Quantcast
  

Saturday, April 19, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 153 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Cliff avoided: Congress staves off tax hikes

By Alan Fram and David Espo

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 08:36 p.m. HST, Jan 01, 2013


WASHINGTON » Past its own New Year's deadline, a weary Congress sent President Barack Obama legislation to avoid a national "fiscal cliff" of middle class tax increases and spending cuts late tonight in the culmination of a struggle that strained America's divided government to the limit.

The bill's passage on a bipartisan 257-167 vote in the House sealed a hard-won political triumph for the president less than two months after he secured re-election while calling for higher taxes on the wealthy.

Moments later, Obama strode into the White House briefing room and declared, "Thanks to the votes of Republicans and Democrats in Congress I will sign a law that raises taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while presenting tax hikes that could have sent the economy back into recession."

He spoke with Vice President Joe Biden at his side, a recognition of the former senator's role as the lead Democratic negotiator in final compromise talks with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

In addition to neutralizing middle class tax increases and spending cuts taking effect with the new year, the legislation will raise tax rates on incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples. That was higher than the thresholds of $200,000 and $250,000 that Obama campaigned for. But remarkably, in a party that swore off tax increases two decades ago, dozens of Republicans supported the bill at both ends of the Capitol.

The Senate approved the measure on a vote of 89-8 less than 24 hours earlier, and in the interim, rebellious House conservatives demanded a vote to add significant spending cuts to the measure. But in the end they retreated.

The measure split the upper ranks of the Republican leadership in the House.

Speaker John Boehner of Ohio voted in favor, while Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the party's whip, opposed the bill.

Supporters of the bill in both parties expressed regret that it was narrowly drawn, and fell far short of a sweeping plan that combined tax changes and spending cuts to reduce federal deficits. That proved to be a step too far in the two months since Obama called congressional leaders to the White House for a postelection stab at compromise.

Majority Republicans did their best to minimize the bill's tax increases, just as they abandoned their demand from earlier in the day to add spending cuts to the package.

"By making Republican tax cuts permanent, we are one step closer to comprehensive tax reform that will help strengthen our economy and create more and higher paychecks for American workers," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

He urged a vote for passage to "get us one step closer to tax reform in 2013" as well as attempts to control spending.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi also said the legislation included "permanent tax relief for the middle class," and she summoned lawmakers to provide bipartisan support as the Senate did.

The bill would also prevent an expiration of extended unemployment benefits for an estimated two million jobless, block a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients, stop a $900 pay increase for lawmakers from taking effect in March and head off a threatened spike in milk prices.

It would stop $24 billion in across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect over the next two months, although only about half of that total would be offset with savings elsewhere in the budget.

The economic as well as political stakes were considerable.

Economists have warned that without action by Congress, the tax increases and spending cuts that technically took effect with the turn of the new year at midnight could send the economy into recession.

Even with enactment of the legislation, taxes are on the rise for millions.

A 2 percentage point temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax, originally enacted two years ago to stimulate the economy, expired with the end of 2012. Neither Obama nor Republicans made a significant effort to extend it.

House Republicans spent much of the day struggling to escape a political corner they found themselves in.

"I personally hate it," Rep. John Campbell of California, said of the measure, giving voice to the concern of many Republicans that it did little or nothing to cut spending.

"The speaker the day after the election said we would give on taxes and we have. But we wanted spending cuts. This bill has spending increases. Are you kidding me? So we get tax increases and spending increases? Come on."

Cantor told reporters at one point, "I do not support the bill. We are looking, though, for the best path forward."

Within hours, Republicans abandoned demands for changes and agreed to a simple yes-or-no vote on the Senate-passed bill.

They feared that otherwise the Senate would refuse to consider any alterations, sending the bill into limbo and saddling Republicans with the blame for a whopping middle class tax increase. One Senate Democratic leadership aide said Majority Leader Harry Reid would "absolutely not take up the bill" if the House changed it. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a requirement to keep internal deliberations private.

Despite Cantor's remarks, Boehner took no public position in advance of voting the bill as he sought to negotiate a conclusion to the final crisis of a two-year term full of them.

The brief insurrection wasn't the first time that the tea party-infused House Republican majority has rebelled against the party establishment since the GOP took control of the chamber 24 months ago. But with the two-year term set to end Thursday at noon, it was likely the last. And as was true in earlier cases of a threatened default and government shutdown, the brinkmanship came on a matter of economic urgency, leaving the party open to a public backlash if tax increases do take effect on tens of millions.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure would add nearly $4 trillion over a decade to federal deficits, a calculation that assumed taxes would otherwise have risen on taxpayers at all income levels. There was little or no evident concern among Republicans on that point, presumably because of their belief that tax cuts pay for themselves by expanding economic growth and do not cause deficits to rise.

The relative paucity of spending cuts was a sticking point with many House Republicans. Among other items, the extension of unemployment benefits costs $30 billion, and is not offset by savings elsewhere.

Others said unhappiness over spending outweighed fears that the financial markets will plunge on Wednesday if the fiscal cliff hasn't been averted.

"There's a concern about the markets, but there's a bigger concern, which is getting this right, which is something we haven't been very good at over the past two years," said Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio.

For all the struggle involved in the legislation, even its passage would merely clear the way for another round of controversy almost as soon as the new Congress convenes.

With the Treasury expected to need an expansion in borrowing authority by early spring, and funding authority for most government programs set to expire in late March, Republicans have made it clear they intend to use those events as leverage with the administration to win savings from Medicare and other government benefit programs.

McConnell said as much moments before the 2 a.m. Tuesday vote in the Senate — two hours after the advertised "cliff" deadline.

"We've taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it's time to get serious about reducing Washington's out-of-control spending," he said. "That's a debate the American people want. It's the debate we'll have next. And it's a debate Republicans are ready for."

The 89-8 vote in the Senate was unexpectedly lopsided.

Despite grumbling from liberals that Obama had given way too much in the bargaining, only three Democrats opposed the measure.

Among the Republican supporters were Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, an ardent opponent of tax increases, as well as Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, elected to his seat two years ago with tea party support.

