Getting Closer To A Fiscal Cliff Deal

[JayHawk]

And gentlemen we have a deal. If things would just go to the floor for a vote then America could be legislated again. I was wrong about Boehner. I did not think he has the moxie to have a vote before his speakership vote.

But Mr. Boehner (R., Ohio), who didn't take a position on the bill, turned back conservative demands that the bill be amended to include more spending cuts. He argued that such changes risked killing the bill—and exposing the GOP to blame for tax increases, spending cuts and possible turmoil in the economy as a result.

Boehner was right a new congress and new negotiations would have started Jan 3rd.

[andysayshi]

Chance will be glad to read:

it blocked a congressional pay raise that could have provoked the wrath of voters who view Congress with disdain for its chronic brinkmanship and failure to solve major problems.

[JayHawk]

Obama says it is time we had these types of votes before the last minute and before we scare the shit out of everyone.

He also firmly maintained that republicans using the debt ceiling to refuse to pay debt they already authorized is irresponsible and not the course for leading through the future cuts discussions.

- - - Updated - - -

Chance will be glad to read:

Yeah he already saw that because that was the Senate wording.

[GiancarloC]

This is pretty much a big loss for republicans. Democrats got most of what they wanted... with a few exceptions.

[JayHawk]

It is GC but at the end of the day they lsot in November and these were the death throws.

I wills till give credit. Boehner had the courage to offer the bill. Knowing he will probably pay a price in a few days.

We can only hope the new congress is less intransigent.

What also just dawned on me is that the history books will call Obama genius for having the foresight to have a thirty year Senator be his right hand man. This is Biden's hard work. Hopefully we can see the same balanced approach on spending cuts and gun violence.

[CTF]

So wait are you now unhappy that FEDERAL SPENDING won't be increased to take care of all those "parasites"?

Could you please get your story straight?

Not possible.

There are too many "low information" voters to be exploited, and told who to blame for their lot in life.

Hint: Anyone but those who are actually TOO blame.

Which at this point is both parties, but why sully good talking points?

[JustMe5]

Looks like everybody's gonna get shafted after all. Someone just emailed me saying to read the bill or at least a summary of it, because the bill will increase taxes on 80% of Americans, not just those making over $400K or couples making $450k.

[GiancarloC]

Looks like everybody's gonna get shafted after all. Someone just emailed me saying to read the bill or at least a summary of it, because the bill will increase taxes on 80% of Americans, not just those making over $400K or couples making $450k.

No. The bill does not increase taxes for those who make below $400,000 or $450,000 (for couples). It increases the taxes on the rich to a more acceptable level. The only ones getting shafted here are the republicans.

[xbuzzerx]

Looks like everybody's gonna get shafted after all. Someone just emailed me saying to read the bill or at least a summary of it, because the bill will increase taxes on 80% of Americans, not just those making over $400K or couples making $450k.

Just FYI 99% of e-mail forwarded political e-mails from friends/coworkers/that lady at little league are turbo right wing, and deficient in reality.

[GiancarloC]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...-politics.html - More on the deal. Yep. The GOP reactionaries in the House got declawed like a cat. Their little revolt was pushed down and Eric Cantor ended up having egg on his face.

Eighty-five Republicans and 172 Democrats backed the bill, which had sailed through the Senate by a lopsided 89-8 margin shortly after 2 a.m. Opposition comprised 151 Republicans and 16 Democrats.

Says it all really.

It's just one piece of what needs to be done and the solid momentum is now in Obama and the democrats court. As the American people voted and it's the will of the people.

[JayHawk]

From Slate: The Slatest!

