Fools rush in.

Hey liberals....taxes went up on EVERYONE!!! Congratulations.

No spending was cut...more uncertainty throughout the first half of 2013. Everything still at a standstill. Nothing resolved.

But hey...You guys really stuck it to the rich didn't you? Nope...they still have their loopholes.

Good job, Democrats & liberals. Thanks for solving nothing. You accomplished NOTHING!!!

In a scathing editorial, the Wall Street Journal called for the parties to go their own ways in Congress and tried to rally Republicans against Obama.

Would this have been printed in the days before Rupert Murdoch (aka The Anti-Christ) took over the Wall Street Journal?

The wealthy would do well to remember that what benefits the middle class ultimately benefits them as well.

We are all Americans. Class warfare is being fought from their side, and the rest of us are not stupid. We have greater numbers. We can vote for our own interests, having seen that money does not always buy elections.

It is about time our wonderful leaders made a deal. I have to say however, as a nation, we need to get out of this habit of waiting until the last seconds before deals are reached. America as a whole deserves better then the type of political posturing we have seen the last few years. Watch out in 2014, incumbents are going to fall like flies. Our current leaders have to go, NOW. The do nothing days of congress need to end, NOW . . . . Nuff Said !!

77% of ALL Americans got a tax INCREASE!

Not only did they NOT cut spending to fix this debt bomb, they ADDED MORE SPENDING!!

FOOLS who supported this liar and criminal in chief, you'll get what you deserve. You suckers actually believed what Obama told you about only taxing "the rich", but we've learned this lesson before: the middle class always gets the bulk of tax increases, even the ones sold as only increases on "the rich".

Obama is printing more money and devaluing your savings, investments and retirement. They continue to spend more money than we can take in. This is criminal and will bring us to ruin.

You wanted Obama...you got him!!

And proud, I am glad to have such a great leader in these trying times. He will go down as one of the greatest presidents of all time and you will go down as a partisan wank.

Who's feisty carrotop?

Im just wondering what the random crisis generator is going to spit out next....so far, 1999 (y2000 world end), Y2K, bird flu, swine flu, 2012,12,21, fiscal cliff....im sure ive missed .......can you say NUMB...this whole one hour after the fact makes me NUMB...and I think that its in my best interest if I never vote or give two craps about anything this country is going through, after all, its just a big freaking joke on us.

Remember when the tax the rich rhetoric started. Warren Buffet came out saying that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. He still dose. He earns his money through capital gains, taxed at 15% his secretary who according to Forbes earns between $200,000 and $500,000 may have gone up. So taxes went up on the wealthy but the truly rich.

Thanks for getting the deal done, and coming to a compromise. Forward!

Sad to say they kicked the can down the road yet again.

NO spending cuts. The new incoming congress has a huge plate full of poop to dig their way through if anything positive is to be done by them. What a huge waste of time and money this congress was. But as in the past we have seen that congress will not bite the hand that feeds them. Get the money out of politics .

We have a 2 part problem - Spending has 'skyrocketed', and tax revenues have 'tanked'. The Debt Commission recommended that Federal spending be set at about 19% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Tax Revenues be set at about 19% as well, which would create a balanced budget at some time in the future.

In 2011, Spending was 23.9% of GDP, which amounted to $735 Billion of excess spending.

In 2011, Tax Revenues were 15.3% of GDP, which amounted to $558 Billion in fewer taxes.

If we're going to get to a healthy financial condition, we need to have both Spending cuts AND Tax Increases. I would suggest a target of getting to Spending and Revenue Parity at 19% of GDP over 10 years – Call it a 19/10 Plan - described below.

Obama's 2013 Budget Projections calls for a GDP of $25.488 Trillion in 10 years (2022), so the Spending would be limited to gradually increase from $3.55 Trillion in 2012 to $4.893 Trillion in 2022 – an average increase of 3.3% per year.

Revenues from Taxes would also be targeted to gradually increase from $2.47 Trillion in 2012 to $4.893 Trillion in 2022 – an average increase of 7.1% per year. In 10 years, we would have a 'Balanced Budget', and the National Debt would be capped at about $22 Trillion in 2022.

Since the Democrats accuse the Republicans of 'protecting the rich' from tax increases, and the Republicans accuse the Democrats of 'spending us into oblivion', I would suggest that the Republicans be required to structure a plan to raise taxes, and the Democrats be required to structure a plan to cut spending. Then the Republicans would have to make the tough decisions on tax increases, and the Democrats would have to make the tough decisions on spending cuts.

Comments are welcomed.

For those who tout the old Keynesian Economic Theory of government spending to 'stimulate' the economy, I have a question - "If Deficit spending is such a great 'job creator', why has the $6.08 Trillion that we have borrowed and spent in the last 4 fiscal years not 'created' any jobs?"

At the end of fiscal 2008, the National Debt was $9.986 Trillion. At the end of fiscal 2012, the National Debt was $16.066 Trillion. That's an increase in the amount we have 'borrowed and spent' of $6.08 Trillion in 4 years. By definition, all of that money we have 'borrowed and spent' is 'Keynesian stimulus spending'.

At the end of fiscal 2008, we had 136,332,000 people working, and at the end of fiscal 2012, we had only 133,571,000 people working, for a LOSS of 2,761,000 jobs in those same 4 fiscal years where we had to borrow $6.08 Trillion to fund the government 'stimulus spending spree'.

Sources - The official Government Treasury Department for Debt, and the official Government Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for Employment.

roy -- you are making too much sense.

the lefties will either attack you personally or ignore you because they cannot refute the facts presented.

happy new year

old Keynesian Economic Theory of government spending to 'stimulate' the economy

my parents call this approch "stone soup"....gets you real full and satisfied...until you get hungry.

See Ive been trying to spend money I dont have to stimulate my homelessness, but I cant get the printer to work

Gee, the other side said less taxes would create jobs Where's the jobs. 12 years and NO jobs creation why not complain about that one, that was the Republicans plan.

Sam, unless you and I go make jobs for people, there will be no jobs...that is reality. We are on our own to try to find a way out of taxes/AmeriCare (formally ObamaCare) while creating a job for ourselves....the only question is: are WE, little nobody Americans up for the task of saving our fellows Americans from the inevitable corporate collapse<bailout<fail<bailout<fail<bailout?....in order to get jobs, we have to leave wastingtons oh-so-fun spin cycle and do it for ourselves....looking to wastington for work, health, family is a horrible idea and has promoted the decline of America as a whole.

There is only one way to turn things around but NO ONE has a pair to do it, FIRE a couple million government employees and cut all the pensions to government workers, see that would not sit well RIGHT. Everyone wants a fix but they don't want to lose their JOBS! Roadless you're so right

Speaker John Boehner should from now on cease all backdoor negotiations and pursue regular legislative order. House Republicans should pursue their own agenda and let Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats pursue theirs.

Uhhh....isn't this what has been going on for the last 4 years?

Moral of the story:The only one that can feel good about this is Obama. The rest of the nation will continue to be mired in high unemployment, increasing taxes, high gas prices, high utility prices, high food prices, etc... While at the same time Mr. Obama continues record pace deficit spending and debt building. Add on top of that the foreign policy issues that are likely to arise and there is nothing for the American people to celebrate. I guess Mr. Obama's idea of leadership is the equivalent of the mentality of a second string HS basketball player who scores a point coming off the bench and cheers loudly pumping his fist in the air, while the rest of the team looks at the scoreboard and sees they have just lost by 30 points.

Reasons not to be happy: $1 saved for $41 spent, Congress got a raise(Presidential executive order, not in the agreement), and the President is headed back to Hawaii (at the cost of another $7million).

What did we learn: Our government really doesn't get "it". They did make an agreement (that's worth about a 2 month kicking of the can- yes, we'll see this again soon), but they didn't deal with any of the problems. They kept the spending AND raised taxes on some. Not impressed.

This is a bad bill that made a bad situation worse...

This passage was about PR, ratings and appearances- nothing real. No substance. Rah rah! we got a "deal". Why all the pessimism then? The drama will continue and result in taxpayers getting bent over yet again. All they accomplished was averting the inevitable recession that will return soon enough. Prepare

Honestly people live in a FANTASY WORLD, they ignore the truth and can't face reality, We have way to much overhead that comes in the form of GOVERNMENT employee's but NO ONE wants to admit it, Government has grown every year and unless We start to cut the employee base every single year cost us more, people retire and another body fills the position so now We pay double for that one position and how many times did a turnover on that position happen over the years, see people can't deal with BUSINESS fundamentals and have no clue as to why it can't work but they sit there and whine like a bunch of little girls, you want a fix, well use what you have between your ears. Oh and I know that a MORON will say well they paid into a pension fund, well did you ever think We pay out more than was paid in.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is joining a growing number of Republicans trying to add more spending cuts to the last-minute fiscal cliff deal and send it back to the Senate, joked that Senators may have been drunk when they passed the measure in the early hours of Jan 1.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/01/1382561/gop-congressman-jokes-that-senators-were-drunk-when-they-voted-for-fiscal-cliff-compromise/

Quite the contrary, Mr. Issa. I believe they have finally sobered up.

