World stocks jump as US staves off 'fiscal cliff'

BANGKOK (AP) ? World markets registered relief Wednesday over the U.S. congressional vote to stop hundreds of billions of dollars in automatic tax increases and spending cuts that risked plunging the world's biggest economy into recession.

Benchmarks in Australia and Hong Kong boomeranged on the first trading day of the year, just before Congress passed an emergency measure to avert much of the impact of tax-and-spending changes that were so steep they were dubbed the "fiscal cliff." Asian markets had slipped on Monday, fearing that negotiations over the measure might collapse.

Economists have been warning that the tax increases and spending cuts could take a chunk out of the U.S. economy; some experts predicted financial markets would plunge unless a clear-cut deal was reached.

Instead, markets in Asia and Europe blessed the stopgap measure approved late Tuesday in Washington to retroactively counter some of the "fiscal cliff" effects. The bill Congress passed awaits President Barack Obama's signature.

Hong Kong's Hang Seng index shot up 2.9 percent to close at 23,311.89, its highest finish since June 1, 2011. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 surged 1.2 percent to close at 4,705.90, its strongest finish in 19 months. South Korea's Kospi jumped 1.7 percent to 2,031.10.

European stocks jumped shortly after opening. Britain's FTSE 100 rose 1.6 percent to 5,989.24. Germany's DAX advanced 1.7 percent to 7,740.12 and France's CAC-40 also gained 1.7 percent at 3,701.90.

"People are very relieved this morning because the U.S. is very likely to fix its own problems in the next few days, so investors in Hong Kong are pretty optimistic," said Jackson Wong, vice president of Tanrich Securities in Hong Kong.

But some analysts said that expectations for a compromise were so low that any deal was viewed as positive.

"Among business leaders, I'm gonna say this deal isn't enough to move the needle on confidence. It may improve consumer confidence a little, investors obviously are celebrating a tentative deal but you know how transitory investor confidence can become," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Group.

Benchmarks in Singapore, Taiwan, India, the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia posted solid gains. Markets in Japan and mainland China reopen Friday.

Uncertainty about the outcome of negotiations drove down Asian regional stocks Monday, the last trading day of 2012.

Australia's S&P/ASX 200 fell 0.5 percent to close at 4,648.90, as investors sold off stocks to lock in profits. Hong Kong's Hang Seng closed marginally lower. Singapore, New Zealand and India also declined. Japan and South Korea were closed.

The bill that Congress approved calls for higher taxes on incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples, a victory for Obama. Earnings above those amounts would be taxed at a rate of 39.6 percent, up from the current 35 percent. It also delays for two months $109 billion worth of across-the-board spending cuts that had been set to start affecting the Pentagon and domestic agencies this week.

Lorraine Tan, director at Standard & Poor's equity research in Singapore, said she believes U.S. growth in 2013 will be able to offset the impact of the tax increases and that companies would feel freer to spend now that the U.S. has taken a step back from the edge of the cliff.

Companies "can start to move ahead with any expansion plans they may have," Tan said. "You'll see some of that pent-up spending in 2013. And I think there's a lot of relief related to that."

Even if Washington bypasses the fiscal cliff, the next crisis is just around the corner, in late February or early March, when the government reaches a $16.4 trillion ceiling on the amount of money it can borrow.

Republicans say they won't go along with raising the limit on government borrowing unless the increase is matched by spending cuts to help attack long-term debt. Failing to raise the debt ceiling could lead to a first-ever U.S. default that could roil financial markets and shake worldwide confidence in the United States.

"Republicans vow not to raise the limit without sharp cuts in spending and Obama vows not to cut spending without further tax hikes. Two more months of shenanigans and waffling / seasick markets? It certainly looks that way," analysts at DBS Bank Ltd. in Singapore said in a market commentary.

U.S. stocks shot higher Monday on the belief that lawmakers would work out a deal. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 1.3 percent to 13,104.14. The Standard & Poor's 500 rose 1.7 percent to 1,426.19. The Nasdaq composite index rose 2 percent to 3,019.51.

Political gridlock has been rattling U.S. markets and shaking consumer and business confidence the past two years.

To end a 2011 standoff over raising the federal debt limit, lawmakers agreed to a Jan. 1, 2013 deadline to reach a deal over taxes and spending. If there was no agreement, more than $500 billion in tax increases would hit the economy in 2013 alone, along with $109 billion in cuts from the military and domestic spending programs ? hence the fiscal cliff.

After a fight over raising the debt limit last year, the credit rating agency Standard & Poor's took the unprecedented step of lowering the U.S. government's AAA bond rating because of the lack of a credible plan to reduce the federal government's debt.