Taxes

• For couples earning more than $450,000 (or individuals earning more than $400,000), Bush-era tax cuts will expire, and the top income tax rate will rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent
• For couples earning less than $250,000 (or individuals earning less than $200,000), Bush-era tax cuts will be made permanent
• For households earning between those two figures, some exemptions and deductions will expire
• Investment taxes and estate taxes will rise, though with big exemptions
• Stimulus tax credits for college tuition and the working poor will be extended for five years
• Benefits for the long-term unemployed will be extended for one year
• The alternative minimum tax will not go into effect for some 30 million taxpayers, but the payroll tax cut will expire, hitting most taxpayers
• Some stimulus tax credits for businesses, including in the renewable energy sector, will be extended for one year

Yes taxes go up on everyone. The Payroll tax feeding Social Security goes back to 6.2 percent or a 2% raise. There are no details on what incentives are cut between the two income benchmarks. However the bill raises only 600 Billion in revenue and slashes 3.7 Trillion in revenue that would have been gained if the cliff had simply occurred.

Still the EITC and Child Credit remain for impoverished families. SO the absolute bottom of the American economic scale will see no increase that they actually feel.


So the long and short is we gave up a tax increase that would be a quarter of our deficit to accept an increase in revenue of one fifth that amount. Yet we had to begin somewhere with paying our bills and as the economy rebounds it will be in future congresses that we need to raise the marginal rate on all to pay the rest of our bill.

[GiancarloC]

Oh I see, JH... so we're taking a much smaller increase in order to restore balance. That 3.7 trillion in revenue would have cost the economy seriously. All the cuts would have been devastating. This really was the best option we had, and now it's time the rich pay their fair share into the system.

[JayHawk]

Yeah i agree. It is exactly what we needed. Head in the right direction. Now the left wont like it but Obama said he would entertain cuts once taxes were raised so you will see the white house facing a lot of lefty criticism very soon. Spending is out of control. Again a balanced action where each side takes some thing they don't like and agree to get some things they desire to cut... then after 2014 hopefully the democrats regain congress, the economy gets into full swing in 2015 and taxes get raised to get us back to a satisfactory level of debt.

[GiancarloC]

Yeah i agree. It is exactly what we needed. Head in the right direction. Now the left wont like it but Obama said he would entertain cuts once taxes were raised so you will see the white house facing a lot of lefty criticism very soon. Spending is out of control. Again a balanced action where each side takes some thing they don't like and agree to get some things they desire to cut... then after 2014 hopefully the democrats regain congress, the economy gets into full swing in 2015 and taxes get raised to get us back to a satisfactory level of debt.

http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/30/f-...fends-program/

This is excessive in my mind. I think there is a newer article mentioned how they reduced the costs slightly, but it's still expensive.

I don't know... but I think cuts can be made in certain places... but overall most programs need to be kept in place. Personally I think Lockheed is ripping off the government here.

I just feel if there are too many cuts that could inhibit any recovery and put a damper on growth.

[chance1]

And gentlemen we have a deal. If things would just go to the floor for a vote then America could be legislated again. I was wrong about Boehner. I did not think he has the moxie to have a vote before his speakership vote.



Boehner was right a new congress and new negotiations would have started Jan 3rd.

and unlike Pelosi and her $100M stash - Boehner has only $4M

kudos to him for having some balls after all

it will likely be off with his head but it was the right thing to do

[cgymike]

FX markets seems unimpressed overall. Weighted cors flat EUR/USD best....

[chance1]

^flat is the new up

[GiancarloC]

Markets should go up in the US I suspect more greatly.

[JayHawk]

http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/30/f-...fends-program/

This is excessive in my mind. I think there is a newer article mentioned how they reduced the costs slightly, but it's still expensive.

I don't know... but I think cuts can be made in certain places... but overall most programs need to be kept in place. Personally I think Lockheed is ripping off the government here.

I just feel if there are too many cuts that could inhibit any recovery and put a damper on growth.

Oh yeah defense is bloated. by my count we need to shed 250,000 military jobs so that means easily losing half a million defense industry jobs. However it has to be a ten year plan. No way it would be fair to those being dumped or to the economy to dump 3/4 of a million onto the job market.

and unlike Pelosi and her $100M stash - Boehner has only $4M

kudos to him for having some balls after all

it will likely be off with his head but it was the right thing to do

I always felt Boehner was agonizing over not being able to accomplish anything. I hope he retains his speakership to be quite honest. While he is only showing glints of bi-partisan greatness and if re-elected will probably return to the normal tea party punching bag. Yet the debt ceiling and budget talks are right around the corner. Cantor is next up to bat and that speakership would be tragic.

