October 19, 2017
Business Latest News | Poll Questions | Haunted Maine | Obamacare | National Anthem Protests

Comments for: Senate leaders to make last-ditch ‘fiscal cliff’ effort

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    I’m ready to help push it of the Fiscal Cliff.. The only I don’t play the market much so I’m not a bit worried where this is going… PUSH!!!!!!!

    • Anonymous

      If I push much harder I will make mud

  • Anonymous

    Why is this so difficult? Identify what the budget shortfall is and require that amount to be split between both parties – half come from tax increases/closure of loop holes and the other half from reductions in entitlement spending. Where is the President on this?

    • Anonymous

      He certainly isn’t going for that one! The entitlement spending will stop him dead in his tracks.

    • SemiRetired

      Obama wants the tax increases now and then he is willing to talk about entitlement reform. That is our great leader’s compromise.

  • Anonymous

    Now we hear about the major tax increases scheduled for the poor and middle class when for ten years all we heard was the tax cut for them was minimal.

    • SemiRetired

      Why don’t you do some reading on the subject – there are no major tax increases scheduled for the poor, NONE!

      • Anonymous

        By law unless it is changed there are large tax increases scheduled for next week. A family of four making $40,000 is scheduled for over a $4,000 tax increase. Maybe you can expand on your claim that there are no major tax increases scheduled for the poor.

        • Anonymous

          Thats 10%, I see only around 3-3.5% increase all over the news. Which would be around $1400

          • Anonymous

            The rest is hidden in credits. Child credit, EIC, 2% cut in FICA etc. A family of four making $40,000 paid $1924 in federal tax in 2001. in 2010 they paid no federal tax and received a check for $2,523 for a cut of $4,447. Some of that is due to indexing of the tax tables and increase in personal exemption amounts which will not expire next month.

          • Anonymous

            Gotcha

  • The Senate has already passed a bill that would preserve Bush tax cuts for those earning less than $250,000 a year.

    It is Republican House leaders that have refused to bring that bill to a vote.

    • Anonymous

      It’s refreshing to see that you’re so in support of tax cuts! Here in Maine Governor LePage must be delighted that you agree with his leadership.

      “One reason why is that while Democrats complained about tax cuts for the wealthy on the campaign trail — the state’s top income tax rate is falling from 8.5 percent to 7.95 percent — the law also includes tax breaks for lower-income Mainers. The lowest tax bracket, 2 percent, is eliminated entirely, dropping an estimated 70,000 people off the income tax rolls. Fresh off a difficult two years out of power, Democrats may be reluctant to restore those taxes.”

      http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/maine-tax-cuts-may-outlive-republican-rule-85899438172

    • SemiRetired

      Ah, now I get it, it’s all the fault of the republicans. Nicely stated Gerry, it is always the fault of the republicans, the democrats will do anything to get legislation passed including compromise and whatever it takes. It’s those damn republicans again.

  • Anonymous

    The House is a mess…Boehner is clearly not the man for the job…He needs to go back to sweeping the tavern……The majority of Americans favor increasing taxes to the Clinton era rates for those making over 250K (The top 2%)…And why do they keep calling something that comes out of my paycheck every week an entitlement…

    • SemiRetired

      I agree that Boehner is not the man for the job and neither is Pelosi, Reid or McConnell. May as well include Obama in there as well since he has let this get to where it is by not acting sooner. He was sooooo busy campaigning that the work of the people got put on hold for a year and now we are where we are. Any one that thinks this is just about republicans is not informed. Its about a dysfunctional and out of touch Congress that ignorant Americans keep sending back to Washington to do nothing.

      • Anonymous

        So true…They seem to think that only one side is at fault.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t care what side of the aisle any of these people are on. They look absolutely ridiculous and childish through these “negotiations”. They seem to forget that their job is to serve the American people and what is best for the people. Not to fulfill their own personal beliefs or agenda. Two major parties that refuse to work with one another = no progress.

  • Anonymous

    The Senate can pass what it wants, the House still won’t vote on it – – so it dies. The fact/point seems to be that the Speaker of the House will do anything or everything to make sure Mr. Obama gets credit for zilch. We’re in for another 4 years of locked up legislation. If you told your boss you didn’t do your job because “I didn’t feel like it” how long would you be employed?

    • Anonymous

      Would you deny Obama’s opposition the respect of their American opinion if the American people elected them to do so? Could it be possible that indeed there are actually Americans who disagree with Obama? When you feel threatened do you roll over, feet in the air and expose your belly?
      There’s a difference between castor oil and poison.