___

Follow Pamela Sampson on Twitter at http://twitter.com/pamelasampson

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/world-stocks-jump-us-staves-off-fiscal-cliff-091755154--finance.html

anguilla gone with the wind michael jordan checkers imbibe msg network ray j

Holiday Week 2012 Sees New iOS And Android Device Activations Rise To 50M Total, A 150% Increase

App analytics platform Flurry has released its annual look at how many new mobile devices came online during the holiday season, and the results show a dramatic change from the situation a year ago. Over 50 million iOS and Android devices were activated during the period between December 25 to December 31, versus just over 20 million devices last year.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/ZnEulhb7a4E/

james cameron liam hemsworth miss canada justin bieber boyfriend marianas trench camille grammer camille grammer

EVE - Salt Lake City, Utah News

SALT LAKE CITY ? Fireworks and live music were among several events in Salt Lake City?s ?EVE? celebration for the new year.

EVE, put on by the Downtown Alliance, has been going on for the past three days. The event is billed as ?family friendly,? with music and activities scattered around the downtown area.

On Friday, the Gateway was hosting a glow in the dark bounce room, face painting, and a jumbo Lite Brite.

Downtown Alliance organizers say the cold weather likely pushed a lot of the partiers indoors, particularly in the first few days of the celebration.

?It was cold, but I think that gave people the opportunity to do some of the indoor events like going to our partners at the museums and Broadway shows and Planetarium and the improv comedy,? said Nick Como with Downtown Alliance.

Events were also being held at the Leonardo museum, Temple Square and the Gallivan Center.

?When I heard about things indoors that they can run around and jump around, with all the
cold weather I thought that?s it,? said Tomena Goodwin, who was at the Gateway with her four children.

Event organizers say they sold thousands of wristbands for EVE this year and attendance was ?on par? with the 2011 celebration. The Salt Lake Film Society reported greater attendance at its events in 2012 than in 2011.

On Monday night, the party was packed and by midnight, it was standing room only.

EVE?s popularity and affordability have propelled it on to travel website Travelocity.com?s Top 10 New Year?s destinations list.

Source: http://fox13now.com/2013/01/01/eve-events-mark-new-years-celebrations-in-slc/

cruise ship italy patriots broncos game saints willis mcgahee willis mcgahee ship aground off italy nfl playoff schedule 2012

Bush tax cuts have expired, no law has replaced them (Americablog)

Share With Friends: | | Politics - Top Stories Stories, News Feeds and News via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/274232597?client_source=feed&format=rss

arizona cardinals Big Bird Adam Greenberg Fall Leaves Jim Lehrer 666 Park Avenue Kara Alongi

Off the Cliff: What Happens?

America is swiftly approaching the fiscal cliff.

President Obama and congressional leaders have talked for weeks with varying degrees of frequency and success at compromising, and one precept resonates throughout the public statements of politicians and economists: the so-called "fiscal cliff" would be a very bad thing.

But what actually happens if Washington takes us over it?

As has been well documented, the "cliff" is not one thing, but a ball of expiring economic provisions that lead to automatic policy changes at year's end, loosely grouped under the catch phrase. They fall into two categories, taxes and spending.

Should we fall off the cliff, the tax code would change most dramatically with the expiration of the so-called "Bush tax cuts," which created new brackets and lowered tax rates for both middle-class and high earners. According to the Tax Policy Center at the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, the average American taxpayer would see a tax hike of $3,446, ABC's David Muir reported for "World News."

Where do the hikes fall, exactly? For many tax brackets, rates would jump by at least three percentage points. The middle class would see the worst of it, according to analysis from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm that studies policy changes at Congress's request.

For high earners, married couples making more than $222,300 but less than $397,000, rates would jump from 33 percent to 36 percent. For the highest earners, couples making over $397,000, taxes would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

But they'd rise for almost everyone else, too. Couples making $145,900 - $222,300 would see a rate jump from 28 percent to 31 percent. Couples making $72,300 - $145,900 would see rates jump from 25 percent to 28 percent.

The middle class would take the biggest hit: Married couples earning $60,350 - $72,300 would see tax rates jump from 15 percent to 28 percent. That means that without any credits or deductions, a couple making $65,000 would go from taking home $55,250 to taking home $46,800 next year if Congress and the president fail to strike a deal.

The cliff's tax implications go beyond the simple income-tax rate: The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and the estate tax are also on the table with year-end deadlines.

