send Message
     
    The Republican party is on the way to becoming obsolete. Time for a new party because I see the democrats ruling for a long long time now. If the Republican party thinks majorities can be found at the right wing fringe they can not be helped.
    20 Dec 2012, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • jamesbwood
    , contributor
    Comments (307) | Send Message
     
    I think it is very tough for the GOP right now - I can't ever remember them being this splintered. Think about it - the Religious Right and the Ron Paul supporters have totally different outlooks on many core issues. Also, as a nation we are becoming less white and the republicans have not exactly embraced diversity. Half of us are women, another area they are losing ground especially as time goes on and new generations demand control of their own bodies. Also, we are growing tied of the violence, both domestically and internally. I do hope the moderates in the GOP can regain control of the party and forge a new path that is more in touch with America.
    20 Dec 2012, 10:28 PM Reply Like
  • Johann Galt
    , contributor
    Comments (234) | Send Message
     
    yeah those "tea party" folks and their "we need to spend less" are just crazy gun totin' bible beaters. The president's plan, apparently to spend our way out of debt is clearly the more rational.
    20 Dec 2012, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • Playdeep
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    Nice synopsis of the problem Johann Galt. Wake up people we are already over the “fiscal cliff”. This is not a taxing problem, this is a spending problem. You can raise revenue all you want but if you don’t get spending under control it won’t matter. Both sides cannot make the hard decisions needed to correct the problem. We always seem to be able to raise taxes right away, but always seem to get these 10 year budget cuts that never happen. They are not actual cuts, just cuts in the rate of spending growth. We are SPENDING TO MUCH. We are Greece light, only because we can print money and debase the currency. The “fiscal cliff” has already occurred; this is a “fiscal bump”.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:10 AM Reply Like
  • Edaugh
    , contributor
    Comments (88) | Send Message
     
    Bring it. I've been waiting for an entry point this month.
    20 Dec 2012, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • ssl23
    , contributor
    Comments (120) | Send Message
     
    sounds like tea partyers will force moderate house republicans to go along with Obama and pass something. They save face with their constituent s and we will get a "kick the can " last minute deal to avert the cliff.

     

    I dont think the speaker ever thought it could pass, thats why its called "plan b"....it wasnt a realistic plan....
    20 Dec 2012, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • eabyrd
    , contributor
    Comments (311) | Send Message
     
    Off the top of your head, who was Speaker during the Great Depression? Ok, now who was President? To all claiming this is bad for GOP, take a look at history. It's always the POTUS who people talk about and remember. Obama is the guy behind the wheel... and history will remember it as such.
    20 Dec 2012, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • robgra
    , contributor
    Comments (352) | Send Message
     
    I think I heard something similar in the months leading up to last November 7th. It didn't work out that way, the GOP even lost seats in the house and senate. This isn't 1930. People do distinguish between the president and the congress, and do apportion blame where it belongs: the president can only jawbone and veto; he can't pass a budget or any other measure requiring legislation. The president and the Democrats have successfully painted the GOP as obstructionists and the party of the rich, and tonight's utterly stupid vote just cemented that picture in most voters minds for the next decade. Tactical idiocy.
    20 Dec 2012, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3130) | Send Message
     
    Yup. Just look at clinton. People credit him with the 90s boom, forgetting that he had to work with the GOP for SIX years LOL
    20 Dec 2012, 09:58 PM Reply Like
  • alphaRAJU
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    I'm sick and tired of hearings on Bengazi and everything else. Instead they should be working. Are we having hearings on 26 kids and their teachers getting shot. Are we having hearings on all the soldiers getting killed in Afghanistan. So just because an ambassador got killed they have to put all their energies into that. We all need to march to D.C. and camp out. Oh wait.....it's effen cold as hell there. Maybe spring.
    20 Dec 2012, 09:40 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    alpha - It's politics at its ugliest and downright cruel....the report came out, people have been dismissed (not by congress, by the state department)....it was a sad story, but from what i've read, the ambassador himself was reluctant to ask for overt US security....again, that's a story for another day, but C-Span has to be filled with talking heads full of hot air pointing their dirty little fingers (playing a fiddle ala Nero) while the budget, and the country, hit the skids..
    20 Dec 2012, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (10138) | Send Message
     
    I am guessing here.. but i still think chicken is being played..We will get a deal, even after Jan 1st,,,,,

     

    Haven't we seen this across the pond?
    20 Dec 2012, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • Guardian3981
    , contributor
    Comments (1926) | Send Message
     
    If they can't even pass Boehners bill, how likely is it to pass Obamas or even a "compromise."