Another do nothing aproach brought to you by the liberal band of thugs.

Sam....You call Obamacare dumped on the shoulders of employers, a gazillion costly and redundant regulations, highest business taxes anywhere in the world LESS taxes? All are job killers!! And now he exacted his pound of flesh from the wealthy. More jobs, more investing in corporations, down the tubes. The wealthy don't need the middle class, to the contrary the middle class need the wealthy, the entrepeneurs, investors to help companies grow, expand, HIRE.

Those who STILL want to blame Bush are stuck on stupid. They like to say that the housing debacle was Bush's doing. NO! Clinton proposed and signed that beauty. It was birthed in his administration. Not Bush's. True, things weren't rosy when Obama took over, but MY GOD, he is devastating the economy and it seems he's determined to annihilate it altogether. He has bled the taxpayer's money dry....now he needs more, if he has to beg, borrow or print more. I'd like to say he is an idjit, but he knows exactly what he's doing....all ground work to open the door to his socialist agenda and power for HIS form of government, not the people's Government. He is at least, AS guilty of letting this go to the edge of "the cliff" as Congress. Even MORE so, he took us there, and he has not even attempted to work with them on a budget. He's supposed to work WITH the house, not do NOTHING, then blame everyone else for his spending habits. He set up the GOP via liberal media manipulation, for a fall no matter how they voted on this so-called 11th hour deal. If they did not pass it, they would be seen as the "bad guys". By passing it, nothing is done about his spending, and the balance of revenue collected by raising taxes on those earning $400,000.00 up, the debit, deficit and debt ceiling are not addressed which Congress RESPONSIBLY was demanding and was holding out for. So for Congress they were damned if they did pass it and damned if they didn't. If he isn't playing politics, using the in-the-take media for PR, then people must be blind. Political manipulation at it's finest. Either way he has politically damaged the GOP. His mission accomplished.

ROY WILSON-336103

For those who tout the old Keynesian Economic Theory of government spending to 'stimulate' the economy, I have a question - "If Deficit spending is such a great 'job creator', why has the $6.08 Trillion that we have borrowed and spent in the last 4 fiscal years not 'created' any jobs?"

Before I respond to this one, I just wanted to say, Roy, that your post regarding "19/10" is exceptional. Getting through the politics of it all is a huge problem, but I like the proposal's intent and direction!

In response to your question... stimulus spending, by definition is INCREASED SPENDING, not an increased deficit. The contribution to the 6 trillion deficit is half lower tax revenue because of lost incomes (negative stimulus) and half spending aimed at supporting jobs and those hit hardest by this economy (positive stimulus). Your answer? For stimulus spending to work you must make a larger delta between today and the past in spending only... it's not good enough to just offset losses.

But as an aside, I don't support stimulus spending in general at the moment... we've lost the moment and have too much negativity surrounding it to have it have a serious effect on consumer confidence. World War II deficit stimulus spending is often cited as basis for economic justification, but people forget that a large contributor during the war was an increased consumer confidence brought on, in large part, because we came together as a nation and rallied around a single goal... an enemy not of our own making... unlike today. Today we are our only enemy. Today we are too divided to have spending create any positive consumers.

Wow to read this board you'd think no Republican voted for this bill at all but that Obama decreed it to be passed...

The tax rates were set to go back up because even a R controlled congress and president (when they were passed) knew it was a terrible idea to have rates that low. They should've taken their own advice and not passed them to begin with. You don't cut taxes during a war.

The Republicans just got their A$$'s handed to them this last election because the American people see more value in making sure that their boss is paying taxes rather than using the corporate shield to hide their spending. The tax rates were the lowest in multiple generations and to be honest (for all the conservative economic bitching on this site) needed to be raised for EVERYONE to help get out of the debt. Am I happy that they didn't let the cuts to spending go through? No. I wanted an across the board cut INCLUDING a huge cut to military spending but alas god forbid we cut from that bloated mess of a budget.

To Sam's point: we've had the same amount of government employees (for the most part) since LBJ. If you want to argue they shouldn't have pensions or that the pensions should be defined contribution rather than defined benefit then make that argument. But understand that in most cases the only way to get qualified and competent people in government jobs is to offer great benefits because the salaries offered are almost nothing compared to the corporate salary structure. If you'd like to pay the accountants for the government their market rates (more than double their salaries now) then sure you can take back their pensions. Otherwise learn some math so that you can stop bitching about that which you know nothing...

"Worst President ever."

No -- the worst preaident ever left office in January, 2010.

He's and his Republican controlled Congress are the ones who put us in this mess to begin with. Remember the surplus he inherited? Remember Bush saying "we have surpluses as far as the eye can see" as a justification fro his tax cuts? So he cut taxes twice. Then he put two wars on the credit card, put a massive new entitlement on the credit card, a massive farm bill on the credit card and spend, spend, spend and spend more. (One of the reasons Congress put an expiration date on the Bush era tax cuts is because they know in the out years they would bust the budget -- and that was BEFORE the two wars) Then the economy crashed, federal revenues went down and the deficits have been climbing ever since.

The reality is no president since Kennedy had the keys to the White House turned over to him from the former president with the nation in BETTER shape than did George W. Bush and no president since FDR had the keys to the White House turned over to him from the former president with the nation in WORSE than did President Obama. It will take this nation a generation or longer to dig ourselves out of the economic disaster caused by George W. Bush and his Republican controlled Congress.

@ LMarcT

And don't forget that after WWII, we were the manufacturer to the world, and one of the few economies that had the ability to recover while the rest (mostly Europe) were recovering from a very costly war on their own turf. Asia had yet to be come a player, leaving the Western Hemisphere to economically benefit, and we were the strength then. Combine that with our own population that purchased goods made by the middle class from our own manufacturing and you have a decent foundation for positive economic growth.

Now, we are not and to me the real problem is lack of solid job growth, GDP stagnation and a country that cannot create enough of its own wealth to offset our issues. We purchase most of our goods from China. Combine that with out unbalanced and unmonitored spending and you have what we have today.

Which to me signifies Obama's, Republican's and Democrats alike inability to either comprehend the real issue, or they pin their hopes that the US Populace is moronic enough not to figure it out. Until you solve Trade, and balance our budget we are in for more of the same.

So where is the "balanced approach" Obama campaigned upon ? Where are the SPENDING CUTS from Obama ?? Did Obama LIE, yet another time ??? Did Obama CREATE this crisis by going to Hawaii ... only to come back just in time to push for a "slam-bam, thank you ma'am" POS legislation passed under duress and with (probably) very few actually reading the legislation just passed ????

Will our country have a "fiscal plan" (a.k.a. a BUDGET) going forward under Harry Reid's failed leadership ?

I notice it did not take Obama long at all to return to his vacation ! LOL !!

NEXT UP: Debt crisis revisited.... another debt ceiling issue where Obama will demand what he wants, when he wants it and HOW he wants it !

By the time Obama is done, ruining the financial stability of this country along the way, our national debt will be DOUBLED over ALL his predecessors combined.

@ Charlie.

Remember the Democrat controlled Congress from 2006 until 2010? Remember the Republican controlled Congress under Clinton that came to Washington with a fiscal responsibility pledge to balance the budget? The same one Clinton worked with?

How convenient that you remember that the House & Senate matters when Obama is President, but forget it's actual weight when the Republican's control the Presidency and the the Democrats reigned in the Chamber.

Looks like the American people will still almost pay noting in in income taxes for a few more years We paid 6% on 91K I wonder How much the democrats want to reduce it.

ROY WILSON-336103

Since the Democrats accuse the Republicans of 'protecting the rich' from tax increases, and the Republicans accuse the Democrats of 'spending us into oblivion', I would suggest that the Republicans be required to structure a plan to raise taxes, and the Democrats be required to structure a plan to cut spending. Then the Republicans would have to make the tough decisions on tax increases, and the Democrats would have to make the tough decisions on spending cuts.

Comments are welcomed.