      • Anonymous

        Of course the opposition can do as they wish, within the law, they were elected to do what they do – I just don’t like it. It’s a free country is it not?

        • Anonymous

          The composition of your words “will do anything or everything to make sure Mr. Obama gets credit for zilch.” implied an opposition with malice to one rather than liberty for all.
          That said, yes indeed we are a free country for as long as we can keep it.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t hold any malice and don’t think it’s implied. You are free to read it as you wish.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe because the opposition did zilch during the first 2 years of Obama’s term to improve the economic prosperity of the country when they had a super majority.

    • Anonymous

      The President is not the ‘boss’ of the Speaker, who is the leader of an entirely separate branch of the government. The Founders set it up that way so that one branch could keep another from getting out of hand.

      • Anonymous

        I KNOW that, but that doesn’t mean I like the man.

        • Anonymous

          So what’s the ‘boss-employee’ business, then?

          • Anonymous

            I was using that as an example. It was to apply to people like us, not Congress and the Executive Branch.

  • SemiRetired

    Democrat Reid warned of tough talks.
    “It’s not easy, we’re dealing with big numbers, and some of that stuff we do is somewhat complicated,” he said.

    A quote by the Senate Majority leader and we wonder why we have problems with Congress. The man is truly stupid.

  • Anonymous

    When Bush wanted the tax cuts which included the middle class, the dems went nuts and didn’t want to give the middle class a cut. Now they are all for extending these cuts for just the middle class. Taxing just the rich will let all the libbers and marxists jump up and down and feel justified and good. Only thing, it don’t do one darn thing. Then when that tax isn’t enough for the hogs to spend, guess who is next. Meanwhile with the new EPA and other regulations, business will pass on the cost and we will pay more but it will not be a “tax”, just higher prices and it will be the fault f the terrible rich. Boy, do the sheep follow blindly. Then again, when most of the sheep ay nothing and do nothing but receive from what others work and give, what does one expect? To the cliff and over for all it matters anyway.Maybe if theire is less for the takers, they may have to get a job.

  • Anonymous

    The good ole debt ceiling continues to rise….Seems to be a few that could careless about it.

  • Anonymous

    Three words; CUT FOREIGN AID!!! I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m sick and tired of the U.S. being the welfare agency for the entire world. We’ve paid out untold billions, if not trillions, of taxpayer dollars to foreign countries over the past decades. ENOUGH ALREADY!!

  • Anonymous

    This whole “debate” is BS. Inequality in this country is at levels that rival the 1920’s, with the lion’s share of wealth, income and opportunity resting with the elites… The ONLY reason cuts to social programs are being talked about is because TAX CUTS and TAX BREAKS to the elites have starved govt of revenue. Tax rates are the lowest they have been for decades for this minority of Americans while they hold the largest share of income. They have no need for social programs being wealthy, selfishly refusing to, and legislating to not have to, contribute to the well being of those that find themselves without jobs, sick, poor, elderly and having nothing to live on. INEQUALITY in society creates the imbalance that we are seeing now with very, very wealthy people, a shrinking, struggling middle class, and a growing underclass of people.

    This “debate” is BS because the wealth of this country is flowing upwards, and has been for decades, to the top… We are the wealthiest society on earth, but the stingiest… There is NOT a shortage of funding available for SS or Medicare… There is not a crisis of debt and deficit, there is a lack of political will to create a fair society through LIVING WAGES, fair tax policy, Congress deciding whether wars are worth fighting and paying for instead of the “unitary executive,” (thanks Dubya), corporations that are not too big to be taxed, regulated properly, held responsible for criminal behavior in service of their bottom line and share price. There is plenty of money available to fund SS and Medicare… It is held by those that don’t care about those that survive by using SS or Medicare. The media corporations, and bought and paid for Congress serve the interests of the elites. The rest of us get to watch this BS theater…

    • Anonymous

      Bingo.

      Great post.

      Two corrupt political parties feeding at the CORPORATE trough.

      That’s damn right.

  • Anonymous

    It is unfortunate that the liberals and neo-cons have brought this government to this sorry state! Liberals are wrong in that they see no entitlement program or social-engineering program that they don’t like. Governing by emotion instead of intellect will lead to insolvency! Neo-cons bought into the false argument that long-term deficit spending is not harmful to the economy, and that all taxation is bad! Not to mention the desire to enter into every possible military situation possible. Afghanistan was right–Iraq was wrong! If we’re going to spend on either social programs or military action, we need to pay for it with current revenues! Why have we instead elected to pass this burden on to our kids’ generation? This is indicative of the lack of responsibility on the part of the baby boom generation, who has largely been responsible for this economic situation we are now in. Paleo-conservatives, for the most part, recognize the need for real fiscal responsibility. They tend to dislike excessive social programs and entitlement commitments, but recognize the need to fund them adequately and not use debt to pay for them. This is true conservativism–not the half-minded type espoused by the neo-cons from the GW Bush administration!

