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 276
    More: NewsFlash, obama  
•       •       •

4955 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2012 at 2:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-31 02:37:56 PM  
12 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


You'd only be taxed 3% more on what you make above $250,000. If you make enough above $250,000 that it makes a noticeable impact, then you are NOT just "moderately" successful.
2012-12-31 02:59:04 PM  
11 votes:
I wish that it were possible to have an intelligent, adult conversation about taxation.

The reality is that the income tax rates that people are paying today are at historic lows. You would have to go back to before the outbreak of World War II to find a point in time when tax rates are lower than what they are today. The only exception to this is a brief period in the 1980s when the very highest tax rate was dropped to 29%, but that didn't last long. Tax rates are so low, and so many deductions and exemptions exists that nearly half of American households have no income tax burden at all.

Yet you have a significant number of Americans how scream about how taxation is theft and that their taxes have never been higher. This is idiocy. This is drooling, mind-numbing, kiddy-diddling idiocy. And it's even worse when you consider that most of the "taxation is theft" people are the very first to scream about how we need to invade Insert Brown-Peopled Country Here and complain when their disability checks to cover their Rascal scooters don't show up on time.

Taxes are too low, period. I know people don't like paying them. It would be great if all of the benefits of a modern First World democracy could just be Jesused into existence. But this isn't Fantasyland, and the "anti-tax movement" in America has reached a pinnacle of stupidity; these folks and their families deserve to be openly and ceaselessly mocked.
2012-12-31 02:46:43 PM  
9 votes:

stratagos: lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.

Grow up. $250k is the top 2% of wage earners, not "moderately successful"

Or to be specific, if you consider yourself moderately successful, think of how the people making 20% of your income have to deal with


Seriously. I know families of four who have to make it on $20K since the recession. Anyone who's making $250K and thinks they can't afford to have taxes go back to the pre-Bush-tax-cut levels is either delusional or living way beyond their means. Yes, even if they live in NYC or San Francisco. This isn't about "punishment", it's about the reality of paying for two f*cking wars after lowering taxes to unrealistic levels for so long.
2012-12-31 04:39:44 PM  
8 votes:

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?


If they make $260k, and the rate is set for $250k and above, they're going to pay an additional 4% on $10,000 in income, or $400, or $33 a month. Boo farkin' hoo.
2012-12-31 02:45:52 PM  
8 votes:

Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.


You should have said something BEFORE we started two land wars in Asia and simultaneously cut rich people's taxes.
2012-12-31 02:33:59 PM  
8 votes:

Uranus Is Huge!: Prediction: Zero people will be pleased with the result.

I hope I'm wrong.


It's not a proper compromise until everyone hates it.
2012-12-31 02:31:05 PM  
8 votes:
Personally I'm rooting for the fiscal cliff.
2012-12-31 02:39:18 PM  
7 votes:
The GOP is just an incredible bunch of crybabies.
2012-12-31 02:49:04 PM  
6 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Yeah no, 250K is not low middle income, it's more like high middle income to high income



THIS. People acting like $250k per year isn't much are idiots. I don't care where you live, that's a lot of dough. I live in LA in an expensive neighborhood, and I feel pretty well-off with my $100k per year. Get some f*cking perspective. If you want to move to Iowa where your $250k per year can buy you a castle, YOU ARE FREE TO DO THAT.
2012-12-31 02:43:37 PM  
6 votes:

GoldSpider: Waxing_Chewbacca: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

It's a good deal. 250k in NYC is a lot different than, say, Iowa.

/ Moderate D here

Exactly. If only there was a simple way to make the cutoff location-adjusted.


That's nonsense. Deciding to live in expensive cities IS CONSUMPTION. You are actively choosing to live in a place which gets you certain benefits. It's no different than any other kind of consumption. The idea of adjusting tax rates for that would simply be a massive subsidy towards a certain type of consumption.
2012-12-31 02:35:27 PM  
6 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


I would be hit. Don't have a problem with it. Taxes are not a "penalty".
2012-12-31 02:35:10 PM  
6 votes:

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


Personally I'd rather see it set at $70k
2012-12-31 03:23:35 PM  
5 votes:

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.
2012-12-31 02:47:18 PM  
5 votes:

Mrtraveler01: 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.

Yeah no, 250K is not low middle income, it's more like high middle income to high income:

Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation's greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out

The U.S. capital has swapped top spots with Silicon Valley, according to recent Census Bureau figures, with the typical household in the Washington metro area earning $84,523 last year. The national median income for 2010 was $50,046.


Source:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-19/beltway-earnings-make-u-s-c ap ital-richer-than-silicon-valley.html

Anyone who thinks that 250K is Middle Income is an idiot regardless of where you live.
2012-12-31 02:45:42 PM  
5 votes:

Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.


household debt is very different from nat'l debt
2012-12-31 02:44:40 PM  
5 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


It's not a penalty. It's your civic duty. You are doing better than the vast majority of Americans. Stop whining.
2012-12-31 02:40:00 PM  
5 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


Grow up. $250k is the top 2% of wage earners, not "moderately successful"

Or to be specific, if you consider yourself moderately successful, think of how the people making 20% of your income have to deal with
2012-12-31 02:36:05 PM  
5 votes:

Uranus Is Huge!: Prediction: Zero people will be pleased with the result.

I hope I'm wrong.


To be fair, even though nobody ever says it, that's true of any compromise. A little bit relief, a little bit disappointment.

That said, fark compromise. The republicans want something from a position of nothing after spending four years of doing nothing. Fark those guys right in the nostril. Americans spoke about what they want and it's nothing that the republicans are offering. They can either put on some big boy pants, suck it up and do what the country wants done or they can focus on driving themselves even deeper into obscurity.
2012-12-31 02:31:13 PM  
5 votes:
Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx
2012-12-31 05:04:36 PM  
4 votes:

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?


So that when your brother in law gets laid off, or your sister has a stroke and can't work anymore, there will be a safety net for them so that they won't have to go live in their Beamer.
2012-12-31 04:40:02 PM  
4 votes:

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?


They'll only pay the additional tax on the last 10K. You know that was in the proposal, right? The tax rates only kick in after the maximum income of the previous bracket.
2012-12-31 03:21:50 PM  
4 votes:
1) Ignore the Saudis who attacked us on 09/01/01
2) Attack a different country where we set up the dictator to be in power using
3) False accusations of WOMADs, then
4) Pour trillions into a funnel that empties into a fan, making the money untracable while
5) American companies get rich or get bailed out while
6) The banks cheat and steal and then get bailed out and given raises, then
7) Proclaim the American Taxpayer must pay for their stupidity and have a ""Fiscal Cliff"
You cliff doesn't exist. You can just execute the bastards that took you money and resotre the balance of finance, and power that way.
Or, since you are all gutless wimps, you'l STFU and take a pay cut, while
8) Congress votes itself a pay raise.
Happy New Year's
2012-12-31 02:44:31 PM  
4 votes:
Rumors are that it will be Clinton-era tax rates for individuals making $400k+ and couples making $450k+. Liberals like me wont be thrilled with giving up the $250k threshold, but it's still a tax increase -- it will be very interesting to see if Boehner can get the Republican Clown-shoes in the House to vote for a tax increase. Grover Nord-whatever's head will explode.

With Obama hitting the talk shows and all of the press over the weekend and today, if it fails to pass in the house, Boehner is done. The big story will be that Obama compromised and risked pissing off a lot of Dems, and the Republicans still wouldn't budge.
2012-12-31 02:43:51 PM  
4 votes:

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.


Yeah no, 250K is not low middle income, it's more like high middle income to high income:

Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation's greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out

The U.S. capital has swapped top spots with Silicon Valley, according to recent Census Bureau figures, with the typical household in the Washington metro area earning $84,523 last year. The national median income for 2010 was $50,046.
2012-12-31 02:37:34 PM  
4 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


It really doesn't matter at those levels. Seriously at the $450k cutoff it's a couple thousand dollars. I'm sorry but on almost 40 grand a month gross, a couple hundred a month isn't a huge hit.
2012-12-31 02:34:20 PM  
4 votes:
RIP Cliff

userserve-ak.last.fm
2012-12-31 02:30:01 PM  
4 votes:
poop?
2012-12-31 07:11:34 PM  
3 votes:
Is this becoming clear for everyone?? The Republicans want to:

CUT Social Security
CUT Medicare
CUT Unemployment benefits
CUT Food stamps

at the same time:

CUT taxes on billionaires
NOT CUT a dime out of military contract spending.

Is it crystal clear which side the Republicans are on?
2012-12-31 05:55:15 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2012-12-31 05:09:56 PM  
3 votes:
EnviroDude:
Vegan Meat Popsicle: That said, fark compromise. The republicans want something from a position of nothing after spending four years of doing nothing. Fark those guys right in the nostril. Americans spoke about what they want and it's nothing that the republicans are offering. They can either put on some big boy pants, suck it up and do what the country wants done or they can focus on driving themselves even deeper into obscurity.
For two of the aforementioned four years, the democrats were in charge of the house. They were also in charge of the Senate. And for two periods totaling well less than ½ of one of those years (from the months-delayed seating of Al Franken to the death of Ted Kennedy [most of which the Senate was in recess for anyway ― not to mention that Kennedy's final illness kept him from voting for those last few weeks before his passing], and again from the appointment of Paul Kirk to the election of Scott Brown), they had a filibuster proof majority when you added the left leaning independents that caucused with the democrats yet neglected to take into account the right-leaning Blue Dogs that caucused with the GOP.

/FT4Y
2012-12-31 04:56:42 PM  
3 votes:

Wangiss: bartink: Wangiss: The government loves entitlements because they can always adjust the price after the fact.

What does that mean?

If you got money from the government, your levied debt of gratitude and its monetary component can increase at the whim of legislators because you supposedly bought into the social contract. My parents were on welfare. As an adult, I will be reminded of this by spend-moar types who believe I owe the government for that. Never mind that children can't enter contracts. The social contract is special.


Ah, so this is a more sophisticated version of "fark you I've got mine".

Got it.
2012-12-31 04:43:19 PM  
3 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


If you make 250k or more you make many times the average income. Stop complaining.
2012-12-31 04:41:55 PM  
3 votes:

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?


So they're paying 2% more in taxes on $10k?  You're griping about $200/yr?

Fark you.
2012-12-31 04:30:34 PM  
3 votes:

Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.


If by simple you mean stupid, sure. Unless this American you're envisioning has the power to print his own money.

Know what else is really farking stupid? That with interest rates at essentially negative right now, the gov't is failing to borrow all they can get their hands on and use it for infrastructure projects. That's truly retarded.
2012-12-31 04:26:30 PM  
3 votes:

Wangiss: It's just a stupid thing that gets passed around by those ignorant of history. The history of the Civil War and Jim Crow and all that. It's important, historically, but has little or no bearing on current events.


It's even more stupid to try to conflate the Democratic Party of the 1860's with the Democratic Party of today.
2012-12-31 04:08:39 PM  
3 votes:
NBC news just reporting we're going over the fiscal cliff.

Good. F*ck the House Republicans. They still don't seem to understand that the president was re-elected, and why.
2012-12-31 03:52:09 PM  
3 votes:
I'm always amazed at how these threads are filled with people that struggle to understand the progressive tax structure.
2012-12-31 03:33:24 PM  
3 votes:

Nabb1: I think runaway spending by our own elected officials is a wee bit different that being at war with the Nazis and Imperial Japan.


You're smarter than this. You know perfectly well the military-industrial complex has behaved in a perpetual state of war from the end of WWII to the end of the Berlin Wall, and has fought tooth and nail to impose a permanent lavish state of militarism--often winning when the ostensible government balked. How many U.S. military bases exist worldwide? Running an empire is not cheap. You're paying for that through the nose much more than for a welfare state where funds distributed at least go back into the domestic economy.
2012-12-31 03:27:17 PM  
3 votes:

Bontesla: Major Garrett @MajorCBS

Tax details in POTENTIAL DEAL: 39.6 percent $400K individual, $450K families; CapGain/Dividends at 20% +3.8% from ACA (23.8% total)


If Obama can convince the GOP to accept a capital gains tax increase, he deserves another Nobel Prize.
2012-12-31 02:56:10 PM  
3 votes:

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



And the cheapest house on Carbon Beach in Malibu is $10M. Won't somebody please think of the "lower middle-class" millionaires living on Carbon Beach? It's a stupid argument. $250k/year is a shiatload of money. I live better than most people I know, in an expensive city, and I make less than half that.
2012-12-31 02:55:00 PM  
3 votes:

GoldSpider: DamnYankees: That's nonsense. Deciding to live in expensive cities IS CONSUMPTION. You are actively choosing to live in a place which gets you certain benefits. It's no different than any other kind of consumption. The idea of adjusting tax rates for that would simply be a massive subsidy towards a certain type of consumption.

There are many places where $100k is quite wealthy.