     

    I think Wall street has been believing this is going to be yet another mediocre compromise and kick the can down the road scenario.

     

    Maybe this time will be different, maybe we will go off the cliff.
    20 Dec 2012, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • jamesbwood
    , contributor
    Comments (307) | Send Message
     
    The cliff may be the only way to cut military spending.
    20 Dec 2012, 10:33 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3130) | Send Message
     
    Yup. And it definitely needs to get cut. WE spend more than the next several countries, combined
    20 Dec 2012, 10:51 PM Reply Like
  • longtimeadvisor
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    my guess is that we are now closer than farther from getting a deal after this latest boneheaded strategic move by Republicans - they will have to negotiate unless (a) they simply don't care about the country and (b) they want to lose complete credibility - of course - who would ever believe we'd get to this point - so anything is possible - seriously, how can the argument be that only those making over 1mm should pay higher taxes - why wouldn't they go down to 500k provided entitlements were also on the chopping block - I just don't get it
    20 Dec 2012, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    advisor - it's a terrible, terrible shame that the fate of the country, and world (short term) economic markets, is in the hands of fanatics who 1) claim allegiance to a fascist name Norquist, and 2) continually insult the President (due to racism) of the United States...I promise you, everything being equal, if President Obama was white, the "chump-change" governor of Arizona would never had raised her dirty, filthy, white racist finger at the President...she would have bent down and kissed his a$$.
    20 Dec 2012, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • Hubert Biagi
    , contributor
    Comments (689) | Send Message
     
    Jimbo, if you're on this board, this late at night, "covering your positions", you must be a "chump-change" analyst. A "dirty, filthy" wall street type who could care less about main street... lol.
    20 Dec 2012, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Hubert - it amazes me that people defend the powerful, at their own expense....I guess you voted for the Arizona governor? I always thought Phoenix was nice, but now, not so much...

     

    As far as me, I guess I'm just a "dirty/filthy" main street guy working his way up the "dirty/filthy" ladder - my only connection to wall street is the stock I own....other than that, I do feel a little "dirty/filthy" when I take advantage of harvard/yale/ivy league graduates who let their emotions dictate their investment decisions...yeah, I feel pretty dirty about that...
    20 Dec 2012, 10:55 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    The question of credibility is one of credibility with whom? Do you want credibility with the mass of sheeple that don't have any skin in the game, and want to believe that this government by fiscal fantasy can continue indefinitely? Or do you want credibility from those that understand that this game has run it's course and needs to be terminated?
    20 Dec 2012, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • Johann Galt
    , contributor
    Comments (234) | Send Message
     
    Jimbo- you really should have an idea of what ideology a fascist follows before you spout off.
    21 Dec 2012, 08:32 AM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Johann - That's easy..ask anyone in the Tea Party about their philosophy..the answer should come pretty quickly...
    21 Dec 2012, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Johann Galt
    , contributor
    Comments (234) | Send Message
     
    ok, as a christmas gift to you- some education. Fascism=national socialism. Now for the rhetorical question: on the spectrum of political ideology, how close does the tea party movement come to socialism?
    21 Dec 2012, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Johann, Is it true that the Nazis jailed all the socialists?
    21 Dec 2012, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    Macro, the Nazi's were socialists. The answer to your question is the Nazi's hated communists. They were the competition. By definition one authoritarian regime and ideology can't tolerate another authoritarian regime. That ought to be pretty obvious.
    22 Dec 2012, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Just out of curiousity - what makes Norquist a facist? As far as I'm aware he is a single issue political lobbyist. And while I'm fine throwing all the lobbyists in the trash can, I do so simply because they are corrupt. What makes him facist?

     

    And how is disagreeing with the President racist? Seems to me the Governor of Arizona (whether you agree with her position or not) was attempting to address an issue that the federal government was purposely ignoring.... and then she got to listen to the president lecture her from afar and have people in his administration basically denigrate her. I think you might have had a thing or two to say if you were in the same position.
    22 Dec 2012, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    You know, I learn something new every day on Seeking Alpha, like the Nazis were Socialists, even though every single history book puts them as fascists.
    22 Dec 2012, 09:38 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Norquist is not a fascist. He is a patriot who is working hard to push the Republican Party so far right that it becomes irrelevant and keeps losing elections. I salute him.
    22 Dec 2012, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Easy answers to two questions:

     

    1) Norquist is a fascist because he is supported by big business, which in partnership with the government, wishes to keep labor down and corporate profits (even profits obtained from white collar welfare - a good fascist government business social program)

     

    2) The Nazi's killed all the socialists.....any questions?
    23 Dec 2012, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Well I agree with you that the financial elite and government use government's power to their own benefit.