Might as well try that. What's the worst that could happen, another one of these bills rearing it's head every time it's discussed? We kicked the can down the road 15 months ago, then kicked it down the road again. I like Roy's plan but ultimately believe it will result in yet another kick down the road as our politicians are too busy acting like children. I think if we gave all of them what they wanted they would still find ways to stall the deal and put political gamesmanship to a higher priority than doing their job.

That's just me being optimistic. :)

cdahl, Republicans controlled congress and the Presidency when the tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003. They put this cost on the books...

Stimulus spending should be directed toward building and maintaining our infrastructure. Then all the businesses associated with the construction industries will benefit. The businesses will have to hire new employees to handle the new demand. Those employees and the construction workers will will be providing new demand in the economy, some may even want to buy new housing. Thus, housing construction increases and new demands are made on the economy. The same goes for the auto industry and others.

This is the basis of Keynesian economics. The only problem with it is that the money spent for the stimulus should be made up for with increased taxes to pay for the stimulus and reduce the debt. This is where our politicians fail us. They think it is like new-found money that should be returned to the tax payers, ala George W. Bush.

The stimulus that Obama wanted was watered down by the GOP and just wasn't enough to get the country's economy moving again.

base -- did you accept the tax cuts? if so you are complicit, if not you are a very unique individual.

@ Basedrum

Actually, it was split with neither party controlling

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

In 2001, 19 Democrat Senators either voted for the Bush Tax cut, or did not vote, (2) republican senators voted against it.

http://press.take88.com/which-senators-voted-for-bushs-2001-tax-cuts/

In 2003, 2 democrats voted for it, with (3) republicans against it.

http://press.take88.com/which-senators-voted-for-bushs-2001-tax-cuts/

Without Democrat help, the tax decreases would have been defeated.

Of course, my real point is that people way to often blame one body and give credit to another, while siting statistics that ignore said body, and take away credit from another of the same. It would be nice if people would back off their political parties, select a viewpoint and stick to it, not because they are told to, but because they believe it.

The headline should say: "Fiscal-cliff compromise leaves few politicians satisfied". I notice the boys on Wall Street seem to be happy with it. Last I looked, the DOW was up 261 points this morning. That's the best I've seen in a long time. It had been losing points up until now.

"You Lefties ... you Righties"

What a bunch of ill-informed uneducated turd throwers ...............

There should be a constitutional amendment mandating if a reasonable budget is not passed on time, neither the president nor any member of congress is eligible to hold public office again - ever. That would get their attention and *hopefully* change priorities from selfish re-election worries to the good of the country.

Arlisha,

Still blaming Bush after 4+ years? Get with the program. Our legislative branch is clearly incapable of compromise because their interests aren't the same as OUR interests.

This is so disappointing. We have such a weak government, on both sides. We had a real opportunity to take on our deficit problems here and we kicked the can down the road again. Instead of paying our bills, we once again have decided to let our children pay for them – plus interest. This country needs to grow up and start acting responsibly. There are a lot of very selfish people in America today. Me, me, me. If my wife and I ran our personal finances like the federal government run theirs, our family would be living on the street in no time. The fact that President Obama was/is so insistent on giving some people (me included) tax breaks that we can’t afford - makes him a bad president in my mind. Half the country made a huge mistake for all of us Americans still living, and a lot of us still not born. Sad.

Well, thank God , they finally passed George W Bush's tax plan. Its amazing how all of you Liberals are herded like sheep . These tax breaks for the Middle class are not products of Obama ,or the Democrats, they were instated by George Bush. You remember him don't you? The president the media has led all of you to believe he was a terrible President. Well don't thank Obama for your tax breaks, thank George Bush.

"And don't forget that after WWII, we were the manufacturer to the world, and one of the few economies that had the ability to recover while the rest (mostly Europe) were recovering from a very costly war on their own turf. Asia had yet to be come a player, leaving the Western Hemisphere to economically benefit, and we were the strength then. Combine that with our own population that purchased goods made by the middle class from our own manufacturing and you have a decent foundation for positive economic growth.

Now, we are not and to me the real problem is lack of solid job growth, GDP stagnation and a country that cannot create enough of its own wealth to offset our issues."

You have to understand something, given the time, all of those countries, sooner or later would have caught up to us, as many have now. Where the problem is, our government never even tried to look ahead to see what was coming down the road at them with this, and in fact during this time, they allowed our manufacturing to move over seas giving those countries the opportunity to jump even further ahead, and with us, we were pushed backwards because of it. It is what you call, a very lazy and lax government with no foresight what-so-ever.

It's amazing how many people forget the payroll tax cuts expiring and that everyone gets a 2% tax increase. People think that only the rich got a tax increase.

Apparently, the media spin continues to fool people because they can't remember how the politicians are hiding all of these things.

Arlisha Shorter Oh no no you and Obama own this now! Pointing to some one else will not work today is the first day Obama lives and dies by what he does with this economy. He can't play the blame game any more he can't spent and give away our money to unions and waste on green jobs. So like Obama you will have to answer for you actions from this day on.

Regardless of taxes that might or might not have been about to expire, there is a whole new set of regulations and taxes that WILL start with this new year. Taxes have been raised on EVERYONE anyone!

"We had a real opportunity to take on our deficit problems here and we kicked the can down the road again."

MidAmerican, you can thank special interests for that can being kicked. In their minds, it's not about the peoples interests, it's about the Corporations interests.

hey china ...work harder we keep money printer printing...you take our jobs with cheap labor ...you work harder...we laugh have good time...you work harder...longer hours...cheaper...we laugh have goodtime living off fresh print government money...we like ya' stay in factory work harder cheaper longer...life is a bitch then ya die...there is no limit how much we print so it is all good happy feel good money...we laugh have good time...

Tax and spend...tax and spend...tax and spend...repeat.

The Dems got to give it to the rich guys while not touching their explosion in spending. They got exactly what they wanted.

Problem is that this is exactly what got us into this mess.

Josh is right. We shouldn't be blaming Junior Bush. Clearly, if we are to make fair comparisons of one administration to another, it should be comparing the current administration with another current administration, or better yet, compare current to future.

Charlie

No -- the worst preaident ever left office in January, 2010.

He's and his Republican controlled Congress are the ones who put us in this mess to begin with.

Nothing is more emblematic that you probably should not be paid any serious attention.

1) Bush was gone January 20, 2009

2) You had a Democrat Congress from Jan 1987 - Jan 1995 Average Deficit $265 Billion.

You had a Republican congress from January 3, 1995 - Jan 3, 2001 Ave Deficit $42 Billion

You had a split Congress From Jan 3, 2001 - Jan 3, 2003 Ave Deficit $428 Billion

You had a Republican controlled Congress from Jan 3 2003 - Jan 3, 2007 Average Deficit $459 Billion

You had a Democrat controlled Congress from Jan 3 2007 - Jan 3, 2011 Average Deficit $1.316 Trillion

You have a Split Congress Since Jan 3 2011 Fiscal 2012, which they legislated. Deficit $1.101 Trillion

For 2013 with a split congress Deficit Est $767 Billion until this is recalculated without the 38% tax increase. Without the $500 Billion in Tax increases, the deficit would be $1.267 Trillion.

Our mess is far worse since the democrats took both houses in congress and is only getting the brakes applied by the Republicans in the house. Democrats only want tax increases which will always fall short of projects and resist spending cuts.

This is no time to be cheering. We all lost, Obama has blinked again, the liberal Democrats got what they wanted, the conservative Republicans got what they wanted, and the American people got screwed again. When Grover Norquist likes the deal, then it's not a deal that is in Americas best interest.

Arlisha...

WE WOULDN'T BE GOING THROUGH HALF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE GOING THRUOUGH IF IT WASN'T FOR THAT MAN...

I'm with Josh...when are you libs EVER going to allow Barry to take SOME responsibility???? EVER???

He's had FOUR F'ING years!!!...and we are WORSE off!!! What will you blaming in another four??? Bush still??? Gawd...you blind sheeple!

@roy

you are right more govt spending does not create jobs. one might ask what does create jobs? high tarrifs and limited imports is what creates jobs. the united states has instead fallen into the free trade falacy. all free trade does is make international corporations insanely rich while hurting a nations economy. when one looks at all the countrys who are doing well economically none of them have free trade agreements. they all have high tarrifs and limited imports.

Where's Feisty to tell us all how great this is and how it's the GOP's fault that everyone is going to get less in their paychecks? How can anyone be happy when we are going to be bringing in $600B in more tax revenue, only cut spending by $15B and are spending at a ratio of 40 to 1?

