Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    1:54 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: The GOP Fiscal vote will be on Tuesday January 1,2013 Back to Topics
Cliffisher

Champion Author
Wisconsin

Posts:30,517
Points:3,771,550
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 6:40:58 PM

They are willing to let the country go over the so called "Fiscal Cliff" for one reason and one reason only.

The "Bush" tax cuts expire at midnight tonight.

The Stock Markets are closed tomorrow.

Tomorrow the Cons can vote to cut taxes and not upset Prime Minister Norquest.

[Edited by: Cliffisher at 12/31/2012 6:43:04 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 10:53:14 AM

Ok so this article you linked just proved what i was arguing. "Going over the cliff allows Congress to technically say that it isn’t raising taxes, but is cutting them instead. CBO’s score backs them up on this by scoring the Senate bill as a $3.6 trillion tax cut."

Im not arguing with you that vs 2012 it is a tax hike. Every one of my posts has said that exact same thing. But AT THE TIME the bill was passed it was technically a tax cut. So NOT unconstitutional.

Ok I have a question for you. If this was so unconstitutional why are the house republicans not doing their best to fight this new bill if they are so against it and if is is so unconstitutional?Also it seems your argument has changed from the senate adjourning is unconstitutional to just being a sleazy tactic. Sleazy does not equal unconstitutional.

MahopacJack-------"Sooooo......... Asking questions such as, "Are you saying Article I, Section 5.4 no longer exists? Or are you saying Article I, Section 5.4 does not apply? Or the House would not use its CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to call them back? Or the Senate would UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IGNORE ITS DUTY to reconvene?" is arguing?"Vs what you are saying now

"The Senate adjourned at 2:07 AM on January 2, 2013. The House was FORCED to deal with a very hot political issue. Either do nothing and be blamed by the Democrats for forcing a huge tax increase on the citizens. Or, try to make lemonade out out of a lemon by debating and passing a bill that was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Please note the time and day of the Senate adjournment. It was in the early morning hours of the LAST day of the 112th Congress. Forcing the Senate to return would be fruitless."

Which is essentially what I had already been arguing at the very start of this very pointless argument.

MP2-----"They adjourned for the evening. They dont need permission to do that. The house could still force the senate into session but that wouldnt go into effect until the next day after markets had opened."

[Edited by: michaelphoenix2 at 1/5/2013 10:55:03 AM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,879,490
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 10:32:24 AM

michaelphoenix2, >>Well at least you have abandoned the senate adjournment issue....<<
***
In what way have I abandoned the adjournment issue? The Senate adjourned at 2:07 AM on January 2, 2013. The House was FORCED to deal with a very hot political issue. Either do nothing and be blamed by the Democrats for forcing a huge tax increase on the citizens. Or, try to make lemonade out out of a lemon by debating and passing a bill that was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Please note the time and day of the Senate adjournment. It was in the early morning hours of the LAST day of the 112th Congress. Forcing the Senate to return would be fruitless. Whether or not you (and others who post here) realize it or not, the people were played by those who do control the government. Nothing much changed and we are all losers as a result of Congress's and the President's failure to address serious fiscal issues without resorting to political shenanigans.

Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,879,490
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 10:15:59 AM

michaelphoenix2, >>AS for the CBO, its an increase in taxes vs what it was last year. BUT it is a tax cut vs what it was when the bill was passed on Jan 1 after the fiscal cliff had passed.<<
***
Perhaps you should read another viewpoint? From the The Moral Liberal:

Here's an except from the article for those who are too lazy to click on a provided link, "Going over the cliff allows Congress to technically say that it isn’t raising taxes, but is cutting them instead. CBO’s score backs them up on this by scoring the Senate bill as a $3.6 trillion tax cut. No one should fall for this. The Senate bill is a tax hike because it allows taxes to go up from 2012 to 2013. The tax increases in the bill will reportedly raise about $600 billion over the next 10 years.

