Official Fiscal Cliff Discussion

[CASHAPP]

Cenk Uygur‏@cenkuygur

Does anyone realize that Obama just made 99% of the Bush tax cuts PERMANENT? Is there any Bush policy that Obama doesn't love? #fiscalcliff


God damn Obama can be frustrating. For once can he prove Cenk wrong. Why couldn't he just make his own tax cuts and keep it for 250 K and up

Dude is just so frustrating

 

[CASHAPP]

Cenk Uygur‏@cenkuygur

"You don't understand Cenk, Obama had to compromise with GOP.Otherwise nothing would have happened!And we would have gotten what we wanted."

 

[AV Dicey]

41:1 tax hikes vs spending cuts

That is a motherfukking blowout in political terms. Usually, it's like 3:1, 2:1, something along those lines. Liberals need to stand the fukk up today. This is a watermark day for us. Additionally, Obama gave a hard line on the debt ceiling. Obama found his balls for his second term.

41:1 is where its at, over a made up cliff that they could, as romney would say, retroactively fix by calling it a tax cut in a couple of days and daring obama to veto it. Mitch McConnell is a plant, 2nd time he's sabotaged the tea party (payroll tax cut fiasco + he never liked rand paul neither)

They will get a 1:2 deal on the debt ceiling and get primaried to bolivia, everything else is righteous indignation from the "professional left".

 

[CASHAPP]

Sorry for my back and forth but as time goes on the fact that Obama renegaded(his secret service codename is very appropriate for him) on his promise about the 250 K is pissing me off more and more.

The Republicans could run a train on Michelle, nut on her face, and brag to him about it and he would say that he is "disappointed" but how he cannot "judge them"

I mean you really could not have made it 250K and up, and have them sign anyway because it is against their principle to vote against a bill that cuts taxes in any way.

This guy is really starting to piss me off and I really wish i could smack him.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

This is wrong. They ignored polling numbers that showed certain policies were popular when they don't want to support them like they always do. If they do adjust they then pretend that it was a Republican idea or just re-frame the argument. They were in utter belief that they could lose, but any knowledgeable Republican analyst knows that certain policies are popular by the general populace. I'm half asleep so forgive me not going and getting the sources for you and providing you the names.

But the majority of Americans, and a vast majority at that, believe that CEOs are paid to much. A vast majority of Americans believe that most workers are not paid enough in comparison to their higher ups. A vast majority of Americans believe that college tuition costs to much and I can go on and on. For each of those categories the numbers are greater among Democrats than Republicans but they are still either supported by majorities or near majorities of Republicans. In other words, Republicans have ignored the desires of the American working class for over a decade and either pointed their attention elsewhere or misrepresented the position of their opponents.

Here's a kicker, polls even show that the majority of Americans want the GOVERNMENT to fix the problem.

Whether they are swayed by a conservative bubble or not is not the point. Romney said that he did not think 47% of the country would vote for him. He just misjudged the numbers. Obama gained a lower percentage of the electorate and popular vote than he did last time. But a large number of would-be conservatives just stayed home. Those white voters that did vote, that Republican base, voted for their party in higher percentages than they did last time.

Do not make the mistake of reading too much from this election like Republicans did when Bush won a second term.



No, I didn't. Anyone who said that wasn't thinking. Going over the cliff wasn't going to make the House Republicans anymore likely to cave on various issues. I knew that from the jump. Why are talking like this is Newt Gingrich getting styled on by Bill Clinton.



First off, stop referencing the debt ceiling. You keep calling this the debt ceiling and this is the fiscal cliff debate. The debt ceiling drama will come in February and THAT will determine whether or not the Democrats won.

My dude, what in the world are you talking about? OF COURSE YOU CAN PLAN TO WIN AN ELECTION. This is what we call contingency plans. Do you understand how many deals are made behind closed doors and in those halls contingent on someone winning or a party winning? Agendas have been punted towards presumptive second terms all throughout political history. Of course the public made it possible in the literal sense. If :obamaword: doesn't win then it's all a wrap.



No one said, one man is responsible. But you're making a closing argument that applies to any bill's passage. The rest of your argument is full of a false sense of the state of affairs. All those scenarios you just listed were present when Obama first became president sans Bill Clinton. I really think that you somehow have been led to believe that there has been this big sway in public opinion on the issue. That is wrong. The same percentages of people supported the raising of taxes on the wealthy during the 2011 debt ceiling debate. And they didn't give a damn about fukking over the country then.

So yes, this passed precisely because

:obamaword: Oh and shout out to @LegendNas dapping up everything.

