We all have heard about the Fiscal Cliff for months, but there is no easy explanation of what it is! Most accounts agree that taxes on couples will not rise unless they are earning over $450,000 (median US income is about $50,000 now.) There will be some small increases in "payroll taxes," but those are estimated to be about 2% for most, or $2000 per $100,000.
Your assignment for this blog is two read two news articles (below):
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/politics/fiscal-cliff-5-things/index.html:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16334798-fiscal-cliff-deal-includes-at-least-679-billion-for-special-interests?lite
These are a brief CNN account (and you may look at the 45 second video clip), and an NBC view of what "special interests" received $ from the recent compromise deal between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House.
I urge you to discuss/ask about this topic with a parent. This stuff is not easy!! (but it is important)
Write your comment addressing one or more of the following.
1. Would you have voted for the bill or not (no fair picking pieces)? Why or why not?
2. Any special interests make you angry? Any that you support?
3. What else do you know about the "fiscal cliff" (any opinions?)
4. Does this change or add to your knowlege of this whole discussion? How?
Remember to post by 9pm Sunday, and 150-200 words is plenty. Proofread before you publish!!
1. If I were a member of Congress, I do not think that I would have voted for this specific bill, but since the lawmakers needed to get something done I would have voted in favor of this bill. With my political views in mind I would want more of a compromise from the other party.
ReplyDelete2. Something that makes me angry is that I do not understand why racing owners are getting their tax breaks extended. However, I do support the fact that taxes should go up on couples making more than $450,000, but I am annoyed that it took so much time to get a deal done.
3. I know that the fiscal cliff was an automatic decline in the budget deficit because of increased taxes and reduced spending. Democrats wanted couples that make around $200,000 to have a tax increase and republicans wanted couples making $ 1,000,000 or more to pay more taxes. I also know that the bill was signed in the final hours.
4. This did add more knowledge to the discussion because I knew more of the fiscal cliff in more simpler terms, but also knew what else the “fiscal cliff bill” changed or caused.
1. I agree with Menelik. I would have voted due to the deadline, but would want more work done rather than the bill at hand. The deal was too rushed, a last minute one that could have been planned out much better.
ReplyDelete2. I was really angry that they wasted a lot of time getting the deal done. If they had been more organized in the planning it would have been much better for both sides. I definitely do not like that tax breaks fro the racing owners were extended.
3. I knew pretty much what Menelik knew, that it was increased taxes and reduced government spending. Democrats wanted taxes from the couples making 200K but Republicans wanted only for couples making over 1000K.
4. I did learn more about the fiscal cliff and know more about what changes happened and what was this caused.
1)I would have voted yes to the bill. It needed to be done, and though it was certainly a compromise for both parties, it was primarily democratic. Every single Massachusetts congressman or woman voted yes (that I saw).
ReplyDelete2)I am very supportive of renewable energy. That's something we should have taken action on sooner, but the money was tight over the last couple of years what with war and debt etc. I'm glad we've finally directed some attention towards it. I agree with the people above about the race car track owners saving money. That seems a little big irrelevant and out of place. Why single them out? I'd like to get a little more information about that specific area of the bill. Also, why the Hollywood producers? I mean, it's fine with me if they get tax breaks, but what's the reason? It seems a little unclear.
3) It vexes me that the media basically took the liberty of exploiting (if not totally manufacturing) this term in order to create hype about the deadline. It may be unrelated to the actual issues within the fiscal cliff deadline debacle, but the media and the government should ignore each other and do their own jobs, or at least the media shouldn't pry into the government's affairs, unless you're Woodward and Bernstein, in which case, go ahead. I just think that the media should report the governments actions rather then pressuring them to meet a deadline.
It also angers me to know that there's three more of these cliffs coming up. I say that we should be aware of it, but not stress about it. We should be alert and not passively sit back and let the government make our decisions for us while we stand there oblivious, but half the people throwing this term around lately had no idea what it meant, and were stressing about it for the sake of sounding informed or simply from lack of something better to worry about. Yes, we need to be on top of what's happening in our country, but no, I really don't want to listen to more people whining about the Fiscal cliffs anymore! Let our government handle it. Sorry about ranting.
4) I actually didn't know much about the specifics of the fiscal cliff before reading these articles. It reminded me that it's very important to stay up to date with current events.
