View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency
Are today's bank any different from the Mafia? Case in point.
Someone I know had to juggle some credit card debts by doing some balance transfers on very good terms between a few cards he had. Unfortunately, he lost his job in a bad economy, his age was somewhat against him in the job market. But he paid his bills on time, and the banks are making money of him. He is now ok and should be debt free very soon. In the meantime, he need hs credit badly as a source of financing. So, as a reward for his due diligence in making payments, his % was raised by about 5, crippling him somewhat. Some people like to call it free market, others might call it legal loan-sharking.
Reminds me of some National Geographic documentaries showing the stalking of the weak, old, injured animals by their predators. All those CE0s making obscene milions and laughing all the way to the loo. The Mafia is still well and alive, wearing their Armani suits and drinking champagne. And we have poeple on this board defending them zealously.
Remember, I am not a liberal. I believe government has 2 basic functions, provide jobs and provide safety for it's citizens. But we might have to add to those functions now that the Mafia is legal and actually part of the establishment.
All those CE0s making obscene millions and laughing all the way to the loo. The Mafia is still well and alive, wearing their Armani suits and drinking champagne. And we have people on this board defending them zealously.You're right! Off with their heads, I say. Obviously the people who run these "legal loan-sharking" operations have no moral compass. And while we're at it, I think we should ban the insidious practice of letting private companies issue credit card in the first place.
Wait, I just had a brilliant idea: Government-issued credit cards! Every citizen would be issued a credit card with interest rates subsidized by the government, and the program could be managed by a new government agency staffed with people who really care about their fellow citizens. Of course, you would set credit limits based inversely on income: Lower income people would get a higher credit limit because they "need" the credit more that those "Millionaires and Billionaires" that Obama was blaming for the budget deficit in his speech last week's. In fact, you could make interest rates higher for "Millionaires and Billionaires", and use that money to pay the interest rates for everybody else.
And the best part is, I'm sure that our politicians, with their proven fiscal management acumen, can develop projections showing that the program would be entirely self-funding and would never run a deficit.
Brilliant!
Thanks,
Jackson
Esten, I know very little about Ryan's proposed budget. And I haven't been following current budget negotiations. I suspect you're right though, Ryan's plan, like the plan of the bipartisan deficit commission, didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being signed into law given the composition of the Senate and Obama's veto power. Any serious reform of entitlements stands no chance as long as most Democrats and many Republicans take positions based on what's most likely to get them re-elected instead of what's best for the country. The bastards are going to wait until we're bankrupt to start trying to solve the problem of unsustainable entitlement spending. Whose fault will that be? Answer: The American public that elected them in the first place.
The Tea Party is 'ignorant and dangerous'? Just like Reagan and Thatcher? It's your party that's ignorant and dangerous. I suspect the $1 trillion you quote, over who knows how many years, doesn't even touch entitlement spending and is a drop in the bucket compared to the mess we're in.
Everytime you say "tax the wealthy", you should substitute "business and investment" for "wealthy." Again, I don't know much about Ryan's plan, but would be surprised if any cut in marginal income tax rates wouldn't be accompanied by a reduction in the tax deductions (what Moveon calls "subsidies") that make our tax code so complicated and economically inefficient.
I believe government has 2 basic functions, provide jobs and provide safety for it's citizens.Providing jobs is a government function?
First, jobs are not "provided", they are created by entrepreneurs who take a risk by attempting to bring to market goods or services that they believe may be sold for a price greater that their cost to produce. Governments can never "create" jobs because governments are not structured as "for profit" enterprises.
Second, the only way that government can "provide" jobs is by forcing the rest of us at gunpoint to pay the government money that is then given to other people under the pretense of a job that most financially ignorant people incorrectly assume will result in the creation of something of value (the aforesaid "goods or services") , when in fact these "paychecks" produce nothing of value and are a complete waste of money for the rest of us, although they do secure votes for incumbent politicians.
Thanks,
Jackson
Providing jobs is a government function?
First, jobs are not "provided", they are created by entrepreneurs who take a risk by attempting to bring to market goods or services that they believe may be sold for a price greater that their cost to produce. Governments can never "create" jobs because governments are not structured as "for profit" enterprises.
Second, the only way that government can "provide" jobs is by forcing the rest of us at gunpoint to pay the government money that is then given to other people under the pretense of a job that most financially ignorant people incorrectly assume will result in the creation of something of value (the aforesaid "goods or services") , when in fact these "paychecks" produce nothing of value and are a complete waste of money for the rest of us, although they do secure votes for incumbent politicians.
Thanks,
JacksonCreate is a better word, but it is really a matter of semantics. My point is that it is the govenment's responsibility is to provide an enviroment that is conducive to job creation and as a result, a robust economy. By whatever means. No party line here.