Also of note in the CBO score is that the Senate bill increases spending by around $330 billion by extending expanded unemployment benefits, a temporary “doc fix” patch to prevent cuts to Medicare, and extension of the agriculture programs.

There was some good in the Senate bill — the harmful defense sequester cuts were postponed and most tax hikes were avoided. But there was bad — tax hikes that will hurt the economy and do little to tame the deficit, especially factoring in the spending in the bill."
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 10:46:19 PM

Well at least you have abandoned the senate adjournment issue....

AS for the CBO, its an increase in taxes vs what it was last year. BUT it is a tax cut vs what it was when the bill was passed on Jan 1 after the fiscal cliff had passed.

Also about that whole tax cuts raise revenue thing..... google the CRS Tax report. The one the Republicans tried to squash. Its a nonpartisian tax report on the effect that tax rates have on revenue. Essentially what it said that there is no definitive proof that lowering tax rates increases revenue overall.

So again.... their bill never technically raised revenue it was a tax cut at the time of its passing.

[Edited by: michaelphoenix2 at 1/4/2013 10:48:52 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,879,490
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 10:17:17 PM

micaelphoenix2, >>And about the revenue raising, it was a tax cut. Taxes had already been raised due to the fiscal cliff. <<
***
Who shall I believe, you or the CBO who says the Senate Bill is an INCREASE IN TAXES of over $600,000,000?

It actually shouldn't matter even if they were cutting taxes as the bill involves raising revenue . As I stated before, more often than not, cutting taxes results in an increase of revenue through increased economic activity and the wealthy not seeking legal advice in avoiding the CONFISCATORY TAXES that are imposed upon them by an ever power hungry government and their jealous self serving supporters.

I know the self proclaimed elitists on the left say they would rather make everyone equal via redistribution but it is not how it works in the real world.
Profile Pic
florida1541
Veteran Author Columbus

Posts:399
Points:4,760
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 4:08:57 PM

the point is mute , they never called them back , and to say if they did is only wishful thinking
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 2:34:22 PM

The house NEVER CALLED THEM BACK.

If the house called them back and they said no, you would have an issue. Since they did not, you are attempting to simply paint the democrats as doing whatever they want.

And about the revenue raising, it was a tax cut. Taxes had already been raised due to the fiscal cliff.

Sometimes i think that the far right is intentionally obtuse just so they have something to rail about.

[Edited by: michaelphoenix2 at 1/4/2013 2:37:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,879,490
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 2:22:57 PM

michaelphoenix2, >>So i ask you what did they do that was unconstitutional?
The senate adjourned for the evening. The house could take up the senate measure or force the senate to reconvene to debate any amendments. they chose to take up the senate bill.

I need to ask again here. What was unconstitutional about any of that?<<
***
AGAIN:

From US Constitution Article I, Section 7, "7.1 All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."

Quoderate demonstrandum.

BTW, the Senate adjourned 2:07 am January 2, 2013. The day of the expiration of the 112th Congress. The Democrats not only violated the US Constitution but played the entire country for their political benefit. Too bad the Republicans did not pick up on this.
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 3:52:23 PM

They would have to allow a resonable amount of time for the senate to reconvene. The senate adjourned late in the day. The house can force them back into session yes. But there has to be a reasonable time allowed for them to get back into session. The house cannot just snap their fingers and have the senate magically appear. It doesnt work that way.
Profile Pic
florida1541
Veteran Author Columbus

Posts:399
Points:4,760
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 3:40:47 PM

and just because you interpet the article i section 5.4 to be as when they convine does not make it constational, i read it to say the house can call the senate back anytime not the next day as you implie
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 3:35:38 PM

Did the house ever try to compel the senate to reconvene? No
Did the senate refuse to reconvene? No

So i ask you what did they do that was unconstitutional?
The senate adjourned for the evening. The house could take up the senate measure or force the senate to reconvene to debate any amendments. they chose to take up the senate bill.

