Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsChannel 5 Nashville) NewsFlash Obama says fiscal cliff deal is "emerging." OK HOPE IS COMING OUT   (newschannel5.com ) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, obama  
•       •       •

4977 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2012 at 2:28 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

992 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Newest

 
2012-12-31 06:04:07 PM  

scubamage: rohar: jayphat: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: make me some tea: Well, it's more of a downward slope than a cliff, anyway.

At least we'll starting whittling down this debt.

how's that since 0bama has proposed more spending?

Lots of people proposed lots of things. It didn't happen. Now we increase taxes and reduce spending. How could this not reduce the debt?

where is the reduced spending in this deal?

There is no deal. Sequester must take effect. That's what the deal was supposed to avoid.

Stand by for massive cuts all across the government. It should be entertaining as all hell.

Jesus christ there won't be massive cuts. There will be a 1.5% cut in government spending. THAT'S IT.

Yeah, but it's still a total of 9.4 percent reduction for most parts of the Pentagon and 8.2 percent drop for most discretionary nondefense agencies.

No issue, there won't be any drama here.

We just stopped a war that was going for close to 10 years. If you're not at war, the military shouldn't be spending as much. Sure we are still in afghanistan, but just afghanistan should cost less than afghanistan+iraq. There has never NOT been a point in our history where after a war we argued to keep military spending high.


Yes, but that was paid for through emergency spending measures that were to fall off anyway. The cuts come not from this funding, but from the standard dod funding.

In the end, the pentagon loses the emergency spending and is about to see a 9.4 percent reduction on top of that.

Weeeeeeeee!
 
2012-12-31 06:04:08 PM  

bartink: tenpoundsofcheese: You are too stupid to distinguish between people asking for smaller, fiscally responsible government and "getting rid of the government".

And you are now the standard bearer for reasonable statements? Buahahahahahaha!!


looks like you are the standard bearer for non sequiturs. .
 
2012-12-31 06:04:32 PM  

NightOwl2255: lohphat: To them any tax is theft because it goes to the caring and feeding of blah people.

But they don't mind when it's spent killing brown people.


Nobody minds killing brown people. You been asleep for 60 years?
 
2012-12-31 06:04:44 PM  
But doesn't the house have to wait 3 days before voting on any legislation?!?

Remember that Republican rule they made and then they ignore it whenever they want?


Remember how ACA took months to pass and they said it was " rammed down America's throat without anyone knowing what was in it" but they are fine about voting on even more important changes only a few hours after the ink drys.
 
2012-12-31 06:05:26 PM  

The Larch: Active introvert: The combined income of my sister and her husband is around 260K. My sister is a school teacher at a private school teaching 1st graders. Her husband works for a company that provides floor sealants for industrial floors, he's a supervisor. They work very hard and both have had their jobs for over 10 years. These people are not the 1%.These people aren't rich. These are hard working Americans who work hard for their money and while they live comfortably, they EARNED IT. Why should they pay more so entitalment programs to "help" those who don't wish to work can continue?

But let's suppose your sister and her husband are in the one third of households making between $250K and $300K that would be affected by Obama's original plan to raise the marginal tax rate on incomes over $250,000 from 33% to 36%. They would see a tax increase of no more than... three hundred dollars a year.


To put that $300+ into perspective, it amounts to about $7 a week. That's a crushing blow. . . .
 
2012-12-31 06:05:31 PM  

scubamage: jayphat: scubamage: jayphat: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: make me some tea: Well, it's more of a downward slope than a cliff, anyway.

At least we'll starting whittling down this debt.

how's that since 0bama has proposed more spending?

Lots of people proposed lots of things. It didn't happen. Now we increase taxes and reduce spending. How could this not reduce the debt?

where is the reduced spending in this deal?

There is no deal. Sequester must take effect. That's what the deal was supposed to avoid.

Stand by for massive cuts all across the government. It should be entertaining as all hell.

Jesus christ there won't be massive cuts. There will be a 1.5% cut in government spending. THAT'S IT.

Sadly on average most american families are looking at around 2500$ in taxes a year. My household is looking at around 350$ a month in additional taxes, which sucks, a lot. That's groceries for us thanks to mortgage, student loans, and car loan.

What "average" is this based in?

Link

I misremembered, it's 3500, not 2500. So my household is looking at an additional ~7000$ in a taxes a year.


This is an amazing chart because I sure as fark don't remember when the cuts were established a $2000 decrease in my taxes.
 
