E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPolitico’s VandeHei and Allen: “[B]behind the scenes, top officials who have been involved in the talks for many months say the contours of a deal – including the size of tax hikes and spending cuts it will likely contain — are starting to take shape. Cut through the fog, and here’s what to expect: Taxes will go up just shy of $1.2 trillion — the middle ground of what President Barack Obama wants and what Republicans say they could stomach. Entitlement programs, mainly Medicare, will be cut by no less than $400 billion - and perhaps a lot more, to get Republicans to swallow those tax hikes. There will be at least $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and ‘war savings.’ And any final deal will come not by a group effort but in a private deal between two men: Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). The two men had what one insider described as a short, curt conversation Wednesday night — but the private lines of communications remain very much open.”
Obama’s pitch yesterday on the importance of getting a deal on the fiscal cliff: “It’s too important for Washington to screw this up.”
The AP: “President Barack Obama said Wednesday he believes that members of both parties can reach a ‘‘framework’’ on a debt-cutting deal before Christmas, making his case with a mix of optimism and pressure on congressional Republicans to keep tax rates from rising on the middle class.
Is Obama open to “raising revenue” from the wealthy but not necessarily raising rates? Erskine Bowles says yes. National Journal quotes Bowles from a Christian Science Monitor breakfast yesterday: “I heard it not only from the team, but from the president.” He added, “It all doesn’t have to come in the form of higher rates.” (But note the word ALL…)
Recently, the Washington Post editorial page urged Obama and the Democrats to tackle entitlement reform in the fiscal negotiations. “Elections do have consequences, and Mr. Obama ran on a clear platform of increasing taxes on the wealthy. But he was clear on something else, too: Deficit reduction must be ‘balanced,’ including spending cuts as well as tax increases. Since 60 percent of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, there’s no way to achieve balance without slowing the rate of increase of those programs.”
But the New York Times editorial page counters, “[T]he fact is, the Obama administration has already pledged to extract more than $1 trillion in savings over the next decade from these programs [Medicare and Medicaid]. There is not much more that can be cut without hurting the most vulnerable Americans.”
The Wall Street Journal: “Morgan Stanley Chief Executive James Gorman enlisted his employees to pressure Congress to reach a bipartisan deficit-reduction deal, one of the most high-profile in a series of moves by major corporations seeking to influence the course of negotiations. Mr. Gorman, in an email Tuesday, asked Morgan Stanley ’s more than 16,000 U.S. financial advisers and branch managers to contact their members of Congress and urge them to reach “a bipartisan compromise” to avoid a year-end budget crisis known as the ‘fiscal cliff.’”
Leave a Comment:
Sixth Grader Explains the Fiscal Cliff in 1 Minute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxTCR7uWts&feature=player_embedded
Bev: That Sixth grader has more brains than the whole senile old repubs combined. Yes, I understand he is reading a scrip. Says a lot.
So glad to know you libs now look to YouTube for your authoritative news source !
It's a whole lot more informative and truthful than your favorite authority Fox or Limbaugh jim.
You have no idea on what my "favorite authority" is Mo ... but you continue to talk about things you know nothing about. LOL!
How's was your football team this year ? What bowl will you be playing in ??
You pretty much give it away with your quoting Fox and Limbaugh lies and conspiracies word for word Jim.
"How's was" Bigger question is Jim, how's your grammar?
I won't be playing in any bowl Jim, and neither will you.
Au contraire, you can watch "us" on TV, you know .... playing "old man" football" !!!!!!!!!! LOL !!!!
By the way, my grammar is quite good ... it's my typing that sux ... kind of like your thought cohesion.
Personally if you figure it out, the fiscal cliff isn't. It would be a return to the tax rates of Clinton and we were a prosperous, working, peaceful country then. It would seem we should strive for those times. One thing I know for sure is Obama should not let the tea bags in congress dictate any cut to Social Security and Medicare over a contrived "fiscal cliff".
So you for one are okay with the rates going up on everyone. I agree. Following your logic, everyone had a dog in the hunt and should go back there. (I thought you libs weren't regressive?) Now all we can hope for is that another dot com bubble will develop as that is most of what drove the prosperity in the Clinton years. You may get some poo poo's from your liberal friends but I for one have no trouble with the rise on all if that's what you on the left decide you want. That ought to get Obama some thumbs up.