The AMT is a tax that prevents high earners from escaping income-tax liability by claiming too many deductions. Taxpayers over a certain income add back certain deductions to see if they must pay a minimum rate. Ever since Bush's tax cuts, Congress has repeatedly extended an "AMT patch" to maintain the income threshold. According to the Congressional Research Service, if Congress doesn't act again this year, that threshold will drop from $74,450 to $45,000 for married couples and from $48,450 to $33,750 for individuals, exposing more people to the alternative minimum.

The estate tax, demonized by Republicans as the dreaded "death tax," would change significantly. Right now, estates of over $5.12 million are taxed at a maximum of 35 percent. If Congress doesn't act, next year estates of over $1 million will be taxed at 55 percent.

No one likes paying taxes, but the spending side of the cliff isn't supposed to be all that fun, either.

The "cliff" was born from the idea that Congress could impose a deadline on itself, hanging an unpleasant combination of spending cuts over its own head. In 2011, when President Obama and congressional leaders wrangled over a proposed increase to the debt limit, a maneuver Congress had typically done without any fuss, they couldn't agree on a deficit-reduction package that would satisfy GOP demands for fiscal restraint. So they created the now-infamous deficit-reduction "supercommittee," asked it to recommend a plan, and gave it an ultimatum: If you fail, automatic spending cuts will be triggered, half from defense, and half from discretionary domestic programs, mostly shielding mandatory entitlements, such as Social Security.

The committee failed, and Congress gave itself until 2013 to solve the problem, extending its own deadline before the set of "budget sequestration" spending caps would take effect.

Those cuts would save about $1.1 trillion over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office estimated after Congress passed the law, the Budget Control Act, which created the cliff's spending ultimatum.

In 2013, that means defense programs would see a cut of $54 billion, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)--but the Budget Control Act specifies that spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would be protected from any automatic cuts.

Entitlements wouldn't see the worst of it--but they wouldn't be exempt, either.

Outside of defense spending, $38.6 billion would be shaved, proportionally, from discretionary domestic spending programs other than veterans' medical care and Pell grants, according to CBPP. But Medicare would take a hit, with cuts to provider payments (theoretically protecting benefits) limited to 2 percent in any year. CBPP estimates $10.8 billion would be cut from Medicare providers in 2013. Another $5.2 billion in cuts would come from other mandatory programs, the largest being farm subsidies.

A handful of popular domestic programs would be exempt from any cuts, at all: Social Security, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and food stamps.

The fallout of all this, analysts say, would be a swift economic downturn.

Thanks mostly to the tax increases, many have predicted an immediate economic slowdown. In August, the Congressional Budget Office forecasted that the cliff would bring the U.S. down to negative .5 percent economic growth for 2013. By the fourth quarter of next year, CBO predicted, unemployment would rise to 9.1 percent.

"The economy would shrink by about 3.9 percent in the just the first quarter alone," said Jason Peuquet, research director at the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget. "You can be pretty sure that after at least a couple weeks we'd be feeling those effects."

While the cuts would happen over 10 years, and while the tax hikes might not depress income so drastically over just a few weeks, Peuquet said the cliff would damage confidence in the country's ability to pay its debts over the long term.

On the one hand, going over the cliff might not really mean going over it. The Budget Control Act mandated spending caps over 10 years, but Congress writes the laws and makes the rules. After the president and lawmakers wriggled out of their self-imposed ultimatum to pass a deficit-reduction package in 2011, punting the deadline to today, it's conceivable that Washington will re-write its own rules again.

Taxes have been adjusted retroactively in the past, and it's not as if Congress can't pass a new tax law tomorrow that would reapply the 2012 rates. Liberals have proposed that we should go over the cliff, to force Republicans to argue against a tax cut for the middle class. Underpinning their argument is a sense that the cliff is at worst a facade, and at least malleable.

None of the cliff's upshots sound too good. On the other hand, if Washington wants to save money regardless of how it could affect the economy, allowing tax hikes and across-the-board cuts is one simple way to do it.

Also Read

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/off-cliff-happens-154330652.html

the quiet man yellow cab dropkick murphys guernsey nit colcannon dystonia

Brittney Bullock: The Sad Truth About NRA's Proposal: There's Just Not Enough Good Guys to Go Around

After a week of silence, the National Rifle Association's (NRA) Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, took the one week anniversary of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting to offer his solution to the nation's "alleged" gun problem.

His comments were utterly predictable and arguably not worth the wait.

LaPierre simply mirrored what other gun proponents had been saying since the tragedy, that is, we need to take a harder look at our violent culture, perpetuated by music videos, movies and video games, in addition to an expansion of gun sales by way of putting armed guards in every school across the country.

In a Sunday interview on Meet the Press, he reinforced his initial statements, arguing, "If it's crazy to call for armed officers in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy... It's the one thing that would keep people safe."