___

Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Larry Margasak and Julie Pace contributed to this story.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 153 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(153)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
manakuke wrote:
Many measure are only ‘stop-gap-. The public is not ‘out of the woods’ yet.
on January 1,2013 | 05:26AM
Highinthesierras wrote:
It's over unless the House stands tall. Barry is a lame duck so there is less leadership, if possible over the next four years. What were we thinking?
on January 1,2013 | 06:35AM
bender wrote:
We went down the right road when we reelected Obama. The problem lies with the House leadership. Didn't they notice that most of their party in the Senate voted for the bill. The only thing out of what is the stubborn elephants in the House. I equate them to a spoiled child that will go to any extent to get their way.
on January 1,2013 | 10:26AM
OldDiver wrote:
Tea Party = Party of Corporate America and the filthy rich.
on January 1,2013 | 10:43AM
pastormatt wrote:
I am not corporate america nor am I anything close to filthy rich but I agree with the Tea Party stances much more than either of the 2 parties. Don't just believe party talking points, don't be a sheep to the Democrats and demonize all reasonable response to their craziness.
on January 1,2013 | 11:29AM
kainalu wrote:
The Tea Party has been the worst thing that's happened to the GOP, hence, the Country. What most initially thought was a grass-roots movement by the people, has been exposed as a carefully orchestrated plan by the Koch brothers, currently the 3rd and 4th richest Americans and the primary financial-backers of the TP candidates. Meanwhile, Boehner supported the more traditional-Republicans in all those primary races won by the TP candidates, so guys like Cantor have a bone to pick with him. What makes it continuously worse is that there are those easily shepherded sheep that still believe the Tea Party is about them. Nothing could be further from the truth.
on January 1,2013 | 11:30AM
Wazdat wrote:
GREAT POST...and oh so TRUE
on January 1,2013 | 12:31PM
Maipono wrote:
Actually, the Tea Party has a very simple message, no new taxes and no new spending, what is so bad about that? Obama wants to increase taxes and to use class warfare in order to divide the country. Tea Party candidates made a promise to their constituents that they would adhere to their promise, and they are doing so, that takes courage in Washington, where people kowtow to the highest bidders. So be thankful there are politicians that will stand up for their principles, even if they don't want to tax, spend and divide our country.
on January 1,2013 | 12:44PM
copperwire9 wrote:
Absolutely 100% true, everything you said kainalu.
on January 1,2013 | 12:37PM
Kawipoo wrote:
The democrat commie party is the problem.
on January 1,2013 | 02:59PM
ISCREAM wrote:
You have no clue...how many Tea Party events have you been to?
on January 1,2013 | 08:05PM
Kawipoo wrote:
M¥ff diver again and his commie attitude.
on January 1,2013 | 02:58PM
Dragonman wrote:
Kawipoo, why don't you post something creative instead of calling people names. Post your objections and back it up with facts. Its too easy to call people names and solves nothing.
on January 1,2013 | 06:44PM
pastormatt wrote:
They're the only ones keeping us from an out-of-control government that will put us all in the poor house.
on January 1,2013 | 11:27AM
Anonymous wrote:
Are you sure about that? It is the general public that is surviving on meager wages, trying to make ends meet, trying to find jobs that are not there or been shipped oversea's because of Corporate greed and lower standards for wages in other countries and we are still struggling to recover from the recession that Congress allowed to happen! It is Congress who are the ones causing our unceasing burdens to become heavier, because they refuse to compromise or work together for the betterment of the Country at large and instead are seen as actively working against the American people and what this country stands for! America was not founded on the backs of the Wealthy, but on the hard blood sweat and tears of the general populace!
on January 1,2013 | 12:19PM
ISCREAM wrote:
What "meager wages" are you talking about. Hawaii is doing very well according to our state "central committee". Did you get that...the Democratic Party "central committee" had to decide who would be nominated for Congress...true Socialist Style.
on January 1,2013 | 08:08PM
1local wrote:
no budget and just another delay. those that pay no taxes should not be entitled to any tax credits or refunds. this will do more to assist with the deficit. no raises for any governement employee until there is a significant reduction in the deficit. Reduction in funding of other countries - they should be funding the USA...
on January 1,2013 | 06:44AM
1local wrote:
no worry hawaii - hanabusa and hirono are there to save us...
on January 1,2013 | 10:54AM
HD36 wrote:
True, the bill actually increases spending by $600 billion
on January 1,2013 | 09:33AM
tigerwarrior wrote:
And the stalemate between the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate doesn't look to end anytime soon. In a few days, a new Congress will be sworn into office--meaning: a bill passed by a previous Senate will no longer apply so that the newly appointed Senate must reintroduce this bill while the House will have more time to think of additional reasons to oppose this bill. I'm guessing this will only prolong the process further.
on January 1,2013 | 11:33AM
Changalang wrote:
Big picture analysis determines that, as predicted, Obama broke Weeper Boehner's back. Not only did the President break his back, but he made Boehner cry "uncle". GOP Majority Leader and Whip voted against. The Speaker, who usually never votes on stuff, voted "yes". Analyze the breakdown of the voting ratios by Part;. 1:2 GOP against, 10:1 House Democrat for. Pelosi was the defunct Majority Leader on this last vote of this Congress; amazing brinksmanship. So, why did Boehner sell out? Because he gets to hold the Speaker position for the next Congress. He voted "yes" to demonstrate he will deliver the House for the other 2/3's of the functioning gov't. Boehner suspending the Hastert Rule. The Old GOP Speaker's rule that was mostly adhered to stated that no Bill will be brought to a vote unless it has Majority Party support, thereby producing power, or gridlock. Boehner will have less GOP Reps. in the next Congress and Obama and the Dems couldn't hope for a better Judas Republican to control in the House like a puppet. Notice Boehner also wipedhis Committee leadership of Tea Party Reps. Nothing like getting a guys betray and sacrifice Obama's headache. Congrats and welcome to New America. Woo Hoo !
on January 1,2013 | 06:02PM
ISCREAM wrote:
Several prominent Democrats voted against the bill also...don't see you disparaging their character.
on January 1,2013 | 08:09PM
Changalang wrote:
They should be commended for voting their blue dog district's heart, or left wing district's heart then. You have to give the people what they want in a Big Tent Party. Unity and the end result remains unchanged. Pelosi is running the House again, and Boehner has another thing to cry about, even though he technically holds the gavel.
on January 1,2013 | 09:49PM
Charliegrunt wrote:
The people who voted for these bozos are responsible. How can they Senate get by without approving a budget required by law for three years. Why is it that both parties talk about jobs, but neither with bring up Free Trade Agreements? Why will neither party discuss foreign and military aid to countries that are not our friends or allies and not in out national interest? Why are we borrowing money from China to lend to other countries? Why is the President allowed to spend money that we don't have with no consequences? We just blew our chance. Romney is no winner, but we had a chance to tell all politicians, "You have four years, get your act together or you're fired. We, collectively, blew it!
on January 1,2013 | 06:07AM
serious wrote:
I agree with you. I am happy, at least we have a Republican Congress for a little check and balance or we would be still printing money we can't support. I also detest the President dividing the country into the haves and havenots. He should be the one uniting us.
on January 1,2013 | 06:51AM
bender wrote:
It is only you and a few fellow travelers who believe this President has divided us. The truth is that Bush sparked that division long ago. We will probably never recover from the damage that man did to this country.
