While most of us were celebrating New Years Eve for 2013, the U.S. Senate passed a bill overnight to prevent the dreaded Fiscal Cliff from happening. With plenty of drama and nonsense, the proposal crafted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden is an ugly one which may not pass in the House of Representatives. But my guess is that enough House Republicans will go along with Speaker John Boehner and together with House Democrats, the bill will pass. In the Senate, the vote, which happened about 2:30am EDT, wound up being 89 to 8 with 5 Republican and 3 Democrat Senators voting NO. The bill postpones the sequestration measure for two months, sparing the military and domestic programs from facing spending cuts, makes the Bush Tax Cuts permanent for those earning under $450,000 per year, and extends unemployment for another full year. Estate and Capital Gains taxes are also increased. All-in-all, the last-minute Fiscal Cliff bill increases revenue by some $620 Billion dollars with only a vague promise of some $15 Billion in spending cuts. Not exactly a ′balanced approach′, is it?
To say that Barack Obama got all he wanted may be over doing it a bit. For starters, his approval ratings have dropped some 5% since his reelection mainly due to the bitter fight on the Fiscal Cliff. And this fight is far from over, even if the House passes the Senate′s bill. As of today, America′s credit card is maxed out, so get ready for another brawl over the debt ceiling. That fight to raise the debt limit will undoubtedly be another knock-down-drag-out battle with Republicans holding the edge this time. While tax rates will go up for top earners, the numbers affected will be fewer than under Obama′s previous proposals.
In case you are curious, the senators who voted NO were Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Mike Lee (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mike Bennet (D-CO) and Tom Carper (D-DE). Both Rubio and Paul are seen as among potential front runners for the 2016 GOP presidential primaries. We can expect many NO votes in the House, especially from ′Tea Party′ Republicans and those with future ambitions for higher offices. Most eyes will be on how Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) votes as he may also be running for president in 2016.
So the Fiscal Cliff apparently has been avoided more or less thanks to the ugly, compromise bill passed by the U.S. Senate overnight. A deal struck between Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden saved the day after Majority Leader Harry Reid gave up his attempt to broker a solution. The bill will make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent for about 98% of taxpayers and extend unemployment benefits for another year. Also, the sequestration of mandatory spending cuts has been postponed for two months. Only those who earn more than $450,000 per year will see an increase in their income taxes. Taxes on dividends and Capital Gains was also increased from 15% to 20% and the Estate Tax was increased from 35% to 40% for inheritances exceeding $5 Million dollars. The House of Representatives is scheduled to meet at noon today and we will see if the bill is passed there. But the fact that while $620 Billion dollars in new revenue is only offset by a mere $15 Billion in spending cuts is not a good sign. Round Two begins shortly when Congress addresses raising the debt ceiling limit.
January 1st, 2013 at 9:41 am
Assuming the House says nay, it goes back to the Senate who can analyze the House vote, make some minute to nothing change and send it back to the new 113th House Thursday afternoon. There will be a 17 vote swing (241 Rs & 191 Ds in the 112th and 233 Rs & 200 Ds in the 113th) difference.
It’s safe to say that the Tea Party will follow suit with Paul and Lee. But come Thurs afternoon, nut cases like Bartlett, Landy, Walsh, and West will all be gone (and an indeed very merry good riddance to all). So while we don’t know how the House will vote, another important thing to look at is the how the old House votes compared to how the new House will vote.
January 1st, 2013 at 10:03 am
It’s too tall a task to ask politicians to have the spine to do what’s right when by nature they do whatever they feel secures their reelection.
Not addressing all this overspending and extraordinary deficit is wrong, but not surprising when we can see a significant sector of the United States -similar to those that half-trollingly visit this site to enlighten us with their perpetually failed “progressive” ideas – ignorantly defending fiscal imprudence as if somehow debt begets prosperity and drunkenness, sobriety.
This blindness comes from hardened hearts that somehow pretend to break for the first time in history the law of reaping what we sow. May God dawn on them to wake up from their stupor and return to the path that once made the USA great.
January 1st, 2013 at 10:50 am
Well done Rivera
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:29 am
Hope the House rejects this bill. No new taxes on anyone and decrease on Estate, inheritance, capital gains, and investments taxes. This is preventing average people ( many average income people who have these investments, especially those who are disciplined) building up wealth and help the economy grow.
