OFF THE CLIFF!

[Townsend]

And then there's this:

Fiscal cliff debate shifts to campaign-style tactics

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/27/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29&cid=sf_twitter

Washington (CNN) -- It helped get him re-elected, so President Barack Obama is again employing campaign-style tactics to increase pressure on congressional Republicans to compromise to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.

Failure to reach a deal means tax increases and deep spending cuts take effect in five weeks, a scenario analysts fear could push the country back into recession.

While aides on both sides have been talking, no follow-up meeting between Obama and congressional leaders has been scheduled after their initial post-election discussion on November 16.

Instead, Obama meets with small business owners on Tuesday, the first in a series of events this week intended to highlight his push for raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans while maintaining current rates for everyone else.

On Wednesday, Obama meets with the chief executives of major corporations while congressional Republicans and Democrats will talk separately with deficit-reduction gurus, including former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and Maya MacGuinneas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group advocating fiscal reform.

The president also will meet with those described by the White House as middle class Americans who face a major impact if higher taxes and automatic reductions in military and discretionary federal spending take hold.
Obama concludes the week with a trip Friday to Hatfield, Pennsylvania, to visit a manufacturing operation and deliver a speech.

The series of meetings involving all parties showed the high-profile tactics underway to demonstrate efforts to reach a deficit reduction compromise that signals to the nation, including financial markets, that a deal can happen.
Stocks opened lower Tuesday due in part to concerns about prospects for a deal, which remains front and center for investors with the U.S. economy showing more signs of improvement in its long recovery from recession. Economists point to fears about higher taxes in 2013 as a potential threat to rising consumer confidence.
Asked why Obama was meeting with business leaders and traveling to Pennsylvania instead of negotiating directly with Republicans in Congress, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday it was important to bring the broader American public into the discussion.
The fiscal cliff resulted from a failure to reach a deficit reduction agreement in the past two years due to longstanding differences between Democrats and Republicans on taxes -- particularly whether to extend tax cuts from President George W. Bush's administration.
Obama made the issue a central theme of his election campaign, and now the White House believes the president's re-election validated his call for including more tax revenue in addressing the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt.
"This topic was perhaps the most debated, the most discussed, the most analyzed, for a year," Carney told reporters on Tuesday, adding that the election result showed Americans supported Obama's approach.
"To suggest that we should, now that the election's over, stop talking to the American people about these vital issues is, I think, bad advice," Carney said.

Last week, Obama's former campaign manager, Jim Messina, said the president's re-election campaign and its grassroots resources will "live on," most likely as a tool to promote the president's second-term policies.

Obama for America, the name of the campaign, already released an e-mail to its distribution list, in an attempt to educate readers on the president's fiscal cliff argument and rallying supporters to get behind him.

The president wants to let tax rates for income over $250,000 for families or $200,000 for individuals return to higher 1990s levels, while maintaining current rates for the rest of the country.

Republicans oppose increasing any tax rates, but House Speaker John Boehner and other influential GOP figures have declared their willingness to consider other ways to boost tax revenue as part of a broader deal that includes entitlement reforms and spending cuts.

That position undermines the no-tax increase pledge championed by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, which Democrats consider to be a major impediment to a deficit reduction deal.

Some Republicans including conservative Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina as well as Rep. Peter King of New York and Scott Rigell of Virginia have dropped their adherence to Norquist's pledge.

Norquist responded harshly Monday night, telling CNN that those denouncing the pledge were breaking their commitment to voters. He targeted King for saying a pledge signed years ago no longer applied.
King "tried to weasel out" of the pledge, adding: "I hope his wife understands commitments last a little longer than two years or something."

According to Norquist, King knew when he signed the pledge that it applied to "as long as you're in Congress."

"It's only as long as you're in the House or the Senate. If he stayed too long, that's his problem," Norquist added.

To CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger, the softening tone by some in the GOP was explained by new poll numbers that showed 45% of Americans would blame Republicans for failing to avoid the fiscal cliff, while 34% would blame Obama.

Republicans insist Democrats must agree to cut discretionary spending and make significant reforms to Medicare and Social Security as part of a deficit reduction deal.

However, organized labor and other elements of the Democratic base oppose any major reforms to the popular entitlement programs. While some Democratic legislators express willingness to reform Medicare and Medicaid, they reject making Social Security reform part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, saying it is self-funded and therefore doesn't add to the deficit.

Obama spoke by phone over the weekend with Boehner and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, Carney said Monday, and he rejected a reporter's assertion Tuesday that no progress was taking place in efforts to avoid the fiscal cliff.

On Capitol Hill, a Senate Democratic leadership aide said Monday that behind-the-scenes talks have "haven't been tremendously productive."

Negotiations were not at a point "where people are huddled in a conference room with spread sheets" but are instead at the early "dancing stage," the Democratic aide said.

Congressional Republican leadership aides declined to characterize the state of the talks, though one noted the fact that discussions continued could be interpreted as progress.

The CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also showed that a solid majority of respondents -- two-thirds -- supports the Democratic stance that any agreement should include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Of that total, Republicans favor such an approach by 52%-44%.

Without a deal, tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 -- when George W. Bush was president -- will expire, raising rates for everyone starting in January. In addition, spending cuts would reduce spending on the military, national parks, the Federal Aviation Administration and other government services.

However, the government and Congress still would have time to prevent draconian effects from the fiscal cliff when a new Congress convenes in January.

William Galston, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, called that a form of brinksmanship best avoided.

"To be sure, no one believes that non-agreement by December 31 would be the end of the story. After a period of finger-pointing, discussions would resume," he wrote last week in a New Republic opinion piece. "But equally, no one knows how the failure to reach agreement before the end of 2012 would affect the dynamics of the negotiations."

In addition, "we can be reasonably sure ... that national and global markets would react adversely and that businesses, which are already retreating from planned investments in new plant and equipment, would become even more uncertain and risk-averse."

[Teatownclown]

GOP/Teapotty better wise up....

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: November 25, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html
SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. "This is a good one," he says enthusiastically. "I'm in it, and I think you should be, too."

Would your reply possibly be this? "Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you're saying we're going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent." Only in Grover Norquist's imagination does such a response exist.

Between 1951 and 1954, when the capital gains rate was 25 percent and marginal rates on dividends reached 91 percent in extreme cases, I sold securities and did pretty well. In the years from 1956 to 1969, the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent — and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered.

Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross domestic product (a measure of the nation's economic output) increased at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground.

So let's forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if — gasp — capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities.

And, wow, do we have plenty to invest. The Forbes 400, the wealthiest individuals in America, hit a new group record for wealth this year: $1.7 trillion. That's more than five times the $300 billion total in 1992. In recent years, my gang has been leaving the middle class in the dust.

A huge tail wind from tax cuts has pushed us along. In 1992, the tax paid by the 400 highest incomes in the United States (a different universe from the Forbes list) averaged 26.4 percent of adjusted gross income. In 2009, the most recent year reported, the rate was 19.9 percent. It's nice to have friends in high places.

The group's average income in 2009 was $202 million — which works out to a "wage" of $97,000 per hour, based on a 40-hour workweek. (I'm assuming they're paid during lunch hours.) Yet more than a quarter of these ultrawealthy paid less than 15 percent of their take in combined federal income and payroll taxes. Half of this crew paid less than 20 percent. And — brace yourself — a few actually paid nothing.

This outrage points to the necessity for more than a simple revision in upper-end tax rates, though that's the place to start. I support President Obama's proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so.

Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.

Above all, we should not postpone these changes in the name of "reforming" the tax code. True, changes are badly needed. We need to get rid of arrangements like "carried interest" that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains. And it's sickening that a Cayman Islands mail drop can be central to tax maneuvering by wealthy individuals and corporations.

But the reform of such complexities should not promote delay in our correcting simple and expensive inequities. We can't let those who want to protect the privileged get away with insisting that we do nothing until we can do everything.

Our government's goal should be to bring in revenues of 18.5 percent of G.D.P. and spend about 21 percent of G.D.P. — levels that have been attained over extended periods in the past and can clearly be reached again. As the math makes clear, this won't stem our budget deficits; in fact, it will continue them. But assuming even conservative projections about inflation and economic growth, this ratio of revenue to spending will keep America's debt stable in relation to the country's economic output.

In the last fiscal year, we were far away from this fiscal balance — bringing in 15.5 percent of G.D.P. in revenue and spending 22.4 percent. Correcting our course will require major concessions by both Republicans and Democrats.

All of America is waiting for Congress to offer a realistic and concrete plan for getting back to this fiscally sound path. Nothing less is acceptable.

In the meantime, maybe you'll run into someone with a terrific investment idea, who won't go forward with it because of the tax he would owe when it succeeds. Send him my way. Let me unburden him.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

[Townsend]

Cole Offers Advice to Party of Fiscal Cliff

http://kwgs.com/post/cole-offers-advice-party-fiscal-cliff

WASHINGTON (AP) — The first cracks are developing among Republicans over whether to accept a quick deal with President Barack Obama on allowing the top two income tax rates to expire.

Conservative Oklahoma GOP Rep. Tom Cole has told GOP colleagues that it's better to make sure that tax cuts for the 98 percent of taxpayers who make less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year are extended than to battle it out with Obama and risk increasing taxes on everyone.

His comments drew a rebuke from Speaker John Boehner, who is standing firm against Obama's demand that tax rates go up on individual income exceeding $200,000 and family income over $250,000.

A Cole spokeswoman confirmed comments made to Politico, which first reported them.

[Conan71]

You don't see a political bias when KWGS runs a headline referring to the GOP as the "Party Of The Fiscal Cliff"?

