Most in U.S. won't be able to escape 'fiscal cliff'

WASHINGTON (AP) - Everyone who pays income tax - and some who don't -will feel it.
So will doctors who accept Medicare, people who get unemployment aid, defense contractors, air traffic controllers, national park rangers and companies that do research and development.
The package of tax increases and spending cuts known as the "fiscal cliff" takes effect in January unless Congress passes a budget deal by then. The economy would be hit so hard that it would likely sink into recession in the first half of 2013, economists say.
And no matter who you are, it will be all but impossible to avoid the pain.
Middle income families would have to pay an average of about $2,000 more next year, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has calculated.
Up to 3.4 million jobs would be lost, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. The unemployment rate would reach 9.1 percent from the current 7.9 percent. Stocks could plunge. The nonpartisan CBO estimates the total cost of the cliff in 2013 at $671 billion.
Collectively, the tax increases would be the steepest to hit Americans in 60 years when measured as a percentage of the economy.
"There would be a huge shock effect to the U.S. economy," says Mark Vitner, an economist at Wells Fargo.
Most of the damage - roughly two-thirds - would come from the tax increases. But the spending cuts would cause pain, too.
The bleak scenario could push the White House and Congress to reach a deal before year's end. On Tuesday, Congress returns for a post-election session that could last through Dec. 31. At a minimum, analysts say some temporary compromise might be reached, allowing a final deal to be cut early next year.
Still, uncertainty about a final deal could cause many companies to further delay hiring and spend less. Already, many U.S. companies say anxiety about the fiscal cliff has led them to put off plans to expand or hire.
A breakdown in negotiations could also ignite turmoil in financial markets, Vitner said. It could resemble the 700-point fall in the Dow Jones industrial average in 2008 after the House initially rejected the $700 billion bailout of major banks.
Since President Barack Obama's re-election, nervous investors have sold stocks. The Standard & Poor's 500 index sank 2.3 percent last week, its worst weekly drop since June. The sell-off resulted in part from anxiety over higher tax rates on investment gains once the fiscal cliff kicks in.
Last week, Obama said he was open to compromise with Republican leaders. But the White House said he would veto any bill that would extend tax cuts on income above $250,000.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner countered that higher tax rates on upper-income Americans would slow job growth. Boehner argued that any deal must reduce tax rates, eliminate special-interest loopholes and rein in government benefits.
More than 50 percent of the tax increases would come from the expiration of tax cuts approved in 2001 and 2003 and from additional tax cuts in a 2009 economic stimulus law.
The first set of tax cuts reduced rates on income, investment gains, dividends and estates. They also boosted tax credits for families with children. Deductions for married couples also rose. The 2009 measure increased tax credits for low-income earners and college students.
About 20 percent of the tax increase would come from the expiration of a Social Security tax cut enacted in 2010. This change would cost someone making $50,000 about $1,000 a year, or nearly $20 a week, and a household with two high-paid workers up to $4,500, or nearly $87 a week.
The end of the Social Security tax cut isn't technically among the changes triggered by the fiscal cliff. But because it expires at the same time, it's included in most calculations of the fiscal cliff's effects.
And it could catch many people by surprise.
"Every worker in America is going to see a reduction in their paycheck in the first pay period of 2013," Vitner noted.
An additional 20 percent of the tax increase would come from the end of about 80 tax breaks, mostly for businesses. One is a tax credit for research and development. Another lets companies deduct from their income half the cost of large equipment or machinery.
Mark Bakko, a Minneapolis accountant, says many mid-size companies he advises are holding off on equipment purchases or hiring until the fate of those tax breaks becomes clear. Bakko noted that the research and development credit typically lets a company that hired an engineer at a $100,000 salary cut its tax bill by $10,000. The credit has been routinely extended since the 1980s.
The rest of the tax increase would come mainly from the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. It would hit 30 million Americans, up from 4 million now.
The costly AMT was designed to prevent rich people from exploiting loopholes and deductions to avoid any income tax. But the AMT wasn't indexed for inflation, so it's increasingly threatened middle-income taxpayers. Congress has acted each year to prevent the AMT from hitting many more people.