on January 1,2013 | 10:28AM
serious wrote:
Bender: The drinking stopped last night at midnight--think before you blog. Just listen to YOUR President--every talk he gives is the wealthy vs the --whomever they are MIDDLE CLASS. Listen to him--he never misses a beat. He has forged a division--I will be surprised if we don't have race riots this summer--I was involved in the last ones many years ago--not fun!!!
on January 1,2013 | 11:10AM
Anonymous wrote:
Maybe, but your idiocy continues to amaze! Obama did not create the divide between the Wealthy and the rest of the country, the srubpublicans did that, repeatedly! All Barry Obama did was point it out and make it his political message; there are many wealthy who are willing to accept a tax increase on the wealthy, but because of misplaced ideology by the GoP, they continue to misinterpret the message and really show just how out of touch they are with the rest of the country, as this past election showed!
on January 1,2013 | 12:28PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Obama has vilified wealthier Americans, lumping those making over $250K with "millionaires and billionaires". Rather than look at the root caused of the supposed disparities in wealth distribution, he has chosen labeling and blame. What do I mean? We compete in a global economy, more competitive than ever. We're way past the point of low skilled manufacturing jobs keeping someone in the middle class. As to the tax increase, it is nothing more than revenge, a political tool. What else can it be if it only will reduce our current deficit from $1.1 trillion to$1.04 trillion. Chicken feed. Meaningless, unless the whole purpose is to whip up the emotions of those who can't see the truly massive fiscal problem we face: $16trillion in debt, going to $20 trillion during Obama's term and over $86 trillion in unfunded federal liability.
on January 1,2013 | 01:33PM
lee1957 wrote:
Maybe if you spent more time working on improving your lot in life instead of envying others you wouldn't be so bitter.
on January 1,2013 | 05:54PM
ISCREAM wrote:
How did Republicans create any divide?
on January 1,2013 | 08:10PM
pastormatt wrote:
Bush did everything in his power to heal a nation torn apart following the Dot.com debacle and the 9-11 attacks on our nation. When our entire nation was angry and hurting, Bush strove to bring about help. It was based upon flawed intelligence (like Bengazi) but at least he acted to help our nation. Obama has created his own crisis through division and partisan politics as he has demonized those who have enabled our foolish citizens to live beyond their means and now tries to do that himself and with our government.
on January 1,2013 | 11:33AM
Anonymous wrote:
Bush heal the country? Put the bong down and wake up!! Bush started to illicit wars in the Middle East, on bad intelligence and then slithered out of the White house on his belly, when the economy collapsed right under his nose! He did not help the country but instead pushed this country into a fiscal tailspin that crashed our economy and forced a financial recession that we are still struggling to recover from!
on January 1,2013 | 12:32PM
pastormatt wrote:
Both houses (Democratic majority) supported his actions fully. Don't forget that.
on January 1,2013 | 02:13PM
lee1957 wrote:
Box of rocks.
on January 1,2013 | 05:58PM
ISCREAM wrote:
Anon...is there a 12 step program you should be attending to...you can't spell, use correct grammar and you are absolutely wrong on all accounts.
on January 1,2013 | 08:12PM
Wazdat wrote:
wow talk about making the story FIT your BELIEFS....
on January 1,2013 | 12:33PM
Pacej001 wrote:
You just aren't paying attention. The country is more divided than it has been since the Vietnam war. Populist uprisings like the Tea Party don't just arise from a few "fellow travelers". Obama's obvious tactic has been to pit one group against another and he's done a fine job of it.
on January 1,2013 | 01:24PM
Highinthesierras wrote:
What a let down. Heavy tax burden on working folks through payroll tax. 450k, less than 1% of folks. No spending costs after four yeas,r that is best they could do? Now Barry is a lame duck he will exercise even less, if that's possible, leadership. Thank goodness for Bush and his tax cuts, which are retained for 99 % of us!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on January 1,2013 | 06:33AM
Pacej001 wrote:
What??? The payroll tax PAYS for Social Security. That's the way it's supposed to work, funding from contributions from future beneficiaries? Where the hey do you think social security benefit payments for retirees will come from otherwise? I'll tell you. We'll have to borrow them from the Chinese.
on January 1,2013 | 08:18AM
bender wrote:
Sooner or later we will pay. But ask yourself about the Bush tax cuts. What exactly did they do for the average family, not much, but it was a very big gift to his wealthy friends. 5% of a million or more is far more than 5% of $35K.
on January 1,2013 | 10:30AM
lee1957 wrote:
Whaaaat? You are way out in left field (pun intended)
on January 1,2013 | 06:00PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 1,2013 | 07:03AM
HD36 wrote:
True, and he passed laws to detain US citizens without due process, without 4th ammendment rights and now he wants to take away your guns.
on January 1,2013 | 09:25AM
bender wrote:
Excuse me but it was Bush who passed the laws that circumbvent habeas corpus.
on January 1,2013 | 10:33AM
HD36 wrote:
Your'e thinking of the Patriot Act, I'm talking about NDAA. But to me it doesn't matter which president or which party passed the laws. In any event, civil liberties are being eroded.
on January 1,2013 | 05:18PM
lee1957 wrote:
Congress passes the laws, the President gives them the force of law with his signature. Bush passed a sum total of zero laws. If you are thinking of the Patriot Act, it was recently extended by a Democratic Congress and President.
on January 1,2013 | 06:02PM
bender wrote:
Commie left? Haha. Thanks for the laugh. Look out there might be a boogie man under your bed.
on January 1,2013 | 10:32AM
loquaciousone wrote:
Put up for vote in the House and if the tea party looneys vote against it, it will be all on the rudderless repulican party that threw us off the fiscal cliff and under the bus.
on January 1,2013 | 07:27AM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 1,2013 | 07:40AM
IAmSane wrote:
...You don't say? You've been reading a 5th grade history book recently, haven't you?
on January 1,2013 | 08:03AM
ballen0607 wrote:
He obviously hasn't read the part about Joe McCarthy.
on January 1,2013 | 09:37AM
bender wrote:
Make up your mind, is it commie or Nazi?
on January 1,2013 | 10:34AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Better stick to comedy, Loquacious one, because your grasp of facts on our national fiscal disaster seems to be missing. This "deal" will produce new tax revenue (maybe) equivalent to about 5 days of government spending. Trivial, meaningless. If passed by the House, it will be more significant by what it doesn't contain, control of spending or even the beginning of spending control. Why must we control spending? Because we're headed toward a national fiscal disaster like those going on in Europe right now. The progressive welfare state is unaffordable to the point that supporting it will eventually destroy our economy. Take a look at David Brooks NY Times (yuck) column today for a fair summary of the facts. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/brooks-another-fiscal-flop.html?hp&_r=1&
on January 1,2013 | 08:26AM
false wrote:
But Wait... President Obama is getting exactly what he said he wanted..."The United States to be more like European style of governments? "
on January 1,2013 | 09:49AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Yeah, a win/win for Barack. Can't wait to be like Portugal--- taxes up and up, tax revenue down and down. Meanwhile, their debt to GDP ratio went from 93% to 124% in two years. Groovy. If this latest deal passes, I guess we're on the road to European-ness, but, it's a new year so why be gloomy. As the Fed prints more and more Obama bucks to keep up with our European-ness, we can look forward to the fun/novelty of carting a wheelbarrow load of greenbacks to the supermarket to buy a loaf of bread. Well, that's what they did in the old days. Now we'll all just have credit cards with $10,000,000 limits on them.
on January 1,2013 | 10:35AM
bender wrote:
So the GOP alternative is throw everyone under the bus to preseve tax breaks for the wealthy. I prefer to take my chances with the Senate version.