STOP THE SPENDING THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Obama and the Democrats are punishing those who are disciplined and successful. The Democrats want to keep power and make every one dependent on them. No Liberity. The Democrats could never survive in the free market system because they are lazy and want to live off of other’s labor, creativity and discipline.
The Democrats want to rid the political system of the Republican and Tea Partys. The Democrats would have no oppostion ( Obama’s Mode of operation because cannot win on record or ability). Ridding the opposition would keep the useful idiots wanting the Democrats and their promises of forever childhood.
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:00 am
Sue, your diatribe is riddled with errors on every front but I’ll only address 1 issue.
Under the Bush tax policies, General Electric, ExxonMobil, and Verizon recorded $171 billion in pretax US profits according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. What would you suggest as a fair tax for these folks? 1%? 10%? What they actually paid was -$2.5 billion. Or in other words, Our government went out and confiscated $2.5 billion from American workers and redistributed it to corporations that made $171 billion. And these weren’t the only companies nor were they an exception. Out of the Fortune 500 companies that didn’t pay negative, most of the rest was less than 1 or 2 %. And this is very likely an incurring thing for many of the most wealthy and likely explains why Mitt Romney was so reluctant and selective on his tax returns. And even if you want to argue Mitt, the profits of these corporations are open records.
So here’s what’s so disturbing in your rant. You screech for more. You actually advocated a “decrease on Estate, inheritance, capital gains, and investments taxes”. Decrease capital gains and investments???? How much more negative should these corporations pay? Where or how is it the right thing to do when we tax the less wealthy in order to write a check with it to the most profitable?
Why is it so hard for the partisan hacks here to man up to an obvious flaw in our system?
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:10 am
Ronald, Ronald, Ronald…!!!
http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/13/ge-exxon-walmart-apple-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
“America’s three biggest oil companies, ExxonMobil ( XOM – news – people ), Chevron ( CVX – news – people ) and ConocoPhillips ( COP – news – people ), all endure income tax burdens of more than 40%–higher than the statutory U.S. rate of 35%. Exxon, with a 45% rate, tallied $21.6 billion in worldwide income taxes for 2010.”
General Electric, on the other hand, being close buddies with Obama, only paid $1.05 billion in taxes in 2010 at a rate of 7.4%. As usual, its not what you know but who you blow.
January 2nd, 2013 at 7:21 am
“How much more negative should these corporations pay? Where or how is it the right thing to do when we tax the less wealthy in order to write a check with it to the most profitable?”
Ronald, you’d make some sense if you like the rest of the moonbats acknowledged we have a spending problem.
That issue is the one issue in Sues post you failed to address.
Sue is right, its not only the top 1-5% that will be taxed on state inheritance and capital gains, but actually a very large part of the middle class.
“Or in other words, Our government went out and confiscated $2.5 billion from American workers and redistributed it to corporations that made $171 billion. And these weren’t the only companies nor were they an exception.”
“In other words” ?
Your words mean nothing when you set narratives such as this. You’re saying these companies enjoy their levels of taxation at the average Americans expense ?
How stupid is that ?
If I paid less they’d have to pay more ?
The fed taxes us on average 5 cents out of every dollar we spend on their product and then taxes them on average 35 cents on their sales of their product. Do you seriously believe that our governments entitlement and wasteful expenditures are supported by this measly ratio the middle class “supposedly” pays to these corporations in some indirect and obscure manner?
The fact of the matter is most Americans pay very little fed tax at the expense of the top 5% which pay more than half of this countrys bills.
Tell me Ronald, why is it that in 2001-3 liberals screamed bloody murder over the Bush tax cuts but today have sacrificed all credibility by not wanting to let go of them ?
“Why is it so hard for the partisan hacks here to man up to an obvious flaw in our system?”
Thats the most hypocritical koolaide marinated statement you’ve posted so far.
This coming from a far leftist ideologue who does not begin to understand the basic concept of free enterprise.
This coming from an idiot who equates the rich to a source of energy he calls heat which he ignorantly thinks cannot be destroyed, only transferred.
Hes never poured water on a fire.
The only obvious flaw is that liberals do not like to pay their bills and government investments almost always fail.
And by the way, Sue is a nice lady who only posted the very obvious.
I normally dont bother investing too much in slapping you down, but if you treat her again the way you just did and I will dissect your next bullsht riddled post to fricken oblivion, hurt your feelings and humiliate the living crap out of you til you cant stand being here.
Her post was not an attack on you and quite the opposite of your posts which are “always” laced with personal attacks.
