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.
Asian markets are already down as a result. I say good, let the Defense cuts come and let the Bush tax cuts finally expire. Those of you who want austerity should be cheering, because austerity is coming. But be prepared for our local economy to take a big hit.
Your 401k will suffer a lot also.
People in this area will be out of work.
It makes me totally sick because this is a self inflicted wound by a bunch of dumb asses.
The Republicans are pursuing a shallow, worn-out marketing ploy that had its day, but which is completely irrelevant to current conditions. It reveals the bankruptcy of thought and leadership within my lamented GOP that they cling to this nonsense even in the face of what could prove to be an existential threat to the Nation. That they would do so in utter, reckless disregard for the personal wealth and savings of a lot of hard-working Americans, a good many of whom identify themselves with the Republican Party, makes this disaster all the more reprehensible. Between this and their chasing the toxic false idol of Hispanic bashing instead of devising a workable immigration solution, they have imposed so much self-inflicted harm on the Party that it may take a generation to recover.
It has sure better not count on me, Scout. It’s hard to embrace the Democrats but geez.
I wish I had cash in my investments yesterday. Today I lose them and there is nothing I can do. I guess the rich folks win. The middle class loses.
I can’t disagree with one thing you have said.
@Scout
I agree, Scout. The GOP is in complete disarray. Boehner will be out as speaker, Cantor will be in.
They (conservatives) seem to think that any compromise means that they agree with the other party, when we all know that is not the case. We get it, you don’t believe in raising taxes, but you don’t have to agree with it to allow the winning side to try their governing methods for a change.
Many Democrats weren’t in favor of continued tax cuts, multiple wars, etc., in the 2000’s, but they allowed the winning party to govern. When you don’t do that, our government breaks down.
I think we’re goin’ over the “cliff,” but only briefly. We’ll see how much damage it does…
To illustrate the point further, the bill that the GOP controlled House DID pass yesterday would replace the automatic defense cuts with cuts to home mortgage relief, the child tax credit, food stamps and obesity prevention programs. Are you kidding me? The child tax credit? Right before Christmas? To protect cuts to a military budget that has grown 100% in the past 11 years? Wow!!
I just wish Boehner, Cantor and the others were this fiscally responsible when they were voting for all the spending they want – they have voted for trillions in unfunded programs. And will continue to do so, even while they are cutting school lunches.
They were so sure that the R’s would sweep the election, that they felt that they did not need to do anything before the election. During the R primary season, not one candidate would accept a 10 to 1 (spending to tax) plan – not one! Do I want my taxes to go up – no, but I also do not want people that make more money than me pay less than I do where is the fairness in that. I also do not want to live in a third world country.
Are they trying to tell me that someone like RGIII creates jobs?? Really? But, he has been good for the Redskins (even though the Skins showed it is not just him this past weekend).
I just dont want to look at Canter’s smirking face. He sold out Boehner. He wants to be speaker.
Maybe this means that Boehner is challenged for leadership of the House and a real conservative takes it. 🙂
Okay then….. Its all the GOP’s fault for not passing a bill that the SENATE, controlled by Democrats, stated would not even get a vote. Again the Democrat refusal to compromise or offer plans is ignored.
I KNEW that you were going to blame the GOP.
Of course. Who else would I blame? It has nothing to do with the senate and everything to do with those same goof balls who refused to vote on it a year and a half ago. They are protecting rich people and the rest of us can go to hell.
Cargo, go look at Scout’s words. He is a long time Republican of the regular sort. See what those who have been in the party for years think. Don’t look at the hi-jackers.
@Pat.Herve
I also agree with you Pat. Any successors to Bohner are just as bad. They pay lip service to thrift.
@Moon-howler
I did look at his words. There is an existential threat to the Republic. And its these politicians that refuse to see the writing on the wall. Boehner was caving. He made no argument in favor of his own principles. He sold out everything last time, promising one thing and caving the next. Well, fool me once…..and all that.
Boehner should have stepped down long ago.
