Getty Images
By the time Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell turned to Vice President Biden as his new negotiating partner, one thing was clear: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had simply run out of counteroffers. Democrats had gone as far as they could go, and Republicans weren't willing to say, "Yes."
Just how far had Reid gone in making concessions? For one thing, the income threshold for higher rates was moved up from $250,000 to $400,000 (or depending on which insider account you believe, $450,000). For another, Democrats had also largely caved on estate taxes, raising the eligibility threshold and accepting a lower rate.
Both of these concessions, it's worth emphasizing, would mean far less deficit reduction -- the ostensible point of this exercise. The tradeoffs are a reminder that when Republicans say they're desperate to address the debt, they really don't mean it. Democratic proposals do far more to reduce the fiscal shortfall than GOP alternatives -- and Republicans are the ones who pretend to see a "debt crisis."
As if this weren't enough, Democrats were also offering to accept these terms without a debt-ceiling increase. Instead, all Dems would get in return are measures that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support: middle-class tax breaks, extended jobless aid, and temporary fixes on AMT and Medicare reimbursement rates.
Democrats are even prepared to postpone the sequester, a policy Republicans say they're desperate to avoid.
It's unclear why McConnell wasn't prepared to accept this overly generous package, but whatever the motivation, it's unlikely Republicans will get a better offer later in the week if the deadlines go unmet and Democratic numbers in both chambers improve.
So what more do GOP leaders hope to get out of the process? McConnell reportedly wants a $550,000 income threshold for higher rates (which would mean less deficit reduction) and lower rates on capital gains (which would mean less deficit reduction).
What's more, dealing with the sequester is proving to be surprisingly complicated.
CNN learned on Sunday from Democratic and Republican senators that Democrats at one point suggested postponing or delaying the sequester for one or two years. Republicans exiting their caucus meeting Sunday afternoon, including Snowe and Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee indicated the idea was a non-starter with their party, largely out of fear that the sequester delay would not be offset and would add to the deficit.
It's difficult to understand exactly what Republicans are trying to do here. On the one hand, they want higher deficits by shielding the wealthy from higher tax rates, and on the other hand, they say they want lower deficits by keeping a sequester policy they simultaneously say they oppose.
One of the reasons the talks have gone so poorly is that GOP officials never actually got around to crafting a specific plan or setting clear parameters of which goals they found worthwhile.
Regardless, everything is quickly coming to a tipping point. McConnell and Vice President Biden were reportedly negotiating until midnight, and in about a half-hour, Harry Reid will reportedly come to the Senate floor and offer the political world an update, and perhaps even a roadmap of what happens next.
Update: Reid did, in fact, speak at 11, but didn't have much to report. Discussions "continue" and there are "a number of issues on which the two sides are still apart." He added, "There are still some issues that need to be resolved before we can bring legislation to the floor."
Leave a Comment:
But they DO have a policy- protect wealthy American's taxes at any cost.
It really is just that simple.
That's been their plan throughout the last four years, that was Mr. Romney's main plan as a presidential candidate, and that is the Republican's plan now.
It has been their plan for a lot longer than that. That plan has more visibility now in this climate of increasing the quarterly dividend or die. Some in the Republican Party will not be happy until ALL vestiges of the New Deal and Great Society are removed.
And Obama has done and will continue to do everything he can to keep the rightwing lurch moving forward.
The Republicans are doing their usual job: Lying about their interest in the debt and deficit and protecting the wealthy. Period. Keeping a glut of military spending on things we do not need or want, and keep the deficit high as a result. Period. That's their idea of a good deal. Not one thing they propose will help the country or the deficit, or the unemployed, or the poor, or the working class, or the seniors or anyone else but the richest Americans.
I wish Obama would just tell them to Pi#@ off, and go over the cliff. There's no good deal going to be struck with these vultures. The president has a daunting task ahead of him and I hope he is up to it. I have no confidence in that, however. Where's LBJ when you need him?
Kicking the can down the road is the worst possible outcome, short of a bad deal. That's what I am currently expecting. They'll kick it down the road to fight and embarrass us yet another day.
This seems to be the basic GOP plan:
1) Make sure the rich keep all their money and only redistribute to their children (if they even want that),
2) make sure no money is "wasted" on the poor (or the old or the disabled or children or anyone else who isn't currently capable of being worked to death) and
3) make sure that the middle class is desperate for whatever work at whatever pay (safety nets and bargaining power are not good for businesses trying to hire cheaply.) (The corollary to this is to eradicate most of the middle class and reinstate serfdom.)
Unfortunately, these ideas tend to be rather unpopular to most voters, so the idea is to disenfranchise as many voters as possible and lie to the rest.
The dems always cave and give the rich what they want. They are as bad as the teapubs. They fight and take postures just to look good and then give them a good chunk of what they want.
The Republican plan is: the Democrats will cave. Because they are invertebrate.
Protect the rich and kill the New Deal (i.e., kill the poor)
Looks real bad, TC,
President Obama, I will never forgive you for this. I have never been this angry at the government.
None of these tax cuts will help the deficit reduction. Shame on you for letting these extremists run our country instead of what we elected you to do!! Shame! The minority still rules and they are morons and greedy vultures!