2012-12-31 06:05:48 PM  

scubamage: jayphat: scubamage: jayphat: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: make me some tea: Well, it's more of a downward slope than a cliff, anyway.

At least we'll starting whittling down this debt.

how's that since 0bama has proposed more spending?

Lots of people proposed lots of things. It didn't happen. Now we increase taxes and reduce spending. How could this not reduce the debt?

where is the reduced spending in this deal?

There is no deal. Sequester must take effect. That's what the deal was supposed to avoid.

Stand by for massive cuts all across the government. It should be entertaining as all hell.

Jesus christ there won't be massive cuts. There will be a 1.5% cut in government spending. THAT'S IT.

Sadly on average most american families are looking at around 2500$ in taxes a year. My household is looking at around 350$ a month in additional taxes, which sucks, a lot. That's groceries for us thanks to mortgage, student loans, and car loan.

What "average" is this based in?

Link

I misremembered, it's 3500, not 2500. So my household is looking at an additional ~7000$ in a taxes a year.


pay up.  part of the social contract.  if you earn that much money, you should be happy to pay your fair share.
 
2012-12-31 06:06:04 PM  
Ok, so the worst thing that repubs get here is blame for being unwilling to compromise, which is already their m.o. The worst dems get out of it is, well darnit, we would have passed it if not for those stubborn gopers. The government gets more revenue, maintained spending, and diversified political blame. Well played I say, now let's see what actually happens.
 
2012-12-31 06:06:09 PM  

Hermione_Granger: All that means is that the spineless bastard probably gave the Republicans everything they asked for.

He makes me sick and his inability to stick to his guns pisses me off. Of all the Charlie Browns, he is the Charlie Browniest and Boehner is Lucy with the farking football.


Are we actually looking at the same reality?

Here's what's happening: The cliff is going to happen. Taxes go up to Clinton Era rates before the Bush Tax Cuts happened. Spending goes back to 2008 levels. A 12% cut to Defense spending, a 12% cut to Discretionary spending.

The first day of the new Congress, House Democrats will put forth a bill cutting taxes on everyone making under 250k a year, and dare the GOP to block it or vote it down. It'll quickly get passed, both sides will lay claim to the credit and we'll move on.

We'll see a sizable dent to the deficit, bringing it down to a reasonable level and we'll finally see some bloating cut out of Defense and Medicare and other waste-loaded programs.

In short, this is good for the country, for the Democrats, for the President and even 'somewhat' for the Republicans. The ONLY ones going to be unhappy about this are those effected by the defense cuts(contractors and lobbyists and those that pay them) and the super rich who are ridiculously stupid about 'ever' paying more taxes.
 
2012-12-31 06:06:33 PM  

Mighty Taternuts: The whole 250k in New York City is such a bullshiat argument.

The median household income in New York City is like 66k, 1/4 of 250k. If you make 4 times the average family you can stand a 3% hit on your income above 250k.


Fool. Anyone who wants to be anyone in New York City has to replace their entire wardrobe seasonally to remain fashion-forward. A 3% hit will affect their shopping!
 
2012-12-31 06:08:02 PM  

HammerHeadSnark: The Larch: Active introvert: The combined income of my sister and her husband is around 260K. My sister is a school teacher at a private school teaching 1st graders. Her husband works for a company that provides floor sealants for industrial floors, he's a supervisor. They work very hard and both have had their jobs for over 10 years. These people are not the 1%.These people aren't rich. These are hard working Americans who work hard for their money and while they live comfortably, they EARNED IT. Why should they pay more so entitalment programs to "help" those who don't wish to work can continue?

But let's suppose your sister and her husband are in the one third of households making between $250K and $300K that would be affected by Obama's original plan to raise the marginal tax rate on incomes over $250,000 from 33% to 36%. They would see a tax increase of no more than... three hundred dollars a year.


To put that $300+ into perspective, it amounts to about $7 a week. That's a crushing blow. . . .


Can I ask a serious question. What the fark is the point in this? Why are we bothering to take this extra from people when it won't do shiat to the federal budget?
 
2012-12-31 06:08:02 PM  

Pincy: Orange-Pippin: bulldg4life: I'm always amazed at how these threads are filled with people that struggle to understand the progressive tax structure.

I'm always amazed at how people who claim to be rich want to do so little for their country in return. But, honestly I don't believe the wealthy have a nation. They are really Postnational. Arguing economics for "good of the nation" is probably a waste of time.