So…of course, who else are you going to blame. Not the Democrats in the Senate ruled by do nothing Reid. They have refused to consider any bills that came from the House. They even refused to vote on OBAMA’S bill.
Again…your idea of compromise is “Do it my way.” Where was the compromise in the House Bill? The House votes for higher taxes….just like the Democrats want…and the Democrats compromise on…….what? Nothing. So why should the House pass a bad bill?
Afraid of the “fiscal cliff.” Too bad. Congress passed it and Obama signed it. Live with it.
Of course, they could always, simply repeal it. It IS an artificial construct. But that would remove the other party as a whipping boy.
I say let all the taxes go up. Let the real spending cuts happen. You want the Obama spending? Pay for it.
Cargo, I am speaking of the House. The Republicans in the House. That is where it broke down. You don’t know what the Senate is going to do. You are making up excuses.
Don’t whine when I blame Republicans. They can’;t get together as a caucus and decide what they want. They are all headed home to be with their families. How many of those mofos are millionaires? Why are you protecting them? it makes no sense.
http://qz.com/38584
Argghh!!
Going over the “cliff” is probably the most responsible thing we can do.
For all the weeping and wailing, the sequestration cuts will only amount to approximately 10% of a monstrous defense budget to police the world. And the truth of the matter is that raising the rates on the upper bracket doesn’t raise nearly enough revenue.
If people want Obama-sized government, and they apparently do, then let them be exposed to the true cost of the leviathan.
You got your health care goodies, free lunches, 47 million people on food stamps, etc. Time to pay the piper.
It wont fix it but it will help.
Those free lunches have been in place since right after WWII. That’s hardly a revelation. 47 millon people on food stamps? Probably due to unemployment. I guess adding more unemployment will fix that. Here we go again…let’s blame Obama.
No, not necessarily blaming Obama, but if we all want expensive government then we need to find a way to pay for it. Taxing just the rich doesn’t get us there. Likewise, nibbling around the edges on cuts doesn’t do it either.
The real conversation we need to have is how much healthcare do we want and how much are we willing to pay for it.
Don’t panic and take comfort. The fix is in. Going off the cliff will take us to a place where both parties will start to get serious about addressing problems. If they don’t come to this conclusion by themselves, the market will surely deliver the message.
As far as those without health care…its pay me now or pay me later. right now those without are kill ing us.
Can we afford a recession? Can Northern Virginia afford the lay offs?
Its much easier to pick on medicare and social security.
As many of my friends know, I am both an independent and a “moderate” which means I am conservative in some things and liberal in others.
While you are arguing partisan politics as usual, I believe this lack of vote is more serious than people think it may be. First, it is true that both the senate leaders said that it would not pass the senate and the President has said he would veto it.
The failure to pass the vote even though it was dead on arrival means that the Speaker may not have the ability to negotiate with the President. So, that would be way more serious if you had any hopes of a deal. It would have been far better for the country for the House to vote in favor to give the Speaker a moral victory so the negotiations can continue. After all, it would not have become law anyway.
Now, we have a true stalemate with little ability to negotiate. Well done, Mr. President, House, and Senate. It always seems that they are gambling with our money in Las Vegas and while they get their small early victories, we eventually loss everything at the table.
People should be disgusted at all of them, not just one side or the other. I blame democrats and republicans 100% period. Negotiations often have a lot of bluster but at least each side has the ability to communicate their positions. When a group has defeated the leader of the other side, there often is a lousy end since there is no one to speak for the other side. So well done for your victory that may end up defeating everyone. And yes, I believe democrats had a hand in this defeat as well.
So now, the best bet may be a delay in the cliff for a couple of weeks. Why? Isn’t that kicking the can down the road? Not really. Hasn’t the President already said he didn’t want an extension. Yes but maybe he will see the wisdom. If not, it is real partisan politics at its worst. There will be a new Congress the first week in January. The President and whoever has the positional authority to negotiate could take the final steps on the negotiations and have a different Congress taking it up. So buying time has some real possible benefits to a compromise.