Roy did you look at WHAT that 6.08 Trillion was spent on, when you stated "If Deficit spending is such a great 'job creator', why has the $6.08 Trillion that we have borrowed and spent in the last 4 fiscal years not 'created' any jobs?" OF COURSE YOU DIDN'T take a look at that 6.08 Trillion NOR what the stimulus accomplished.

Because not only did the stimulus work, there is NO DOUBT it "created jobs". AND would have undoubtedly created MORE jobs if it had been larger. And out of the 6.08 trillion you love to broadcast, the stimulus accounted for approximately $800 billion. The remaining SIX TRILLION was for running the government. So please, do not use slanted facts, based on poor research to make your point. Simple concept here. It takes an ENORMOUS amount of money to run the federal government. And THAT is what the 6.08 Trillion in spending is doing. And that is keeping the government running.

Now if you would have mentioned (for example) the following article "Unlikely Allies Uncover $1 Trillion is Savings to Super Committee", THEN followed that up with suggesting a Value Added Tax AND a Wall Street Transactions Tax, then I would say your comment is not as one-sided as it appears. As well as logically stated why we have had job losses in the last 4 years.

Charlie-

You are 100% right Jan. 2010 is about the time Obama checked out on the Presidency and He hasn't done anything worthwhile since.

So EVERYONE will continue to enjoy the Bush tax cuts on the first $400-450 of earnings. And the rich will continue to enjoy lower taxes on capital gains and dividends with only a slight increase (no where up to the percent it should be, estate taxes as well), and loopholes are still in place as pointed out above.

Yet somehow everyone's taxes just went up -- compared to what the rates were during Clinton that we would have reverted to if the Bush tax cuts had expired?

Oh, I get it, rightwingers are using math taught in the alternative universe of FAUX Noise and Hate Radio.

GodBlessUSAForever -- So you're the one who starts all those rightwing propaganda E-mails that end with "God Bless America?"

Avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff? Nope. All this "compromise" did was to prolong the illusion for a while longer. Obama has already accelerated his spending of money that simply does not exist with the end result being a national debt of around 18.5 trillion dollars by the end of this fiscal year.

Going over this cliff would have been beneficial in that the illusion of any economic validity would have been partially stripped away exposing a highly unpalatable reality. It would also be the only way anything resembling actual spending cuts could be enacted.

Maintaining an economy through massive deficit spending is destroying this country, a fact that will become apparent, even to the dullards sooner than later.

It is somewhat astounding that there exist in this country those that think this can go on forever without fatal consequences, but is the inevitable result from electing someone so monumentally incompetent.

GreatlyEntitled

Regardless of taxes that might or might not have been about to expire, there is a whole new set of regulations and taxes that WILL start with this new year. Taxes have been raised on EVERYONE anyone!

Stop making this asinine claim unless you can support it with credible sources. Usually this comment refers to Obamacare, in which case it is obvious rightwingers don't have a clue how ACA was funded, how it will in fact help small business, and how it will save money compared to the status quo, not to mention making health care more accessible to more people.

Now, this is not to say that at first there will be bugs in the system -- already large companies are trying to find ways to get around, though only a few bad apples (e.g., Papa John's). This will merely shift employees to buy their own insurance on the Exchange, but they will still have to buy insurance and pay premiums to the insurance middlemen based on their incomes. How does this cost you the tax payer more?

True, this also does not take into account state and local taxes. States have already raised sales taxes. property taxes. etc., so once again, what is the big and sudden increase you rightwingers are fear-mongering about?

Wet Willy -- Most folks don't understand macro economics let alone micro economics (supply and demand 101). That they compare a household budget to the way nation states operate is a prime example (or hard money, which actually has a constructive use as a "bridge loan" and many other examples I don't have time to go into). But suffice it to say, GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), 47% of the country listens to FAUX Noise and Hate Radio, so they are just as stupid as the source they get their information from.

Seriously, stop with the Chicken Little The Sky is Falling BS -- this is all you rightwingers can do.

@ True

come on, man. You have to admit that this is a tax on successful small businesses, which mostly file under S corporation, but leave most of that money in the business to hire people, give raises, invest in inventory, etc. The issue I take is that these are the job creators. 2/3 of all jobs are created by small business. Of that, 77% of jobs created by small business are created by firms of 19 employees or more.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BI-AA457_ROUNDc_G_20120315162705.jpg

Of the 27M small businesses, only 2.3M have more than (1) employee.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304692804577281102928925444.html

Meaning. When Obama says this tax increase will not hit 97% of small businesses, it is a B.S. pointed designed to deceive voters, and he knows it, because 92% of small businesses have only (1) person. The rest, or 8% that will not see the tax hike, 1/3 have 19 or fewer people, leaving 3.5% of the non-taxed group with net incomes under $400,000, leaving the bulk of the small business being subjected to the new tax, which by definition of 500 employees or less will be the job creators that were just giving the tax.

Instead of doing what is right, and only subjecting sub-chapter (S) taxes when the money is taken out of the business, and leaving it alone when the money is kept in the business, Obama elected to tax it all. That effect has reduced our CAPEX here in 2013 by $450,000. Obama continues to point at Buffet and Romney's tax rates as the problem, yet he only raised their taxes from 15% to 20%, while taxing small business at 40%+ (Remember the 1% adder for his medical program). Meaning, the ultra-wealthy fund raising supporters pay 20%, while US Job creators that don't sit a lavish political dinners pay over 40%

This whole debacle is an example of how the left believes that the "rich" will now pay more of their fair share, when in fact they will continue to pay a lower rate than the middle class. And the Ultra-Rich still have enough left over to make significant political donations.

Nothing short of appeasing an ignorant voting populace which can't name the Pres. VP, and leaders of the House and Senate.

ProgressiveforAmerica "Roy did you look at WHAT that 6.08 Trillion was spent on...Because not only did the stimulus work, there is NO DOUBT it "created jobs".

It doesn't matter what it was spent on - it was 'borrowed money' that was spent, and studies have shown that when the government spends money, it generally gets only about half the benefit of money spent by the private sector.

The 'Stimulus Bill was signed by Obama in February 2009, when the total number of people employed was 132,839,000 jobs. Two years later, when virtually all of the Stimulus money had been spent, there were only 130,676,000 people working - 2,163,000 fewer jobs. In fact, as of November 2012, there are STILL about a million fewer people working than at the end of 2008, while population growth has added about 6 million more people entering the working age group.

If that's your idea of 'success', I'm not buying it.

Source - The official government Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

eric1964 "@roy you are right more govt spending does not create jobs. one might ask what does create jobs? high tarrifs and limited imports is what creates jobs. the united states has instead fallen into the free trade falacy."

I have mixed feelings about tariffs. Free Trade does engender competition and keeps prices low and efficiency high, but at the same time, there are many foreign countries (especially China and Japan) that take unfair advantage of our 'free' markets while effectively closing theirs.

I think we need to be far more aggressive about 'leveling the playing field' when it comes to 'fair competition' and currency manipulation.

By the way - I've seen studies that indicate that we will have 'labor cost parity' with China in many industries within about 4 years, so when we add in the transportation costs, we might actually have a cost advantage over China in some sectors of the economy. That could make a huge difference in the future.

cdahl -- Those small businesses that file as individuals (though why this is allowed, I don't understand) will benefit just like individuals, now getting the tax cuts extended up to $400-450K. But the larger problem with your argument is the fallacy that tax policy affects job creation. Demand affects job creation, so putting more money into the hands of middle class consumers is what is important.

A correction to my post above:

PAYROLL TAXES: The most immediate, and visible impact will be a relatively small increase (about two percent of your wages) that will come out of your first paycheck of the year. You’ll keep paying that “extra” tax until you’ve reached the wage limit subject to the tax, which this year rises to $113,700. (This tax shows up in the FICA line on your paycheck.) If you hit that limit before the end of the year, you stop paying the tax.

The rich do not pay payroll taxes on income earned above $113,700K, the new cut-off for the richest 5% (not $110,000). Still, I was referring to income taxes, not payroll taxes. The payroll taxes will be something like $20 per paycheck more now paid in taxes. I believe the economy is recovering enough that folks need to pay into trust funds again. After all, if you were told you would not get a pension because you didn't pay into, wouldn't you prefer to pay into it?

No, I don't think the rich will pay more of their fair share, especially in regard to payroll taxes in comparison to the tax breaks they just received on the first $400-450K earned. I believe privileges and responsibilities should match. Imagine how Social Security would become solvent immediately until the baby boomers are out of the system -- This IS the entitlement reforms we need.