And I'm always amazed by just how many of the non-wealthy will line up to suck some wealthy cock.


Vulgar, but very good point.
 
2012-12-31 06:08:25 PM  

Infernalist: Active introvert: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

The combined income of my sister and her husband is around 260K. My sister is a school teacher at a private school teaching 1st graders. Her husband works for a company that provides floor sealants for industrial floors, he's a supervisor. They work very hard and both have had their jobs for over 10 years. These people are not the 1%.These people aren't rich. These are hard working Americans who work hard for their money and while they live comfortably, they EARNED IT. Why should they pay more so entitalment programs to "help" those who don't wish to work can continue?

Well, my sister and her husband are hard working people who make 248k a year and I'm just fine with this deal.

My anecdote negates your own.


I especially like how his anecdote means they will only pay $400 more a year but somehow it's a disaster worthy of donating $2700 to Romney to prevent.

I also like how "these people aren't rich" when statistics tell us any family making $250k now having been working for over a decade are literally millionaires (net worth of almost $2m).  They're not rich, though, because they only make more money than 95% of Americans.

Being in the top 5% of one of the richest countries in the world is "middle-class".
 
2012-12-31 06:08:57 PM  

jayphat: scubamage: jayphat: scubamage: jayphat: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: make me some tea: Well, it's more of a downward slope than a cliff, anyway.

At least we'll starting whittling down this debt.

how's that since 0bama has proposed more spending?

Lots of people proposed lots of things. It didn't happen. Now we increase taxes and reduce spending. How could this not reduce the debt?

where is the reduced spending in this deal?

There is no deal. Sequester must take effect. That's what the deal was supposed to avoid.

Stand by for massive cuts all across the government. It should be entertaining as all hell.

Jesus christ there won't be massive cuts. There will be a 1.5% cut in government spending. THAT'S IT.

Sadly on average most american families are looking at around 2500$ in taxes a year. My household is looking at around 350$ a month in additional taxes, which sucks, a lot. That's groceries for us thanks to mortgage, student loans, and car loan.

What "average" is this based in?

Link

I misremembered, it's 3500, not 2500. So my household is looking at an additional ~7000$ in a taxes a year.

This is an amazing chart because I sure as fark don't remember when the cuts were established a $2000 decrease in my taxes.


To be honest, my income at that point was all under the table working at farm stands (I was still underage, and farm stands paid cash and didn't require working papers), so I'm not sure what the original change looked or felt like. At this point my concern is for our house - we have about 200$ extra a month right now thanks to our furnace deciding to go explodey and with financing it's around 350$ a month to cover the replacement.
 
2012-12-31 06:09:02 PM  

bartink: skullkrusher: What if you make 6.5x the median family in Mississippi? See, cuz that's what $250,000 represents there. So let's just tax that the same as $250,000 in NYC because it's more than you make so what the fark do you care?

Living in the civilized world costs more money.


sure does. Means that each dollar is worth less. Seems to me that a progressive income tax system should account for that
 
2012-12-31 06:10:09 PM  

unlikely: COMALite J: yet neglected to take into account the right-leaning Blue Dogs that caucused with the GOP.

And the "independents" like Lieberman who said "count me with the Dems for the purposes of tallying this majority but I will march lockstep with the GOP in every vote"


That, too. Thanks for reminding me.

The Democrats never had a true effective filibuster-proof majority in the Senate at any time during Obama's Presidency. Not for one Planck time unit, let alone two years. On paper, yes. In reality, no.
 
2012-12-31 06:10:28 PM  
I guess the story changed between the submit and now.
Well more than half of the articles I read said that Republicans can only save face, sorta, if they do nothing.

Now everything will be used as bargaining chips. Looks like bad feelings are going to be growing and anger is going to drive policy.
 
2012-12-31 06:10:41 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: make me some tea: Well, it's more of a downward slope than a cliff, anyway.

At least we'll starting whittling down this debt.

how's that since 0bama has proposed more spending?

Lots of people proposed lots of things. It didn't happen. Now we increase taxes and reduce spending. How could this not reduce the debt?

where is the reduced spending in this deal?


Part of Boehner's 98% he got last time around. I expect the party of personal responsibility will accept none.
 
2012-12-31 06:10:46 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: 400/450k cutoff now? I wonder how much nothing Dems got in return for that bullshiat.


no cuts to social security
 
2012-12-31 06:11:02 PM  

skullkrusher: bartink: skullkrusher: What if you make 6.5x the median family in Mississippi? See, cuz that's what $250,000 represents there. So let's just tax that the same as $250,000 in NYC because it's more than you make so what the fark do you care?