Interestingly, I have been reading that a deal involving maybe half the House republicans and most of the democrats can still be brought about. The most extreme conservatives in the House may have just marginalized themselves out of the conversation. That would be a good thing. Let the tea party congressmen go play outside whilst the adults take care of business.
Donnie Deutsch summed up the Republican Party today with “help, I’ve fallen and I can’t get up”.
There was a negotiation going on between the President and the Speaker. The President had compromised on some issues as negotiations progressed. The speaker for some reason decided to try to pass a partisan bill in the House that had no chance in the Senate. He failed, severely wounding himself in the process, and then the House left town.
I’m not sure what part you can blame on the President. Maybe that he didn’t give in on taxes after he won the election on that issue and the clear majority of the American public are behind him?
The President was already getting himself in some trouble even thinking about putting social security out there. Why is it that anything having to do with the seniors always surfaces? Big Mistake. Baby boomers. Huge population of them. They vote. Obama is safe, for now.
@middleman
Middleman, if you are asking me, then I would say that neither party represented by the President and the Speaker has done much of anything. Even though I can only go on press reports and statements from the White House, not being privy to the actual offers, a “balanced” approach would be presented as “we need to change the amount of money available to the tune of $2 trillion, half of which will come from revenue and half from spending cuts.” Offering $1.2 trillion in revenue and only $900 billion in cuts does not sound “balanced” to me. Especially since about $300 billion of the “spending cuts” came from interest savings, a claim that I don’t believe since we are still borrowing money regardless.
Don’t forget that the President campaigned and won on more than “just a little” higher taxes for the rich, he also promised a balanced approach which most Americans supported. That is why he won, not just the “little bit more”.
So if the President was not also playing politics, he should have presented a plan that was closer to equal than 60-40 split. He could have presented $1.05 trillion in revenue and $1.05 trillion in spending cuts (much of which would be in areas the other side wanted to protect). At least then one could have a discussion about how those numbers should be adjusted.
If he was playing politics, then I can’t avoid giving him part of the blame. I am today coming down on laying part of the blame on him. It is December 21 after all–a month and a half after the election.
The House Republicans are beginning to remind me of the kid who decides to hold his breath until he turns blue if his demands aren’t met. Same mentality.
Why shouldn’t interst savings be considered a cut? Less borrowed money means less interest that needs to be paid.
What is the interest savings on? Are we speaking of home mortgages and ssecond trusts?
wasn’t it Romney, Ryan AND the Republicans that were complaining that Obama had cut $700 Billion from Medicare?? and that they were going to replace (even thought the Ryan budget called for the same cuts.
Remember also that the fallback of the democrats during the election was the same idea as was in Plan B. That was to preserve the cuts for everyone except those above $1 million. From the Daily Caller–
“In 2011, Schumer told Politico that “drawing the line at $1 million is the right thing to do.” But the New York senator told reporters at a press conference Wednesday that things have changed since then.”
What changed? The election. So now it isn’t the “right thing to do”. I was always taught that the “right thing to do” rarely changes. It is either right or not right.
If we are speaking of moral issues, perhaps. Otherwise, “right thing to do” is relative.
Just a little speculation here, but who among us thinks hanging Boehner out to dry might have been political payback? Wasn’t it just a couple of weeks ago that the Speaker removed conservatives from some key House committees?
It will be interesting to see if Boehner throws conservatives a bone in the next couple of days, or instead doubles down by making a deal with the democrats.
His own party did that to him.
@Starryflights
It has about the same standing as the republicans who were bashed during the election for saying that revenue would rise without affecting rates by concentrating on lowering unemployment and underemployment, thus raising the number of taxpayers and having higher wages for increase.
If you believe either, then I have some land I have that I can guarantee will make you rich if you buy it from me.
I am not sure why some people are afraid of saying the both sides deserve blame, which was my only point. Good grief!
The Democrats didn’t flippantly announce they were done for the week. Somehow the fact that those Republicans went home …makes them very much at fault.
The fact that those same Republicans are protecting the very wealthy and are still slaves of Grover Norquist because they are afraid they will be primaried puts them at fault. Not all Repubkicans are at fault. just many.