on January 1,2013 | 10:35AM
Pacej001 wrote:
The House's going-in, pre-negotiation position was for $800billion in new revenue. That's $200billion LESS than the Senate deal. And why is it that you think the Republicans are throwing the middle class under the bus? Here's what your Senate and President are, in effect, saying. Unless you give us a measly tax increase of $60billion a year, we're willing to let taxes go up on EVERYONE. And they are refusing to entertain spending cuts or controls when anyone with a brain knows we have a massive spending problem. So, for an amount that won't make one whit of difference to our debt or deficit, democrats are ready to trash our economy. Why? Since there is no conceivable fiscal reason, it has to be politics, to whip up an ignorant populace to win the next congressional election, period.
on January 1,2013 | 01:01PM
ISCREAM wrote:
Last I looked the House version protected Bush era taxes rates for EVERYONE...Bender...you have had one too many.
on January 1,2013 | 08:15PM
jussayin wrote:
It sounds like a 100 years ago; different classes among us, e.g. rich vs middle class vs poor. Not good. It divides us instead of uniting us. BTW, we've reached our nation's borrowing limit of $16.4 trillion. Solution: same story, kick the can down the road. "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the government will take a series of accounting measures to avoid defaulting on its debt. On Monday, it suspended the issuance of new debt for two government retirement funds ... the measures would save about $200 billion and avoid default for about two months." Reduce government spending [republicans] or increase taxes [democrats]; that is the question. Probably a combination of both would be best. Well, it's a new year. Hope it's a great one for all.
on January 1,2013 | 07:28AM
HD36 wrote:
Here's some spending to cut: Michelle Obama's Staff of 22, is taxpayer funded at $1,591,200 annually. Her servants make popcorn 24/7 and throw it out every hour because they don't like stale. She has 5 servants that pick out wardrobes for her daily because she changes costumes about 12 times a day.
on January 1,2013 | 09:29AM
bender wrote:
I get it, it's okay for a white first lady to have those prividleges but you dislike the first black first lady doing the very same thing.
on January 1,2013 | 10:37AM
WKAMA wrote:
Right on!
on January 1,2013 | 12:02PM
Wazdat wrote:
Spot on. So Much PREJUDICE..
on January 1,2013 | 12:34PM
hawaiikone wrote:
I guess the fact that she has cost the taxpayers way more than any previous first lady has nothing to do with the complaints. It's all about her being black, right?
on January 1,2013 | 04:14PM
HD36 wrote:
Exactly, who said anything about being black. She has more servants than any other first lady in history at a time when the US is lthe largest debtor nation in the history of the world.
on January 1,2013 | 05:21PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 1,2013 | 08:19AM
IAmSane wrote:
Mental illness is a hell of a drug.
on January 1,2013 | 08:35AM
ballen0607 wrote:
So I, as a history teacher, must be a socialist pig indoctrinating my students with anti-american thoughts?
on January 1,2013 | 09:34AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. How's your curriculum? Does it focus on race, gender, class, subtly or otherwise? How is western civilization treated in your texts or your own lesson plans? Are hot-button progressive social issues given excessively prominent play, disproportionately projected backwards in to historical times?--------------- No insult intended, but one hears a lot about the progressive/liberal dogma being promulgated in our classrooms, especially college level, but also in secondary education.
on January 1,2013 | 10:41AM
lee1957 wrote:
You might be thin skinned.
on January 1,2013 | 06:09PM
ISCREAM wrote:
You're the one that said it...
on January 1,2013 | 08:17PM
Tanabe wrote:
Crappy thing it's only half of what is needed. Extends the tax breaks and will bring in more money, but there are little to no spending cuts in this bill. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't pass the house because of that.
on January 1,2013 | 09:16AM
bender wrote:
Hey, even if the Senate bill contained buku spending cuts the party of no would still say NO.
on January 1,2013 | 10:38AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Hey, why don't they try it then? Maybe someone would buy what you're selling.
on January 1,2013 | 11:59AM
loquaciousone wrote:
By now those t heads wish they had agreed to bonehead's plan b because it was a hell of a lot better than what the Senate came out with -- overwhelmingly I might add. T heads remind me of the taliban -- no room for compromise.
on January 1,2013 | 12:48PM
HD36 wrote:
The real fiscal cliff is coming soon. No country has ever gotten out of a recession by more spending, borrowing, and printing money. The US is already the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. The Federal Reserve is already loaning the government $45 billion dollars a month by buying long term US Treasuries.
on January 1,2013 | 09:21AM
tinapa wrote:
The President did not play enough hardball with the right wingers. The majority of the voters overwhelmingly dealt him a winning hand and he should have stick to his original proposal of $250,000. He got them deep in the box and should let them taste their own medications. There is an old adage that says, dogs that keep on barking do not bite". That is what they are, pussy cats. When the right wingers talk, they think they are kings of the mountains but in reality they are just the biggest fools on the hill.
on January 1,2013 | 09:27AM
tinapa wrote:
The President did not play enough hardball. Majority of voters dealt him a winning hand and he should have stick to his original proposal of $250,000. At any rate, I am glad that they agreed on something just to calm down the market community. I hope the House will pass the bill so we could move on.
on January 1,2013 | 09:34AM
bender wrote:
It's not the nature of the party of no to agree to anything. They came away from the last election saying they needed to repackage themselves but they quickly went back to the same game plan, that being an obstancle to any effort the Presdient makes to get our country back on track. The party of no would rather throw everyone under the bus than see this President have any success.
on January 1,2013 | 10:41AM
Pacej001 wrote:
So true. He has missed his chance at increasing tax revenue enough to fund the government for NINE DAYS. Now, He only gets FIVE DAYS of Federal spending. So close to making history and justifying the Nobel Peace Prize. On a totally separate subject: I wonder why there isn't a Nobel Basic Math Prize? If there were, he'd be in the running for sure for convincing his followers that his victory (increasing tax by $60billion/year) would even impact the rounding error on our $16trillion debt or $86trillion total unfunded liability. The man, his party, and followers has displayed a genius for numbers that cries out for recognition!
on January 1,2013 | 10:50AM
serious wrote:
tinapa, in all due respect--now just what class of people voted for the President? Certainly the ones earning less that $250K, the ones who write their checks on the back. I see them everyday on my walks with their grocery carts and black plastic bags. Germany got rid of their unemployment payments years ago--too easy to sit back and collect rather than being part of the productive economy. I hope the House doesn't pass the bill. Spending too much for the past four years--absolutely stupid to borrow money from China to give financial aide to countries that give us the finger--I could go on!!!
on January 1,2013 | 11:03AM
false wrote:
And here I was hoping to go over the cliff and back to the good old days of the "Clinton Tax Increases".
on January 1,2013 | 09:45AM
copperwire9 wrote:
You might prefer the Reagan tax increases, falsie. There were..let's see...17 or 18 of them. That would be better? Or perhas Eisenhower's?
on January 1,2013 | 12:57PM
CriticalReader wrote:
The nation simply wants a deal done. The House GOP has completely lost touch.
on January 1,2013 | 10:15AM
serious wrote:
No, the GOP in the House doesn't want the can kicked down the road any longer!! Got to stop spending money we don't have.
on January 1,2013 | 10:33AM
CriticalReader wrote:
GOP is going to kick itself squarely into the realm of the fringe. Stressing America out on New Years Day to advocate a perspective already soundly rejected is idiotic. You don't mess with New Years Day in America without really severe repercussions. The House GOP has an hour left at best to announce capitulation and save something. Within that hour, New Years Family Dinners on the East Coast will begin. And, the conversation in GOP House District homes will be about the need for change in congressional representation. The resident family neo-con will be viewed with new disdain and ignored. Moods will be grim. Food won't taste as good. The GOP will be viewed as completely out of touch and to blame for the pall over festivities. Individuals who cause that sort of atmosphere don't get told where the party is the following year. Thinking will be changed tonight. You don't mess with New Years in America.
on January 1,2013 | 10:59AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Yes. The GOP has lost touch. What could they be thinking???? I mean, what's the big deal about $16 trillion in debt, going to $20 trillion (at least) by the time our Nobel winner leaves office. What's all the sweat over entitlements and debt service absorbing all of Federal tax revenue by 2025? Or that our debt will exceed 90% of GDP within a decade? So short sighted, those GOPers. -------And such a big deal about what it would take to fix our fiscal problem. Who are those geeks in the International Monetary Fund to say that we'd need to cut entitlements and raise taxes by 35% EACH??? Yes, you're right the GOP goons are just crazy when the solution is so obvious to even the dullest Progressive Obama follower: Cut defense by 500% and all our problems are solved. Nobel Peace Prize II, look out.
on January 1,2013 | 11:02AM
krusha wrote:
Just get a deal done already. The way those Republican fanatics are playing hard ball with the economy, looks like this fiscal cliff is going to be a reality very soon. Seems like the mega rich are pulling all the strings of these lawmakers who refuse to implement any tax increase to get this deal through...
on January 1,2013 | 10:59AM
lee1957 wrote:
The fiscal cliff was a reality 5 hours and 59 minutes ago, we are now into damage control. And your speculation about the mega rich is just plain mularkey.
on January 1,2013 | 06:14PM
MightyMakiki wrote:
The House should adjourn, today, seni dei. Let the cliff go, then message it in the 113 Congress. Quite this fooling aroung
on January 1,2013 | 11:22AM
WKAMA wrote:
Don't give lawmakers any pay raises this year($900). They haven't gotten anything done but fight among themselves.
on January 1,2013 | 11:59AM
AdmrVT wrote:
Not quite right. By doing nothing, they've increased all of our taxes, and are probably getting doctors to turn away Medicare patients, plus cut spending. Everyone better have extra cash on hand when the tax bill comes due in April. Everyone has an extra $4000 - $14,000 lying around right? That's the short term reality. And, its going to get much worse, even with the spending cuts.
on January 1,2013 | 12:37PM
Anonymous wrote:
This is nothing newsworthy, it was expected that the Scrubpublicans would balk at this legislation and just goes to show that they continue to be 'the party of NO!' This also emphasizes the need for the American people to reign in their politicians and make Congressional wages based on merit, not longevity or cost of living; these phatcat's make twice as much as the general populace of the country and do a heck of a lot less meaningful work! Make Congress pay for it's own healthcare or put them on Medicare and see how they like it for a change, make them pay for their own airfare costs, to where ever they need to fly! If Congress were run as a business, many of these politicians would be out of a job pretty darn quick!
on January 1,2013 | 12:11PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Enough GOP House members will agree to pass the Senate bill. But it's too late for the GOP as a whole. They messed up the American New Year. That's unforgivable. Obama will end his Presidency on a wave of complete Democratic control of the US Government.
on January 1,2013 | 12:24PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 1,2013 | 12:47PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Maybe. But if it turns out that way, it will be the House GOP Leadership's either fault or doing. How ironic.
on January 1,2013 | 01:06PM
Changalang wrote:
Actually, it is a hybrid policy package that will redistribute wealth via a progressive tax culture to bolster Middle Class wealth growth up to $450,000 per household. Government worker parasites, this is a good time to anchor yourself into the private sector and cut yourself off of the gov't teat. Time to contribute vs. sponge for a change. It is Boom Time. :)
on January 1,2013 | 06:12PM
Eagle156 wrote:
They want more spending cuts. Let's let them know that they should start with the ridiculous 1.5 billion dollars for the idiotic Honolulu rail project that has nothing to do with solving traffic.
on January 1,2013 | 12:33PM
loquaciousone wrote:
You Tea Party loonies make me laugh. By not agreeing to any kind of compromise, like Bonehead's PLAN B, everyone's taxes are going up today -- including your precious millionaires and yours. What a bunch of loonies.
on January 1,2013 | 12:34PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Norquist is completely irrelevant now.
on January 1,2013 | 01:07PM
Eagle156 wrote:
They want to cut excessive federal spending. We should let them know that they should start with the 1.5 billion dollars to Honolulu for a ridiculous outdated rail project that has nothing to do with relieving traffic congestion.
on January 1,2013 | 12:38PM
serious wrote:
Very good point. the Republican governors of NJ and FLA turned rail down because the upkeep was too expensive, but the D governors of CA and HI accepted it---tax and spend.
on January 1,2013 | 02:50PM
GorillaSmith wrote:
Can any objective American believe the gall of the Democrats trying to increase both taxes and spending? I know they have a tenuous grasp on arithmetic - and really disdain facts - but surely this must be obvious even to them.
on January 1,2013 | 02:23PM
loquaciousone wrote:
Check your next paycheck and do the arithmatic. See how much your taxes just went up because of your precious tax restraints. Surely this must be obvious to even you,
on January 1,2013 | 02:35PM
Highinthesierras wrote:
Look, only working stiffs will pay more because of increase in payroll tax increase. Remember, Barry promised no tax increases for the middle class. And, increases on over $450,000, that is another cop out, that will raise peanuts. House must stand talk and get spending cuts to match the tax increases.
on January 1,2013 | 02:41PM
loquaciousone wrote:
Payroll tax is only a small part of it. NO DEAL means no meals for millions. Keep spouting your lunacy and milions are going to be hurt.
on January 1,2013 | 04:08PM
AdmrVT wrote:
Unless I misunderstand, the Senate bill postpones the sequestration only for 2 months. They need to revisit or the cuts take effect then. It really doesn't matter. We are headed for the 2nd Great Depression a la 1929.
on January 1,2013 | 03:46PM
Highinthesierras wrote:
House stands tall - let's get some spending cuts.
on January 1,2013 | 02:38PM
entrkn wrote:
It looks to me like the republicans are dragging us over the cliff and commit political suicide in the process...Time for President Obama to exercise his Presidential authority.
on January 1,2013 | 03:30PM
jussayin wrote:
unfortunately the pres hasn't done a good job of getting both parties on the same page which is his responsibility as the big boss. but i agree, the pres needs to be more active right now. it's not time to hide. he should be talking with the house members. funny is that the news showed that his air force one jet is ready to head back to hawaii once the bill is passed. i wonder how much these trips cost taxpayers. maybe it doesn't matter as one poster said, we have 16 trillion dollars in debt; so what's several hundred thousand dollars for the pres to come back to hawaii for a vacation. having said all this, i think the house will pass the bill despite it not including much of any cuts in spending.
on January 1,2013 | 04:04PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
The Senate deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" will add roughly $4 trillion to the deficit when compared to current law, according to new numbers from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Tell me again why this Senate solution is a good thing. All it does is kick the can down the road. The result of the Senate deal adds to the deficit rather than moving us towards smaller deficits.