Living in the civilized world costs more money.

sure does. Means that each dollar is worth less. Seems to me that a progressive income tax system should account for that


Incomes tend to account for that. I'm not sure how a tax system could. Maybe the government should simply credit bank accounts based on cost of living? Urban areas get their accounts credited, rural areas get dick. Should go over quite well.
 
2012-12-31 06:11:07 PM  

Infernalist: Hermione_Granger: All that means is that the spineless bastard probably gave the Republicans everything they asked for.

He makes me sick and his inability to stick to his guns pisses me off. Of all the Charlie Browns, he is the Charlie Browniest and Boehner is Lucy with the farking football.

Are we actually looking at the same reality?

Here's what's happening: The cliff is going to happen. Taxes go up to Clinton Era rates before the Bush Tax Cuts happened. Spending goes back to 2008 levels. A 12% cut to Defense spending, a 12% cut to Discretionary spending.

The first day of the new Congress, House Democrats will put forth a bill cutting taxes on everyone making under 250k a year, and dare the GOP to block it or vote it down. It'll quickly get passed, both sides will lay claim to the credit and we'll move on.

We'll see a sizable dent to the deficit, bringing it down to a reasonable level and we'll finally see some bloating cut out of Defense and Medicare and other waste-loaded programs.

In short, this is good for the country, for the Democrats, for the President and even 'somewhat' for the Republicans. The ONLY ones going to be unhappy about this are those effected by the defense cuts(contractors and lobbyists and those that pay them) and the super rich who are ridiculously stupid about 'ever' paying more taxes.


Well, the GOP can even cave after the new year because the taxes automatically went up, and they can claim they voted to lower taxes rather than admitting they caved on allowing them to go up.
 
2012-12-31 06:11:10 PM  

rev. dave: Looks like bad feelings are going to be growing and anger is going to drive policy.


And this is different than the past four years how?
 
2012-12-31 06:11:59 PM  

namatad: no cuts to social security


This. I'd favor lowering the age requirement.
 
2012-12-31 06:12:09 PM  

Mighty Taternuts: The whole 250k in New York City is such a bullshiat argument.

The median household income in New York City is like 66k, 1/4 of 250k. If you make 4 times the average family you can stand a 3% hit on your income above 250k.


this
MORE THIS
AND ONLY FARKING THIS

and anyone who says different should have to pay 3% more on all of their income
 
2012-12-31 06:12:50 PM  

bartink: Incomes tend to account for that


that's the point. Incomes DO account for that. Tax system does not. It's blanket across the country.
 
2012-12-31 06:13:30 PM  

namatad: Mighty Taternuts: The whole 250k in New York City is such a bullshiat argument.

The median household income in New York City is like 66k, 1/4 of 250k. If you make 4 times the average family you can stand a 3% hit on your income above 250k.

this
MORE THIS
AND ONLY FARKING THIS

and anyone who says different should have to pay 3% more on all of their income


yawn
 
2012-12-31 06:14:33 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: rev. dave: Looks like bad feelings are going to be growing and anger is going to drive policy.

And this is different than the past four years how?


It seems logarithmic in its progression.
 
2012-12-31 06:14:51 PM  

Infernalist: Hermione_Granger: All that means is that the spineless bastard probably gave the Republicans everything they asked for.

He makes me sick and his inability to stick to his guns pisses me off. Of all the Charlie Browns, he is the Charlie Browniest and Boehner is Lucy with the farking football.

Are we actually looking at the same reality?

Here's what's happening: The cliff is going to happen. Taxes go up to Clinton Era rates before the Bush Tax Cuts happened. Spending goes back to 2008 levels. A 12% cut to Defense spending, a 12% cut to Discretionary spending.

The first day of the new Congress, House Democrats will put forth a bill cutting taxes on everyone making under 250k a year, and dare the GOP to block it or vote it down. It'll quickly get passed, both sides will lay claim to the credit and we'll move on.


There aren't enough House Democrats to pass anything without help from the Republicans. Rest assured if there's any attempt to cut taxes on only those making less than $250k, the House Republicans will make damn sure those cuts affect everyone. It will pass the House and then the Senate Democrats are in trouble; do they go along with the House bill and approve it, or try and cut it back down to only the $250k limit (and watch the Senate Republicans filibuster the crap out of their effort)? Either way they'll get the blame and the Republicans will take the praise.
 