Just a sidenote, we have an thriving underground economy. If Americans really want to work, there is work. You might have to work 2 jobs, but you will have food on the table and and you will be able to make your house payment. Unless, of course, you have a 2nd or even a 3rd mortgage. Sadly, the party is over and too much debris and drunks laying around.
You're right! Off with their heads, I say. Obviously the people who run these "legal loan-sharking" operations have no moral compass. And while we're at it, I think we should ban the insidious practice of letting private companies issue credit card in the first place.
Wait, I just had a brilliant idea: Government-issued credit cards! Every citizen would be issued a credit card with interest rates subsidized by the government, and the program could be managed by a new government agency staffed with people who really care about their fellow citizens. Of course, you would set credit limits based inversely on income: Lower income people would get a higher credit limit because they "need" the credit more that those "Millionaires and Billionaires" that Obama was blaming for the budget deficit in his speech last week's. In fact, you could make interest rates higher for "Millionaires and Billionaires", and use that money to pay the interest rates for everybody else.
And the best part is, I'm sure that our politicians, with their proven fiscal management acumen, can develop projections showing that the program would be entirely self-funding and would never run a deficit.
Brilliant!
Thanks,
JacksonI know you are a free market die-hard, American style. But the days of the open prairies are gone, cowboys are only in the movies. Now, the air and water are somewhat polluted. And the hamburger joints have un-American faces. And your neighbours are not interested in taking in the mail for you. Life in America have changed, dude.
The economy was nuked, To Big To Fail became To Big to Jailed.
But the days of the open prairies are gone, cowboys are only in the movies.Nicely said.
Still, maybe we can find a place for people like Jackson where they won't be forced at gunpoint to pay taxes. I'm sure we can find a few acres somewhere in the country to dedicate as a tax-free sanctuary. There won't be any schools or teachers for their children, no policemen to protect them, no firemen to put out fires, nobody to deliver the mail, no roads to drive their cars. But hey, they'll have their freedom, and their guns to protect themselves.
Now Jackson will respond that this is wrong, that he will pay for the goods and services he wants, but the difference is that it will be his choice. He won't be forced to pay for something he doesn't want. But there's a little problem with that argument, it's called the law of supply and demand. Jackson will only get what he wants, at a price he is willing to pay, if there is enough demand for those same things. But there might not be. His neighbor might be some big tough dude who doesn't want to pay for policemen, another neighbor might want to pay for roads but can't afford to because he has a family to raise, and Jackson may not want to pay for his neighbor's kids school. In the end, nobody may get anything they want.
BlueFalcon
07-07-11, 03:41
Esten: How's it goin bud? You and I really ought to get together for a beer sometime, jejejeje. No really, at dinner a couple of Thursdays ago, Jackson spoke very highly of you. I think, despite our political, and economic differences, you and I would probably get along quite well. First things first, my chica report from week before last: LucianaLove is a real doll, not really punctual, but well worth the wait (likes to be rode hard and put up wet till the sun comes up. Make sure she hops in the shower beforehand.). Mara, the Guarani screamer is a LOT of fun, and at AR$250 for an hour or so, is well worth your time. Camila and Romina were as wonderful as ever, although I don't recommend their ex-suite mate (Maria. I think.) for anything other than a severe salad tossing (she has a long, strong tounge). Her massage sux and her BBBJ doesn't hold a candle to Romi and Camila. Good thing the dynamic duo moved over to Uruguay. Maybe Daisy will join them soon. OK. Where was I. Oh yeah, The Law of Supply and Demand.
I really don't think you have a good grasp of the concept, so I'll boil it down for you. From a demand perspective. Where demand, marginal utility, (jollies received per $ spent) is equal to or greater than marginal cost (bummers per $ parted with) there will be supply (read: I really don't want my house to burn down, so I will pay for local firefighters)."Tax Free" is just as mythical as "Free Lunch". There is no such thing as free. There is gratuitous, but nothing is free. Prior to our national income tax (tax on productivity) in 1913 we had teachers, roads (and railroads) , policemen, firemen and even the mail man. Now, I think we can do without the mail man these days, as the Postal Service cannot support itself via its own operations. Its sooooo 20th century. Why did we have these services prior to 1913? We had them because there was aggregate (individual demand, multiplied by the number of individuals. On average) demand, funded through voluntary levies and taxes (property and sales taxes. Voluntary in nature) , to support them. Even though the times (technology, etc.) might change, human behavior doesn't. At the micro nor macro level. If Jackson, or anyone else, finds those few acres where taxes on productivity won't forceably be extracted, demanded public services will be supplied. At some price point-BF.
Nicely said.
Still, maybe we can find a place for people like Jackson where they won't be forced at gunpoint to pay taxes. I'm sure we can find a few acres somewhere in the country to dedicate as a tax-free sanctuary. There won't be any schools or teachers for their children, no policemen to protect them, no firemen to put out fires, nobody to deliver the mail, no roads to drive their cars. But hey, they'll have their freedom, and their guns to protect themselves.