1) I would have voted in favor of the bill. Though reserving the belief (as mentioned in the first two comments), that the bill was far too rushed, I also maintain the belief that it was a necessary measure that needed to be taken by Congress, and in due time as well. I think that though the passing bill, is a compromise, with more time, could have been better organized so as to have a slightly more unanimous compromise between the houses, something which I believe to be important.
ReplyDelete2) I feel that the tax increase upon the top two percent is more or less reasonable, and therefore tolerable. As for giving a general tax break to hollywood producers, I agree that it is a bit unclear. The increase of taxes for race car track owners is both troubling and confusing to me; why raise it on race car track owners? It appears rather unfair, though is (in a way) partially replacing the decrease upon other areas of taxing, thus alleviating the whole "fiscal cliff" deal. Knowing that
Democrats wanted couples that make around $200,000 to have a tax increase whereas Republicans wanted those making $ 1,000,000 or more to have this increase, I think I would side with the Republicans.
4) I did not know much about fiscal cliffs before reading these articles. I learned a great deal, but I still don't think I quite understand the whole thing completely.
1. I would have voted yes for the bill, even though I don't think the bill (specifically) is the best, or most organized way to deal with this issue. But it is important to understand that congress was being rushed and passing the bill required compromise between the two houses.
ReplyDelete2. I am confused why there is a tax break for movie producers, because it seems sort of random, and there may be a better place to make this tax break. On the other hand, I am very supportive of renewable energy and I am glad that a tax credit for renewable energy is included in the bill. I am also supportive of taxes going up on couples making $450,000, or more.
1.I would have voted yes to this bill because it needed to be done no matter what. I do believe that it was rushed a lot also, just like what Julie had said. This bill needed to be more complete and include the other parties ideas also , just so they can come to an agreement. Overall I would have voted yes.
ReplyDelete3.I completely agree with Jenna with her last statement. It angers me how a few more of these cliffs coming up and the majority of the population will just sit back and let the Government take over and make the decisions for us. We need to be able to take be more aware and be more involved with the decisions the Government are making for us.
4. This did add more knowledge to the discussion because I always knew what the fiscal cliff was but, not a lot of detail so this really helped me understand a lot more details of the opinions and the time the bill was made.
1. Because the Country was in such dire need of a solution to the fiscal cliff problem, I would have voted for the bill. I would have liked for it to be more of what the Democrats wanted, but overall it was a good compromise.
ReplyDelete2. I am angry about the active financing income law because it seems stupid that the US treasury should have to pay for others' taxes. I think that the race car tax breaks are also pointless because that is not the biggest industry and they could use the money for other things.
3. I knew that the fiscal cliff was going to raise taxes on many middle income families and that it was also going to possibly plunge the country into another recession.
4. After reading these articles, I understand the changes made with the new bill and what the fiscal cliff could have done better.
1. I would have voted yes to the bill only because it had to be done and the time was significantly rushed. But, I think that this is an important issue and it could of been better to deal with this in a different and slower way where both parties agree.
ReplyDelete2. Something that makes me angry was seeing that racing owners get their tax breaks extended. What also makes me angry is how they dealt with this and how non organized it was.
The notion that these special interest tax credits are somehow unwholesome ungodly wastes is nonsensical. The government needs to bring in revenue in order for it to operate. Government brings in revenue in one big, important manner: they tax entities that can be found in that country. Most of these tax credits (The NASCAR one accepted) are to make sure that those people at whom the tax credits are aimed do better, so then they can be taxed more. Think of it as an investment by the government. The government ultimately has two goals: to make money so it can retain its solvency, and to see that its citizens make money and prosper. By giving a tax credit, the government is saying one of a few things. They could be saying:
ReplyDelete1: We think that by giving you, a corporation or individual, this money, we will help some group of individuals, because their salaries will go up, or you, the individual are receiving a tax credit, and so you will be better off. Then we, the government, can tax you under the normal tax laws and everybody makes some money.
2: We will give you, a corporation, some money, which will give you an incentive to stay in our country, thereby making people in our country more prosperous, because you will employ them and give them well-paying jobs.