2012-12-31 06:15:18 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: scubamage: jayphat: scubamage: jayphat: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: make me some tea: Well, it's more of a downward slope than a cliff, anyway.

At least we'll starting whittling down this debt.

how's that since 0bama has proposed more spending?

Lots of people proposed lots of things. It didn't happen. Now we increase taxes and reduce spending. How could this not reduce the debt?

where is the reduced spending in this deal?

There is no deal. Sequester must take effect. That's what the deal was supposed to avoid.

Stand by for massive cuts all across the government. It should be entertaining as all hell.

Jesus christ there won't be massive cuts. There will be a 1.5% cut in government spending. THAT'S IT.

Sadly on average most american families are looking at around 2500$ in taxes a year. My household is looking at around 350$ a month in additional taxes, which sucks, a lot. That's groceries for us thanks to mortgage, student loans, and car loan.

What "average" is this based in?

Link

I misremembered, it's 3500, not 2500. So my household is looking at an additional ~7000$ in a taxes a year.

pay up.  part of the social contract.  if you earn that much money, you should be happy to pay your fair share.


That's great. Except right now my fiance earns around 61000, I earn around 70000. Between mortgage (1450/mo), student loans (~800/mo), furnace payment (350), car loan (270), and monthly bills we had around 200$ extra a month. This change could quite honestly cost us our house. I'm fine with higher taxes, just give me some time to adjust instead of jacking our taxes up overnight.
 
2012-12-31 06:15:20 PM  

Infernalist: grimlock1972: a deal will be done and no one will be perfectly happy about it, the repubs will be the least happy but they painted themselves into a corner and have no escape they are damned if the do and damned if they don't.

The House is adjourned and the GOP is going home. The deal isn't gonna happen unless Boehner can force them to come back in and vote.


I know i posted before the house committed the epic fail.

/or before i found out about it.
 
2012-12-31 06:15:51 PM  

Mighty Taternuts: The whole 250k in New York City is such a bullshiat argument.

The median household income in New York City is like 66k, 1/4 of 250k. If you make 4 times the average family you can stand a 3% hit on your income above 250k.


MY GOD MAN!  If you make $260k, that's $300 more!  Do you not realize that's the difference between taking the subway to the MET and DRIVING to the MET?  It's worth donating $2700 every four years to the GOP presidential candidate to prevent that!
 
2012-12-31 06:16:48 PM  

Wangiss: GAT_00: Wangiss: GAT_00: Wangiss: How can anyone on a day like today? (WRONG!!1! Moar Government!!!)

The government is utterly failing to function at all and you think what we need is for it to work even worse?  You're special.

GAT, go troll someone else.

My mistake, I tried to apply logical conclusions to your bullshiat.

Dangit, I can't remember if you're really a troll, so I'll go ahead and reply (dangit, why).

You said, "you think what we need is for it to work even worse," but I do not think that. So you're wrong.


Logically I assumed that if you think more government is bad then less is good.  Considering we have so little government going on that they can't manage to fix their own created legal disaster, and to say that the solution to this is not more government, then I assumed you must think we need less government than the hideously inept display the GOP put on today, which can only be anarchy.
 
2012-12-31 06:17:09 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Lupine Chemist: david_gaithersburg: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

.
You either do not live on the West Coast or the North East, or you have yet to enter the workforce. $250k is low middle income in the DC region.

While certainly not rich, don't lie and call it low there either. That's on the upper middle class side of things even around there to be sure. Sorry if you moved to Potomac, MD and you "feel" poor, but you don't get to say it's not a lot of money because you don't have any left after spending it all on expensive things.

.
The cheapest house in MoCo is $350K, and that's for a tear down. So yeah, $250K is low.


Yeah... no.
 
2012-12-31 06:17:24 PM  

Wangiss: Cheesus: Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.

Taxes is not a penalty. It's part of living in a civilized non-pit of horse poo. We (about 90% of America) have supported your tax breaks with, cuts to social programs, education, infrastructure (not to mention corporate welfare) for years. It's time to pay your due. Sorry, but as much as you guys think your supporting us, we are tired of supporting you.

...by taking less and less of your money.

For the record, paying taxes is not "taking" anything. As an American I pay up and now it's your turn. Sorry.

