Poll on Fiscal Cliff

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

Where you see greed taking over I see laziness and dependence taking over.

This country is pitiful. Im so glad I'm not a kid having to grow up in this shyt hole of a country. Gone are the days of true liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I hear syria is nice this time of yr,almost no gov to speak of,low taxes, no gun control.what's not to like. You're always welcome to get out of the US if you have such a poor opinion of it.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

Wrong. I'm downsizing my business and laying off employees(who all of them saw their paycheck shrink this week). So do you think it's affected them too? What about all those employees who will see less hours or a pink slip? None of them make 450,000 yet they will be directly affected

Why? Is business so bad that you have to lay off emploees now??

The tax increase for the 450k and above bracket certainly isn't the reason.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

Where you see greed taking over I see laziness and dependence taking over.

This country is pitiful. Im so glad I'm not a kid having to grow up in this shyt hole of a country. Gone are the days of true liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Human beings have the capacity to convince themselves of anything. That's one of the problems. Try reading the article.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by TonyR

I have a hard time believing that such a small tax increase on income above $400,000 could so radically impact a business. Maybe you don't understand what these changes really mean? Let's do an example (oversimplified):

Let's say your taxable income was $500,000 last year (2012). Your tax would be $151,762 for an effective rate of 30.35%.

Let's say your taxable income will be $500,000 this year (2013). Your tax would be $155,763 for an effective rate of 31.15%.

So your tax increased $4,001, and your effective rate 0.80%.

How many "pink slips" is $4,001 causing at your business?

what if the business also getting hit with Obamacare cost increases? Also capital gains went up 5% on that same bracket so it all adds up.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

what if the business also getting hit with Obamacare cost increases? Also capital gains went up 5% on that same bracket so it all adds up.

If you make that much money and respond to higher taxes by laying people off, you're morally and intellectually no better than the professional athlete who makes millions of dollars a year and ends up declaring bankruptcy. The amount taxes are going up is negligible, and you'd have to be making millions in order for your taxes to go up enough to have to fire someone to make up that money.

Learn maths. It's taxing income above $400k at that higher rate, not the entire sum.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

what if the business also getting hit with Obamacare cost increases? Also capital gains went up 5% on that same bracket so it all adds up.

It wasn't that long ago when cap gains was 25% and income taxes were higher......the economy was booming and we had a surplus.

The effects of adding health care will vary from business to business, and in many cases, long overdue. The only time I recall not providing healthcare to employees was when we had part time employees in a service industry. For the country to move forward, we really need to 'unhitch' healthcare as an employer obligation and allow individuals to obtain coverage on their own account.

That will require some 'progressive thinking' by both parties. So it will be a while.

[Arkie]

Progressive thinking brought us constitutional change, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and a powerful federal government. Centralized power leads to more corruption. Like Bush said, a dictatorship would make it a lot easier for him to get what he wants. It's true, spreading the power out creates more checks and balances. We have more centralized power today than any other time in American history.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Arkie

Progressive thinking brought us constitutional change, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and a powerful federal government. Centralized power leads to more corruption. Like Bush said, a dictatorship would make it a lot easier for him to get what he wants. It's true, spreading the power out creates more checks and balances. We have more centralized power today than any other time in American history.

It's never a bad thing to update thinking from the 18th Century........though for some, it's still a work in progress.


pro·gres·sive
[pruh-gres-iv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

It's never a bad thing to update thinking from the 18th Century........though for some, it's still a work in progress.


pro·gres·sive
[pruh-gres-iv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.

It's the centralized power that needs reformed, and I give more credit to the people themselves for any of America's progress and improvement despite the federal government.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Arkie

It's the centralized power that needs reformed, and I give more credit to the people themselves for any of America's progress and improvement despite the federal government.

Indeed it does. The system is bloated, intrusive, corrupt, wasteful and deadlocked.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Arkie

It's the centralized power that needs reformed, and I give more credit to the people themselves for any of America's progress and improvement despite the federal government.

Maybe we could split the union up into a states run operation? Kind of like the EU? That seems to work well.

It's not the centrality of the power that is the problem, it's the fact that the entire government is for sale to the highest bidders.

