E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
UPDATED 11: 40 AM ET: There is an emerging deal to avert the fiscal cliff, led by negotiations between Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden, but the key sticking point remains the sequester and deficit reduction, aides say.
Biden and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell exchanged phone calls until about midnight last night and aides continued beyond that, aides tell NBC News. Democratic Leader Harry Reid left Capitol Hill in the evening Sunday and was not directly involved last night.
NBC's Chuck Todd weighs in on the chance of a fiscal cliff deal just hours before the deadline, saying it "really depends on the political motivations" of the people at the negotiation table.
Aides say the Vice President and McConnell spoke at 12:45 am and again at 6:30 am this morning. GOP sources say the inclusion of the vice president has made a favorable difference in the talks, given his understanding of legislation and his personal relationships.
Two senior aides to McConnell continued with White House representatives overnight and again today.
GOP aides say they expect their party to likely defer its biggest fight over deficit reduction when the debt-ceiling debate takes center stage in the new year. Republicans say given the time left, there is limited, if no chance, to secure specific detailed alternative spending cuts right now.
Republicans would like to see the "sequester" across the board cuts kept in place to drive down the deficit, but Democrats are resisting that and offer a two-year delay.
But Democrats caution that the "emerging deal" which "creates another cliff in three months probably would not have the votes to pass the two chambers." That is a reference to the looming fights over the debt ceiling and the overall government budget deadline in March.
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., talks about the latest developments on the fiscal cliff, and why she thinks Congress hasn't come to a resolution.
Democrats also argue the new revenue generated by tax increases, especially if reduced from the Democrats' earlier targets, should be used to cover the costs of delaying the automatic spending cuts for two years and protecting the long-term jobless with extended benefits.
Cuts that would go into effect as a result of the sequester would be deep and across the board. The discretionary cuts were signed into law in an effort law to compel Washington to address the long-term deficit. So far, the parties have been unable to agree on replacement cuts that would be targeted and therefore less arbitrary.
The most recent Democratic offer on taxes, presented on Saturday night, is setting the new income threshold at $450,000, sources say. That represents an increase over the president's original $250,000 threshold for higher rates and Obama's later offer to Boehner of $400,000.
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., opposes any delay of the sequester, when steep, automatic spending cuts will slash budgets at the Pentagon and other government agencies. Flake says he'll take any fiscal cliff deal that prevents a tax hike for most Americans.
Senior Republicans say the GOP is looking for a figure at about $550,000, down from House Speaker John Boehner's $1 million and retaining current estate tax rates. That could mean, say various members, a split-the-difference deal at $500,000.
Significant progress has been made on the income tax threshold and estates taxes, but the figures will not be set in stone until all details are resolved, including unemployment benefits, preventing a scheduled cut to medical provider's Medicare payments (know as the Doc Fix), and a fix to remove millions of middle class taxpayers from the "alternative minimum tax."
The taxes being discussed, by the way, would be made permanent and not given a "sunset provision" in law, which is unusual. There would be no expiration date like the one that forced this debate.
Leave a Comment:
Nancy (Democrat) - as speaker got every bill passed with a Democrat majority.
Boehner (Republican) - as speaker got not one d a m n bill passed with a Republican majority.
Do you get the point?
Boehner is lousy at his job. The Republicans cannot govern.
Boner is as useful as teats on a bull.. McConnell looks likes teats on a bull. A match made in heaven!
He can't even control his caucus. Boehner is a puppet, plain and simple.
Republicans only have 1/3 of the Gov't. How are they responsible for the other 2/3?
Nancy got Obamacare passed, still want her?? STOP SPENDING!!!
slodon. How many filibusters did the GOP stage in the Senate? Including when the nimrod McConnell filibustered HIS OWN BILL?
WillieSmith : Why not freeze the debt ceiling for the next 4 years?
A good idea, but Obummer would never go for it. He wants exactyl the opposite. Remember his first 'negotiation' ? $250K, no debt ceiling forever. All he needs is a big red rubber nose.
THE MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT. It would be like if you failed to pay your CC bill for 4 years, Gumby!
When you hit the limit on your CC you QUIT CHARGING don't you??
slod. But you pay your outstanding balance, or are you a loser???