I need to ask again here. What was unconstitutional about any of that?
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,879,490
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 3:28:22 PM

michaelphoenix2, >>Look you can argue till your blue in the face about whether or not that you believe it is constitutional or not. But on the face of it the letter of the law was followed. You may not agree with it, your may argue with the reasoning, but at the end of the day they did not violate the constitution according to the strict interpretation of the law.

I've said this before on these boards. Just because YOU believe something is unconstitutional doesnt mean it is.<<
***
Sooooo......... Asking questions such as, "Are you saying Article I, Section 5.4 no longer exists? Or are you saying Article I, Section 5.4 does not apply? Or the House would not use its CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to call them back? Or the Senate would UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IGNORE ITS DUTY to reconvene?" is arguing? (another question.)

Are you having a bad day?
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,517
Points:3,771,550
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 2:54:35 PM

Someone misplace his VALIUM this morning?
lol
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 2:50:44 PM

Look you can argue till your blue in the face about whether or not that you believe it is constitutional or not. But on the face of it the letter of the law was followed. You may not agree with it, your may argue with the reasoning, but at the end of the day they did not violate the constitution according to the strict interpretation of the law.

I've said this before on these boards. Just because YOU believe something is unconstitutional doesnt mean it is.

[Edited by: michaelphoenix2 at 1/3/2013 2:55:35 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,879,490
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 2:50:13 PM

>>No i'm not agreeing with you<<
***
Good, this makes me more comfortable.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,879,490
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 2:48:50 PM

michaelphoenix2, >>... But they could not have done it until the next day. After which it would have been too late. <<
Are you saying Article I, Section 5.4 no longer exists? Or are you saying Article I, Section 5.4 does not apply? Or the House would not use its CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to call them back? Or the Senate would UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IGNORE ITS DUTY to reconvene?

Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,879,490
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 2:39:53 PM

michaelphoenix2, >>Note the part about raising revenue. This was technically a tax cut. <<
***
Sooooo.......... cutting taxes has absolutely nothing to to with raising revenue (a.k.a. TAXES)?

I know this may be a strange concept to most who do not follow human nature, but more often than not, cutting taxes INCREASES REVENUE. Many people can and do alter their normal lives to save on taxes. You, were you paying attention to the business news, had a number of companies (many of them with CEO's that are supporters of Obama) declare special year end 2012 dividends to AVOID the increase in taxes on the "the 1%' in 2013.

Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 2:34:19 PM

No i'm not agreeing with you. The house could have forced the senate back into session. But they could not have done it until the next day. After which it would have been too late.

You seem to be arguing that the senate needs permission from the house in order to adjourn. They don't. The house still has the power to recall the senate. Nothing done here was against the constitution.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,879,490
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 2:28:07 PM

michaelphoenix2, >>They adjourned for the evening. They dont need permission to do that. The house could still force the senate into session but that wouldnt go into effect until the next day after markets had opened.<<
***
Then you're in agreement that (from the post you challenged), "...The Senate was (or should have been) just a phone call away from DC. That is, IF THEY STILL FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION."

Perhaps I did not make myself clear that the Senate did not (or should not) have adjourned as Bell30012 (the poster to whom I was addressing) claimed they did.

Glad to see we finally can agree on something.
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 5:43:57 PM

@mahopacJack

"5.4 Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for MORE THAN THREE DAYS, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

They adjourned for the evening. They dont need permission to do that. The house could still force the senate into session but that wouldnt go into effect until the next day after markets had opened.

"7.1 All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."

Note the part about raising revenue. This was technically a tax cut. We had already gone over the fiscal cliff on midnight of the 1st. So briefly for one day all of the stuff in the fiscal cliff like take hikes on everyone went into effect. So there was nothing illegal there either.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,879,490
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 5:08:29 PM

Bell30012, >>The Fiscal Cliff had to be averted. The Republicans were in a bad position. They couldn't amend the bill and send it back to the Senate because the Senate had already adjourned....<<
***
Who are trying to dupe? The Senate was (or should have been) just a phone call away from DC. That is, IF THEY STILL FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

From Articl I:

5.4 Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

also from Articl I:

7.1 All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Once again, we have Congress refusing to be bound by their voluntary oaths.