That's true. Exacting taxes by threat of incarceration is taking, though. If I sent a couple guys to your house with guns to cart you off to live in a concrete box because you didn't give me money, I'd be a bad guy... unless everybody else says they want your money, too, in which case I'm a very, very good guy. Should a government be established so that no man need fear another? "Hello no! Moar government!!!"



So you want to be part of this nation but you don't want to contribute to it? And you are crying that criminals "shouldn't be be threatened" (with prison) if they violate the law? How does that make a lick of sense?
 
2012-12-31 06:17:31 PM  

PsiChick: jigger: Taxes aren't a penalty? WTF is the Obamandate about? How is that enforced? What do they call the tax you are charged for non-compliance? They call it "the penalty."

Because a tax that is  intended asa penalty is not the same as the taxes that are inherently part of society. They are, in fact, different. Much as your IQ score probably is from the left half of the bell curve.


Siq burn, dudette.
 
2012-12-31 06:18:17 PM  

bartink: skullkrusher: What if you make 6.5x the median family in Mississippi? See, cuz that's what $250,000 represents there. So let's just tax that the same as $250,000 in NYC because it's more than you make so what the fark do you care?

Living in the civilized world costs more money.


By "civilized", do you mean, "with a babysitter mayor"?
 
2012-12-31 06:19:05 PM  

scubamage: tenpoundsofcheese: scubamage: jayphat: scubamage: jayphat: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: make me some tea: Well, it's more of a downward slope than a cliff, anyway.

At least we'll starting whittling down this debt.

how's that since 0bama has proposed more spending?

Lots of people proposed lots of things. It didn't happen. Now we increase taxes and reduce spending. How could this not reduce the debt?

where is the reduced spending in this deal?

There is no deal. Sequester must take effect. That's what the deal was supposed to avoid.

Stand by for massive cuts all across the government. It should be entertaining as all hell.

Jesus christ there won't be massive cuts. There will be a 1.5% cut in government spending. THAT'S IT.

Sadly on average most american families are looking at around 2500$ in taxes a year. My household is looking at around 350$ a month in additional taxes, which sucks, a lot. That's groceries for us thanks to mortgage, student loans, and car loan.

What "average" is this based in?

Link

I misremembered, it's 3500, not 2500. So my household is looking at an additional ~7000$ in a taxes a year.

pay up.  part of the social contract.  if you earn that much money, you should be happy to pay your fair share.

That's great. Except right now my fiance earns around 61000, I earn around 70000. Between mortgage (1450/mo), student loans (~800/mo), furnace payment (350), car loan (270), and monthly bills we had around 200$ extra a month. This change could quite honestly cost us our house. I'm fine with higher taxes, just give me some time to adjust instead of jacking our taxes up overnight.


My household makes less with similar bills. We have more than $200 in disposable income each month. You're doing it wrong if you are unable to get by on 130k+ annually.
 
2012-12-31 06:19:05 PM  

skullkrusher: yawn


One of the most articulate arguments I've seen on Fark.
 
2012-12-31 06:19:09 PM  

sonnyboy11: scubamage: The republicans got exactly what they wanted - tax hikes for everyone. Now they can come in after the new year and vote for a tax cut on the lower/middle class, and they can honestly say they never once voted for a tax increase. Sadly, there are a lot of HR and tax folks who are going to go all head-explodey with the tax implications of this little game.

No, they can't. By being unwilling to compromise, taxes went up thanks to them. They're screwed for doing this. Thanks for raising my taxes, Republicans!


Democrats wanted big gigantic government. Everyone gets to pony up some fair share.
 
2012-12-31 06:20:01 PM  

Bendal: Infernalist: Hermione_Granger: All that means is that the spineless bastard probably gave the Republicans everything they asked for.

He makes me sick and his inability to stick to his guns pisses me off. Of all the Charlie Browns, he is the Charlie Browniest and Boehner is Lucy with the farking football.

Are we actually looking at the same reality?

Here's what's happening: The cliff is going to happen. Taxes go up to Clinton Era rates before the Bush Tax Cuts happened. Spending goes back to 2008 levels. A 12% cut to Defense spending, a 12% cut to Discretionary spending.

The first day of the new Congress, House Democrats will put forth a bill cutting taxes on everyone making under 250k a year, and dare the GOP to block it or vote it down. It'll quickly get passed, both sides will lay claim to the credit and we'll move on.