     

    But I don't believe that somehow means Norquist is a facist. He's a single issue lobbyist - deserving to be thrown on the trash heap along with all the rest of K street.

     

    I'm not sure I follow your statement about Nazis as I don't believe I reference them in any post. But I think the Nazi's attempted to kill all the Jews not all the socialists.
    23 Dec 2012, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • Bigfloridafish
    , contributor
    Comments (91) | Send Message
     
    14 points of fascism
    Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
    Disdain for the importance of human rights
    Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
    The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
    Rampant sexism
    A controlled mass media
    Obsession with national security
    Religion and ruling elite tied together
    Power of corporations protected
    Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
    Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
    Obsession with crime and punishment
    Rampant cronyism and corruption
    Fraudulent elections
    So which party does this sound like?
    23 Dec 2012, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    jsijimmy,

     

    I don’t disagree with the thrust of your comment but do take issue with your use of ‘fascist’ which I suggest is excessive.

     

    Denigration like “fascist” and “communist” are thrown around in promiscuous hyperbole and this excess only serves to muddy debates. While a great case can be made that Norquist adds little of merit to the US economic and fiscal debates and that the strange power and leverage he has attained over the internal politics within the US Republican Party is unwarranted and destructive and is threatening to lead that party and possibly the US itself into a highly damaging dead end. He is not a fascist.

     

    While arguably something of a thug in the way that he threatens individual elected Republican officeholders with primary opposition for straying from this simplistic pledge, his thuggery does not include advocacy of the ‘take it to the streets’ physical intimidation of the Italian Blackshirt squadristi, Nazis Brownshirt, and other paramilitary private arm style of classic 1930s fascist advocates (and, for that matter, of several Western European Communist Parties of that period) . Arguably it is only when a political demagogue crosses the line and becomes an advocate usurping the role of democratic institutions in favour of physical intimidation by private paramilitary thugs that designations like “fascist” or “communist” are warranted.

     

    I therefore agree with the response davidbcd has given to your comment.
    23 Dec 2012, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Which party?

     

    14 points of fascism
    Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism - both parties speak of American exceptionalism and tell the masses its their god-given right as opposed to earned through actions.

     

    Disdain for the importance of human rights - both. I see no difference between Bush and Obama on human rights.

     

    Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause - you mean like the 2%?

     

    The supremacy of the military/avid militarism - both, and I'll even give you the extreme ivory tower idiots that led us into Iraq were Republicans

     

    Rampant sexism - Democrats. the entire war on women was entirely declared by Democrats.

     

    A controlled mass media - Democrats

     

    Obsession with national security - both parties are very willing to sacrifice our freedoms and liberties to suit their desires.

     

    Religion and ruling elite tied together - Replace religion with bureaucrat and you'll be on to something.

     

    Power of corporations protected - both

     

    Power of labor suppressed or eliminated - Public labor at the expense of private labor.

     

    Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts - disdain for self identified elites is healthy. I believe rich Republicans and Democrats support the arts.

     

    Obsession with crime and punishment - both when running for re-election. And neither party is willing to state the obvious - that far too many non-violent people are in prison.

     

    Rampant cronyism and corruption - Both

     

    Fraudulent elections - while I believe we accurately count the vote - I see both sides trying to change things to benefit themeselves when it comes to actually voting.

     

    So which party does this sound like? - sounds mainly like both parties. With those that want to expand government having built a media to support their views and a strong base of bureaucrats with their own interests to offer the same support.

     

    And rather than focus on parties that have only the party's interests at heart, you should focus on our liberties and freedoms - because as they are chipped away day by day, week by week, law by law, bureaucrat by bureaucrat they become much much harder to get back.
    23 Dec 2012, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5328) | Send Message
     
    Here are the major points of the NAZI party.

     

    http://bit.ly/N29kza

     

    It is very similar to Marx's 10 points.

     

    http://bit.ly/R9ce6J

     

    Not to mention the similarities to the US.

