Due to the fiscal cliff......

[Value Buy]

AND the election results, my wife and I have now cashed in $75,000 of U.S. Savings Bonds this month.
I will admit, the wife is not as vocal on this issue as I was, but agreed to the cashing in of the bonds at this time.
Two reasons.
The election of the President.
The fiscal cliff and what may happen to earned interest after taxes are raised next year.
(the fiscal cliff and rising tax rate we may face, pushed my wife to the sell decision)
I refuse to any longer support this government and it's wayward spending policies with a loan from me.

We do have another $35,000 in bonds that will be cashed in after the first of the year, but due to some bonds actually earning almost decent interest rates and personal economic issues and plans, I cannot cash in just yet......
I urge other taxpayers to do the same, and cash in this year.

Most of the proceeds purchased physical silver.
As some of you may know, we liquidated most stock positions earlier this summer and fall, due to European financial concerns affecting our markets in a huge negative way, so this administration will be getting some capital gains taxes this spring, but squat from us for a few years after that.
You can bet there are many taxpayers out there selling this year, so they pay the lower rate now, rather than higher rate in 2014.
Look for huge amounts of money going to the Treasury in April 2012, but capital gains revenue crashing in 2013.

A side note, you might want too check any Savings bonds you have stored away, Some may not be paying any interest, as they have matured. You may want to check your bonds, and cash them in now since you have money just sitting there for the Government to use for free, without any benefit to you.
Of course if you are a true Democrat, and believe in big Government deficits, just leave them there for the Government

[Deleted]

What were the bonds paying?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

As far as I understand, interest income is taxed at the receivers marginal rate. There was no special lower tax rate for interest.

Does not seem like cashing in these bonds did anything for you.

[billisonboard]

Nov 27, 2012 10:18:37 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

...
I will admit, the wife is not as vocal on this issue as I was, but agreed to the cashing in of the bonds at this time.
Two reasons.
...

One is clear. What was the second reason she agreed?

[Gardening Grandma]

We don't have any savings bonds (the interest is not worth the effort).

Slightly increased our equities allocation after the election when the market went down sharply.

Not making any other changes based on "the sky is falling" predictions. Worst case scenario would be a repeat of 2008 which we survived without selling and taking a loss.

I actually expect a deal and the market responding with a rise. The Republicans have more to lose (their sacred defense spending) than the Democrats (just let the tax cuts expire then write a new bill in Jan)

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Not making any other changes based on "the sky is falling" predictions. Worst case scenario would be a repeat of 2008 which we survived without selling and taking a loss.

I am staying on the course myself...keeping with the plan and allocation.


I actually expect a deal and the market responding with a rise. The Republicans have more to lose (their sacred defense spending) than the Democrats (just let the tax cuts expire then write a new bill in Jan)

Defense spending employs 100s of thousands of workers in very good paying jobs. Rhode Island has yet recovered from when the Navy pulled out in the early 70s.

[Value Buy]

Nov 27, 2012 10:28:22 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

As far as I understand, interest income is taxed at the receivers marginal rate. There was no special lower tax rate for interest.
Does not seem like cashing in these bonds did anything for you.

I said there were TWO REASONS.
The Obama victory and policies he proposes were the major factor.
Interest income tax rates are still to be determined.
I decided to vote with my pocketbook and not support this Government with my money. They may tax me on income, but I refuse to give them any more money than I have to.
Do not be surprised, if this is also thrown into capital gains and dividends category and the tax rate increased on this category also.
If you own Savings Bonds I do urge you to check your interest rate that you are receiving on each individual bond.
I will also say, that I will not fall in the $250,000 category, so I am not affected by this issue, but I did have significant dividend income which does AFFECT ME and everyone else regardless of income level (the tax rate increase in this category regardless of income level) as well as capital gains in some years.

[Gardening Grandma]

SF
I agree that defense cuts would definitely affect jobs negatively. Neither party wants that. Another reason I think there'll be a deal (which probably nobody will be happy with - myself included)

[thyme4change]

The general consensus is that they already have a deal basically worked out, but won't implement it until the week after the official fiscal cliff happens. That way the republicans can say that they did not raise taxes and technically they will be correct. Taxes will raise automatically, and they will agree to something that is a cut from where the fiscal cliff lands them, but above where it is now.

Fucking stupid political games.

[Gardening Grandma]

thyme,
That does make perfect sense....

[Angel!]

Do what you got to do. In the mean time, consumer confidence is at a 4 year high, so I think not everyone feels as worried as you do about this country's future.

[Deleted]

Nov 27, 2012 10:38:56 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

We don't have any savings bonds (the interest is not worth the effort).

Slightly increased our equities allocation after the election when the market went down sharply.

Not making any other changes based on "the sky is falling" predictions. Worst case scenario would be a repeat of 2008 which we survived without selling and taking a loss.