In every place 100K is quite wealthy. That's the point.
2012-12-31 02:52:03 PM  
3 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


Okay, I hear your plight. Tell you what, we won't penalize you. We'll give you the same tax cuts as everyone else making $250k or less. I think we can compromise on that. Call your (R) congresspeople, I'll call my (D) ones to let them know.

Deal?
2012-12-31 02:48:55 PM  
3 votes:

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.


I lived in Gaithersburg for two years. 250K = "middle class" is absolute horseshiat.
2012-12-31 02:48:45 PM  
3 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


You still get the same tax breaks everybody else does.  There's no "penalty" at all.

/marginal rates
//how do they work?
2012-12-31 02:46:47 PM  
3 votes:

enry: You can always give away your money so you only earned $249,999


Yeah, wouldn't want that last buck to make your taxes jump.

/If this is what you think, hire a goddamn accountant.
//If he lets you continue thinking that, fire him and hire a competent goddamn accountant.
2012-12-31 02:40:35 PM  
3 votes:
What are the chances some hillbilly, closet-case congressman tries to sneak in an amendment about life beginning at ejaculation?
2012-12-31 02:38:29 PM  
3 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


Ok!
2012-12-31 02:38:06 PM  
3 votes:

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Uranus Is Huge!: Prediction: Zero people will be pleased with the result.

I hope I'm wrong.

To be fair, even though nobody ever says it, that's true of any compromise. A little bit relief, a little bit disappointment.

That said, fark compromise. The republicans want something from a position of nothing after spending four years of doing nothing. Fark those guys right in the nostril. Americans spoke about what they want and it's nothing that the republicans are offering. They can either put on some big boy pants, suck it up and do what the country wants done or they can focus on driving themselves even deeper into obscurity.


farkin' right! The compromise shouldn't be the middle point between a reasonable proposal and a derp tsunami.
2012-12-31 02:37:57 PM  
3 votes:

ChuDogg: Personally I'm rooting for the fiscal cliff.


Yeah... I admit, I sort of want to see what would happen. A halving of the deficit triggered by partisan dickery and an inability to make compromises? That's some popcorn politics.
2012-12-31 02:36:16 PM  
3 votes:

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


But that would include too many in Congress.
2012-12-31 02:35:56 PM  
3 votes:
So, what, are they simply delaying an actual deal for another year, just like they did before?
2012-12-31 02:34:59 PM  
3 votes:

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


It's a good deal. 250k in NYC is a lot different than, say, Iowa.

/ Moderate D here
2012-12-31 02:33:42 PM  
3 votes:
And by the next election everything these clowns did will be forgotten.
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-12-31 02:32:14 PM  
3 votes:

ChuDogg: Personally I'm rooting for the fiscal cliff.


I'm rooting for the debt ceiling.

SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!!!
2012-12-31 02:31:44 PM  
3 votes:
I wouldn't actually be that concerned about it, but the person in our HR dept. who handles payroll is about as sensible and grounded as a dirigible shaped like a porcupine and I can't really envision any scenario at this point where he gets any part of our federal withholding right for about the first four months of 2013...
2012-12-31 08:09:33 PM  
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: johnnyrocket: Is this becoming clear for everyone?? The Republicans want to:

CUT Social Security
CUT Medicare
CUT Unemployment benefits
CUT Food stamps

at the same time:

CUT taxes on billionaires
NOT CUT a dime out of military contract spending.


wow, you are brilliant.  you figured it all out.
now take that tin foil hat and put on on another layer.  you will be safer that way.


You apparently have trouble understanding the English language, because these are all things that have been said to your farkin' face by the GOP.
2012-12-31 06:25:58 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:38:36 PM  
2 votes:

Waxing_Chewbacca: It's a good deal. 250k in NYC is a lot different than, say, Iowa.


Besides the fact that we shouldn't set national tax policy based on outlier situations -- and the fact that, even in NYC, 250k is doing better than the vast majority of people -- the proposal isn't a tax on "people making 250k". It's a moderate tax increase on income *over* 250k. The impact on someone making slightly more than 250k would be negligible.

IMHO, even 250k should be temporary and the threshold should go down as the economy improves.
2012-12-31 05:32:23 PM  
2 votes:
BTW, if you feel like doing some yelling at clouds, the House of Representatives directory is here. Give 'em hell!
2012-12-31 05:25:22 PM  
2 votes:

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Marine1: Get some Marines from around the Commandant's barracks in DC. Put them at the chamber doors of the House of Representatives, armed. No one leaves until a bill is crafted and handed to the Senate and President's desk.

While that really sounds appealing, I'd rather not give any Obama Will Enact Martial Law Conspiracy Theorists figurative ammunition.  They literally have enough as it is.


If you operate on the premise of not giving those people ammunition, there's going to be a lot you won't accomplish.
2012-12-31 05:05:30 PM  
2 votes:

Thunderpipes: No reason to raise taxes on the rich, none. Makes no dent.

But.... gets Obama and Democrats tons of votes, because their worshipers are stupid, vengeful people.

All this is about, votes. More and more idiots vote Democrat, and they breed faster, means liberal politicians stay rich.


Go home, Mitt. You're drunk.
2012-12-31 04:53:29 PM  
2 votes:

djkutch: I suck at math.

Well, then. What is the all the gnashing of the teeth about.


Foxnews syndrome.
2012-12-31 04:45:04 PM  
2 votes:

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 500x413]


While I like the spine cartoon, I also have some - not a lot but some - faith in Obama's chess skills that are sometimes mistaken for weakness. We all want a Teddy Roosevelt-style motherf*cker to work on holmes here with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, but we often miss the nuances of Obama's game. At least I do.

I never bought into the "long game" excuse for his performance in the first debate, but I know this man has wits that would shatter mine in five minutes. Let's see how this term turns out.
2012-12-31 04:35:49 PM  
2 votes:

Great_Milenko: Wolf Blitzer just announced on TV that the House of Representatives has adjourned and will not reconvene.

Assholes.

Anything to make the n*gger look bad, right Bohner?


RECESS APPOINT *ALL* THE POSITIONS!
2012-12-31 04:24:04 PM  
2 votes:

AngryJailhouseFistfark: It cost me the same to rent as to pay a mortgage but with the mortgage I got Sweet Deductions. My behavior was directly influenced by tax policy. Bullshiat.


Presumably, market forces would drive the price down were the deduction not their to boost demand. So either way you get the house, but now the banks get more profit.
2012-12-31 04:20:58 PM  
2 votes:

o5iiawah: News to some folks, but politicians have altered the tax code to promote certain behaviors among the population in exchange for 'vote for me, I gave you a tax cut"


And this is precisely what I'm raving about. Cut the mortgage interest deduction? Sure! People will wail and gnash their teeth but do fark-all about it. The banks have spent the last 50 years flooding the real estate market with capital such that you can't buy a house now without 'em. There are far too many Homelanders (myself included) bought into that shiatty racket and did so BECAUSE of the deduction.
It cost me the same to rent as to pay a mortgage but with the mortgage I got Sweet Deductions. My behavior was directly influenced by tax policy. Bullshiat.
2012-12-31 03:53:43 PM  
2 votes:

EnviroDude: Vegan Meat Popsicle: That said, fark compromise. The republicans want something from a position of nothing after spending four years of doing nothing. Fark those guys right in the nostril. Americans spoke about what they want and it's nothing that the republicans are offering. They can either put on some big boy pants, suck it up and do what the country wants done or they can focus on driving themselves even deeper into obscurity.

For two of the aforementioned four years, the democrats were in charge of the house.  They were also in charge of the Senate.  And for one of those years, they had a filibuster proof majority when you added the left leaning independents that caucused with the democrats.

Then, two years ago, the republicans took over the house.

Prior to that, the democrats:

dated the sunset of the Bush tax cuts for tomorrow

dated the sunset of the payroll withholding tomorrow

dated the implementation of the Obamacare tax hikes tomorrow

The only thing the republicans have done (with the cooperation of the democrats) is date the mandatory spending cuts

/the more you know


Half true. Either way the reason for those dates was to get republican support. Republicans so believed they would win the Whitehouse that they assumed they could rewrite everything.
2012-12-31 03:32:29 PM  
2 votes:
You gotta love how cutting so called defense spending isn't even on the table.
2012-12-31 03:31:59 PM  
2 votes:

AngryPanda: Cataholic: Shut up and give 'til it hurts, citizen!
People gave their personal money to the government to use for war efforts in WW2, but you know, because 60 years later paying taxes is considered socialism instead of helping your nation, your joke is hilarious.


toppun.com
2012-12-31 03:20:07 PM  
2 votes:
Let's see, If you make 250K a year you are pulling down about 5K a week, about a grand a day, and you are biatching about paying a extra 3% on what you make over 250K. Cry me a river.
2012-12-31 03:18:15 PM  
2 votes:

Bontesla: Yesterday, after days of inaction, I came to the floor and noted we needed to act, but that I needed a dance partner.


How is a man that abjectly failed in every measurable way at his only task in the last four years still in a position of leadership? He stated his one job clear as day was "to make Obama a one-term president." Protect our country's credit rating? Nope. Iron out problems with domestic and foreign policies? Not on his watch! Learn to compromise so that everything isn't a knock-down, drag-out fight? That's for wine-drinking liberals. He had a job.

He failed, as I'm fairly certain we won't be installing any non-threatening white men in January to the Presidency. How does this man have any credibility left?
2012-12-31 03:04:25 PM  
2 votes:
As usual, the definition of "rich" is "people who make more money than *I* do."
2012-12-31 03:01:01 PM  
2 votes:
"Fiscal Cliff" is just political propaganda for avoiding enforcing tax-payer responsibility so as not to be perceived as the bad guy tax-man.

It's an attempt to keep TODAY's voters from feeling the burden of the existing (and former) expensive wars, departments and programs.

So really, it's just a play to try to retain political power. (And it's not ONE party's doing either, it's politics in general.)

If people would just realize how much it cost them individually for all the wars, TSA and all the other BS programs where the government oversteps it's bounds, then no one would back them.

But in the end when you pay for something on CREDIT, the bill EVENTUALLY MUST be paid.
2012-12-31 02:58:39 PM  
2 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


HOW IN THE HELL is paying LESS then the taxes you paid in the last war "Penalize"?

you just showed us all why we hate conservative american-hating douchebags. Go do your part - and when it's too much.. you'll know you're finally being honorable.
2012-12-31 02:54:22 PM  
2 votes:
Eliminate dependent deductions. Don't lower rates for having children, charge extra, they use more services.

/obviously childless
//mostly joking
2012-12-31 02:53:32 PM  
2 votes:

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


No. With an income of $250,000 per year you can afford something called a "car" or "subway tokens" and can commute from somewhere cheaper. Sorry, you're still wrong.
2012-12-31 02:51:35 PM  
2 votes:

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.


As someone working and living in NW DC on 40k a year while my wife finishes up a Masters, I would like to point out you're full of curseword.

For every person in DC making 100k or more, there's ten people trying to make it off of less than 30k. But keep living in your bubble.
2012-12-31 02:49:41 PM  
2 votes:

Wangiss: They send what their constituents demand, and the Senate hasn't taken the problem seriously at all.


Neither has the House or else the Senate wouldn't be rejecting all of the budget plans the GOP House pulls from their ass.

The constituents want compromise, not a pure Conservative agenda. Heck, the Dems won the House election but the GOP only managed to maintain their majority due to gerrymandering. If they did, the GOP would have the Senate as well in addition to Romney being elected President.
2012-12-31 02:49:36 PM  
2 votes:

Pincy: lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.

It's not a penalty. It's your civic duty. You are doing better than the vast majority of Americans. Stop whining.


They can't do it. Greed is good in their world. And they want more. And they don't give a crap if the place crumbles around them- just as long as they get theirs.
2012-12-31 02:48:26 PM  
2 votes:

lenfromak: Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


Since when are taxes considered a penalty? Is jury duty a punishment too?
2012-12-31 02:48:16 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-12-31 02:40:48 PM  
2 votes:
Isn't that kind of saying "Almost pregnant"?
2012-12-31 02:40:28 PM  
2 votes:
Obama still has plenty of time to cave in completely. He only offered up 90% of what the GOP wanted in his last proposal.
2012-12-31 02:40:10 PM  
2 votes:
Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.
2012-12-31 02:39:54 PM  
2 votes:
Ezra Klein  @ezraklein
That said, if the presser really does hurt a deal, Congress is a more ridiculous, trivial place than I gave it credit for.

Ezra Klein  @ezrakleinI really look forward to the first member of congress who says they can't vote for the deal because the president was too merry

Ezra Klein  @ezrakleinThere was a time when politics was so grim only the Onion could adequately cover it. Now it's so stupid that I think it's up to GIFs.
2012-12-31 02:37:32 PM  
2 votes:
So now they are saying zero cuts?  What's the point?  The "millionaires and billionaires tax" isn't half a drop in the bucket!
Damn, we really are doomed.
2012-12-31 02:35:34 PM  
2 votes:
A deal that doesn't obviate the debt limit, gains a pathetic $800 billion in revenue, and takes an axe to Social Security (which is practically irrelevant to the deficit).

