This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
All the Facts.....
Okay, still confused about what the cliff deal means? I mean everyone is spinning this one way or the other, so if you just want the facts and the bottom line, who can you trust? .I have a place for you to get the Facts. The source of this information is impeccable, and ALL of the facts are spelled out in just 1,360 words.
Here's the (Link), It will take you to this page at the White House:
The White House presents the "facts" of this matter. But it leaves out a few facts that are, no doubt, inconvenient for the White House to fess up to. If the President's men really wanted to be honest about the facts, they would have added a paragraph:
-A consequence of the tax agreement is to increase payroll taxes on 155m American workers by $125B. We know this hurts middle and low income workers and their families. We understand that this is a very big tax increase, and that it will knock at least 1% of 2013 GDP (and beyond). We're sorry about this, it couldn't be helped. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid insisted it be this way.
Now about this fact sheet. Just a few items on the list of "Achievements" that stand out to me:
Strengthens our recovery next year by cutting taxes for the middle-class
This is twice wrong. Middle class taxes are going up $125b in 2013. And the consensus opinion is that the net effect of the tax deal is a drag on GDP of 1%.
Provides greater economic certainty for families and businesses
They gotta be kidding with this line. The tax deal leaves open the pesky questions of A) the debt limit, B) the sequestered amounts, C) cuts in entitlement spending, D) additional taxes and don't forget E) the President needs another Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the lights on. (No budget from the Prez means another CR is required)
Me? I'm crapping in my pants over that list. The market may be happy today, but what is in front of is much more troubling than what is behind us.
Cuts the deficit and reduces the debt as a share of the economy over the next five years
Compared to what? The fact is the country just agreed to an additional $4t in debt. Here's the picture of the debt profile that is the result of this deal. That ugly orange stuff is the additional debt the country signed up for with the tax deal. How do you call this progress?
I guess if you really want the facts on this deal, you better look elsewhere.
- advertisements -





And their paychecks will be 'unlarger' too.
Going from 4% to 6% is an increase. What part of that is confiusing?
read post above. It wasn't enacted as a permanent decrease.
The new rule is not a.) a decrease; it is not b.) the same. therefore, it is c.) an increase. this is called logic.
OK, so I guess we should just get use to a close to a 2 trillion dollar deficit going forward. That's logical, right?
No, but it is baked into the cake!
It is, like just the tip baby, just the tip. Then BAM, your balls deep before you know what happened. It's ok, they will pull out in time......
Is this how all people operate now? just look to fact check sites and talking points, and don't really think too much or too deeply about it?
(Not you Bruce, but seems most people I know are just talking point recitation machines and start calling names when asked any questions about the shit they spew.)
No this is not how most people operate now. Most people do not check fact sites, or talking points. And they don't think at all. Seriously. I hope this clears it up for you.
Are you advocating digging into thomas.loc.gov and reading this tripe in its most visceral (pun intended) form?
Mmmm....that's real Bandini!
Well the Senate didn't read it!
Who was the scrunt who said "We will have to pass it to know what's in it!"
I'm sure the former speaker was squatting at the time.
Whether it's spending or taxes, "cuts" refer to what would otherwise have happened in the future. It's basically a straw man argument, just spin to make the fuckers look good.
A "spending cut" is a cut to a projected spending increase. Spending still goes up, but by a little less than what the profligate wankers would otherwise have wasted.
Similarly, a "tax cut" is a cut to a projected tax increase. Taxes still go up, but by a little less than what the greedy extortionists would otherwise have stolen.
Are we clear now?
Semantics
Yep. that's the word. and "Applied Semantics" is called "Spin". Love your Avatar.
More Communist crappola wrapped in gold and silver lace. I will bet the house (the White one) that over the next 5 years we spend at least $1 trillion over revenues each year. And due to the nature of government, once they reverse the tax cuts and add in increases, this ball will be rolling downhill bigtime in the next few years.
It will surely be more than $1 trillion each year and I would bet that by the fifth year, the deficit will be close to $2 trillion.
Which means; we should all keep contributing to our 401K plans; b.) put all our retirement funds in a hedge fund that did real well last year. or c.) buy silver bulllion; warehoused in a stable foreign country. HMm? Let's see. I'm sure I can figure this out.
A stable foreign country? An american can't even rent a safety deposit box in Switzerland.
Perth Mint; Canada; bullionvault.com. And then, there are other; less public routes to accomplish the same thing. such as a very small company; with say 5 people on it's board of directors, including the attorney who sets it up, and this little company, which you call whatever you wish, DBA is part of the deal; can buy and hold assets or perform other financial operations; without revealing the beneficial ownership of the company. (you). This is not a bank account, you observe; so doesn't come under the meaning of the act. The attorney doesn't reveal the beneficial ownership of the company even to the host country. Inquires are not going to be received by anyone; because "no-one know nothin" to begin with". The Congressmen have to have some place to store their payoffs, you know. there's a table bank, and a "house bank" for every crooked poker game.
This "deal" maintains the status quo, with th exception that now anyone making over 400k has to find some new tax shelters.
Buy income property, invest in rum compnaies in Puerto Rico, etc...
The salient point is that any cuts > 5% to Fed spending will cause the equity market to fall 10%. Can't have that.
Similar to Bush hearing from Hank Paulson "the shelves will be empty tomorrow", someone told Boehner "the 401K's will be empty tomorrow".
Bernanke has painted the US economy into a corner. No way to get out without getting paint all over yourself. Stay in the corner until paint dries or until you die of starvation.
If you actually make 400K; you're not going to be paying any like an official tax rate on it; this is just a fact of life; if you have any sense; you won't be paying anything at all. "Fairness" is just "calmspeak" to keep the slaves quiet.
