That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Joe Biden loves being Joe Biden, and I don't blame him one bit.Captain Caveman wrote:Joe Biden, charming or seedy? You make the call:
Biden swears in senators, hits on grandmas
That's retail politics, and he's a natural.triggercut wrote:Joe Biden loves being Joe Biden, and I don't blame him one bit.Captain Caveman wrote:Joe Biden, charming or seedy? You make the call:
Biden swears in senators, hits on grandmas
On June 23, 2011, Bradley was convicted on all 24 counts on a consolidated indictment (which originally contained 529 counts): 14 counts of rape, seven counts of assault, and three counts of sexual exploitation of a child.
On August 26, 2011, [Judge] Carpenter sentenced Bradley to the maximum sentence of 14 consecutive terms of life in prison plus a further 165 years in prison without parole
The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 is unworthy of any praise, as it was a colossal failure on every level; it did not reduce the deficit, it did not cut debt or even touch the debt ceiling, it did nothing in terms of entitlement reform, it delayed sequestration, and also included a bunch of irresponsible additional pork. 'SOMEthing' may've been done, but that's a far cry from 'SOMEthing even remotely worthwhile' getting done. If anything, it represents a nadir in American politics, crammed with exactly the sort of sad-sack posturing that we have come to expect from our elected officials.Carpet_pissr wrote:I have always liked the guy. And as crappy a deal as both sides feel the fiscal cliff bill is, both sides seem to acknowledge he was the driving force behind getting SOMEthing cobbled together since the typical party leader knuckleheads couldn't.
How much would you wager that this petition was created by Joe Biden?WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
authorize the production of a recurring television program featuring Vice President Joe Biden
Vice President Joe Biden has a demonstrated ability to bring people together, whether at the negotiating table or at the neighborhood diner. We, therefore, urge the Obama Administration to authorize the production of a recurring C-SPAN television program featuring the daily activities and interactions of the Vice President with elected officials, foreign dignitaries and everyday American families. Such a program would educate the American public about the duties and responsibilities of their Vice President, while providing a glimpse of the lighthearted side of politics even in the midst of contentious and divisive national debates.
Created: Jan 04, 2013
Anonymous Bosch wrote:The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 is unworthy of any praise, as it was a colossal failure on every level; it did not reduce the deficit, it did not cut debt or even touch the debt ceiling, it did nothing in terms of entitlement reform, it delayed sequestration, and also included a bunch of irresponsible additional pork. 'SOMEthing' may've been done, but that's a far cry from 'SOMEthing even remotely worthwhile' getting done. If anything, it represents a nadir in American politics, crammed with exactly the sort of sad-sack posturing that we have come to expect from our elected officials.Carpet_pissr wrote:I have always liked the guy. And as crappy a deal as both sides feel the fiscal cliff bill is, both sides seem to acknowledge he was the driving force behind getting SOMEthing cobbled together since the typical party leader knuckleheads couldn't.
Have they caught that's he's also a clever hip hop artist?hepcat wrote:The Onion already ran quite a few articles on the personal life and times of The Joe.
Most of them still don't believe their taxes are going up. They think it is just the wealthy that will be paying more this year. There are a lot of people in for a rude awakening.GreenGoo wrote:Anonymous Bosch wrote:The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 is unworthy of any praise, as it was a colossal failure on every level; it did not reduce the deficit, it did not cut debt or even touch the debt ceiling, it did nothing in terms of entitlement reform, it delayed sequestration, and also included a bunch of irresponsible additional pork. 'SOMEthing' may've been done, but that's a far cry from 'SOMEthing even remotely worthwhile' getting done. If anything, it represents a nadir in American politics, crammed with exactly the sort of sad-sack posturing that we have come to expect from our elected officials.Carpet_pissr wrote:I have always liked the guy. And as crappy a deal as both sides feel the fiscal cliff bill is, both sides seem to acknowledge he was the driving force behind getting SOMEthing cobbled together since the typical party leader knuckleheads couldn't.