[Meck77]

Just talked to a friend of mine (democrat). He was all fired up this morning because he got his first pay check of the year. Guess he didn't understand the feds were coming after his 40k a year. Well you guys voted for it. You got it.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Just talked to a friend of mine (democrat). He was all fired up this morning because he got his first pay check of the year. Guess he didn't understand the feds were coming after his 40k a year. Well you guys voted for it. You got it.

The only tax increase your friend would have seen was the payroll tax holiday expired and returned to 6.1% from 4.2%. First off, it was called a "holiday" because it was never intended as a permanent decrease, just temporary relief during the recession. Second, it wasn't Obama's idea to let the "holiday" expire...he wanted to extend it another year. It was a consession to Republicans...the same GOPers who supposedly don't want to raise taxes on anyone. So, your friend can pin that one on the GOP. Try to educate yourself before you open your mouth on a topic on which you're clearly ignorant.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Try to educate yourself before you open your mouth on a topic on which you're clearly ignorant.

Oh, but Meck can't do that - he'd have to quit being a conservative.

[Meck77]

Obama uses an executive order to raise the pay of congress. Meanwhile the sheeple defend them and accept a pay cut. Fools.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Obama uses an executive order to raise the pay of congress. Meanwhile the sheeple defend them and accept a pay cut. Fools.

Yeah, you just completely ignored the fact that the "pay cut" was thanks to the GOP. As usual, the facts don't support your position.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Obama uses an executive order to raise the pay of congress. Meanwhile the sheeple defend them and accept a pay cut. Fools.

Why do you have to lie about what actually happened? Inferno has already made this pretty clear.

First:

The EO stopped the pay freeze on federal employees that has been going on for over two years. It wasn't just a raise for people in Congress, it was for all federal workers. The average amount ended up being $700 per person. Yay! I know what you are attempting to do by talking about Congress getting a raise, but you are really missing the point. It ends up being roughly (after you factor in certain things) a marginal .5% to 1% increase in wage, which is extraordinarily low compared to a raise an average private sector employee makes.

Second:

The payroll tax rates are going back to what they were before they were temporarily lowered. As Inferno mentioned, it was a temporary measure to let people have a little bit more in their paycheck during the recession. The Democrats (for the most part) wanted the holiday extended, the Republicans did not.

So. . .

Yeah. BLACK GUYS FAULT!

[Meck77]

I'm not trying to do anything other than pointing out the government (Executive Branch) is giving themselves raises and cutting the people's pay. The sheeple are asleep and bamboozled by the idea "It's only a small percent to them. It's only a 2% cut to the people". "We are just living the freeze". "That was only temporary relief". Call it what you want.

They GET MORE MONEY AND YOU GOT LESS.

As far as the color of the president. Could give a rats ass. I've met him. He punts his pants on like I do. His are just dry cleaned by our tax dollars.

The sheeple have a rude awakening coming sadly enough when the cuts really come their way. But hey the federal employees are taken care of. You mentioned the word recession. That word isn't even understood in DC. Have some friends who lived out there and it was business as usual the last 4 years. They all got their government cheese during the recession. Now they get the bump.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Meck77

I'm not trying to do anything other than pointing out the government (Executive Branch) is giving themselves raises and cutting the people's pay. The sheeple are asleep and bamboozled by the idea "It's only a small percent to them. It's only a 2% cut to the people". "We are just living the freeze". "That was only temporary relief". Call it what you want.

They GET MORE MONEY AND YOU GOT LESS.

As far as the color of the president. Could give a rats ass. I've met him. He punts his pants on like I do. His are just dry cleaned by our tax dollars.

The sheeple have a rude awakening coming sadly enough when the cuts really come their way. But hey the federal employees are taken care of. You mentioned the word recession. That word isn't even understood in DC. Have some friends who lived out there and it was business as usual the last 4 years. They all got their government cheese during the recession. Now they get the bump.

In reality, nobody is really getting more. The minimal increase in wages for federal employees (700$ per year, based on the half percent increase) is pretty much washed out with payroll taxes going back to their normal levels because in all likelihood, that amount will easily be withheld from their checks in a 12 month span.