In the face of the "bad guy," as LaPierre explains it, we need a "good guy" to stand up for the innocents on the premises. And given that the NRA continues to resist any kind of assault weapons ban, it clearly still believes that we cannot take the actions of the disturbed minority to punish or infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners; this just so happens to be an argument that holds for movies and video games, but I digress.

The most intriguing takeaway from LaPierre's speech was the undefined logistics of his proposal. His statements left many wondering what the addition of armed, retired secret service members, officers and military personnel in the schools would really look like.

Because if we're going to do it, we better do it right.

We'll need to fight military-style fire with military fire. It won't be enough to stick one or even three uniformed police officers at the front doors of our schools with their conventional, .40 caliber pistols and call that sufficient protection. Just ask yourself: In a duel between you and this anonymous "bad guy," only one of you can have the 100-round assault rifle, the other gets the 13-round handgun; which weapon would you choose?

We need James Holmes, SWAT Team-style gear, complete with helmets, neck protectors, bullet-proof vests, helmets, shields and a little tear gas for good measure.

We need throat and groin protectors, ballistic leggings and gas masks. We have to eliminate any weak spots -- any at all that can be exploited in an indiscriminate spray of bullets, and essentially be prepared to turn an elementary school lobby into a war zone rivaling Baghdad faster than you can say "Bushmaster."

And welcome to the new militant America, where kids not only learn the importance of reading and writing in our schools, but also the necessity of the protection only a rifle can provide -- how the presence of an AR-15 is essential to their making it through the school day alive.

My heart breaks for this nation's children who unfortunately are at the mercy of a political storm that has been raging since long before they were born -- a storm that tries to balance our constitutional right to bear arms and the ethical responsibility of the government to protect its citizens from dangers it can easily eliminate or decrease.

It's nonsensical for the NRA to argue that even if we issue another assault weapon's ban, the "bad guys" will still find a way to obtain and use a gun for their future crimes. If that's the argument against gun regulation, then we might as well go forward and legalize marijuana nationwide, and cocaine and heroin, too. Because as we've seen, there are not enough penalties the government can enforce to keep drug users from obtaining their illicit substance of choice. But as evidenced by our strict drug laws, in a fight to mute a rampant drug culture, it doesn't mean we don't try.

My heart breaks for the possible realization of LaPierre's proposals, that the schoolhouse might not be safe as a direct result of its "Firearm-Free Zone" status, and that our only solution to keep our children safe is to strengthen the gun presence in our society, as I'm sure LaPierre would agree, it's not just our schools that are targets for such destruction.

As we saw in Aurora, Colo., there's danger in our movie theaters, the threat of violence looming by the roads we drive along every day, should an assailant decide to use the cars passing by for target practice. Our parking lots are unsafe, our shopping malls, college campuses, temples, churches, grocery stores, pet shops, soup kitchens.

As LaPierre has made us hauntingly aware, anywhere that there is not a gun presence, we are vulnerable, and yet the NRA, which has a real voice in this debate, can only point blame elsewhere -- anywhere but itself.

It refuses to acknowledge the hard truth of the matter, which is that there are simply too many bad guys out there with much too easy access to these high-caliber assault rifles. These people are everywhere and will continue to strike in big cities and small towns alike, no matter the consequences. But until we put an end to the availability of these kinds of weapons or start stationing armed guards every 10 yards across the entire country, we'll always to be vulnerable.

Gun proponents continue to surrender fire arms into the possession of the bad guys, pathetically offering, "If we just had more good guys out there... "

But the good guys can't be everywhere, and for that, my heart breaks for America.

?

Follow Brittney Bullock on Twitter: www.twitter.com/britsimoneb

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brittney-bullock/not-enough-good-guys_b_2288689.html

mardi gras 2012 the secret world of arrietty cee lo allen iverson jr smith chris anderson rondo suspended

Column: Gun debate revives enduring American fight

WASHINGTON (AP) ? On the eve of a new year, a libertarian strain pulses through America ? a get-government-out-of-my-personal-life sensibility that cuts across ideologies and is driven by a younger generation's cultural attitudes.

We've seen it in gay-marriage legalization and marijuana decriminalization. And in the fact that, four decades after Roe v. Wade allowed abortion, there's little appetite among most for overturning it. Perhaps we've also seen this play out with guns, with a more limited role for government in regulating firearms.

But today, a mourning nation must square that shift toward fewer gun restrictions with a series of fatal mass shootings in the past few years, the latest claiming 20 elementary school students among the dead. And the pendulum may swing just as quickly back toward curbs on gun rights: A country that's become more tolerant on other cultural issues may end up bucking the trend on this subject.