DB you're skewing the truth. Its completely frivolous to indicate the $$'s of deficit "by congress" as if they have no checks or balances in the system. Also you are leaving out huge impacting issues which led to some of the deficits which were from previous administrations: perfect example is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you put those on a democratically controlled congress or the Republican controlled one who supported the declarations for war?

The tax increase has to do with the social security break that we got over the last two years.

ACA, how exactly is that going to save us money? The last time I head it was going to cost us 3 times more than they had projected. Also there has been quite a few insurance companies that are raising their rates by 10-20% to help cover the cost.

Taxing the rich more does nothing to help the lower income earners make more. We also need to face the reality that certain jobs are either going to pay less or remain flat for a time to come. I am also not so sure that 19% of GDP is going to be a reasonable amount of expected tax revenue going forward. Until we get more people working again it does not really matter what the individual rate is. Having 2-3 million more people paying in 3-5k in taxes will make a bigger difference.

LMarcT "ROY WILSON-336103 - In response to your question... stimulus spending, by definition is INCREASED SPENDING, not an increased deficit. The contribution to the 6 trillion deficit is half lower tax revenue because of lost incomes (negative stimulus) and half spending aimed at supporting jobs and those hit hardest by this economy (positive stimulus). Your answer?"

The original idea behind Keynsian Economic Theory (in simple terms) is Deficit (borrowed) spending during a recession to encourage economic activity and help 'stimulate' the economy. In that context, any increased borrowing is, by it's nature, a Keynsian 'stimulus'. It does not matter how the 'borrowed' money was used - it's still intended as a 'stimulus'.

Incidentally, I happen to support the original concept of Keynsian economics - to wit "Using borrowed money to stimulate the economy during a recession, and then using the excess revenues generated during the recovery to repay the Debt"

Unfortunately, the second part of the Keynsian theory is forgotten - and the government never repays the Debt during recoveries - hence, we now have a $16.3 Trillion Debt, with no hope of paying it off. It's always more attractive to use that money to pass 'entitlements' that effectively buy votes from an unsophisticated electorate.

One last thought on a little publicized looming DANGER.

Since we have relatively few investors willing to buy our ever increasing Debt (in fact, China has 'cashed in' - reduced the amount of our Debt that they own by about $200 Billion over the last year), virtually all of our increased Debt is now being financed by - the Federal Reserve effectively printing money - In fact, they are artificially 'creating' about $85 Billion per month in new money to finance the Debt.

There is a very simple economic formula that is taught in first year Economics which shows that 'As the money supply increases, prices also increase (Inflation)'. In fact, the Inflation Rate under Jimmy Carter got to over 14% per year, and that caused Interest Rates to increase to about 18% per year. I SEE THIS IN OUR NEAR FUTURE.

True patriot, can we also please dispense with the idea that a business is "small" if it nets $450k a year? Thats a farce. Any business which nets (taxable income) that much money is no where near small and should not be treated as such. They are not the small mom and pop struggling to make ends meet.

Gotta go now - I'll check back later re; Comments on my Post #1.14

Bye, and 'Have a nice day'.

@ basedrum,

Your personal opinion is just that. Personal. The GOVERNMENT defines Small Business as:

http://www.sba.gov/content/what-sbas-definition-small-business-concern

And Obama and the Democrats use this definition when basing the effects of Taxation and the effects of those decision on the economy that they own. If and when they call you for your personal definition and once given, get the government to change it, your OPINION will be valid.

Until then, stick to fact as it relates to reality.

@ True,

I can only relate to what is going on here. This tax is negatively effecting our job creation at my company. We reduced CAPEX by the new taxed amount of $500,000. This eliminated (1) x $300,000 machine, (2) x engineering positions and (1) of (3) total 2013 new product roll outs. If those roll outs become effective, production people are hired, and with the growth in sales, sales support and finance, etc. What is happening here is the elimination of equipment (and 2 operators for it), & (2) engineering jobs. It is subjective to guess as to what the effects of the postponed product rollout would be, whether successful of unsuccessful.

However, those are real numbers that are a direct result of Obama's tax pledge. These are NOT numbers that are being taken out of a rich person's paycheck. Only taken out of available resources that are left in the business to grow the business. ERGO, not fallacy here.

Why should anybody be satisfied with this piece of cop out crap that the Washington Weenies fashioned? I mean, it provides no significant increase in revenue and doesn't reduce President Santa Claus's wild spending by one cent. And they are sure that they fooled all of us dumb peons out here into believing that they actually accomplished something.....well, they must have, I guess...afterall, President Santa Claus interrupted the Orange Bowl telecast last night to tell us all how successful they all were in passing such a brilliant solution.

about time

cdahl,

I'm not saying you're lying but anyone who knows accounting knows its ridiculous to say that taxes are lessening your want to purchase and hire. If you hire and spend money on the equipment you would pay less taxes. Its farcical unless you're arguing that you need to save 2 years to get the $ needed to hire/purchase. Only DEMAND drives hiring and purchasing in the economy. If you're business stood to make $100 more than they spent to hire that employee or purchase that equipment then they'd do it.

And to my point earlier about "small" businesses no business worth its ass is structured as a straight passthrough that's making more than $2.5m in sales as the small business website indicates as the lowest threshold. If they are then they are using the form of law to circumvent the substance which was the original intent of the legislation so the consequences are on them...

I am just glad it was a "Balanced" approach, like President Obama wanted. $41 of new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts. Estimates show that 77% of Americans will be paying higher taxes, and this doesn't include the $Trillion$ in new Obamacare Taxes we all will be paying as well. But who really cares? Our politicians in Washington are so thrifty and careful about what they spend our tax dollars on. They need our money way more than we do...right?

@ Basedrum.

Where do you think the money comes from to invest in new hires and equipment? From profits, or net income after Taxes, depreciation and interest. Since Obama wants this "S-Corp" to take "a little more" it leaves us with "a little less" to invest per the above. In our case, nearly $500,000 less.

FYI, by definition we are a manufacturer with approx. 130 employees, and fall under the US Government's definition of a small business.

Manufacturing: Maximum number of employees may range from 500 to 1500, depending on the type of product manufactured.

All I'm saying, that somehow you seem to believe you can dispute is that when the government takes more, it leaves the business with less. We have been in meetings since October deciding what to spend in 2013. We reviewed (2) scenarios. One with Obama getting his tax increase on small business through, and the other if he failed. Obama won his day, therefore, we will be investing almost $500,000 less.

Since income (pay) is a separate line item from business income on a small business tax returns, why they would elect to increase taxes on money left in the business vs. hammering the small business owner that takes it out is beyond me, but they did.

I'm sorry that it is inconvenient that this was a "rich only" tax, but at some point you really should face reality and understand that this really doesn't affect the rich, but does affect successful small businesses, as the scenario I laid out earlier. Whereas it didn't kill jobs, it did reduce capital purchase by us, and postponed the hiring of (2) people until we reevaluate for 2014.

This whole debacle is an example of how the left believes that the "rich" will now pay more of their fair share, when in fact they will continue to pay a lower rate than the middle class. And the Ultra-Rich still have enough left over to make significant political donations.

Nothing short of appeasing an ignorant voting populace which can't name the Pres. VP, and leaders of the House and Senate.

Well good then. The 'rich' shouldn't be bothered by it if it doesn't make any difference.

Next issue?

@ Stop.

I believe we have been here before. Buffet and Romney are not bothered. Obama is targeting the wrong tax and as a finance person you know that.

If they really want to address the issues, close all loopholes, or at least limit them (limit home mortgage interest to say $15,000 or whatever), treat stock options as income vs. capital gains, raise capital gains to 25%, treat other special income as income, and start balancing the budget.

But even you can own up to the fact that those corporations and individuals that contribute to political campaigns, both parties are really not affected by this vote, and while being honest Buffet will still pay a smaller % than his secretary. (albeit 5% more now).

Asia had yet to be come a player,

Actually China was finishing its civil war and had a Leader for years that Made Bush JR. look like Einstein. We can thank Japan for making it possible for China to win its civil war and exile its last remaining old government to Taiwan So for China to finish its civil war it must Conquer Taiwan.

Truepatroit 1.64

I don't contend the sky is falling, I contend it has already fallen. Perhaps you are one of the dullards that can't see beyond the tip of your nose and think everything Obama has done is just dandy. Or you may be content to stick your head in the sand avoiding reality, that's your privilege.

Yes, better to take some pain now, than be writing in pain in the next couple of years.