A pox on both your damn houses. Screw all of you. I will never vote again and I mean that. Why bother, it makes no damn difference with these T-Party people running the country into the ground no matter who you vote for.
The defence spending stands as is and that is the worst offender. You are a pi## poor commander in chief to allow that to stand and screw over the poor and the elderly. Disgusting.
After reading what the dems are negotiating away , they might as well trot obama out to announce we are cutting food stamps to try and balance the budget , because that is basically what we are coming away with
And just like last year , obama and the dems will vote for the bloated military budget and not even blink , the gop know this , that is why they refuse to address the sequester , they will get back military spending with out a fight
The fact I vote dems makes me want to puke right now , write and call your dem reps , but I doubt it will do any good
Knobson,
Obama already caved in to the wealthy's demands via the GOP, and we STILL went over the cliff. It's now up to OVER $450,000.00 a year, not $250,000.00.
The T-party had their way on quite a bit of this mess, including the BLAME for it in the first place!
The reason the Republicans are having such "a hard time" doing anything is because they actually want this damn thing to kick in...
They get stuff they want (entitlement cuts) and stuff they might not want but know they need (defense cuts, Taxes) and get to pawn off most of the blame and then come back and vote for a huge "Tax Cut" and rearrange the books they way they and their contributors like them.
The only way the Republicans will be able to get any tax reduction bill through the Senate, is if it's Middle Class tax cut, only. Clean, and no provisions for the over $250K crowd.
Democrats will have no qualms about letting a tax increase stand, and can basically thwart the Republicans plan to lower taxes on the wealthy even if the Republicans dangle the middle class on the same stick.
So, they are petty much stuck.
No these are all pretty shady characters and there's always a dirty deal to be made...
My guess is Chain CPI will be back, and something on the payroll tax cut...and the inheritance tax at a minimum
Knobson . . . I wish that Obama and the Democrats would have enough backbone to "basically thwart the Republicans plan to lower taxes on the wealthy."
Unfortunately, it appears that they've already caved in by raising the threshold to $400K or $500K. In effect, if you're not a 1) professional athlete, 2) movie star, 3) high level executive in a Fortune 500 corporation, or 4) trust fund baby, then you're not going to be paying higher tax rates on those marginal dollars of income.
Just for once, it would have been nice if Obama would go to the mat for something--or someone--in which he truly believes. It's pretty obvious that this won't be the time.
mpguy...I am just devastated. I cannot believe Obama has let it come to this. I am furious with them all. Why did we bother to reelect him when the T-Party still runs the show. The T-party, Grover Norquist, and the likes of Michele Bachmann are now running the country. WTF?
Setting the ceiling at $450,000.00 just to strike a bad deal? WTF? That's not debt reduction. Cut the defence budget!!! Keep it at $250,00.00!!
We're in "wait and see" mode.
I doubt this will get far, with some Demcrat Senators already futzin' over the details, even if they come on board, this will never get past the House, because there's "free stuff" in there. (ie, unemployment insurance)
If it isn't painfully clear as of now, McConnell has Grover on the phone threatening him with being primaried, and Tea Party Senators jumping ship, and dragging the more moderate ones with them, fearing the same thing.
It's astounding that one man, not even an elected representative, has this much pull, and instills such fear. That's the real villain here, and we could go on about it all day, but the fact remains, one guy is controlling everything the Republicans do.
There is no "Republican Leadership."
They dug themselves into this hole with absolutely no way out, except to stick to their guns and let it fall on the middle class like a 500T block falls on Wiley Coyote, only it's not @!$%#ing funny.
For four years Obama has let the inmates run the asylum. Time to make them pay with the American people. Enough "bipartisan" crapola, time to illuminate the opposition and use a billion Executive Orders. He is a communist usurper to these goombahs no matter how you cut it, so there is nothing to lose.
LDude, you scare me. Please recall the checks-n-balance approach of our federal govt. I wouldn't want any President (Dem or Repub) to govern through Executive Orders as a way to bypass Congress. That is scary.
And it still amazes me how many people on this blog are willingly demanding that the govt take more of their paychecks instead of strongly opposing uncontrolled spending. Unbelievable.
Don't forget, we are all in this together.
Love and Peace, take your brain-dead hippy-dippy b.s. and stick it back up where the sun doesn't shine, you moron.
@L&P -- please specify what "uncontrolled spending" you mean. Obama has been very fiscally conservative -- adding less spending to the books than any GOP president in a long long time. I look at the defense budget and corporate welfare as the big problem areas. I disagree that entitlement programs are the problem. And it seems that spending is actually needed to get the economy really back on track.
And, while you make a good point about checks&balances, it seems that W changed the executive powers considerably, and, with Congress unable to function, only the executive branch has any hope of keeping things in shape.
Another alternative is, I suppose, arrest recalcitrant GOP congressmen as economic terrorists and go forward without them. I'm somewhat unhappy with that concept, as I am sure you would be. But there should be a point beyond which obstruction is not tolerated, a point where the determined failure to do the work should result in loss of employment and possible criminal charges.
