Fiscal Cliff New Years

[quade 4]

The President's bill is considerably if fervent than the one currently being discussed.

If you believe the President forced this issue, you're simply wrong. It's entirely the fault of members of Congress who refused to address the issue even after agreeing among themselves to a time table to do so.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

They spoke after a closed-door session with Vice President Joseph Biden, who brokered the deal with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Is it true that these 2 basically went into a closed door room, and decided how much we are going to pay?

[muff528 3]

Quote

The President's bill is considerably if fervent than the one currently being discussed.

If you believe the President forced this issue, you're simply wrong. It's entirely the fault of members of Congress who refused to address the issue even after agreeing among themselves to a time table to do so.

I don't believe the President forced this issue. I only questioned your post #5 statement, re: whether the President could issue an EO to hold Congress in a room...

[muff528 3]

Quote

.....
Sort of; although the specifics are subject to some interpretation. Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution says:

[the President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper....

I haven't looked up whether there are any factual scenario-specific cases interpreting this.

I wonder if this might have been an example (from Wiki):

"His inauguration on March 4, 1933, occurred in the middle of a bank panic. .....The very next day he declared a "bank holiday" and called for a special session of Congress to start March 9, at which Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act."

Also, maybe his call for Congress to declare war on Japan is another example. ???

[quade 4]

Asked and answered. A couple of times. Answer remains the same; it's possible a case could be made for it. And even though it's something I'd personally like to see, strategically it probably makes Boehner look even "do nothing" to allow him to be obstructionist.

If you want to see the real roots of this issue, look at the Speaker and his history of unwillingness to do anything, let alone come to an agreement.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mirage62 0]

from what I'm reading about the bill WHERE are the spending cuts?

It's the Dem's norm. Raise taxes NOW and get around to the cuts later. Folks we can't raise taxes out of this mess.

BUT at least they raised back to the previous level the S.S. tax.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[muff528 3]

Quote

Asked and answered. A couple of times. Answer remains the same; it's possible a case could be made for it. And even though it's something I'd personally like to see, strategically it probably makes Boehner look even "do nothing" to allow him to be obstructionist.

If you want to see the real roots of this issue, look at the Speaker and his history of unwillingness to do anything, let alone come to an agreement.

None of your posts really answered any of my questions. They only referred to what boneheads Boehner and the Repubs are for not compromising with the President. Both sides have philosophical "hard decks" for what they are willing to give up. There won't be an agreement until both sides move towards each other. The discussions between Boehner and Obama established where these differences were. Neither side is compelled to capitulate. Concessions from Obama and the Dems would do as much towards a reaching a resolution as would concessions from the Repubs. The usual procedure is to pork up the place until enough votes are bought from enough legislators (who are willing to abandon their hard decks for the ground rush of goodies) and get a bill passed ...for better or worse.

[muff528 3]

Quote

from what I'm reading about the bill WHERE are the spending cuts?

It's the Dem's norm. Raise taxes NOW and get around to the cuts later. Folks we can't raise taxes out of this mess.

BUT at least they raised back to the previous level the S.S. tax.

We did get spending cuts! We got $1 in promises of future spending cuts for every $41 in new taxes. Better than nothing, I suppose. Reagan, on the other hand, got $3.00 in imaginary spending cuts for every $1.00 of tax increases. Bush41 got two bucks in fake cuts for every dollar tax increase and he got canned for it.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

.....
Sort of; although the specifics are subject to some interpretation. Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution says:

[the President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper....

I haven't looked up whether there are any factual scenario-specific cases interpreting this.

I wonder if this might have been an example (from Wiki):

"His inauguration on March 4, 1933, occurred in the middle of a bank panic. .....The very next day he declared a "bank holiday" and called for a special session of Congress to start March 9, at which Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act."

Also, maybe his call for Congress to declare war on Japan is another example. ???

Just to clarify, "declaring a bank holiday" was (arguably) within the Pres's executive authority. And Art 2 §3 gave him the right to compel Congress to convene - i.e., simply to physically gather. But his requests for an Emergency Banking Act, as well as his request that Congress declare war were just that - requests. In each case, Congress, simply by lack of a majority vote (or a refusal to legislate and/or bring it for a vote), could have said "No". The President cannot force the Congress to legislate on anything; he can only request it.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

from what I'm reading about the bill WHERE are the spending cuts?

As of this moment, that's the impasse currently in the HOuse.

[muff528 3]

Quote

........And Art 2 §3 gave him the right to compel Congress to convene - i.e., simply to physically gather. ........The President cannot force the Congress to legislate on anything; he can only request it.

Yes, I was referring specifically to his calling for the special session as a possible example. The rest of the Wiki example was just for context.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

We did get spending cuts! We got $1 in promises of future spending cuts for every $41 in new taxes. Better than nothing, I suppose. Reagan, on the other hand, got $3.00 in imaginary spending cuts for every $1.00 of tax increases. Bush41 got two bucks in fake cuts for every dollar tax increase and he got canned for it.

YAY!!!! promises for FUTURE cuts (or at least smaller increases vs projected)

But THIS TIME, I'm sure they'll keep those promises.
(I'm sure that THIS time, they are "fake cuts" like before)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[airdvr 210]

Nice to know we won't be hearing the term "the Bush tax cuts" any longer. Obama owns them now.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Nice to know we won't be hearing the term "the Bush tax cuts" any longer. Obama owns them now.

