grahamhgreen
grahamhgreen's JournalRaising tax rate on the rich a mere 2% (to 37%) is a total victory for Republicans!
Once again, if we do NOTHING, the rate goes to 39.6%.
So, in essence, 37% is actually yet another tax cut for the filthy rich.
Call the Fiscal Bluff - it's a better deal.
Stupid - "Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized Marijuana Use"
Marijuana use in both states continues to be illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. One option is to sue the states on the grounds that any effort to regulate marijuana is pre-empted by federal law. Should the Justice Department prevail, it would raise the possibility of striking down the entire initiatives on the theory that voters would not have approved legalizing the drug without tight regulations and licensing similar to controls on hard alcohol.
Some law enforcement officials, alarmed at the prospect that marijuana users in both states could get used to flouting federal law openly, are said to be pushing for a stern response. But such a response would raise political complications for President Obama because marijuana legalization is popular among liberal Democrats who just turned out to re-elect him.
“It’s a sticky wicket for Obama,” said Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Austin, saying any aggressive move on such a high-profile question would be seen as “a slap in the face to his base right after they’ve just handed him a chance to realize his presidential dreams.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-in-2-states-set-federal-officials-scrambling.html?_r=0 - NYT
Let's face it, Cannabis advocates are some of the most tenacious, ambitious, and successful political advocates in our party.
It's not possible for the administration to be so stupid as to deliver millions of liberal Dem votes into the hands of Libertarian wing of the Republican party, is it?
5 Charts on the Fiscal Bluff: "Stocks: The Danger Lurking AFTER A Fiscal Cliff Deal Is Reached"
Good reasons to call the Fiscal Bluff....
"Thus, history suggests that it would not be at all surprising to see stocks head lower, not higher, following an agreement on the fiscal cliff. Of course, it could play out differently this time once a deal has been reached. More specifically, one key advantage stocks have this time around is the fact that the Fed is already in stimulus mode having launched QE3 back in September and is likely to double down on balance sheet expansion with the announcement of U.S. Treasury purchases in mid December. This is an enormous tailwind for stocks. But even with this edge, the idea that stocks will rally following a compromise deal on the U.S. fiscal cliff is far from a foregone conclusion. To the contrary, it would not be surprising to see stock markets move lower in the days following an agreement, particularly if the deal appears unfavorable to the financial markets and the business sector.
A final thought before closing. If stocks have shown the propensity to move sharply lower once political risk has been removed, does this suggest that stocks might actually rally if we were to maintain this political risk and simply go over the U.S. fiscal cliff? By going over the cliff, at least companies would finally have clarity in regards to the fiscal policy environment under which they are operating. Moreover, any fiscal deals that would follow in 2013 would then represent an improvement instead of the detriment to the rates under which they would be operating. While I continue to assign a low probability to actually going over the U.S. fiscal cliff as well as a high probability that stocks would move to the downside if we did, such a counterintuitive outcome is at least worth closer inspection as we watch the drama unfold and wait for a final deal to be reached in the next few weeks."
MORE: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1048581-stocks-the-danger-lurking-after-a-fiscal-cliff-deal-is-reached?source=email_the_daily_dispatch&ifp=0
Poll: I'm Going to Say Three Words and You're Going to Give Me a Trillion Dollars!
WMD in Syria!
I'm going to say two words and you're going to gut earned benefits and entitlements.
Fiscal Cliff.
Don't believe the hype.
Why do we pay taxes?
Do we pay them to have wars-for-profit in the middle east, and subsidies for big oil, big pharma and big agra?
Or do we pay them in order to invest in US, for our education, for our infrastructure, and for our health, and to take care of those of us need?
This question needs to be part of the debt dialog, IMHO.
So, we have to reduce the deficit now, or the economy will suffer, BUT if we enact mandatory budget
control as per the Budget Control Act of 2011, the economy will suffer.
Well, which is it????
Reich: Understanding the Fiscal Cliff (In 2 Min's and 30 Sec's)
All anyone needs in order to understand the Fiscal Bluff&feature=player_embedded
"ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.
TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.
THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.
FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS.
FIVE: DON’T CUT SAFETY NETS.
SIX: DON’T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY.
SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE.
EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION."
I'm Going to Say Three Words and You're Going to Give Me a Trillion Dollars!
WMD in Syria!
There is no fiscal cliff; it's The Budget Control Act of 2011:
We need to make the Cons say they are against "Budget Control", that's what the fiscal bluff is actually called, using the term cliff loses the fight before we start.
Either they want to reduce the deficit, or they're just blowing smoke (ie, want to destroy SS, and give the money to banksters and war profiteers).
Either they're for budget control, or they're agin it:
It's the Bugdet Contol act of 2011:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s365enr/pdf/BILLS-112s365enr.pdf
We need to use the terms Fiscal Bluff & Budget Control, exclusively, IMHO.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Dec 30, 2004, 03:05 PMNumber of posts: 15,741