It's not that I necessarily disagree, but I'm not sure the market, economy and people in general would have been happier just going over the cliff, so to speak.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -deal.htmlMiddle-class workers will take a bigger hit to their income proportionately than those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 under the new fiscal cliff deal, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Earners in the latter group will pay an average 1.3 percent more - or an additional $2,711 - in taxes this year, while workers making between $30,000 and $200,000 will see their paychecks shrink by as much as 1.7 percent - or up to $1,784 - the D.C.-based think tank reported.
Overall, nearly 80 percent of households will pay more money to the federal government as a result of the fiscal cliff deal.
I can assure you for someone making 30K taking away 1-2K IS a big deal.noxiousdog wrote:so you're saying we'll get 98 cents of our remaining dollars instead of the full dollar?
Oh noz!
(and it was considered a temporary recession move anyway)
Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.
I don't think anyone was talking about taxes going down - that's not what happens when you're trying to reduce a deficit.Rip wrote:The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.
Trying to reduce the deficit? Really? There has been ZERO done that will reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. Might as well be trying to build a stairway to the moon.El Guapo wrote:I don't think anyone was talking about taxes going down - that's not what happens when you're trying to reduce a deficit.Rip wrote:The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.
That said, that (apparently) no one was advocating renewing the payroll tax given the continued economic doldroms is disheartening.
Point is that no one on any side of the aisle was talking about taxes going down during the negotiations, so it's hardly surprising that the eventual deal...did not involve taxes going down.Rip wrote:Trying to reduce the deficit? Really? There has been ZERO done that will reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. Might as well be trying to build a stairway to the moon.El Guapo wrote:I don't think anyone was talking about taxes going down - that's not what happens when you're trying to reduce a deficit.Rip wrote:The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.
That said, that (apparently) no one was advocating renewing the payroll tax given the continued economic doldroms is disheartening.
Hmph. Totally stolen from Eddie Izzard's UK space program... sending a man in a tracksuit up a ladder.El Guapo wrote:Also, I'm totally for building a stairway to the moon.
You must not actually listen to the POTUS.El Guapo wrote:Point is that no one on any side of the aisle was talking about taxes going down during the negotiations, so it's hardly surprising that the eventual deal...did not involve taxes going down.Rip wrote:Trying to reduce the deficit? Really? There has been ZERO done that will reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. Might as well be trying to build a stairway to the moon.El Guapo wrote:I don't think anyone was talking about taxes going down - that's not what happens when you're trying to reduce a deficit.Rip wrote:The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.
That said, that (apparently) no one was advocating renewing the payroll tax given the continued economic doldroms is disheartening.
Also, I'm totally for building a stairway to the moon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... dle-class/This afternoon, President Obama spoke while surrounded by an ad hoc group of “middle-class Americans” who he promised would be protected from tax hikes by the 11th-hour “fiscal cliff” proposal. That’s not what’s going to happen.
“For the last few days, leaders in both parties have been working toward an agreement that will prevent a middle-class tax hike from hitting 98 percent of all Americans starting tomorrow,” he said. “Preventing that tax hike has been my top priority, because the last thing folks, like the folks up here on this stage, can afford right now is to pay an extra $2,000 in taxes next year.” The agreement that’s been unveiled, however, would “make sure the taxes don’t go up on middle-class families,” he continued.
So, do you want your social security benefits cut by 2%?coopasonic wrote:Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
Those of us in the $1,784 range aren't thrilled. $150/mo is a lot of money to take away, like pretty much all of my fun money. I'm about a month away from finding out what my raise and bonus are. Maybe I won't care so much. 31 months of full time day care left!
Sure, at least it would save my grand-kids having theirs cut by 20% down the road.noxiousdog wrote:So, do you want your social security benefits cut by 2%?coopasonic wrote:Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
Those of us in the $1,784 range aren't thrilled. $150/mo is a lot of money to take away, like pretty much all of my fun money. I'm about a month away from finding out what my raise and bonus are. Maybe I won't care so much. 31 months of full time day care left!
That's not going down, that was about them not going up.Rip wrote:You must not actually listen to the POTUS.El Guapo wrote:Point is that no one on any side of the aisle was talking about taxes going down during the negotiations, so it's hardly surprising that the eventual deal...did not involve taxes going down.Rip wrote:Trying to reduce the deficit? Really? There has been ZERO done that will reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. Might as well be trying to build a stairway to the moon.El Guapo wrote:I don't think anyone was talking about taxes going down - that's not what happens when you're trying to reduce a deficit.Rip wrote:The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.