Check the 14th Amendment. You can not freeze it. Civics 101
to the DickmoreCraps!!! tax more and spend this country to oblivion. This ain't going to cut the deficits. The guy who "smoke but didn't inhaled" did dickly it was the REPUblicans that got the surplus. sheeesh...
There is plenty of blame to throw around. If that's all we are going to do just go home and lets go over the cliff. Quit all the blame game and do the job you were elected to do.
And this is PRECISELY why this problem is not the GOP's fault. The GOP is trying to reduce or eliminate the deficit. Democrats have absolutely no plan to do so ... only to spend.
And before you talk about raising taxes on the rich, you could confiscate every dime the top 1% have, and when all assets are sold, it wouldn't even come close to retiring one year of government deficits.
The government gets enough money. Time to cut government.
Are you THAT uneducated? How does the government pay for the products and services you enjoy?
I write a weekly national column on the economy and politics. Get real, Rosso3. How do you think the government pays for it? The point is, some, perhaps most, of the "products and services" (perhaps you could tell me what products the government sells) they sell could very well be done by the private sector. The Founding Fathers never intended the government to involve themselves in our personal lives like they do now. Members of Congress were paid $3 per day for only their days of service, going to $5 per day in the early 1800s. They were never intended to be career politicians. Inflation was pretty-much non-existent, until 1913, when Congress amended the Constitution (16th Amendment), to enable them to directly tax American citizens.
And now people like you seem to look to the government to provide all the "products and services", as you call them, to solve all of their problems.
People need to solve their own problems. Yes, liberty carries with it the risk of failing. But that's why America was founded. Most humans prefer freedom, with the risk of failure, over security provided by a government with politicians who decide who deserves "help" and who doesn't.
Soaking the rich will accomplish absolutely nothing. Do you hope to be rich someday? And do you really want to vote to allow politicians unfettered access to your wallet?
LOL you Lib/Progs are hilarious. I don't know what is funnier your profound ignorance or you complete disregard for the facts. Either way you are really funny.
I will bet that not one of the clueless babbling right wingnuts posting here would pay one dime more in taxes if the taxes for TAXABLE income over $250k went up.
You are the type that likes to complain against your own bests interests!
Herron LOL really you do not comprehend that the problem is spending!! not revenue!! ROFL such a donkey clown.
Some one should wake up the Insane Clown Posse (the GOP House), and remind the numbnuts that the GOP LOST in November, including losing 10 tea stains in their own chamber!
Times are changing leftnut!
Seems like some half ass deal will get done,,,,not good enough
I'm amazed why everyone believes that someone else is responsible for paying for someone Else's entitlements - where does it say in the constitution and bill or rights that certain people have to payand support other people ( that's called personal charity) - all this take more from others to pay for someone else - what happen to personal responsibility and families taking care of their own. This socialist entitlement mentality will bring down this country its not if, but when. and when that occurs we will
Default on the debt - anarchy in the streets when the entitlements end i.e. Greece, Spain we will finally have the reset we need. The whole social model will collapse and we will go back to the beginning where people and there families have to take care of their own and not someone else. That is the way our founding fathers structured the country not this bastardized communistic system. Like Maggie thatcher said - "socialism works until you run out of other peoples money" well China and the Bond market are just about done giving away their money to the People republic of the USA.
Per the GOP, The 1% are "entitled" to get away without paying their fair share. "welfare for the ubber rich!"
left, the 1% had it great. The GOP screwed the other 99% by blocking EVERYTHING!
Obamacare and the stimulus passed during Democratic House majority (thank God) with no significant Republican help (although, as in the case of Paul Ryan, the Republicans recognized the value of stimulus and sought every dollar they could get for their constituencies - and the Obama administration was so classy and fair that Republican districts got just as much stimulus as Democratic ones).
But the Republicans have block financial regulation by making it impossible to appoint people (Elizabeth Warren should have been a regulator but they blocked her, and see what that got them? A new Democratic Senator in a previously Republican seat.) And more importantly, the Hous Republicans:
1. reneged on their pledge to cut spending by $100b,
2. hurt our naitonal credit with their pointless debt ceiling fight,
3. created the fiscal cliff deal,
4. refused to pass even one piece of job creation legislation in the hopes that a bad economy would reflect poorly on Obama,
5. refuse to allow sufficient revenue to prevent massive deficits for as far as the eye can see
So. Some of you people think this is all about Tax Fairness for the rich by the Republicans and protecting middle class entitlement by Democrats.
