"Fiscal Cliff" Deal Done, and Passed. Obama to Sign

[Warfish]

The deal:

Highlights include:

--Income tax rates: Extends decade-old tax cuts on incomes up to $400,000 for individuals, $450,000 for couples. Earnings above those amounts would be taxed at a rate of 39.6 percent, up from the current 35 percent. Extends Clinton-era caps on itemized deductions and the phase-out of the personal exemption for individuals making more than $250,000 and couples earning more than $300,000.

--Estate tax: Estates would be taxed at a top rate of 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates. In 2012, such estates were subject to a top rate of 35 percent.

--Capital gains, dividends: Taxes on capital gains and dividend income exceeding $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent.

--Alternative minimum tax: Permanently addresses the alternative minimum tax and indexes it for inflation to prevent nearly 30 million middle- and upper-middle income taxpayers from being hit with higher tax bills averaging almost $3,000. The tax was originally designed to ensure that the wealthy did not avoid owing taxes by using loopholes.

--Other tax changes: Extends for five years Obama-sought expansions of the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, and an up to $2,500 tax credit for college tuition. Also extends for one year accelerated "bonus" depreciation of business investments in new property and equipment, a tax credit for research and development costs and a tax credit for renewable energy such as wind-generated electricity.

--Unemployment benefits: Extends jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed for one year.

--Cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors: Blocks a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors for one year. The cut is the product of an obsolete 1997 budget formula.

--Social Security payroll tax cut: Allows a 2 percentage point cut in the payroll tax first enacted two years ago to lapse, which restores the payroll tax to 6.2 percent.

--Across-the-board cuts: Delays for two months $109 billion worth of across-the-board spending cuts set to start striking the Pentagon and domestic agencies this week. Cost of $24 billion is divided between spending cuts and new revenues from rules changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

I see tons of spending cuts

[detjetsfan]

Neither party cares about cutting the deficit. Those Tea Party hacks that took over Congress? We've had the least productive Congress since WWII this past term. Unreal.

[DDNYjets]

So we are still selling our children to the Chinese.

Got it.

[Frequent Flyer]

Taxpayers get screwed, democrat constituents (welfare trash, government employees, chronically unemployed) continue to feed at the trough.

And the nation continues the downward spiral to total bankruptcy and economic collapse.

Win/win!

[sg3]

Taxpayers get screwed?

By not having tax increases for 100 percent of Americans as would have happened with no deal occurring??

And I thought you and your fellow teabagger nihilists were against tax increases?

[Frequent Flyer]

Originally Posted by sg3

Taxpayers get screwed?

By not having tax increases for 100 percent of Americans as would have happened with no deal occurring??

And I thought you and your fellow teabagger nihilists were against tax increases?

LMAO at how stupid and dishonest you are.


77% of taxpayers taxes are going up in 2013. Payroll taxes, Obamacare taxes et al.

Also factor in inflation (the cruelest tax of all) which will continue to rise, so as your paycheck shrinks, the purchasing power of those fewer dollars shrinks as well.

Of course, all the scumbabs who voted for Barry will get their EIC checks so there's that.

[SgtAshton]

Scumbags??? Lol

[Winstonbiggs]

I love our political system. Democrats overwhelmingly voted to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Republicans overwhelmingly voted to let them expire. Democrats and Republicans in the first bipartisan moment both agreed to delay all spending cuts.

[Warfish]

Personally, I'll see higher taxes in the form of a rise in the payroll tax back to 6%.

Beyond that, I should (stress should) be uneffected.

What I'm curious about is, from a fiscal conservative standpoint, what exactly caused any Republicans to vote FOR this "deal"? Best as I can tell, other than the correction/indexing of the A.M.T. (which isn't partisan, it's error correction), I don't see anything here that would align with conservative fiscal policy. No cuts really, more benefit spending, higher taxes on most taxpayers, and doubly so on higher income folks.

Guess I'm not really seeing the "deal" part of this.

[quantum]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Personally, I'll see higher taxes in the form of a rise in the payroll tax back to 6%.

Beyond that, I should (stress should) be uneffected.

What I'm curious about is, from a fiscal conservative standpoint, what exactly caused any Republicans to vote FOR this "deal"? Best as I can tell, other than the correction/indexing of the A.M.T. (which isn't partisan, it's error correction), I don't see anything here that would align with conservative fiscal policy. No cuts really, more benefit spending, higher taxes on most taxpayers, and doubly so on higher income folks.

Guess I'm not really seeing the "deal" part of this.

they'll get blamed for it either way, so why not go along?
see Obummer's press conference/pep rally where he spikes the ball? s/b a 15 yard penalty for taunting.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

What I'm curious about is, from a fiscal conservative standpoint, what exactly caused any Republicans to vote FOR this "deal"?

Their time for political grandstanding had come to an end. They were trapped in a corner with basically no leverage, and they knew it. They took it as far as they could go and in the end had no other choice but to give in.

