E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS*** UPDATE *** The Senate cleared the 60-vote threshold to advance the tax compromise bill by a wider-than-expected 83-15 margin. The bill now moves to the House, setting up a potential showdown with Democrats, who have expressed anger over the bill.
Here’s who voted against: Democrats: Bingaman (D-NM), Brown (D-OH), Feingold (D-WI), Gillibrand (D-NY), Hagan (D-NC), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Sanders (I-VT), Udall (D-CO); Republicans: Coburn (R-OK), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Sessions (R-AL), Voinovich (R-OH).
Not voting: Merkley (D-OR) and Wyden (D-OR).
The vote proceeded slowly and was left open for an extended period because of bad weather across the country and some senators had been delayed in getting to the Capitol.
*** UPDATE 2 *** We'll update in the morning with the final tally. (Final tally noted above.)
Leave a Comment:
TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK.
TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY WONT CREATE JOBS.
TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY WONT CREATE JOBS.
TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY WILL INCREASE OUR DEFICITS.
TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY WONT CREATE JOBS.
IF THEY DID 1992-2000 WILL NOT HAVE SEEN NET 25 MILLION JOBS.IF THEY DID WE WOULD'NT HAVE NET NEGATIVE JOBS SINCE THEY WERE ENACTED.
THE PROBLEM NOW IS DEMAND NOT SUPPLY.
More money for those that will spend it here or those with less disposable income (98% of you folks here) will more effectively stimulate the economy than tax cuts that will flee into better yielding emerging markets and savings. Why would the rich, currently flush with cash, and the most profitable quarters in corporate record going back decades invest in production here resulting in jobs while demand remains low and emerging markets yeild multiples in return.
98% NEED TO STOP HURTING YOUR OWN SELVES, OUR POCKETS, AND OUT DEFICITS FOLLOWING RICH POLITICIANS BOUGHT BY THE CHAMBER AND THE RICH.
Why many hate themselves so much that they's rather give more of their money to the rich on Wall Street that Bush described as drunk "http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,389142,00.html" and crashed our economy. This also after we gave them the bailouts while the 98% suffered the 6million job losses. Every time deficit increases and we give tax cuts to the rich, the lack of jobs and the shifting of that money overseas apart, effectively we are giving from our pockets to the rich since everyone will pay for the greater deficits resulting.
Well put comrade. But you may want to tone down the class warfare, or get with Bernie S. and go full in socialist. Or we could just give all of our money to those super smart and fiscally responsible folk in Washington DC. "THE PROBLEM NOW IS DEMAND NOT SUPPLY."
Really? Might the problem not be spending, not inflow to the gov.? I know, how about you get out there and create a job. I'd like to keep a little more of what I earn. Plus even Clinton is on board - the country need the Bush era rates, not the Clinton era rates. He said it, straight up.
I doubt that you have created as many jobs as I have. Or as much as Warren Buffet who advocated more taxes to the wealthy. However, what is beyond dispute is that 23million jobs were created when the tax rates I advocate were in place compared with -3million jobs in the 9 years since they were in place.
http://www.alan.com/2010/11/21/warren-buffett-cut-taxes-for-middle-and-lower-class-rich-should-pay-much-more/
I believe that would be comrade Warren Buffet to you.
http://www.alan.com/2010/11/21/warren-buffett-cut-taxes-for-middle-and-lower-class-rich-should-pay-much-more/
Since it has become fashionable to not disagree on tax rates without calling each other names such as socialist or communist.
How about you and comrade Buffett lead by example. You all want higher tax rates then pay at those rates starting now. True leaders don't need to be compelled.
So go ahead start paying more. I bet it'll make you feel a lot better as a person. Me, I'd like to pay as absolutely little as possible. That is what the tax code is all about - minimizing the amount paid.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me there is just cause for Grand Jury and RICO Statute to arrest and confiscate billions of dollars from these terrorists under the guise of "good Capitalists". We are doomed if they don't all go down. My President must show fortitude and stand for JUSTICE now. This is non negotiable...LAW & ORDER is the glue for any nation and civilization to thrive and protect the UNION above the greed and corruption of the few...possibly 50 individuals orchestrated and/or are executives that are RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CORPORATIONS.