Obama is the worst poker player alive.
2012-12-31 02:32:42 PM  
2 votes:
Prediction: Zero people will be pleased with the result.

I hope I'm wrong.
2012-12-31 02:31:43 PM  
2 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com

RIP, Cliff
2012-12-31 02:30:05 PM  
2 votes:
400/450k cutoff now? I wonder how much nothing Dems got in return for that bullshiat.
2013-01-01 03:16:22 PM  
1 votes:

mksmith: And anyone who has as much as a half-million coming in every year couldn't possibly have earned it by honest labor.


Seriously though? I hate the bullshiat "job creator" nonsense, but this is quite literally hating someone because they make a certain amount of money.

Which is idiotic. The rich are not hated because they are rich, they're hated because they game the system and whine when called out on it.
2013-01-01 03:14:46 PM  
1 votes:

The Larch: lordjupiter: Right wing logic: minimum wage is too high, food stamps are a luxury, but $250K is barely "middle income".

Also, teachers earn too much, unions are destroying business, and Mitt Romney is a job excretor.


And NPR and Planned Parenthood make a meaningful contribution to the deficit. And the rich (sorry. "job creators") will go elsewhere if we raise taxes on them. Even though the USA has the lowest effective tax rate of any first world nation.
2013-01-01 11:33:02 AM  
1 votes:

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


And the cheapest house on Carbon Beach in Malibu is $10M. Won't somebody please think of the "lower middle-class" millionaires living on Carbon Beach? It's a stupid argument. $250k/year is a shiatload of money. I live better than most people I know, in an expensive city, and I make less than half that.

I am not entirely sure why we keep engaging this guy. His math is pretty indicative of the brainfarts of a mongoloid. Because your average mongoloid thinks that the DC region should be the litmus test for tax rates.

.
I love fark. Yeah my math sucks. I retired at 42, came out of retirement to lead the finical workings of an global company. They wanted me because my math sucks. LOL!

If you seriously think 250,000 is low middle income and that the tax rates shouldn't be based on that figure because of that assessment, your math sucks and I hope your company goes under because of their crappy hiring practices.



This whole farking "$150k or $250k isn't a lot of monety in DC because of cost of living" bullshiat is a myth. It gets repeated all the time but it's just not true.

Right wing logic: minimum wage is too high, food stamps are a luxury, but $250K is barely "middle income".

It's like a wide open firehose of bullshiat.
2013-01-01 01:12:21 AM  
1 votes:

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Hopefully, the next time the rich and powerful are pushing for another war of choice, they'll remember that they'll actually have to pay for it eventually.


The take-away won't be that. It will be to buy your politicians lock, stock and full party enough to get what they want, not just a few of them and hope that they will lead the others.

This is just the beginning of things getting bad. We've won a short battle...one that we were almost guaranteed to win. Unless Citizens United is repealed you will see a distinct and clear vision for who gets backed by whom and these will largely lead the party.
2013-01-01 12:49:39 AM  
1 votes:
Hopefully, the next time the rich and powerful are pushing for another war of choice, they'll remember that they'll actually have to pay for it eventually.
2012-12-31 11:58:00 PM  
1 votes:

knowless: fark with the rigging all you want, the sails are tattered, you're stuck at sea.

As long as you benchmark your taxation to an illusory asset whose value is set by rates which can and will remain negative, while at the same time expanding supply of said asset.. Whatever.

There's this ting called reality, and it will intercede. The federal government having control of an income tax is insane. It creates irreparable distortions, hence the 250 is totally different over here argument.. You all deserve what's coming.


$250k is doing very, very well anywhere in this country and to argue otherwise simply shows a complete disconnect with the real world.
2012-12-31 11:42:26 PM  
1 votes:

SuperNinjaToad: I would call nukes more of a deterrent type weapon system. Aircraft carriers would fall close to that area as well...Everyone knows that nukes are so outrageously dangerous and a weapon of such unimaginable horror that having even just one can actually minimize the risk or war or total escalation. In some ironic and discombobulated ways having nukes is actually a good thing.


I agree with bolded.  My point is we can scale back that spending a lot and still maintain the effects.  The language we use is purposeful.  The term "Defense spending" is used because of the perception it creates.  As if cutting "defense spending" would leave us vulnerable -when it wouldnt.  I find that purposeful use intentionally misleading.

Also, I know this will be unpopular, but we loose a little bit of the integrity of saying "deterrent" when we actually used nukes (A-bombs) offensively previously.
2012-12-31 11:33:27 PM  
1 votes:

Keizer_Ghidorah: And it's also amusing how much you complain about how Democrats spend, when Republicans wanted ANOTHER war, this time with Iran, after all the money wasted with Bush's first two wars. Then they biatch about how societal safety systems are a waste of money and demand we destroy them all and let the poor, sick, mentally handicapped, and soon the middle class fend for themselves while we worship the true bastions of America, the "job-creating" rich.


People with the same mentality were also gung-ho to spend money spreading democracy in SE Asia and South America.  Look at all the benefits that reaped for us.  Their "spending" mantra is so dishonest.
2012-12-31 11:18:09 PM  
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: sonnyboy11: tenpoundsofcheese: Frederick:

Also I wish we were more honest and called it offense spending.  Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for example are not for defense.  We havent used our military for our defense in a very long time.

yes, we learned that we are not even willing to defend our embassy and ambassador in Benghazi.

Well, that'd be your boys hard at work

No, your boys were given a budget.  They decided not use enough of it in Bengazi and instead spent the money in Australia, Germany and Japan, the real hot spots for terrorism.

It is incredibly lame to whine that you don't have an unlimited checkbook because of the GOP so you have no responsibility for how you spend the money.

Besides, this isn't just about the defense of the embassy, it was the stand down reaction to the attack.


It's amusing and sad that your talking points about Benghazi change every other day or so.

What was the "stand down reaction"? A group of people did respond twenty minutes after the attack, two of them were killed. We didn't need to send in tanks and bombers and indiscriminately slaughter people.

And it's also amusing how much you complain about how Democrats spend, when Republicans wanted ANOTHER war, this time with Iran, after all the money wasted with Bush's first two wars. Then they biatch about how societal safety systems are a waste of money and demand we destroy them all and let the poor, sick, mentally handicapped, and soon the middle class fend for themselves while we worship the true bastions of America, the "job-creating" rich.
2012-12-31 11:03:41 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: PsiChick: jigger: 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.

A "tax" intended as a penalty is called a fine, since we're having a productive semantic discussion here.

Purdy much, but the SCOTUS did rule it as a tax, so I figured that was a bit too complicated at this point.

They can call it whatever they want, but it's a fine, a punishment. If you'd like to call it a tax, then it's a tax that's a punishment. Taxes aren't collected because the payer is nice and wants to make a contribution. They're collected because the payer is in fear of the consequences of non-compliance.


Shut up, you lost. Elections have consequences.

How the hell can you argue that people should be allowed to not carry health insurance, but not be refused healthcare, thus increasing the cost for everyone? Stop being moronic or pedantic. You pick which.
2012-12-31 09:36:41 PM  
1 votes:

cchris_39: scubamage: There you go. My finances. I have nothing to hide.

Ok why not.

245 here. Basically you, 20 years from now.

3k house payment, titer up ancillary expenses associated with that.
2 kids in college. Financial aid? No, you're paying full freight. 50k a year there. And all of those wonderful education credits are completely phased out.
Most of your other deductions are phased out or down to the minimum allowed.
Another 50k in federal income taxes.
Another 12k in FICA and Medicare.
4 car payments.
Car insurance for 2 college age boys isn't cheap. Neither is life insurance for 50+ Mom & Dad.

Weddings are coming next (at least they aren't girls).

So is retirement.

It's a good living and I'm grateful for it, but you're not getting rich at this level.


There are a few things that you could shift that would help a lot...

-Car payments: You shouldn't have any. Pay off your car and then keep it up. If you're legitimately between cars at the moment and paying *yours* off, at the very least you shouldn't be having car payments for your kids. Buy them a one time basic car (2K-3K cash) and let them keep it up (help as necessary).

-Car insurance: You're paying insurance for your *adult* kids...why? They want to drive, they pay their own insurance.

-College: Unless they've got something they know they're going into, don't waste the money. They can go work until they figure out what they *really* want to do and THEN the education will be worth something. Lots of people with debt out there and no jobs because they went off to "find themselves" in college. That doesn't work anymore.

-Life Insurance for Mom and Dad: This may or may not be a necessity depending on what sort of bills you parents will have when they die and which of those you'll be responsible for. But I'd take a good long look at it....

-House Payment: Depending on your housing situation, and assuming you've actually made headway into your loan over the years, consider re-financing. Then you can pay down the principle at your leisure. (Which you should do as soon as possible since housing is one of the biggest chunks of your budget in general.)
2012-12-31 09:35:26 PM  
1 votes:
It's

JolobinSmokin: I like potatoes.

And

RIP Heathcliffe


It's no myth
2012-12-31 08:56:51 PM  
1 votes:

ChuDogg: Personally I'm rooting for the fiscal cliff.


Agreed. Maybe if all of America gets a good hard look at what the gop wrought simply because they CANNOT STAND the idea of the filthy stinking rich having to pay their fair share, the prospects of a gop re-infection in 2014 will become less likely.
2012-12-31 08:40:00 PM  
1 votes:

cchris_39: scubamage: There you go. My finances. I have nothing to hide.

Ok why not.

245 here. Basically you, 20 years from now.

3k house payment, titer up ancillary expenses associated with that.
2 kids in college. Financial aid? No, you're paying full freight. 50k a year there. And all of those wonderful education credits are completely phased out.
Most of your other deductions are phased out or down to the minimum allowed.
Another 50k in federal income taxes.
Another 12k in FICA and Medicare.
4 car payments.
Car insurance for 2 college age boys isn't cheap. Neither is life insurance for 50+ Mom & Dad.

Weddings are coming next (at least they aren't girls).

So is retirement.

It's a good living and I'm grateful for it, but you're not getting rich at this level.


You realize you live a life of luxury 98% of the country cant touch right? Did I just get trolled?
2012-12-31 08:35:19 PM  
1 votes:

Decados: scubamage:


Now, I *DO* have extra taken out of each paycheck to ensure I never owe in at the federal level. Ever.

So....let me paraphrase this.

"I give a bunch of money to the federal government so that I don't have to give money to the federal government."

Let me ask this..do you all get big refunds at the end of the year?  If so.. keep reading.  IF not, have a wonderful new year.

You are moran.  You're giving the government an interest free loan, when that money would be FAR more productive in your own pocket.  You biatch and whine that you don't have enough cash, when handing boatloads over to the government that you don't need to.  I bet you get your refund back and do something pretty stupid with it, like an insipid vacation to a shiatty location that you don't need to go, or something equally as moronic.   Adjust your deductions so that you have the CORRECT ammount taken out of your check, so that you owe nothing.   The money in YOUR pocket will be better off than in uncle Sams.


This is good advice. Here's some other advice in that vein.

Even if you are concerned that you will end up owing the government, take the money that you would give to the government and put it into a bank account. Keep it until the end of the year when you do your taxes. Worst case scenario is that you end up owing the government (likely won't be the case) but you have the money put away to pay it anyway. More likely case is that you end up with at minimum a couple grand, likely a few grand in a bank account that you can do something useful with. Like paying off your heater that you're paying on, or putting in retirement. Really, just about anything is better than just blindly giving it to the government "just in case".
2012-12-31 08:26:21 PM  
1 votes:

Wangiss: ACallForPeace: Wangiss: The KKK are Democrats. This has always been the case. It doesn't matter, really. And I'm sure you know the real racist intent of Republican hearts because you majick that way, but the KKK are and always have been Democrats.

Pretty sure you mean were, dumbass.
I don't know what's stupider, the Republican concept of economics which seems to have been produced by a group of infants with downs syndrome and various mental disorders (sorry for the comparison infants, those with downs syndrome and those with mental disorders) or their retarded game of "The Southern Strategy never happened, let me stop to make a racist, sexist, bigoted comment, enact racist, sexist, and bigoted legislation and then remind you that our opponents are the real racists for quoting us and telling you to pay attention to the policies we pass."

I'll let the Republicans answer for their positions. I only do facts and progressive minarchy.


Here are the Republicans answering for their positions.

From wiki:

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[8] but merely popularized it.[9] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[2]

Following Bush's re-election, Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager and Chairman of the RNC, held several large meetings with African-American business, community, and religious leaders. In his speeches, he apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in the past. When asked about the strategy of using race as an issue to build GOP dominance in the once-Democratic South, Mehlman replied, "Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions," and, "by the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

"All Americans owe liberalism a great debt for having fought so passionately to end segregation. The liberal commitment to ending segregation and the colonization of the Third World are liberalism's two great contributions to the 20th century. And they often did that in the face of conservative indifference or hostility."

