• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Qazaq said:
Did I miss the post or did no one post that McConnell has said to pass the tax portion now?

MSNBC has a banner headline up: "BREAKING NEWS: Republican Sen. McConnell says there is agreement on tax rates."

There's not even a story to click through to at this time. Don't know what this means. Just a weather advisory.

NRO has a story up saying McConnell has said "pass the tax rate portion now."

From NRO [I'm quoting NRO!!!!]:

But first, he’d like the Senate to vote on the tax aspect of the deal as soon as possible. “I can report we’ve reached an agreement on all of the tax issues,” he said. “Let’s pass the tax relief portion now.”
Now, CNN has this.
Some tweets:

Lisa Desjardins
✔
@LisaDCNN
MCCONNELL: let's pass the tax portion now, let's take what we have and get moving.
31 Dec 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
Deirdre Walsh@deirdrewalshcnn
McConnell reports that deal done on the TAX pieces - says let's pass tax portion now
31 Dec 12 ReplyRetweetFavori
Click to expand...
Meh, can't we just deal with all of this tonight?
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Aaron Strife said:
I think his problem is that by passing the tax portion now, Obama's giving up leverage he'd have in a broader debate on deficit spending/debt ceiling hoo-hah.
Click to expand...

Okay, if so, that makes sense. I was thinking of it in terms of one giant bill. Thanks for the clarification.
 
W

worldrunover

Member
Quick! Someone call the wambulence!

Doug Haye, a spokesman for House Majority Whip Eric Cantor, tweeted, “If Obama's goal was to harm the process and make going over the cliff more likely, he's succeeding.” Another Cantor spokesperson said, “So....I'm confused....does POTUS want a deal or not? Because all those jabs at Congress certainly sounded like a smack in the face to me.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the president "sent a message of confrontation" to Republicans, who could be voting on a deal in the next 24 hours. "I'm not sure ... whether to be angry or to be saddened," he added.
Click to expand...

Wah we're gonna make millions suffer because POTUS hurt our feelings boohoo.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Aaron Strife said:
I think his problem is that by passing the tax portion now, Obama's giving up leverage he'd have in a broader debate on deficit spending/debt ceiling hoo-hah.
Click to expand...

I'm actually fine with that. Just because the Republicans have been taking hostages left and right the past few years doesn't mean that the Democrats should start. Democrats should try to get the tax policy they want, and this is pretty close to that (in that this is basically what Obama campaigned on). I wouldn't have wanted Obama to start by demanding higher tax rates than he actually thinks are good.

worldrunover said:
Wah we're gonna make millions suffer because POTUS hurt our feelings boohoo.
Click to expand...
Bizarre. "The president said we were awful, but we proved him!"
 
T

Tim-E

Member
In terms of simply looking at the tax portion, I think what is in front of us is the very definition of compromise (not caving), something that polls over the last month show strong support for.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
GhaleonEB said:
Obama and the GOP largely agree on deficit reduction (sadly).
Click to expand...

The root of the problem!

Little do they know, although they might be about to find out, that "deficit reduction" policies (as presently understood) cause deficits to grow! The real deficit reduction policy would be a sharp increase in net spending. It is the economy that by and large determines whether a government will be in deficit or surplus. When economies slow down, tax receipts fall. When they speed up, tax receipts increase. Of course, it's silly to pay attention to that in the first place and the real danger to an economy is a government surplus, not a government deficit.
 
C

Crisco

Banned
DragonSworne said:
Cool, so the only people whose income taxes aren't affected are the ones making between $110,000 to $400,000 a year...

Awesome
Click to expand...

To be fair, for a family of 4 in a major metropolitan area, that's mostly a middle class income range. For example, if I were doing my exact same job in Manhattan instead of Salt Lake City, I'd be in that income range and we're hardly living like Saudi princes.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Snake said:
Didn't see this posted among the Cliffchat.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159587/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-admired-2012.aspx



iNG8cJdMmcVlx.png


I'm sort of surprised that Slick Willy doesn't place a little higher.
Click to expand...
The fact that Sarah Palin is on there is fairly disheartening. She's the political equivalent of a Kardashian.
 