I actually expect a deal and the market responding with a rise. The Republicans have more to lose (their sacred defense spending) than the Democrats (just let the tax cuts expire then write a new bill in Jan)

how are you going to get a new bill passed in jan?

dems wont budge on issues, and neither will the pubs

we have a stalemate....and both sides are waiting for the other to give in

i dont see any new bill....and i see everyone's rates going up

and the spending cuts on auto pilot

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 27, 2012 13:04:04 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

Nov 27, 2012 10:38:56 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

We don't have any savings bonds (the interest is not worth the effort).

Slightly increased our equities allocation after the election when the market went down sharply.

Not making any other changes based on "the sky is falling" predictions. Worst case scenario would be a repeat of 2008 which we survived without selling and taking a loss.

I actually expect a deal and the market responding with a rise. The Republicans have more to lose (their sacred defense spending) than the Democrats (just let the tax cuts expire then write a new bill in Jan)

how are you going to get a new bill passed in jan?

dems wont budge on issues, and neither will the pubs

we have a stalemate....and both sides are waiting for the other to give in

i dont see any new bill....and i see everyone's rates going up

and the spending cuts on auto pilot

Sen Patty Murray strongly hinted at it. You simply allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. Then, come Jan, you write a new bill returning the tax cuts to 98%. The Republicans would vote for a tax cut. And they can (correctly) say they did not vote for a tax increase. The Dems get what they want - an increase only on the top 2%.

Of course, both sides still have to work out an agreement on spending cuts, but the Dems have already signalled that they are willing to put Medicare/ Medicaid on the table.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 27, 2012 10:18:37 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

AND the election results, my wife and I have now cashed in $75,000 of U.S. Savings Bonds this month.
I will admit, the wife is not as vocal on this issue as I was, but agreed to the cashing in of the bonds at this time.
Two reasons.
The election of the President.
The fiscal cliff and what may happen to earned interest after taxes are raised next year.
(the fiscal cliff and rising tax rate we may face, pushed my wife to the sell decision)
I refuse to any longer support this government and it's wayward spending policies with a loan from me.

you are aware that spending is slowing and the deficit is shrinking, right?

[djAdvocate]

Nov 27, 2012 10:43:53 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Nov 27, 2012 10:28:22 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

As far as I understand, interest income is taxed at the receivers marginal rate. There was no special lower tax rate for interest.
Does not seem like cashing in these bonds did anything for you.

I said there were TWO REASONS.
The Obama victory and policies he proposes were the major factor.

what proposal, specifically, inspired this exodus of capital?

[cme1201]

Of course, both sides still have to work out an greement on spending cuts, but the Dems have already signalled that they are willing to put Medicare/ Medicaid on the table.

On Medicare, the Nevada Democrat said he wouldn't talk about specific negotiations, but he said his focus going into talks will be raising taxes on the rich.



Read more: Reid takes Social Security off the table - Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/14/reid-takes-social-security-off-table/#ixzz2DRslGPSq
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Reid has said Soc Sec is off the table and they have made the changes as part of Health Casre reform 2 years ago, he cares about taxes. Nothing more.

"We're going to send a loud message to the leadership in the House, in the Senate, and President Obama: 'Do not cut Social Security, do not cut Medicare, do not cut Medicaid,'" said Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-declared socialist who aligns with Democrats. "Every now and then elections have consequences. We won."

news.msn.com/politics/democrats-toughen-stance-on-trimming-benefits-to-avoid-fiscal-cliff

[damnotagain]

Nov 27, 2012 13:37:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you are aware that spending is slowing and the deficit is shrinking, right?

WASHINGTON — The federal government started the 2013 budget year with a $120 billion deficit in October, an indication that the nation is on a path to its fifth straight $1 trillion-plus annual deficit.

A soaring deficit puts added pressure on President Barack Obama and Congress to seek a budget deal in the coming weeks.

That says fifth straight year .


Obama’s presidency has coincided with four straight $1 trillion-plus deficits — the first in history and a record he had to vigorously defend during his re-election campaign.

www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-government-begins-budget-year-with-120-billion-deficit-up-22-percent-from-last-year/2012/11/13/76f8bf7c-2dc5-11e2-b631-2aad9d9c73ac_story.html

Good choice turning some of that paper into metals Valubuy

[djAdvocate]

Nov 27, 2012 13:46:16 GMT -5 damnotagain said:

Nov 27, 2012 13:37:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you are aware that spending is slowing and the deficit is shrinking, right?

WASHINGTON — The federal government started the 2013 budget year with a $120 billion deficit in October, an indication that the nation is on a path to its fifth straight $1 trillion-plus annual deficit.

this statement in no way contradicts mine. you realize that, right?

[djAdvocate]

Nov 27, 2012 13:46:16 GMT -5 damnotagain said:

Good choice turning some of that paper into metals Valubuy

it was a better choice in 2007. but better late than never.

[damnotagain]

Better buy in 2003.