Clinton, I agree with your point that both sides play politics. I’ll even agree with you that Obama uses some questionable numbers. The President IS a politician, after all…
My point was that the President WAS negotiating in good faith to try to reach a deal and the other side (Boehner) just broke it off and did something silly. That’s why, in this instance, the “blame” is clearly on the GOP.
I do not understand why people think that they are entitled to have their taxes remain constant while those for others (i.e. the wealthy) should rise. The government tries to use the tax code for goals other than simply raising revenue, but, in the end, these attempts usually fail.
If the government needs to increase revenue, then it should raise the tax rates for everybody– at least that would get a larger percentage of Americans paying taxes. If the goal is to spur the economy, then it should give all tax payers a tax cut.
I do not think that pitting one group of Americans against another will unify the nation and lead to solutions on difficult issues that everyone can accept, even if they still disagree.
Are you a 1%-er?
Obviously 20% hits me harder than 20% hits someone making a million a year. We have always had tax tiers. What I don’t understand it why you would try to protect the very wealthy. They already have tax breaks I don’t have.
Why do you want to even up earnings taxes? Why do you want the wealthy to pay less than I pay?
Excuse me, but Obama handing over cuts to social security was about as compromising as I have seen a Democrat do, and what did Boener do, kick him in the teeth with are bill that had not chance of passing and he knew it. Stupid games, and people wonder what is wrong with our society, geez, look no further than congress.
Obama and thus the democrats will lose some support for doing that also. SS is sacred. Entitlement my ass.
Because we are still in a recession Kelly, barely keeping our heads above water, those who can SHOULD and those making more than 400 grand a year…..SHOULD!
@kelly_3406
Kelly – and there in lies the misunderstanding – for the tax brackets, we all pay the same rate within those brackets – ie, 17k and below 10%, 17K to 70K 15%,70-142K 25%, etc. So, everyone benefits by not raising those rates, even those who earn $100 Million pay the same rate within the bracket. The higher rate is on the income After the 250K level – and that is AGI – meaning, that someone could be making alot more money that 250K before they would pay a penny more in tax.
if the Bush tax cuts were so wonderful, why didn’t the Republican controlled Congress make it permanent?
why not just cut taxes to zero, like it was for many years?
@Elena
What is the basis for your belief about what the wealthy SHOULD do? It’s not in the Talmud or Bible that the rich should pay a higher percentage. This idea was not advocated by John Locke. It is certainly not a universally agreed principle that the feds should confiscate a greater percentage of one’s earnings if (s)he is very successful.
@Pat.Herve
I understand all that. Nothing new there, but we all know that raising the highest rates will do very little in terms of generating more revenue. So the idea to raise the rates for the highest tax brackets seems overly punitive and divisive without really accomplishing anything.
Kelly,
Mitt Romney DOESN’T pay as much, that is my point!
I was listening to the news conference where Boehner laughed off Senator Ried’s comment suggesting someone tell him his plan b was DOA. Boehener scoffed at the suggestion and told the reporters that harry ried couldn’t be more wrong. Amazing how 24 hours makes a difference, crow really tastes like crap I imagine. Boehner is playing a childish game and we all will pay.
John Locke does discuss the purpose of government and the needs of government to funtion in order to promote the health of its people. He doesn’t break it down specifically, but certainly, as with much of his work, their is room for interpretation. I would say if your society is struggling and the social contract requires more from some, there is no language that does not support that goal.
As far as the Talmud is concerned, throughout Jewish law there is a requirement to feed the poor to give to those in need. So not sure what you are suggesting here.
@Moon-howler
Cargo, I am speaking of the House. The Republicans in the House. That is where it broke down. You don’t know what the Senate is going to do. You are making up excuses.
Don’t whine when I blame Republicans. They can’;t get together as a caucus and decide what they want.
And I’m speaking of the Senate where Reid stated in no uncertain terms that anything coming from the House would not be voted on. So, if this HAD PASSED, it would STILL be dead.
