The House has concluded Legislative business for the week. Speaker Boehner could not muster the votes. There is no deal.
Eric Cantor probably played vulture politics, hoping to not get the votes, so he could take the speakership away from Boehner. Can we all say weasel together? I wish I could have seen the fighting. There seems to be a lot of that these days.
So they can all go home and the rest of us will watch our investments circle the drain.
Thanks, MOfo’s. Just what I wanted for Christmas.
How many people in Northern Virginia will lose their jobs right after Christmas? I already know of people who have been laid off from the defense industry. How will that impact the rest of the nation? We are in serious trouble.
Perhaps the American people should hold Congress’s paychecks until they finish their job. They have abrogated their responsibilities.
Clinton, I agree that the high unemployment/underemployment rate among the minority population is a huge concern. Obama hasn’t really addressed it under his presidency- we definitely need to.
Good points on business cycle. It’s likely pretty obvious that I’m not an economist, but from what I’ve read, the Clinton economy was due in large part to the dot-com boom, not supply-side economics.
Stimulus by its nature is designed to be short-term, and also the gains. Also by definition, the times when it’s needed are tight credit times, since the economy is in contraction. I’m not sure how many “growth producers” were in the market for credit in a severe recession to even be in a position to be “adversely affected.” Doesn’t seem logical.
Of course, there’s no way to do a side-by-side comparison with and without to see if the stimulus truly did it’s job, but the economy has been out of recession for over three years, and the missing piece, real estate, is now coming back. It seems to me that the Bush/Obama bail-outs and stimulus worked, and the taxpayer will get pretty close to all their investment back from the bailouts. Not an ideal situation for a free-market economy, but Bush and Obama did what was needed in the extreme conditions they faced.
Middleman, thanks for your reply. Let me clarify a couple of things from my earlier post. First, I said I was not proponent of “supply side” and that is true as far as what this country has adopted. It think “supply side” as it has been used is also too short term and targets the wrong places. One could argue that dot-com grew as a result of favorable rates since money and credit supply was at its peak for start-ups. I haven’t studied that part of it to determine if dot-com was a symptom of growth or a recipient of growth. So why do I think it is too short term?
My opinion may not have other adherents but I believe that tax rates to be effective have to be long term or else they are simply short term stimulus. Stimulus and tax rate reductions are both considered “growth producing” by the way. In addition, I think the targeting of rates is more effective than getting into a p—ing contest over who makes more money. The concentration should have been long term on corporate rates and other incentives to keep companies here. Regardless of how the Supreme Court has ruled, corporations are not human beings. When the titans of industry who were ruthless in business ruled corporations, there was also human good produced since the ones calling the shots occasionally had a heart. But the bottom line of corporations is just that–a bottom line. They strive for reaching and exceeding a goal of return on investment.
So government should use that to their advantage. Outsourcing to another country? Make incentives in the tax code to stay here, after all you are losing their direct taxes anyway. So, lure them back by saying that you will reduce their taxes x percent if they shutter their factories overseas and relocate operations here. Tell them if they buy only American supplies, then it is reduced further.
The taxes on corporations contribute to the relocation overseas (so does labor and materials of course). You might as well collect no corporation taxes for example since you are losing them anyway. People on the other hand can’t easily move overseas so rates on individuals can be raised without the “loss of people.”
Then you have the problems of “pass through” entities, the single proprietor business that may or may not have employees. So establish a tax rate for “pass throughs” that is lower than personal rates and give those entities of choice of which rate to use (it would be more complicated as exemptions and deductions are applied) so don’t be concerned at this point about details since I haven’t developed them yet. After all it is the LLCs and the S-Corps that republicans claim are the jobs producers who are affected by the individual rates (and they are right), but use it as an incentive rather than a yes/no proposition.
Finally, have a longer phase in period for “social” regulations impacting business. Not saying don’t do it, but make it so business can react and actually stay here.
To me, the above represents real “trickle down” or “supply side” that would work. Remember, we are already losing corporate taxes when companies relocate, let’s work the system so they stay here and use our labor and supplies (trickle down).