Well Sheep. Here is the truth.
The predominately white male Republican establishment has no intention of working with the n e g r o in office.
It’s time that the mainstream media, especially Fox, CNBC, MSNBC and CNN stop beating around the bush and be honest with the American people.
The only thing that Obama can do is call the Republicans’ bluff, let the bush tax cuts expire. This fiasco with the Republicans have to end so that Congress can get to work for the American people. Kicking the can down the road just won’t cut it.
Honestly. Some of you really think that Republicans give a d a m n about you, about the middle class?
The truth hurts doesn't it. You know..."Get the White back in the White house". All that wonderful stuff being spewed by the right during the campaign. Truth be told, the community organizer kicked your sorry racist asses....TWICE!
Thanks for showing how BIGOTED the left is. It seems like it's always the left that has to point out the color of the President and then yell "racism" any time ANYONE doesn't agree with him.
Based on that out and out STUPIDITY, half of this nation is racist, seeing as Obama got less than 51% of the vote for President.
You think Democrats care about he "middle class"? If they do, then why, according to the CBO, does Obamacare put a MINIMUM of 670 Billion dollars in new taxes on the middle class and poor? Why do Democrats want to increase taxes and therefore the COST of everything you buy, seeing as the people that have to pay increased taxes simply RAISE THE COSTS of what they sell to make up for the new taxes? And who is the largest group of consumers in this nation? Why the middle class "genius".
You "elitists" just don't get it do you? It's NOT about raising taxes so Obama and Democrats can have more to SPEND, it's about 1.2 TRILLION dollar deficits, over 16 TRILLION dollars of debt, borrowing 46 cents of EVERY dollars spent, and paying back ONLY the interest and NOT the principle on what the government has borrowed. If we don't STOP SPENDING more than we take in our economy will collapse into chaos, the dollar will be worth NOTHING, and every on of YOU will continue to whine and cray about how you are "owed" your "free" stuff for doing NOTHING!
There's not such thing as "tax fairness" in this nation. While HALF of this nation pays nothing, the rest pay EVERYTHING. And yet while we get Obama making statements like "everyone has to have some skin in the game", and "everyone has to pay their fair share", he and Democrats continue with their out and out theft from those that are successful and demand that those who contribute nothing actually be given more.
Reid has table EVERY budget that has come out of the House and it has been almost FOUR YEARS since the Senate has put forth a budget for this nation.
Honestly, you really think that Obama and Democrats give a dam about you, the middle class, or absolutely ANYONE????
Its time to,get,rid of,all,these teamturdsmand all,bad dems out of,themhousemand senate,byr 2020
The US Congress....EPIC FAIL!!
I really don’t understand what you are all upset about and fighting over.
The “Sequestrations” A.K.A. “Austerity” was the plan all along. Our leaders saw what was happening in Europe with all the riots, governments getting overturned, etc. and knew they couldn’t just come out and say they were going to cut spending and raise taxes so they passed these “Sequestration” measures last year to kick in this year after the election.
They needed to desensitize the American public, sell it to them through propaganda, so the people wouldn’t riot when they kick in. They needed to pass it in a way so that both sides could be blamed and we would be fighting about who is to blame and remain divided.
They can’t have us all united against our government because both parties are failing us miserably so they have to keep us divided.
Above all else their number one priority is maintaining the strangle hold the Two party system has on the United States. Keep up the good work of picking a side, Democrat or Republican, and blaming the other side. You’re the reason our system keeps going the way it is and will never “Change” no matter how much you “Hope” it will.
Enjoy your “austerity”. You deserve it. Even if it doesn’t happen today, because Congress manages to kick the can down the road for another year or two, eventually it will happen. Just remember the longer we wait the more it will cost us and the more it will hurt.
I suggest you take the time to read the article linked below, think about it for awhile, then decide who is really in control, “We the People”, or the “elite” manipulating you.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/mind-control-theories-and-techniques-used-by-mass-media/
“We have to pass it to find out what’s in it”- Nancy Pelosi.
Where is Lyin' Ryan? He was mittens "budget guy" in the GOP's FAILED election!