H

hoos30

Member
Can anybody explain or post a link as to why this proposed 'deal' is better for Dems than just going over the cliff? I don't get it. Why bother winning the election if you're just going to give away your advantages?
 
S

slit

Member
I just heard Rand Paul say "We're going to let the 2% drown!"

I mean.....really. The fact that he can say that with a straight face is so cute. :lol
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Dartastic said:
Because for the longest time, the tax cuts were set to end for earners of $250,000. Remember him "getting that for free?" He's continually brought up this dollar amount, and now he's changing it.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/why-is-obama-caving-on-taxes.html
Click to expand...

This is just dumb messaging all around -- first from WaPo/the White House, then TNR I suspect intentionally for agitation purposes, now Chait. Obama said from the very beginning that he's open to any formulation of tax rates that raises the same amount of revenue as the tax hikes above $250k do ($800 billion) and doesn't touch anybody below $250k. So what matters is not the tax threshold -- it's the amount of tax revenue. All of Obama's maneuvering around the cutoff has preserved the amount of revenue. So what's the complaint, exactly? In dollar terms, taxes are going up by the same amount, on the same people! There is a compromise in the deal where he trades taxes for stimulus, but the movement of the threshold is utterly meaningless. People are just (often intentionally) misunderstanding the negotiations in order to argue about them.

I think people need to start making clear whether they want taxes to be higher for specific people or whether they want the money we get from raising taxes*. It's fine if you just want to punish people who make $250,000 a year, I guess, but personally if Obama has a plan to tax people who make $500k EVEN MORE so that he makes the same amount of money overall, I'd just as soon take that -- it's a wash on revenue and it strikes me as potentially even better in terms of progressivity. So what, exactly, is the problem?

GhaleonEB said:
Obama and the GOP largely agree on deficit reduction (sadly).
Click to expand...

Sure, neither of them want to do it. Obama wants to reduce the deficit by doing stuff like Obamacare and the GOP doesn't want to reduce the deficit at all. I mean, if nothing else, that should be your takeaway from this deal, since it's supposed to be the resolution of a whole year of conflict over how to cut the debt, and yet it's deficit-neutral. (It could also be your takeaway from the last thirty years of American governance.) I see no reason to assume that future attempts to cut the deficit in a bipartisan manner will be any more effective than the sequester, which was the last attempt to cut the deficit in a bipartisan manner. And in terms of the President, remember -- if he got exactly the budget he campaigned on, it still wouldn't've hit his deficit reduction target. That's probably not an accident. Everybody knows the deficit doesn't matter**. So why would you assume that anybody is actually 100% forthright about wanting to reduce it?


* FAKE MONEY IT'S FAKE THAT IS NOT WHAT TAXES DO BUT LET IT PASS

** AT THE CURRENT LEVEL BECAUSE THE DEFICIT IS MERELY THE MISUNDERSTOOD SYMPTOM OF A MONEY SUPPLY PROCESS AND SO THE REAL QUESTIONS INVOLVE MONETARY SUPPLY RATHER THAN DEFICIT SPENDING
 
T

Tim-E

Member
pigeon said:
This is just dumb messaging all around -- first from WaPo/the White House, then TNR I suspect intentionally for agitation purposes, now Chait. Obama said from the very beginning that he's open to any formulation of tax rates that raises the same amount of revenue as the tax hikes above $250k do ($800 billion) and doesn't touch anybody below $250k. So what matters is not the tax threshold -- it's the amount of tax revenue. All of Obama's maneuvering around the cutoff has preserved the amount of revenue. So what's the complaint, exactly? In dollar terms, taxes are going up by the same amount, on the same people! There is a compromise in the deal where he trades taxes for stimulus, but the movement of the threshold is utterly meaningless. People are just (often intentionally) misunderstanding the negotiations in order to argue about them.