I'll respond to this later tonight but on the bolded:

- the first bolded is wrong because you're arguing something different. I'm talking about voter turnout numbers and you're bringing up poll numbers from questions

- How can you not look into the election results? The week after the election ended, the republicans who campaigned on their tax pledge reversed course, and we're simply not supposed to look into that? rly? I'm not saying this will remain the same for 2016 etc.

- But you're still missing the crucial point. It is the opinion expressed through the vote that matters. The Tea Party was voted into office specifically to cut spending, thats why they "didn't give a damn about fukkn over the country." I never said there was some huge sway in public opinion. You're misrepresenting my direction here. What I'm saying is that public opinion means jack shyt if that opinion isn't what is influencing the election process. The scenarios I brought up were things that the electorate felt strongly about, and went to the booths to vote for. Thats all.


But at this point we're both going to far off the original statement I was addressing. And that was about giving too much credit to Obama and the Democrats for out maneuvering the Republicans. And we can agree to disagree from here on. You think the Dems made the Republicans fold. To which I would simply ask, what else were they supposed to do?

 

[No1]

I'll respond to this later tonight but on the bolded:

- the first bolded is wrong because you're arguing something different. I'm talking about voter turnout numbers and you're bringing up poll numbers from questions

No, it is not. I'm not talking about something different, you just don't understand what I'm explaining to you. I am telling you that the public's will to raise taxes HAS BEEN THERE CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE MAJORITY OF THE LAST TWENTY YEARS (with some hiccups under W). Just like it has been there on many other issues. But it doesn't get done because of a lack of political will.

- How can you not look into the election results? The week after the election ended, the republicans who campaigned on their tax pledge reversed course, and we're simply not supposed to look into that? rly? I'm not saying this will remain the same for 2016 etc.

Who said not to look at election results? I'm giving you a general overview of the American political landscape. You keep trying to act as if Obama now has this new mandate on all these issues that even he doesn't believe that he has it on. You keep trying to argue that it is because of that mandate, and that the public's will alone that this got done.

Do you not realize that the last four years completely and utterly defeats your entire argument? Unless you're comfortable arguing the President Obama had more political capital to push forth his agenda than he did in 2008 with dominance over both houses and a historic presidential election and widespread outrage with Wall Street and the wealthy? His agenda for 2012-2016 on taxes is no different than it was for the first time, and he uttered it as many times the first election as he did the second election.

- But you're still missing the crucial point. It is the opinion expressed through the vote that matters. The Tea Party was voted into office specifically to cut spending, thats why they "didn't give a damn about fukkn over the country." I never said there was some huge sway in public opinion. You're misrepresenting my direction here. What I'm saying is that public opinion means jack shyt if that opinion isn't what is influencing the election process. The scenarios I brought up were things that the electorate felt strongly about, and went to the booths to vote for. Thats all.

I'm not missing the point. The Tea Party was not elected as some sort of coherent mass first of all. But you cannot downplay the opinion of voters throughout a term.

And even if the "Tea Party" was elected just to cut taxes, they just raised them tonight. Where was that unified mission tonight? Those same people you're talking about, just did what you said they were sworn not to do. Why would they care about this election? Republicans did not care about the election in 2008 did they? So why would the most radicalized, intransigent, and regressive incarnation of the Republican Party in a generation, care now? They still have the same constituency, and that constituency largely did not vote for the President. They still have the majority of the house now and aren't really in danger of losing it for years absent something catastrophic or a constitutional challenge to their gerrymandering.

The difference is that President Obama and the Democrats fought this time like they didn't in 2010. On this issue, the public opinion was always behind them. ALWAYS. Under either of our definitions

To which I would simply ask, what else were they supposed to do?

I don't know what this means But what they did was smart only because it was their own cowardice that put them in this position and them maneuvered a way out.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

WE EAT TOMORROW!!!

 

[Jello Biafra]

This deal is some major bullshyt and could have been done last year or the year before if these politicians weren't a bunch of lazy, selfish a$$holes. In two months they will be right back to having to address the major issues of spending and the deficit that they failed to address with this band-aid measure they agreed on last night.

 

[the next guy]

A partial victory

While the deal gives Obama bragging rights for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, it also leaves him breaking a promise.

Obama had vowed to raise tax rates for the top-earning 2% of Americans, including those with household income above $250,000 and individuals earning more than $200,000.

Raising the threshold for higher tax rates shrinks the number of Americans affected.

While nearly 2% of filers have adjusted gross incomes over $250,000, only 0.6% have incomes above $500,000, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Some House Republicans weren't exactly overjoyed in voting for the plan.

"I'm a very reluctant yes," said Rep. Nan Hayworth, an outgoing Republican representative from New York.

"This is the best we can do, given the Senate and the White House sentiment at this point in time, and it is at least a partial victory for the American people," she said. "I'll take that at this point."