Now Jackson will respond that this is wrong, that he will pay for the goods and services he wants, but the difference is that it will be his Choice. He won't be forced to pay for something he doesn't want. But there's a little problem with that argument, it's called the law of supply and demand. Jackson will only get what he wants, at a price he is willing to pay, if there is enough demand for those same things. But there might not be. His neighbor might be some big tough dude who doesn't want to pay for policemen, another neighbor might want to pay for roads but can't afford to because he has a family to raise, and Jackson may not want to pay for his neighbor's kids school. In the end, nobody may get anything they want.
Providing jobs is a government function?
First, jobs are not "provided", they are created by entrepreneurs who take a risk by attempting to bring to market goods or services that they believe may be sold for a price greater that their cost to produce. Governments can never "create" jobs because governments are not structured as "for profit" enterprises.
Second, the only way that government can "provide" jobs is by forcing the rest of us at gunpoint to pay the government money that is then given to other people under the pretense of a job that most financially ignorant people incorrectly assume will result in the creation of something of value (the aforesaid "goods or services") , when in fact these "paychecks" produce nothing of value and are a complete waste of money for the rest of us, although they do secure votes for incumbent politicians.
Thanks,
JacksonWell said. The government could not produce a rubber band economically much less create jobs.
Member #4112
07-07-11, 10:28
Finally something we can agree on. No person or company was "Too Big To Fail" or "Too Big To Jail". Companies, such as AIG, should not have been bailed out. These firms should have been forced to enter bankruptcy, either Chapter 7 or 11, and forced to close or reorganize. The Fed throwing them a bone for going broke was nuts. Where were the criminal complaints from the Stock Holders, States and DOJ over the theft that took place? A lot of folks both in Congress and industry should have been wearing orange jump suits and taking the Perp Walk on TV. Instead these folks are rewarded for failure and to add insult to injury they even got bonuses!
Finally something we can agree on. No person or company was "Too Big To Fail" or "Too Big To Jail". Companies, such as AIG, should not have been bailed out. These firms should have been forced to enter bankruptcy, either Chapter 7 or 11, and forced to close or reorganize. The Fed throwing them a bone for going broke was nuts. Where were the criminal complaints from the Stock Holders, States and DOJ over the theft that took place? A lot of folks both in Congress and industry should have been wearing orange jump suits and taking the Perp Walk on TV. Instead these folks are rewarded for failure and to add insult to injury they even got bonuses!I agree completely, and don't forget to add General Motors to your list of companies that should have been allowed to fall into bankruptcy so their plants could have been bought up and subsequently reopened by more productive manufacturers.
Thanks,
Jackson
Rock Harders
07-07-11, 13:25
Jackson-
Actually, General Motors DID go into bankruptcy protection, a prepackaged Chapter 11 Reorganization rather than a very likely chaotic Chapter 7 liquidation which
Would have resulted in selling assets. The Chapter 11 consisted of GM stiffing their bondholders, terminating the union contracts and of their stock being relegated to the pink slips. However, GM has since reemerged as a leaner and profitable company that is making payments on its bailout loan. Had they been forced into liquidation they would have been swept into the dustbin of history and all GM employees would have been out on their ass.
Suerte,
RH
Wild Walleye
07-07-11, 15:44
Well said. The government could not produce a rubber band economically much less create jobs.In addition to essentially admitting that the stimulus was a failure, the administration stated that each job that the 'stimulus' 'created' cost US$278, 000. Wow. What a waste.
Wild Walleye
07-07-11, 15:54
Jackson-
Actually, General Motors DID go into bankruptcy protection, a prepackaged Chapter 11 Reorganization rather than a very likely chaotic Chapter 7 liquidation which
Would have resulted in selling assets. The Chapter 11 consisted of GM stiffing their bondholders, To the contrary. Chapter 11 is supposed to provide a codified means through which ownership is transferred from the former owners (equity shareholders) to the new owners (most senior debt holders). In this case those new owners should have been the bond holders. However, intervention by Obama breached the constitutional role of government by deliberately contravening US bankruptcy law by placing the unions ahead of the bondholders. This was pure and simple government theft of private assets which were then given to Obama's political backers in the UAW. Considering that the 'stimulus' was nearly a trillion dollar handout to unions, I guess we shouldn't have been surprised.
terminating the union contractsNo offense to GM union employees but they were treated better than the law allows (except in cases where Obama intervenes).
and of their stock being relegated to the pink slips.Rightly so given the above-mentioned transfer of ownership.