Liberals are progressive not regressive that would be the tea bags that want us to go back to the 50's. Your dot.com bubble is a figment of your vivid imagination. None of you slime gives credit for a job well done. Clinton raised taxes on the richest and reinvested that money in infrastructure which set off the biggest boom in my life time. It was far better times then during the Viet Nam war when it also boomed for the economy. This sheds light on exactly how bad a manager George W. Bush was when he couldn't even make a war time economy a boom in this country and instead made a mess. Talk to the hand, you like other rights's will only get it right when you throw down against Fox and Rush and do the research from neutral sites.
John, You conveniently forget about the taxes already built into Obamacare ... these taxes will make taxes HIGHER than in the Clinton era.
3.8% medicare tax on unearned income above $200k/$250k
.9& tax on earned income above the same levels
Add to that, the "Scrooge Taxes" of eliminating medical deductions:
- raising the AGI floor from 7.5% to 10%
-reducing the amount an individual can put into medical reimbursement under a cafeteria plan
-new excise taxes on medical devices costing over a defined amount
-stiffer rules eliminating over-the-counter medications from qualification for HSA's
These taxes affect ALL levels of taxation !
Jim take your B. S. down the hall, it has no significance and has been reputed over and over. What you are saying about taxes on Obama care is half-truth at best or a down right lie. You right wonders ought to really reject fox news, remember they are the ones that said Romney was winning. I have got no use for right wonders what so ever, we are the only industrialized nation not to recognize access to health care as a human right. In fact we (meaning you) deny people access to basic health care even when it would lower the cost for everyone if access was extended to everybody. But don't let the truth bother you stupid. Just keep reciting fox facts, no one with a mind believes you.
Jim you've been watching way too much Fox and listening to way too much Limbaugh. Don't you get it man Americans rejected your lies. It's time to come back to reality and leave Fox and Limbaugh's world of lies.
Clowns above me, John, I hope you didn't drool on yourself when you lied ... Obamacare is ALREADY set to affect me in January as it has reduced the amount I can put into my medical reimbursement plan, thus RAISING my taxes .... and I am nowhere near the $250k level, nor am I a millionaire as Obama blathered.
By the way geniuses, I got this information from an AICPA tax seminar ... part of continuing education requirement. Pull your head out, research it and let reality enter your brains ! It's out there !!
But then again, you would have to actually "read the bill to see what's in it". LOL !!
Jim, here is a dime, call somebody that cares. The truth is while some things will go up the overall picture is the cost of health care will go down. So screw you and your horse. Even the fact you mis-quote Nancy Pelosi is indicative of your ignorance of the bill. It has already effected me. My donut hole is shrinking and the cost of my meds went down $1000 last year, the law has also effected Scott Brown who got to keep his daughter on his insurance policy for two more years. Oh and my pre-existing condition would no longer dis-qualify me from buying insurance. Lots of things that you are to stupid to understand are good things. The real reason you hate America, and specifically Americans? My guess, it is race based, "them darky's just don't deserve health care." Is my guess correct?
Question Jim and be honest. Have you read the actual bill?
I have not read the entire bill and most Philadelphia lawyers decry it is virtually unreadable ..... but the Demmie libtards in Congress never read it and voted for it ANYWAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I have indicated before, the AICPA has developed seminars on the tax ramifications and there are other places in Tax update seminars where the issues are discussed as well.
Oh johnny boy, I was not quoting Botox Nancy with that one, merely paraphrasing (look it up if you need to), but I find it amusing so many Democrats voted FOR the bill without ever reading it !
Now, if you truly think Obamacare will lower the costs after expanding coverages, expanding who is covered, federal subsidies for those who "cannot afford" the premiums, adding about 140 new federal bureaus, agencies, commissions, boards, 1,600 IRS agents and a few czars mixed in ..... just to ADMINISTER THE DAMN THING .... then I have some property to sell you in Southwest Florida and can get you in on the "ground floor" although it is really a swamp ..... because you are the MOST GULLIBLE person on the face of the earth !!!