There aren't enough House Democrats to pass anything without help from the Republicans. Rest assured if there's any attempt to cut taxes on only those making less than $250k, the House Republicans will make damn sure those cuts affect everyone. It will pass the House and then the Senate Democrats are in trouble; do they go along with the House bill and approve it, or try and cut it back down to only the $250k limit (and watch the Senate Republicans filibuster the crap out of their effort)? Either way they'll get the blame and the Republicans will take the praise.


I think you're not quite understanding what I'm saying.

The first day of the new Congress, the House Democrats will put forth a bill cutting taxes ONLY on those making under 250k a year. They will emphasize this point. They will demand that the GOP agree to the bill or be known as those who would rather cut taxes for the rich rather than the rest of us. The GOP, desperate for anything good, will fight for a bit, but then go along with the bill, especially after the news sites harp about the GOP delaying tax cuts in favor of their super-rich owners.

They'll go along with the bill or have the albatross of 'refused to cut YOUR taxes, America' hung around their neck for the next two years. Either way, it works to the advantage of the Democrats and the President. The GOP will 'try' to pass bills cutting taxes for the rich, but they'll get shut down by the Senate or vetoed by the President. That's why they fought so hard against ending the Bush Era tax cuts, because they KNEW how hard it would be to get them back if they expired.
 
2012-12-31 06:20:39 PM  

bartink: namatad: no cuts to social security

This. I'd favor lowering the age requirement.


Yeah. Have more people consuming services while simultaneously not contributing as much.

Brilliant.
 
2012-12-31 06:22:09 PM  

Mighty Taternuts: The whole 250k in New York City is such a bullshiat argument.

The median household income in New York City is like 66k, 1/4 of 250k. If you make 4 times the average family you can stand a 3% hit on your income above 250k.


To add: It's 3% on your taxable income. After taking into account all the tax breaks that heavily benefit upper middle class earners you should be on at least $300k before you owe a single penny in extra federal income taxes at the $250k+ bracket, particularly if you can deduct state and local income taxes.
 
2012-12-31 06:23:37 PM  

Infernalist: I think you're not quite understanding what I'm saying.

The first day of the new Congress, the House Democrats will put forth a bill cutting taxes ONLY on those making under 250k a year. They will emphasize this point. They will demand that the GOP agree to the bill or be known as those who would rather cut taxes for the rich rather than the rest of us. The GOP, desperate for anything good, will fight for a bit, but then go along with the bill, especially after the news sites harp about the GOP delaying tax cuts in favor of their super-rich owners.

They'll go along with the bill or have the albatross of 'refused to cut YOUR taxes, America' hung around their neck for the next two years. Either way, it works to the advantage of the Democrats and the President. The GOP will 'try' to pass bills cutting taxes for the rich, but they'll get shut down by the Senate or vetoed by the President. That's why they fought so hard against ending the Bush Era tax cuts, because they KNEW how hard it would be to get them back if they expired.


To add insult to injury, there will be a number of more democratic seats in the house at that point and this whole debacle will weigh heavily on the minds of the more moderate republicans. They did their whole "no compromise" bit, now they're in a hell of a corner. They'll cave. If the executive and senate have any clue about negotiation, they'll give nothing. The house will fall in line either way.
 
2012-12-31 06:24:08 PM  

GAT_00: Wangiss: GAT_00: Wangiss: GAT_00: Wangiss: How can anyone on a day like today? (WRONG!!1! Moar Government!!!)

The government is utterly failing to function at all and you think what we need is for it to work even worse?  You're special.

GAT, go troll someone else.

My mistake, I tried to apply logical conclusions to your bullshiat.

Dangit, I can't remember if you're really a troll, so I'll go ahead and reply (dangit, why).

You said, "you think what we need is for it to work even worse," but I do not think that. So you're wrong.

Logically I assumed that if you think more government is bad then less is good.  Considering we have so little government going on that they can't manage to fix their own created legal disaster, and to say that the solution to this is not more government, then I assumed you must think we need less government than the hideously inept display the GOP put on today, which can only be anarchy.


Well, if any less government than we have now is necessarily anarchy, I guess you're right. Nevermind.
 
2012-12-31 06:24:18 PM  
Whatever. The "Fiscal Cliff" is old. Let's move on to the next unnecessary and fabricated drama. I hear Obama is going to negate Congress and use the 14th Amendment to pay our bills.
 
2012-12-31 06:24:49 PM  

djkutch: skullkrusher: yawn

One of the most articulate arguments I've seen on Fark.


it's a childish, careless and thoughtless argument. It deserves no more
 
2012-12-31 06:25:07 PM  

Orange-Pippin: Wangiss: Cheesus: Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.