You’re a punk
January 2nd, 2013 at 7:39 am
I’m not sure what your rebuttal references Andy. It’s as if on one hand, you’re comparing world wide taxes to U.S. taxes while somewhat suggesting the top guns actually pay 35%. On the other hand you seem to be chastising GE for paying too little (which is rather bizarre considering your usual stand on low taxes) because they’re “close buddies with Obama”, as if there’s some line on the tax form or some exemption code if the President likes you or something, which makes no sense.
Do you deny the accuracy of the Citizens for Tax Justice report(http://www.ctj.org/pdf/notax2012.pdf)? Regardless if their tax rate is 35%, 50%, or 99%, at the end of the day, 30 Fortune 500 companies had a negative tax rate for the cumulative years 2008-2010 while a great deal of the rest saw less than 1%.
So the most profitable have the power to manipulate the system in order for the government to confiscate money from the working class and to give it to them.
January 2nd, 2013 at 8:17 am
“On the other hand you seem to be chastising GE for paying too little ”
Yes, chastised would be too little seeing as how Immelt and Obama are bosom bed buddies.
“So the most profitable have the power to manipulate the system in order for the government to confiscate money from the working class and to give it to them.”
How ?
Your premise that more taxation of the middle class somehow results in a transfer to the top percenters profits is absolute fabricated bullsh!t
Most working class pay zero fed tax.
Entitlement recipients,SS,unemployment recipients,Medicaid/care draw far more from the federal government than all of Americas most wealthy could ever supply.
Ask China.
In typical liberal fashion, as seen in the cliff negotiations, your Marxist bullsht refuses to address the fact that liberals are spending too much and instead choose to make it a revenues and class warfare argument.
January 2nd, 2013 at 8:21 am
“Do you deny the accuracy of the Citizens for Tax Justice report”
I would. They’re nothing but a liberal think tank.
January 2nd, 2013 at 8:23 am
“as if there’s some line on the tax form or some exemption code if the President likes you or something, which makes no sense.”
Any idiot, except for you not being just any idiot, knows that favors come in other forms not on your tax form.
January 2nd, 2013 at 11:38 am
Micky @ # 10, I never asked you. I asked Andy which you obviously took the liberty of speaking for. And it appears Andy has exited stage right.
Nothing new here. Typical rodeo clown maneuver.
January 2nd, 2013 at 12:00 pm
You’re an idiot Ron.
Doesnt matter who you’re talking to.
Sorry to mess up your blissfully ignorant black and white world with imaginary boundaries and narratives. Anyone is allowed to respond to your printed bullsht whether you like it or not.
Obama just managed to raise taxes on those he said would not see a tax increase under his admin.
“Nothing new here. Typical rodeo clown maneuver.”
Ass hole.
You’ve had your ass handed to you by me so many times without any attempt at refute its mind boggling.
You cant handle my ass. Thats all there is to that.
January 2nd, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Here’s a simple reality. 30 of the top Fortune 500 companies paid zero taxes while actually getting a tax subsidy while the majority of the remainder paid less that 2% (and a very high number less than 1%).
Sue promotes a “decrease on Estate, inheritance, capital gains, and investments taxes”. So I ask a simple question. How much less than 1 or 2% or how much more negative taxes is fair for those profiting multi-billions? And instead of even a feeble attempt to a rational response, Andy does some soft shoe shuffle dance pretending they pay 35% (or something silly) while Micky the kibitzing rodeo clown distracts the discussion while Andy ducks under the fence. And of course Micky comes back spewing how he kicked my ass.
Do you guys really expect to be taken with an iota of seriousness?
January 2nd, 2013 at 12:47 pm
My proposal is to jettison the words of liberals into outer space and let the aliens figure it out.
January 2nd, 2013 at 1:03 pm
“Do you guys really expect to be taken with an iota of seriousness?”
Certainly not from a moron like you.
You could tax the 30 top Fortune 500s all you want, it wont make difference.
“Sue promotes a “decrease on Estate, inheritance, capital gains, and investments taxes”.”
Sue is correct.
The majority of inheritances, capital gains and estates handed down are in the middle class you idiot.
“So I ask a simple question. How much less than 1 or 2% or how much more negative taxes is fair for those profiting multi-billions?”
“You attack peoples numbers with no sources of your own to back your claims.
And please, no more links to liberal think tank sites.
As I said above, raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans has already been proven a useless cure.