Love and Peace: Ahh... the checks and balances... Like the fillibuster, right? The Founding Fathers surely wanted that, right? How about a government shutdown over funding to Planned Parenthood? How about an artificial debt ceiling crises? How about death panels, it's just "checks and balances" when one party decides to lie right through it's teeth, right? Glad to see I "scare" you. I am a Merchant Of The Truth, so folks like you should be scared...
Love & Peace --
Shrub managed to do a great deal (of damage) with his Unitary Executive and Presidential Signing Statements. Odd that our current POTUS doesn't opt to govern that way. Note that he's already flatly excluded the 14th Amendment 'solution' to the debt limit.
Uncontrolled spending? Do you even read anything but RWNJ talking points? Take a look at the chart at the top of the blog (as of 12N EST). The spending you decry took place thanks to Shrub and his fellow republicons: the irresponsible tax-cuts, the undeclared and unpaid-for wars, and the Medicare Part D- deal with Big Pharma, also unpaid-for. Presidents don't spend, Congresses do (check your unread copy of the US Constitution): but did Shrub fight any of those big-3 deficit busters? He did not. He wanted them. Politically, he thought he needed them.
Please wake up. The regular posters on this Blog are serious, and thanks in part to Steve Benen and Rachel, they care greatly about the facts.
That is all.
YES!
Should it be pointed out here that Executive Orders only pertain to currently existing law and they are limited in their size and scope and the Supreme Court is allowed to veto or overturn any and all Executive Orders it finds to be unconstitutional or outside of the boundaries of currently existing law? Should it also be mentioned that you're obfuscating responsibility here by pretending like congress couldn't fix this problem by, you know, passing laws? And should it also be pointed out that people here don't mind their taxes going up because they legitimately care about the national debt and deficit, but that they simultaneously refuse to have cost-cutting measures from the government fall disproportionately on the poor and defenseless of our society?
Way to strawman your opposition and the issue at hand L&P
Cartoony, good to hear from you again. When I mentioned uncontrolled spending, I do include more than just entitlement programs. In other words, there are more areas that should have spending cut than just entitlement programs. As I've said before, I'm in favor of some small tax increases but healthy spending cuts have to be involved as well. And, lets start focusing on getting people back to work so tax revenues can rise without the need for new tax legislation. The Prez and his men/women are solely (and foolishly) focused on raising taxes as if it will meaningfully contribute to debt reduction.
And don't forget the middle class -- they don't get free handouts and unlike the rich they are too poor to retire young.
And, some of the 47% that do not pay federal income taxes should either (a) pay at least something in income tax since they use/benefit from federal services, or (b) be encouraged to return to the workforce by cutting their govt handouts -- some folks are just mooches (I admit it will take effort to rightfully identify those that are able bodied but it is a task worth taking on nonetheless).
We're already doing that. Most estimates, however, state that we will not be out of this recession until 2016 at least. That's how huge the hole was in our economy. The only way to put people back to work that would be better would be a second round of stimulus. I am OK with this as long as it gets spent on fixed assets or tangible assets. Spending money on fixed assets would do the best for deficit reduction out of all these measures, but it would not lead to an immediate return. That's because we'd be increasing the value of each dollar instead of depending on more dollars to be circulated within the economy and/or to be traded internationally for the value to go up. The latter two will happen over time as well, yes, but the increase won't be nearly as significant. My suscipision though is that the Republicans would be horrendously opposed to fixed asset or tangible asset stimulus and thus we have the fed doing things like purchasing 90% of the bonds that came due in order to keep interest rates at almost 0% (which is HORRIBLE considering how many baby boomers we have going into retirement). But that's a whole other conversation.
The bottom line is there are no spending cuts that people are going to agree to. Democrats aren't going to agree to spending cuts that hurt the middle class and poor (I agree) and Republicans aren't going to agree to spending cuts that end subsidies to the wealthy, businesses, and/or spending cuts to unnecessary programs like many of those within the DoD. The emphasis on spending cuts is a non-starter and it has always been seen as such by the GOP. Even if we were to agree on spending cuts that the GOP want us to agree on that would more than likely blow a hole in our already over-bloated deficit. Cutting food stamps, social security, etc. will only result in larger deficits.
....I don't even know where to start with this. So you're under the impression that 47% of Americans aren't currently working and that everyone who is working isn't receiving government benefits? And what government benefits would you cut to "encourage" them to go back to work? What evidence do you have that cutting any government program actually causes someone to go back to work?
And, for the record, the Great Depression happened because 20% of Americans were out of work. Yes, yes, we have 47% of Americans who aren't working which is why our economy has entirely collapsed.... C'mon now. You can't be serious here.
Do I really need to explain that just because someone doesn't pay income taxes doesn't mean they aren't financing spending at the federal level and thus are contributing to deficit reduction? Do I really need to explain that they aren't paying income taxes because they don't make enough money and that under GW Bush the amount of those not paying income taxes was 35% and that we've only increased that- even by using the outdated 47% number- by 10 points? Do I really need to explain that this post of you complaining that people need to contribute more to the national deficit (as if they aren't already) is in blatant contradiction to your initial post in which you stated that everyone should be outraged over the idea of tax increases?
