SHUTDOWN AVERTED: Lawmakers Reach Spending Deal

Business Insider ^ | 12/15/2011 | Zeke Miller

[SeekAndFind]

Congressional lawmakers reached an agreement late Thursday to avoid a government shutdown this weekend, Democratic and Republican leaders will push for a final vote on the $1 trillion spending bill on Friday morning — hours before much of the federal government would have been forced to turn out the lights.

The final bill removes several provisions of concern to President Barack Obama — including a measure to reinstate travel restrictions on Cuba, POLITICO reported. It also would ensure the Commodities Futures Trading Commission is fully funded next year.

But Democrats had to drop their opposition to a ban prohibiting the District of Columbia from funding abortions.

The bill does not include an extension of the payroll tax cut or of unemployment insurance benefits — both of which must be dealt with before the end of the year.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

More like Republicans have claimed that tax cuts are 'free', that they don't cost anything to anyone, that they never result in deficits, that tax cuts are good under ANY conditions even with increases in spending, and they repeated it so many times that they know if they try to press for real replacement of FICA funding that their past words will be thrown in their faces.

Of course taxes are just some of the components, and, as your remark explioans, it is foolish to talk about taxes as if they were "the only variables in the equation" (sorry if that sounds geeeky, that's the way I talk). I think there is a good argument to be made that higher taxes do not reduce the deficit unless the govt. spends money responsibly, and chances of that happening before everything falls apart? At least there is some relationship between "payroll taxes" and entitlement programs that already exist.

I have no confidence that raising income tax rates would lower deficits and borrowing. Hell, they are even spending the TARP money that some of the banks repaid. Irresponsible spending is poison whether taxes are high or low.

I agree that GOP characters have made statements that make "taxes" sound like a single entity. I don't know if that is what they really believed, but it does seem to give Obama and company a weapon.

You want to pay your "fair share" don't you?

[TomasUSMC]

Even cutting spending like the Pauls want to do, can’t make a dent against the kind of spending we are seeing now. My God, ONE TRILLION DOLLARS spent the other night. Just like that. I can’t believe anyone in our Government got a chance to read it all. What the hell was it ....a stop gap to plug the last stop gap? It waSN’T a budget. Oh believe me I wish it were.

I would be so happy to see a tiny one trillion dollar FY 2012 budget.

If the Congress continues to spend money like this, you may be picked up and detained by the Army for just saying the word “budget”..... INDEFINITLY.

[Munz]

I just remember that when they went to Martha’s vinyard that His wife and kids went on one plane, he went on another and the dog went on a third.

It was reported here on FR. I’m too sick to even try to dig it up right now. IF i remember in the next few days I will find it for you.

If you find it first let me know. So I don’t bother to look.

[Munz]

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/17/obamas-dog/

[dixiechick2000]

Thank you so much for the link!

I’ll file that under the category things that make you go hmmmm. lol

[Munz]

No problem. It may be just a one time thing. But I saw no reason for him not to put that small dog on one of the two planes.

I think that the family does travel with the dog now, but only because it made news. - Still i think he travels with the dog VERY infrequently.

[savedbygrace]

My effort was FAIL.

The reason: the way they calculate and the way they pay is wack. The calculations use the calendar year, as opposed to a one year time period. My benefits would start in April 2012, which results in 9 benefits months. But they calculate the entire year of income, resulting in “excess earnings” that exceed total benefits payments for 9 months,

The result: No SS benefits payments whatsoever.

But even for 2013, with payments beginning in January, the payments do not work the way I thought they would. Rather than subtracting 1/2 of excess earnings from total benefits for the year, dividing by 12, and sending the resulting amount each month, you get no benefit checks for almost an entire year, until the balance is at least one FULL benefit check.

So, I would receive one or two checks each year in December and maybe November.

Does that make sense?