http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/12/03/694dbc1e-3d84-11e2-a2d9-822f58ac9fd5_story.html

Looks like the GOP made a counter offer. Not bad, but it has the right idea. I'm curious to see what President Obama does next.

God forbid that a GOPer proposes to cut defense spending, this offer balances the cuts on the backs of the poor and the middle class at the expense of keeping tax rates low for the rich. What a crock of shit, excuse my french. If lower taxes for the wealthy grew the economy, then we wouldnt be in this mess. But obcourse we cant look at the facts or statistics objectively, we have to sugarcoat and pick what we want to say one by one to suit our agenda. Good luck GOP, see how well that worked out for you in the last election. I actually wouldnt mind if we go over the cliff, then maybe we can actually cut defense for once in recent memory.

I can see why they would be cautious about defence spending. This is due to the fact that defence spending gives manufacturing companies something to do, which leads to jobs and growth etc. But I agree compensation has to be made. Higher rates, while I don't think are the tell all answer wouldn't kill the wealthy.
Tit for tat. You need to cut social programs, raise the retirement age, reform the tax code etc, but in place higher taxes wouldn't be the end of the world. Initially I was against that, but until comprehensive reform of the tax code can be made (no tall order) raising rates isn't a huge deal.

this shit is way over my head.i dont know about any 'fiscal cliff'. all i know is,as long as sports betting is illegal ill be fine.lol.

I see the GOP budget includes lowering Social Security colas. After all the 1.7% we'll get in 2013 is way way too much.



TIS

I can't buy that icredible DailyKos conspiracy theory (what a shock, right?) that Tea Party hero Jim DeMint and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell totally shat on Speaker Boehner's "GOP Proposal" today as a way to cover for him or make him sound sane or whatever nonsense.

It's weird DeMint using "job killing" talking point against not just another Republican, but the most powerful one in the government.

The proposal really wasn't that bad. Needs some fine tuning with higher rates thrown in and it it's the start of something. Of course neither side will admit it

Anne Coulter: GOP should let tax rates for the rich go up.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/ann-coulter-gop-taxes-obama-hannity_n_2249545.html

Right-Wing Base push-back against Coulter.

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/1...the-rich-video/

It's not so much that the GOP is surrendering and adopting a liberal premise as it is falling in line with mainstream America.

It's what needs to be done for the time period not mainstream America. Everyone hates higher taxes, but for the sake of compromise they need to go up

The tax rate needs to be raised not for the sake of compromise, but because it is the fiscally responsible thing to do along with controlling spending, particularly reducing the growth of the swelling defense budget. Keep in mind that the Bush tax cuts were passed as a temporary measure, which was to have expired in 2010.

I still don't agree with a higher rate, but it's not the end of the world. And if you're going to curb spending do you not have to make cuts to programs like medicare and social security? Something has to go and it can't just be to the defense budget.

$500 billion in Defense cuts if the Cliff isn't avoided. The President issued a directive excluding uniformed personnel pay and benefits from these cuts ($55 billion for the first year.)

White House directs Pentagon to prepare for 'cliff'

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118712

Tax fun: calculator to figure out how much your taxes will rise if we don't get deal by 1/1.
http://calculator.taxpolicycenter.org/

The Treasury Secretary can delay withholding changes.

Here are some interesting changes to the tax code if no deal is made by the Cliff, and begs the question of why the House GOP aren't racing to get some sort of deal in a lose-lose situation for them. Better to lose a hill than a mountain.

Top income rate goes from 35% to 39.6%

Capital-gains tax now at 15%, will go up to 23.8%. This will also include pre-Dubya capital gains rate of 20%, plus the Obamacare 3.8% surcharge for high earners. (Which actually is happening anyway regardless of Cliff.)

Dividends currently are taxed as capital gains at 15%. But if no Cliff deal is made, they'll be taxed as regular income. This means 39.6% on dividends.

Currently heirs of estates are exempt from paying any taxes at all on the first $5.1 million of the estate. This exemption drops to $1 million when the Dubya tax cuts expire. Beyond that $1 million limit, instead of paying 35% as they do now, the heirs will now pay 55%.

(Example: $20 million? Your heirs will get just $9.5 million after the new year instead of $14.8 million as they would currently.)

So again, why won't the House GOP (as logic would dictate) cut their loses and keep as much of their tax breaks as possible and formally declare caving in on that top income tax rate? They're in a lose-lose situation and they're still trying to play tit-for-tat.

I guess the House members are so terrified of primary challenges in '14, they'll willingly throw their wealthy supporters/donors under the bus to save themselves. Nevermind Boehner is terrified he'll lose his job if he do officially cave in before gets any entitlement cuts that his base demands.

Obama is pulling a Michael Corleone.

Here is my offer, nothing.

These are three very big problems for the GOP. Many people in the top income pct. are looking to protect assets. The best way to avoid losing a large estate to taxes and administrative costs is to invest in life insurance with your heirs as beneficiaries. Life insurance benefits can not be taxed by the IRS or touched by creditors.

I know the Democrats pushed the idea that Boehner isn't willing to negotiate until the 3rd next month, after the Cliff is passed, when the GOP hold their inner-party elections for Congressional positions like Majority Leader (i.e. Speaker of the House).

But could there be any actual truth to that?

I am all for going over the "cliff"(its not really a cliff, just a slow moving downward slope) and then negotiating afterwards. This would make the Dems bargaining positions stronger compared to the GOP, and would make it easier for the GOP to get a deal done since any deal at that point since taxes already went up would technically be a "tax cut".

As I understand it, even IF we go over the fiscal "cliff" (and I too have doubts it is a cliff), congress can come together shortly (days)after ALL taxes go up. The Norquist pledge will be over & done. D's propose keeping middle class taxes low and increase ONLY upper ($250,000 or more). What choice will Rs have but to go with it? I see the Dems holding all the cards. I too won't freak if we go over the cliff (at least not at this point).

As far as Boehner goes, I'm wondering if he knows he'll have to cave in the end, but has to at least appear that he's trying.



TIS

TIS, between now and forever, the Congress can lower or raise taxes. Also, keep in mind that the Secretary of the Tresury can delay any increase in withholding.

Thats the EXACT reality of the whole situation, vast majority of people dont realize this cause they are too busy listening to all the hoopla on the news about these negotiations (which I have been ignoring for the most part) to realize that it is not the end of the world if there isnt a deal before the end of the year. I saw some of these news outlets have countdown clocks till the "cliff", lol what a joke.

Even though these tax cuts were "meant" to expire automatically?

I don't know who the Treasury Secretary is but wouldn't it be a matter of which side of political aisle that person is



TIS

I wonder about the politics behind the "resurgent" Cliff talks. Is Obama actually serious about the proposed cuts being floated out there, or is he betting that the GOP base will openly revolt against Boehner (Club for Growth have already declared Boehner's proposed tax raises to be too much) and he won't have enough votes to pass it in the House? In which case another political battle victory for the WH.

Well some things DO need to be cut aka: social security, medicare etc. And from what I've been reading it looks like negotiations have been producing results. Obama raised the amount of annual income taxed from 250 to 400K. Boehner has agreed to let the rates go up. Compromise; it's what I've been saying all along. Neither side is going to dominate these negotiations. If everyone can just go to the middle instead of making ridiculous demands then this wouldn't have to be such a big deal.

Social Security and Medicare provide their own revenue streams. The Social Security fund lends money to the Treasury.

So what's Plan C?