Let me ask you something. You talk about the middle class not being given free handouts. If 47% of Americans aren't working in your mind then exactly who is the middle class in your mind?
Cartoony, I have no clue how you sincerely read my post to mean that we have 47% unemployment. We dont. It is closer to 7.7% or something around there.
But I am saying that 47% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes, for various reasons. And some of this 47% do work full time jobs and should pay something toward taxes as opposed to $0.00. BTW it was Bush that cut taxes for lowest incomes from a 15% to a 10% rate, which goes to show that at least some Repubs care about the plight of the poor. As to some (not all but some, so please dont misinterpret) of the 47% that are lazy and not inspired , to look hard for a job b/c they receive unemployment benefits by doing nothing, reduce or eliminate their benefits and they are encouraged to seek and obtain gainful employment.
Because you stated and some of the 47% who don't pay income taxes need to have their government programs cut so that they'll go back to work. They are already working. People can work 2 full time jobs at minimum wage or below minimum wage (such as waiters/waitresses) and make so little that they cannot pay income taxes. Why you'd automatically lump those who don't pay with the unemployed does not make sense.
But this is what you seem to not understand. Everyone pays taxes. You are merely talking about the income tax. That is just one of many taxes that people pay. They don't pay income taxes because they pay payroll taxes and those taxes are used to directly fund social security, medicare, and other government assistance programs. In fact the majority of those programs are not funded by income taxes. And the taxes that everyone pays go to pay for the national deficit/debt. Even if we get unemployment back to where it was under Bush (an average of 5%) that will still put us back to the Bush era of those who paid versus did not pay- 35% at the height of economic growth under the Bush Administration.
And again I ask how can you make one post stating that you're shocked Democrats aren't fighting to keep their taxes from going up while you're here, simultaneously, arguing that people's taxes go up...
The maximum you can receive in unemployment is $1,200/mo and that's if you're a family of 4 or more. You must submit information weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly (pending the state) proving that you are looking for a job. Additionally a great number of those on unemployment have fallen off- we only extended 99 week unemployment 2x (that has since expired). If people aren't able to find a job this is due to the economic situation. There aren't enough jobs available for people to become employed. And even if someone does that doesn't mean that person will be making enough to pay income tax. But beyond this: provide evidence that cutting unemployment equates to more people getting jobs.
Cartoony, yes I am only talking about federal income tax. Why am I talking only about that particualr tax? Beacuse that is the focus of the article, that is the focus of Congress, it is the current focus of every adult in our nation, and it is the sole topic of every post made in response to this article. So don't get all up in my grill about focusing on just one tax.
On to better things....glad Congress cut taxes yesterday for most Americans. It sure was better than everyone getting tax increases...well, actually every wage earner is getting a tax increase from 4.2% to 6.2% which equates to a $200 increase for every $10,000 of gross wages. Plus we pay more in taxes b/c Medical Spending Accounts were reduced from $6k cap to a $2.5k cap...which means more of our income is taxed by the feds. Plus deducting medical expenses went from 7.5% of AGI to 10% of AGI which means more of our income is being taxed by the feds....wow, it seems the feds just like to keep taxing us wage earners. Oh and the medical device companies are hit with a tax too...when will reducing spending be focused on by this Administration?
One last note, in reading the text of the new bill (HR 8 EAS) I discovered tha charitable rollovers have been extended for 1 year plus applied retroactively for 2012 IRA distributions plus a brief "make up window" for 2012 exists up to Feb 1st. So that is good news we can all celebrate.
Until the Republican party, its leaders, and its brand square with the American public and begin to offer just what they stand for from their own mouths, we will continue on this trajectory of bad faith politics into the foreseeable future!
We need the Republican brand to fess up to just what they think ought to be!
First its death panels - no one in their right mind would wrap themselves around such balderdash, but the Tea Party did!
Next up, socialism the label for what was in essence a privatized mandate for health insurance - Through the Looking Glass moment complete with Republicans claiming Pres. Obama gutting Medicare by $716 billion!
How about holding American financial ratings hostage once, and now set to do it again!
Hey McConnell and Boehner, we can't tell which Americans you represent - seems not to be your constituents who elected you, so who are the ones you find more important than those we call Middle Class Americans?
I've lost patience with all things Republican! -Kevo
Kevo, I feel the international corporate interests are the manipulators behind the scenes. And what better country to tighten their economic stronghold on than America. America is not broke. It's just that the majority of America's capital has been funneled into the hands of a few.
The Tea Party is their only electorate voice. And they are a sad sight indeed. They make a strong presence in my rural area, where everyone knows everyone, and I can tell you they are a combination of low information voters, extreme evangelists, and what resembles "Wife Beaters Club of America". Some are extreme ideological, some are consumed with hate and the longing to hurt others, and some just want to belong to something.
The Republican party is not alone in fault for creating this extreme partisanship. Democrats in urban areas have dominated the local politics. Poorer, less populated rural areas get shafted.