However, GM has since reemerged as a leaner and profitable company that is making payments on its bailout loan. Had they been forced into liquidation they would have been swept into the dustbin of history and all GM employees would have been out on their ass."Forced" into liquidation? By whom? Had the pre-bailout GM not become a 'benefits' company (instead of an auto manufacturer) they might have avoided bankruptcy to begin with. Without the bailout, there was still a pony under the pile of shit that would have merited Chapter 11 (reorg) as opposed to Chapter 7 (liquidation). Maybe the resulting company would have been smaller but under no reasonable scenario would all GM employees been out of work.
At some price point-BF.And that's the key point, isn't it. With enough people with enough money, some services will be provided. The key is at what price. And who can afford it. In this system those with the most money get the most, and those with the least money get the least. That's all fine and dandy when it comes to most consumer goods and services. But when it's a matter of basic needs and services (the list of which can be debated), that many cannot afford, then it becomes a moral issue. Fortunately, modern societies have evolved with a view that no, we will not leave the poor in the dust, we will provide a safety net, support and basic services for those at the bottom of the ladder to have a shot at climbing the ladder.
You'll always have some self-interested folks who try to demonize these people by calling them "parasites" and chiding them to "get off their ass and find a job". Painting them all with the same brush, ignoring that the vast majority of these people are honest, ethical people willing to work hard to get ahead. Fortunately, such self-interested people are in the vast minority.
BF- I am glad to see you have shared some info from your recent trip to BA. That is commendable. I hope you had a good time, and that you were able to visit some of the top clubs like Madahos, Black and Hippo.
Obama has been talking to Republicans. Apparently he's telling Congressional Democrats that he will not sign a short term budget deal, he wants a $4 trillion cut in the deficit over the next 10 years, and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on the table. He also may be willing to go along with a change in the tax system that makes it more efficient and less burdensome, cuts the statutory marginal tax rate on business, and gets rid of loopholes. All this has Nancy Pelosi scared shitless, as she's afraid of what the voters will do to any Democrat that helps try to restore fiscal sanity to entitlements. And she hates giving up the class warfare card -- proclaiming that all would be well with America if only the evil, wealthy businesses and investors would pay their fair share.
Maybe this will play out like 1994. Back then, a group of new House Republicans in the Reagan mold came to power, not unlike the Tea Party in 2010. Instead of bowing and yielding to the members of his party, Moveon, err, sorry, Bill Clinton worked with the Republicans. We ended up with a period of prosperity, rationalization of welfare, free trade agreements, and budget surpluses.
Maybe Obama thought about whether he wants to go down in history like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and he chose the latter. Or maybe he figures he's got a better shot in 2012 if he moves toward the center. In either event, it's Americans that come out the winners.
I suspect the $1 trillion you quote, over who knows how many years, doesn't even touch entitlement spending and is a drop in the bucket compared to the mess we're in.As you've just seen Tiny - The latest numbers are up to $4 T over a decade. Obama has given Republicans a golden opportunity to address our deficit and entitlement spending. All they need to do is get past their ideology and agree to tax revenue increases at a small fraction of the total amount. Also holding them back: their "pledge" to Grover Norquist, their fear of losing their jobs from Tea Party rage, and their determination to ensure Obama is not re-elected.
Obama has clearly demonstrated he is serious about tackling spending and deficits. How Republicans respond will reveal their true motives.
Obama has been talking to Republicans. Apparently he's telling Congressional Democrats that he will not sign a short term budget deal, he wants a $4 trillion cut in the deficit over the next 10 years, and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on the table. He also may be willing to go along with a change in the tax system that makes it more efficient and less burdensome, cuts the statutory marginal tax rate on business, and gets rid of loopholes. All this has Nancy Pelosi scared shitless, as she's afraid of what the voters will do to any Democrat that helps try to restore fiscal sanity to entitlements. And she hates giving up the class warfare card. Proclaiming that all would be well with America if only the evil, wealthy businesses and investors would pay their fair share.
Maybe this will play out like 1994. Back then, a group of new House Republicans in the Reagan mold came to power, not unlike the Tea Party in 2010. Instead of bowing and yielding to the members of his party, Moveon, err, sorry, Bill Clinton worked with the Republicans. We ended up with a period of prosperity, rationalization of welfare, free trade agreements, and budget surpluses.
Maybe Obama thought about whether he wants to go down in history like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and he chose the latter. Or maybe he figures he's got a better shot in 2012 if he moves toward the center. In either event, it's Americans that come out the winners.Job creation=short term, deficit reduction=long term. This is exactly what we need. If this gets done, wall street might do the salsa, and I will put down a deposit on the cruise to Antartica from BA.
Obama has no choice, he is determined to get the 2nd term. He just raised the pot. But the Republicans know that this is the lifeline that Obama needs, will they do the right thing, or let Obama walk the gangplank. Time will tell, it will be interesting to see how Fox News portray their agenda. That murder trial was murdering on me.