[JayHawk]

Hearing mixed info today. Couple of thoughts before I head out.

The deal purportedly not only raised only 600 Billion or fives days operating budget.... it also cost 4 trillion... I have yet to find if that 4 trillion cost referenced is talking about the 3.7 trillion in Clinton era tax rates that will now be permanently Bush tax rates for those below 400-450.

The best example I heard was what Biden apparently said in the Dem caucus. He said take it as a stepped approach. First debt cliff netted a trillion in cuts, second cliff nail biter netted 600 billion but contained no cuts, so then the final stage should be in the next 60 days. Which still has the fiscal cliff trillion dollar spending cuts looming.

So really we will have to see if republicans figured out they could have had a much better deal last summer and perhaps they should work during working hours and not be obstinate. Equally Senate Dems and the President need to rapidly and publicly put their deal on the table.

[chance1]

Cantor is a weasel to the nth degree - his voting record speaks for itself

and I have seen him on a handful of cable news programs - he generally hides but occasionally appears - and when he does - he's a major turd who looks and sounds the part of a used car salesman (no offense to CE+P car salesmen)

says nada ever and is basically an obstructionist

i actually feel for Boehner - Woodward's book said that JB worked very hard - if not effectively - to work with Pres. Obama - but that he was surrounded (by infidels) - love the word infidels

Cantor as speaker would be tragic - another good word

haven't heard anything from Chris Christie on the debt crisis/fiscal cliff btw

[chance1]

just read that Boehner told Harry Reid a thing or 2 in response to Harry's "word is out" on JB that he's a dictator

With no bipartisan agreement about the debt ceiling, spending cuts and tax increases in sight, Boehner reportedly pointed at Reid and said, "Go fuck yourself."

"What are you talking about?" Reid asked.

And Boehner again said, "Go fuck yourself."

Harry Reid is a piece of shit and if I saw him I would tell him to go fuck himself too - after tripping him of course and then laughing at him - then taking his wallet

Boehner has his flaws but character analysis is not one of them

Go JB

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2394725.html

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Boehner can tell McConnell to go "fuck himself too" as far as I'm concerned. McConnell participated in dividing the republicans in the House.

I repeat, this was a stupid bill, it does nothing but raises taxes and most importantly kicks the can down the road again. The bill did nothing about the deficits. Obama is worthless as a leader -- he doesn't see the big picture, he just sees politics. Even Richard Nixon through all his faults saw the big picture.

Obama broke his promise not to raise taxes on those under $250,000. Oops! It's ok, dear leader, the chosen one, the one we've been waiting for can do anything he wants.

Yeah ... one more thing .... have a good vacation in Hawaii Mr. President. Any of the Obamallegiance concerned about the carbon footprint?

[JayHawk]

Everybody loses in this game. Of course the house was offered spending cuts more than once but was too entrenched in the no new revenue concept that they gave a pass to very worthwhile changes.

Still kicking the can but EVERYBODY has the perception that the reason the can is kicked is because of republicans. Just consider that they gave on a increase in taxes after twenty years of standing against tax increases and all they got for contrition was exactly nothing YET they were offered plenty. What an embarrassing lack of leadership from the GOP.

See how that works Jack? One can pretend that compromise means the other failed all day long but guess what happens when they fail? We all lose.

[JayHawk]

haven't heard anything from Chris Christie on the debt crisis/fiscal cliff btw

No word on the cliff deal but he did lay the failure to pass Sandy Relief squarely on Boehners plate along with the obstructionalist republican majority in the house. (Paraphrased from his words not mine.)

The sad thing is ALL of us are onto these freaking clowns (both red and blue) and we as a nation know the things that need to occur. So elected leaders... get to fucking work.

[Jack Springer]

When is Obama going to sign the bill passed last night by the House?

Will he wait until he gets back from vacation?

[Jack Springer]

Everybody loses in this game. Of course the house was offered spending cuts more than once but was too entrenched in the no new revenue concept that they gave a pass to very worthwhile changes.