Taxes is not a penalty. It's part of living in a civilized non-pit of horse poo. We (about 90% of America) have supported your tax breaks with, cuts to social programs, education, infrastructure (not to mention corporate welfare) for years. It's time to pay your due. Sorry, but as much as you guys think your supporting us, we are tired of supporting you.

...by taking less and less of your money.

For the record, paying taxes is not "taking" anything. As an American I pay up and now it's your turn. Sorry.

That's true. Exacting taxes by threat of incarceration is taking, though. If I sent a couple guys to your house with guns to cart you off to live in a concrete box because you didn't give me money, I'd be a bad guy... unless everybody else says they want your money, too, in which case I'm a very, very good guy. Should a government be established so that no man need fear another? "Hello no! Moar government!!!"

So you want to be part of this nation but you don't want to contribute to it? And you are crying that criminals "shouldn't be be threatened" (with prison) if they violate the law? How does that make a lick of sense?


It would make sense if you were actually reacting to what I've written instead of a hyperbolic caricaturization you imagined.
 
2012-12-31 06:25:48 PM  

Notabunny: Whatever. The "Fiscal Cliff" is old. Let's move on to the next unnecessary and fabricated drama. I hear Obama is going to negate Congress and use the 14th Amendment to pay our bills.


I'm okay with this.
 
2012-12-31 06:25:58 PM  

scubamage: That's great. Except right now my fiance earns around 61000, I earn around 70000. Between mortgage (1450/mo), student loans (~800/mo), furnace payment (350), car loan (270), and monthly bills we had around 200$ extra a month. This change could quite honestly cost us our house. I'm fine with higher taxes, just give me some time to adjust instead of jacking our taxes up overnight.


You have $8,000/month in random "monthly bills" that you didn't list?
 
2012-12-31 06:27:31 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: scubamage: tenpoundsofcheese: scubamage: jayphat: scubamage: jayphat: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: rohar: tenpoundsofcheese: make me some tea: Well, it's more of a downward slope than a cliff, anyway.

At least we'll starting whittling down this debt.

how's that since 0bama has proposed more spending?

Lots of people proposed lots of things. It didn't happen. Now we increase taxes and reduce spending. How could this not reduce the debt?

where is the reduced spending in this deal?

There is no deal. Sequester must take effect. That's what the deal was supposed to avoid.

Stand by for massive cuts all across the government. It should be entertaining as all hell.

Jesus christ there won't be massive cuts. There will be a 1.5% cut in government spending. THAT'S IT.

Sadly on average most american families are looking at around 2500$ in taxes a year. My household is looking at around 350$ a month in additional taxes, which sucks, a lot. That's groceries for us thanks to mortgage, student loans, and car loan.

What "average" is this based in?

Link

I misremembered, it's 3500, not 2500. So my household is looking at an additional ~7000$ in a taxes a year.

pay up.  part of the social contract.  if you earn that much money, you should be happy to pay your fair share.

That's great. Except right now my fiance earns around 61000, I earn around 70000. Between mortgage (1450/mo), student loans (~800/mo), furnace payment (350), car loan (270), and monthly bills we had around 200$ extra a month. This change could quite honestly cost us our house. I'm fine with higher taxes, just give me some time to adjust instead of jacking our taxes up overnight.

My household makes less with similar bills. We have more than $200 in disposable income each month. You're doing it wrong if you are unable to get by on 130k+ annually.


Oh yeah, oil heat costs around 600$ every 6 weeks, so that's another bill. 240 a month for groceries (60 a week).

You're right, I should stop putting money in my 401k, she should stop putting money in her 403b, and we should cancel our wedding and just get married by a justice of the peace.

You may not like it, but I keep immaculate track of my spending because my idiot parents had no grasp on their own finances (and in their early 70's they still owe tens of thousands on their home that they've had for close to 40 years). I pay ~28% on my federal taxes, 1% to municiple taxes, 1% to county, 3.8% of my salary to Philadelphia for their "work privilege" tax, and I honestly don't know about state. We were fine (an additional 550 a month) until the furnace broke and cost around 10k to replace. I have a record of every transaction I've made for the past 3 years, as well as an itemized monthly budget for the past 5. Do you? Don't act like "I'm doing it wrong" and that I should just be happy when our monthly take home suddenly decreases by ~580$ a month. That's not exactly the sort of change you budget for.
 
Displayed 50 of 992 comments


Oldest | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Newest


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report