Under the fiscal cliff, households in the lowest 20 percent of earners would pay an average of $412 more, the Tax Policy Center calculates. The top 20 percent would pay an average $14,000 more, the top 1 percent $121,000 more.
All this would lead many consumers to spend less. Anticipating reduced sales and profits, businesses would likely cut jobs. Others would delay hiring.
Another part of the cliff is a package of across-the-board spending cuts to defense and domestic programs - cuts the CBO says would total about $85 billion. Congress and the Obama administration agreed last year that these cuts would kick in if a congressional panel couldn't agree on a deficit-reduction plan. The magnitude of the cuts was intended to force agreement. It didn't.
Defense spending would shrink 10 percent. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said those cuts would cause temporary job losses among civilian Pentagon employees and major defense contractors. Spending on weapons programs would be cut.
For domestic programs, like highway funding, aid to state and local governments and health research, spending would drop about 8 percent. Education grants to states and localities; the FBI and other law enforcement; environmental protection; and air traffic controllers, among others, would also be affected, the White House says.
Hospitals and doctors' offices could also cut jobs if an $11 billion cut in Medicare payments isn't reversed.
Extended unemployment benefits for about 2 million people would end. The extra benefits provide up to 73 weeks of aid.
"It would be nice if we could ... address these issues before the very last moment," said Donald Marron, the Tax Policy Center's director.
So will doctors who accept Medicare, people who get unemployment aid, defense contractors, air traffic controllers, national park rangers and companies that do research and development.
The package of tax increases and spending cuts known as the "fiscal cliff" takes effect in January unless Congress passes a budget deal by then. The economy would be hit so hard that it would likely sink into recession in the first half of 2013, economists say.
And no matter who you are, it will be all but impossible to avoid the pain.
Middle income families would have to pay an average of about $2,000 more next year, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has calculated.
Up to 3.4 million jobs would be lost, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. The unemployment rate would reach 9.1 percent from the current 7.9 percent. Stocks could plunge. The nonpartisan CBO estimates the total cost of the cliff in 2013 at $671 billion.
Collectively, the tax increases would be the steepest to hit Americans in 60 years when measured as a percentage of the economy.
"There would be a huge shock effect to the U.S. economy," says Mark Vitner, an economist at Wells Fargo.
Most of the damage - roughly two-thirds - would come from the tax increases. But the spending cuts would cause pain, too.
The bleak scenario could push the White House and Congress to reach a deal before year's end. On Tuesday, Congress returns for a post-election session that could last through Dec. 31. At a minimum, analysts say some temporary compromise might be reached, allowing a final deal to be cut early next year.
Still, uncertainty about a final deal could cause many companies to further delay hiring and spend less. Already, many U.S. companies say anxiety about the fiscal cliff has led them to put off plans to expand or hire.
A breakdown in negotiations could also ignite turmoil in financial markets, Vitner said. It could resemble the 700-point fall in the Dow Jones industrial average in 2008 after the House initially rejected the $700 billion bailout of major banks.
Since President Barack Obama's re-election, nervous investors have sold stocks. The Standard & Poor's 500 index sank 2.3 percent last week, its worst weekly drop since June. The sell-off resulted in part from anxiety over higher tax rates on investment gains once the fiscal cliff kicks in.
Last week, Obama said he was open to compromise with Republican leaders. But the White House said he would veto any bill that would extend tax cuts on income above $250,000.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner countered that higher tax rates on upper-income Americans would slow job growth. Boehner argued that any deal must reduce tax rates, eliminate special-interest loopholes and rein in government benefits.
More than 50 percent of the tax increases would come from the expiration of tax cuts approved in 2001 and 2003 and from additional tax cuts in a 2009 economic stimulus law.
The first set of tax cuts reduced rates on income, investment gains, dividends and estates. They also boosted tax credits for families with children. Deductions for married couples also rose. The 2009 measure increased tax credits for low-income earners and college students.
About 20 percent of the tax increase would come from the expiration of a Social Security tax cut enacted in 2010. This change would cost someone making $50,000 about $1,000 a year, or nearly $20 a week, and a household with two high-paid workers up to $4,500, or nearly $87 a week.
The end of the Social Security tax cut isn't technically among the changes triggered by the fiscal cliff. But because it expires at the same time, it's included in most calculations of the fiscal cliff's effects.