Yippee!
Let's give 3% of the people, 37% of the cash at a time when we're increasing the debt, doling out corporate welfare, and average households haven't seen in rise in net income since 1980....
Did we really expect the "millionaires club" of the Senate to vote against more money for millionaires??
You are NOT giving the RICH anything. It is their money to keep, allowing them to keep their money is as fair as allowing you to keep yours. They aren't getting anymore money either. Their tax rates will stay as they been for the past 10 years. In case you didn't notice payroll taxes are going down 2% and YOU will have more money in your paycheck. I don't think the rich will see an increase in their paychecks from this tax decrease. Happy now, you got something the rich didn't.
Never having been in any type of union, I wonder: does the union prohibit its members from working more hours? If the worker bees can work more hours, then isn't the fact that their incomes have not risen on them?
When I want or need more income I work harder, try to be more productive and put in more hours. Works every time.
janet:
The rich get richer at a rate of more than 10% each year. The 2% payroll tax reduction for the middle class is a small pittance and an assault on the longterm viability of Social Security.
Spanky
This is how the Union works. A person goes to apprenticeship school and gets paid to learn a trade. Upon graduation he becomes a Journeyman. He is a master at his trade. This takes between 2-6 years depending on the trade. He is contracted with the Union's hiring hall for jobs and pays dues. These dues go for not only the right to work out of that union but for health insurance, retirement etc. And these benefits are linked to the hours the worker works.
There IS overtime in every Union trade. What the Union has done is negotiate some bylaws that protects the workers rights far above the standard labor rights. For instance, if a worker shows up for work and the shift has been cancelled for the day, the worker is paid "show up" time. In some unions if the worker shows up and puts his bags on or starts up his work area and then the shift is cancelled they are guaranteed 4 hours or on half days work (in case they are working 4-10 shifts they would be paid for 5 hours). Now each union is different and has negotiated a different contract than the other trades, so if you are in a Union and reading this and your union did not negotiate "show up pay" you aren't going to get it.
The Union also orchestrates the workers retirement funds, pension plans, health care plans, vacation funds etc. Some of the Unions offer Credit Unions and Credit Cards for the Union workers.
My husband has been in the Iron workers Union for about 30 years. He is a 4th generation Union Iron worker.
I have heard both sides of the Union issue, and yes you have to be called out of your hall or sent or "boom out" to another one, sometimes you have to have your Unions permission to "be on loan" to another local and the worker will have to pay "traveler dues" each week they work out of their home local along with their regular dues.
Union workers are not lazy, overpaid, underachievers by any means. They are highly skilled, trained, qualified and in some cases licensed by the state. Some Union workers have to go to school longer than a doctor in order to be a Journeyman or be Licensed. Believe me, it is hot, hard, dirty and dangerous work. They deserve every dime they earn. And if they are lucky they are in a Union that has a good Business Agent and can negotiate them the best deal for American Workmanship.
While people not in a union have to negotiate their own labor contract.
Good, I wish they would hurry and get it over with so we can move on to the next issue. So when this bill goes to the house will need more time for John Boehner's tears especially after 5 or 6 shots Bourbon.
Fannie and Freddie crashed the economy. Period.
Not tax cuts.
Not the wars.
These two entities were in danger of collapsing the economy back in 2005; all efforts to rein them in were thwarted by Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House. Dodd is gone, but there must be something in the water in Frank's district, as he has a scandal ridden career, but gets returned as surely as the swallows to Capistrano by voters who seem unable to grasp that they are represented by a charlatan.
Tax cuts are not responsible for the debt- spending is responsible. If you owe more each month than you take home, the fault is not your employer's, it is yours.
