From John (from a re-structured NYTimes Editorial)
House Republicans not only rejected President Obama’s budget deal, including his offer to lift the income threshold for higher tax rates to $400,000 a year from $250,000, they also rejected their own leadership’s proposal to raise the threshold for higher taxes to $1 million and to preserve tax breaks for the heirs of multimillion-dollar estates.
No deal means:
• The end of federal unemployment benefits, averaging $290 a week. Some two million people would be cut off immediately, and nearly one million more who would be cut off in the first quarter of 2013.
• It means the end of the 2 percent payroll tax cut, which, for the past two years, has reduced taxes for 125 million households, boosting pay by nearly $1,000 a year for the typical household making $50,000.
• It also means the end of improvements in tax credits for low-income working families, as well as a credit for low- and middle-income families with college costs, enacted in 2009. If the credits are pared, some 25 million Americans would lose an average of about $1,000 a year in benefits in 2013, and roughly eight million children would either fall into poverty or sink deeper into poverty. The child tax credit for a single mother working full time at the minimum wage, for instance, would be cut from $1,725 to $165.
• It would also force 28 million Americans, most of them making between $100,000 and $500,000 a year, to pay the alternative minimum tax when they file their 2012 tax returns next year. This is also unfair because the alternative tax was supposed to apply to multimillionaires whose tax breaks reduce their tax liability below a level that is considered a minimum fair share. But, for more than a decade, it has not operated that way. Rather, superrich Americans have largely escaped the alternative tax, while those further down the income scale are ensnared unless Congress votes to exempt them from the tax that they were never intended to pay.
With only five days left to make any progress this year, President Obama has sensibly called on Congress to pass a scaled-back plan that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts on incomes below $250,000, suspend the automatic spending cuts and extend federal jobless benefits. He has also called for a quick fix to the alternative minimum tax, so that the tax filing season can proceed without the administrative nightmare of retroactive adjustment.
Passage of Mr. Obama’s scaled-back plan would also buy time to reach a bigger deal later — one that provides additional government spending to replace the stimulus that will be lost when the payroll tax cut expires and makes the low-income tax credits permanent, coupled with a higher debt limit and with deficit reduction that takes place as the economy recovers.
But if Congress cannot approve a deal by New Year’s Day, the anticipated sell-off on Wall Street in early January would, one hopes, force House Republicans to budge.

I truly hope not only that there is no “deal” …(see Diane’s new article. Admin).
By the way… While everyone’s attention was focused on the misnamed Fiscal Cliff and the 2nd Amendment debate that has resulted from the Sandy Hook massacre, the Senate approved the 2013 NDAA WITHOUT the amendment intended to keep American citizens from being arrested without warrant and detained indefinitely without trial and/or access to any of our other Constitutional protections. Four Senators did not vote:
Brown (R-MA)
DeMint (R-SC)
Kirk (R-IL)
Moran (R-KS)
Only 14 voted against what Ron Paul (R-KY) called, among other things, an “abomination,” seven Republicans, six Democrats and one Independent Democrat (Bernie Sanders):
Barrasso (R-WY)
Crapo (R-ID)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Franken (D-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)
Note: Both CT Senators voted “Yea.”
Does Obama have enough support in the Democratically controlled Senate for his plan? Last I knew, he didn’t unless things have changed.
I’ve heard many people sneer and complain about “Bush-era tax cuts” yet Obama wants them extended. So what’s the deal, are they good or bad?
William,
I think we all know that no one controls the Senate because no one has the 60 vote majority needed to do anything of importance. No finer illustration of this was presented than to watch Sen. McConnell filibuster his own measure when he realized the Democrats did indeed have the 51 votes to pass it.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/07/politics/fiscal-cliff-senate-maneuvering/index.html
So do they have the votes assuming just a mere majority? Well we don’t know. Apparently, Sen. McConnell guessed wrong on that one on the related vote above so I’m not going to try and do any guessing either. If our government wasn’t so partisan the more reasonable Democrats and Republicans could come to a deal and leave the people on the fringes behind. Of course, everything is about party now and we are all suffering for it.
As far as tax cuts, it depends. All things being equal tax cuts and increases in entitlement spending tend to be positive in a down economy and not so positive in an up economy. Tax cuts and cuts in entitlement spending in a down economy; well a bit of a mixed bag.
Thanks,
Kevin
Then I’ll ask the same question a little differently:
Does Obama have enough support in the Senate for his plan? Last I knew, he didn’t unless things have changed.
William Jenkins, you used logic to speak with these brainwashed communists. They can’t think for themselves and your question has not been answered on move on, media matters, huff post or msnbc. Right now these commies are in marching orders against guns and against fiscal responsibility. If you opposed massive debt to be paid by your children, you are a right wing extremist. If you wish to own guns, you too are a right wing extremeist. If you disagree with the commie propaganda, you are a right wing extremist. To these nut jobs even Joe Liebermann was a right winged extremist. While i am here, how many of these commies are calling for David Gregory to be arrested and put in prison for his mandatory 1 year sentence for possessing a scary looking ammunition magazine in D.C.? Not one because laws dont apply to propaganda ministers of the Obama regime. You are wasting your time proposing logic to these people.
Let’s see what happens, Bill. It’s a very interesting situation. Becki and I have seen “Lincoln” twice now. Our best to you for the holidays. John
Mary. Please. I am begging you. If you’re going to troll, please do more than regurgitate what you hear on Fox. We can all watch Fox, and we really don’t need you to dumb it down for us. Thanks.
Diane- Have you ever read the book Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. Her premise is that in times of national “shock”, the government makes moves that they couldnt normally get away with because public attention is diverted. A little conspiratorial, but interesting example of something so outrageous as NDAA passing without barely being mentioned by the mainstream media.