Good luck though, and here is one that should have been done. If everyone paying has to pay more, than those other than SS should also take a little less.

Not only did the Chinese see this cumming. But are afraid they will not be paid back all the money we borrowed from them.

I can say to the Chinese, GOOD LUCK GETTING PAID BACK.

Heck they are going to raise the debt. ceiling so what's the worry just tax more and spend twice as much works dosen't it ? Yea right !

If America owns more American debt than any other nation, would you say to the US: GOOD LUCK GETTING PAID BACK? Can the Americans see what a disaster this country is becoming?

Maybe it would be best for everyone to change their posts to say "Americans" instead of "Chinese", re-read it, and see how it sounds. Then if you don't like it, then stop supporting it.

I know a lot of people that think it would be best for the country to spend even more to get the economy moving faster, they point to some historical parallels. Here's one for you:

How long before people finally start referring to this as the 'Second Great Depression'?

Probably when the new folks in Government weren't around when all these wonderful decisions were being made. When the ones that are trying to color this pretty aren't around anymore to have their careers tainted, I would suppose. History will most likely not regard our time as highly as we might like.

The democrats aren't thrilled because they were too stupid and brain washed to understand they were going to be taxed more too. They were told it was just going to be the "wealthy" and they believed it.

Amen. 535 of the most useless human beings.

Why not reverse the order of your list? Medical expenditures including Medicare and Medicaid are the largest portion of the budget and growing the fastest.

The super majority is needed, we are a supposed to be a republic or at least were in the past.

Hate to break this to you Alan but, the super majority is a recent rule in Congress. Look in the Constitution and tell me where is says anything about a super majority. All it has done is create gridlock. Now either party can and have blocked a vote on any bill by simply threatening to fillibuster. They no longer have to do it. All they have to do is threaten to do it. The super majority rule is part of the reason this Congess pasted the least amount of bills since we started keeping track of that. One other reason is an unwillingness by both parties to compromise. At least, they did compromise on this one issue. Maybe there is hope after all but, I doubt it.

AMEN!!!

Yeah, let's go back to that Hopey/Changey thing again.

Medicare and medicaid would not cost so much if the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT would do it's job and crack down on FRAUD and mismanagement. Also crack down on big pharma for price gouging. Along with a host of other things do to screw the public. The medical insurance companies deserve a good look over ( with a fine tooth comb ) also. Lots of fraud and graft there also. But then again that would be biting the hand that feeds them. As we have just seen that will never happen.

should the minority party have any say in government or should we just let the majority rule?

many here complain about the house being controlled by republicans and stopping obama and the senate from accomplishing things, i believe that too was by design by the founding fathers so that extremists, regardless of party affiliation, cannot harm the country for very long.

all we have to do is look at obama's first two years when congress was democrat majority ruled. does anyone think that the former and fired speaker of the house has read the aca bill yet? is she happy with all of the new taxes that fall on all Americans, not just the rich ones?

medical device use is not something only the rich receive. i recently had an aircast -- the doctor believes he will have to charge about 10% more for the same boot now than he did just a couple of days ago. i am not rich.

Majority rule will never work when the majority can vote themselves more stuff and vote that the minority must pay for it.

It's great that they got the deal done, by coming to a compromise. Taxes are going up on the top percent and we have added a little more fairness to the landscape. However, there is a ton of work that still needs to be done.

This was a simple political move by Obama to punish the rich. When you have the bully pulpit, and a huge base of takers, then you can say what you want and the base will sing your praises. Obama knew all along that even if he raised taxes on his so called 2% it wouldn't mean a thing, but yet he's vowed to to take on all those nasty rich people (even though they are Americans) and make them PAY. It was sickening to watch. I hope to goodness we get a president in future that represents ALL of America, not just the ones that will slurp at his trough. I can't believe he was out stumping the day before the vote. That's real leadership. Payback is going to be a beetch when it comes to the debt ceiling. They need to lock up the check book, and if the Dems are so hot about rolling back to the Clinton era tax rates, how about they roll back to the Clinton era spending numbers as well.

future

You should do some research and get an education.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Notice the DATE--1841. Now in what stretch of the imagination is that recent? Rule 22(The Filibuster) was made part of the Senate Rules in 1917 nearly a hundred years ago. Now how is that recent?

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

Taxes are increasing on 77% of Americans....not just the wealthy. President Obama insisted on a "Balanced Approach" and he got what he wanted......$41 in new taxes to every $1 in spending cuts. Let's just hope our politicians are smart enough to invest in some Bread and Soup...you know...for the lines we are all going to be standing in before long.

This compromise bill is the definition of irresponsibility.

You think the Democrats are not? They seem happy to just kick it down the road and hope someone else can fix it.

Not letting the Bush tax cuts expire is the irresponsible thing to do.

They are now the Obama cuts.

Hey Blue. Just for clarification....

Since some went for it and some against, are they irresponsible for voting for it? Or irresponsible for voting against it?

I think the spread is encouraging in this sense. Most issues are not at their base R or D, so by rights most bills should have some of both parties in the "yea" or "nay" category.

As for this bill itself, the long term issue is that there is a true philosophical impasse that will not be easy to get by.

Some percentage of republicans are truly fiscal conservatives, and truly believe at their core the biggest issue facing America is the deficit - and that without controlling spending there is no revenue solution that can work. Some percentage of Democrats and perhaps the president are truly fiscal liberals and believe in increasing program spending regardless of deficits.

These are diametrically opposed - and there is no solution - only the typical movement of the pendulum back and forth.

And for 30 years, when push has come to shove - the big deficit crowd won. Many Repubs were as big on deficit spending as ideological Dems, but they spent money for favor, not ideology.

Love or hate them, the TP threw out many of those.

So now the pendulum is stuck.

Some will answer, "get rid of the Repub ideologues". If so, deficit reduction is dead until our credit rating gets crushed and borrowing costs skyrocket. Which will rock our world.

But what seems clear today is that there are enough Dems and non-ideological Repubs that Deficits will no be tackled in the short term.

Whether you think that's responsible or irresponsible depends on where you stand

Here's my question....for years we have been told by Democrats that only the wealthy benefited from the "Bush Tax Cuts".........so why did they bother to keep them in place for the middle class? If the middle class never benefited from them in the first place....what's the point?

markinbecker:

If you are so uninformed as to think that President Obama offered 1.2 trillion in cuts then you truely know nothing about the way Washington works. What he offered was not a cut but to limit the growth of programs. That is like planning to spend 200,000 for your next house when you can only afford 100,000 so you make the compromise to only spend 185,000 and claim you just saved 15,000. Guess what you are still spending money you don't have.

Double Dumb from GA: you are wrong and markinbecker is correct. There were 1.2 trillion in actual cuts, but Boehner and Cantor (frick and frack) turned it down. The GOP got out flanked because they bowed to the teabaggers then got scared when they realized that 98% of the voters were going to get hit with a tax increase. Since Congress holds the budget purse strings they could control spending but are too busy giving money to thier pet projects, oil subsidies etc. Instead they plan to screw seniors with Medicare and Social security cuts. To put it in terms you can understand, that is like kicking grandma out of the house while giving your rich uncle a rolex.

SIESTASIS You call me "DUMB" I will put my education and GPA up to yours any day but that would be unfair to you. You see I have a Masters in Economics and I am working on my Doctorate, I have also worked with the Federal Government and know their accounting practices. Now if you wish to see "DUMB" just go look into the mirror.

then got scared when they realized that 98% of the voters were going to get hit with a tax increase.

That is what needs to happen Americans almost pay noting in income taxes

Dear Dumb, ahhh so you say, well I have a Masters in Business and have worked for over 50 years and deal with the feds DAILY. You just do not understand the proposals that were made, use your "educated" brain to go back and read the proposals (as I did) and then see if you can understand how the GOP blew it.

That is not true. It is a solid Democratic talking point but it is not true.

Siestasis, if you have a MBA then you know for certain that businesses merely collect money from their customers to pass along to the governement. You should also know that the 1.2 billion was indeed "savings" by spending less than the inflated growth of the first two years of this administration. It's OK though. The lies will eventually come to light. Probably right after we drive the world into depression by contiuning to devalue our currency.

There's nothing good about this bill.

Obama's spending cuts were not cuts, they were promises not to spend the 1.2 billion. He asked for about 43 billion in NEW spending.