We employ the government, and we decide what we want to pay it. It is already too much, and it is time it learned to live within the means we provide.
We can begin by letting 47% of the people in the country with no skin in the game to start laying a share. I have no problem letting them keep their earnings, but I am sick unto death with sending them welfare in the form of refundable tax credits.
There is a cut I can live with.
As for the rest, cut every single agency's budget by 20%. Every single one. Then, cut the non military federal workforce by 10%. Cap the number of highly compensated federal employees in each department- there are businesses with fewer vice presidents earning top pay scale than our government agencies. Evaluate the agency, and set the cap- five for Agriculture, say, and ten for Defense- not 982, as there are today. (incidentally, Obama inherited a defense department with a little over 200 such highly compensated federal workers. He increased their number by 780.)
The spending is obscene.
Part of this tax bill is an additional 13 months of unemployment insurance, so now people can collect for over three years. In a country with a huge illegal immigrant problem, this is positively ridiculous. How about some of those unemployed take some of those jobs?
Moreover, these payments reduce the incentive to innovate. Home Depot was started in a recession. So were many successful businesses. A little less negative rhetoric from the White House will get the private equity firms lending to such entrepreneurs, while reducing the incentive to hold out for the perfect job will get more people working.
Tax cuts did not cause the collapse, but raising taxes will cause a new collapse. Even Obama recognizes that fact. The rest of the far left will have to accept that their perfect world solutions only work in their hazy dreams.
You clearly do not understand the unemployment extension. It is NOT an additional 13 months UC, it is an extension of the tiers of EIC and EB. The maximum remains 99 weeks total (less than 2 years) NOT the 3 years you refer to. Clearly your understanding matches that of Michele Bachmann
I see...and how exactly would increased regulation of Fannie and Freddie saved AIG?
...Bear Stearns?
...Lehman Brothers?
...Citigroup?
...Merrill Lynch?
...Washington Mutual?
...Wachovia?
No Joe, the PhD in economics, just keeps drinkin' the water the right hands her about Fannie & Freddie. Their problem was created by the Too Big Too Fail banks, I'd suggest reading more about it before making the F & F accusation again.
See, there were these things called sub prime mortgages, which the government demanded be made. The regulations originated with Fannie and Freddie, which were, are, and always will be quasi-government entities.
Well, the Board members of Fannie and Freddie had the ability to write regulations regard g the granting of mortgages, albeit, with the input of the government. Thus, if you could breathe, you got a mortgage. Those regulations go throughout the banking world, because all banks are subject to federal and/or state regulation. It is for this reason that, in the immediate aftermath of the collapse, when federal regulations were being written and re-written on an almost hourly basis, that it was so difficult to get a loan. Incidentally, that last statement only applies to those with less than steller credit- those with high credit scored had no problems.
Anyway, all banks and investment houses have to mark to market- in other words, prove that they have assets to cover their liabilities. A loan is an asset to a bank- it is money owed to them, while a deposit is a liability- money owed to you. The FAFSA board, another appointed board, declared that every single mortgage in the country would default. Therefore, Lehman, Bear Sterns, et al, had no assets with which to mark to market.
Thus,they collapsed.
AIG insured those entities, as well as many mortgage bundles.
That, in sum, is how Fannie and Freddie collapsed the economy,
No Jo, No Bo, NJ....clearly you are either a current politician, or if not, you should be. Typical...making "strong comments" on issues you have absolutely no clue of (see ttom's post). The way that this bill, H.R. 4853 stands right now, 99weeks is the most you get....so unfortunately, all the so-called-99ers will not benefit from this. It also varies from state to state as determined by that paticular states unemployment rate. I love these people who speak as if they know something (which is about 50% of all the articles online about the issue, and about 99% of people like Jo-Bo making these comments).
Let me guess, somehow your investments (the ones you told all your buddies about, how you were gonna make a TON, even though they told you not to invest your money that way)...well, I would bet they all FAILED (embarassing you with years of torment of "i told you so" by those friends). Obviously your mind is focused on that, not the current bill.