--Newt Gingrich

Link

"Conservatives should feel some embarrassment and shame that we are outraged at instances of racism now that it is easy to be. Conservatives...were often at best MIA on the issue of civil rights in the 1960s. Liberals were on the right side of history on the issue of race. And conservatives should probably admit that more often."

--Jonah Goldberg

Link
2012-12-31 08:14:29 PM  
1 votes:

Mentat: Wangiss: Well, my father worked in a coal mine in Wattis, Utah after Jimmy Carter's Excellent Adventure, so he tried hard to build a better life for me. He only worked 40 hours, though, so I guess he's kind of an entitled prick.

You mean that 40 hour work week mandated by the government?  The one that comes with disability benefits in the event that your father had been injured on the job?  And OSHA regulations that worked to keep him from getting injured in the first place?


Yes. Are you feeling alright?
2012-12-31 08:12:05 PM  
1 votes:

scubamage: Msol: had98c: Except right now my fiance earns around 61000, I earn around 7000

scubamage: Monthly takehome: 5219

I'm super confused. Your pre-tax income is (61000 + 70000) $131,000 yet your after-tax income is (5219*12) $62,628? How on earth is your tax rate 53%? The highest marginal tax rate isn't even that high!

Because we've got a ton of taxes, plus there are some pre-tax items that come out of my take-home, same with my fiance's.
I lose 4.5% to my 401k. I also lose 191$ for my railpass as it's paid pre-tax.
Then I lose 3.4% to Philadelphia work privilege tax (used to be over 5% until I moved out of the city)
Then federal, state, municiple (1%) and county (1%) taxes.
Now, I *DO* have extra taken out of each paycheck to ensure I never owe in at the federal level. Ever.

She loses federal, state, municiple and county tax, an additional 7% for the state pension fund, and then an additional 5% for the 403b.

If you can find a problem with the math, please let me know. I'd love to tell the HR folks they're doing something wrong and get some extra cash at the end of the day, I really would.


Ok, here's the numbers I came up with. These are on the very conservative side, only taking the standard deduction and no others. I used the calculator here: http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/federal-income-tax-calculator

You:
70, 000 - Income
11,255 - Federal tax taking the standard deduction after subtracting your 401k
4340 - Social Security 6.2%
1015 - Medicare 1.45%
3150 - 4.5% 401k to meet your employer match
2380 - 3.4% Philadelphia tax
2100 - 3% PA income tax
700 - 1% municipal tax
700 - 1% county tax
2291 - rail fee
-------------------
$42,069 yearly or $1618 bi-weekly, $3505 a month

Your Fiance:
61,000 - Income
9030 - Federal tax taking the standard deduction after subtracting her 403b
3782 - Social Security 6.2%
884.5 - Medicare 1.45%
4270 - 7% Pension
3050 - 5% 403b
1830 - 3% PA income tax
610 - 1% municipal tax
610 - 1% county tax
-------------------
$36,933.50 yearly or $1420 bi-weekly or $3077 monthly

This is very conservative and doesn't take into account any of the typical deductions such as mortgage interest, property taxes, state and local tax deductions etc. Your monthly take home should be over $6500/mo.
I'd compare with your paystub and see what's off. My guess is you're withholding on your w4 for your federal taxes. You should be getting a nice return from the IRS when you file.
2012-12-31 07:55:19 PM  
1 votes:
It's time for the bell-curve to curve-back, and we start holding these intransigents accountable. Own up. Pay  your fair share.
2012-12-31 07:42:46 PM  
1 votes:

scubamage: She loses federal, state, municiple and county tax, an additional 7% for the state pension fund, and then an additional 5% for the 403b.


she isn't losing the money that goes into the 403b and state pension fund.
2012-12-31 07:27:18 PM  
1 votes:

Wangiss: The KKK are Democrats. This has always been the case. It doesn't matter, really. And I'm sure you know the real racist intent of Republican hearts because you majick that way, but the KKK are and always have been Democrats.


Pretty sure you mean were, dumbass.
I don't know what's stupider, the Republican concept of economics which seems to have been produced by a group of infants with downs syndrome and various mental disorders (sorry for the comparison infants, those with downs syndrome and those with mental disorders) or their retarded game of "The Southern Strategy never happened, let me stop to make a racist, sexist, bigoted comment, enact racist, sexist, and bigoted legislation and then remind you that our opponents are the real racists for quoting us and telling you to pay attention to the policies we pass."
2012-12-31 07:21:51 PM  
1 votes:

scubamage: Msol: had98c: Except right now my fiance earns around 61000, I earn around 7000

scubamage: Monthly takehome: 5219

I'm super confused. Your pre-tax income is (61000 + 70000) $131,000 yet your after-tax income is (5219*12) $62,628? How on earth is your tax rate 53%? The highest marginal tax rate isn't even that high!

Because we've got a ton of taxes, plus there are some pre-tax items that come out of my take-home, same with my fiance's.
I lose 4.5% to my 401k. I also lose 191$ for my railpass as it's paid pre-tax.
Then I lose 3.4% to Philadelphia work privilege tax (used to be over 5% until I moved out of the city)
Then federal, state, municiple (1%) and county (1%) taxes.
Now, I *DO* have extra taken out of each paycheck to ensure I never owe in at the federal level. Ever.

She loses federal, state, municiple and county tax, an additional 7% for the state pension fund, and then an additional 5% for the 403b.

If you can find a problem with the math, please let me know. I'd love to tell the HR folks they're doing something wrong and get some extra cash at the end of the day, I really would.


We've already told you 4 times over. Alter your 401K, and the "extra" you have taken out. 53% in tax adjustments is insane, even if you are paying for the rail tax pre-tax.
2012-12-31 07:18:22 PM  
1 votes:

Msol: had98c: Except right now my fiance earns around 61000, I earn around 7000

scubamage: Monthly takehome: 5219

I'm super confused. Your pre-tax income is (61000 + 70000) $131,000 yet your after-tax income is (5219*12) $62,628? How on earth is your tax rate 53%? The highest marginal tax rate isn't even that high!


Because we've got a ton of taxes, plus there are some pre-tax items that come out of my take-home, same with my fiance's.
I lose 4.5% to my 401k. I also lose 191$ for my railpass as it's paid pre-tax.
Then I lose 3.4% to Philadelphia work privilege tax (used to be over 5% until I moved out of the city)
Then federal, state, municiple (1%) and county (1%) taxes.
Now, I *DO* have extra taken out of each paycheck to ensure I never owe in at the federal level. Ever.

She loses federal, state, municiple and county tax, an additional 7% for the state pension fund, and then an additional 5% for the 403b.

If you can find a problem with the math, please let me know. I'd love to tell the HR folks they're doing something wrong and get some extra cash at the end of the day, I really would.
2012-12-31 07:11:54 PM  
1 votes:
I wouldn't have a problem in a tax increase if I was at all confident that I would get X value (even if x X is not monetary but perhaps a quantifiable societal benefit) out of tax increase X. What we as civilians should be focused on is rooting out corruption, waste, and fraud that probably accounts for 120% of the deficit.
2012-12-31 07:10:43 PM  
1 votes:

Msol: had98c: Except right now my fiance earns around 61000, I earn around 7000

scubamage: Monthly takehome: 5219

I'm super confused. Your pre-tax income is (61000 + 70000) $131,000 yet your after-tax income is (5219*12) $62,628? How on earth is your tax rate 53%? The highest marginal tax rate isn't even that high!


Listen to him start talking about deductions and maxing out his 401K. That doesn't even account for it.

As a point, since you are experiencing a temporary emergency(heater), turn down the 401K until it's resolved.
2012-12-31 06:57:10 PM  
1 votes:

Bendal: "If they try to amend the bill, the Democrats will abandon it and leave it to the GOP to pass without their support to the Senate where it'll get dumped. They'll then open a new bill and try again. And each time they do, the GOP will get ANOTHER 'Breaking News!' report on the news sites about the GOP torpedoed another tax cutting bill by attaching riders giving cuts to the people who need them least of all.

Playing right into the President's hands. You have to understand: He got reelected on his premise of taxing the rich more. The majority of Americans support this concept and want to see it done. The GOP will be cutting their own throats in 2014 if they refuse to pass the Democrats' bill, and they know it."

Yes, but the Republicans do not believe Obama's re-election means they have to change their tactics, and this latest disaster shows they are still acting like it's "business as usual". We the people may want taxes raised on the rich, but the Republicans still have a majority in the House and enough in the Senate to control what gets passed, and I predict they won't let that happen.


Then they're dead in 2014 and we, as a nation, will survive until then. They'll squander time and money and effort and get nothing done and the GOP will be finished as a national party in 2 years. The Democrats get elected in huge numbers, the House goes blue, the Senate gets a super majority and then you'll see some amazing shiat go down from 2014 to 2016.

Long term thinking. They lack it.
2012-12-31 06:50:12 PM  
1 votes:

skullkrusher: bartink: skullkrusher: Why not a deduction indexed to the cost of living? We can keep the brackets the same but give people greater (or lesser) breaks on what is taxable income based on the relative cost of their area.

How localized is that area? By state? City? Neighborhood? Do we give a rich person that blows their money on a nice house in a nice neighborhood a bigger tax break, instead of encouraging investment? And then cost of living becomes a political football, to be argued over.

As much as I'd like to stick it to those rural retards that call urbanites moochers for wanting more robust government, that doesn't seem like a workable solution to me.

it wouldn't be based on what you spend money on. Everyone gets a standard deduction of $5k and change. How is that fair? it's not and no one seems to give a shiat


Skullkrusher, when I tell my 5 year old daughter it's time for bed, you know what she says? "IT'S NOT FAIR!"

Good to see you're at least keeping up with her on your debate skills.
2012-12-31 06:49:22 PM  
1 votes:

scubamage: chuggernaught: 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.

So $130,000 per year salary wise (before taxes I assume), and $34,440 going out a year in the bills you listed with dollar amounts. How much are your other bills that you only have $200 left at the end of each month? You must be oozing money somewhere else. Figure fuel, groceries, clothes, utilities, etc. I just can't figure where you're losing the rest of your salaries. Either you're trolling and committed a cardinal troll sin by using actual numbers, or you are as bad as I am when it comes to finances.

She's a teacher so she instantly loses 7% of her salary to state pension funds, then another 5% to her 403b (it's a bargaining item for the union, so she has to do it, it's not something she can "decline". Her bi-weekly takehome is $1100. Mine is $1475.


You sir are grossly losing money somewhere. I have a salary of 54K here in Ohio, pay medical for both myself and my spouse, and I bring home more than that bi-weekly. I've also lowered my 401K contribution to 1% for the time until she finds work. My rent is 1K a month. Car is 375. No student loans. Still, you're losing money.
2012-12-31 06:38:15 PM  
1 votes:

scubamage: 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 putt ...


If you have to have a low-key wedding in order to not lose your house...then them's the kinds of sacrifices one makes. And what's wrong with a justice of the peace? My parents were married by one. See, this is one of the things wrong with Americans. We want everything we want, and we'll pay obnoxious amounts of money for those things, but taxes? No, not taxes. Taxes aren't fun or sexy, like cars and houses and weddings and vacations.
2012-12-31 06:34:20 PM  
1 votes:
Well, your retardation continues. With your new numbers, your fiance's take home went from 60k to less than 29k. Your own take home went from 70k to 38k.

I think you should probably pick up a second job, son.
2012-12-31 06:31:08 PM  
1 votes:

Infernalist: chuggernaught: 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.

So $130,000 per year salary wise (before taxes I assume), and $34,440 going out a year in the bills you listed with dollar amounts. How much are your other bills that you only have $200 left at the end of each month? You must be oozing money somewhere else. Figure fuel, groceries, clothes, utilities, etc. I just can't figure where you're losing the rest of your salaries. Either you're trolling and committed a cardinal troll sin by using actual numbers, or you are as bad as I am when it comes to finances.

My math showed him with just over 7000 a month after bills that he listed. He's either got one HELL of a coke habit or he's a retarded troll.


t.qkme.me
2012-12-31 06:29:46 PM  
1 votes:

chuggernaught: 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.

So $130,000 per year salary wise (before taxes I assume), and $34,440 going out a year in the bills you listed with dollar amounts. How much are your other bills that you only have $200 left at the end of each month? You must be oozing money somewhere else. Figure fuel, groceries, clothes, utilities, etc. I just can't figure where you're losing the rest of your salaries. Either you're trolling and committed a cardinal troll sin by using actual numbers, or you are as bad as I am when it comes to finances.


My math showed him with just over 7000 a month after bills that he listed. He's either got one HELL of a coke habit or he's a retarded troll.
2012-12-31 06:19:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:11:59 PM  
1 votes:

namatad: no cuts to social security


This. I'd favor lowering the age requirement.
2012-12-31 06:04:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:03:46 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-31 06:02:15 PM  
1 votes:

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.