How could 98% of people be hit with a tax increase, when 47% pay zero in federal income taxes in the first place? And haven't Democrats always told us that the Bush Tax Cuts only benefited the Rich anyway? I believe I've been hearing that from Democrats for years and years now. So what's the point of keeping the Bush Tax Cuts in place for the middle class now? If the middle class never benefited in the first place then what's the point? The CBO estimates that 77% of Americans will pay higher taxes from this deal...not just the rich. There are $41 in new taxes to every $1 in spending cuts....you know...a balanced approach like President Obama wanted. And these figures don't include the $Trillion$ in new taxes that went into effect yesterday that we all will be paying for Obamacare.

markinbecker - Yours is the most intelligent post of any I have seen here.

increase, when 47% pay zero in federal income taxes in the first place?

Elementary. Income taxes are not the same as payroll taxes. Most Americans pay less than 15% income taxes in fact 80% of America Pays less than 15%

The time passed last November.

Agreed - some very childish behavior from many. Lead by Boehner. He obviously cannot deal with the pressure and cannot negotiate.

SS is a tax.

The Federal government should not, in my opinion, be responsible for wealth transfers. That is what SS and Medicare are, taking from one and giving it to another.

If these programs need modifying, then we should adjust the payroll withholding taxes to fix them. No borrowing money to keep them solvent. And no eliminating the caps on income unless you also eliminate the caps on benefits.

These programs are entitlement to some. If you never paid into these programs but use their benefits, then they are entitlements.

Once the citizens see how much it really cost to operate these programs and start paying for them directly, we will see some real reform.

Fancy - I'll agree with you that SS and Medicare are not entitlements. I also see that if they are not projected to cover their costs, then we need to increase their individual tax rates.

Fancy This Too

Are you aware that the Democratic Party is ALSO a part of our Gov't? I am sick and tired of hearing the Reps are the only one's to blame for the mess OBAMA has gotten us into.

If SS and Medicare are not entitlements then how can the left suggest needs testing them????

If SS and Medicare are not entitlements then how do they pay out the promised benefits when there is not enough revenue coming into them and there is not enough growth in the Trust fund investment income to cover the shortfall?

Sorry, but SS and Medicare are entitlements until such time as they can stand on their own in perpetuity without needing additional government infusions.

Gboy-3109136

Why is it the Libs answer to everything is RAISE THE TAXES... Who is going to pay these raises you keep talking about... The Rich? Well the rich will be getting tired of supporting all the Lazy A$$es here in the USA and pack up their Sh!t and get.

Once they are gone, then the TAX Burden that you so willingly want to increase will fall on the shoulders of those next in line... The Upper-Middle Class and then the Plain Middle Class and then after that, there is nobody else so all these Bennies you love to scarf up will be gone.

What then?

Why is it the Republicans answer to everything is to lower taxes and give subsidies to the rich, to the oil companies, to Google, etc.? As far as SS and Medicare, those of us that worked for 50 plus years paying into SS do not consider it a perk, we paid into it we deserve it. What about all those that die before they collect one penny, my father, my husband both of which died after paying the maximum in SS taxes for years but one died one year before he was eligible and the other several years before he was of retirement years. Maybe if the govt quit borrowing from the fund (interest free) it would be in better shape.

Do you know what the tax rate was after ww2, 70 percent on millionaires at that time we bulit the interstate system, modern medicine took effect, internet was bought to foundation. O let me see Hoover Dam was built most bridges in the USA built an about 50 other things....

The Social Programs are entitlements by definition.

entitlement - government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group

This does not diminish human nature's sense of entitlement after contributing.

Fancy, maybe you dont know but corporations pay matching SS and medicare( under Obama they actually pay more than half), so really corporate pays more than half of SS now and half of medicare

Social Security and Medicare are not entitlement programs since the beneficiary directly pays above and beyond income taxes for the specific benefits she/he receives.

As of right now these two and Medicaid and debt interest take up 71 cents of every dollar of revenue the Government takes in.

Dano, not as of Jan 1, 2013. The Payroll tax cut we enjoyed for two years is gone and we will again pay half of the SS tax, matching what employers pay, and those of us self-employed pay the whole amount.

I know, but I was against the cut to begin with, obviously O pandering to the working man, like the pittance of a "tax holiday" really made any difference with job creation or staying in your house ( that you overpaid and over leveraged for)

the govt fools think we are all a bunch of idiots, they believe that people working for wages are going to be so happy that they get an extra $10 a week that they dont notice how much less their money buys

the same govt. that thinks that giving companies $5000 per. for new hires is going to stimulate hiring.

term limits and vote all incumbents out ( Dems, dont think you have a mandate, last 2 elections were the people voting out incumbents, problem is, most who were running were the ones voted out 2 elections ago.

Steven Ray Belcher

Do you know what the tax rate was after ww2, 70 percent on millionaires at that time we bulit the interstate system, modern medicine took effect, internet was bought to foundation. O let me see Hoover Dam was built most bridges in the USA built an about 50 other things....

There were also so many deductions/loopholes during that time, that if you paid more than 25-30% you were a complete moron!!!

All of you above- have ANY of y'all actually gone to the dictionary (those of you who own one, that is!) and looked up the definition of the word, 'entitlement'?

Aha! "Something that is owned by right or by title"- hence the word, geddit? You'll notice that it is not defined as 'a goodie, handout, largesse, gift, unearned bonus, or bribe.'

Social Security and Medicare are called entitlements because all working Americans are entitled to them by virtue of having paid into them, every payday, throughout your entire working life.

TANF (welfare), disability, and SNAP (food stamps) are NOT, NOT, NOT entitlements because not everybody is automatically assumed to be entitled to them; one must meet certain eligibility requirements first.They shouldn't even be discussed in the same paragraph with SS and Medicare!

This kind of Newspeak distortion of language is one of the most basic tools of the Parasite Class to keep the Productive Class in a perpetual state of confusion, so we keep on voting in their interests and against our own. When "Healthy Forests" means 'cut down anything that can't outrun a chainsaw'; when "Clear Skies" means 'multipy the legal limit for deadly toxins in the atmosphere a thousandfold'; it's clear that we've turned into a nation of illiterates, and the Forces of Darkness like us just fine that way, witness their relentless attacks on public education.

This Public Service Announcement was brought to you by the Winston S. Churchill Literacy Commando.
"This is the kind of pedantic sophistry up with which I will not put!"-- WSC

It depends how old you are and how much you make if social security is a entitlement or a paid for benefit. Most middle class and upper middle class that are under 50 will likely never get the amount they and their employers paid in back out not even counting any lost interest. Those that make low wages get much more out than they ever put in so for them it is a entitlement...or really welfare.

The main reason social security is in trouble is you have way too many people that think you should be able to live off the benefit. It was never meant to be that but the bleeding hearts feel so sorry for those who did not save their money. We need to laugh at the idiots who COULD have saved money but CHOOSE not to.

What is sad is that not only do the bleeding hearts feel for the downtrodden, they insist on helping them with everyones money. I feel for them as well. i help when I can. I will never ask you for your money to help.

@ alan

your wrong alan, ss and medicare are not taking from one giving to another. my wife and i have added up what we have given to ss and medicare. we have figured with what we payed in we will most likely not see the entirety of it from retirement to death. my mother did the same thing she added up what she had given into the programs over the years, then figured out from her monthly payment X life expectency, that she would not get her total payment back. i bet if all people would do this they would see that you dont get most of what you pay in back.

so tell me if you dont get most of what you pay in back, how are you stealing from others? sounds more like our govt is using that extra money and stealing it instead!

Yes he did. However, just like in the past, higher rates do not equal revenue. Chances are good that the higher rates will result in less revenue. It has been that way for the last 50 years. CBO is FORCED to use the assumptions provided by the government. One of those assumptions is there will be no negative effect for increasing rates.

Never has worked and never will.

higher rates will not really effect most of the upper wealthy. the loopholes in our tax codes are still active. one example is look how romney used his horse for a tax cut. these guys will still end up paying the same they have always done with all the loopholes out there for them.

higher taxes without closing the loopholes is just a touchy feely pandering for more votes. the problem is its not a true solution!

Correct. 0 times 39.5% is still zero. LOL

@ milkman

lol i know i just dont understand why people dont realize that.

obama paid off solendra to the tune of 1/2 trillion for a $30,000 donation to his campaign in 2009. these donations are too expensive for the american people. all the payoffs are what is breaking our country !!!!! how much does the presidency cost? please understand with all the payoffs that are returned to the donor ten thousands to one are paid by us, the taxpayers. and how much did general electric spend to buy this president, you know they pay no taxes!!! obama is the most expensive president ever and he has done nothing, except turn the country into a socialist state.