Here's why: It can't be boiled down to "my body, my decisions."

The gun issue doesn't fit neatly into the libertarian lane in which the United States has been driving when it comes to gay marriage, abortion and marijuana ? the belief that people have the right to make their own decisions about how they live their lives, as long as they respect the rights of others to do the same. And that's because while it may be your right to own a gun, you can use it to harm others, thereby taking away their right to live their lives as they want.

This is not a new tension in America, a republic founded by men with libertarian leanings that has always struggled to strike the right balance between rights for one and safety for all.

The first settlers fled the big hand of Mother England, seeking a smaller government to protect basic freedoms ? and founding a nation built on the "inalienable" rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence acknowledged the stress in America's foundation, saying the new country's government would secure those rights, but people would have the authority to alter or abolish it if it were to become "destructive of these ends."

In modern times, libertarianism, which draws from both liberal and conservative influences, has reared its head often in American history ? most recently in today's tea party, which is uncompromising in pursuing a smaller government role in fiscal matters.

These days, 16 to 18 percent of adults in various surveys identify themselves as libertarians. But many more have libertarian views on individual issues even as they call themselves Republicans, Democrats or independents. It also can be a generational thing, with a Pew Research Center poll in December 2011 finding that 50 percent of Americans under age 30 had positive reaction to the label compared with only 25 percent of senior citizens.

The debate now under way underscores how different guns are from other social issues ? how this topic is not just about you, but about us.

There is a thicket of considerations. The fact that many people view gun ownership as a foundational right. Mental health. Urban vs. rural matters. Sports. Crime. Violence in video games and movies. Parental responsibility. "We know," President Barack Obama said, "this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides."

The multiple factors at play ? and the loss of young innocents ? could explain why, despite the nation's recent libertarianism on cultural matters, the Newtown, Conn., killings quickly spurred calls from across the political spectrum for at least a discussion of whether new limits should be placed on guns. This suggested a possible expansion of government in this realm.

"This awful massacre of our youngest children has changed us, and everything should be on the table," said Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. And Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the senior Republican on the committee that would take up any legislation, said: "You've got to take all these things into consideration."

The NRA, the nation's largest gun-rights lobby, has promised opposition to more regulations, just as it helped ensure the federal assault weapons ban wasn't renewed in 2004 and state gun laws were loosened by legislatures.

Advocates for gay marriage, marijuana legalization and abortion rights also all have made significant recent strides. Each has pushed legislation in states with friendly political environments while also taking advantage of the country's changing mindset.

Consider that in the last election:

?Washington, Maryland and Maine became the first states ever to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote. Now nine states and the District of Columbia recognize gay unions.

?Washington state and Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana use, and Obama's administration signaled it wouldn't pursue those users, even though the drug is illegal under federal law.

?Several Republicans who took rigid stands against abortion rights lost. Among them: GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Then, only six weeks after the election, came Sandy Hook. And gun control jumped to the front of the national conversation.

In the days and weeks before, lawmakers in the GOP-led states of Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina and Pennsylvania considered proposals to loosen restrictions on employees keeping guns in their vehicles on work property, and Ohio's legislature passed a law allowing guns to be left in parked vehicles underneath the Statehouse.

A federal appeals court in Illinois struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons, while Florida's GOP-led administration announced that 1 million people would soon have valid permits to carry them. Michigan's legislature also approved laws easing restrictions, though its Republican governor, Rick Snyder, later vetoed a measure allowing certain gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public places.

Public opinion polling has illustrated the trend since 2000, with more Americans now generally favoring the right to own guns over increased limitations on ownership. But there is also widespread support in surveys for reinstating the federal assault weapons ban and for limiting high-capacity magazines.

It is, for sure, a contradictory series of messages ? unsurprising for an issue that asks such an intricate question: In a world of weaponry unimaginable to the people who came up with the Second Amendment, how do you strike the right balance between the individual's right to bear arms and the government's role in protecting the public?

With the latest eruption of the gun debate, we've returned to the enduring fight over libertarian principles that we've kept going for more than 200 years ? the core tension between what's right for one of us and what's right for all of us.

Whatever happens with gun control in the aftermath of Newtown, the debate reveals what this generation faces as it tries to shape the nation it inherits: the enduring struggle to understand that delicate constitutional space that exists between my right to swing my arm around freely and your right not to be hit in the face.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE ? Liz Sidoti is the national politics editor for The Associated Press.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/column-gun-debate-revives-enduring-american-fight-083338502--politics.html

girl scout cookies screen actors guild royal rumble results sag awards 2012 kyra sedgwick honor killings mary tyler moore