Log in

View Full Version : Fiscal Cliff Deal: $1 in Spending Cuts for Every $41 in Tax Increases



bogie
01-01-2013, 09:59
Here it comes.. And good job republicans, let all their heads roll [guillotine]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/31/Fiscal-cliff-deal-41-1-in-tax-increases-to-spending-cuts-ratio


According to (https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/285974557783912448) the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.

When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending cuts—cuts that never ultimately came—they did so at ratios of 3:1 and 2:1.
“In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes,” Americans for Tax Reform says (http://www.atr.org/myths-facts-taxpayer-protection-pledge-a6979) of those two incidents. “The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.
"In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.”



More on the story..


The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed a deal early this morning to cut taxes to Bush-era rates for all income categories below $450,000 per household ($400,000 for individuals). The Senate vote came too late to avert the midnight "fiscal cliff" deadline, and the deal must still pass the House of Representatives later today. The deal will also delay the deep spending cuts in the "sequester," including defense cuts," by two months. The fact that the vote happened after midnight may have helped assist its passage, since Senators were no longer voting for a tax hike on the wealthiest earners but rather on a tax cut for everyone else. Five Republicans opposed the deal--including Sen. Marco Rubio (FL), Sen. Rand Paul (KY), and Sen. Mike Lee (UT), three Tea Party favorites. Three Democrats, including Tom Harkin (IA), who had signaled his opposition (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/31/Democrats-Balk-at-Fiscal-Cliff-Deal), also voted no.
Other provisions of the deal include an extension of unemployment benefits, without corresponding spending cuts elsewhere. The payroll tax relief that wage earners have enjoyed for two years was not extended and will expire, meaning that many working Americans will still feel a bigger dent in their first paychecks of 2013, while those out of work may experience a lower incentive to seek new job opportunities, as federal deficits rise.
In addition, the capital gains tax will rise from 15 to 20 percent; the inheritance tax will rise from 35 percent to 40 percent on amounts over $5 million; and many families will be spared the Alternative Minimum Tax.
The total revenue increase in the deal amounts to $600 billion--far less than the $800 billion than Speaker of the House John Boehner had initially offered in a broader proposal. Some Democrats believed that President Obama, who was largely absent from the "fiscal cliff" talks, had not negotiated well. Republicans, meanwhile, worried about the disproportionate ratio of tax increases to spending cuts (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/31/Fiscal-cliff-deal-41-1-in-tax-increases-to-spending-cuts-ratio); spending is barely reduced at all.
Passage in the House of Representatives is likely, but not certain, as reports have emerged that Speaker Boehner may not have the support of a majority of his Republican caucus for the deal. The Speaker may have to seek votes from Democrats to secure passage--something he promised earlier that he would not do.
The tough confrontations of recent years will continue, as Congress will immediately turn to the thorny issue of the debt ceiling. The federal government reached its $16.4 trillion borrowing limit yesterday, according to the Treasury, and resorted to "extraordinary" measures to continue funding the government. Republicans are expected to take an even harder line against a debt limit increase than they did in the summer of 2011.



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/01/Senate-Passes-Fiscal-Cliff-Deal-89-8

(http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/01/Senate-Passes-Fiscal-Cliff-Deal-89-8)

Goodburbon
01-01-2013, 10:02
I had no idea the CBO was operating between the hours of midnight and 9 am on New years day.

bogie
01-01-2013, 10:04
I had no idea the CBO was operating between the hours of midnight and 9 am on New years day.

Good point. It has all been staged, apparently.

Drucker
01-01-2013, 10:23
I wish I could cut a deal like that with my creditors..

Singlestack
01-01-2013, 10:33
Well, those evil republicans obviously kept our good president Beeho from getting the "balanced deal" he was talking about, somewhere around $1 of tax increases for every $1 cut.[facepalm]

Heads will roll for this in 2014...

merl
01-01-2013, 11:04
the idiots were offered a much better deal last year. something like $5 of cuts for $1 in increases. but the "no tax increase" hardliners refused to negotiate. and now we get last second SHIT rammed through by the senate. a worse deal.


What are we up to for unemployment? 6 years of bennies?


Heads will roll for this, yes, but they will likely be on the (R) side.

Pancho Villa
01-01-2013, 11:49
LOL republicans.

Every time fiscal issues come around they cave, the cuts never come, and we have to deal with it. You'd think people would be used to it by now.