I could give two ****s less that Obama ended the pay freeze. There are a lot of people who work long hours and do a good job, yet didn't get a raise in over two years. As far as I know, most people in the private sector get reviewed for raises at the end of each year. When I was in the private sector after school, I received a raise after 6 months excellent performance on the job. It is hardly the issue and logical mind should be approaching to start discussing government waste, abuse and the Big Men getting a bigger piece of the pie.

It would have been nice to have the payroll holiday extended, but it was a concession made by Democrats to Republicans who didn't want that, nor unemployment benefits (which IIRC, did get extended) to continue. I think they understand what "recession" means, but necessarily don't have a clue about how to get things done effectively. I didn't work a full 80 hours last week because of a doctors appointment, but it will be interesting to see effectively how much less I am taking home when I get my next paycheck.

Not scared of the Gubmint Boogeyman. Not that paranoid, never will be.

And FWIW, I know you don't give a hoot about Obama's skin color. T'was a joke. A little teenie tiny joke.

[houghtam]

I do quite enjoy it when Meck opens his yap about something that he overheard at the water cooler but doesn't really understand the facts about it and gets abused like a 250lb DT, and then the only response he can muster is "We'll but all I'm sayin' is da gubmint baaaaad. Ya'll sheeple."

Sorry chum, we're not the ones without a clue here.

[peacepipe]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...-on-debt-limit

Yesterday, the House of Representatives finally voted to approve long overdue relief aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. That's good news, and it's a story in and of itself, but there's another important story about vote—the measure passed despite overwhelming Republican opposition.

Here are the raw numbers:

Yeas: 241 (192 Democrats, 49 Republicans) Nays: 180 (Rep. Jim Cooper + 179 Republicans)

This sort of thing isn't supposed to happen when Republicans control the house. Unlike Democrats, Republicans have a longstanding informal rule that no legislation will come up for a vote unless a majority of Republicans support it. That rule—dubbed the Hastert Rule after former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert—is supposed to prevent outcomes like the one last night, where a united Democratic Party teams up with a divided GOP to pass legislation overwhelmingly opposed by Republicans.

But last night they ignored the rule—and it was the second time they ignored it this year. The first time was on New Year's Day, when 85 Republicans joined 172 Democrats in passing the tax cliff deal despite opposition from 151 Republicans.

Until 2013, the Hastert Rule had only been broken once before under John Boehner's speakership, and that was on an obscure measure dealing with weights and measurements. Moreover, on that vote Republicans were actually nearly evenly divided, with 118 Republicans supporting the bill and 122 opposing it. (Boehner didn't vote, so it was really 119 to 122.)

Now, however, Republicans have done it twice—and they've done it twice in two weeks. Not only that, but yesterday the fifth-ranking House Republican refused to rule out doing it again with the debt limit. Altogether, it's as clear a sign as you could possibly get that Republican leaders aren't going to block a debt limit increase. Instead, they'll let their members create as much drama as possible, but will in the end allow the a debt limit increase to come to the floor where it will pass with the backing of all or nearly all Democrats.

Yes, it's true that far-right groups like Club for Growth, The Family Research Council, and The Heritage Foundation are still saber rattling about the debt limit. But these are the same clowns that were saber rattling about the Hurricane Sandy vote—and they lost. As Brian Beutler exhaustively outlines, every major sign points to a lack of resolve on the part of House Republican leadership to block an increase in the debt limit. And it's not just talking heads showing a lack of interest in brinksmanship. As Greg Sargent reported yesterday, there two Republican Senators have now gone on the record opposing a debt limit crisis.

And now that House Republicans have conducted back-to-back major votes in which they've basically ceded power to a coalition of Democrats and the handful of responsible Republicans, they've set a precedent—on major issues facing the nation, a minority of the House doesn't get veto power just because it happens to be a majority of the GOP. That precedent provides the only viable path forward on the debt limit and it is almost certainly the path that will ultimately be followed. The big question is whether it will tear apart the GOP in the process.

With two gop Senators breaking with their party & more likely will break with their party over the next couple of weeks. The debt limit should get raised cleanly.