Through urban control over state appropriations and policies, my county now has one of our nation's highest percentage of registered violent offenders against women and children. Urban areas protect their own with local policies that have forced these perpetrators to the less powerful rural areas. As if our children are less important...
It happens at the county level too. The county pushed to have a new allocated low income housing project located into my immediate area. This housing project would have approximated 15% of our population. What were we supposed to do with that many? We don't have job opportunities up here. There was a strong admirable fight from our locals, and the county was unsuccessful.
So if some are wondering why rurals are strong willed and resent the urban areas... take a look around. We deserve the same considerations as the powerful populous of the metros. And if they want to understand where the RW rural concept of "everyone's on their own" comes from, perhaps they should take a look at themselves for once.
I've lost faith in the whole shebang. I give up on all of these politicians. That includes our spineless president. Nothing is ever going to fix this country. We are headed for fascism. We are headed for another recession. We are headed for big trouble now. The nightmare scenario of postponing all this is throwing the ball into the T-Party's court.
How could you do this, President Obama? How could you? Why would you?
I am with India right now , how can we blame the gop , when the dems give them cover over and over again ,basically allowing them , the minority , to govern america in the most inept fashion possible ?
If dems stood up to the gop , which polls show the majority of people want to happen , ( a long with the last election ) , THAT would put the GOP in their place .....If DC dems did that for the next 2 and 4 years , it would keep building momentum ......
Instead we give the GOP lies "legitimacy" by caving to them , public opinion will now move back to the right again , because we have no DC leaders moving us back to sanity
So much for fighting for dems this last election , IMO if they had NOT run on cutting bush tax cuts the last 5 years , I doubt obama would have actually won anything , I would not have even bothered to vote
India -- We can't give up completely, as hopeless as this seems. We have jobs to do, families to tend, pets to feed, leaves to rake. And as angry as we are at this (expletive deleted), you are part of a group of people who DO CARE PASSIONATELY about our country.
I say we watch and listen carefully, try to moderate our speculations, and communicate with our CongressCritters where and when that's a useful option. [Screaming bloody murder about the chained-CPI issue seems to have worked, right?]
And listen and learn from each other and from media sources we have learned to (mostly or sort-of) trust. There are some sharp thinkers right here on MaddowBlog, which is why we stay -- right?
OK, my friend. I'll hang in a while and see.
Why are the democrats even trying to negotiate with the obstructionist republicans? I think the best solution is no deal until next year. Reid should bring their $250K and below get to continue the tax cuts all others don't. Bring it up and let the GOP stop it. No deal is better than a bad deal and what they have now is a bad deal. I think all this talk is just for show anyway. You can fool some people all the time and you can continue to fool them as is being done now. So Deal or no Deal the answer is NO DEAL!
Exactly what I've been saying for months. Forget the ridiculous concessions Obama, Reid, and Biden have been making.
After January 1, we can "shake the Etch-A-Sketch," as the Republicans like to say. Every concession made comes off the table at that point and we start over.
Waiting until the phony debt ceiling debate in a couple of months would be a much better strategy.
Any negative tax implications can--and will--be erased when provisions are made retroactive to January 1, 2013.
It looks like the Dems will be saved from themselves by Repub intransignance.
Guys grow a spine!
Am I the only one who thinks McConnell has become completely addicted to all the nonstop attention he has been receiving in the last few months / weeks / days / hours?
He has become a Media Attention Addict. Once this is over it's going to be even tougher to deal with
the little weaselMcConnell unless he has a whole bunch of reporters hanging on his every word.Can you tell how disgusted I've become after watching this farce? debacle? nonsense? disaster? train wreck?
He's up for reelection in 2014. I think he's worried about the supposed Ashley Judd threat.
Remember that he's up for election in 2014 and, according to polls, has the lowest approval rating of all the senators. One slip up from his part and he could say byebye to his seat in two years.
No. McConnell knows he will win. Because Democrats are nothing but pussies.
What is happening with captial gains, dividends and interest?
My guess is they will not mention those , because they know the dem base is going to have a cow when they figure out the DC dems are giving the farm away AGAIN
Of course they had no real plan. Didn't we learn that during the campaign. They couldn't do the math because they couldn't be specific on the details. Hard to have details if you don't have a plan.
To get anywhere both sides need to agree that we have a spending problem and a revenue problem.
That is NOT the case- return to Clinton era taxation rates and the "problems" are mostly solved.
Be that as it may, they need to agree to cut spending and increase revenue. So far, the Republicans are a one-note Johnny: "We have a SPENDING problem." As long as they continue to chant that reprise we will get nowhere. (or, over the cliff- which leads to 'nowhere'. Just ask Wiley Coyote.)
As long as the Republicans keep saying we only have a spending problem -- and the only spending "problems" they will discuss is entitlement programs for the middle class and poor -- then we will get nowhere. It's really a 2 step problem.
It doesn't matter, actually. They don't actually care about the deficit or the debt. If they did, there would be a possibility of compromise.
When any person, group, or political party holds the Nation's fiscal and social stability hostage, solely for the sake of a political power grab, I call that NOT "unpatriotic" ..... but instead, I call it treason.
Dan B, What they are doing is certainly not what they promised when they were sworn in.