Byte Stryke
01-01-2013, 12:16
Paul/Rubio 2016

tmleadr03
01-01-2013, 12:40
[ROFL2]
Paul/Rubio 2016

sroz
01-01-2013, 14:45
[ROFL2]

Yep. [ROFL1]

TDYRanger
01-01-2013, 14:58
Why would anyone still think there is any freaking difference between Republicans and Democrats. Same assholes different ties. All of them are paid for by the same money and not one of them would slow down their tax payer paid for, chauffeured car to spit on you if you we're on fire

Pancho Villa
01-01-2013, 15:47
Why would anyone still think there is any freaking difference between Republicans and Democrats. Same assholes different ties. All of them are paid for by the same money and not one of them would slow down their tax payer paid for, chauffeured car to spit on you if you we're on fire

That's a bit of an exaggeration. They're not identical. But they agree on a lot more, fundamentally, than they disagree on (with some exceptions from 'radical' members.)

Jer
01-02-2013, 11:18
Why would anyone still think there is any freaking difference between Republicans and Democrats. Same assholes different ties. All of them are paid for by the same money and not one of them would slow down their tax payer paid for, chauffeured car to spit on you if you we're on fire
That's a bit of an exaggeration. They're not identical. But they agree on a lot more, fundamentally, than they disagree on (with some exceptions from 'radical' members.)

Sorry man but he's right. BOTH parties have been railroading us under differing auspices for decades now. It's become pretty blatant as of late and this deal further solidifies the fact that they truly don't give a hobo's crap about us.

Mazin
01-02-2013, 11:38
We have a broke system fellas, the party affiliation has to die and we need to get reps that actually REPRESENT the american people instead of self serving intrest. But hey at least they all got a raise.

sellersm
01-02-2013, 11:44
participatory fascism. The illusion of choice.

bigmyk2k
01-02-2013, 12:03
participatory fascism. The illusion of choice.

Had to look that one up. Found this article. (http://www.believeallthings.com/2447/participatory-fascism/)

Now that's scary...

sellersm
01-02-2013, 12:33
Check this thread: http://www.ar-15.co/threads/70503-It-s-not-socialism-it-s-Participatory-Fascism?highlight=participatory+fascism

Aloha_Shooter
01-02-2013, 16:15
Anyone who thinks there's no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is either ignorant or delusional. Yes, there's less difference than many of us would like but the differences are still huge. As much as I disagree with John Roberts' ruling in Obamacare, his judicial history shows he's no Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor, much less a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You never would have seen Antonin Scalia nominated by a Democratic president.

Both parties spent way too much but Bush's overexpeditures in 2005 (quietly criticized although abetted by the GOP Congress who didn't want to undermine the President) pale in comparison to the Pelosi-Reid expeditures after 2007 and THOSE were DWARFED by the Obama budgets after 2009. People (especially the left-wing media) forget that the increases in defense expeditures under Reagan and Bush the Younger were needed to compensate for the evisceration of the Nixon, Carter and Clinton years. No one on the left wants to talk about how Clinton's foreign policy lived on military built up by Reagan/Bush and failed to replenish what they were burning up -- same with Obama. If one administration neglects the roads for 8 years, the next one is necessarily going to have huge road repair expenses.

Certainly there are elements of the Rockefeller Republicans and I think the GOP compromised far too often on the promise of spending cuts which never materialized but that's still vastly different from the enthusiastic wanton spending of the Democrats. I loathe the legislation they just passed to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff but Rand Paul explained why he held his nose and voted for it; he's hardly the first Senator or Congressman to vote for objectionable legislation solely because s/he deemed the alternative to be worse.

flan7211
01-02-2013, 17:09
Rand Paul voted against this compromise. There is no reason to have a Republican party anymore and the next few elections will present us with a replacement, not a third choice. The Federalists died and produced the Whigs, the Whigs died and produced the Republicans. The Republican party will die because it doesn't mean anything now and our voting bloc is shattered. A renewed party that will stand for something until they don't, will appear as the vehicle of conservatives.

lowieboy2009
03-05-2013, 02:30
I agree, Obama and Congress cannot seem to reach any type of agreement, the spending cuts (http://personalmoneynetwork.com/moneyblog/?s=spending+cuts+will+begin) will begin.
Sequestration is the latest result of dysfunction in Washington and government by crisis that is damaging our democracy. We must demand that Congress fulfill its responsibility to craft a better budget for our nation.
We deserve a budget that reflects the voices of the people.