@Elena
Yep… Obama really wants to compromise.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/too-much-of-nothing.php
Posted on December 22, 2012 by Scott Johnson in Federal Budget, Federal debt and deficit, Fiscal cliff, Obama administration
Too much of nothing
The Wall Street Journal’s reconstruction of Obama’s fiscal-cliff negotiations is accessible online, but is behind the Journal’s paywall subscription. Quotable quote:
Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.
At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”
“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”
I do know what the Senate was going to do. REID SAID IT. I’m not “protecting” any of them. I think that all of Congress should have stayed. But Reid stated that nothing the House put up was going to come to a vote, adjourned, and went home. The House tried to compromise, adjourned, and went home.
My problem with the whole deal is why is the HOUSE negotiating with the President? HE doesn’t write law. The House should be negotiating with the Senate. Because they aren’t, this is all a sideshow.
Clinton- more good points on taxes. As you may recall, bills have been introduced in congress in the past two years to de-incentivize outsourcing. None of them cleared the House. Seems like a no-brainer to me, but the lobbyists have apparently won again.
There’s no question that we need a strong economy, and that strong economy will in some degree benefit most Americans. Of course, taxes are just one part of the equation to get the middle class and poorer class back on its feet. We need to re-develop a manufacturing base with clean energy, etc., invest in our infrastructure, concentrate on proven methods that will educate our inner-city children, revitalize programs to help lower income kids gain access to college or trade schools, and on and on. We really need to get past this constant focus on taxes and deficits and concentrate on growing our economy. If we do, I think the deficit will go away eventually.
Middleman, I agree with all of your points. When people realize that the inner-city and the despair and surrender that comes from the poverty is something that we may not be able to eradicate but we can do a much better job. When things get better there, it makes some social programs unnecessary or at least reduced. But we also have to take the action to reduce or eliminate programs that are no longer necessary. If we don’t, there is not enough money around to add program without reducing less successful ones. That is the crime of overspending–the truly worthwhile doesn’t get the help.
I am not sold on “clean energy” because of two reasons. One, I don’t understand the details of true clean energy. Second, there has not been a good enough explanation of it other than “it is good for us”. I am too much of a cynic to not believe that some stuff is more marketing than real. Also, I am not sure some is ready for prime time. Some still should be in development rather than mass introduced. Some things just take time to develop and to make a market for it. Rushing often results in misspent funding.
I do believe as you do that if we build the economy, the deficits will go down a lot. Of course, that is also a conservative point that republicans failed to explain very well. (Remember Mr. Romney telling people that if we keep taxes low and be mindful of regulation, unemployment will drop leading to higher tax revenue?)
Thanks, Clinton.
Instead of “clean energy,” I should have used the term “renewable energy,” which is less misleading and easier to define. Solar, wind, wave, geothermal, even nuclear fits in my definition. They’re all zero or low CO2 and don’t involve fossil fuels. Some of them still need some development, as you say.
Solar is the big dog right now in my mind. One of the reasons that Solyndra failed is because solar technology is advancing so fast. The cost of solar electricity has fallen precipitously due to scientific and manufacturing gains. It’s not just solar panels, it’s window film, roof shingles, paint and more. We have to think incrementally and get this stuff installed now so we can reduce the load on the power plants.
Speaking of power plants, if the true cost of coal electricity was reflected in the kilowatt-hour costs, solar and wind would be much more competitive. We have hundreds of acres of ash ponds we don’t know what to do with that leak regularly, destroyed mountain ecosystems, millions of tons of CO2 in the air (where it will stay for a long time), etc.
We really need to get started so these technologies can progress and we can create more jobs.
@middleman
You are the very first “renewables” fan that mentions nuclear. Yes to that.
Since everyone is so concerned about the “cliff” and “unfunded” spending…here’s what it would take to actually fund America.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/how_much_taxation_would_fund_current_spending.html
Sez one person.
@Moon-howler
Math is math. We are spending too much to pay for. And Obama wants new spending. He has no intention of reducing the deficit or the debt.
What does that rascal Obama want to spend on now? What new spending. Let’s talk about it.
Just ending wars that cost a billion a week will start weakening that debt.
@Moon-howler
Your graph has new spending on it. Since the Senate refuses to pass or even present a budget, where IS all this spending going?