I don't really care who gets credit for when they eventually make (most) of the tax cuts permanent. If the only way for this set of politicians to do the right thing is to rename them first, go for it. It's already petty. A little more won't hurt.


I'm just waiting for a congress with enough guts and sense to do meaningful spending cuts now. and waiting.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Nice to know we won't be hearing the term "the Bush tax cuts" any longer. Obama owns them now.

Just looked at my first 2013 paycheck

What ever the fuck is happening is gonna cost me 6k more in withholding this year vs last year

And I am no where near 400k in earnings

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

>What ever the fuck is happening is gonna cost me 6k more in withholding this year vs last year

You do realize you can tell them how much to withhold by telling them the number of exemptions you expect, right? That's up to your company, not the government.

[rushmc 23]

Just heard this on the news

The 153 page fiscal cliff bill was delivered to the Senated less than 10 minutes before they voted on and passed it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>What ever the fuck is happening is gonna cost me 6k more in withholding this year vs last year

You do realize you can tell them how much to withhold by telling them the number of exemptions you expect, right? That's up to your company, not the government.

Yes

And that number has not changed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

>And that number has not changed

Sounds like someone at your company screwed up.

[regulator 0]

House Speaker John Boehner couldn’t hold back when he spotted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the White House lobby last Friday.

It was only a few days before the nation would go over the fiscal cliff, no bipartisan agreement was in sight, and Reid had just publicly accused Boehner of running a “dictatorship” in the House and caring more about holding onto his gavel than striking a deal.

“Go fuck yourself,” Boehner sniped as he pointed his finger at Reid, according to multiple sources present.

Reid, a bit startled, replied: “What are you talking about?”

Boehner repeated: “Go fuck yourself.”

The harsh exchange just a few steps from the Oval Office — which Boehner later bragged about to fellow Republicans — was only one episode in nearly two months of high-stakes negotiations laced with distrust, miscommunication, false starts and yelling matches as Washington struggled to ward off $500 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts.

The White House and Congress knew of the self-imposed deadline for more than 17 months and they still blew past it, as a president fresh off a strong reelection victory tested — and ultimately broke — the Republican Party’s fidelity to its tax-cuts-only governing philosophy.

It took a late intervention of two Senate veterans — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Vice President Joe Biden — to rescue the negotiations. Their relationship, forged over two decades on Capitol Hill, helped move Congress to a resolution because it wasn’t burdened by the raw political conflicts of the past and the legislative fights still to come.

But even those longtime Washington hands couldn’t prevent a New Year’s Day drama in the House. Boehner weathered a revolt against the bill, which played out during two meetings in the Capitol basement in which his fellow GOP lawmakers lashed out at having to accept the measure without spending cuts.


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/the-fiscal-cliff-deal-that-almost-wasnt-85663.html

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Reid had just publicly accused Boehner of running a “dictatorship” in the House and caring more about holding onto his gavel than striking a deal.

So did Reid say that to Boehner's face? Or was it just a cowardly press opportunity to snipe like normal business?

Either way deserves a big old "FU". But at least the first would be something real with some minor balls.

Also, either way, Reid is an asshat to pretend to be surprised. Perhaps (ironical comment here intentional) he's more concerned about scoring press and political points and holding onto his own gavel, than serving the citizens.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>And that number has not changed

Sounds like someone at your company screwed up.

Nope

It is from a Fed withholding line

I just looked at it closer and the amount is closer to 3k per year. The withholding is not on every paycheck but when it is it amounts to about $250 per month

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Nice to know we won't be hearing the term "the Bush tax cuts" any longer. Obama owns them now.

Just looked at my first 2013 paycheck

What ever the fuck is happening is gonna cost me 6k more in withholding this year vs last year

And I am no where near 400k in earnings

Your first paycheck is very likely to be jacked up this year because companies didn't have a lot of notice to get the withholding tables correct. My company guessed correctly (i.e. Fed OASDI returned to 6.2% withholding and fed withholding appears to be using the same tables as last year) but it would have been just as easy to assume that no deal would be reached and withholding would go up. You'll probably see them fix it over the next couple paychecks.

That said, if you earned above the SS cap last year and will earn above the cap this year then your SS withholding will be a little over $200/mo higher.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nice to know we won't be hearing the term "the Bush tax cuts" any longer. Obama owns them now.

Just looked at my first 2013 paycheck

What ever the fuck is happening is gonna cost me 6k more in withholding this year vs last year

And I am no where near 400k in earnings

Your first paycheck is very likely to be jacked up this year because companies didn't have a lot of notice to get the withholding tables correct. My company guessed correctly (i.e. Fed OASDI returned to 6.2% withholding and fed withholding appears to be using the same tables as last year) but it would have been just as easy to assume that no deal would be reached and withholding would go up. You'll probably see them fix it over the next couple paychecks.

That said, if you earned above the SS cap last year and will earn above the cap this year then your SS withholding will be a little over $200/mo higher.

I compare last years first check against this years

That is where I found the amount was a bit lower but it is still 3K a year

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

>Nope . . .It is from a Fed withholding line

I don't get this. The Fed doesn't withhold anything from your paycheck. Your company does. They calculate this via the W-4 you (theoretically) submitted when you started work.

Withholding does not change the amount you owe. If they withhold too much you get it back when you file your taxes.