As for not getting the caucus to go along…sorry, the GOP is not a top down, do what I say organization like the Democrats. Your guys will do anything to gain and keep power. Principles be damned.
They aren’t MY guys. I don’t belong to a party. I gave that up about 20 years ago.
They are all posturing. I hear Boehner say he wouldnt compromise with Obama. (and vice versa) They both did.
@Clinton S. Long
Well said! Bravo!
@Moon-howler
Yes, they did. Reid announced that nothing would get voted on and left.
@Elena
Still in a recession? Not according to the liberals. Obama’s plan is working and we’re roaring back…just ask him.
No one ever said roaring. creeping back is more like it.
cargo, do believe that is why plan b failed ?
@Elena
Plan B was not passed by the Republicans because Boehner has lost the trust of his fellow Republicans. He caved and accepted Pelosi’s plan. Plan B was perfectly fine with the Democrats last year. Conservatives were voted into office in 2010 because the current crop of politicians are only interested in who gets to spend money.
But Plan B is moot. Senator Reid announced in no uncertain terms that the Senate would not take up the House plan at all; it would NOT come up for a vote. They treated it like 36 jobs bills sent to the Senate. And Reid knows that the propaganda arm of the Democratic party will not blame him…even when he refused to even consider the President’s plan. I don’t think Reid wants ANY plan. He doesn’t care about the “cliff.” The Democrats want the “tax hike” on the rich only to get the Republicans to cave, repudiated their base and principles, and “admit” that a tax hike on the rich is necessary because this lack of taxation is the cause of all our problems. Its politics.
Plan B, Plan C, whatever- the GOP is stuck. You just can’t make the numbers work on reducing the deficit without added revenue, and the majority of republicans have signed a pledge to a dorky guy with a scruffy beard to never do that.
The tax cuts passed by Bush were temporary for a reason. It was acknowledged that they were only passed because we had a surplus. As you may know, we don’t anymore.
Kelly, I agree in principle with your fairness issue regarding raising tax rates on over $250K income. However, fraught times call for fraught measures, and strictly budgetarily speaking, the tax increase makes sense. Raising taxes on those below that number will result in decreased consumer spending, generally speaking, and there’s much less of that effect on the post-250K tax. We need to keep consumer spending up to keep out of recession. The money raised is not inconsequential as you say- it’s $800 billion over 10 years.
As a fairness issue, I would argue that a better way to increase revenue would be to increase capital gains tax rate so that interest income is taxed the same as earned income, but that’s apparently off the table. It seems pretty unfair that a working stiff is taxed at a much higher rate than a multi-millionare- I don’t think that’s in the Bible, either
I am really glad it is off the table. I agree with you about practicality but most of us can’t absorb that kind of hit. I think a better proposition for everyone would be for those who capital gains under $250k, keep things as they are. Increase it a bit more for those who are hauling it in. I don’t think we want to discourage private investment. Let’s be blunt…with social security being on the chopping block, older Americans will need incentives to save their own money for retirement. Cutting them out of capital gains discourages savings. 401K is really a horrible plan. Has anyone else noticed?
When you start pulling out your money, it is taxed as income. In Virginia, you get taxed at 24% right off the bat.
@middleman
Let’s assume your numbers are correct. The new tax rates will raise $800B over the DECADE, which is small compared to $10T in new debt expected over the same period if deficits continue at >$1T per year. The higher tax rate would therefore raise less than 10% of the yearly deficit, and so I stand by my statement that this would accomplish very little.
If we want to tinker with the capital gains tax rate, let’s discuss it. That too would hit the middle class and it could also discourage investment at a time that we want to build the economy. Keeping taxes low for investors may not be in the Bible, but it is a cornerstone of supply-side economics for generating economic growth and increasing revenue for the government.
And we all know supply side economics works, don’t we? NOT
the Bush tax cuts were a stimulus program – and they were temporary because they were Not Deficit neutral – when it was passed, it was known to add to the debt.
Yes, our spending has gone up, that is what does happen in a recession – the Government spends more. But, the R’s have only found the stop spending Religion once Obama was elected into office – and they still continue to spend on their own pet projects. Neither side wants to cut any spending.