on January 1,2013 | 04:35PM
Changalang wrote:
Out of the ashes of the Tea Party comes a back door eleventh hour $4 trillion dollar stimulus package for small business and wage earners to sprint up to the new high water mark of $450,000 per household. It is a re-distribution/middle class growth package. The Sequestration threat is kicked down the road and will not be able to be tied to the debt ceiling limit, despite GOP's best hopes. It is really embarrassing to see GOP leadership saving themselves by turning on their own dissidents on one hand, but highly entertaining on the other hand to see teamwork and superior planning make the GOP grow up into something useful. Grover Norquist even approves per his latest Tweet. Untrustworthy leadership always saves themselves when faced with extinction. ROFL.
on January 1,2013 | 06:31PM
Changalang wrote:
" The Bush tax cuts lapsed at midnight last night. Every R voting for Senate bill is cutting taxes and keeping his/her pledge. " (Grover Norquist Tweet; about an hour ago) He is actually claiming victory. Bwa Ha Ha Ha Ha !
on January 1,2013 | 06:35PM
HD36 wrote:
Anyone want to loan the government money for 30 years at a 2.95% yeild? Buy a US Treasury Bond 30yr but if you believe inflation is more like 10%, realize you'll lose about 7% in real terms. I guess that's why the Federal Reserve is buying 90% of those bonds at the rate of $45 billion per month.
on January 1,2013 | 07:34PM
Changalang wrote:
So, which central bank is going to win this game of global money printing in the end? The smart money is still on U.S. Treasuries. The worst things get, the more they buy. Even the competitor counterfeiters of global fiscal easing to infinitude are fully flush in the U.S. dollar. It's good to live in the best house when the world is a ghetto. LOL.
on January 1,2013 | 09:34PM
HD36 wrote:
Europe's problems are fading. Attention is shifting to America's fiscal problems. Other currencies that are appreciating against the dollar? How about the Australian dollar, Swedish Krona, Canadian dollar, and the Brazilian Real. China has stopped buying treasuries and soon will start selling them. The Renbi will appreciate over %100 when they depeg from the dollar. The smart money is shorting the dollar. Yields will rise--I gaurantee it. LOL
on January 1,2013 | 10:40PM
Changalang wrote:
Europe's default risk is only being masked by the same quantitative easing that is status quo around the world. You know of course OUR goal is a devalued dollar, right? You need to study Bernanke, Geitner, and the Federal Reserve Bank system more closely because you think you are individually winning. The Chinese are buying high end property in America so their next generation will be able to grow up American. Why is that? America is still the best house on a bad block. The business of printing trust has never been more lucrative. Investors who fail to recognize what is really going on will be licking their wounds and blaming the next conspiracy theory, long before they realize it is already well under way.
on January 1,2013 | 11:27PM
Pacej001 wrote:
So sympathetic, this group, to our exalted leader and his lonely quest to avenge the downtrodden by taxing the rich. To risk so much, to put a new recession in the balance, he must see a great prize to come from winning this richeous struggle. What is it? $60 billion a year in new tax revenue, a mammoth number when compared just to our annual deficit, right? Here's how mammoth. Every minus (-) is a billion smackers in new debt added each year and every plus ( ) is a billion shaved off of that debt if his tax increase goes toward reducing it. Here goes. Annual deficit of $1.1trillion:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. Now the massive debt reduction of the Obama tax increase: . Our hero. What an accomplishment.
on January 1,2013 | 04:49PM
Pacej001 wrote:
(Corrected) So sympathetic, this group, to our exalted leader and his lonely quest to avenge the downtrodden by taxing the rich. To risk so much, to put a new recession in the balance, he must see a great prize to come from winning this richeous struggle. What is it? $60 billion a year in new tax revenue, a mammoth number when compared just to our annual deficit, right? Here's how mammoth. Every minus (-) is a billion smackers in new debt added each year and every plus ( ) is a billion shaved off of that debt if his tax increase goes toward reducing it. Here goes. Annual deficit of $1.1trillion:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. Now the massive debt reduction of the Obama tax increase: . Our hero. What an accomplishment.
on January 1,2013 | 04:52PM
HD36 wrote:
That which cannot go on forever, won't. The bond bubble will burst along with a near simultaneous dollar collapse. The deflationary model won't hold true because we're not on a gold standard anymore. If you have 10k in the bank, after the collapse, you might be able to buy 2k worth of stuff. I've advised all my clients to get out of the US Dollar.
on January 1,2013 | 05:29PM
hikine wrote:
More trillions of dollars in spending in the next four years. What is considered middle class? Obama reneging in his promises by lowering the income limit to be taxed. Bait and switch tactics, the people just got shafted!
on January 1,2013 | 05:11PM
Changalang wrote:
Actually, he has laid down incentives for entrepreneurs to sprint up to $450, 000 per year with major tax cover paid for by less than the top two percent of earners. He just re-distributed probability of prosperity to the working and producing Middle Class. Kennedy tried this, but Obama achieved it. It is indeed a good day for hard working person's to uncap their potential up to the mark. Even stock market investment capital gains taxes will be locked at 15% for those climbing the ladder. Anyone in America can shield Estate taxes up to $5 million. The AMT is gone forever AND adjusted for inflation. Obama just gave Middle Class Growth, the green light. Those who want to live off the dole can still do so. America is Back !
on January 1,2013 | 06:09PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 1,2013 | 07:26PM
Changalang wrote:
If you can't grasp the simple numbers of preservation and permanence of the Bush tax cuts for nearly 99% of America, then you deserve to wallow in your own ignorance and drown in the GOP provided Kool Aide. Reverend Jones would be proud.
on January 1,2013 | 07:56PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 1,2013 | 09:19PM
Changalang wrote:
Your Mommie is a Commie, and your brain is awash in right wing conspiracy propaganda, making perception so difficult that you cannot tell the difference in flavor from the Kool Aide thou drinkith. What is the point of re-classifying the control element when you are still the dogma at the end of the leash? Put down the remote and go cold turkey from FoxNews until things become clearer and you can think for yourself, without guidance. Or, continue to rant. It does not change anything because the world you live in depends on how you choose to relate to it. Try Pragamatism.