Still kicking the can but EVERYBODY has the perception that the reason the can is kicked is because of republicans. Just consider that they gave on a increase in taxes after twenty years of standing against tax increases and all they got for contrition was exactly nothing YET they were offered plenty. What an embarrassing lack of leadership from the GOP.

See how that works Jack? One can pretend that compromise means the other failed all day long but guess what happens when they fail? We all lose.

All Americans got screwed last night and not the good kind of screwing.

We dug ourselves deeper into bankruptcy. It's all about politics and getting elected -- not about what's good for the country.

[xbuzzerx]

All Americans got screwed last night and not the good kind of screwing.

We dug ourselves deeper into bankruptcy. It's all about politics and getting elected -- not about what's good for the country.

This may possibly be the first thing I've seen you say that seemed reasonable and not irrationally steeped in one-sided reasoning. And I agree insofar as what's been going on is entirely not about what's best for the country.

[bankside]

Quick question: governments don't cut spending, they cut services. What services, if any, is it currently performing that are not worth doing?

[JockBoy87]

Quick question: governments don't cut spending, they cut services. What services, if any, is it currently performing that are not worth doing?

I guess that is a matter of semantics, depending on how you look at the intrinsic value of social services.

It could be argued that there is a range of values on safety net spending before and after which returns for society diminish.

I'd like to see more focus on efficiency, consolidation of agencies, and multitasking by government organs. Why isn't there more of that in budget negotiations? There should be.

[xbuzzerx]

Quick question: governments don't cut spending, they cut services. What services, if any, is it currently performing that are not worth doing?

That's exactly what Obama has said multiple times. It's one thing to just bitch about spending in a vaccuum as if money just flies out the door and goes to absolutely nothing. When you actually talk about what needs to be cut to reduce spending even Republicans don't want to attach their names to suggesting anything. I haven't even seen the Republicans here in CE&P mention anything but some elements of defense.

[GiancarloC]

All Americans got screwed last night and not the good kind of screwing.

We dug ourselves deeper into bankruptcy. It's all about politics and getting elected -- not about what's good for the country.

This was a way to dig ourselves out of it. For the last time... AUSTERITY has not and NEVER WILL work. It put nations into an economic down spiral. People often say "well socialism caused the problems in Europe!!"... no. In Spain, it was austerity that put the country into a vicious cycle.

The budget deal was a start to something that has to happen.

People are swift to say "LETS CUT SPENDING!!"... it's not rational and it would throw this country into a recession. What needs to be done is a balanced approach of some long term spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy.

Now they need to tackle cutting programs like the F-35 or at least reducing costs of such programs.

[JayHawk]

All Americans got screwed last night and not the good kind of screwing.

We dug ourselves deeper into bankruptcy. It's all about politics and getting elected -- not about what's good for the country.

I still prefer to think of it as a three part plan. I know... LORD do I know that republicans on here are loathe to give any credit or admit anything has ever gone right in the last four years BUT the last debt ceiling debacle was solved by making 1 trillion in spending cuts. The next obstacle where the obstinate parties HAD to make a decision was on the first and the republicans caved for tax increases. NOT the increases we need entirely because that will come from tax reform. However it was a step in the right direction.

The next deal will be republicans playing with the world economy for as long as they dare and potentially killing our markets if you follow Lyndsey Graham. I predict the democrats will make an offer that has cuts but includes more tax increases. Then the republicans will balk at a good deal and end up with a shit deal after they have ruined the worlds economies. All the while making a very strong case to the world that we are too irresponsible to be the worlds currency.

All the ire and anger and mean words you can type doesnt change the fact that we need to cut spending and already have... and we need to cut more and raise more revenue. Cutting services is not an issue that will be widely discussed.

[JayHawk]

Quick question: governments don't cut spending, they cut services. What services, if any, is it currently performing that are not worth doing?

Not necessarily. They could easily chop ten percent of our spending off the top by demanding only what the bill is designed for be included in spending bills. NO PORK.

Then require an outside of the state or particular agency auditor to review contracts. A good recent example is here at Ft Leavenworth which is a military prison. Guess how much we spent in 2012 for a inmate Soccer field? 750,000. That three =quarter of a million is a drop in the bucket to be sure BUT it is indicative of the problem times every city in the nation.