John in Battle Creek (cereal anyone?)
You make a good point. In past wars the government sold bonds, war bonds to pay for the war. Over a 20 year period as the bonds came in interest was paid to the holder of the bonds. This was all budgeted for unlike Bush's two little wars which were not budgeted for and there was never any intention of budgeting for them. It was Vice President Dick Cheney who opined that deficits didn't matter.
If we had sold bonds to pay for those wars we probably wouldn't be in the fiscal mess we're in today. There would be a mess because of companies sending jobs off shore but that could be more easy to recover from.
Then Alder would you as a liberal also AGREE to back, to "Clinton era" Government spending?
Oh Jiminy Cricket. You mis quote her and I know what Pelosi said, and it wasn't that she didn't read it. Maybe its up to you to go look and dispell the freaking B.S. that you stinking rightys bring to the conversation. In other words jiminy cricket you lie, your feet stink and you don't love Jesus. The rest of your ignorance is nothing more then right wing arsehole bull sh!t and I bet you know it. Or you must be too stupid to understand something that is good for you as well as the country. CBO says it will save over a trillion dollars in a decade. Remember the CBO?
Sure Mr., that would be better then the spending that Bush left now wouldn't it. As a neocon, can you agree that Bush not only raised spending to record levels he also expanded government to size larger then a gargoyle? Democrats are accused of being a tax and spend, which is true but spending is paid for. Republicans borrow and spend a whole lot more. Just as a side note. Obama has reduced some spending by shrinking government. He is spending less then we were with Bush. Not enough yet but that is what he and congress are talking about right now.
John Boehner's rejection of legislation intended to shield middle and low income Americans from the Jan. 31 expiration of the "Bush tax cuts" brings to mind an old comedy: a criminal wrestles a trick gun from the protagonist. The criminal proceeds to aim at the protagonist and pulls the trigger. The trick gun fires backwards, wounding the criminal. Incredulous, he fires (backwards) again and sinks to his knees and death with an astonished facial expression.
The criminal is analog to John Boehner. Holding the middle class hostage to tax breaks for the wealthy has already wounded the republican party. Now Boehner, seemingly unable to grasp that political reality, appears intent on pulling that trigger again.
Boehner, who seems always in dire need of a good belch, is completely oblivious to his comedic role. Just watch his face as he sinks to his knees.
Well said Ian and a great analogy of the situation on the right side of the aisle. Hopefully Boner won't be mortally wounded, well, maybe not so much.
Not only does Boehner pull the trigger again, he even reloads. Boehner just can't get enough looking like a fool.
Too bad the House already approved extension of the "Bush Tax Cuts" BEFORE the elections .... kinda blows your whole desperate argument all to hell and back !
Of course, Obama really doesn't care about tax cut extensions anyway .... why do you think his extension was LIMITED IN DURATION .... until "just after the elections". More taxes on EVERYONE, more for Obama to redistribute. You libs fell for it.
Jim, Jim, Jim, STFU, you are making a fool of yourself. If the house passed an extension of the Bush tax cuts it also included the top 2% and that is not acceptable.
Jim the House refused to act on the middle class tax cut bill sent to them from the Senate before the election.
Revenue bills originate in the House. You have it backwards Mosephus ... Harry Reid has his "butt-prints" all over the extension. Besides, it was printed on this website previously as having passed the House.
jim-1455434.....
Here's (an article about) the House bill you refer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/politics/house-votes-to-extend-bush-era-tax-cuts.html
It was passed in August, leaving all Bush tax cuts intact for a year. That's not acceptable to democrats who intend to end the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250k annually. So, that House bill was dead on arrival in the Senate. Even if it had passed the Senate (it never will), President Obama would have vetoed it.
You are (at least) four months out of date. A LOT has happened since the House passed this bill. Notable among these is President Obama's RE-election.
It matters not whether you understand the politics of what is about to happen. However, be advised: tax rates ARE going up on wealthy Americans (one way or the other).
The only thing not certain is how much damage your republican party will do to themselves in the process. Of course, we (democrats) hope congressional republican leaders listen to folks such as yourself. That should maximize damage to the republican party.