on January 1,2013 | 10:00PM
Changalang wrote:
What are they pumping you up for? Only to keep you coming back for more? If you can't read the code in The Matrix, best to keep the monitor turned off. Commies to the Left, Commies to the Right, Stand Up, Sit Down, Fight, Fight, Fight...............................LOL
on January 1,2013 | 11:16PM
Changalang wrote:
Make that "Pragmatism"; the religion of the future. :)
on January 1,2013 | 10:01PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 1,2013 | 10:20PM
Changalang wrote:
Yet you are a prisoner of the narrow focus of your own mind. Nothing more pathetic than a captured mind drunk on the delusion of not being free range livestock. Baaaaaaaaaaad way to go through life. Ask yourself why you hate a man you never even met. Who or what external force made you detest the man so many other citizens aspire to be like? Is it that you are special with gifts that make you superior to your countrymen? Or, is it that you find comfort being angry at a stranger you are supposed to "hate" ? There is more to life then becoming the Manchurian R-e-t-a-r-d. Think outside of the bun.
on January 1,2013 | 10:53PM
Changalang wrote:
(Changalang wrote:) " He just re-distributed probability of prosperity to the working and producing Middle Class...Obama just gave Middle Class Growth, the green light. " For those who need to re-read to process; a tax shelter has been provided for every Middle Class earner up to a cap of $400,000 as and individual and $450,000 as a household. Check the median income of America. " Inflation-adjusted median household income increased 4%, from $49,434 to $51,413, from August to December, according to a study released Thursday by Sentier Research. That's the biggest jump since the start of the recession in December 2007, according to an analysis of Labor Department data by the economic research firm. " (USA Today, 09FEB2012)..........Yes, that means a $400,000 tax umbrella for the American median household to "GROW" under; genius/patriot T-bagger.
on January 1,2013 | 08:08PM
ISCREAM wrote:
Changalang...I am glad you rely on the government for you to achieve your potential. In doing so you are limited and so is your poor family. Remember...what the government giveth.....the government can take away.
on January 1,2013 | 08:23PM
Changalang wrote:
Oh, poor me. You still haven't figured out why the Democrats control most of the private wealth in this country, have you? I want the Middle Class stronger because it is a win-win-win situation and the embodiment of the American dream. More people prosper, more growth and revenue, and a stronger America with wealth diversification giving more people money behind a voice; rather than special interest greedy old white guys fixing the game against any body else. Personally, I have never been happier to pay more taxes as it is finally being re-allocated for the greater good of my neighbors. Obama is just using Reagan's trickle down economics theory. If you squeeze the wealthy hard enough, more revenue will trickle down to the middle class. We're coming for your pension income next. No more free rides in paradise for the greatest generation that soaks up resources like a self-indulgent sponge. Time for the next generation's leaders to start taking care of everybody for a change. Gov't is your friend. :)
on January 1,2013 | 09:27PM
HD36 wrote:
Think about how fast the Internet bubble burst; about how fast the real estate bubble burst. The same thing will happen to the bond bubble. it's better to be a few years early than a day late. Position your assets accordingly.
on January 1,2013 | 07:11PM
Changalang wrote:
Doom and gloom is cyclical, repetitive, and often boring. Ask any Mayan Prophesy believer.
on January 1,2013 | 11:12PM
HD36 wrote:
Remember last year, Obama and crew said, " If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we will have to default" So he's telling our creditors, if we can't borrow more money, we can't pay you back. Because we have to borrow more money to pay the interest on the money we previously borrowed, and on, an on, The US can't let interest rates rise. The Federal Reserve has already tried QE1, QE2, Operation Twist, and QE3 unlimited, where right now they're buying $45 billion dollars in US Treasuries, almost 90%, in an effort to keep interest rates low. Because if they rise, the government won't be able to make the payments. Unfortunately, all this money printing is causing inflation. So much so that they are talking about adjusting the CPI again in order to report lower inflation. At some point, it will become obvious that their policy is causing so much inflation that yeilds will have to rise. The banks will fail all over again. Right now their making money by borrowing at the fed window at almost 0% and loaning to the government by buying US Treasuries. They still value all their home equity loans at par, even though the first loan has be marked down. Problem is, once the Fed is in tightening mode, they won't be able to bail out the banks and neither will the government as soverign banks start selling their US Treasury holdings. The FDIC won't have enough money to pay everyone back.
on January 1,2013 | 06:55PM
HD36 wrote:
I'll bet anyone $100k they will raise the debt ceiling again this year. The government needs to borrow more money to pay the interest on the money it borrowed before, that it used to pay the interest on the money it borrowed before that. Pray that interest rates don't rise.
on January 1,2013 | 07:17PM
Changalang wrote:
Duh; vs. another credit rating downgrade? The loss of our triple AAA credit rating is attributed solely to the prior gov't shut down policies of the old Tea Party Congress. The question is how long will it take for the GOP in D.C. to raise the limit against their Party principles. 100% probability that the GOP will compromise its principles again. Will they trigger a default first, or be smart upfront and decide to preserve themselves as a national Political Party for a few years longer? The debt limit was exceeded already and the Treasury Secretary is using accounting tricks to keep the country afloat as of today. All the world's central banks are printing money in unison, that is why interest rates are so low and STABLE. Would you rather be in the House printing the world's only fiat currency, or in your doomsday prepper's basement trying to figure out how to eat the hoarded gold? LOL.
on January 1,2013 | 08:22PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 1,2013 | 09:14PM
Changalang wrote:
Ammunition is the currency of the future. Nobody needs to grab your guns, Buford. Drones see all the domestic terrorists fear the gov't knows anyway. Sweet dreams. LOL.