And it could catch many people by surprise.
"Every worker in America is going to see a reduction in their paycheck in the first pay period of 2013," Vitner noted.
An additional 20 percent of the tax increase would come from the end of about 80 tax breaks, mostly for businesses. One is a tax credit for research and development. Another lets companies deduct from their income half the cost of large equipment or machinery.
Mark Bakko, a Minneapolis accountant, says many mid-size companies he advises are holding off on equipment purchases or hiring until the fate of those tax breaks becomes clear. Bakko noted that the research and development credit typically lets a company that hired an engineer at a $100,000 salary cut its tax bill by $10,000. The credit has been routinely extended since the 1980s.
The rest of the tax increase would come mainly from the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. It would hit 30 million Americans, up from 4 million now.
The costly AMT was designed to prevent rich people from exploiting loopholes and deductions to avoid any income tax. But the AMT wasn't indexed for inflation, so it's increasingly threatened middle-income taxpayers. Congress has acted each year to prevent the AMT from hitting many more people.
Under the fiscal cliff, households in the lowest 20 percent of earners would pay an average of $412 more, the Tax Policy Center calculates. The top 20 percent would pay an average $14,000 more, the top 1 percent $121,000 more.
All this would lead many consumers to spend less. Anticipating reduced sales and profits, businesses would likely cut jobs. Others would delay hiring.
Another part of the cliff is a package of across-the-board spending cuts to defense and domestic programs - cuts the CBO says would total about $85 billion. Congress and the Obama administration agreed last year that these cuts would kick in if a congressional panel couldn't agree on a deficit-reduction plan. The magnitude of the cuts was intended to force agreement. It didn't.
Defense spending would shrink 10 percent. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said those cuts would cause temporary job losses among civilian Pentagon employees and major defense contractors. Spending on weapons programs would be cut.
For domestic programs, like highway funding, aid to state and local governments and health research, spending would drop about 8 percent. Education grants to states and localities; the FBI and other law enforcement; environmental protection; and air traffic controllers, among others, would also be affected, the White House says.
Hospitals and doctors' offices could also cut jobs if an $11 billion cut in Medicare payments isn't reversed.
Extended unemployment benefits for about 2 million people would end. The extra benefits provide up to 73 weeks of aid.
"It would be nice if we could ... address these issues before the very last moment," said Donald Marron, the Tax Policy Center's director.
The 'fiscal cliff' that the media keeps harping on over and over again is simply reality creeping back into the Federal budget.Â
Â
The fact of the matter is that this countries current economic 'plan' is unsustainable. The other reality is that many of the dread 'cuts' or 'tax increases' that every media outlet keeps harping on are not actual 'cuts' OR 'tax increases'. They are, in fact, reductions in the presumed cost increases (military/defense), and a return to tax rates that existed prior to the GW Bush 'stimulus' that got him elected in '00.Â
Â
Frankly, rather than hand my kids and grandkids hundreds of trillions in debt, I'd gladly take a $5000/year increase in taxes. So long as there is an accompanying decrease in spending, and a similar increase in taxation rates for everyone else (including Grover Norquists bankers)
I say "RECALL" now before it's to late!
Is it the "fiscal cliff" causing 20 states to want to secede from the union or the fear of another 4 years of this?
Â
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/budget-deficit-rises-120-billion-october-190237736--business.html
Â
or this?
Â
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/obama-win-is-constitutions-loss/
Â
or (as expected) this?
Â
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/putin-obama-plans-visit-russia_663287.html
Â
Â
@TimBurr now, when people (talk radio) say "states want to secede from the union," do you mean the actual government and populace of the state, or just a bunch of people who signed petitions?
 @Playanekes  @TimBurr Groups in 23 states. It is a message if anything else.
Â
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/12/petitions-to-secede-are-filed-for-23-states-since-/
 @Playanekes  @TimBurr Now we are up to 50 states and I wouldn't call it symbolic.
Â
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/14/white-house-secede-petitions-reach-660000-signatures-50-state-participation/
@TimBurr I agree with that. It's symbolic the way the Tea Party was before it was hijacked by the Republicans.