3: We will give you, the individual, this tax break, because what you are doing is performing a valuable service to this country and its people, but you could easily be making more money doing something else. We are going to give you this money to make sure you keep doing what you're doing, and make life a little easier for you.
My problem with the CBS article is that it paints all of these (mostly intelligent and well-meaning) tax credits as all bad. Some of them are vital to our economy. Take for instance the tax breaks to the energy companies. It isn't particularly lucrative to be in wind or solar energy. You need a lot of equipment to get a fairly small amount of energy, that isn't all that reliable. However, the government has a goal that it wants to have more clean energy. So, the government pays the energy companies to keep producing this energy, on the theory that the process will get more efficient and the energy companies will start making money and therefore become taxable. The rationale behind these tax credits is solid, and I personally don't believe that the criticisms in the article are anything close to justified.
1. If the country was not in need of a solution immediately I would vote no on this bill. I would do this because I think this bill does not do enough for middle and lower class americans, but because America desperately needs a solution, I would vote yes on this bill. Although the bill does not do enough, it does do a good job of compromising Republican and Democrat beliefs. I think this is important because although I only support 1 party, the government was made to consider all parties that the population supports, so this is a major step forward.
ReplyDelete2. I really support the tax cuts on people who own electric cars. I think it is a great idea to reward people who are doing the right thing. The tax cuts I disagree with are the ones on movie directors. Movie directors make a ton of money, and they don't need any tax cuts.
1. I would have voted for the bill because if the bill didn’t pass, tax increases would have occurred for everyone, and spending cuts (cuts to programs) would have happened. If this happened, it would be bad for our country, our economy, and those in greatest need who rely on many of these programs. It would have also been bad for the middle class, whose taxes would have gone up. Personally I believe that the wealthiest is our country can afford to, and should, pay a little more in taxes like the President says. If the bill didn’t pass, 100% of the people would have had tax increases, whereas since the bill passed, only the wealthiest 1-2% of the people have to pay more taxes. Voting no would have been selfish, as well as very bad for our country.
ReplyDelete2. There are some types of tax credits I agree with, and others I do not. I support tax credits for renewable energy projects, because I think it is important for us to try to find new types of energy, and make things greener and less expensive, which is good for the economy. I also like the idea of incentivizing Hollywood to make movies in the U.S.. If movies are made in the U.S., it would be good for our economy, because more people would want to come to the places the movie was filmed, which would be in the U.S.. One thing I don’t agree with, is that I don’t think it’s fair that racetrack owners get to save $70 million in taxes. I also do understand the people that oppose tax credits, who think that at times like these we should all be doing our part to help our country decrease our debt.
3. The ‘fiscal cliff’ is frustrating because it was a risky situation for our country that was created by officials in Congress who couldn’t come together and compromise to help our country. Even though the vote avoided the ‘fiscal cliff’ by passing this bill, they still left many items unresolved, setting up even more ‘fiscal cliff’ type situations that will need to be addressed in the future. I find it frustrating that they wait to the last minute to get something done and then don’t even finish it.
1. I would have voted yes for the bill. I would have voted yes because the country couldn't afford to go into a recession. It is not certain we would have gone into a recession, but likely. The bill helped bail the united states economy.
ReplyDelete2. Something that upset my was the fact that it took essentially a year and a half for the government to get their act together and decide what they were going to do about the situation. The situation should have been dealt with much earlier than it was. Also, the government played with the economy of the united states and with peoples lives. That is completely unacceptable.
3. The fiscal cliff was bad for the united states. The country was beginning to head in a positive direction in terms of creating jobs and the economy. The fiscal cliff certainly did not help the situation. But, I am pleased with the bill and what it will help do. I am happy that it will not effect the middle class and even a large part of the lower/middle upper class. The bill will mainly effect the very wealthy.
1. I would have voted for the bill so that taxes wont go up for everyone. It is good for the middle class and our economy. If the bill didn't pass, everybody would have had tax increase. By voting for the bill, only the high middle and upper class will be affected, they can afford to pay higher taxes rather than having the lower class as well as everyone else to pay more. This may sound as if I don't care about the upper class and how it affects them all, but I believe that they will have an easier time with the tax increase than most others who are having a tough time making money.
ReplyDelete2. It angers me that this all is a bit abrupt and that it is all un organized. I feel as if it just came up and nobody has had much time to think about it all. They should have worked together and dealt with this in another way.