Dan, IMO, it is treason. Worse, the president is willing to compromise with these treasonists.
They'd be crazy not to come up with a deal today.
They ARE crazy; that's the problem.
No Elyn. Several of the other specimen whose habits we study feel as you do. The Institute is your friend. We are not like the others. Perhaps later today you can ride Mary the Camel down for your foodstamp two-step classes.
Yes, Republicans ulitmately want to undo the New Deal. That's all it's ever going to be about. They'll never outright say it, but it's crystal clear. The process of undoing the New Deal is being played out right before our eyes. Not much different than a Romney leverage buyout special. Load up the debt, blame it on someone else, cut other expenses to balance, and walk away with a handsome payday in the form of more tax cuts. It can't get any clearer.
In return, I say, screw you. The folks on the otherside of this ledger need to buckle up and have some courage to say NO. No more extortion. No more pledges to special interests. No more threats. No more negotiating. Dare them. In the immortal words of Jules from Pulp Fiction: "I double dare you motherf&*C#er!"
I'm all in. I voted for Obama and Demos in 2012. We said NO. That can't be any clearer. Call their bluff. You can't negotiate with terrorists, foreign or domestic? Well stop then.
Like the Lone Ranger says, "Return with us, to the thrilling days of yesteryear"- when fat Plutocrats smoked cigars and quaffed brandy as they cursed FDR.
They destroyed the unions a generation ago, and now they want to steal the crumbs still left on the table.
Sadly, you're right on point, Day.
If dems fold again , they are just giving the GOP a pat on the back for doing it
If a company employee did to his company what McConnell, Graham et al are doing to the country, they would be out on their ears. Oh wait,no, that was then - this is now - screw-ups who ruin the company, raid its coffers and destroy its reputation, get a huge pension for life and a golden parachute with a soft landing. What do these bastards care? They're all right, Jack.
The first question to any Republican officeholder who was in office from 2001-2009 should be:
How did you vote on the two Bush Tax bills, the Iraqi "War for Oil" and MediCare Part D?
Step 1 was signing the Norquist pledge (scream "no new taxes, ever"). What you described is Step 2. Doing so ramps up the debt and deficits. Step 3? The stage is then set to cut entitlements to offset (scream "we have a spending problem"). Voila. You undo the New Deal. See #14.
It just struck me, color me silly, as to why higher taxes (with deductions) on the wealthy are better for the economy...
It keeps money flowing in the economy- by preventing amassing wealth that just sits and does nothing constructive through either true philanthropy or collecting the taxes and putting it toward what the people want and need (such as the commons) they they as individuals cannot afford or do for themselves.
Well, it took you a while, but hey it won't matter. Democrats will cave.
because 8+ years of Bush tax breaks followed by a crashing economy proved that 'trickle down' doesn't work, isn't effective for creating jobs, and is a detriment to the economy.
You are correct Curt, this is a redistribution argument vs privitization problem on public goods (including the federal buildings) and services.
Curt, the federal govt is not meant to be charitable. And giving more tax money to the govt doesn't mean poor Suzy and Billy will move up to the middle class by receiving free money from our govt. Rather, poor Suzy and Billy will remain poor b/c the federal govt will spend the money elsewhere.
What keeps money flowing isn't our govt taking it from the rich to then give to the poor. What keeps money flowing is when all able-bodied adults are gainfully employed and spending money on goods and services. With more people working it increases tax revenues and with more people working they buy things which raises revenue for corporations which then needs to hire more workers and wages increase to retain quality employees. Right now, our country has lots of adults not working and not spending money and the solution is not to merely take the money from the rich to give to the poor.
Of note, taxes are appropriate to pay the govt for the services it provides us.
For those that are unable to work/disabled/old/infirm, yes the govt can help support them financially too. But I am amazed that it is sustainable for our country to have 47% of its citiznes NOT pay any federal taxes b/c we just don't have enough rich people to tax nor enough employed adults to increase revenue from income taxes paid.
Really? The constitution , which americans are bound to , says we must provide a defense to keep people safe , along with welfare and domestic tranquility , americans are the most charitable people in the world when it comes to helping people out , and our constitution just confirms that
The self centered ayn rand version of america you persent is just fiction Fake&Posure7208233
L&P+numbers (by the way, just which re-reg are you?), you do know that high marginal income tax rates, when they were in effect, were rarely applied because salaries were kept below the level where those rates kicked in? No responsible corporation, even with a bunch of toadies on the Board of Directors, would willingly pay a CEO a salary, 90% of which would go directly to the Federal government in income taxes.
Nor can the corporation just retain those monies, because then it would have to pay the high marginal rate on its' income. However, should those monies be spent on such frivolous things as increased employee compensation, higher dividends, increased R&D (if applicable) or any legitimate business expense, then those monies can be deducted from the corporations gross profits, thus reducing its taxes.
Which would mean, most likely, that the 47% of the working population which doesn't currently pay Federal income taxes because they don't earn enough, would be earning enough. Imagine that, yet another Republican "talking point" shot down!