BTW, I fully support our country's "wars" and fully support all of our servicemen/women in these wars (the same people who make it possible for clowns like you to spew your ingorance across the world)...but with that, how in the world can you say that the "wars" are not the problem. Do you even have a clue what the war in Iraq and Afgan cost? Well, just an estimate (as the total never stops running, as war does not stop running)...but right now from the start of each has cost, the IRAQ WAR = 750,000,000,000 usd, AFGHAN WAR = 375,000,000,000...and I am not a mathmatician but I think that is a total 1 Trillion, 125 Billion dollars = 1,125,000,000,000 (and again, it continually grows). Though I support 99% of our military engagements...I WOULD SAY THAT TAKING OUT JUST THE IRAQ/AFGHAN WAR MONEY, AND PUTTING IT BACK AGAINST THE DEFICIT...I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD MAKE QUITE THE DIFFERENCE.
Get some facts...it's obvious that I am getting tired of all the misinformation from clueless fellow Americans.
Sorry if I was wrong about the unemployment extensions. The reporting on it has been unclear, at best, but every single report I have seen reads that it extends the current benefits by 13 months. Add that to 99 weeks, and you have three years. If you have information that is different, I would appreciate a link.
P.s., Mess- you make a lotmof statements with no reasonable basis for making them. Try Googling the deficits for 2006 and 2007. Take a little gander at the CBO projections for the deficit in 2008- here is a hint: they anticipated a surplus. And, yes
, that DID include the war expenditures. It all gets added up at the end of the year, no matter how hard you try to twist it.
As to your rant about my supposed investments, well, I will not dignify that nonsense with a response.
I am glad you support the troops. It seems there is actually a little spark of intelligence there, tiny, but nonetheless there.
From NJ's statements about F & F and how the economy collapsed, I still say she got her PhD from either Wal-Mart or a K-Mart blue light special.
No Joe is right about how Fannie and Freddie’s policies were complicit in the collapse. President Bush tried a documented 17 times to reform Fannie and Freddie but couldn’t get Dodd and Frank to budge and see the reality of disasters waiting to happen. Barney Frank admitted as much not too long ago.
What accelerated the collapse was in fact the ruling by FAFSA regarding mark to market rules. Mark to market assigns a value to a security based on last sale data. If your neighbor sells his house for $30,000 when it (and yours) are worth $300,000, the value of your home is instantly deemed $30,000. Mark to market almost single handedly collapsed Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.
No Joe, I agree that spending should be cut across the board. What really needs to be cut is non-essential spending in hard times. If money is tight, regular people will pay for food, housing, and essential goods and services. They hold off on vacations and dining out. They don’t buy things they can do without. Will we ever convince the Government to follow this common sense practice?
When tax revenues are low, hold off on giving millions of dollars to universities already sitting on million dollar portfolios held by their foundations. Back off on non-essential travel, prioritize and pay for essential projects only. The stimulus money threw money at a lot of “busy work” jobs with no sustained effect. No American family will survive running never ending household deficits. Our country won’t either.
No Joe, No Bo, NJ===If only we had some one as smart and having all the answers as you in charge of our country. I'm sure you could wipe out disease,poverty,crime and all of our other problems in less than a year. Why are you not running for a political position? Go for it, you owe it to the rest of our country.
Candice, you are also wrong. Look up CDOs, synthetic CDOs and CDSs. Read "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis as a starting point. There are many more references but this will do for a start.
To sum it up, it was the massive deregulation and the non-regulation of exotic financial instruments and derivatives started by President Reagan that caused the economic collapse. There were several warnings and even some mini-bubbles (think tech bubble) since then that should have warned the regulators but it was a lazze fare (so I don't know how to spell in French) government philosophy and the supply side economics as practiced by Reagan, Bush and Bush that pushed the financial system over the edge.