That said, that (apparently) no one was advocating renewing the payroll tax given the continued economic doldroms is disheartening.
Also, I'm totally for building a stairway to the moon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... dle-class/This afternoon, President Obama spoke while surrounded by an ad hoc group of “middle-class Americans” who he promised would be protected from tax hikes by the 11th-hour “fiscal cliff” proposal. That’s not what’s going to happen.
“For the last few days, leaders in both parties have been working toward an agreement that will prevent a middle-class tax hike from hitting 98 percent of all Americans starting tomorrow,” he said. “Preventing that tax hike has been my top priority, because the last thing folks, like the folks up here on this stage, can afford right now is to pay an extra $2,000 in taxes next year.” The agreement that’s been unveiled, however, would “make sure the taxes don’t go up on middle-class families,” he continued.
Yes, I have no problem with that. I have a substantial 401k. I'll survive. Assuming some day they go ahead with means testing for social security (or the more expected total economic collapse), I'm unlikely to get it anyway.Rip wrote:Sure, at least it would save my grand-kids having theirs cut by 20% down the road.noxiousdog wrote:So, do you want your social security benefits cut by 2%?coopasonic wrote:Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
Those of us in the $1,784 range aren't thrilled. $150/mo is a lot of money to take away, like pretty much all of my fun money. I'm about a month away from finding out what my raise and bonus are. Maybe I won't care so much. 31 months of full time day care left!
Except you'd be cutting current benefits by 2%, right? I'm not sure my zombie proofing will work on enraged AARP members...noxiousdog wrote:So, do you want your social security benefits cut by 2%?coopasonic wrote:Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
Those of us in the $1,784 range aren't thrilled. $150/mo is a lot of money to take away, like pretty much all of my fun money. I'm about a month away from finding out what my raise and bonus are. Maybe I won't care so much. 31 months of full time day care left!
Why? The economy's still bad. If it's tough to re-implement the payroll tax cut when the economy is better, then get the revenue somewhere else - bump capital gains by .5% or something.stessier wrote:Except you'd be cutting current benefits by 2%, right? I'm not sure my zombie proofing will work on enraged AARP members...noxiousdog wrote:So, do you want your social security benefits cut by 2%?coopasonic wrote:Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
Those of us in the $1,784 range aren't thrilled. $150/mo is a lot of money to take away, like pretty much all of my fun money. I'm about a month away from finding out what my raise and bonus are. Maybe I won't care so much. 31 months of full time day care left!
I agree though, the 2% was a short term cut that couldn't possibly be expected to be extended forever. And the longer it lasted, the more people would have gotten used to not paying it. Better to re-implement it now.
Define "bad". It's better than it was when the tax was dropped. If you want to redefine how we pay for SS, that's fine, but it's also a bigger discussion.El Guapo wrote:Why? The economy's still bad. If it's tough to re-implement the payroll tax cut when the economy is better, then get the revenue somewhere else - bump capital gains by .5% or something.stessier wrote:Except you'd be cutting current benefits by 2%, right? I'm not sure my zombie proofing will work on enraged AARP members...
I agree though, the 2% was a short term cut that couldn't possibly be expected to be extended forever. And the longer it lasted, the more people would have gotten used to not paying it. Better to re-implement it now.
Ummm but they did go up and not just on middle class but pretty far down the ladder although admittedly not as much. I would argue that much of the higher earners will make it up since they have much more control over their income. They will raise prices, cut costs, and expand less. For the upper levels these guys don't even spend 20% of their income maintaining there way of life. For those barely making enough to maintain their way of life this will be very hard and I think they will be double hit when the hoped for recovery becomes another recession with an inflation chaser.El Guapo wrote:That's not going down, that was about them not going up.Rip wrote:You must not actually listen to the POTUS.El Guapo wrote:Point is that no one on any side of the aisle was talking about taxes going down during the negotiations, so it's hardly surprising that the eventual deal...did not involve taxes going down.Rip wrote:Trying to reduce the deficit? Really? There has been ZERO done that will reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. Might as well be trying to build a stairway to the moon.El Guapo wrote:I don't think anyone was talking about taxes going down - that's not what happens when you're trying to reduce a deficit.Rip wrote:The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.Isgrimnur wrote:Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.
Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.
That said, that (apparently) no one was advocating renewing the payroll tax given the continued economic doldroms is disheartening.
Also, I'm totally for building a stairway to the moon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... dle-class/This afternoon, President Obama spoke while surrounded by an ad hoc group of “middle-class Americans” who he promised would be protected from tax hikes by the 11th-hour “fiscal cliff” proposal. That’s not what’s going to happen.
“For the last few days, leaders in both parties have been working toward an agreement that will prevent a middle-class tax hike from hitting 98 percent of all Americans starting tomorrow,” he said. “Preventing that tax hike has been my top priority, because the last thing folks, like the folks up here on this stage, can afford right now is to pay an extra $2,000 in taxes next year.” The agreement that’s been unveiled, however, would “make sure the taxes don’t go up on middle-class families,” he continued.
But I do agree that it's madness that the payroll tax is going up. I take it you agree that letting the payroll tax go up was bad?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/wikileaks ... ying-spreeWondering why gold at $1850 is cheap, or why gold at double that price will also be cheap, or frankly at any price? Because, as the following leaked cable explains, gold is, to China at least, nothing but the opportunity cost of destroying the dollar's reserve status. Putting that into dollar terms is, therefore, impractical at best, and illogical at worst. We have a suspicion that the following cable from the US embassy in China is about to go not viral but very much global, and prompt all those mutual fund managers who are on the golden sidelines to dip a toe in the 24 karat pool. The only thing that matters from China's perspective is that "suppressing the price of gold is very beneficial for the U.S. in maintaining the U.S. dollar's role as the international reserve currency. China's increased gold reserves will thus act as a model and lead other countries towards reserving more gold. Large gold reserves are also beneficial in promoting the internationalization of the RMB." Now, what would happen if mutual and pension funds finally comprehend they are massively underinvested in the one asset which China is without a trace of doubt massively accumulating behind the scenes is nothing short of a worldwide scramble, not so much for paper, but every last ounce of physical gold...
From Wikileaks:
3. CHINA'S GOLD RESERVES
"China increases its gold reserves in order to kill two birds with one stone"
"The China Radio International sponsored newspaper World News Journal (Shijie Xinwenbao)(04/28): "According to China's National Foreign Exchanges Administration China 's gold reserves have recently increased. Currently, the majority of its gold reserves have been located in the U.S. and European countries. The U.S. and Europe have always suppressed the rising price of gold. They intend to weaken gold's function as an international reserve currency. They don't want to see other countries turning to gold reserves instead of the U.S. dollar or Euro. Therefore, suppressing the price of gold is very beneficial for the U.S. in maintaining the U.S. dollar's role as the international reserve currency. China's increased gold reserves will thus act as a model and lead other countries towards reserving more gold. Large gold reserves are also beneficial in promoting the internationalization of the RMB."
I thought that those people were part of the 48% of leeches that paid no taxes? How does the GOP get to simultaniously hold that these people are a burden on productive society and then complain when their taxes are raised?Rip wrote:I can assure you for someone making 30K taking away 1-2K IS a big deal.noxiousdog wrote:so you're saying we'll get 98 cents of our remaining dollars instead of the full dollar?
Oh noz!
(and it was considered a temporary recession move anyway)
Doesn't matter that much to me. It is political masturbation. They didn't deal with the real issues as usual. I don't pay a payroll tax as I don't collect payroll, I am a self-employed consultant.gbasden wrote:I thought that those people were part of the 48% of leeches that paid no taxes? How does the GOP get to simultaniously hold that these people are a burden on productive society and then complain when their taxes are raised?Rip wrote:I can assure you for someone making 30K taking away 1-2K IS a big deal.noxiousdog wrote:so you're saying we'll get 98 cents of our remaining dollars instead of the full dollar?
Oh noz!
(and it was considered a temporary recession move anyway)
In all seriousness, I'm glad that the payroll tax holiday was ended. I'd rather have seen them increase capital gains, as El Guapo mentioned, but at least we are starting to deal with the unsustainable tax rates that have been in place for a decade. I wish they hadn't made the lower end of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, though.