Why are you overlooking the fact that the Joker in Chief RAISED ALL THE WAGES FOR THE SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN; and three days later they suddenly decided to agree on everything and not point out any of the crazy bullshit in his "plan". Is this supposed to be a co-incidence?
bribery for a 'yea'
Love your name, "Clowns on Acid!"
Stay in the corner until paint dries AND you die of starvation.
Kicking the can further down the road.
Our leaders are in capable of making hard choices, so they wont. The laws of physics and finance are going to fix this problem, no us. They will kick the can until they cant at which time shit hits the fan, people get hungry and life gets a little more "interesting".
The fact people think it is them who make the choices, is part of the problem.
I'm shocked! Shocked to hear that our leaders are lying to us!
This deal is doubleplusgood. If you'd like to voice a different opinion, please step to the side where you can see these six nice men carrying AK-47s. They'd be glad to help you get the correct opinion...or to make sure that you no longer have any opinions on anything.
$125 bln in reduced consumer spending is a small price to pay for hilarious cap gains and estate tax concessions. That, and $85 billion a month in unsterilized printing. Keep in mind, Bruce, it's all about the stawks.
The second four years; he RAISED THE PAY for government workers, and then agreed to wack your pay-check. I told you so. He doesn't even have to pretend anymore; there's no more re-election; he can carry out the rest of the plan of the ruling class; but you won't like it.
How can you read that stuff without either falling asleep or throwing up, or 'Jimi Hendrix' and throw up while asleep.
Just got back from the doctor finding out I have strep. Throwing up might happen (again) and it's gonna hurt......
Get lots of rest and get well, strep's a Hillary!
Bruce - fret not. Sandy relief will ultimately come in at over $100B of pork plus more "stimulus" here and there will more than offset that pesky tax increase. Sequester will be unsequestered, debt ceiling raised. That is what the "american people voted for". And it really is...they voted for no pain, no change and Ben, Barrack, and the admin will give it to them...like the frogs in the pot with the flames licking the sides...this is where a so called "democracy minus constitutional guardrails" hits the gas of institutional lies and ultimately derails.
Back in 2000 I was in Florida for a sales junket for top producers. Wewere all treated to a day of deep sea fishing. The 50+ foot boat I was on was a beauty. The two guys who owned it bragged about how FEMA paid for it after Huricane Andrew. Neither guy lost anything, htey just scammed the government for the cost of a 50+ footbluewater fishing boat. oth quit their regular jobs and became fishing captains. Just sayin...
If you're saying that the government gives huge amounts of money to crooks, I just don't believe you.
"That is what the "american people voted for". "
No it isn't. Obama was easily beatable, but the Republican "leadership" decided they wanted a full-on corporatist named 'Mitt'. The American people voted 'thumbs down' on Mitt.
Blame the Republican party.
Agreed, Mitt was picked to lose. Don't blame the voters, blame the delegates. The lobbyists wanted access to free loans from Chinese Treasury holdings, so why ruin it with a republican? OMG!!! The real republicans might push Chinese investors (both institutional/individual) into the PRIVATE sector.
I was praying that China would've figured this out. But since the stupid NBC started wailing about shark fins in China (the ONLY bit of international news they bother to give us)- I figured that China might have said something about this debt. I was wondering when the smart people were going to catch on. (smart meaning "not Pelosi").
Well said.
Facts...why I am here at ZH reading your posts, Bruce, and others.
Oh...you didn't think there was no (factual) pork in this gem did you?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/01/other-nuggets-in-the-fis...
"
Among the extensions is the excise tax carry-over on rum produced in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. It's a federal tax of which most is paid back to the islands.
There's also the extension of a tax credit for purchase of some electric vehicles with two or three wheels, such as scooters. It was a tax break included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and covers up to 10% of the vehicle's cost, or at most $2,500.
"
Oh, there's more....
If the Obama administration doesn't turn you into a racist; you're just not paying attention.
Actually, the GW Bush administration turned me into a racist. I was so pissed off by what a white man could do to American values that I suddenly acquired a seething rage against all white people.
It's certainly not that I was a racist all along and needed a convenient excuse. White people are just dishonest and unpatriotic to the core and GW Bush proved that to me.
Sorry Mom and Dad, that includes you too.
I'm pretty sure a black guy won't get into the WH for at least another 200 years if the country still exists and/or there is still 'voting' going on. That will be Obama's 'legacy' but I'm sure some f'g library will be built to honor his contribution to corruption.
I think only silly people will not vote for a black candidate. There are good black leaders out there, they just get smashed by the press. Allen West is well known. I personally would vote for a black conservative before a white conservative because black people actually have to regularly fight for the ideology where most white people I encounter either understand or agree with the conservative ideology.
As far as the wierdo left in this country, they could run howdy doody or donald duck and win an election. I think a black candidate would be fine.
Well Krup and Rockefeller financed HItler;s election, and he did exactly what he supposed to do; at least until he went off into his own personal extra-planetary reality; so I don't know what we should be surprised. It is thoroughly disgusting, however.
But Maxine Waters just said on CNBC that it was a clear win for the middle class, Bruce. She wouldn't fib would she?
Maxine is from the "Math is hard" school. Much better to do descriptive math, you know, where she interprets those confusing numbers for you and tells you what they mean--like clear win for the middle class. For those number crunchers out there that want to point out those nettlesome inconsistencies, beware: the lady stands ready to play the race card that trumps all. That's all. Maxine says to resume hand in the sand posture--she'll be sure to report any thing of note after assiduously (did I say that?) vetting the numbers.
Sheila Jackass Lee, Demon TX [Preditor look alike] said yesterday in the runup -
There was a 10 Trillion Dollar surplus when the Clinton Administration left office.
This is who we are dealing with. Take your pick moron or liar.