    • Anonymous

      Social programs that are paid for by payroll taxes are being starved because payrolls are shrinking and income is being disproportionately shifted away from labor toward capital. When the rich get richer and the poor poorer this is the result. SS and Medicare have been extremely successful programs and are extremely popular because they have done exactly what they were designed to do… keep the elderly and poor out of abject poverty which tends to drag society in general down. Cuts to these programs are unnecessary based on the arguments being now discussed. There is NO crisis with SS. The crisis with Medicare is due to rising health care costs. A Medicare for all program could help with that but there is no political will to do so in spite of a majority of Americans wanting such a system… in step with the rest of the advanced societies of the world. There is an argument to be made for EFFICIENT govt, but not for a “small” govt that doesn’t serve it’s citizens. Corporations whose size and power make them immune to govt oversight is as dangerous, if not MORE dangerous than fascist dictatorship. They will destroy, pillage, AND profit at will, and not for the benefit of PEOPLE and society.

      • Anonymous

        Social Security and Medicare have been successful, especially as the working population funding these programs has been proportionately larger than the group receiving these benefits. But as the baby boom generation retires, there will be proportionately fewer working people in the Gen-X and other later generations to continue funding these programs at the same rate. Also, with the increase in life expectancy, people will stay on these programs for more years. At some point, we need to look at means testing or extending the eligibility age for these benefits, in order to preserve them for future generations. The pay-as-you-go approach only works when you have continuously increasing population growth.
        Some corporations, unfortunately, are no longer the model of free enterprise that they once were. Many of the larger ones, such as GE, are quasi-bureaucracies that are not run by entrepreneurs, but by Ivy League-trained elitists. Many of these execs are in their current roles based upon their pedigree or family connections, rather than due to their own efforts in building the business. In spite of these things, I still believe that many private enterprises are still a more efficient vehicle for providing valuable services than the government is. The profit motive in a competition-driven economy is an efficiency driver, which government completely lacks. The question we need to address is how to reform corporations so that they promote and reward employees based upon effort and initiative, rather than upon political skills and family/social connections.

        • Anonymous

          Raising the eligibility age is not a good response. While life expectancy has risen, it has only done so significantly for the affluent; lower income people do not live significantly longer lives. My granddad would have died before claiming his SS benefits if the eligibility age were raised to 67, for instance. Raising the income cutoff would be more appropriate. But once again, SS is not in significant trouble. Medicare is because of out of control health care costs. Some services simply don’t respond to competitive market forces in the same way prices for washing machines or cars do… Health care is one of those things. To operate as if it does ends up being cruel, inefficient, unfair. A public option helps address the inequality and unfairness. Competitive markets work well in some things better than govt, but in other things are entirely inappropriate. One of the popular characteristics of Medicare is the EFFICIENCY of its single payer lack of confusion, cost savings from reduced admin costs, and standardization of benefits. Hospitals and physicians offices are caught in a swamp of different benefit packages, very inefficient and expensive to administer.

          • Anonymous

            I have little doubt that we’ll eventually end up with single-payer healthcare. The Obamacare plan’s impact on American businesses will undoubtedly leave these companies less competitive than their foreign counterparts, who don’t have to factor employees’ healthcare into their cost of doing business.

            Regarding Social Security, I do believe that it does face challenges in the coming years, as the number of people receiving payments from it outweigh the number paying into it. Although I do see some measure of means testing being implemented to limit the payout of benefits to the more affluent, by doing so you would politically either need to allow them to at least receive back what they’ve paid into the system, or we would need to drop the notion that Social Security is a retirement plan. For those who would not receive back what they’ve paid into it, due to income limitations, Social Security would then become merely another federal tax. Most of our politicians have been reluctant to make that leap in the past.

  • Anonymous

    They should ALL be LOCKED UP in a room, no food, no bathroom breaks, give them just WATER. When results are agreed… then let them out!

  • Anonymous

    I do get a chuckle, watching football, Fox sports casters manly kind of guys, yes Fox is Right Wing…. Then you got CBS sports today, Liberal and there guys are kind of danty, wimpy……Just Sayin…

You may also like