Remember the bridge to nowhere? Had say an auditor from Texas reviewed that they would have raised warning flags everywhere. Same thing goes for building a three quarter of a million dollar soccer field on the flat fucking plains of Kansas.... how expensive is a fence and grass? Military commands control there own facilities budget. There is a process but it is internal.

So the long and short is we could eliminate waste and make a lot of headway.

Finally, I have no idea why extending the payroll cap on the Social Security payroll deduction and means testing Seniors to determine if they need a safety net provided by Uncle sam.... WHY is is so difficult?

[GiancarloC]

The Obama administration and democrats are approaching the budget and financial situation in a balanced approach. Of course the republicans refuse to give credit to the democrats. They are irrationally angry and the whole bill was against most of what they wanted. The bill increased taxes on the rich to more respectable levels, and in the end it was the republicans who blinked. The democrats have the upperhand and will for years to come in my opinion.

Cutting spending needs to be done in a balanced approach, and DEFINITELY NOT what they did in England or Spain. The republicans want severe austerity and it's a great way to send this country back into a recession.

[Jack Springer]

The Obama administration and democrats are approaching the budget and financial situation in a balanced approach. Of course the republicans refuse to give credit to the democrats. They are irrationally angry and the whole bill was against most of what they wanted. The bill increased taxes on the rich to more respectable levels, and in the end it was the republicans who blinked. The democrats have the upperhand and will for years to come in my opinion.

Cutting spending needs to be done in a balanced approach, and DEFINITELY NOT what they did in England or Spain. The republicans want severe austerity and it's a great way to send this country back into a recession.

There are always places to cut. You cut certain things in your own personal budget -- maybe you're paying too much for food, cable tv, car, house, entertainment, booze -- so you become a better shopper, you buy the store brand rather than the national brand, you move cut back on things you don't really need -- the government has to do the same thing. Not everything the government supplies is life-and-death.

Obama got his tax increase, now he has to accept spending cuts.

[xbuzzerx]

There are always places to cut. You cut certain things in your own personal budget -- maybe you're paying too much for food, cable tv, car, house, entertainment, booze -- so you become a better shopper, you buy the store brand rather than the national brand, you move cut back on things you don't really need -- the government has to do the same thing. Not everything the government supplies is life-and-death.

Obama got his tax increase, now he has to accept spending cuts.

The difference though Jack is that cutting on cable TV and eating out can help a nuclear family wage earner get out of his debt. Simple conservative thinkers who use these kinds of analogies to address national debt problems don't understand how HUGE the sums of money involved are. That's why when you do something like blow a gasket because Clinton got a $200 haircut and talk about how this kind of tax & spend waste is why our economy is so bad just makes the individual in question look really stupid.

Right now if the debt were approached as a credit card debt that each U.S. man, woman and child had to pay on... it would be $52341.17 per person. So that's x315 million people. So when you talk about "pork" or how Obama should forego an extra secret service agent or whatever else.... you're talking about less than change in the couch cushions. You're talking about particles of dust on the change in the couch cushions.

[Jack Springer]

^^^

There is much waste. Go back to JH's example - $700,000 for a soccer field for a prison. Why do we need that? Multiply that examples by hundreds of thousands.

Clinton's $200 haircut cost much more -- the wait of AF1, redirecting of other aircraft, security, cost of private business, etc.

A penny saved is a penny earned. After a while all that shit adds up.

[GiancarloC]

There are always places to cut. You cut certain things in your own personal budget -- maybe you're paying too much for food, cable tv, car, house, entertainment, booze -- so you become a better shopper, you buy the store brand rather than the national brand, you move cut back on things you don't really need -- the government has to do the same thing. Not everything the government supplies is life-and-death.

Obama got his tax increase, now he has to accept spending cuts.

Total nonsensical argument. I've already said there are some things that can be cut, like the MILITARY. But most people don't want to do that. And this has nothing to do with personal shopping habits. This is about the government. The moment someone cuts funding for services or infrastructure costs can actually increase in the long term. Reality check please.