You are missing the point.
It isn't about what hit you "can stand" it is about what is fair.

I am sure you can afford to take a hit and give money to Snooki, but that doesn't mean it is right to demand that you do.
2012-12-31 05:58:28 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-12-31 05:52:34 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-31 05:48:38 PM  
1 votes:
I guess the thing I'm most upset about is the lack of a deal including raising the debt ceiling. That means we're going to see this dumb fight again in a month or so. Our credit rating may be lowered AGAIN for taking too long to act like adults and pay for the things we've already spent money on. The rest of the world can gawk at our ability to shoot ourselves repeatedly in same damn foot.
2012-12-31 05:47:01 PM  
1 votes:

Mentat: Smelly McUgly: President Obama is negotiating against himself again, I see.

President Obama knows that nothing short of complete surrender will get the GOP to vote in good faith, so he can propose whatever he wants without fear of consequence.


Hmm. If this is true, then why agree to move the lower-limit for the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts to 450K? Why not just sit at 250K, or if he wants to look like he's moving without really moving, 300K?
2012-12-31 05:46:06 PM  
1 votes:

Mentat: Wangiss: If you got money from the government, your levied debt of gratitude and its monetary component can increase at the whim of legislators because you supposedly bought into the social contract. My parents were on welfare. As an adult, I will be reminded of this by spend-moar types who believe I owe the government for that. Never mind that children can't enter contracts. The social contract is special.

Your parents should have sent you to work in the coal mines instead.  It would have built character.


Well, my father worked in a coal mine in Wattis, Utah after Jimmy Carter's Excellent Adventure, so he tried hard to build a better life for me. He only worked 40 hours, though, so I guess he's kind of an entitled prick.
2012-12-31 05:45:43 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2012-12-31 05:45:17 PM  
1 votes:

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!


It's all about spin my friend. Their commercials will say that the democrats refused to compromise, and that the GOP members heroically fought to keep taxes from being raised on "Americans." Then, all they've actually voted for was a tax cut. This was more than likely the plan all along, because the republican party would more than likely implode right now if they actually voted to raise taxes. The tea derpers simply wouldn't accept it. From this point forward though, as long as the tea party is around the pubbies will basically be a lame duck party.
2012-12-31 05:45:17 PM  
1 votes:

Smelly McUgly: President Obama is negotiating against himself again, I see.


President Obama knows that nothing short of complete surrender will get the GOP to vote in good faith, so he can propose whatever he wants without fear of consequence.
2012-12-31 05:44:26 PM  
1 votes:

Wangiss: If you got money from the government, your levied debt of gratitude and its monetary component can increase at the whim of legislators because you supposedly bought into the social contract. My parents were on welfare. As an adult, I will be reminded of this by spend-moar types who believe I owe the government for that. Never mind that children can't enter contracts. The social contract is special.


Your parents should have sent you to work in the coal mines instead.  It would have built character.
2012-12-31 05:38:07 PM  
1 votes:

Marine1: How will the taxes be implemented?


It's wikipedia, but ...
2012-12-31 05:35:18 PM  
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: cretinbob: The Teabaggers who have stated over and over they want to destroy America, just in fancy terms making it sound good,

citation or are you just a nut?


Have you not been listening to them?
That whole "get rid of the government" thing is pretty much what they said at every rally.
There is a disconnect between what they have written down, and the words that come out of their mouths. I think it's due in large part that they have also been hijacked by a few people who want power and attention, yet lack basic education or powers of deduction. They in turn look to people who have less education and critical thinking skills to lead around by the nose.
Thankfully their numbers are small.

0.tqn.com
2012-12-31 05:33:44 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-12-31 05:22:10 PM  
1 votes:

cretinbob: [i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]
"Hey America, go fark yourself"


To be completely fair, it's not directly boehner's fault. He simply can't get the GOP to agree to a deal.

Which isn't surprising at all. If you spend 4+ years painting a man and a Party as Communistic and anti-American, you can't simply turn around and make deals with them. The true-blue die-hard believers among your party simply won't go along with it, especially over something as visceral as tax rates.

In short, they went full retard for 4+ years and not even Boehner can turn it off now.
2012-12-31 05:22:08 PM  
1 votes:
Months ago it was mentioned that the Republicans might stall on this until 2013 so after tax rates were jacked up, they could pass tax cuts and not violate Grover's precious f--king pledge.

I was really hoping public pressure (and thank God people seem to know exactly which party is being total jackasses in this process) would make that not happen, but at the same time the idea sounded so gloriously stupid I could see it happening.

Dammit.

This is really, really pathetic. My douchebag state legislature already passed laws that are going to give a crap ton of money to the rich and take more from working families, but at least they did so less blatantly obviously. Smart for them, sucks for the rest of us - I try to pay attention as best I can and I didn't even realize the scope of it until my State Rep came to my workplace and went over all the crap he had unsuccessfully fought against in the past year. Just amazing.
2012-12-31 05:21:24 PM  
1 votes:
Get some Marines from around the Commandant's barracks in DC. Put them at the chamber doors of the House of Representatives, armed. No one leaves until a bill is crafted and handed to the Senate and President's desk.
2012-12-31 05:20:39 PM  
1 votes:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-12-31 05:19:03 PM  
1 votes:

Wangiss: unlikely: Wangiss: I'm definitely not a spoiled prick

The "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow" nature of your arguments suggests otherwise.

"Entitled" is when you demand the sweat of another man's brow. I pay my taxes. I'd gladly pay a higher rate to my state if it asked. The federal government should diminish. They're the ones blowing up people.


You're thinking of 'self-entitled.'

You sound Randian.
2012-12-31 05:18:44 PM  
1 votes:
i2.cdn.turner.com
"Hey America, go fark yourself"
2012-12-31 05:14:23 PM  
1 votes:

Wangiss: I'm definitely not a spoiled prick


The "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow" nature of your arguments suggests otherwise.
2012-12-31 05:12:29 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: vrax: Every single one of these GOP assholes should automatically be thrown out of office at midnight. There is no larger pile of shiat in US than the current GOP.

Senate GOP was at least willing to work for a deal.  It's the House GOP that's the real problem at the moment.


OK, at midnight we just throw the Senate GOP out and send the House GOP to the gallows. There, fair and balanced.
2012-12-31 05:11:31 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-31 05:10:54 PM  
1 votes:
The GOP isn't capable of putting together a bill that even they would agree to. They can't even negotiate with themselves. Keep this in mind when people try to convince you both sides are equally to blame. Obama offered compromise, the GOP did not. End of story.
2012-12-31 05:05:21 PM  
1 votes:

Active introvert: I'm sure you are since it's not your money. It's your sisters.


Ah but what if she lives with you rent free while complaining about how her and her husband,who doesn't have a place to live but own 3 semis,2 motorcycles and they constantly buy electronics,just can't afford to pay anymore taxes. They literally pay no bills since they don't have a place to live. Last year they make around $260k. Also they consider renting a place to be a waste of money. It's bewildering considering the budget I have to work with.
2012-12-31 05:02:12 PM  
1 votes:

djkutch: 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?

It's only like 3.0% for the the 10K above $260K. So, $3K? That will break them? I find it difficult to believe.


Check your math: 3.0% of $10,000 is actually $300. Unfortunately, people don't understand the marginal tax brackets and think that once they reach a certain threshold, their entire income is taxed at the higher rate. This is an ignorance that the GOP plays on.
2012-12-31 05:01:54 PM  
1 votes:
No reason to raise taxes on the rich, none. Makes no dent.

But.... gets Obama and Democrats tons of votes, because their worshipers are stupid, vengeful people.

All this is about, votes. More and more idiots vote Democrat, and they breed faster, means liberal politicians stay rich.
2012-12-31 05:00:57 PM  
1 votes:

CokeBear: StopLurkListen: Going kinda off-topic here (but what else is new, hello Fark) -- violent crime has dropped so far and so fast that it's impossible to ascribe it to any one factor. Did five times as many couples get married since 1991? Of course not. I agree with everything you said, though. The five-fold drop in violent crime is a welcome but puzzling development.

[www.motherjones.com image 388x277]

Freakonomics figured this one out already. Roe vs Wade + 18 years = 1991.


That's very controversial.

One theory for it is the banning of lead, particularly in gasoline. Lead poisoning results in poor impulse control and violent behavior.

But like balancing the budget, the answer probably is in a lot of factors acting together.
2012-12-31 04:59:29 PM  
1 votes:

Wangiss: bartink: Wangiss: The government loves entitlements because they can always adjust the price after the fact.

What does that mean?

If you got money from the government, your levied debt of gratitude and its monetary component can increase at the whim of legislators because you supposedly bought into the social contract. My parents were on welfare. As an adult, I will be reminded of this by spend-moar types who believe I owe the government for that. Never mind that children can't enter contracts. The social contract is special.


If you don't agree with the social contract, you can easily get the fark out and go live somewhere else. Perhaps we can set up a Exchange Program with Guatemala or Honduras. You take our ungrateful selfish spoiled pricks who don't want to be a part of America and we take a few of your desperate hardworking folk.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me!

We'll send you some selfish pricks in return.
2012-12-31 04:58:59 PM  
1 votes:
Ehh, the cutoff amount means little. It's just a new benchmark for the Tax Accountant to achieve and they'll all be scurrying around finding new ways to redefine their incomes so it won't apply to them. Goddamn shell game. And we're PAYING for this farking show?
2012-12-31 04:58:51 PM  
1 votes:

Wangiss: bartink: Wangiss: The government loves entitlements because they can always adjust the price after the fact.

What does that mean?

If you got money from the government, your levied debt of gratitude and its monetary component can increase at the whim of legislators because you supposedly bought into the social contract. My parents were on welfare. As an adult, I will be reminded of this by spend-moar types who believe I owe the government for that. Never mind that children can't enter contracts. The social contract is special.


The social contract is special. Otherwise, you may have been an orphan dependent on the government.

Oh, wait...
2012-12-31 04:55:44 PM  
1 votes:

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?


First, unless your sister and her husband don't own a house, have no children, and give no money to charity, there's a very good chance their taxes wouldn't go up a penny regardless, because the majority of people making less than $300,000 would see no increase in taxes because of how their individual deductions worked out.

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.

Times are tough. Everyone has to make sacrifices. We all have to pull together and suck it up, and work together for the good of the country. And your sister and brother and law would have to suck up three hundred bucks. Boo hoo for them.
2012-12-31 04:54:07 PM  
1 votes:

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?


Their standard and personal exceptions would have their taxable income below 250K. If their real income is closer to 300K and they have little in the way of deductions so their taxable income is 260K, then they will get a raise on that last 10K of about 4% or about $400. So you don't really expect to get a great many tears shed over that, do you?
2012-12-31 04:53:52 PM  
1 votes:

StopLurkListen: Somacandra: o5iiawah: News to some folks, but politicians have altered the tax code to promote certain behaviors among the population in exchange for 'vote for me, I gave you a tax cut" In any normal world, being married wouldn't be any benefit since every living breathing soul over 18 would have to pay taxes regardless of whether or not they swore their life to someone else. Each person benefits from the protections of the Federal government, thus each should pay. Or as Madison called it - the General Welfare.

Its more than that. Rather than mandating behaviors more beneficial to the 'General Welfare,' the U.S. has chosen to incentivize these behaviors. In the U.S. home ownership has traditionally built more stable communities than rentals. Same with marriage versus being single. Optimizing these behaviors means fewer police interventions and frankly, longer and healthier life spans (for men anyway.) Thus less burden for police and emergency medical intervention and so forth and so on. You want to live in a way that potentially hits all of us more in the pocketbook and quality of life? Fine, but you'll pay more for doing so. We can dispute the wisdom of using the tax code to strengthen the social welfare like this, but this is how the USA has historically chosen to do this.

Going kinda off-topic here (but what else is new, hello Fark) -- violent crime has dropped so far and so fast that it's impossible to ascribe it to any one factor. Did five times as many couples get married since 1991? Of course not. I agree with everything you said, though. The five-fold drop in violent crime is a welcome but puzzling development.

[www.motherjones.com image 388x277]


Freakonomics figured this one out already. Roe vs Wade + 18 years = 1991.
2012-12-31 04:52:38 PM  
1 votes:

djkutch: bartink: djkutch: It's only like 3.0% for the the 10K above $260K. So, $3K? That will break them? I find it difficult to believe.

Not 3k, 300 dollars that they can probably find a way to write off.

I suck at math.

Well, then. What is the all the gnashing of the teeth about.


Rich people didn't get rich by being free and easy with their money. It's a mental disorder akin to food hoarding.
2012-12-31 04:43:52 PM  
1 votes:
Crap... I just got trolled

/welcometofark.jpg
2012-12-31 04:43:30 PM  
1 votes:

Kuroshin: Great_Milenko: Wolf Blitzer just announced on TV that the House of Representatives has adjourned and will not reconvene.

Assholes.

Anything to make the n*gger look bad, right Bohner?