How's this for entitlement reform - let the Medicare administrators/pharma negotiate drug costs and cut the 150 billion in corporate welfare. Raising the eligibility age for Medicare should be last on the list.
More "talking points" about corporate welfare ? Please give us some specific items you classify as "corporate welfare" ... skip the glossy rhetoric and give some concrete examples.
Oil company subsidies come to mind first, do you need more there are plenty. Enough with corporatism. It has never worked, trickle down economics is a failure and needs to die its death. It is time for a government of, by and for ALL the people. Not just the chosen.
Jim if you need some concrete examples, get away from Fox and listen to some real news. You'll never get anything but lies from Fox.
What exactly do you call corporate subsidies Jim? You can dress them up as subsidies and put lipstick on them, but it's still corporate welfare.
The "takers" are now thew chosen ones...
More generalized BS from John in Battle Creek ? Perhaps John, what you mean to say (while lying and calling it "subsidies") is that oil companies are allowed to deduct search and exploration costs .... which they should be allowed as a normal COST OF DOING BUSINESS !!!
If you have proof our government is actually sending them money, please show us all. BE SPECIFIC !
Billions Jim, note to self, last post to Jim he is a fool and is to stupid to understand he is being shafted by the republican party.
Mo, Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Then you jump to an irrelevant opinion about Fox. Then you jump to a question of what I consider "corporate subsidies" when this is terminology beloved by all extreme lefties .... and appeared in post #4, thereby not originating with me. Hitting the bottle early today ?
But for just a minute, I will play your silly-a$$ game. Our federal government "massively" supports GM's electric car (the U.S. holds GM stock as well and it is worth substantially LESS than our investment in it) by $10,000 for every car made. Production costs are $89k, the car sells for about $49k, .... it is wildly unpopular with GM dealers because it doesn't sell ...... and yes, that INSANITY from Obama is what I would refer to as "Corporate welfare".
Of course, the $535 billion in loans to Solyndra (who had already received a "going-concern" opinion letter from their CPA's) is another example of Obama's "CORPORATE WELFARE" !!!
Jim, do you even read what you post? Talk about not making any sense what so ever. I can see all you're going to do is keep quoting what you hear on Fox and from Limbaugh which makes you irrelevant.
jim##### says.....
No jim......that is absolutely false!
Your post is off, way, way, off....Solyndra was 5 hundred + million, not billion!
Just stop it jim!
Mo, I realize you have some obsession with FOX. Maybe you have fantasies over the blondes on there, but I suggest you get professional help.
Our federal government is currently providing "corporate welfare" to subsidize the Chevy Volt.
You are correct, chilled $535 million, not billion .... mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa .... I must have still been thinking about John's phantom "billions" he threw out with no support.
Still, $535 MILLION in corporate loan guarantees, subjugating U.S. loans to other stockholders in a foolish move ... it is what I would call "Corporate welfare" !
BY the way chilled, I was ASKED what I considered to be "corporate welfare" .... so I have no reason to "stop it" as you demand, but am quite happy to correct by numbers.
It is really sad that people like Jim don't even have a clue as to who is actually pumping him. The republican party is not your friend Jim, nor is Fox or Rush. The fact is the oil subsidies come from our tax dollars and in that is corporate welfare. I guess Jim you enjoy your legitimate rape by the Republican party. Personally I am tired of trickle down bull sh!t that has never worked and as a matter of fact failed.
Put up or shut up little johnny.... my guess is you can't "put up" because you are talking out your gluteus maximus amd you won't "shut up" because it is the nature of liberals to run their mouths, even when they clearly don't know what they are talking about.
Give us some good examples of what you call "corporate subsidies" ... if you can. BE SPECIFIC or you will expose your lack of knowledge.
Oops ! Looks like little johnny lied in #4.6 !!
Oil, jim, oil. There are others. G.E. didn't pay any taxes. Many many more examples but I am not going to do your homework. So bite through this screen I have put up. What you can't do is prove your lies and you know it.
Jim, a simple Bing will get you want you want, the truth about government subsidies to corporations. Of course you will remain stupid but that is how you voted. You didn't answer me, do you enjoy your legitimate rape by the Republican party?