From Articl VI:

3 The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,528
Points:692,630
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 2:23:36 PM

The Fiscal Cliff had to be averted. The Republicans were in a bad position. They couldn't amend the bill and send it back to the Senate because the Senate had already adjourned. They were faced with two options, vote for the bill as it was written or allow the taxes to go up on all the 53% that actually pay income taxes. It was a tough spot to be in, for sure. Now with other battles looming, namely the Sequester and the Debt Ceiling the Republicans may find themselves in a better negotiating position. Although the President says that he is not going to dance with the Republicans again on the debt ceiling. It will be interesting to see how he avoids that one.
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,819
Points:2,470,825
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 2:23:30 PM

nice link cliffisher... this link is so much more interesting from the wisconsin gasbuddy perspective... (NOT)...

Thanks Mudtoe. Appreciate the information. So we really have nothing to solve the deficit... just the same old rhetoric...

Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,065
Points:1,916,750
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 12:53:49 PM

florida: "i,m with mud on this one we need to know who the 85 are and hold them accountable in 2014 "


Here are the votes:


House Vote Tally

Senate Vote Tally


mudtoe
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,517
Points:3,771,550
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 12:09:14 PM

I was hoping that I was wrong and the Congress was more concerned about our country.

Nope!

I was correct in my Prime Minister Norquest ring kissing by the GOP post.

Now will the Congress start working for us or go into reelection mode?
Profile Pic
florida1541
Veteran Author Columbus

Posts:399
Points:4,760
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 10:39:45 AM

i,m with mud on this one we need to know who the 85 are and hold them accountable in 2014
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,879,490
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 10:28:31 AM

And the vote showed exactly how concerned most of our elected officials are in resolving the future of our children and grandchildren.

A short term victory for Obama and a long term loss for most of us.

At what point will WE insist the government control its wanton spending?

Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,237
Points:1,252,525
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 6:19:05 AM

Most of Michigan's GOP members of Congress voted for the bill. Link to news story with vote count.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,657
Points:2,866,205
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 11:38:33 PM

We need to hear from the 85 Republicans that sided with Obama and the takers of this country.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,538
Points:152,335
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 11:16:10 PM

Doubt any one that voted yes, voted to side with any takers, the future of the country and economy are at significant risk.perhaps Washington started working for the betterment of the country.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,657
Points:2,866,205
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 11:11:27 PM

>>GOP needs to vote "yes" and live to fight the next battle over spending cuts.<<

We need to make a list of the senators that sided with the takers of this country.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,657
Points:2,866,205
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 11:00:14 PM

We need to find out the names of every senator that voted to increase the size of our national debt.

Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,461
Points:3,837,770
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 9:27:44 PM

"Oh,yea and all of congress is getting a raise,"

No they aren't, that was cancelled at the last minute, even I know that and I am not even in the US!
Profile Pic
Nomofriggincube
Champion Author Miami

Posts:10,510
Points:2,036,935
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 8:54:39 PM

GOP needs to vote "yes" and live to fight the next battle over spending cuts.Markets open soon, and we must have a signed deal before.

[Edited by: Nomofriggincube at 1/1/2013 9:01:57 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,528
Points:692,630
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 8:20:24 PM

I called my Congressman today to express my objection to passing anything without spending cuts. His office gave the Washington Two Step. They are unsure of his stand until after they read the bill, etc, etc.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,065
Points:1,916,750
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 3:08:55 PM

EZ: "Obama praises this and with a straight face claims that this is finally a step towards reducing the deficit."