Last I checked, I don't think either party had a sole lock on pushing us to the brink.

[Townsend]

You don't see a political bias when KWGS runs a headline referring to the GOP as the "Party Of The Fiscal Cliff"?

Last I checked, I don't think either party had a sole lock on pushing us to the brink.

I think you might've read that incorrectly.

He's offering advice of fiscal cliff to the party.

The line was poorly written now that you mention it.

The same story was on AP, NYT, and a few others but this was the shortest one so I chose it.

[Conan71]

I think you might've read that incorrectly.

He's offering advice of fiscal cliff to the party.

The line was poorly written now that you mention it.

The same story was on AP, NYT, and a few others but this was the shortest one so I chose it.

This is what it is:

"Cole Offers Advice to Party of Fiscal Cliff"

In the story:

"Tom Cole has told GOP colleagues"

I read it as the GOP being the Party of Fiscal Cliff.

Maybe Yoda is the headline editor at KWGS these days.

[Townsend]

You don't see a political bias when KWGS runs a headline referring to the GOP as the "Party Of The Fiscal Cliff"?

Last I checked, I don't think either party had a sole lock on pushing us to the brink.

On that note though, I think they're going to be saddled with the blame either way.

If it happens it'll be due to their inability to compromise.

If they do raise taxes they'll be called dishonest when it's time to run for re-election because they ignored their pledge.

[Conan71]

On that note though, I think they're going to be saddled with the blame either way.

If it happens it'll be due to their inability to compromise.

If they do raise taxes they'll be called dishonest when it's time to run for re-election because they ignored their pledge.

Senator Coburn did a good job addressing the Norquist pledge he signed 20 years ago.  He said, essentially, that these are different times and anyone who signed it needs to realize they can't bind themselves to some stupid (my words) pledge they signed 20 years ago.

Personally I happen to agree.  Anyone who is holding fast to that pledge should expect to be working at a different job in another two years.  If all it takes is a tax increase on 2% to get spending cuts (assuming the Democrats will also work a real compromise) to get entitlement cuts and other budgetary cuts, then so be it.

[Gaspar]

You don't see a political bias when KWGS runs a headline referring to the GOP as the "Party Of The Fiscal Cliff"?

Last I checked, I don't think either party had a sole lock on pushing us to the brink.

You have to pay the piper or the rats return.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed by the president on August 2, 2011 as a method to satisfy budgetary requirements without addressing a budget (for three freeking years).  That piece of legislation along with Obamacare are what Bernanke coined "The Fiscal Cliff."  At the time, two budget proposals approved by the house sat in the Senate awaiting debate.  The "cliff" is the president's product.

Instead of leading with a carrot, the president chose a stick, then simply kicked the can down the road a third time in order to get another debt limit increase to hold the boat together through another election.  Unfortunately most of the people are simply too stupid to understand what is happening.  To the typical MSNBC viewer, the "Fiscal Cliff" is some etherial apocalyptic deadline that is caused by not taxing rich folks enough. In reality it's a hobgoblin of president Obama's own design, and wether avoided or not, will surely be his finest moment.

President Obama is in the catbird seat.

[Townsend]

The Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed by the president on August 2, 2011 as a method to satisfy budgetary requirements without addressing a budget (for three freeking years).  That piece of legislation along with Obamacare are what Bernanke coined "The Fiscal Cliff."  At the time, two budget proposals approved by the house sat in the Senate awaiting debate.  The "cliff" is the president's product.

Instead of leading with a carrot, the president chose a stick, then simply kicked the can down the road a third time in order to get another debt limit increase to hold the boat together through another election.  Unfortunately most of the people are simply too stupid to understand what is happening.  To the typical MSNBC viewer, the "Fiscal Cliff" is some etherial apocalyptic deadline that is caused by not taxing rich folks enough. In reality it's a hobgoblin of president Obama's own design, and wether avoided or not, will surely be his finest moment.

Got some of that dain bramage kickin' in today I see.

[Conan71]

In the daily email update from Tulsa World I noticed that under the headline of:

"Obama says debt-cutting deal can be reached soon"

is

"Powerball jackpot boosted again to $550 million"

I wonder if he's buying lottery tickets?

[Hoss]

In the daily email update from Tulsa World I noticed that under the headline of:

"Obama says debt-cutting deal can be reached soon"

is

"Powerball jackpot boosted again to $550 million"

I wonder if he's buying lottery tickets?

I hope you're being facetious.

Kinda sad I even have to ask...

[dbacks fan]

I get it now....db stands for dick bump.


SURGE! http://www.businessinsider.com/markets-rally-after-fiscal-cliff-meeting-2012-11

That means so much from a buttmunch like you.

[Teatownclown]

That means so much from a buttmunch like you.

13 days later.... no, you're not slow.

[dbacks fan]

13 days later.... no, you're not slow.

That's because I have a life in the real world, instead of trolling for garbage like you  Sharpton.