Conservative lobbyist Grover Norquist, whose Americans for Tax Reform pushes candidates to sign a pledge never to raise taxes, said the plan preserves most of the Bush tax cuts and won't violate his group's beliefs.

"The Bush tax cuts lapsed at midnight last night," Norquist tweeted Tuesday. "Every (Republican) voting for Senate bill is cutting taxes and keeping his/her pledge."

The timing of the vote was crucial, as a new Congress is set to be sworn in Thursday. And without a breakthrough, the entire process would have had to start over.

Specifics of the plan

The legislation will raise roughly $600 billion in new revenues over 10 years, according to various estimates.

According to the deal:

-- The tax rate for individuals making more than $400,000 and couples making more than $450,000 will rise from the current 35% to the Clinton-era rate of 39.6%.

-- Itemized deductions will be capped for individuals making $250,000 and for married couples making $300,000.

-- Taxes on inherited estates will go up to 40% from 35%.

-- Unemployment insurance will be extended for a year for 2 million people.

-- The alternative minimum tax, a perennial issue, will be permanently adjusted for inflation.

-- Child care, tuition and research and development tax credits will be renewed.

-- The "Doc Fix" -- reimbursements for doctors who take Medicare patients -- will continue, but it won't be paid for out of the Obama administration's signature health care law.

The Democratic-led Senate overwhelmingly approved the bill early Tuesday before passing it to the House.

As news about the fiscal cliff's deflection spread across the world, several markets reacted positively Wednesday.

Australia's ASX All Ordinaries index added 1.2%. South Korea's KOSPI gained 1.5%, and the Hang Seng in Hong Kong advanced 1.9%. Tokyo's Nikkei and the Shanghai Composite remain closed for holiday celebrations but will reopen later in the week.

More fiscal cliffs loom

Payroll taxes still set to go up

Despite the last-minute fiscal cliff agreements, Americans are still likely to see their paychecks shrink somewhat because of a separate battle over payroll taxes.

The government temporarily lowered the payroll tax rate in 2011 from 6.2% to 4.2% to put more money in the pockets of Americans. That adjustment, which has cost about $120 billion each year, expired Monday.

Now, Americans earning $30,000 a year will take home $50 less per month. Those earning $113,700 will lose $189.50 a month.

With the latest battle round over, lawmakers will next set their sights on the other items on their docket of congressional squabbles over money: the debt ceiling and resolving the sequester.

Obama said he hopes leaders in Washington this year will focus on "seeing if we can put a package like this together with a little bit less drama, a little less brinksmanship (and) not scare the heck out of folks quite as much."

He thanked bipartisan House and Senate leaders for finally reaching a resolution Tuesday, but said Congress' work this year is just beginning.

"I hope that everybody now gets at least a day off I guess, or a few days off, so that people can refresh themselves, because we're going to have a lot of work to do in 2013."

Read more: 5 things to know about the fiscal cliff

House staves off fiscal cliff, but more money squabbles lie ahead - CNN.com

 

[Family Man]

Your happy about debt staying unsustainable? Those tax rates won't bring extra revenue or decrease national debt.

This is basically punting and not going bold in either direction left or right.

So few people have a grasp of the big picture and skim through media making small things into big issues? A 3% tax increase even going by the false premise that raising taxes increases revenues isn't enough to cut debt. People don't recognize tradeoffs either... more taxes less investments in jobs and in their products and services...less spending...which reduces taxpayers and brings in less sales tax revenue.

Stop being taken captive by media and their propensity to market everything like its the biggest issue in the world or the world will end...

STFU grease ball.

 

[Family Man]

I'm confused. Y'all nikkas need to tell me what to think.

 

[Mr swag]

LOL Obama got a shyt load of stuff to raise it 250,000 to 450,000

 

[tru_m.a.c]

STFU grease ball.

he's not lying though

this isn't an actual policy victory, its a political victory

but it now means that the democrats are in control of the discussion that will result in a true policy change

 

[alybaba]

If this bill actually includes increases cap gain taxes to 20% + 3.8% for income above $400,000, then that's actually a decent win for Dems and the middle class.

 

[KillSpray]

Your happy about debt staying unsustainable? Those tax rates won't bring extra revenue or decrease national debt.

This is basically punting and not going bold in either direction left or right.

So few people have a grasp of the big picture and skim through media making small things into big issues? A 3% tax increase even going by the false premise that raising taxes increases revenues isn't enough to cut debt. People don't recognize tradeoffs either... more taxes less investments in jobs and in their products and services...less spending...which reduces taxpayers and brings in less sales tax revenue.

Stop being taken captive by media and their propensity to market everything like its the biggest issue in the world or the world will end...

Exactly. People in here so disconnected from reality.