     

    Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Stalinism, Fascism, etc. They are all the same thing. They are basically systems that rationalize the oppression of the individual instead of protection for the individual. The problem with these systems is that whenever you try to establish a collective that subjucates the individual, in order to do so, some of the individuals in these so called collectives must be given the power of coercion to decide who gets what. As soon as this occurs, the economics are created for a ruling elite and those that are ruled. Europe has been doing this for 1000s of years. The US was an attempt to avoid this mistake.

     

    That attempt is now over. Oppression will now return all in the name of the common good, as it has always been.
    24 Dec 2012, 02:08 AM Reply Like
  • machiavelli
    , contributor
    Comments (414) | Send Message
     
    ^^^ damn there are some paranoid folks in the SA comments. I've never seen such a bunch of whiners and quitters on America just because they have to pay a few more % in taxes.
    24 Dec 2012, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5328) | Send Message
     
    But that was the point of the US. To have one place in the world where 0% of the taxes would be used for stealing. So anything above 0%, means the hope of the US is not being fullfilled. Tyranny doesn't just spring up over night. It grows like a cancer, and if you don't stay vigilant, one day you wake up and its too late.
    24 Dec 2012, 09:46 PM Reply Like
  • Whitehawk
    , contributor
    Comments (3129) | Send Message
     
    Making money on the NDAQ100 futures sell off.

     

    P.S. The debt ceiling issue was never going to get resolved properly. Both sides put this fiasco into motion, and neither side has the balls to get us out realistically. Cheers.
    20 Dec 2012, 09:54 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (10138) | Send Message
     
    Perfect time to buy your precious metals..This is the start of the end...Things are just going to start rolling down a steep hill now..Pieces are going to start falling off!!
    20 Dec 2012, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • jamesbwood
    , contributor
    Comments (307) | Send Message
     
    Bought in today! Woot!
    20 Dec 2012, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • bapco
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    boehner was doing a shrewd move in trying to take out much of the blame for fiscal cliff, when we do go over. truth is obama and dems could care less if taxes go up. their whole deal is to raise taxes and grow govt. plan b would have taken some of their ability to blame repubs for it. now we do go over unless tea party repubs come to their senses and make a deal to raise taxes on the richest of the rich and trade for some serious spending reductions. its amazing how many commenters here are blinded by support for dems no matter at what cost. politics over country- to the ruination of the usa ! WTH ?
    20 Dec 2012, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    bapco - ." its amazing how many commenters here are blinded by support for dems no matter at what cost. politics over country- to the ruination of the usa ! WTH ? " I can say the same about republicans and their supporters.. Do republicans care about their oath to the constitution, or their pledge to a fascist named Norquist?

     

    .they (republicans) have made such a big, useless, pointless argument about the bush tax cuts....they will NOT affect the 47% or most of the 99%, nor will they really affect small business..and, most large corporations will still be living off the welfare (white collar welfare) that they've been living off the last 50 years (higher taxes or not)...the biggest hit will be on the average Joe Six-pack worker with the reinstatement of the payroll tax (from 4.2 to 6.2%).
    20 Dec 2012, 10:29 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    jimmy, you haven't got a clue. The Bush tax cuts shifted more of the tax burden onto the higher tax brackets. Letting them expire will reverse that.

     

    Everybody needs to have skin in the game. The unions and the bottom 50% (actually more like 60 to 65% if you include those that pay some but still relatively little) need to be kicked in the butt and start carrying their own weight. Their days of freeloading is coming to an end. The Chinese and other creditors will make sure of that.
    20 Dec 2012, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • caupachow
    , contributor
    Comments (333) | Send Message
     
    Cinci, why waste your time? He never had a clue and never will.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:16 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    How will the Chinese do that? Will they personally send collections agents to the 65% of the country paying no tax?
    21 Dec 2012, 01:17 AM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus - You just harpooned your own argument. the 'b'ush tax CUTS shifted nothing to no one....MOST people (whether the 47% or the 99%) don't pay taxes on dividends, capital gains, etc. Rich people hardly ever pay taxes on anything because that's the way the laws are written by those with power (e.g., the money). Your republican friends who make a big fuss about dividend tax increases are only doing so to line their, and their rich supporters, bank accounts with more tax free revenue, not to help out any small business or ordinary, average Joe.
    21 Dec 2012, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    caupachow - Just what clue do you have? Have no one pay taxes, borrow from the Chinese, and build F-35's with that money so that we can bomb the Chinese in about 10-20 years? AMazing! Totally amazing!
    21 Dec 2012, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    "Cincinnatus - You just harpooned your own argument. the 'b'ush tax CUTS shifted nothing to no one..."