Hemmroid- come up with an actual solution instead of your bitchy whiny normal name calling crap. You are just like Owebama, worthless.
wow..you really have nothing important or intelligent to say..but i guess if posting on here keeps you from being violent, its worth it tyo let you
Oh, so once again the sticking point is spending. Come on Simpson-Bowles. Go ahead and tax the rich that whooping 2%. That should run our current government spending for a long weekend. I just want to see the look on the Dems faces when it doesn't "fix" the problem.
Were you in a coma in NOV when the GOP had their butts handed to them? The large majority agrees with Obama's plan. Just not those with a low IQ!
And PLEASE tell us what that plan is.
Herron, Mr. Obama won with a whopping 51%...that's a large majority? Ok, if we are talking about majorities, how about the large majority of the public that did not want Mr. Obama's healthcare legislation? Oh...guess that large majority doesn't count. Also this may be news to you, but we live in a Republic. The President is not a dictator - the House doesn't have to agree with her/him just because of a re-election. The members of the House were voted in because of various reasons - some of which was to reduce spending and NOT agree with the President. Do you get it? It's messy, but if you want an alternative Mr. Putin's Russia may agree with you.
casey,
George W only had 47% in 2000, but won the electoral college.
If one million poor people, would form a group and invest one dollar each week, to be invested for the group they would become wealthy. If they decided to increase the amount to five dollars a week , it would happen faster! The same would apply to say ten million, middle class who might start with say, twenty dollars a week! With the right plan they could do anything, like at a certain point, pay off so many of the members debt with cash. With a plan to pay half of what they were paying back into the group. etc.etc.etc.!
WHAT A FRIGGIN Fairy tale! You know if you fold a dollar in half 100 times, it will reach the moon??
You're funny! $52/year would be invested. You never passed 3rd grade math it seems!
Herron: You are right, it would be 52 million dollars per year and growing!
In the midst of all this name-calling rhetoric we still have one huge problem. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our roads, bridges, dams, railroads and airports are falling apart. The government is going to have to start spending some significant money on infrastructure if we are going to be able to transport goods and people. We are going to have to start spending money on levees and dams or we are going to run out of drinking water and those dams and levees are going to break and inundate the homes and businesses of our citizens. We can't keep ignoring this problem. We must spend some money.
We already have the funds for Federal infrastructure and in 2012, 60 billion was signed into law for infrastructure. The Excise tax on fuels and tires provides 50 billion per year for infrastructure projects that fall within Federal responsibility.
Many of the projects people like underemployed want spending on are simply unconstitutional and must be opposed.
Larry
True story.No deal is the best deal.
Yes,we do need to update the USA structure,it's looking like Rome in some places,,lmao
President Obama has put social security reform on the table folks even though he knew it wouldnt be popular with his own party. He also has proposed a trillion dollar worth of spending cuts. This while the Republicans wont budge from thier unAmerican Norquist pledge. Now tell me who isnt willing to compromise? We all know which Party is the party of obstruction. Its become crystal clear in this last election.
Please name some of the trillion dollar budget cuts.
Johnny, so with those trillion dollar spending cuts. Which government agency is going to spend less next year than they are spending this year?
Johnny, Obama put NO CUTS on the table.
Originally he wanted 800B in revenue and said he would make 1.2T in cuts over 10 years... of which he wouldn't discuss until 2013 and wouldn't take effect until 2014. Wow... what a great plan.
Of course most of the cuts were in increases in the budget. Instead of increasing the budget 200B, we will only increase in 100B, therefore we made a 100B cut. It is just gimmicks and virtual cuts.
Then he asked for 1.6T in revenue with even less cuts. They made a political decision and now Republicans are calling his bluff. We will all suffer for it. But it is Obama's fault.
This whole mess is not all Obama's fault. Clinton policies which helped lead to the housing meltdown. Bush's reckless wars and irresponsible spending. But this is Obama's second term. This all falls on him now. And he is about to get his hat handed to him. And we still have the debt ceiling to deal with.
Johnny, don't bother answering that lazy lump Common Man. He's hopeless wants everyone to do his work for him. He'd rather stay ill-informed than learn something on his own.
Chip, so you are still around spreading mis-information for the government.
