and we are off the cliff...

[Guyute]

I say we went off it 6 weeks ago.  Markets have been plunging due to it.

Do you think that anything meaningful will get done?

The other interesting piece to me is the loss in tax revenue due to this.  I realize it isn't that much, but a lot of the people they are talking about raising taxes on get their bonuses based on firm/market performance.   With the markets down, bonuses will be much less and therefore the taxes will be as well.

[twatts]

Congress sucks...

Terry

[rowjimmy]

It's all horseshit.

Even if they don't all pass a deal for four weeks, they can make it retroactive to the new year.

[sls.stormyrider]

Congress sucks...

everyone involved, from both parties and both Houses and the Prez, can take part in saying "WE FAILED"

I say we went off it 6 weeks ago.  Markets have been plunging due to it.

Do you think that anything meaningful will get done?

The other interesting piece to me is the loss in tax revenue due to this.  I realize it isn't that much, but a lot of the people they are talking about raising taxes on get their bonuses based on firm/market performance.   With the markets down, bonuses will be much less and therefore the taxes will be as well.

not just the loss of tax revenue - imagine if you were a govt worker or worked for a country with govt contracts and new you might lose your job. The emotional toll would be enormous, and, you would be spending less $, which wouldn't be good for the economy.

[nab]

Congress sucks...

everyone involved, from both parties and both Houses and the Prez, can take part in saying "WE FAILED"

I say we went off it 6 weeks ago.  Markets have been plunging due to it.

Do you think that anything meaningful will get done?

The other interesting piece to me is the loss in tax revenue due to this.  I realize it isn't that much, but a lot of the people they are talking about raising taxes on get their bonuses based on firm/market performance.   With the markets down, bonuses will be much less and therefore the taxes will be as well.

not just the loss of tax revenue - imagine if you were a govt worker or worked for a country with govt contracts and new you might lose your job. The emotional toll would be enormous, and, you would be spending less $, which wouldn't be good for the economy.

This just about approximates my position.  Work for a private firm, but most of our contracts are with govt. agencies. 


The complete and utter ineptitude of our representatives in government (all of them), would be funny if it weren't so dumbfounding and dangerous. 

[runawayjimbo]

The most amazing/horrifying things to me are:

a) Nearly every component of this nonsense - the doc fix, the AMT, the sequester, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, shit, the cliff itself - was a crisis Congress itself created.

2) If the House passes the Senate bill tonight (which appears to be a done deal), we will be facing the exact same situation again in two months. Not years, months. Only next time it'll come with a debt ceiling debate as well, for extra dooshbagginess (since we technically exceeded the debt limit yesterday too, YAY!).

The level of political cowardice among nearly all of our nation's "leaders" is astounding.

[rowjimmy]

The debt ceiling thing is also political theatrical bullshit.

You have to authorize the increases because the fucking money is spent.

Linking that to any serious discussion of spending cuts is just scenery chewing dickishness.

[runawayjimbo]

The debt ceiling thing is also political theatrical bullshit.

You have to authorize the increases because the fucking money is spent.

Linking that to any serious discussion of spending cuts is just scenery chewing dickishness.

That's not entirely true. Treasury issues new debt based on their anticipated funding requirements over the short term (30-90 days, iirc). So while any debt service costs represent money already spent, not raising the debt ceiling could be done without a default on any promised payments. But it would require severe immediate cuts and would have massive repercussions, so I do agree with you though that it's political theatrical bullshit, because everyone knows they're gonna pass it eventually. I mean, no one ever believed Jack Bauer was gonna die no matter what kind of crazy shit he got himself into.

House just passed the Senate bill so we can all take a deep breath (for two months). Of course, that extra payroll tax is gonna be a bitch.

Paul Ryan apparently told all his buddies he was voting No only to "change his mind" at the last minute and vote for a bill with $600B in tax increases and $15B in spending cuts and had the balls to say it represents conservative values. What a worm (but we already knew that).

Also, by Obama's own budget (chocked full of rosy assumptions), the cumulative 10 yr deficit is $6.7T, which means the $615B in deficit reduction just enacted gets us 1/11th of the way to a balanced budget. YAY!

Props to Hicks' guy Blumenauer for voting against it (although I suspect it was because it didn't go far enough for him).

[sls.stormyrider]

The most amazing/horrifying things to me are:

a) Nearly every component of this nonsense - the doc fix, the AMT, the sequester, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, shit, the cliff itself - was a crisis Congress itself created.

2) If the House passes the Senate bill tonight (which appears to be a done deal), we will be facing the exact same situation again in two months. Not years, months. Only next time it'll come with a debt ceiling debate as well, for extra dooshbagginess (since we technically exceeded the debt limit yesterday too, YAY!).