That fact makes most everyone of your posts today astoundingly irrelevant.
“And instead of even a feeble attempt to a rational response,”
Shut up ass hole.
You’ve never countered one of my posts to this day with anything substantial.
January 2nd, 2013 at 2:41 pm
“Shut up ass hole.”
You knew it was coming, it was just a matter of time.
January 2nd, 2013 at 4:52 pm
“You knew it was coming, it was just a matter of time.”
BFD, get a life.
January 3rd, 2013 at 5:59 am
Ronald, Ronald, Ronald…,
First, I did not “exit stage right” as YOU put it. I’m only on the computer once a day. It is no secret that my health is bad and the couple hours of strength I muster to function here in the morning is about all I can do these days.
Besides that, nothing, and I mean NOTHING, you ever say is very interesting. Most of it is just the usual dribble that the Far Left talking point distributors put out daily.
My point in my rebuttal to you was that if you are pals with the Obama administration, like GE, Google, Verizon, AT&T and Apple, then you get a pass on paying taxes, as well as exemptions from healthcare and other regulations, fees and taxes.
You also seem to forget that oil companies, like Exxon/Mobile, not only pay taxes on the thin profit margins they earn, about 3-5%, but also pay lease fees to Uncle Sugar, which makes up a substantial portion of federal revenues.
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:10 am
Sorry to hear about your health issues Andy. I had no idea. Godspeed.
Regardless of you exiting or not, my point was that there’s a pattern here of changing the narrative or distracting the argument by injecting a kibitzing troll. It’s a common practice on blogs that throw out weak tea claims or try to defend their debunked agenda that falls apart when challenged.
Your response only validates my point. So, if you are “pals” with a sitting POTUS (or maybe that only applies to Obama?), then you get a pass on paying taxes? That’s your rebuttal? Wanta do over? I mean, by what logic? What tax form wavers taxes based on palling with a president? And in that nonsense you do support lower corporate taxes right? But if Obama’s president, then those low taxes is because they’re pals? Or something? And Exxon/Mobile’s exempt because they have “thin profit margins” or something? I suppose you can make huge profits but as long as your profit margins are “thin”, that adjusted gross income becomes irrelevant? Or something? That’s your argument? They can make huge profits and not pay taxes provided they are a)”pals” with Obama, b)can show “lease expenses” or something, and c) maintain a “thin profit margin”.
And this is your argument in justifying lower taxes on the most profitable corporations that are already paying negative taxes?
I would say you’d be better served by sending your resident troll back in but I already know that’s going to happen anyway.
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:47 am
Ronald…,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-676R
“In fiscal year 2006, oil and gas companies received over $77 billion from the sale of oil and gas produced from federal lands and waters, and the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) reported that these companies paid the federal government about $10 billion in oil and gas royalties.”
You may also note that in 2007, with that ‘friend’ of ‘Big Oil’, GW Bush, in office, that the royalty fee rate increased to 18.75% from the sale of every barrel of oil produced off-shore. The on-shore royalty rate is 12.5%. This does not include further royalties and fees which state governments demand from domestic producers.
Naturally, you can cherry-pick the Fortune 500 to get your negative income tax rates, but Big Oil is the least of the offenders. Meanwhile, companies with very high profit margins, like Apple and Google, 30% margins or better, get away with plenty thanks to their association with Obama. They, along with GE, have no trouble getting plenty of tax breaks while they ship thousands of jobs to China and shelter their earnings offshore willy-nilly.
January 3rd, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Andy, giving economic facts to Marxists is usually a waste of time.
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:41 pm
There was a time in History where socialism actually worked. But one of the main reasons was that everybody was looking to serve instead of being served. And the fact God killed the cheaters helped too.
January 5th, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Andy @#21, you make an admission that GE, Apple, & Google slip thought the cracks when it comes to paying taxes. This contradicts the very trickledown theory you advocate. You do this by foolishly fabricating some notion that President Obama has some magic wand to that makes friends or pals immune from paying, invisible from the IRS, or something. This is yet another prime example of how you hypocritically want it both ways, desperately trying to salvage your failed argument by creating some Obama bashing rant that insults the intelligence of anyone of reasonable intellect.
And there’s Patrick to the resue! Funny stuff.
January 5th, 2013 at 3:53 pm
“This contradicts the very trickledown theory you advocate.”
No it doesnt.
How far up your ass did you have reach for that ?