Rock Harders
07-08-11, 08:26
Mongers, WW, Jackson, etc-
If you look back at my posts from around the time of the GM bailout, you will see that I was actually opposed to the bailout of both GM and Chrysler because I thought they were both piece of shit companies that were mismanaged for decades and that they were incapable of becoming modern profit generating enterprises. I firmly
Believed that there was no way that GM and / or Chrysler could reemerge to pay back the bailout and that it was just going to amount to flushing taxpayer dollars down t the toilet. However, I was wrong in my analysis as GM is profitable at this point and the taxpayer will probably at least break even on the GM bailout loans. As such,
Really argue on practical grounds at this point that bailing out GM was a mistake? Is it not better to have a functioning and sustainable US carmaker?
Punter 127
07-08-11, 10:13
Read what I said. I said nothing about the extent of support for legalizing prostitution among Democrats.You certainly implied that they would support it.
BTW there is a very important difference between trafficking and prostitution.Not in the eyes of anti-trafficking groups.
If prostitution were the only issue I would vote Libertarian. Between Dems and Repubs, I'd say the party that supports gay marriage is more likely to support legalizing prostitution.So by that thinking we should assume the Dems would also support polygamy at least to some degree?
There is a huge difference between gay marriage and prostitution. I don't see anyone trying to connect gay marriage and prostitution, but they are trying to connect trafficking and prostitution.
The Dems just controlled all three branch of government for two years, where was the legislative effort to legalize prostitution?
It is my opinion that the single biggest obstacle to legalizing prostitution is the religious right and their efforts to maintain and promote a family values culture in the US. This does not mean there would be no other obstacles without them. Only that the religious right is the biggest obstacle, or drag, on moving in the direction of legalization. I'm quite sure many if not most people would agree with this. Care to disagree?I will agree that the religious right is against prostitution, but anyone who thinks the leftwing feminist are not trying to connect the dots and build a bridge between trafficking and prostitution, well I'll be nice and say you're just not up to date on this issue. I just saw a documentary on MSNBC the other night about this very subject and to hear them tell it all prostitutes are forced in to the business and it's all the johns, pimps, and traffickers fault.
They're saying mongers like me and you are to blame, no demand, no prostitutes is their thinking, and they're trying very hard to make the rest of the world view this issue in the same light as the USA.
Imagine prostitution worldwide on the same level as the USA, yikes!
IMHO you need to back off the rightwing leftwing stuff and research this issue a little more, this is not a one party issue.
You might however be onto something with that Libertarian thing, they're the only party that I know of that supports a woman's right to choose prostitution.
Sorry for the slow reply I was busy trying to escape from sex prison. I'm free at last, free at last.
Stan Da Man
07-09-11, 00:09
Maybe Obama thought about whether he wants to go down in history like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and he chose the latter. Or maybe he figures he's got a better shot in 2012 if he moves toward the center. In either event, it's Americans that come out the winners.Nah. His lips were moving. He's just lying like usual.
Stan Da Man
07-09-11, 00:32
Excerpts from a piece by Charles Krauthammer, which puts Obama in perspective:
Here we go again. An approaching crisis. A looming deadline. Nervous markets. And then, from the miasma of gridlock, rises our president, calling upon those unruly congressional children to quit squabbling, stop kicking the can down the road and get serious about debt.
This from the man who:
• Ignored the debt problem for two years by kicking the can to a commission.
• Promptly ignored the commission's December 2010 report.
• Delivered a State of the Union address in January that didn't even mention the word 'debt' until 35 minutes in.
• Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing — it actually increased the deficit — that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected it 97 to 0.
• Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt-plan speech. Asked in Congress how this new 'budget framework' would affect the actual federal budget, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf replied with a devastating 'We don't estimate speeches. ' You can't assign numbers to air.
* * * * *
Obama has run disastrous annual deficits of around $1. 5 trillion while insisting for months on a 'clean' debt-ceiling increase, I. E, with no budget cuts at all. Yet suddenly he now rises to champion major long-term debt reduction, scorning any suggestions of a short-term debt-limit deal as can-kicking.
The flip-flop is transparently political. A short-term deal means another debt-ceiling fight before Election Day, a debate that would put Obama on the defensive and distract from the Mediscare campaign to which the Democrats are clinging to save them in 2012.
* * * * *
And what have been Obama's own debt-reduction ideas? In last week's news conference, he railed against the tax break for corporate jet owners — six times.
I did the math. If you collect that tax for the next 5, 000 years — that is not a typo — it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since — first in shekels, then in dollars — we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.
Obama's other favorite debt-reduction refrain is canceling an oil-company tax break. Well, if you collect that oil tax and the corporate jet tax for the next 50 years — you will not yet have offset Obama's deficit spending for February 2011.