Except that this actually makes the Dems look better by comparison.  Instead of bothering to vote for anything at all, they decided to just pack up and go home.


Pretty much. When they were faced with making a deal with the President or simply taking their ball and going home...they took their ball and went home.

Best part? This is pretty much what the President was hoping for. He was banking on them not passing a deal while he did his level best to look as moderate and compromising and generous as possible, knowing they'd never work with him.

At the end of the day, what will be remembered is the President offering deal after deal and the GOP walking away and letting taxes go up on EVERYONE.
2012-12-31 04:42:59 PM  
1 votes:

Active introvert: Why should they pay more so entitalment programs to "help" those who don't wish to work can continue?


Is that what you think is going on with the federal deficit?

Serious question, do you have any clue the relative amounts spent in the federal budget on various programs?
2012-12-31 04:42:26 PM  
1 votes:

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?


You're scoffing at an additional 3% (IIRC) of $10k. That's it
2012-12-31 04:38:48 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-31 04:36:27 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2012-12-31 04:36:06 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-12-31 04:34:50 PM  
1 votes:
Wolf Blitzer just announced on TV that the House of Representatives has adjourned and will not reconvene.

Assholes.

Anything to make the n*gger look bad, right Bohner?
2012-12-31 04:33:47 PM  
1 votes:

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


Sound like a typical lib who just wants to punish successful people instead of fix the problem. Way to go.

Just sad. People like you and your bunch, if were around in the past, would have just kissed Britain's butt and the US would not even be.
2012-12-31 04:30:34 PM  
1 votes:
I'd like to throw Wolf Blitzer off a cliff.
2012-12-31 04:25:49 PM  
1 votes:

o5iiawah: News to some folks, but politicians have altered the tax code to promote certain behaviors among the population in exchange for 'vote for me, I gave you a tax cut" In any normal world, being married wouldn't be any benefit since every living breathing soul over 18 would have to pay taxes regardless of whether or not they swore their life to someone else. Each person benefits from the protections of the Federal government, thus each should pay. Or as Madison called it - the General Welfare.


Its more than that. Rather than mandating behaviors more beneficial to the 'General Welfare,' the U.S. has chosen to incentivize these behaviors. In the U.S. home ownership has traditionally built more stable communities than rentals. Same with marriage versus being single. Optimizing these behaviors means fewer police interventions and frankly, longer and healthier life spans (for men anyway.) Thus less burden for police and emergency medical intervention and so forth and so on. You want to live in a way that potentially hits all of us more in the pocketbook and quality of life? Fine, but you'll pay more for doing so. We can dispute the wisdom of using the tax code to strengthen the social welfare like this, but this is how the USA has historically chosen to do this.
2012-12-31 04:21:50 PM  
1 votes:

thenewmissus: Mrtraveler01: Wangiss: Mrtraveler01: Wangiss: They wrote some budgets, and yet we do not have a budget. Weird.

When the Democrat-led Senate keeps rejecting your budget plan, you compromise with them.You DON'T double down on stupidity.


When the Democrat-led Senate wants a budget, they'll get a budget. They do not want a budget.

So is that why the GOP led House sends them budget plans that are nothing more than partisan wankery instead of something serious?


Thank you. Not to mention that the Senate is not fillibuster proof. The Senate doesn't have the votes to pass the Republican lead house budget. The House won't send a serious budget, instead they send crap and then point fingers that the Dems won't pass it. It is a shame what we have in Washington DC these days. And to think, Congress is getting a raise this year after being the most non-productive congress since records have been kept. Shameful.


All they have to do is retain their power. That's their job, and they do it with hysterics and hyperbole. They're all millionaires; what do they care?
2012-12-31 04:21:08 PM  
1 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


Paying taxes is not a penalty it's part of living in civil society. Man up and pay your share or move to as mother country.
2012-12-31 04:20:10 PM  
1 votes:

thenewmissus: The House won't send a serious budget, instead they send crap and then point fingers that the Dems won't pass it.


to Democrats, anything less than a $1.3TN yearly deficit is "partisan wankery"
2012-12-31 04:18:15 PM  
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Wangiss: Mrtraveler01: Wangiss: They wrote some budgets, and yet we do not have a budget. Weird.

When the Democrat-led Senate keeps rejecting your budget plan, you compromise with them.You DON'T double down on stupidity.


When the Democrat-led Senate wants a budget, they'll get a budget. They do not want a budget.

So is that why the GOP led House sends them budget plans that are nothing more than partisan wankery instead of something serious?



Thank you. Not to mention that the Senate is not fillibuster proof. The Senate doesn't have the votes to pass the Republican lead house budget. The House won't send a serious budget, instead they send crap and then point fingers that the Dems won't pass it. It is a shame what we have in Washington DC these days. And to think, Congress is getting a raise this year after being the most non-productive congress since records have been kept. Shameful.
2012-12-31 04:16:55 PM  
1 votes:

Shrugging Atlas: bulldg4life: CNN has a note that no house vote is expected, but the GOP in the house would be willing to vote tomorrow so they can say they voted to lower taxes since they set up a few hours earlier

Comedy: They vote and it still doesn't pass.


10/1 odds. If nothing happens today, nothing happens at least until the 4th. The democrats will (and should) delay it that long. A new house with a significant democrat gain aughta get things going in a dramatic sense.

/friggin comedy gold
2012-12-31 04:13:16 PM  
1 votes:

LasersHurt: Coco LaFemme: S. Thistlethwaite @YesBiscuit Wheeeeeeee! RT @cnbc: BREAKING: The U.S. will go over the fiscal cliff tonight.
Luke Russert @LukeRussert Official: no vote on fiscal cliff in the House tonight.

Any particular reasons being given?


2:14 p.m. (nine hours and 46 minutes to cliff)
House Vote on 'Cliff' Proposal Unlikely Tonight
John Parkinson reports from the House: This afternoon, many of the House GOP's top members - chairmen, whips, leaders, etc. - gathered in the speaker's office to hear the latest on the fiscal cliff negotiations from the speaker. In summary, they're still waiting for the Senate to act, but even if the Senate votes today to successfully avert the cliff, it does not necessarily mean there will be enough time to get something through the House before midnight tonight.
2012-12-31 04:12:15 PM  
1 votes:
The hypocrisy and duplicity of the present republican party will haunt it's members to their dying days, as it should. They are parasites, slaves to dim-witted ideology and the blind hatred of their drooling constituency.
2012-12-31 04:11:24 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-31 04:10:22 PM  
1 votes:

thenewmissus: TofuTheAlmighty: A deal that doesn't obviate the debt limit, gains a pathetic $800 billion in revenue, and takes an axe to Social Security (which is practically irrelevant to the deficit).

Obama is the worst poker player alive.

I hate to admit it, but I agree with you. I would have rather seen us go off the cliff and come back with DOD cuts and some Medicare cuts and tax rate increase. I voted for Obama bit I was hoping he would be tougher in negotiations. Republicans would get the blame for it anyway so why compromise on key issues like SS?

/IMHO


in the fall, the GOP was campaigning for a revenue decrease/"revenue neutral" tax reform and $4 trillion in spending cuts.

after the election, the GOP offers $800 billion in revenue from unspecified tax reform and $2 trillion in spending cuts.

this deal has $1.2 trillion in new revenue, half of which has already been specified, and $1.1 trillion in spending cuts.

Obama's post-election offer was $1.6 trillion in revenue, $400 billion of which was already specified, and $850 billion in spending cuts.

and yet, to the Farklib, Obama is the weak one.

/cognitive dissonance isn't just for teabaggers, obviously.
2012-12-31 04:10:14 PM  
1 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


Moderately successful?  You must really look down on the vast, vast majority of Americans.
2012-12-31 04:08:48 PM  
1 votes:
CNN has a note that no house vote is expected, but the GOP in the house would be willing to vote tomorrow so they can say they voted to lower taxes since they set up a few hours earlier
2012-12-31 04:03:02 PM  
1 votes:
I can't wait to see a deal made at the last hour and Republicans declare victory at averting the fiscal cliff. They will whine a bit about some concessions they had to make but also say it was all they could do against an obstructionist Obama and his democrats. They will then spend the next year doing absolutely nothing till another crisis shows up and they actually have to do work again.
2012-12-31 04:02:16 PM  
1 votes:

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!!!"


They don't send you to jail for not paying your taxes. They send you to jail if they can prove you're deliberately trying to cheat the system, i.e. hiding income.
2012-12-31 04:01:20 PM  
1 votes:

ProfessorOhki: Nabb1: AngryPanda: Wangiss: Nabb1: AngryPanda: Cataholic: Shut up and give 'til it hurts, citizen!

People gave their personal money to the government to use for war efforts in WW2, but you know, because 60 years later paying taxes is considered socialism instead of helping your nation, your joke is hilarious.

I think runaway spending by our own elected officials is a wee bit different that being at war with the Nazis and Imperial Japan.

Word.

Meh. Despite that historical speedbump, I think my point still is valid. Whatever happened to doing things for the good of the nation rather than doing them for yourself? Was that the 80s' fault?

During WWII, people of all income levels bought war bonds.  When you prepare your income tax return, there is a place on it for you to pay additional sums above and beyond your tax liability.  If you feel it your civic duty to do more, I encourage you to do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but war bonds are still bonds. You're not giving the money away; just investing it in the government rather than a bank, right?


That's correct. Giving extra in your tax check is a give-away. Buying a bond is an investment and you will get something back, maybe only what you paid, but it's something and it's contractual. His example is no good.
2012-12-31 03:58:47 PM  
1 votes:
Screencap of the behind-the-scenes negotiations:

www.tvchoicemagazine.co.uk

"Members of the Tea Party! I give you ONE last chance. Accept the deal and avert the Fiscal Cliff...."

followed by.....

"....then, I am so so sorry. This will be your undoing, and remember that you did this to yourselves...."
2012-12-31 03:58:42 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-31 03:58:25 PM  
1 votes:

Nabb1: When you prepare your income tax return, there is a place on it for you to pay additional sums above and beyond your tax liability. If you feel it your civic duty to do more, I encourage you to do so.


Funding a government using voluntary contributions?  Why not just strip away any pretense and make it a MegaMillions Lottery system? Lots of states already pay for public educational responsibilities this way because they can't be bothered to act like adults. The voluntary part will run actual responsibilities--the mandatory taxation will be redistributed via defense spending and corporate welfare---you know--the important stuff.
2012-12-31 03:54:32 PM  
1 votes:
I just want them to finalize the damn thing so I can decide if I'm better off quitting my job or not.
2012-12-31 03:50:28 PM  
1 votes:
Go over the cliff. Agreeing to rate changes that are a compromise for the GOP with little to no spending changes or debt ceiling crap is stupid and completely spineless...which means the democrats will do that.
2012-12-31 03:41:03 PM  
1 votes:
Describing the expiration of "temporary" tax cuts that were always designed to expire as a "fiscal cliff" tells you everything you need to know about this.

This is yet another manufactured "crisis" that allows them to do something they know you don't want at the last second so you don't have enough time to form an angry mob before it's a done deal.

The bipartisan Simpson -Boyles plan has always called for killing the tax cuts for the middle class, screwing over social safety net programs, and using the money saved to lower the taxes on the rich and their corporations.

Count me among those who always believed that President Obama made a big mistake when he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform - a supposedly bipartisan panel charged with coming up with solutions to the nation's long-run fiscal problems. It seemed obvious, as soon as the commission's membership was announced, that "bipartisanship" would mean what it so often does in Washington: a compromise between the center-right and the hard-right.

My misgivings increased as we got a better feel for the views of the commission's co-chairmen. It soon became clear that Erskine Bowles, the Democratic co-chairman, had a very Republican-sounding small-government agenda. Meanwhile, Alan Simpson, the Republican co-chairman, revealed the kind of honest broker he is by sending an abusive e-mail to the executive director of the National Older Women's League in which he described Social Security as being "like a milk cow with 310 million tits."

What the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases - tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans - the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest - and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.

This proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans.

This is the bipartisan consensus, people.
2012-12-31 03:40:55 PM  
1 votes:

HuffPost's Sam Stein and Arthur Delaney


One of the remaining sticking points holding up a fiscal cliff deal appears to have been resolved, as negotiators have decided to extend unemployment benefits without offsetting the cost.
A source familiar with negotiations told The Huffington Post that lawmakers would treat the provision as "an emergency measure that shouldn't be paid for." A Senate Democratic and Republican source each confirmed the plan.
What that means is that the $30 billion pricetag for a year-long extension will simply be added to the deficit. Republicans have in the past objected to reauthorizing federal unemployment compensation because of its impact on the deficit, though in recessions since World War II Congress has generally added extra weeks of benefits without paying for them.
2012-12-31 03:39:20 PM  
1 votes:
Please close Pandroa's box. We don't want hope to come out. Or anything else to come out of her box.
2012-12-31 03:38:20 PM  
1 votes:
Also Somacandra, I feel like I was unnecessarily snarky. I have you favorited in Reasonable Cyan 4, not Potato Farm Red 4.