@ jerry

the problem is jerry its just not obama and the democrats. look at the republicans most receive their campaign dollars from the defense industry, big pharma, and the oil industry. the problem is its all our politicians.

we need campaign finance reform, untill we get that, no change for the good will ever happen in our government.

You can certainly add Nancy Pelosi to the list.

No, unfortunately what you have is a small group of Tea Party members holding the entire Republican Party hostage....and it is going to end up crushing the party base. I am a registered Republican, but these Tea Party lunatics need to face reality. There is no excuse for telling the speaker of the house that they will shoot down any compromise, or anything remotely showing compromise. As you said, they had the chance to do a good deal two years ago, and the one done last month would have had it set at the 1 million dollar mark...but they said no way, that's a compromise, it shows weakness...blah blah blah....only comfort i have is that hopefully the American public is as fed up with their lunacy as i am...

The American public? Is that who you think voted in the last election? HAHAHAHAHAH

Learn to speak spanish.....

"You can certainly add Nancy Pelosi to the list."

You're right --- I should have.

Eric Cantor is the man that belongs on the list .What a grub worm.

I volunteer to chip in by taking less services from the government! Let me keep my money and I will stimulate the economy by buying what I want instead of what the government wants to provide.

We have a spending problem.

You have a very good point Shawn. When our country was started our founding fathers never intended for there to be life-long politicians. In the beginning, politicians were just ordinary people who came to office, served, and then went back to their regular job farming or whatever. Power corrupts. No matter how well intentioned someone is when they get to Wahington they quickly learn how the game is is played. Term limits would help solve a lot of the problem. Another part of the sloution would be line item veto power for the President and not just this President. That would eliminate a lot of the entitlements (pork) that gets passed because it is slipped into important legislation. Who the hell reads 800 page bills?

If you look at the 60 bilion that they want in Sandy funds it incudes roof repairs in DC, bridges to nowhere in Alaska, road repairs in Arizona..... and so forth. So the gov in those states are holding Sandy victims hostage to forward their political career. So disgusting. But this is the government we hold dear.....

"There has been no compromise; Obama and the Democratic Party wanted increased spending and tax increases"

BS. Try getting your information from someplace other than the right wing entertainment industry of Limbaugh the junkie and Fox. Boehner walked away from a much better deal involving spending cuts more than a year ago. Jeff -- uninformed people like you are a huge part of the problem in this nation.

Charlie-1915998

Where are the spending cuts? Why did VP Biden take them out of the Senate bill?

"Where are the spending cuts? "

Ask Boehner -- he walked away from them last year.

Biden caved! Republicans got more than they ever dreamed of with respect to taxes in the deal. 99.3% of taxpayers saw their 2001 Bush Tax cut rates made permanent, only 0.7% are impacted. That is only a fraction of the top 1%. Republicans have been trying to make these temporary taxes permanent for almost 12 years. Most important is that this much higher level protects small business owners.

Now Republicans can focus on the debt ceiling and forcing Obama to make spending cuts to reduce the federal budget deficit. Obama no longer has taxes to whine about - his "lever" is gone.

Gee...boy...I am here. You miss me or what?

I will congratulate some Republicans who supported the fiscal deal last night ... courageous. But mroe fights are looming, we will see if the GOP has really changed collectively. If not, they will have their ass whacked again in November 2014.

Yeah, and we are subsidizing underpaid employees employed by billionaires!

According to reports late last night and this morning, from MSNBC, CNN and FOX, the CBO has projected that the agreement passed yesterday will add an additional 4 Trillion dollars to the deficit over the next 10 years. Seems to me that Obama is getting everything he and his believers want in the end. By the end of his current 4 years as President we won't recognize the USA anymore. Maybe it's time for all of us who are working to stop and go on the DOLE and then see how Obama and his mimions will deal with it. I still think that all of the GOP should have voted PRESENT and then let the country see just how things are really working out with all of the over spending and limited revenue.

It add's 4 Trillion to the deficit BECASUSE it allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue for 98% of people.

There's some easy ways to reduce spending that wouldn't be too difficult to agree on.

On the defense side, there are programs/systems the military DOESN'T want, but are essentially earmarks for a district of a particular Congress man/woman.

On the corporate welfare side, farm subsidies for large farms (not family owned), subsidies for the oil companies, the ethanol subsidies, the Medicare subsidy for the Medicare HMO's (they get a 15% markup just to take Medicare patients).

On the individual welfare side, ending extended unemployment, AFDC beyond two years, housing subsidies. Keep subsidized school lunches for the kids, but if their parents want to eat, they have to work.

A combination of the above makes more sense than just focusing on one thing. You'll need a combination for the figures to add up.

I will never respect John Bohner nor the teaparty.

You mean like cutting money for bridges to no where or cutting funding to an airport in Illinois that only operates a few hours a week?

I agree - cut the waste where you can. That won't ever get done without line item veto on budget resolutions. The way our congress works is that to keep your job you have to get earmarks. Maybe term limits would help

And I will never respect Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi - snakeoil salesmen, every last one of them.

lower mc

if you tax the crap out of companies that outsourse jobs, then you put US companies at a financial dissadvantage in the world market. Companies are in business to make money, if the average US worker makes 10 times what a foriegn worker makes and has benifits and has to follow stringent regulations how do you expect US company to be competitive? would you spend $4000 on an ipod or 20k on a TV ? not likely.

if you want US companies to come back here you need to provide a financial incentive to make it worthwhile. raising their taxes will just force them either out of business or into being a foriegn company. and dont forget , its a global economy, alot of US companies sell products to other countries. and they relocate to be closer to their suppliers and customers

.

@ dano

really dano 20k for a tv? i remember before all the free trade and global economy falacy was started. we never had to pay 20k for a tv. the fact is we are paying more now for items made in china, then for items that where made in the US in the past. the free trade falacy is only good for international profits, it is not good for a nations economy. you only have to look at the countries that are doing well economically, they have high tarrifs and limited imports. hell even china has high tarrifs (35%) on any goods moving into their country from ours, and limited imports. so why the heck are we not taxing their goods then? no instead we allow a huge trade deficit to happen with china, which is part of our deficit problem.

Flashshoe

20 Billion of that goes to the different agencies that administer the program.. Don't forget got to keep them employed as well.

sane maybe

What would you have them do? The House already had passed a bill dealing with this but reid would not let it go to vote... So why shouldn't the senate take the responsibility since it was them that would not vote on what they already had.

The worst SENATE ever hasn't brought up ANY bills that the House has passed since the Republicans took control. Harry Reid is a sorry excuse for a majority leader because he doesn't lead in anything. All he does is hide behind Obama and is afraid to let the Senate vote on anything for fear of the Democrats actually getting blamed for something, or for fear of a Republican bill passing. That would take a miracle.

Anita-2036926

Grover Norquist was on CNN last night supporting the bill and trying to spin it as a win for the republicans. It was hilarious to watch.

Almost as funny as President Obama praising Republicans after the bill passed; mere days after bashing them during negotiations.

Norquist decided that the GOP could vote on the bill and they did and so now his is passing it off as a win!

DfromSpencer

Where were those remarks when they were praising obama during the election?

dfromsplencer - Absolutely right! Wall Street's "self-serving thugs" are pissing their panties because they can't rape the American Middle Class anymore !! Wall Street Journal is passe' GOP favoritism reading - Oxymoron Rush Limbot must be writing for the journal. So much B.S. in favor of the GOP "enrich me" Hawks. Boohoohoohoo - No more stealing from the middle class, no more billions. millions to invest overseas or hide out of America ... No more tax writeoffs from St. Ronnie's GOP tax rules of the 80's. boohoohoo - So sad.... YIPEE - finally "some" equality!

Hot Daddy, this is what your President and Senate demanded and would accept nothing else. Your blame is directed at the wrong people.

Yes Obama is OUR president. Elected by the folks under $30k of income basically. We have incentivized

illegitimate children, SS disability, longterm unemployment, etc. to the point that these people now have the political power and will to destroy our country much like closed shop union destroy the companies that hire them.

That 4 trillion was based on ALL the tax cuts being extended...which they were not. But hey, it makes for a good sound byte.

Hey everybody, you do know that Congress is BOTH the House AND the Senate. I love how many people posting refer to the House as Congress and the Senate as the Senate. I've also noticed this is done mostly by liberals and IMO it is a deliberate attempt to deceive readers, rather than they are uneducated.

That 4 trillion was based on ALL the tax cuts being extended...which they were not. But hey, it makes for a good sound byte.

Please show link? were over spending by a trillion every year.