When one studies the Past democracies of the past you find a pattern, and the USA is no different, they all begin with a seal for God, and then end up in ruin for thinking about nothing but themselves....It goes something like this ....for all Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess's from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years....So with saying this .......With this last election.....America ...your time in the sun....is almost over....and the people are to blame!
 @shadowwalker Prof. Tytler was definately a man with an abundance of wisdom about the nature of people. Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with his statement.Â
Â
>'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years'
Â
I would only offer an ammendment to that statement. The worlds greatest 'democratic' civilizations. Many authoritarian forms of civilizations have lasted longer (perhaps there's a lesson in that somewhere?)
@shadowwalker why...are you misusing...ellipses...?
@Playanekes , I am sorry I know the rules that Some modern styles do not call for ellipses at the beginning and ending of quoted matter unless not doing so would be genuinely misleading....But this darn laptop I have only prints the coma 1/3 of the time so i try not to cram everything together-so .....come in good fro time to time, I must admit your a smart cookie for catching that...good job!
Is it the "fiscal cliff" causing the stock market to fall or capitalists scared shazitless over another 4 years of bass ackwards socialist Obamanomics?
Who is the head liberal going to blame now?, since he's been in charge for the last 3+ years. The best part of his second chance is that he won't be able to blame whitey [Bush] for anything form now on. Will he pull out his shiny new 'playbook' that he flashed around during his last show? Or will he just fall back on his only option, blame the congress. Which only adds strength to the belief that Obama is nothing more than an empty suit. Â
'The economy would be hit so hard that it would likely sink into recession in the first half of 2013.' No, how about the whole of 2013? But just wait until 2014. Then the fun really begins.
Raise them already. If you are wealthy and haven't made buckets of money in the last 10 years you don't deserve to be rich. If you did make buckets of money and are upset about the rates going up then just open another account in the Cayman Islands.Â
All of this has been mentioned all through the campaigns. Obama and Biden both kept saying over and over that the tax breaks needed to expire. It was a classic magicians trick. They would say the breaks needed to expire in a soft and not so firm voice, then their next statement was we need to RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH. So, while the left hand was signalling for more taxes on the rich, exciting the liberals, the right hand was raising the taxes paid by the middle class. Obama is a great speaker. He has a way of telling you what he is going to do, telling you to bend over and take it, and making it seem like it will be the best experience you ever had. I never was one to feed into the bullcrap lines given by most men and I didn't fall for Obama's line either. Liberal/Democrats, you love this president and voted him in, now sleep in the bed you made.
Fact is no matter who you voted in, Romney or Obama, we still would have gotten bent over. The frustration comes when people said things like "voting for the better of two evils". While I do think Romney wouldn't have been as bad as Obama in some cases, he would have done more then likely the same things. Meanwhile people like Gary Johnson who want to cut the government by 40-50%, Get rid of the Feds involvement in our personal manners and bring our soldiers home among many other things that people have stated a million times, as wanting to be done couldn't manage to get peoples votes because they're to consumed with the popular choice and lack of millions of dollars in campaign funds.So really we are in the situation we are in now because people don't educate themselves on the facts or pay attention to the other options. But at the same time, I'm happy people voted for who they wanted to vote for because one day, if we keep going this direction we wont be afford the luxury.
A 10% defense spending cut? That's it? Time to end these ridiculous wars of nothing, time to slash the miltiary budget by about 80%. Time to end the TSA and force the airlines to provide their own security. There are a ton of places that can get cut that would make a bigger difference that the current proposed plan.
If the U.S is facing a fiscal cliff, I guess we are the Lemmings.
The potential job loss due to Obamacare will vastly overshadow the "fiscal cliff" effects on our economy.
 @TimBurr Expect more and more swat teams to accompany evictions, more cops on the streets citing people for anything & everything. They'll find revenue somehow.
 @Jamie Luckily gun sales are at an all time high in order to counter any future tyranny.
@TimBurr @Jamie everybody run around like little girls with their panties in a bunch screaming in fear. That's EXACTLY how Rosie the Riveter and the US service men defeated the Japanese and the Germans. All of these crybaby We Can't Do It hand-wringing cowards are wasting American air.