on January 1,2013 | 10:05PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 1,2013 | 10:55PM
Changalang wrote:
The U.S.A. is retracting into a defensive radius and in a generation maybe all the people that hate us for crimes against their perceived brothers will remember that they used to hate their brother more than us and reset to status quo. Israel has their own problems. Why is it that you think they are your problems?
on January 1,2013 | 11:08PM
kukui_nut wrote:
Debt limit should not be raised, period.
on January 1,2013 | 09:15PM
Changalang wrote:
Debt limit will be raised over and over again with no strings attached; Pragmatism. :)
on January 1,2013 | 10:05PM
HD36 wrote:
And when it is raised, the world will know that US Bonds are a Ponzi Scheme and will head for the doors. Since bonds are just promises to pay in dollars at a futrue date, the dollar will also crash.
on January 1,2013 | 10:59PM
Changalang wrote:
In simplified terms, B5 made and printed in the U.S.A. has greater sustained market value than the other B5 printed worldwide. When/if the global bond bubble on all sovereigns crash, where to you want to be living? Mutually assured economic destruction is why the ponzi scheme knows no bounds. Think globally, act locally.
on January 1,2013 | 11:04PM
HD36 wrote:
Wrong as usual. Ponzi Schem's always fail with those at the bottom losing all there money. Why do you think China just recently bought 454 tons of gold? Why is Germany asking the US to send their gold back to Germany?
on January 2,2013 | 12:54AM
HD36 wrote:
Obama announced last year that if they don't raise the debt limit, the US will default on its bonds. In other words, we gotta print more money to pay you back just on the interest.
on January 1,2013 | 11:05PM
Changalang wrote:
Exactly. There is no cost in pushing a button and having different denominations of nothing save us from default. Voila. I just did it. And, I just did it again. And the bond market continues on; green arrows. Round and round she goes, and where she stops NOBODY knows. :)
on January 1,2013 | 11:44PM
HD36 wrote:
Hey genius, I guess you're not watching the market. Yeilds are up over 7 basis pts on the 10yr already. You sound like Helicoptor Ben Bernacke. The same Harvard professor who is now head of the Federal Reserve said he would print money and drop it out of helicoptors to stimulate the economy. Same guy who siad there was now housing crises and that house prices couldn't go down.
on January 2,2013 | 12:50AM
HD36 wrote:
Duh, do you know a Ponzi Scheme when you see one? Do you know of any country that has printed their way out of recession? Did it work for Zimbawe? How about the Myamar republic? Uh, Central banks are printing money, but not in unison. Uh, the United States is the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. Uh, interest rates are low because the Federal Reserve is buying 90% of long term treasuries outright after running out of short term treasuries to do operation twist. Uh, that's called artificial demand. Did you ever hear of an exit strategy from the Fed? No, because there is none. Uh, I think you better look up the definition of fiat currency. The United states does not have the world's only fiat currency. Uh, every country that prints paper money that is only backed by a promise by the government to pay it back is called a "fiat" currency because they can print unlimited amounts of money. Uh, the reason for holding gold is that it can't be printed and it holds value as fiat currecies are printed up. Besides, it's highly liquid worldwide.
on January 1,2013 | 10:57PM
Changalang wrote:
Zimbabwe never had a fiat currency. Pfffft.
on January 1,2013 | 11:01PM
HD36 wrote:
Considering you don't even know the definition I suspect you've been watching too much You Tube. Try and look it up before trying to sound knowledgeable.
on January 2,2013 | 12:47AM
ISCREAM wrote:
President Obama got what he wanted and the Congressional Budget Office said it "could add almost $4 trillion in debt over the next 10 years".
on January 1,2013 | 08:04PM
CriticalReader wrote:
GREAT Leadership by Obama. Can you imagine how bad this whole situation would have been with Romney at the helm?
on January 1,2013 | 08:39PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 1,2013 | 09:34PM
Changalang wrote:
Obama was President since Romney started his eight year campaign to try to be President, losing the nomination to McCain in the first cycle; and then losing to Obama when he finally secured the nomination in the last four years of his eight year campaign making Romney a two time loser candidate. It is not very nice of you to criticize Romney for not being able to compete against a true man of the world. Romney is "Father Knows Best" in black and white. Obama is "In Living Color". The America you remember does not exist anymore. Either get with the program, or reside to T.V. Land and engorge yourself on re-runs. Romney was a Corporate Raider for personal wealth. The Obama gov't is a Corporate Raider which promotes public/private partnerships for collective goodness. Perhaps you should re-adjust your "hero"-scope. It seems to be radically out of calibration. :)
on January 1,2013 | 10:38PM
HD36 wrote:
See Money Masters on you tube.
on January 1,2013 | 11:08PM
Changalang wrote:
YouTube turns one's mind to rubbish.
on January 1,2013 | 11:40PM
HD36 wrote:
Ok, I give up , for the second time, a fiat currency is a currency used as exchange that is not backed by anything but the promise of the governmental agency issuing the currency that it is legal tender. Prior to 1971 the dollar was backed by gold. Thus the saying a dollar was as good as gold. Nixon took us off the gold standard. Since then, our currency has been a fiat currency. Prior to that, it was not a fiat currency because the government could not expand the money supply beyond the amount of gold it held. Zimbawe had a fiat currency. It wasn't backed by anything, like ours, and they printed so much money, it devalued their money into hyperinflation. Please read , How an economy grows and why it crashes by Peter Schiff , so you can at least get the basics down.
on January 2,2013 | 01:01AM
HD36 wrote:
You gotta go way back to see how we got to be the world's largest debtor nation in the history of the world. You might want to start with the Federal Reserve Bank. see Money Masters on you tube. You'll see that it cuts across all party lines.
on January 1,2013 | 11:08PM
bsdetection wrote:
The fiscal "cliff" was a totally bogus crisis created by Congressional Republicans. Now they're complaining about the solution. It's like an arsonist setting fire to his own house and then complaining that the firemen caused water damage when they put the fire out.
on January 2,2013 | 04:32AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News