Every CEO who is getting $10 million a year is soaking up the same amount of income as 200 individuals who are paid $50,000 a year. Ayn Rand acolytes to the contrary, those 200 individuals make a greater contribution to the national economy than that single, over-paid and quite possibly incompetent (Carly Fiora anyone?) CEO. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Good!
DOUG, in many ways your analysis is seriously flawed. But it would waist time to walk you through it all. Instead, let's focus on a few simple things: (a) I don't read Ayn Rand stuff so stop polluting the waters with it (b) it seems you and I do have common ground -- the corporate tax code needs adjusted and a CEO that gets paid $10 million per year is in fact overpaid, and (c) not all rich people are greedy, some actually are very generous with their money (d) not all poor people are charitable with their money. (e) why is it that when someone like you that wants to tax the "rich" will point to a millionaire CEO and then turnaround and want to tax those making just $250k year? It seems to me you are confused as to who is "rich" b/c $250k yr in NY City is not the same as being a CEO of a multi million dollar company...so I say tax the rich somewhat if needed but those making $250k yr are not the proper targets.
If you are making 250,000$/year or more you are in the top 2% of income earners in the US. If you are making more than 390,000$/year you are in the top 1% of income earners in the US. The tax increases proposed would not apply to the first $250,000 made by anybody. That's part of why this conversation is disingenuous and inappropriately getting labeled. Everyone gets the same tax cuts until they get up to $250,000. Each dollar earned after $250,000k/year would be subject to the new, higher rate. So a person who literally makes $250k/year and not a penny more would still be having all of his/her income taxed at the current low rate. But a person who makes $251k/year would have $1,000 of that income be taxed at the higher rate and $250k be taxed at the lower rate.
But how can you complain about 47% needing to pay more in taxes while simultaneously complaining that those who make $250k/year are paying too much? Let's use your example here: you say 250k/year in New York City isn't that much. Well, no, it's probably not. But what about a person who makes 40k/year (the average)? Who has a harder time? Yet you want to see the person in NYC who makes $40,000 a year pay more in income taxes, but the person in NYC who makes $250,000 a year pay what they are paying now or less. How does this make sense?
These are strawman arguments. Nothing Doug stated merited these contingents in your response. He never claimed that wealthy people are all greedy or that poor people are all charitable.
And how did you get from what Curt was actually talking about- the need of higher taxes so that money circulates on necessary spending like improving businesses, hiring workers, R&D, etc. -to the concept that Curt was saying the government should take from the rich and give to the poor. At no point in time did Curt say this anywhere in his post. Nor, indeed, was your reply directly refuting or addressing anything Curt stated. Your entire reply here seems to be an entire non-sequitur.
L&P...
You are missing the gist of what I was saying. Top wit, Gates has approx. $60billion, Buffet has approx $50billion. That is $110billion that is no longer floating in the economy which forces the gov't to do one or more of several things...
Which is worse? Cutting help to those in need? Printing more money? Or asking those who are better off to share equally, the burden that is upon our country?
Of all the people in this country, it is truly the rich who owe this country for providing them with the opportunity become rich. They owe their employees for working hard to provide goods and services that people buy so they can become rich. They are not entitled to it as many of them so feel and is why they fight tooth and nail to have their taxes lowered.
Instead of setting up charities and foundations (which also take money out of the economy and return, in most cases, less than they bring in) they should be happy to provide their employees with a living wage and health care so the employees do not need gov't programs, or charities, just to live. This WILL reduce the amount of money the gov't needs to operate and fulfill it's obligation to the citizens.
Most people don't care or don't envy the rich. The right complains about fiscal responsibility. What about moral responsibility? If this is truly a Christian nation, then the wealthy should feel morally responsible to those less fortunate to make sure their needs are met especially during a crisis.
Reagan's trickle down economy has been in effect for roughly 30 years. The rich have gotten richer while the average workers income has stagnated. Why? Because the wealthy feel entitled to be rich and grow richer instead of obligated to their employees and the other people of this country. This has resulted in fewer dollars floating in the economy making money tight for the average American - one accident or serious sickness and it is game over for the average person.
The higher marginal tax rates (70% to 90% since WWII) with appropriate deductions forced the wealthy to invest in their business and grow it - increased wages (means increased purchasing means increased profits) saw the greatest boom in the economy in history. As the top marginal rate declined (starting with Reagan) there came an increasing hoarding of wealth at the top. Under Clinton the tax rate dropped and under Bush it took a huge dive - the reason being that the "job creators needed it to create more jobs. Even with the lowest tax rate in a century those jobs did not appear - the wealthy are hoarders of the worst kind because their "entitlement" hurts people, a lot of people.
You do realize, that had middle class income grown at the rate of the wealthy, esp. during these last few decades, that this "recession" most likely would not have been as bad as it is? Which means fewer people receiving unemployment, food stamps, medicare, medicaid etc. Which means the gov't would not have to be propping up the economy AND the wealthy would not have to fight about their taxes going up.
'nuff said!
Thank you for letting me rant.