Look at the Tank Manufacturer – DoD says we need no tanks, yet we are spending money to keep the manufacturing line moving. F135 engine – why two designs?, etc.
Too bad they didn’t discover that mantra before Obama. How convenient. Not having credit card wars would have been a good thing.
Grover Norquist cultists need to resign. We aren’t in a Grover Norquist economy. All the shaving down should wait until times are better. You don’t cut back like that in the middle of a recovery.
Again, Congress is a bunch of rank amateurs.
Obama has been trying to come up with some sort of grand bargain since he got into office – – but has been thwarted at every turn. Even the Deficit Commision, of which the R’s participated in, but then would not support. The Gang of 6 – and the R’s will not support. The R’s need to get off of this no tax rising no matter what pledge, and compromise.
Does the Norquist pledge say anything about unfunded spending?? No, it just says do not raise any taxes, it says nothing about reigning in spending. Pay as you Go – a Democratic sponsored idea. the D’s have blame on all this spending also – Congress Spends.
The wealthy and corporations find ways around taxing authorities all over the world, they have the power to manipulate their income so that it is tax advantaged, defer income, etc – all the while, the worker bee pays more as a percentage in taxes than they do. Just because they are wealthy, they get to pay 15%, while I pay 25%. Make it a flat tax – we all pay 20%, no deductions. That is more fair, as this progressive tax system that we have is not progressive.
@kelly_3406
Your reply reinforcing your statement that $800 billion would accomplish very little is predicated on deficits continuing to be 1 trillion a year, which I don’t think will be the case as the economy continues to improve. Economists are now indicating that 2013 looks good for strong growth as long as the fiscal cliff is dealt with.
As for supply-side economics generating economic growth, the question is- growth for whom? We’ve steadily reduced taxes on the higher-end incomes for over 30 years with questionable benefit at best for the rest of Americans. The average middle-class household income when adjusted for inflation and number of employed in the home has dropped a good bit over that same period. Redistribution of wealth works in both directions.
I don’t think we should soak the rich or anyone else, but a strong middle class has been the economic driver for our economy since WW II and we need to make sure that continues for the country to prosper.
Actually, supply side (of which I am not a proponent) may actually work. Many people don’t care to understand business cycle in economics. Technically, under business cycle, the conditions post 2008 can be attributed to the period of 9/11 and shortly after. Rarely will anything happen one way or the other in a macro sense for 7-10 years after it was put into effect. The Reagan tax cuts may well have helped create the Clinton boom. And Clinton’s policies may well have adversely affected the end of his second term which as people should recall showed the economy to be splintering substantially in the last few months before the Bush II years.
Short term gains are not sustainable which is why stimulus programs are used as a stopgap to halt decline but they do not create long term growth. For example, targeting construction trades through infrastructure programs in stimulus provides a lot of jobs but their duration is sometimes 60 days or less.
But the stimulus programs enacted post 2008 were not successful for longer term stability because (1) they were not enough to stem the tide (the decline was too strong in other words as most economists felt at the time) and (2) one of the root causes of 2008 was an overly tight credit scenario. Borrowing additional money for stimulus in tight credit meant that the US was swallowing more of the tight credit leaving growth producers without capital to actually create growth. So, any better results were adversely affected by the tight credit being wound even tighter.
I am extremely concerned about a statistic that is really troubling and that is the inordinately high unemployment/underemployment rate among the minority population compared to others. That is both a economic disaster as well as a social one.
By the way, that was not written to praise Reagan and bash Clinton or vice versa. Much of what Clinton did in his term showed up later in Bush II as a second boom. It is a caution that changing policies too quickly could have a roller coaster effect in both the short and long term, but real result may not show up for years.
The point wasn’t “who was in office” but only illustrative of the time periods so people should reflect on the impact of business cycles when laying blame or giving praise. Not committing to an approach when the economy cycles down or when the economy rises will only cause quicker and sharper fluctuations.
And neither the President or Congress can do their own.
“And neither the President or Congress can do IT ON their own”