Full article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-elmendorf-rule/2011/07/07/gIQAPagk2H_story.html?hpid=z3
Couldn't have said it better myself. Well, maybe I could. He could have added that the corporate jet tax break O rails against is the same one he proposed. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/29/obama-blasts-private-jet-tax-breaks-created-by-his-own-stimulus/ The guy is a piece of work.
Michele Obama (la gordita) has just posted her recipe for obese delinquentes. This recipe may also apply to Barack's homemade instant job stimulation program.
Pumped Waffles.
- Prepare instant waffle batter that promises homemade taste (I. E. Instant jobs)
- Pour a small amount of batter onto waffle iron.
- While it's cooking tell yourself how big it's going to be.
- Remove the puny, burnt waffle and swear the next one will be big and fluffy.
- Close waffle iron without pouring any batter.
- Wait two minutes.
- Open waffle iron, act surprised when nothing is there.
- Blame your neighbor I. E. Republicans for ruining your breakfast
Who is bluffing and who is going to blink first. The pot is the 2012 elections.
Wild Walleye
07-18-11, 02:27
Obama is, as previously stated, always the least qualified man in the room.
As for Mrs. BHO, I'm not into fat black chics so I have never given her any consideration (not a racist comment, if you think so, FU).
The facts are simple:
1. BHO has run the govt at a significant deficit, thereby creating the need for increasing the debt limit.
2. There is no need to increase the debt limit in order to avoid defaulting on the debt (the US brings in more than adequate revenues every month to satisfy our debt service needs.
3. The American public is pissed about this BS and will punish Dems for being Dems and Repubs for acting like Dems.
Matt Psyche
07-19-11, 14:28
Very logical and enlightening. Thank you.
(not a racist comment, if you think so, FU).
The Chinese wife of Rupert Murdoch reacted with speed in the defense of her husband, as he was about to be assaulted by a demonstrator during the News Corp hearings in London. Very attractice, tall and slim despite having child a few year back, her instinct to protect her husband was incredible. No hesitation, she move immediately and took a right swing at the attacker's face, in spite of being somewhat shield away by her left seatmate.
Remind me of the time I viewed and rejected the lineup at an Korean massage joint. One was so enraged she took a punt at my ass as I turn to leave the premise. The days of Asian girls being demure and passive are over. Just make sure that if you married them, that a joint bank accound is at least in 6 figures.
Wild Walleye
07-20-11, 15:09
Who is bluffing and who is going to blink first. The pot is the 2012 elections.I suspect the Republican pussies will back down, even though they have a much stronger hand and they have the added benefit of being on the correct side of the issue.
Other than BHO's nearly $4T budget he submitted (I think it was back in April) which is nearly twice the expected federal receipts for FY2012, neither BHO nor the democrats have proposed anything. Why do republicans feel the need to negotiate against themselves? You make an offer, if the other side doesn't counter, walk away.
There is no scenario (none whatsoever) under which the US government will default on its debt in the near future. If the president, for political purposes, elects not to properly service the debt (preferring to fund Acorn or whatever) he will have committed an impeachable offense, for which he will be swiftly indicted. Any discussion of default is bullshit, pure and simple.
Why republicans have allowed him to pretend to control the high ground is beyond me. They (the republicans) are sitting on top of the high ground. Why would the give it away?
My Former Name
07-22-11, 00:01
It seems my friend Esten and his opponents remind me of two bald men fighting over a comb. Obama and the Republicans only have their self interest in mind. To get re-elected, at the expenxe of their constituents. Why is it, we, the electorate, choose such fools? Hmm, should I move to BA when the republic fails?
MFM
Because there is so much air time, they have to sensationalize every issue. Most of these babbling idiots don't even believe what they themselves are saying, it's for the cash that they generate. Yet, these are the people that a majority of the voters get their information and opinions from.
As bad as the economy is, I am less fearful of the American economy than I am of the American culture.
Member #4112
07-27-11, 10:34
Black Shirt I have to agree with you regarding the talking heads. Most have no idea what they are talking about but are only interested in spinning the latest catastrophe for their own gain al la the Anthony debacle.
The 14th Amendment prohibits the government for 'defaulting' on our sovereign debt, no if's, an's or but's about it. With sufficient funds coming in to pay the sovereign debt, social security, Medicare / Medicaid, military pay, unemployment and school loans, perhaps to save money we should stop paying the House and Senate, the President, all their appointees, czars, staffers et al. The EPA could work three days a week as well as most other government agencies including the federal courts. While we are at it, all the contractors who are behind in their projects don't get paid until they are on schedule and they eat any cost over runs!
I'd let the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security continue to function but cut off all payments to anyone in an upper supervisory position at those agencies – the policy wonks that don't do anything but screw with the troops doing the job. While we are at it we could stop paying everyone at TSA even though they would go into withdrawal not being able to shake down granny, small children and hot women!