Don't believe the liberal clowns that say all we need to do is tax the rich. The fact is if you take EVERY penny that the rich make, it would only fund the government for a matter of days. What needs to happen is we need to cut the majority of moochers and parasites and welfare thieves off of the government nipple. We producers are no longer going to support the moochers of society. Â
@last boyscout who said "all we need to do is tax the rich." Did somebody actually say that or is your side just putting words in their mouths?
Hey, glad to see you're back (seriously).
Â
If you can put down Atlas Shrugged for a minute, can you tell me in actual terms just who are these "moochers" driving us into debt?
Â
Are they companies like GE, BofA, and Boeing with their negative tax bills?
Are they the 35,000 people with $250,000+ incomes who joined the 47% by zeroing out their tax bills with loopholes?
Are they the seniors and disabled living off of Social Security?
Are they the defense contractors who benefit from us spending more on the military than the next 20 countries combined?
Are they the unemployed?
Are they set of people who maintain investments in the Cayman Islands?
Â
 @Max Quinn @last boyscout  While I don't "know" what Last Boyscout meant exactly, I think he said the (my paraphrase) people that are theives and frauds on government assistance (safety net) . . .  I see people that don't work that are happy on stamps, and disability, and not looking for work.  [I've actually been saddled with tennants that did that, so I've seen it up close.]Â
Â
The groups of people that you highlight (not including your unemployed and SS groups) are people that are using the tax code or other government programs to their benefit.   Without proof to the contrary, I assume those are legal.
Â
Both of you are right. Both messes need cleaned up.  No question about it.  Buffett, Obama, Romney, Clinton, and many others have invested offshore and benefited from tax favored treatment. Â
Â
It's not just R's or D's but people that have the drive and vision to see how to extract a $ out of a 'rock'.  Where did the Kennedy $ come from? Some of those activities are no longer legal today. Â
Â
The point being, if we don't like it, we need to get busy and fix it - those that suckle from the government teets whether it is from what we view as taking advantage of the safety nets or the tax advantage giveaway.  Â
Â
You're both right.  We need to work on both. Â
More government money goes to welfare and social programs than all of the above combined.   Â
@MrAchilles We just gave one company $800,000,000 to refurbish Navy buildings, and another to do the same. Several hundred million (just this summer) to develop a missile-loading system for the F-35. The Navy, which is populated with real men, can load them by hand. $100,000,000 to one company for "Egyptian staff support services." This is just for the last quarter, and I have about five printed pages of these. It's mind blowing. I'm a conservative patriot, but, wow. I could not believe my eyes.
 @MrAchilles Nope. 12% of the budget goes towards welfare and social programs (this number includes extended unemployment benefits, which I included above). I didn't include Medicare and Medicaid in the list. They take about 22%.
Â
24% goes to defense. 22% goes to Social Security. Add in the tax cuts and payouts to GE and the like and it's a bigger number than welfare by far.
Â
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_fy13bs12012n_1014128040#usgs302
All the Republicans have to do is allow the marginal tax rate for people making more than $250,000 to rise from 35% to 39% (where they were during the Clinton years). Is that really a cliff?
We are here because the Republicans would not do that. Obama handed them spending cuts and all the other Bush tax cuts, but they would not compromise at all.
Yep, it's going to hurt. Â They're going to give it to us "Deliverance" style.
Â
Â
@negativerep Squeal like a pig!
@Dirtman Or a small monkey...
Wow ! AP (and Christopher) in this article actually give you the numbers to point to over 22 million unemployed . . . . Â
I would like to personally thank everyone who voted for Obama. Thanks to you, I will have less money with which to afford luxuries like a place to live, food, electricity, etc. When Obamacare takes full effect, I will have even less. Yes, folks, it's great to live in the USSR.
@theprodigal I didn't vote for 0bama either, but, USSR? I really, really wish American conservative men would act like it, and quit bawling and throwing tantrums like a bunch of hysterical snot-nosed brats. FFS, my grandparents, The Last Real Republicans, would be disgusted by it.
 @Playanekes  @theprodigal Yes, the USSR.  We are headed for socialism.  Think I'm off my rocker?  On Saturday, I was speaking with an older lady from Croatia and she agreed with me.