I think people need to start making clear whether they want taxes to be higher for specific people or whether they want the money we get from raising taxes*. It's fine if you just want to punish people who make $250,000 a year, I guess, but personally if Obama has a plan to tax people who make $500k EVEN MORE so that he makes the same amount of money overall, I'd just as soon take that -- it's a wash on revenue and it strikes me as potentially even better in terms of progressivity. So what, exactly, is the problem?



Sure, neither of them want to do it. Obama wants to reduce the deficit by doing stuff like Obamacare and the GOP doesn't want to reduce the deficit at all. I mean, if nothing else, that should be your takeaway from this deal, since it's supposed to be the resolution of a whole year of conflict over how to cut the debt, and yet it's deficit-neutral. (It could also be your takeaway from the last thirty years of American governance.) I see no reason to assume that future attempts to cut the deficit in a bipartisan manner will be any more effective than the sequester, which was the last attempt to cut the deficit in a bipartisan manner. And in terms of the President, remember -- if he got exactly the budget he campaigned on, it still wouldn't've hit his deficit reduction target. That's probably not an accident. Everybody knows the deficit doesn't matter**. So why would you assume that anybody is actually 100% forthright about wanting to reduce it?


* FAKE MONEY IT'S FAKE THAT IS NOT WHAT TAXES DO BUT LET IT PASS

** AT THE CURRENT LEVEL BECAUSE THE DEFICIT IS MERELY THE MISUNDERSTOOD SYMPTOM OF A MONEY SUPPLY PROCESS AND SO THE REAL QUESTIONS INVOLVE MONETARY SUPPLY RATHER THAN DEFICIT SPENDING
Click to expand...


I love you.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
okay, compared to the fiscal cliff, if I understand correctly, here are the changes.


1. tax cuts under 400/450 to the Bush rates + extension of EITC and CFS

2. Estate taxes to $5 mil but 40% after (would be $1 mil, used to be 35% after $5)

3. UE extension

4. Sequester postponed for 2 years (or maybe 3 months?)

5. Doc fix, permanent AMT fix

6. Dividend 20% (cap gains are 20% after tonight regardless)

Am I missing anything? If this is true, then Obama traded a higher income tax threshold and lower dividend threshold for UE extension and higher estate taxes and postponing sequester cuts. I'm assuming everyone was going to pass the EITC, doc and AMT fixes regardless, so I don't count it as a bargain.

In which case, I would have liked the dividend stuff higher, but can live with it as well as the higher tax rate to get a UE extension.

If this is the deal, it's a good one for Obama and most people.


edit: And PEP and PEASE phaseout at $250k? That's also not bad.


Looks like a good deal (for something that isn't a Grand Bargain). I mean, Obama wasn't going to get everything he wanted. To get UE he had to give something up.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
I mostly agree with Josh's take.

My take goes back to something I’ve been thinking about for the last month. The President says he will under no circumstances negotiate with congressional Republicans over a new debt limit extension. Not under any circumstances. I believe he means it, even feels passionately about it. But this is considerably more difficult to do in practice than to pledge. And while I believe the White House is committed to this refusal to negotiate — basically no negotiating with hostage takers — I’ve never been clear on just what the game plan is or just how they see a hostage taking scenario playing out.

There’s no escape valve. They don’t think the so-called ‘14th amendment solution’ is either constitutional or viable in practice. So you have to assume that either congressional Republicans simply don’t try it, cave after trying it or that you tumble into some mix of massive government shutdown and/or default.

Why does this matter? Because the snap-back of the Clinton-era tax rates was the big cudgel the White House held over the Congressional GOP. And this basically closes the books on the tax rates issue. So, on its own terms, this deal looks relatively decent. But if it means the President has to concede to massive cuts to Medicare and Social Security or other critical spending in a month or two because he now lacks critical leverage then it would be a pretty bad deal indeed.