Wild Walleye
07-28-11, 18:18
The 14th Amendment prohibits the government for 'defaulting' on our sovereign debt, no if's, an's or but's about it. With sufficient funds coming in to pay the sovereign debt, social security, Medicare / Medicaid, military pay, unemployment and school loans, perhaps to save money we should stop paying the House and Senate, the President, all their appointees, czars, staffers et al. The EPA could work three days a week as well as most other government agencies including the federal courts. While we are at it, all the contractors who are behind in their projects don't get paid until they are on schedule and they eat any cost over runs!What the 14th Amendment clearly does not do is empower the president of the the US to issue debt. It is mind boggling that some of these idiots (media, Obama and Dems in congress) are suggesting that it does. This whole episode is BS. If we don't raise the debt limit, the government has to spend less money. They have no choice but to service the debt first. If the president chooses not to service the debt, he will swiftly be impeached. I say f-ck 'them, don't raise the limit. Start cutting in real time. Pay for the essentials and let the rest fall by the wayside.
In the past six years we have doubled the long term debt of the US from approximately $7T to $14T. What do we have to show for it? Exactly what programs funded by the additional $7T of debt can we not live without?
By the way, contrary to Esten and the other hopeless liberals herein, TARP and "Stimulus" are already built into the base line budget, therefore they are permanent enshrined in the CBO calculations. So if you cut $2T off of the CBO baseline, you've cut nothing. Federal government spending was out of control under Bush, so liberals should be fine with going back to 2007 spending levels.
The only people in America who oppose a balance budget act are the Democrats in congress.
BlueFalcon
07-28-11, 22:21
Before I get started. A quick poll. Who thinks fat chicks give the best head? I'm in the fat chick fellatio camp. But I digress.
Once upon a time, when I had taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, I used to carry a copy of the Constitution in my cargo pocket as sort of a reference. Over the past couple of days, a lot of hay has been made in the media about the 14th Ammendment and the POTUS' ability to raise our debt ceiling under that ammendment, without authorization from Congress. The relevant sections are #4 and #5:
Section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW, (hint: this is important) including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion (TREASON) , shall not be questioned. But neither the United States, or any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States (THE REPUBLIC) OR (this "OR" is pretty important too) any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5: (I love this one.) The CONGRESS shall have the power to enforce, by APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, the provisions of this article.
Words in parenthesis were added by me for emphasis.
Way back on 13 June 1866, a lot of the former slave states were bitching about the fiscal hardship they endured from freeing their slaves (among other things). Section 4 of the 14th Ammendment told them to "Pound Sand", and that the Union would not honor any of their wartime debts. Section 4 also reiterated that public debt be authorized by law. By lawmakers. You know. Congress. Not the President. Violation of this section is ONE of the quicker routes to impeachment that POTUS could follow. Section 5 restates Congress' authority over the public debt.
Cheers,
BF.
What the 14th Amendment clearly does not do is empower the president of the the US to issue debt. It is mind boggling that some of these idiots (media, Obama and Dems in congress) are suggesting that it does. This whole episode is BS. If we don't raise the debt limit, the government has to spend less money. They have no choice but to service the debt first. If the president chooses not to service the debt, he will swiftly be impeached. I say f-ck 'them, don't raise the limit. Start cutting in real time. Pay for the essentials and let the rest fall by the wayside.
In the past six years we have doubled the long term debt of the US from approximately $7T to $14T. What do we have to show for it? Exactly what programs funded by the additional $7T of debt can we not live without?
By the way, contrary to Esten and the other hopeless liberals herein, TARP and "Stimulus" are already built into the base line budget, therefore they are permanent enshrined in the CBO calculations. So if you cut $2T off of the CBO baseline, you've cut nothing. Federal government spending was out of control under Bush, so liberals should be fine with going back to 2007 spending levels.
The only people in America who oppose a balance budget act are the Democrats in congress.
Wild Walleye
07-28-11, 22:29
Section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW, (hint: this is important)The only debt of the US Federal Government, that is authorized by law, comes out of the congress. Gee, that is important, except for the fact that the beltway republicans are willing to do nothing and give away the store to this reckless, malicious and malignant president, which only goes to show that despite what they say, very few of them are actually conservatives.
BlueFalcon
07-28-11, 22:45
The only debt of the US Federal Government, that is authorized by law, comes out of the congress. Gee, that is important, except for the fact that the beltway republicans are willing to do nothing and give away the store to this reckless, malicious and malignant president, which only goes to show that despite what they say, very few of them are actually conservatives.Wild Walleye: "reckless, malicious and malignant" are kind adjectives when describing our current Potus. My point was that only the Congress, as dysfunctional as it may be, has the authority over the national purse, by law. It has abdicated this authority for nearly a century, and things are now coming to a head.