1. Yes, I would have voted for the bill. Not because I agree with most of the things that are in it, but because I know that it is better than the alternative. The alternative would have put many small businesses into bankruptcy. The bill will also slightly boost the economy, though they could have come to a much more successful deal in that sense.
ReplyDelete2. It upsets me for two reasons. One, because it took so long. They could have come up with a deal a long time ago. Two, they passed up an amazing chance to boost the economy. There are so many things that they could have done to make jobs and help small businesses, but they passed many of them up.
4. These articles were really helpful, I had been trying to gain a better understanding of the situation for a long time, but was always confused. I now understand it a lot better and am glad I read these articles.
As a member of congress, I would have voted in favor of this bill. With the fiscal cliff so near, it was necessary to compromise and form a short term solution to avoid an economic recession. Keep in mind, however, that there are three more fiscal cliffs on the horizon. This bill is only a quick fix to our problems. Congress has been dodging these issues for far to long, each group refusing to come to a compromise. It angers me that because of this, we were forced into a hasty and last minute bill. This situation could have been resolved long before its deadline.
ReplyDeleteIt also upsets me that racetrack owners and movie producers should receive tax breaks while other Americans pay. They are certainly included in the wealthy portion of our population, and I see no reason why they shouldn't receive tax increases. I agree with the tax breaks given to those who own electrical vehicles, because it draws attention to the importance of an environmentally friendly lifestyle.
In the best interest of our country and its citizens, congress needs to put aside their differences and come up with a long term solution to the looming fiscal cliffs. We don't have any more time to waste, and the United States cannot afford another recession.
1) If it weren't for the looming fiscal cliff and the spending cuts that would have kicked in, I would not have voted for the bill, but I do see this bill as a better alternative than the effects that the fiscal cliff. As Menelik said, with my general political views in mind, there should have been more of a compromise between the two sides.
ReplyDelete2) What bothers me most about this debacle is how much lawmakers kept waiting before getting a deal done, as the phrase "kicking the can down the road" would indicate. I also believe some of the people and organizations they are giving tax breaks too are ridiculous, such as the movie producers, as Charlotte mentioned.
To be honest, I didn't really understand much about the fiscal cliff before reading these articles, but I feel like I have a better understanding of the situation now. Armed with this information, I can probably make a few points about the topic if needed and have something to base my opinions on.
1. Yes, I would vote for the bill because if the bill didn't pass than the country would be in a huge economic crises. Even thought the bill wasn't completely thorough touching on the largest problems it's a good start to begin thinking about the next fiscal cliffs. For those next fiscal cliffs it's very important that both Democrats and Republicans work together so they don't put the country in ruins.
ReplyDelete2. I am glad that taxing America's 2% got into the bill because it takes off pressure for the middle class. The taxes on the middle class were one of the main goals for the bill and they didn't succeed in cutting that down, so I hope for the next fiscal cliff they get an agreement to cut those taxes. The worse thing about the bill was the cuts for race car drivers and Hollywood people because they aren't what our government should be focused on. The government should be more focused on all the American people and that's what I hope they prove in the future.
1. I would have voted for the bill. Even though the bill is far too rushed our economy is still in shambles and this could help prevent our fall into bankruptcy. Even though this bill is majorly Democratic, It seems that it is a some-what equal compromise.
ReplyDelete2. I support that the bill taxing families that make over $400,000 and individuals with an income over $450,000. It is better to tax wealthier families then to tax middle and lower class Americans. One thing I do fear that comes from this is that our idea of being "Rich" is continually shrinking. If our economy declines at this rate, in a hundred years our idea of "Rich" will become today's current middle income families.
ReplyDelete1.) I would have voted for the bill. First of all, if it was not passed, there would be a decrease in the amount of jobs at airports, which would increase the unemployment rate. This will also slow down transportation and force the people who could keep their jobs to work extra hours. In addition, 100 million people would have a delay in tax refunding and there would be many unexpected higher tax rates. The stock market had gone down 600 points and would have gone down hundreds more if the bill was not passed.