Happy Holidays!
2012-12-31 03:37:28 PM  
1 votes:

wombatsrus: Well, every time there is serious talk about cutting military spending, the only cry I hear is "so many jobs will be lost!" and little or nothing else about any other reason. For example, I haven't anything about how the "fiscal cliff" will impact defending ourselves, but all about how defense contractors will have to fire folks due to projects being cancelled.


Yet whenever someone proposes spending public funds to upgrade crumbling bridges and other infrastructure which incidentally puts people to work, those same people are against it.

Evidently defense dollars are manly dollars, or something.
2012-12-31 03:32:29 PM  
1 votes:

Uranus Is Huge!: Somacandra: Uranus Is Huge!: Conservative thinking, by definition, rejects new ideas in faor of the status quo. Basically, conservative thought is largely composed of fondly reminiscing about when gas cost a quarter and darkies knew their place.

[i.imgur.com image 191x300]

I wouldn't call myself a Conservative, but that's a pretty serious strawman. You can't take Mitch McConnell  to represent Russell Kirk or Edmund Burke or Irving Babbitt any more than you can take Bill Clinton to represent John Rawls. The conservative intellectual tradition, inter alia,  harbors a necessary skepticism to the progressive perfectability of humanity often envisioned by liberals.

Okay, fine. ...modern conservative thought.

Progress ALWAYS wins! Suck it and enjoy your New Year.


A NEW YEAR? WHY CAN'T IT JUST BE 1960 AGAIN?
2012-12-31 03:32:05 PM  
1 votes:

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: Help me out with this, cause I think I'm not understand the system right now... but, even if the Senate passes a bill, how the hell is Boehner gonna pass tax increases on 450k+ when he couldn't do it at a million last week? Am I missing some procedure or something?


Boehner had some moderate GOP support for his plan. Many of them are retiring/being forced out tomorrow, so they have no incentive to vote against the deal.

similar to Snowe and Lugar in the Senate, who were actually ok with a $250k threshold.

you only need a handful of republicans in the House to vote yes, as long as Democrats hold it together.
2012-12-31 03:29:16 PM  
1 votes:
Also, I hope all of these "low income" 250Kers can keep their refrigerators if their taxes go up.
2012-12-31 03:27:51 PM  
1 votes:
So if I understand it, rate increases for $450K+, loss of Bush era extra deductions for $250K+, extension of stimulus deductions (don't think this includes payroll tax holiday, but I could be wrong), raises estate tax 5% on those with more than $5 million (he wanted 10% more on estates worth more than $3.5 million), the capital gains rate stays the same (or actually increases 3.8% increase, but that's part of the PPACA that Republicans tried to overturn early in negotiations), and we get the doc fix and unemployment extended. Entitlements untouched. Sounds like a decent deal to me.

Of course, Republicans have already put out statements about how they totally would have voted for this if Obama hadn't made a public statement, so it's his fault if this doesn't pass. Sort of like how Nancy Pelosi saying mean things was the reason they had to vote against the bailout because she said mean things that made them sad and forced them to cause a major stock drop for several more days.
2012-12-31 03:26:37 PM  
1 votes:

Uranus Is Huge!: Conservative thinking, by definition, rejects new ideas in faor of the status quo. Basically, conservative thought is largely composed of fondly reminiscing about when gas cost a quarter and darkies knew their place.


i.imgur.com

I wouldn't call myself a Conservative, but that's a pretty serious strawman. You can't take Mitch McConnell  to represent Russell Kirk or Edmund Burke or Irving Babbitt any more than you can take Bill Clinton to represent John Rawls. The conservative intellectual tradition, inter alia,  harbors a necessary skepticism to the progressive perfectability of humanity often envisioned by liberals.
2012-12-31 03:23:55 PM  
1 votes:

CruJones: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: CruJones: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: "The deal in the works would return tax rates on families making over $450,000 to 39.6 percent. The tax on estates worth more than $5 million would increase to 40 percent. Unemployment benefits would continue for one year."

What about dividends and capital gains? You know - the way wealthy folk derive their incomes and have been taxed at 15% for the last decade or so.

I'm not wealthy but I invest in the market, as does most everyone I know to some degree. Raising the taxes by 33% will affect future decisions and investments.

You'll stop investing in stocks you think will return a profit?

When I sell I re-invest. There will be less to invest now. I also currently take a portion and invest in small companies or startups. I'll simply have less "discretionary" investment money now. I currently use about 5% for this. Unfortunately 95% of my investment money is geared towards retirement and boring stuff like that. I may also look at alternative investments, like rental properties, etc.

That said, what I do won't move the markets one iota. But it will for others.


It seems my rates won't go up regardless, so carry on.

/wish I made $400k
2012-12-31 03:22:54 PM  
1 votes:
Major Garrett @MajorCBS

Tax details in POTENTIAL DEAL: 39.6 percent $400K individual, $450K families; CapGain/Dividends at 20% +3.8% from ACA (23.8% total)
2012-12-31 03:22:43 PM  
1 votes:

jaybeezey: Uranus Is Huge!: Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.

Many responsible Americans would work some overtime or get another job to increase the household income.

Then what are the 47% doing wrong?


Voting Republican?
2012-12-31 03:20:45 PM  
1 votes:

ChipNASA: [i1191.photobucket.com image 275x200]
"The Democrats will Fix This, Don't you all worry none
You'll have your cell phones and Your welfare checks but you ain't got no guns
Obammy's got yer back, Senate's gonna get er' done

Go back to your protesting, And watching CNN
Hillary's gonna be OK, Chocolate Jesus has Risen AGAIN!"


How old are you?
2012-12-31 03:19:56 PM  
1 votes:
FOX News Republicans hope this fails and that everyone will blame Obama.
They would rather have Obama fail than Americans succeed.
2012-12-31 03:19:34 PM  
1 votes:

king of vegas: lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.

Your first $250k will be taxed the same. It's only the income above $250k that gets the different rate. And one could argue you've benefited bigtime over the last 10 years from the cut so it's not asking too much to ask you to pay more since you benefited more.


What makes you think someone currently earning over $250k earned that much over that entire ten-year time frame?
2012-12-31 03:19:11 PM  
1 votes:

NFA: ChuDogg: Personally I'm rooting for the fiscal cliff.

I'm rooting for the debt ceiling.

SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!!!


Childish. I've got another idea: PAY FOR EVERYTHING! And if that means higher taxes to pay for all the military, benefits, and writeoffs, then it's time to pay up! Nothings is free, you bunch of freeloaders!
2012-12-31 03:19:11 PM  
1 votes:

jaybeezey: Uranus Is Huge!: Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.

Many responsible Americans would work some overtime or get another job to increase the household income.

Then what are the 47% doing wrong?


We're complacent with our corporate masters.
2012-12-31 03:17:44 PM  
1 votes:

Somacandra: Jake Steed: STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.

It takes years and years to stop a single aircraft engine the Bush and Obama militaries don't even want. Why would any of this be simple?


When both parties cannot stop expenditures like this, further proof that Ike was right about the military-industrial complex.

When will folks admit that the only reason so much military spending exists is to enrich corporations and create boondoggle jobs, and has nothing to do with defending ourselves?
2012-12-31 03:17:26 PM  
1 votes:

AngryPanda: Cataholic: Shut up and give 'til it hurts, citizen!

People gave their personal money to the government to use for war efforts in WW2, but you know, because 60 years later paying taxes is considered socialism instead of helping your nation, your joke is hilarious.


I think runaway spending by our own elected officials is a wee bit different that being at war with the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
2012-12-31 03:16:17 PM  
1 votes:
Dear America: Here are your new tax rates

Business Insider updating as details of the plan emerge
2012-12-31 03:15:45 PM  
1 votes:

Cataholic: Shut up and give 'til it hurts, citizen!


People gave their personal money to the government to use for war efforts in WW2, but you know, because 60 years later paying taxes is considered socialism instead of helping your nation, your joke is hilarious.
2012-12-31 03:13:23 PM  
1 votes:

seventypercent: factoryconnection: If all the Bush-Obama tax cuts disappeared tomorrow, it would hurt but it was the sequestration that I'm fearing. I'd rather pay 4% higher taxes than have no job.

I'm with you. Let them all expire. If we're serious about cutting the year-to-year deficits in pursuit of paying down and eventually eliminating the national debt, it's the only reasonable approach, particularly if we want to avoid deep and harmful cuts to mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare. Soaking the "rich" is politically popular, but it doesn't get us to where we need to be.


I prefer the plan where we stop conquering the world.
2012-12-31 03:10:58 PM  
1 votes:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky):

Yesterday, after days of inaction, I came to the floor and noted we needed to act, but that I needed a dance partner. So I reached out to the Vice President in an effort to get things done. I'm happy to report that the effort has been a successful one and as the President just said, we are very close to an agreement. We need to protect American families and job creators from this looming tax hike. Everyone agrees that action is necessary. And I can report that we've reached an agreement on the all the tax issues. We are very, very close. As the President just said, the most important piece, the piece that has to be done now, is preventing the tax hikes. He said: "for now our most immediate priority is to stop taxes going up for middle class families starting tomorrow." He suggested that action on the sequester is something we can continue to work on in the coming months. So I agree, let's pass the tax relief portion now. Let's take what's been agreed to and get moving. The President wants this, members of Congress want to protect taxpayers, and we can get it done now. Let me be clear: We will continue to work on finding smarter ways to cut spending, but let's not let that hold up protecting Americans from the tax hike that will take place in about 10 hours.
We can do this. We must do this.
2012-12-31 03:09:32 PM  
1 votes:

Kuroshin: marginal rates
//how do they work?


No kidding... I often wonder how people so stupid manage to make so much.
2012-12-31 03:09:18 PM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.

You should have said something BEFORE we started two land wars in Asia and simultaneously cut rich people's taxes.


Yeah!

Damn Fartbongo and his magic time machine for doing that to us!
2012-12-31 03:08:40 PM  
1 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


Never, in the history of the internet, has this image been more appropriate:
i303.photobucket.com
2012-12-31 03:08:38 PM  
1 votes:

Jake Steed: STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.


It takes years and years to stop a single aircraft engine the Bush and Obama militaries don't even want. Why would any of this be simple?
2012-12-31 03:07:12 PM  
1 votes:

Stoj: GOP sources admitted there is an added benefit to the Senate's delay: taxes would already be up, so lawmakers could argue that they are voting for tax cuts, as opposed to tax increases.

Jebuz H. Christopher.


We are a nation taken hostage by these monsters.
2012-12-31 03:06:47 PM  
1 votes:

Wangiss: Pincy: Cataholic: Pincy: lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.

It's not a penalty. It's your civic duty. You are doing better than the vast majority of Americans. Stop whining.

Shut up and give 'til it hurts, citizen!

Oh noes, they want to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans back to the same rate it was a few decades ago!!! Surely this will mean the end of civilized society as we know it.

But it would be if we cut spending back to those days, amirite?


Depends on if you cut back military spending, amirite?
2012-12-31 03:06:27 PM  
1 votes:

seventypercent: Yet you have a significant number of Americans how scream about how taxation is theft and that their taxes have never been higher. This is idiocy. This is drooling, mind-numbing, kiddy-diddling idiocy. And it's even worse when you consider that most of the "taxation is theft" people are the very first to scream about how we need to invade Insert Brown-Peopled Country Here and complain when their disability checks to cover their Rascal scooters don't show up on time.


What I perceive is that a lot of people think that nothing the government has ever done has benefited them, and thus the debt is not "theirs" to pay down. I make nowhere NEAR $250K with my wife tacked on, and yet I would have accepted a tax increase. Why? Because we do have an unsustainably high deficit, a very large debt, and need to pay for our wars and the tax cuts that we've all enjoyed over the last decade. Federal services haven't diminished; we're all still benefiting at the same or greater levels (even if services like the TSA seem like a real kick in the teeth).

If all the Bush-Obama tax cuts disappeared tomorrow, it would hurt but it was the sequestration that I'm fearing. I'd rather pay 4% higher taxes than have no job.
2012-12-31 03:06:25 PM  
1 votes:

coeyagi: Waxing_Chewbacca: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

It's a good deal. 250k in NYC is a lot different than, say, Iowa.

/ Moderate D here

You know what's also different in Iowa vs. NYC? The salaries.

Deal with it.

24.media.tumblr.com


/Iowan
//If I moved to Chicago, my salary would triple.
2012-12-31 03:05:51 PM  
1 votes:

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

No. With an income of $250,000 per year you can afford something called a "car" or "subway tokens" and can commute from somewhere cheaper. Sorry, you're still wrong.

Yes. A crumbling infrastructure with less money to repair and you want to put more cars on the road.

Brilliant!

/"liberal thinking": an oxymoron if there ever was one


Conservative thinking, by definition, rejects new ideas in faor of the status quo.