The level of political cowardice among nearly all of our nation's "leaders" is astounding.

not only that, but Boehner walked away from a deal that reportedly was similar on the tax side and was working in spending cuts, including entitlement cuts. He even wrote his own bill with less tax increases and more spending cuts, but the House GOP wouldn't give in and they didn't even vote on it. They could have had a much better long term plan if they stuck with it.

[Guyute]

Remember, no new taxes on those under $400k, well except for the 48% hike in SS tax for EVERYONE.  It is like making another SS payment every month for me.   

Combine that with what is crappy deal and what has already been said about doing it again in 2 months.

This is all crap anyway.  They can raise taxes to the max the dems want to and not even get close right now.  Really you need to cut spending, period.

I was reading an interesting study which I need to find now.  Lowering taxes on the rich, $1mill plus does little to "trickle down".  However, lowering them on those in that $150k I believe it was to $750k band does stimulate the economy, more rapidily than anything else.  The reason being is that there are a lot of small business owners in that group who hire, even if part time, when taxes go down.   

Also, this band tends to spend the highest % of income also increasing money in the economy. 

[sls.stormyrider]

Remember, no new taxes on those under $400k, well except for the 48% hike in SS tax for EVERYONE.  It is like making another SS payment every month for me.   

Combine that with what is crappy deal and what has already been said about doing it again in 2 months.

This is all crap anyway.  They can raise taxes to the max the dems want to and not even get close right now.  Really you need to cut spending, period.

I was reading an interesting study which I need to find now.  Lowering taxes on the rich, $1mill plus does little to "trickle down".  However, lowering them on those in that $150k I believe it was to $750k band does stimulate the economy, more rapidily than anything else.  The reason being is that there are a lot of small business owners in that group who hire, even if part time, when taxes go down.   

Also, this band tends to spend the highest % of income also increasing money in the economy.

imo the job producers are not the business owners or the rich. the job producers are the consumers. If people buy something, businesses will hire.
In general, people in the higher brackets save more than those in the lower brackets (definition of lower and higher is arbitrary) - someone who makes $1 milll isn't going to reduce consumption because of a 2 - 4% tax hike.

[phil]

Congress sucks...

[Guyute]

Remember, no new taxes on those under $400k, well except for the 48% hike in SS tax for EVERYONE.  It is like making another SS payment every month for me.   

Combine that with what is crappy deal and what has already been said about doing it again in 2 months.

This is all crap anyway.  They can raise taxes to the max the dems want to and not even get close right now.  Really you need to cut spending, period.

I was reading an interesting study which I need to find now.  Lowering taxes on the rich, $1mill plus does little to "trickle down".  However, lowering them on those in that $150k I believe it was to $750k band does stimulate the economy, more rapidily than anything else.  The reason being is that there are a lot of small business owners in that group who hire, even if part time, when taxes go down.   

Also, this band tends to spend the highest % of income also increasing money in the economy.

imo the job producers are not the business owners or the rich. the job producers are the consumers. If people buy something, businesses will hire.
In general, people in the higher brackets save more than those in the lower brackets (definition of lower and higher is arbitrary) - someone who makes $1 milll isn't going to reduce consumption because of a 2 - 4% tax hike.

Completely agree.  But someone in the area of the major cities making <$200k a year will.  You just pulled a lot of money out of the economy, $1750 a household or so.  If you think about a $150k family in the NYC area where I am they are markedly middle-class.  Not saving much, not driving BMWs or anything like that.  They live in a 22-2400 sqft home, drive Honda Pilots and take 1 modest vacation a year.

I was listening to an interview with Barney Frank today and I believe he had it right.   Keep it at 4.2% for those at the lower income.  Move it to 6.2% for higher income earners.   Set the cap at the current first $113k of income and then if you make over x (he said $250k, I say 500k) SS tax kicks back in and you start paying again.

[runawayjimbo]

imo the job producers are not the business owners or the rich. the job producers are the consumers. If people buy something, businesses will hire.

Chicken or egg? Hard for people to buy stuff without jobs (another piss poor employment report today: +155k jobs; UE rate  7.8%).

I was listening to an interview with Barney Frank today and I believe he had it right.   Keep it at 4.2% for those at the lower income.  Move it to 6.2% for higher income earners.   Set the cap at the current first $113k of income and then if you make over x (he said $250k, I say 500k) SS tax kicks back in and you start paying again.

Then you have to start paying benefits on that excess salary, meaning the high income earner is getting a massive increase in their pension. SS liabilities would skyrocket, along with the $20T in unfunded liability. Unless you are interested in changing SS from a social insurance program to a wealth transfer/welfare program, which admittedly may be Barney Frank's goal.

[rowjimmy]

piss poor?
Turn down the spin cycle, bro.
An unfortunate lack of growth but it's also not a significant decline.