[xbuzzerx]

^^^

There is much waste. Go back to JH's example - $700,000 for a soccer field for a prison. Why do we need that? Multiply that examples by hundreds of thousands.

Clinton's $200 haircut cost much more -- the wait of AF1, redirecting of other aircraft, security, cost of private business, etc.

A penny saved is a penny earned. After a while all that shit adds up.

I agree there are bigger wastes to cut. But you are STILL incorrect in thinking only by cutting "waste" will we approach turning the deficit around. You would need real, actual cuts to things people, the voters and taxpayers, largely want, need, or don't want to see go away. There's a reason even your own party won't attach its name to suggestions of specific programs to cut if it means they'll have to go face voters over it. It's going to take a lot more than "cutting waste."

[GiancarloC]

The angry reactionary austerity argument posed by the right wingers is one we should avoid like the plague. Yes, certain cuts can be made over an extended period of time, but drastic cuts will send this country back into a recession. Spain and England both embraced the idiotic austerity mainly out of irrational reaction... and it hurt the economies big time. I can say that is a fact especially for Spain. Just saying "WE NEED TO MAKE BIG CUTS" isn't a valid argument. And making big cuts could send this country into economic collapse.

Cuts can happen, like to the F-35 military jet... but most of these cuts would be done over an extended period time. The moment we start drastic cuts to education and health care is when we mortgage this country's future and costs could actually increase in the long term.

[JayHawk]

Total nonsensical argument. I've already said there are some things that can be cut, like the MILITARY. But most people don't want to do that. And this has nothing to do with personal shopping habits. This is about the government. The moment someone cuts funding for services or infrastructure costs can actually increase in the long term. Reality check please.

Actually this morning on MJ most folks were talking about the bloated military. I was quite happy to see it.

I agree there are bigger wastes to cut. But you are STILL incorrect in thinking only by cutting "waste" will we approach turning the deficit around. You would need real, actual cuts to things people, the voters and taxpayers, largely want, need, or don't want to see go away. There's a reason even your own party won't attach its name to suggestions of specific programs to cut if it means they'll have to go face voters over it. It's going to take a lot more than "cutting waste."

No legislator wants to bring home job cuts. That is what making spending cuts boils down to at the level you are talking. HOWEVER, making strategic cuts to the military where people have a way out is the best way to go. Consider that using a five to ten year draw down plan could allow natural attrition (at the 20 to 30 year) point. Those folks would have a economic safety net in their planned retirement. The folks who simply finish their tours and only want to do one are equally protected because everyone gets educational benefits. SO between that net, learning a new skill and the recovering economy, it could work quite well.

People cost the most out of every asset the Department of Defense has at its disposal. People cost the most to maintain, pay, and support all the ancillary benefits. So reducing back to pre-2000 levels of manpower in the Army and Marines could save trillions. Some of you may wonder why i never mention the Navy or the Air force in these cut military talks. They would do a small portion of the share but both services have been shrinking in size this entire decade. Manpower wise we are as lean as we can be and still meet all the required treaties and security agreements our congress has signed. So the only real savings will occur in returning the Army and the Marines to pre-2000 levels.

That said plenty of things can be cut other than slicing and dicing Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Social Security should be strengthened and not cut in any way shape or form. The medical services should be able to be cut as a more cost effective product with the same services replaces it in the ACA or Obamacare.

[frankfrank]

I know this used to happen, but does it happen anymore? The military would sometimes buy one or two of a quantity of something very simple, such as a cotter pin, but it would have to be made to a very specific measurement, and perhaps there had to be some kind of identifying mark on it to show that it belonged to the government, and they might spend $30,000 in tooling to produce it, and maybe there was something within tolerance that could simply be bought for a few cents.

For that matter, are any defense/military materials ever simply "bought out of a catalog" or are they always custom-made for the military, even if something with identical specs already exists?

When I was auditing the line-item costs of weapons in my early adult years (yes I was part of the military-industrial complex, can y'all imagin THAT while considering what I post here?), I don't remember ever seeing ANY evidence of anything simply being bought out of a catalog.