A few brave folks voted NO (how'd Ensign end up on this list?), including my very own Senator Udall (CO). Now, the vote on the tax cut can be held, and probably will pass, for good or ill. Maybe now the Repubs will stop holding up progress. Leader Reid, keep 'em in session until ALL open business has been conducted.
Somebody, please...
Tell Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats.
This train has already left the station.
A perfect trap set by republcans. Add another trillion to the debt at a time when the dems still hold both houses and the presidency. Now who do you think will get the blame come 2012? Sheer evil genius. Congrats repubs, you've punked out the dems yet again!
NO JOE NO BLOW
" A loan is an asset to the bank, it is money owed to them; a deposit a liability, money owed to you"
I was always puzzled about these macro-economic fundamentals but now, with the help of JOE I think I am getting the picture.. So banks like Citigroup, or Bank of America, or any other too big to fail which received all those billions of taxpayer dollars" must have had a total of liabilities greater than the total of assets
Let me expand that,
From what I have been told previous to this lesson in economics a company, or an individual goes bankrupt if
Assets < Liabilities or Assets - liablities = negative ;; or LIABILITIES - ASSETS = POSITIVE ( an individual owes more in credit cards, gambling debts, alimony etc than the value of his house, car, clothing, stocks etc. etc)
(This bears some resemblance to the US Treasury reporting system deficits are positive numbers)
According to some elementary math I was taught if liabilities)<-> deposits; and assets <->loans and if as just established LIABILITIES MINUS ASSETS = POSITIVE the conclusion is for these banks
DEPOSITS MINUS LOANS = POSITIVE or
The total funds deposited exceeded the total amounts of loans which is why they were about to fail
therefore using the equivalencies just established
Assets<->loans Liabilities <-> deposits
Someone said we have a demand problem, not a supply problem. We certainly DO have a demand problem. Any demand fueled by debt is ARTIFICIAL demand and cannot be sustained, whether it be charging too much to your credit cards or getting a Home Equity loan to spend spend spend. Wall Street loves demand fueled by debt. It creates artificial bubbles they can get rich on (on the way up, AND on the way down). Talk to me about demand once debt gets down to an acceptable level. Karl Marx said that the Russians would militarize themselves to death (and they did), the British would colonize themselves to death (and they did) and the Americans would spend themselves to death (and we are). If employment ever gets back to reasonable levels (4 to 5 percent), those same people who voted for extension of these tax cuts will be saying they need to be extended further so as not to negatively impact a healthy economy. Spare me! There will never be a time when these people will vote to pay down the debt. But --- we deserve what we elect, don't we. Just don't cry about it when you go to the bank to cash your tax refund check and it bounces! California issuing tax refund vouchers is just the first step.
does that mean china owns us now
I'm one of the beneficiaries of the Bush cuts. I didn't want them. I didn't need them. I'm busting my ass at work. I did in the 90's and again during the Bush years. The difference between 39% and 36% won't keep me home or keep me from growing my business -- if I can.
I would have been able to hire more people if the payroll tax burden were lower. And, the current limit of $100k is ridiculous. The rates should be lower on the lower incomes (below $100K) and should scale up as income increases up to $500k. But, let's stop using payroll taxes to fund unrelated government programs. That sham should come to an end. Let's force ourselves to pay openly and honestly for what we want.
I object to estate taxes. Death should be a transfer like any other transfer of capital assets. But, the capital gains tax is poorly conceived. A capital gains tax should be set at the rate of 35% for assets held for a year or less. For each additional year that you hold the asset, the tax rate should be lowered by 5%. So, if you held an asset for three years, the rate would be 20%. If you held it for five years, the rate would be 10%. We need to reward investment and not speculation.
And by the way, we need to increase the federal gasoline tax and give it back to taxpayers as a credit against their taxes -- if they save and invest it or if they use to buy cars or appliances with specified fuel efficiencies or energy usage ratings. I know that this approach is very paternalistic but we've got to stop sending so much money to Middle Eastern governments which openly or secretly (i) hate us; (ii) undermine us; (iii) threaten us; and/or (iv) attack us. The only way to decrease our use of fossil fuels is to tax it painfully. We don't however want the government to keep the money. We want to drive our dollars to investment. We have to drive ourselves to spend money on technologically advanced products. We need to play to our strengths.