     

    Well, then reverting back to the Clinton tax rates will likewise shift nothing to no one. Very astute observation jimmy.

     

    By the way, I can tell why you need a union to keep a job.
    21 Dec 2012, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus - LMAO! I support UNIONS because they have benefited me with very nice paying jobs, all of which were non-union...though, a union shop has always been close by. Or, so you can understand - no, I"m not a member of any union, but would like to be because I understand all the things they fought for to keep labor from getting exploited and utilized almost as slaves for the past 1000 years.
    23 Dec 2012, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Asia markets all down now avg. 2% due to "vote" in house...(@10:15PM eastern time)...
    20 Dec 2012, 10:15 PM Reply Like
  • Seth Walters
    , contributor
    Comments (675) | Send Message
     
    Looks like being 100% in TZA is going to pay off for me after all. :)

     

    See you gentlemen at the bottom!
    20 Dec 2012, 10:17 PM Reply Like
  • Guardian3981
    , contributor
    Comments (1926) | Send Message
     
    How come so many people believe the dems want to go over the cliff? I don't think they want taxes for everyone to go up...
    20 Dec 2012, 10:18 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    They do, they just don't want to admit it. The Dems know the only way the math works is for a broad-based rise in taxes. You can't pay for all the entitlements and welfare freebies that need to be handed out to keep the Dems in power without a broad-based rise in taxes. The game was just to raise taxes on the "rich" first, and then come after everyone later with the "we already soaked the rich" but now we need you to "contribute" more. Going over the fiscal cliff just fast-forwards the game into step #2.
    20 Dec 2012, 11:23 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    Of course they want to go over the cliff! Don't forget that Plan B isn't a Boehner original. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelsoi proposed this plan 6 months ago. So the leaders of the Democrats in Congress are having their plan rejected by Harry Reid and Obama as a political stunt. Who isn't willing to compromise now?
    21 Dec 2012, 01:07 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Boehner should have taken that deal 6 months back. Now Obama has own convincingly, sweeping every battleground state, and is therefore asking for more concessions on part of Republicans. Bad political move on part of Boehner. May be he thought Romney would win.
    21 Dec 2012, 01:11 AM Reply Like
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (2481) | Send Message
     
    I am a Republican, but I am sick of the Tea Party guys and Grover Norquist. Compromise is needed, they do not control the Senate or the White House so why do they think they can dictate what happens. The hell with it, go over the cliff so we can all pay more taxes, then what will they say. Sick of all of them!
    20 Dec 2012, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3337) | Send Message
     
    Love it Larry. "so we can all pay more taxes" - what exactly do you mean? Do you mean you are not willing to pay more in taxes? I'm quite certain that you have wealth that is underutilized and needs to be redistributed to those that can make better use of it. Either the welfare queen down the street, or there's a green energy business that Obama's crony capitalist buddies are running into the ground that needs propping up for a few more months while they drain it of cash.
    20 Dec 2012, 11:32 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus - how about a deal? Stop all "welfare queen" welfare as you call it, and, at the same time, stop all white collar corporate welfare - alms for the fortune 500...what about that deal? No more loopholes, special depreciation, one-time charges, no more waiver of tax payments by corporations, no more waiver of foreign income from taxation, and so on...remove all welfare so that corporations have to stand on their own two feet and stop living off the work of others...
    21 Dec 2012, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • Hubert Biagi
    , contributor
    Comments (689) | Send Message
     
    People, what did you expect? We haven't had a federal budget for almost four years. And Obama is just now getting directly involved in the negotiations?

     

    Article I of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to pass a federal budget. The Congressional Budget Act requires the president to submit a budget to Congress by February 1 every year. Under federal law, the House and Senate are mandated to reach agreement on a concurrent budget resolution by April 15 of each year. President Obama’s last half-hearted attempt to submit a budget was defeated by the Senate 97-0.

     

    Since the President can't seem to provide leadership, perhaps the Supreme Court should get involved?
    20 Dec 2012, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • jsijimmy
    , contributor
    Comments (286) | Send Message
     
    Hubert - they don't follow 99% of most laws they pass for us peon citizens, so why should they follow laws passed for their own Roman selves?
    20 Dec 2012, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8412) | Send Message
     
    Impeach Obama for winning a second term?
    20 Dec 2012, 11:43 PM Reply Like