Moments ago the MTS released the final October budget report. It was not pretty, although those who read our report on how much debt was added - $195 billion to be precise - in the first month of the 2013 Fiscal Year will know where this is going. The US budget deficit was expected to soar after the September surplus of $75 billion, driven entirely by calendar shifts and pre-election propaganda, to -$113 billion. That was optimistic: the total amount of overspending in October was $120 billion. What is distressing is that this was well above the $98.5 billion deficit from a year ago, and confirms that the long-term trendline of ever greater spending continues. This was also the fourth largest October deficit in history. And looking merely at the spending side of the ledger, the US government's outlays in October alone were $304 billion. This is the third biggest October monthly spend for the government ever, and just why of the all time high $320.4 billion record in October 2008, when everything imploded after Lehman failure and Hank Paulson was literally dousing the monetary flames with brand new Benjamins.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-13/us-budget-deficit-soars-october-government-spends-over-300-billion-one-month

Do pictures help ?

[Angel!]

Nov 27, 2012 14:09:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 27, 2012 13:46:16 GMT -5 damnotagain said:

WASHINGTON — The federal government started the 2013 budget year with a $120 billion deficit in October, an indication that the nation is on a path to its fifth straight $1 trillion-plus annual deficit.

this statement in no way contradicts mine. you realize that, right?

ROFL

I was thinking the same thing.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Social Security shouldn't be on the table. Deal with it separately since it's much easier to fix and should remain a separate program since it isn't funded from the general fund. Not to mention that not a single penny of the national debt is from Social Security. Take it off the table and do something about Medicare, since that's what's bankrupting us. Here's a hint, find some fucking way to pay for Bush's prescription drug give away which was the largest increase in entitlement spending in a generation and had no provisions whatsoever for paying for it. While you're at it put in some sane rules to deal with the massive fraud in that system.

[Gardening Grandma]

Here's a hint, find some fucking way to pay for Bush's prescription drug give away which was the largest increase in entitlement spending in a generation and had no provisions whatsoever for paying for it. While you're at it put in some sane rules to deal with the massive fraud in that system.

An excellent start would be to allow Medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies the way the VA does. The whole prescription benefit was a huge boondogle gift to big pharma.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Medicare Part D was a bad idea from the start...of course all the Dems screaming about it at the time obviously didn't feel it was worth phasing out with the ACA. Fiscal responsibility is only convenient to blast the other side with when you are in the minority I guess.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Nov 27, 2012 16:24:36 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Here's a hint, find some fucking way to pay for Bush's prescription drug give away which was the largest increase in entitlement spending in a generation and had no provisions whatsoever for paying for it. While you're at it put in some sane rules to deal with the massive fraud in that system.

An excellent start would be to allow Medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies the way the VA does. The whole prescription benefit was a huge boondogle gift to big pharma.

The problem with the government "negotiating" prices is that the government doesn't really negotiate a price, the government dictates one.

[Deleted]

Nov 27, 2012 16:45:39 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Nov 27, 2012 16:24:36 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Here's a hint, find some fucking way to pay for Bush's prescription drug give away which was the largest increase in entitlement spending in a generation and had no provisions whatsoever for paying for it. While you're at it put in some sane rules to deal with the massive fraud in that system.

An excellent start would be to allow Medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies the way the VA does. The whole prescription benefit was a huge boondogle gift to big pharma.

The problem with the government "negotiating" prices is that the government doesn't really negotiate a price, the government dictates one.

[Sum Dum Gai]

The problem with the government "negotiating" prices is that the government doesn't really negotiate a price, the government dictates one.

Good. If Uncle Sam is going to use my tax money to pay for your grandpa's boner pills I want them dictating the lowest price possible.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Nov 27, 2012 17:09:46 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The problem with the government "negotiating" prices is that the government doesn't really negotiate a price, the government dictates one.

Good. If Uncle Sam is going to use my tax money to pay for your grandpa's boner pills I want them dictating the lowest price possible.

Since that is what every senior buys......but that wasn't the point of your post. The point was to use an example like the one above as if that makes it ok to dictate what the government will pay for all medications.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 27, 2012 16:04:10 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Social Security shouldn't be on the table. Deal with it separately since it's much easier to fix and should remain a separate program since it isn't funded from the general fund. Not to mention that not a single penny of the national debt is from Social Security. Take it off the table and do something about Medicare, since that's what's bankrupting us. Here's a hint, find some fucking way to pay for Bush's prescription drug give away which was the largest increase in entitlement spending in a generation and had no provisions whatsoever for paying for it. While you're at it put in some sane rules to deal with the massive fraud in that system.

i don't really even think SS is a problem. MC is, tho.

[Sum Dum Gai]

i don't really even think SS is a problem.

It's not an immediate problem, but in around 20-25 years it won't be taking in enough to pay for the crop of folks collecting at that time, and the trust will be depleted. The shortfall will have to be made up from the general fund. Or, we can make some small changes to the program to keep it self sustaining and separate from the general fund. So, in that sense it is a problem, although it's a relatively minor one that can be fixed fairly easily.

The point was to use an example like the one above as if that makes it ok to dictate what the government will pay for all medications.

If the government is paying for medications with our tax money, why shouldn't they be able to bargain for the best price? Just because the money is coming from my pocket instead of the person receiving the meds they shouldn't care at all how much I'm paying for them? That's a pretty socialist view don't you think?