I'm not a liberal nor a conservative, neither a republican nor a democratic. There are things that we need to do together as a nation and things that government should leave to the states or to the people.
Don't bother to call me names -- comrade, socialistic, right-wing nut job -- your characterizations don't interest me. But, please -- tell me what you think that we should do. Being decent is not a sign of weakness and using slogans to characterize others is pointless.
Semper Fi.
You all need first to read F.A. Hyhek's "The Road to Serfdom" and in particular Chapter 6. IF you did, half of you would realize that your instincts were correct and the other half would ignore what you read and continue to expect someone else to pay your way through your life.
We will always have the "Takings" coalition and the "Leave us Alone" coalition. The "Leave Us Alone" folks will ultimately win because they do not claw at each other for the limited spoils. As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism and planned economies is that they eventually run out of people from which to steal money."
Cooperative Individualism will triumph over Totalitarian Collectivism every time and throughout time...
Cooperative Individualism = "I pay 15% of my income in taxes, and cooperate by allowing individuals that make ten times my earnings to pay less than 3% of their income in taxes." NO THANKS! TAX THE RICH AND GO AFTER THE CHURCHES TOO!
What happened on Nov. 2 is that an uninformed electorate voted for a party that wishes to continue to bankrupt the US by extending tax cuts, especially to the wealthy, that we can't afford, and that will doom the US to second rate nation status by 2050. Now the Dems are hopping on that runaway train.
"The people", like rats on a sinking ship, are willing to climb over each other's backs to get to high ground in this crumbling economy that the robber barons and investment bankers have created. "The people" will stomach windfall tax breaks for the wealthy, to get the few crumbs that the GOP will throw at them. For now. All the corporate welfare, tax breaks, grants, and bailouts haven't created jobs during the entire 8 years of Bush and 2 years of Obama. Yet the GOP wants even more for their rich constituents.
Sadly, the demonstrations that have occurred in other countries will eventually come to the US. People are getting to the end of their tolerance for wealthy special interests running the country, and buying the government. The Tea Party anger we saw out there was misdirected at the Democrats this time, because they happened to be in control. It will eventually find it's rightful home. The wealthy...
Our kids are dieing in foreign lands to protect oil investments in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. It's not the wealthy class kids. It's kids who sign on for military duty because the industries in their home towns were moved to China when the wealthy class saw Chinese labor was only .33/day with no benefits.
80% of the American people have not seen an increase in net income since 1980 after adjusting for inflation. And it's not getting better, it's getting worse. When 3% of the people get 37% of the cash funding these tax cuts, we've sealed the fates of the lower and middle classes. We've taken away hope.
That hard reality is why Obama was elected in the first place, as people felt disenfranchised, and is why eventually the GOP is in for big trouble. You can only fool people for so long. When your true constituency (the wealthy) is less than 20%, you have no basis to govern any longer. Only by tricking the lower and middle class into believing that you have something to offer them can you fool them for a while. You can use gay marriage, abortion, terrorism, and even a bad economy only so long. The GOP are masters at deceit now. But eventually we'll have their heads. History is replete with lessons for the priveleged classes that took advantage of the rest of us. This country will not tolerate a "ruling class" for very much longer.
Read the posts regarding Bernie Madoff. Did he really do anything much worse than what the guys running Lehmann Bros., Goldman Sachs, and the other investment banking firms did? Theirs was legalized thievery. Legalized by the GOP when they gutted regulation and took big campaign contributions in return. If the wealthy GOP types are smart, they'll take their tax breaks, buy a home in some tax sheltered country with a big militia, and get out of the US before the worm turns, and they start to look like Charles and Camilla trapped in their limos and scared to death.