Why is everyone so freaked out about the Fiscal Cliff, this is what was set in place last year and everyone knew about it, including the President who signed It into law. This was set up in response to fiscal default and we still got a debt downgrade - republicans I would not bud an inch on allowing the debt to grow - default on the debt and resetthis piece of @!$%# country of ours.
Lamb, just so you know, increasing the debt ceiling is a function of what we've already spent, which includes two wars and Bush tax cuts. We can argue about what we are going to spend but it's disingenuous and counter-productive to argue about paying for what we've already spent.
Mark where does it end? Either the country makes the necessary changes or the bond market will - and The Bond market wont be kind i.e. Greece, Spain etc... they don't really care about social programs if they lend their money they want to know it is secure, wont devalue and making a good return - Capitalism return not a social charity.
TAX CUTS ARE NOT SPENDING. A tax cut can NEVER produce a deficit. Budget authorizations that call for spending more than the revenue that will be received causes deficits.
lambo
Read the 14th amendment. The US cannot default on its debts. Raising the debt ceiling is only a formality. In fact, the congress tried to throw out a U.S. bond (not paying for it). The Supreme Court said they could not do that.
Underemployed I think you will get universal agreement on that..how to pay for it is the issue...look at cities and states around the country.this is where alot of infrastructre spending is based..they made lavish pension and retirement promises to state and municipal employees which they didn't fund and which is crowding out forward investment. Look at states that have a gas tax and then stole the revenue that was supposed to be spend on maintaining the infrastructure that instead went into the general fund..
You don't have a pension, 401K, or IRA, correct??
It shows...
I do... I'm buying all triple leveraged bear ETFs. Bet against Obama is the only safe bet.
Be careful in blaming the problem on "lavish" promises to middle class workers. If you stand back and look at America from 1980 to today, our money is not going to "lavish retirements" of union and public employees. Yes, you can micro-focus and twist statistics, but the big picture is that a huge protion of our national wealth was removed from the middle class and given to the top few. I mean a huge portion. The richest man in America in 1980, if you increased his wealth by inflation, would not make the richest 50 list today. The top 1%'s share of income has risen from 10% of all income to 35%. Capital gains have shifted so that 50% of all capital gains, which are the real fruits of our labors, goes to just 0.1% of the population (I am really shocked by that fact - but look it up, this is from Forbes:
Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation’s earners– rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%– about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million– are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.
It’s crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs
Noncoms- qubble all you want with my use of the word "lavish" but look at most of the states and cities drowning in deficits and you will see places that have grossly underfunded retirment promises made to state and municipal i.e. teachers for pensions and retirement health benefits e.g. Stockton, CA... Now there is no money..and many of these same states then raided the gas tax fund to spend on the general fund rather than for infrastructure..which is primarily a state and local issue and secondarily a federal one....that is the core of my point..get it?
Larry. For one, the vast majority of "infrastructure" projects DO NOT USE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. The work is contracted out to the low bidder!
Herron - what are you talking about? who said they did? Most infrastructure spending happens at the state and local level. That funding is not happening because states are in deficit. And a big driver of their deficits is that they made retirement promises they did not fund. Further, the gas tax in most states was supposed to be used for infrastructure..but instead the states stole the $$ and spent it in the general fund, not where it was intended..those are my points..get it now?
Herron, It was mandated that those jobs go to the lowest Union bidder which means it cost us more.
Sorry, but much of our infrastructure is funded by the federal government. Hoover Dam comes to mind. The railroads are funded by the federal government. The highway interstate system is funded by the federal government. And most projects that are overseen by the state governments are done with federal funds. Do you really believe some little podunk town out in the Central Valley of California can afford to upgrade all the crumbling levees? You get most of your food from California's Central Valley. It stretches almost the entire length of the state, roughly seven or eight hundred miles long. If half of it is underwater, the price of beef, fruit, vegetables, rice, etc. will go through the roof. It is in the interests of the entire country to take care of this. The farmers may go broke, but the consumers will go hungry.
The cuts hit far and wide: airports, heat subsidies for the poor, water
treatment plants and Pell grants are just some of the targets. In total, half of
all government agencies would see their funding reduced from 2010 levels.
The bulk of the cuts are needed to support Obama's proposed five-year freeze
on non-security discretionary spending, for $400 billion in savings. It's a
small part of the federal budget, but one that is responsible for many popular
government activities.