Basically, conservative thought is largely composed of fondly reminiscing about when gas cost a quarter and darkies knew their place.
2012-12-31 03:04:19 PM  
1 votes:
assets.diylol.com
2012-12-31 03:03:03 PM  
1 votes:

ProfessorOhki: Yeah... I admit, I sort of want to see what would happen. A halving of the deficit triggered by partisan dickery and an inability to make compromises? That's some popcorn politics.


If only that didn't come with a supersize side of throwing-the-economy-back-into-the-shiatter, I'd join you.
2012-12-31 03:02:06 PM  
1 votes:

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

No. With an income of $250,000 per year you can afford something called a "car" or "subway tokens" and can commute from somewhere cheaper. Sorry, you're still wrong.


Even without that - at $250k a house costing $750k is only 3x your annual salary and should be easily affordable even without the historically low interest rates. With lending rates at under 4% a $1million house is well within reach and will get you a nice pad almost anywhere in the DC metro area, and then you also get a $40k itemized deductable.
2012-12-31 03:02:01 PM  
1 votes:

Pincy: Cataholic: Pincy: lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.

It's not a penalty. It's your civic duty. You are doing better than the vast majority of Americans. Stop whining.

Shut up and give 'til it hurts, citizen!

Oh noes, they want to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans back to the same rate it was a few decades ago!!! Surely this will mean the end of civilized society as we know it.


But it would be if we cut spending back to those days, amirite?
2012-12-31 03:00:30 PM  
1 votes:
2012-12-31 03:00:23 PM  
1 votes:

CruJones: I'm not wealthy but I invest in the market, as does most everyone I know to some degree. Raising the taxes by 33% will affect future decisions and investments.


Yes it will. It will make people risk adverse, and limit wild speculation that causes bubbles and crashes.

That's a good thing.
2012-12-31 03:00:13 PM  
1 votes:

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

No. With an income of $250,000 per year you can afford something called a "car" or "subway tokens" and can commute from somewhere cheaper. Sorry, you're still wrong.

Clearly, you've never been to Montgomery County or tried to commute in any of the surrounding areas, because "subway tokens" would only be useful for a five dollar footlong, and "anywhere cheaper" means a four-hour daily commute.


Come on, you can get a house in the hood somewhere in PG county for $200k, including the bars on the windows.
2012-12-31 02:59:28 PM  
1 votes:

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


And the cheapest house on Carbon Beach in Malibu is $10M. Won't somebody please think of the "lower middle-class" millionaires living on Carbon Beach? It's a stupid argument. $250k/year is a shiatload of money. I live better than most people I know, in an expensive city, and I make less than half that.


I am not entirely sure why we keep engaging this guy. His math is pretty indicative of the brainfarts of a mongoloid. Because your average mongoloid thinks that the DC region should be the litmus test for tax rates.
2012-12-31 02:59:19 PM  
1 votes:

Bontesla: @ethanklapper: McConnell: "I can report we've reached an agreement on all the tax issues. We are very, very close."


And that's McConnell. Words. Again, call me when there's a vote.
2012-12-31 02:59:17 PM  
1 votes:

Brick-House: Emerging you say...

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 288x360]



You shouldn't post personal information like your picture online.
2012-12-31 02:58:38 PM  
1 votes:

jfivealive: With an exemption for people who have twins when they already have one kid, and for people who have triplets. Cause that just wouldn't be fair.


Of course. But governments should regulate how many eggs get implanted with IVF (people having 4 children because they don't want to abort etc..) The point of IVF is to have 1 healthy child. Not 4 sick little bastards. Good luck with that one though.
2012-12-31 02:58:30 PM  
1 votes:

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

No. With an income of $250,000 per year you can afford something called a "car" or "subway tokens" and can commute from somewhere cheaper. Sorry, you're still wrong.


Clearly, you've never been to Montgomery County or tried to commute in any of the surrounding areas, because "subway tokens" would only be useful for a five dollar footlong, and "anywhere cheaper" means a four-hour daily commute.
2012-12-31 02:57:41 PM  
1 votes:

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


Not being able to finance a house on less than a years salary != poor!
2012-12-31 02:56:59 PM  
1 votes:

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


The cheapest Trump Tower penthouse is like $15 million. So for people who live in the penthouse of Trump Tower, $250k is pretty much broke.
2012-12-31 02:55:48 PM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Uranus Is Huge!: Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.

Many responsible Americans would work some overtime or get another job to increase the household income.
.
You sound racist.


So true. I've never heard of a minority holding down more than one job to make ends meet.

You fail at humanity.
2012-12-31 02:55:41 PM  
1 votes:

Pincy: Newsletter?

Seriously, stop giving tax breaks for having kids.


Here's a good rule of thumb: if you still live in your parent's house (exception being having moved out, gotten a job, had children then you or your S/O got laid off and you have to move back in with them), then you can't afford to have children.
2012-12-31 02:54:22 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: That's nonsense. Deciding to live in expensive cities IS CONSUMPTION. You are actively choosing to live in a place which gets you certain benefits. It's no different than any other kind of consumption. The idea of adjusting tax rates for that would simply be a massive subsidy towards a certain type of consumption.


There are many places where $100k is quite wealthy.
2012-12-31 02:52:32 PM  
1 votes:
Rebecca Berg @rebeccagberg

"Let's pass the tax relief portion now," McConnell says.


In other words: Let's do this thing that I want to do now and we'll do that thing you wanted later.
2012-12-31 02:52:22 PM  
1 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.

One thing Americans can do to live within their means is to not have more children than they can afford. The government can discourage this by penalizing people who have more than 2 children.


Newsletter?

Seriously, stop giving tax breaks for having kids.
2012-12-31 02:51:09 PM  
1 votes:

Jake Steed: Government should do what a responsible American would do in the same situation. STOP spending so much and live within your means, its all very simple.


One thing Americans can do to live within their means is to not have more children than they can afford. The government can discourage this by penalizing people who have more than 2 children.
2012-12-31 02:50:11 PM  
1 votes:
"The deal in the works would return tax rates on families making over $450,000 to 39.6 percent. The tax on estates worth more than $5 million would increase to 40 percent. Unemployment benefits would continue for one year."

What about dividends and capital gains? You know - the way wealthy folk derive their incomes and have been taxed at 15% for the last decade or so.
2012-12-31 02:48:04 PM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: $250k is low middle income in the DC region.


Not even close. DC is expensive, but 2 people making $50k each is perfectly fine. I've done it for less.
2012-12-31 02:47:46 PM  
1 votes:
It's a good thing that tonight is New Year's Eve that way the Republicans can say that they're drinking because of the holidays, And not because they've been made out to look like idiots again.
2012-12-31 02:46:58 PM  
1 votes:

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


Is this AGI or taxable income?  This is important.
2012-12-31 02:46:34 PM  
1 votes:
but, if it comes out and sees its shadow, does that mean we'll have 6 more
weeks of listening to them complain how it's ______(insert party) fault?
2012-12-31 02:46:15 PM  
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Wangiss: Mrtraveler01: Wangiss: They wrote some budgets, and yet we do not have a budget. Weird.

When the Democrat-led Senate keeps rejecting your budget plan, you compromise with them.You DON'T double down on stupidity.


When the Democrat-led Senate wants a budget, they'll get a budget. They do not want a budget.

So is that why the GOP led House sends them budget plans that are nothing more than partisan wankery instead of something serious?


They send what their constituents demand, and the Senate hasn't taken the problem seriously at all. Who's the boss if not the people the House is representing? You?
2012-12-31 02:45:50 PM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Besides, Obama has vowed to veto any proposal that makes a lick of sense.


Because if anyone has proposed something that makes a lick of sense, it's the Republicans.

/hard to type that with a straight face
2012-12-31 02:45:47 PM  
1 votes:
Ya know, if there was a provision in the Constitution that said that one Congress couldn't impose limits on a future Congress (Much like the British Parliament), this whole thing would have been avoided.
2012-12-31 02:44:38 PM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: 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.


Sounds like a great place to  start raising taxes at, then.
2012-12-31 02:44:37 PM  
1 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


You can always give away your money so you only earned $249,999

*eyeroll*
2012-12-31 02:44:26 PM  
1 votes:

SDRR: lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.

Paying taxes is being penalized?


To idiots it is.
2012-12-31 02:44:19 PM  
1 votes:
I don't believe it. Going off of the cliff is what needs to happen, and both parties get to point the finger at the other. Besides, Obama has vowed to veto any proposal that makes a lick of sense.
2012-12-31 02:44:15 PM  
1 votes:

ChuDogg: Personally I'm rooting for the fiscal cliff.


Indeed. America needs a bucket of cold fish thrown at its collective wallet, and has since 2008 or maybe 1999.
2012-12-31 02:43:24 PM  
1 votes:
I hope enough Republicans in the House see the wisdom of avoiding this manufactured crisis.
2012-12-31 02:43:11 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: Well, except for the Choom Gang. Good luck on your marijuana charges, citizen.


It's a double negative, we're good here. To be frank, the legal code is such a mess that pretty much everybody has never not broken any law.
2012-12-31 02:42:55 PM  
1 votes:
Oblig (NSFW because Fark said so)
2012-12-31 02:41:56 PM  
1 votes:

ChuDogg: Personally I'm rooting for the fiscal cliff.


Same, and let the people hold these assclowns in office accountable. All of them.
2012-12-31 02:41:53 PM  
1 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


Paying taxes is being penalized?
2012-12-31 02:41:39 PM  
1 votes:

Wangiss: Mrtraveler01: Wangiss: They wrote some budgets, and yet we do not have a budget. Weird.

When the Democrat-led Senate keeps rejecting your budget plan, you compromise with them.You DON'T double down on stupidity.


When the Democrat-led Senate wants a budget, they'll get a budget. They do not want a budget.


So is that why the GOP led House sends them budget plans that are nothing more than partisan wankery instead of something serious?
2012-12-31 02:40:02 PM  
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Wangiss: They wrote some budgets, and yet we do not have a budget. Weird.

When the Democrat-led Senate keeps rejecting your budget plan, you compromise with them.You DON'T double down on stupidity.



When the Democrat-led Senate wants a budget, they'll get a budget. They do not want a budget.
2012-12-31 02:40:00 PM  
1 votes:
If we exceed the debt ceiling, just stop all medicare and social security checks written to districts that don't support raising the debt ceiling -- sorry not enough federal money to send those checks.

Doesn't the country running out of money mean that it's completely Obama's call what checks to write and what checks don't get paid?
2012-12-31 02:39:49 PM  
1 votes:

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

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.

I would be hit. Don't have a problem with it. Taxes are not a "penalty".


Not if you consider a fair, function society worthwhile.
2012-12-31 02:39:33 PM  
1 votes:
Conservative and libral butt hurt sounds like the health care bill, which was a pretty damn good bill and a wonder that it got passed in this day in age. So I have high hopes.
2012-12-31 02:39:22 PM  
1 votes:

ArtosRC: So, what, are they simply delaying an actual deal for another year, just like they did before?


Most likely.  Let the Bush tax cuts expire on $250K+, pass some token spending cuts but set them out long enough to have time to repeal or modify them, and pass a kick-the-can measure on the fiscal cliff trigger.

Plus, the debt ceiling will be breached in a few weeks anyway.
2012-12-31 02:39:01 PM  
1 votes:

Wangiss: They wrote some budgets, and yet we do not have a budget. Weird.


When the Democrat-led Senate keeps rejecting your budget plan, you compromise with them.You DON'T double down on stupidity.
2012-12-31 02:38:50 PM  
1 votes:

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

It's a good deal. 250k in NYC is a lot different than, say, Iowa.

/ Moderate D here


Exactly. If only there was a simple way to make the cutoff location-adjusted.
2012-12-31 02:37:32 PM  
1 votes:

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Uranus Is Huge!: Prediction: Zero people will be pleased with the result.

I hope I'm wrong.

To be fair, even though nobody ever says it, that's true of any compromise. A little bit relief, a little bit disappointment.

That said, fark compromise. The republicans want something from a position of nothing after spending four years of doing nothing. Fark those guys right in the nostril. Americans spoke about what they want and it's nothing that the republicans are offering. They can either put on some big boy pants, suck it up and do what the country wants done or they can focus on driving themselves even deeper into obscurity.


They wrote some budgets, and yet we do not have a budget. Weird.
2012-12-31 02:37:16 PM  
1 votes:
Is it crowning yet? Or feet first?
2012-12-31 02:35:49 PM  
1 votes:

nekom: What if the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff had a baby?


They're working on it.
2012-12-31 02:35:02 PM  
1 votes:

nekom: What if the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff had a baby?


They did.

www.examiner.com
2012-12-31 02:33:21 PM  
1 votes:

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


Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.
2012-12-31 02:31:11 PM  
1 votes:
Too late for Headline of the Year?
2012-12-31 02:31:03 PM  
1 votes:
"Obama is the GREATEST!!!"
files.abovetopsecret.com
 
Displayed 276 of 276 comments

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