If middle-class incomes had continued to grow the way that they were form WWII-the late 1970's/1980's the average family in America would be making ~$90,000 per year. Instead the average family is making roughly $50,000 per year. Over the past 40 years we've seen household incomes increase by ~$4,000. Everyone think about that for a second: the average American who started working back in 1970 and is about to retire today has only increased his/her income by $4k. Yet how much have costs gone up in comparison? If wealth were not being concentrated at the top (remember 10% of the country holds ~80% of the wealth) then you would see incomes rise enough to keep up with costs and thus people would not need so much help from the government and you'd have almost everyone paying income taxes (~20% or less would not be paying in as it was before Reagan).
As I stated on another post: the entire "47%" problem is a private sector problem.
Curt, thanks for the detailed supplemental post. It adds some clarity. But to me, the govt is not the moral police to make sure the rich pay money to the poor. In fact, if I were rather rich I would give the money directly to the poor instead of to the govt b/c it is a more cost effective (and thus more financially impactful) delivery method. For example, if I give $100k to the govt w the hope it gets to the poor I know that the full $100k will not reach the intended target... feds would use some of it on other stuff that I do not want to support plus the feds need to pay interest on debt and to pay salaries/benefits to those processing my money. But if I give $100k directly to poor people then there is no time delay plus the full $100k is used properly. That is my reason for saying we cannot expect the fed govt to act as a conduit for charitable distributions.
Cartoony, on the one hand I do not believe taxing the rich is the answer to solve our problems. On the other hand I think working folks that use federal services should pay at least some tax to the govt, no matter how small the amount. I do not think those notions are contradictory.
Spending by our fed govt is our problem.
Everyone pays taxes to the federal government. Income tax is just one type of tax. This is false framing. You keep presenting this as though people aren't paying money to the federal government or state government ever and that's simply not true. Remember even people on social security have to pay income taxes on the money they receive from the government (which, quite honestly, is completely pointless).
That isn't what Curt said
On the basis of what evidence?
But Curt wasn't arguing this. This is a strawman.
Steve Benen is not this stupid. The reason is because they know that Obama will bend over and let them do whatever the phuck they want. The Democrats are going to cave. Again. It never fails. It's what they are: COWARDS.
The Democrats have been negotiating against themselves for at least the last week in order to avoid going over the nonexistent "fiscal cliff."
Obama's response to the Republicans' dysfunction is to make ever more concessions. They can't agree amongst themselves. They can't even figure out who their leaders are. Of course they can't come to an agreement.
Why the Dems assume that making ridiculous concessions will unite the Republicans in favor of an agreement is beyond me. The Republicans have (correctly) figured out that the more confused and unfocused they are, the more concessions Obama will agree to.
Let's hope that, by the time the clock strikes midnight tonight, Social Security and Medicare still exist. Given enough time, Obama will probably give those away, too.
It is just sickening to stand by and watch this happen. Obama is effectively throwing the ball down the road, right into their court, giving them the leverage they want to ruin the country and install a Plutocracy.
Why?
I understand both parties have to give up something, but this article is shocking.
Sen. Reid gave up too much. After the election, it was clear what the nation wanted the democrats to do. Stand firm.
No deal should be reached. It's too much to give up.
Boehner is in bad shape. McConnell has reached out to Biden. Why? To get more?
Enough. No deal.
The democrats have dealt in good faith, but they're going too far now. Way too far.
I wish they would walk away.
Obama will rescue Boehner. Obama will cave. He'd rather the people who voted for hate him than disappoint John Boehner.
Disgusted, I don't believe the president is one bit interested in saving
Boehner. That seemed pretty clear Friday during his press conference as well as his appearance on MTP yesterday.
He shouldn't act like it then.
I thought that I read it here, but apparently it was somewhere else.
At this point, I am extremely pessimistic about any deal getting done.
If you're not aware of it, look up the Hastert Rule. Essentially Boehner's screwed. He cannot even bring a bill up for a vote unless he gets the majority of his party to agree to the bill. So unless a majority of Republicans vote for any bill, Boehner's done for.
So we could have all the Democrats agreeing to a new bill and 49% of the Republicans agreeing to a new bill and it wouldn't even get to the floor for a vote.
Talk about a way to ensure that you don't have bi-partisanship.
Thanks a lot Denny.
It's a rule -until it isn't...
It has to originate in the house -until it doesn't...
Boner is an embarrassment and incompetent and the TPers are Domestic Terrorists.
Any questions?
Boehner announced yesterday the Hastert Rule will be suspended for anything coming from the Senate today.
It has reached a point where going over the cliff might be the best alternative. Playing the "move the goal posts" game favored by the Republicans is not constructive. Most important, the administration and Dems must not be seen as "caving". The election was about something, or was it?
It is time for the Dems to walk away from the negotiations and hold a press conference. Tell everyone what they have offered and the Republicans have declined. Tell everyone, that they are going home and will discuss things after the Republicans spell out EXACTLY what they want.
Until then, walk away.
Agree to extend unemployment benefits and go over the cliff. Enough is enough.
The headlines make it seem like [ewwwh] McConnell is the only person making any effort right now - they're getting all the press. Be angry, President & Senate Leader! Get up and shout! No caving... no deals... But the unemployed people who haven't slept in days for worry need help!