 @theprodigal Yep, Obama was/is a bad business decision!  I don't know how people don't understand this!
I'm getting really, really, really, really exhausted with the expression "fiscal cliff."Â Pick a new phrase so it doesn't sound like the entire freaking media is plagiarizing itself, or that the politicians are trying to keep us biting our finger nails.
Â
I feel sorry for the people making over $250,000 a year. The entire process is hung up over that, and our country is broke, but, it sucks to be them. They might not be able to afford new smart phones, iPods AND Xboxes for their kids' Christmas this year. It's tragical.
Â
Of course, the young soldiers I've met with traumatic brain injuries and other disabilities will likely never make $250,000 per year in their lives (today's standard). Even though they'll make on average a fraction of that, that $2,000 isn't going to hurt them as much because, like my grandfather, they learned the value of freedom by earning it.  "You eat it. They're paying for it." - Gunnery Sgt Hartman.
 @PlayanekesÂ
It's not so much that they want to increase taxes on the rich, it's that they are pushing it real hard because government can't live within it's means. So they go after anything that increases tax revenue.
@RalphCramden "they," to me, includes plenty of Republicans bringing pork and corruption to Washington as well. Personally, I don't think the tax revenue would make that much more of a difference but you can't believe anybody's math.
 @Playanekes Â
The rich just move their money to another country like the French are doing and the UK money drain. All the rich folks have left Greece.
Â
In this day and age it is so easy to move out of one country and move into another and still keep citizenship of the original country.Â
Welcome to the land of "our corrupt politicians have sold you out sucker". It is best to distance yourself as best as you can from the succubus.
No matter what our worthless politicians do there will be a fiscal cliff in our near future. We can deal with it now, or we can deal with it once the money runs out. But we will have to deal with it.
Â
0bamacare will be the biggest issue no matter what happens. Already companies are making plans to cut back hours to get under the 30 hour per week requirement for health insurance. Providence health in Oregon is doing that and already put that into effect. Part time people cannot work over 30 hours.
Â
Other companies are cutting back hours on full time people to get under the 30 hour limit in 0bamacare. This will make those affected pay the penalty or get private insurance. Making less money means that they will be less likely to afford it. So instead of covering more people there will be less people with insurance.
Â
Only government could come up with a stupid plan like 0bamacare.
Â
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/111212-633194-workers-to-lose-hours-under-obamacare-mandate.htm
Â
Â
 @RalphCramden FYI. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49802535
 @SaltireÂ
One of my college buddies. Very smart and very eccentric. Don't underestimate him. He does market analysis from comparing history and economics and knowing that history repeats itself over and over. He is right most of the time and will be right on this one. Where we disagree is how long it will last. I say we won't come out of it and he says we will but not with a big comeback.
Â
We have a bet on who is right.
Â
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/10/michael-belkin-predicts-40-stock-market-drop/
 @RalphCramden What better way to spread the wealth in an communist country that doesn't have enough jobs than to share jobs between 2 or 3 people?  Welcome to the CRNA (Communist Republic of North America) (c)
Â
Thanks to those of you that put this fraud in office for another four years! Now we will all pay the price for your folly!
 @Freedom1267 We are going to pay, and it doesn't matter who is President. We will either pay now, or pay even more later. But, IMHO, I am not sure any of the politicians "get it".  I think they are going to try and kick the can down the road a little further.
Â
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-usa-economy-budget-idUSBRE8AC10320121113
 @Freedom1267 Because we all know that Romney would have made it better. For the wealthy. Oh, I forgot. He is/was/??? a universal health care man himself.
Â
Everybody who voted (R) or (D) put these frauds in office. All of them. And if you want to start drawing a circle around the problem, take a look at how many of our recent Presidents and candidates went to Harvard. One wonders if they even -teach- fiscal responsibility there.
@Playanekes @Freedom1267Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "One wonders if they even -teach- fiscal responsibility there."Â Â Â
Â
Interesting thought.  Consider that most of these 'people' are lawyers they have long since learned if they need $$ all they have to do is to chase ambulances or start an arguement (suit).   They all know how to talk and write in terms so as to have plenty of 'outs'.  They never really cut a deal, they leave their hooks in to do more work.Â