2.) I evaluate whether to give special interest groups tax breaks based upon what their alternatives are. The government should not give tax breaks to NASCAR because NASCAR is located and primarily based in America. Therefore they couldn't just relocate their entire operation to another country where they could race. On the other hand, I support giving a tax break to movie producers because if they do not get tax breaks they could end up producing their movies in other countries such as Canada where the tax for their industry is not as high. I also support solar energy tax breaks because in the long run it is better for the environment and reduces our dependency on oil.
In would have voted for the bill because there was little time to come to a better answer. One thing that angers me is that racing owners have an extended tax break because it makes little sense to me. This adds a lot of knowledge to my thoughts on the fiscal cliff because I only knew that the fiscal cliff had something to do with taxes but after reading these passages I learned much more about it.
ReplyDelete1) I would have voted for the bill even though it was only a temporary solution to our problems and not a great one either. If the bill was not passed, the world's economy would be in terrible shape and spending cuts would also be bad for the economy. Congress had a lot of time to figure this out, and while the bill fixes our problems for now, it doesn't do much in the long run although it is better than the alternative.
ReplyDelete1. I would have voted for the bill because the U.S. needs a solution in little time. Even though I don’t think that this does enough for the middle class, we still need a solution, and this is the only one at hand.
ReplyDelete2. I think that they did a bad job dealing with this, and I am confused with the tax asparagus growers because that just seems random. I think that the tax breaks for movie producers and race track owners don’t make any sense because they both tend to be really rich.
4. I knew almost nothing about the fiscal cliff before reading these articles, and I think that now I have the general idea of it.
1) I would have voted yes for the bill. Considering upper and middle class citizens make more money, I think it would make sense that they scarified to pay more for their taxes. It would also help lower class citizens. Instead of using the majority of their income to pay for taxes they can use it to help with their own personal situations. However, I do think that they should have thought this more through. Instead of coming to an agreement, it was rushed and they made their own decisions without contributing. But even if I think this, I would have voted yes.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) I would have voted yes for the bill. Although it didn't do much for the middle class, there was not enough time to come up with a solution that would fix every problem.
ReplyDelete2) As many of the people above said as well, some of the special interests seemed a little random and unnecessary. Renewable energy programs is an understandable one, but producing Hollywood movies and NASCAR racetracks are not as important as other, more vital, programs that deserve tax cuts. Just because someone can afford tax cuts, doesn't mean they deserve them.
4) The articles taught me a lot more about how congress works, specifically about special interests. It was interesting to read about how certain programs got tax cuts, although they seemed pretty unnecessary.
1. I would have voted yes to the bill just for the simple fact that it needed to be done and it was predicted to happen this year no matter how fast it was passed on. As said in the CNN report, most of the republicans opposed it which I am not surprised about considering it was going to be the opposite type of bill with Romney.
ReplyDelete2. I was disappointed and angry at the fact that the racing owner has their tax breaks extended but I was reasonable about it at the end. I do support the renewable energy even though it will cause some of the air pollution who cares; we will have to fix somehow anyways. We need to make money.
1.) If I was a member of I would have voted in favor of the bill. I do not agree with parts of it, but the alternative would have been much worse. Without some sort of compromise, the economy would go into a tail spin of sorts.
ReplyDelete2.) While I agree with some types of tax credits, there are many that I do not. I strongly believe that renewable energy is an incredibly important path to take. Reducing the environmental impact on energy is fundamental to making a better world, thus creating a better American economy. On the other side, I don’t agree that racetrack owners can save $70 million worth of taxes.
3.) An essential thing that I knew about the fiscal cliff was that it was practically a destined decline in the budget deficit because of increased taxes. These increased taxes increase the amount of money that the government receives.
4.) The included articles vastly increased my knowledge in the subject. Before reading them, I didn't know as much about the fiscal cliff and what it may bring.
1. Yes I would have voted for the bill because at some point the government needed to increase revenue. The trillions of dollars America owes to foreign countries are growing and it was necessary to increase taxes on the upper class. This is a tough bill to pass because approximately two percent of Americans are earning more than 450,000 dollars per year, and will inevitably cause discomfort to those who are paying thousands more in taxes than those in the middle and lower classes. The government has successfully passed this bill but their mission is not complete. The government has to focus on expense reductions, which also was addressed in January 1st’s congress meeting. Although the bill was delayed, the government is beginning to decrease the deficit by passing the bill to increase revenue.