[sec.101row23]

Originally Posted by quantum

they'll get blamed for it either way, so why not go along?
see Obummer's press conference/pep rally where he spikes the ball? s/b a 15 yard penalty for taunting.

True. The alternative of not reaching a deal would have been a worse PR nightmare for them. Either they eat this s**tburger of a deal or they get blamed for the largest tax hike ever. There was never going to be a good outcome for the Republicans.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by parafly

Their time for political grandstanding had come to an end. They were trapped in a corner with basically no leverage, and they knew it. They took it as far as they could go and in the end had no other choice but to give in.

Sure they had another choice.

They vote "no" and then tell us why, in clear and concise language.

Then they argue their case going forward.

Sadly, I think (R) lacks the spine required to do anything of merit or defend anything successfull from a fiscal conservative standpoint. A dying (if not dead) party.

Congrats to the left, you won pretty much a total uncontestable victory. Guessing Obama will get his tax increase on the $250k->$400k crowd before his second term is over as well.

So we have a small (net value) tax increase, and alot more spending. Guess the deficit will wait (I pray it waits long enough for me to retire, get at least something for S.S. before it defaults, and I die off.....).

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

They vote "no" and then tell us why, in clear and concise language.

If they voted "no," we would end up in the same exact spot regardless. We go over the fiscal cliff, and the Democrats in the Senate introduce a new bill today which lowers taxes for the bottom 98%. This passes with flying colors and the end result is exactly the same.

They were trapped in a corner with no leverage. Voting no would have been nothing more than a symbolic gesture, and it would have come at a political price.

So we have a small (net value) tax increase, and alot more spending. Guess the deficit will wait (I pray it waits long enough for me to retire, get at least something for S.S. before it defaults, and I die off.....).

The spending can has been kicked down the road yet again. In my opinion, the Republicans are only marginally concerned about the deficit, much like the Democrats. This was always a battle of keeping the taxes on a specific part of their constituency low.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by parafly

If they voted "no," we would end up in the same exact spot regardless. We go over the fiscal cliff, and the Democrats in the Senate introduce a new bill today which lowers taxes for the bottom 98%. This passes with flying colors and the end result is exactly the same.

Incorrect.

In your hypothetical, the various automatic spending cuts would have gone into effect.

In the case of this deal, they do not. So what we get is higher taxes accross the board (payroll tax increase + >$400k increase + deductions end) and no reduction in spending on any kind. In fact, we have increased spending in a number of places.

They were trapped in a corner with no leverage. Voting no would have been nothing more than a symbolic gesture, and it would have come at a political price.

As explained above, that is not factually correct. In addition, you do not need leverage to vote "no" or "yes" on legislation.

The spending can has been kicked down the road yet again. In my opinion, the Republicans are only marginally concerned about the deficit, much like the Democrats. This was always a battle of keeping the taxes on a specific part of their constituency low.

It certainly appears that way, aye. In which case, the (R) failed almost completely.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Incorrect.

In your hypothetical, the various automatic spending cuts would have gone into effect.

Fair enough, although the automatic spending cuts are still going into effect, there is simply a two month delay now.

It certainly appears that way, aye. In which case, the (R) failed almost completely.

Both parties failed in my opinion. Two months of deadlock and bickering, for nothing but an incomplete deal which could have easily been reached on the first day.

Without serious tax reform, entitlements reform, and defense spending reform, it's tough to label either side as successful in the grand scheme of things.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by parafly

Fair enough, although the automatic spending cuts are still going into effect, there is simply a two month delay now.

I guarantee you they will not go into effect.

And if they do, the vast majority of it will be quicklty undone by a (D) led, Obama supported Bill portraying Obama as a supporter of Defense and a warrior for the poor (i.e. entilements).

Both parties failed in my opinion. Two months of deadlock and bickering, for nothing but an incomplete deal which could have easily been reached on the first day.

Given that (D) got almost every single thing they wanted, I fail to see how their side can be viewed as "failing".

You may disagree with their desire, but that does not equal failing to achieve what they aimed to achieve.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I guarantee you they will not go into effect.

My guess is we'll see some spending cuts defined by the coming debt ceiling debate.

Given that (D) got almost every single thing they wanted, I fail to see how their side can be viewed as "failing".

You may disagree with their desire, but that does not equal failing to achieve what they aimed to achieve.

The Democrats compromised on the 200/250K level for increased income taxes. They also gave in on payroll taxes, although I'm not certain whether that's something they were actually fighting for.

My point was more along the lines of failing the American people, not failing their own agendas.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Given that (D) got almost every single thing they wanted, I fail to see how their side can be viewed as "failing".

Nonsense. The Republicans want out of the sequester deal as badly as the Democrats want out. They can't win re-election if those sweetheart defense contracts in their districts are gone. The Republicans were able to make the Bush tax cuts permanent to almost all of their constituents and were able to keep their ability to fund pork fully intact through defense contracts in place.

There will be a broad deal with the new Congress on the debt ceiling with enough modest cuts for everyone to get a small loaf. Both Banier and McConnell are willing to make a deal and freeze out the Tea Party wing of the party. This is good news all around.