"Finally a step toward reducing the deficit" ROFL!
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,324
Points:2,357,510
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 1:49:08 PM

The senate passes a bill that increases taxes on people making more than 400K, 450K for married couples, increases unemployment benefits, and once again kicks the spending cuts can down the road.

Obama praises this and with a straight face claims that this is finally a step towards reducing the deficit.

Now I ask you all, how do you not make any cuts, increase government handouts and spending, and claim that this is a success? The "fiscal cliff" doesn't even do enough to straighten out this out-of-control spending spree. Will the house do what is good for the country and counter with mandatory spending cuts? or will they do only what is good for their Washington political status and rubber stamp this nonsense. Time will tell.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,879,490
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 1:12:30 PM

cliffisher, from your January 1, 2013 @ 7:50 AM post, >>The Senate voted today at 2:07 am.<<
***
If your headline is true, BOTH parties waited.

No matter what the outcome, NEITHER party will address the source of the problems and we will once again be going through this again come March when the Debt Ceiling come up.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,065
Points:1,916,750
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 12:45:00 PM

If my Republican Senator or Congressman votes yes on this, their opponent in the next primary will get my support and my money.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,517
Points:3,771,550
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 7:50:15 AM

The Senate voted today at 2:07 am.

Passed 89-8

The slime dogs made us wait until 2013.

" The measure is the first significant bipartisan tax increase since 1990, when former President George H.W. Bush violated his "read my lips" promise on taxes. It would raise an additional $620 billion over the coming decade when compared with revenues after tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, during the Bush administration. But because those policies expired at midnight Monday, the measure is officially scored as a whopping $3.9 trillion tax cut over the next decade."

All except the eight that voted no can continue to kneel down and kiss Norquest's ring.



[Edited by: Cliffisher at 1/1/2013 7:55:19 AM EST]
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,657
Points:2,866,205
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 7:01:46 PM

>>SO do the democrats not get to vote?<<

If only that were the case, ber5.
Profile Pic
ber5
All-Star Author Chicago

Posts:664
Points:132,445
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 6:50:09 PM

SO do the democrats not get to vote?

That doesn't seem fair...
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,517
Points:3,771,550
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 6:49:54 PM

From FoxNews.com,

"Senators edged closer to a potential deal Monday that could contain the damage from a looming wave of tax hikes, even as it became clear that Congress would likely miss a midnight deadline for action -- leaving taxpayers unsure about how much they'll be paying in 2013.

For the near-term, it appears a tax hike will technically go into effect on Jan. 1. The House is not expected to vote on the issue Monday night, and the Senate still has not produced a bill on which Congress could act.

But lawmakers were scrambling late in the day to come up with the framework for a deal that could patch up the problem and spare most Americans from any major hit, likely after the fact. A few Republicans expressed hope that the Senate could get the ball rolling with a vote late Monday. Of the looming tax hike, President Obama said: "Middle class families can't afford it, businesses can't afford it, our economy can't afford it."


[Edited by: Cliffisher at 12/31/2012 6:51:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 6:49:47 PM

it wont really matter if its tonight or tomorrow.... they can always to alter the law to apply retroactively. The markets are closed and any administrative portion of the cliff wouldnt realistically go into effect until federal employees came back from holiday.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,065
Points:1,916,750
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 6:49:45 PM

Obama's press conference today ensured that no deal will happen.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,517
Points:3,771,550
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 6:46:46 PM

Speedster, from ABC.com.


"Congress appears likely to miss a midnight deadline to avert the so-called fiscal cliff even as President Obama and Senate Republicans agreed in principle to avert year-end tax hikes on 98 percent of Americans.

Senators on both sides of the aisle continued to wrangle over fine print in the deal, delaying a vote in the chamber and consideration by the U.S. House, which adjourned for the night."



[Edited by: Cliffisher at 12/31/2012 6:48:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,657
Points:2,866,205
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 6:43:24 PM

You sure about that, Cliff? CNBC is reporting that there will be another vote tonight.
Post a reply Back to Topics