The president's budget, which is expected to meet tough resistance in
Congress, would eliminate or reduce funding to a total of 200 government
programs for savings of $33 billion in 2012 alone.
He should have though about that 4 years ago and passed a budget.
Passing a budget is the function of Congress. The President does not pass a budget. He signs a budget that originates in the House. Every budget that Congress has created has been burdened with amendments to eliminate abortions, eliminate the teaching of evolution, eliminate Planned Parenthood, eliminate food stamps, eliminate medicaid, etc. Budgets are not the place to advance your social agenda, which is the enire born again Taliban rule. If Congress would submit a budget stripped of their right wing religious agenda, the Senate might just act on it and send it to the President for his signature.
The Republicans continue to expose themselves as the "terrorist organization" they are, hell-bent on protecting the greedy and selfish amongst us while destroying the rest of America, especially the 98%. They are willing to take America into the gutter because individually (they and those they are trying to protect), have the $$ wherewithal to ride out whatever going over the cliff will bring their way.
You see America, taking us over the cliff won't affect them financially one bit in any way that is meaningful or serious! It won't touch their unemployment benefits because none of them are unemployed. It won't affect their social security because none of them is on SS. It won't affect their incomes because they make so much $$ it doesn't matter. It won't affect their health-care because they already have the best.
They are playing with the lives of people (real Americans) they don't care about as stated by their candidate for president. Why, because we mean nothing to them other than to wash their cars, serve them food, enhance/increase their bottom lines, and serve them as we do in millions of other ways. Most of them could give a rat's butt about what happens to the 98%. One of us dies and another takes our place.
This may be your vision for America Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell, but I guarantee you - it will be a cold day in hell when that comes to fruition. You have become irrelevant, and your days are numbered.
It's simple math America; $250K/yr. is $20,833.33 per month. $400K/yr is $33,333.33/mo. Take any amount you want to over $250K and divide it by 12 - that's the reality of who these Republican terrorists are trying to protect. In many cases, these monthly amounts are more than many make in a year.
Even more disingenuous is how they want us to empathize with them; like they would struggle with a modest increase in their taxes and couldn't make it from pay-day to pay-day on such meager earnings. Where do we draw the line that takes a person from comfortable to extravagance??? Wait a minute - they chose their lifestyle. No one told them to buy more house than they can afford or lease more Benz's than they can afford or do whatever it is that eats up all their $$. No, if they can't make it on $250K/yr or more, they only only have themselves to blame. So don't start looking for tears from the 98%; we have our own struggles that are far more real and far more consequential than yours. When we lose our home, we start looking for an apartment (maybe). When they lose their house, they just buy another one a little less expensive (maybe), but certainly more expense than the one we lost.
This is not class warfare and we are not jealous of the top 2% as Rush and Sean and Neal and Herman claim we are; quite the opposite. Generally, we are only concerned about our families and protecting what we work had for every day of our lives.
This is not about everyone who is wealthy - there are many who are wealthy who have really good hearts even though the right tries to marginalize their opinions about increasing taxes on those who should be paying more. No, this is about what the greedy and selfish do with their $$. It's about people who would just as soon as see the 98% disappear from the face of America and the world. But who would be left to serve the super wealthy at drive-through restaurants or grocery stores or Home Depot???.
Frankly, it isn't our/my business what they do with their $$,. They can do with it whatever they please, but it will not come at our expense - guaranteed! Our backs are not available for them to ride laughing all the way to the bank whipping us along the way; it won't happen.
"You see America, taking us over the cliff won't affect them financially one bit in any way that is meaningful or serious!"
Actually, it will, and that is what they are worried about.
Consider This:
The current "Romney Tax Rate" on income earned on dividends is around 15%. This lowered tax rate was part of the Bush Tax Cuts. Prior to the Bush Tax Cuts income earned on dividends was taxed as regular income, and at 39.6%.
So, if we go off the cliff, the "Romney Rate" tax rate will expire, and the wealthy will see their % of tax burden increase by around 260% (back to where it was during Clinton).
This is REALLY what is controlling these negotiations, at least in part.
Take their Money I need an Obamaphone.
That's what you sound like.
How about a laptop access to the internet maybe a big screen TV to boot?
You got one thing right it isn't any of your business what we do with OUR money.
I don't want the Government to take more of MY MONEY and waste it.