ReplyDelete2. A special interest that makes me upset, but cannot be avoided is the fact that a substantial amount of the members in the upper class will have their income greatly decreased. This is a sacrifice that upper class citizens need to make and I support the president on his decision. America is in this together, and must work through the debt with each party making sacrifices to improve.
3. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, told MSNBC that the deal was "a big gift-wrapped present of certainty to the middle class." An opinion I have about this is I agree. The compromise of the fiscal cliff bill is a sign that the house of congress is beginning to meet in the middle, but they need to pass a bill that reduces expenses significantly. There is two ways to decrease the debt, to increase taxes, and to decrease spending. One party needs to make a sacrifice. Or America needs democrats and republicans in the house of congress who can appeal to both sides, or the debt will continue to grow.
4. No prior knowledge or opinion changed my view of the whole discussion. Through my discussion at the dinner table my opinion was set from the start and it has held throughout my research, the excess knowledge was irrelevant in my answers.
Voting favorably for the bill was the best decision just now. Americans are still reeling from four years of financial problems induced by the worst recession since the early twentieth century. The unemployment rate, already high, would have increased further, causing another recession. This bill only temporizes, however, as the mounting debt will only further grind the economy to a halt unless major efficiencies and cost reductions are attained. Things seem so desperate that a whole new way to run the economy must be considered. Removing entitlements and making government supported activities more efficient could help; however, even this seems like a Bandaid as such retrenchment only hurts the poor and disadvantaged and makes work less fulfilling and fun for those employed to supporting the programs. Something "quantum" must be done to permanently fix our fiscal woes without hurting so many people. An economy does not work if only the top 2% of the best and brightest are benefiting from it in a meaningful way!
ReplyDeleteOne option could be to revamp the currency; this would require support from all the other countries as so many of our world's economies are pegged to the dollar.
The President signing this bill did also gave an incentive to Americans to use more “green” sources of energy because of a special tax credit they would receive. While I disagree with a tax break for owners of racetracks, I must also take into account the collapse of an industry that brings money locally to the economy.
These articles really showed me the complexity of the problem. Money is like a river which feeds everything in its path. Modern capitalism can bring out efficiencies and the best in some, but often at the expense of others. Given that the "have-nots" may be as plentiful as or more plentiful than the "haves", limiting their buying power just weakens economic growth for everyone.
1) In someways I support the bill and in others I completely disagree with it. I would support it because the country has to come up with some ways to pay off the extreme debt our country is in right now. Taxing people seems like a logical way to cure the country of this issue. I support it because it isn't only taxing the wealthy people because most are CEO's and business owes and if they very taxed outrageously they wouldn't be able to hire more people and a ton of people in America are in desperate need of jobs at this moment. At the same time I don't support it because the middle class at this time is struggling and the need the most they can get out of their paychecks.
ReplyDelete2) Something that angers me is that racing track owners are getting their tax breaks extended. I don't understand why certain businesses and companies are getting "special attention" from the government.
4) I really didn't know much at all about the fiscal cliff before reading these articles. After reading these articles I discussed them with my parents and they helped me further develop my opinion in this topic. Since we are republican we generally feel the same way as the republicans.
1) If I had a choice to vote on this bill I think that in this specific situation I would have. I feel that there should have been more discussion about this topic, but with the amount of time that the congress had to decide I feel that I would have most definitely voted for this bill.
ReplyDelete2) I am angry about the time that it took to strike a deal between the two parties and that the racing owners are getting a tax break extension. I feel that decisions should have been made much earlier and that Racing owners should not get that type of advantage.
1) I would vote for this bill for two main reasons. The first reason I would vote for this bill is because like the majority of the class has already said, I would vote yes for this bill due to the deadline. The second reason is that it just seems like a logical plan. Raising taxes for the wealthy is a safe, and easy way to bring back some of the money to the government who are in deep debt.
ReplyDelete2) Something that makes me angry is that, why didn’t we raise taxes for the “wealthy” earlier. People who has an income at $400,000 and above make more money the most American citizens, but some do not pay the taxes at all. Middle class Americans who do pay taxes and don’t have as much money as the the Upper class citizens, yet they still have to pay more taxes than those citizens. How is that fair?