So, decent deal but with a massive asterisk. And we may not know what that asterisk means until February.
Click to expand...
 
F

Father_Brain

Banned
Robert Reich is not a fan:

Robert B. Reich said:
The deal emerging from the Senate is a lousy one. Let me count the ways:

1. Republicans haven’t conceded anything on the debt ceiling, so over the next two months – as the Treasury runs out of tricks to avoid a default – Republicans are likely to do exactly what they did before, which is to hold their votes on raising the ceiling hostage to major cuts in programs for the poor and in Medicare and Social Security.

2. The deal makes tax cuts for the rich permanent (extending the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 if filing singly and $450,000 if jointly) while extending refundable tax credits for the poor (child tax credit, enlarged EITC, and tuition tax credit) for only five years. There’s absolutely no justification for this asymmetry.

3. It doesn’t get nearly enough revenue from the wealthiest 2 percent — only $600 billion over the next decade, which is half of what the President called for, and a small fraction of the White House’s goal of more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. That means more of the burden of tax hikes and spending cuts in future years will fall on the middle class and the poor.

4. It continues to exempt the first $5 million of inherited wealth from the estate tax (the exemption used to be $1 million). This is a huge gift to the heirs of the wealthy, perpetuating family dynasties of the idle rich.

Yes, the deal finally gets Republicans to accept a tax increase on the wealthy, but this is an inside-the-Beltway symbolic victory. If anyone believes this will make the GOP more amenable to future tax increases, they don’t know how rabidly extremist the GOP has become.

The deal also extends unemployment insurance for more than 2 million long-term unemployed. That’s important.

But I can’t help believe the President could have done better than this. After all, public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side. Republicans would have been blamed had no deal been achieved.

More importantly, the fiscal cliff is on the President’s side as well. If we go over it, he and the Democrats in the next Congress that starts later this week can quickly offer legislation that grants a middle-class tax cut and restores most military spending. Even rabid Republicans would be hard-pressed not to sign on.
Click to expand...
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
2. The deal makes tax cuts for the rich permanent (extending the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 if filing singly and $450,000 if jointly) while extending refundable tax credits for the poor (child tax credit, enlarged EITC, and tuition tax credit) for only five years. There’s absolutely no justification for this asymmetry.
Click to expand...

WHAT. THE. HELL.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Let the debt ceiling be a different debate. The GOP was never going to give it up in a small deal so what's the big hub-bub?

Reich is being silly. First off, nothing is "permanent." The Dems taking control can raise taxes if they so choose, just like they recently did with Obamacare's taxes. If the Dems ever win the House back they can move the $400/450 and estate taxes down. They probably won't, but they could.

There are no significant spending cuts to come form either party for the most part (that isn't recession related) so this is more of a scare. Republicans significantly cutting spending? I'll believe it when I see it.


This deal isn't everything I'd like. I'd want dividends higher, estate tax number lower, and the $250k threshold. But I can live with the changes for the UE extension and no cuts. So should the rest of you if this is the deal. Obama did well if this is it. He's been practical.

Making any of the Bush cuts permanent should be a deal breaker.
Click to expand...

"permanent" simply means there is no expiration date. They can be changed by law at any time by majority vote (granted Senate needs to be filibuster proof).

WHAT. THE. HELL.
Click to expand...

And in 5 years the GOP will extend them again.

Stop freaking out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
7K
Agent_Nobody replied
SAW 3 | A Finale on Life Support (HyperBitHero)
Opinion
4
895
HyperBitHero replied
  • Locked
RTX 4070 TI Super for sale. Never gamed on.
1
699
LSWilson replied
Scalable games should be the standard on consoles from now on
Opinion
31
1K
GHG replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
1K
dragonyeuw replied
Top Bottom