BF
The house is on fire, and the guys are arguing what kind of hoses they should use. How dysfunctional can you get? Even if we get out of this mess this time, we are still mired on the slippery slope
Wild Walleye
07-29-11, 18:57
Wild Walleye: "reckless, malicious and malignant" are kind adjectives when describing our current Potus. My point was that only the Congress, as dysfunctional as it may be, has the authority over the national purse, by law. It has abdicated this authority for nearly a century, and things are now coming to a head.
BFSorry that I didn't make it clear. I was agreeing with you and attempting to highlight your excellent point.
It makes me want to vomit that this loser president pretended to be a constitutional scholar and yet he suggests that he could go it alone. What a joke.
Two quick points:
1. The US government is in no way headed toward a default on its debt. 'Failure' to raise the debt ceiling can't cause the US to default on its debts (in the current scenario).
At these rates (which are unsustainably low) , the income of the Federal government could support $100T of debt (I'm certainly not advocating that). The douche bags saying that are political hacks trying to score points and the barely-literate press repeating their drivel.
It would be better for all of us if they don't raise the debt limit. Let the "world end" in the terms of the Democrats. If they don't raise the debt limit, they have to actually match out flows to inflows. Why would that be bad for America? The government has more than enough incoming revenue to service the debt. After they service the debt, they can then decide what they want to pay for with what is left over. There is also sufficient income to pay for critical services and things like the military, social security and medicare / medicade. The Constitution says they have to pay the debt, therefore tehy have to pay it. What other federal expenditures are enshrined and guaranteed in the Constitution?
2. The potential downgrading of America's debt by rating agencies has virtually nothing to do with the debt-ceiling issue now being debated. Any downgrade would be due to the enormity of America's accumulated debt relative to its income. Almost all debt on this planet is in one way or another related to the rates on US treasury instruments. There is no other comparable issuer of debt on the planet. Any downgrade is much ado about nothing because the US will still be the only issuer capable of putting the "full faith and credit" of the USA behind its debt.
What the potential for a downgrade should tell anyone is that the US has a major spending problem. It is not a revenue problem. However, if you want more revenue, cut some taxes. If you want more people back to work, cut regulation and taxes.
BlueFalcon
07-29-11, 20:13
What we have learned in 2, 056 years.
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,
Public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be.
Tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should.
Be curtailed lest Rome becomes bankrupt. People must again learn to.
Work, instead of living on public assistance."
- Cicero. 55 BC.
So, apparently nothing.
Sorry that I didn't make it clear. I was agreeing with you and attempting to highlight your excellent point.
It makes me want to vomit that this loser president pretended to be a constitutional scholar and yet he suggests that he could go it alone. What a joke.
Two quick points:
1. The US government is in no way headed toward a default on its debt. 'Failure' to raise the debt ceiling can't cause the US to default on its debts (in the current scenario).
At these rates (which are unsustainably low) , the income of the Federal government could support $100T of debt (I'm certainly not advocating that). The douche bags saying that are political hacks trying to score points and the barely-literate press repeating their drivel.
It would be better for all of us if they don't raise the debt limit. Let the "world end" in the terms of the Democrats. If they don't raise the debt limit, they have to actually match out flows to inflows. Why would that be bad for America? The government has more than enough incoming revenue to service the debt. After they service the debt, they can then decide what they want to pay for with what is left over. There is also sufficient income to pay for critical services and things like the military, social security and medicare / medicade. The Constitution says they have to pay the debt, therefore tehy have to pay it. What other federal expenditures are enshrined and guaranteed in the Constitution?
2. The potential downgrading of America's debt by rating agencies has virtually nothing to do with the debt-ceiling issue now being debated. Any downgrade would be due to the enormity of America's accumulated debt relative to its income. Almost all debt on this planet is in one way or another related to the rates on US treasury instruments. There is no other comparable issuer of debt on the planet. Any downgrade is much ado about nothing because the US will still be the only issuer capable of putting the "full faith and credit" of the USA behind its debt.
What the potential for a downgrade should tell anyone is that the US has a major spending problem. It is not a revenue problem. However, if you want more revenue, cut some taxes. If you want more people back to work, cut regulation and taxes.
Wild Walleye
07-29-11, 22:57
What we have learned in 2, 056 years.
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,
Public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be.
Tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should.
Be curtailed lest Rome becomes bankrupt. People must again learn to.
Work, instead of living on public assistance."
- Cicero. 55 BC.
So, apparently nothing.This "Boehner Bill" is pure bullsh*t. It cuts nothing, it has no teeth and while they may put lipstick on it, it's still a pig. The fix has been in all along. Boehner is a country club republican (albeit from modest beginnings) that wants to maintain the status quo. So he an McConnell and Reid have cooked up this pile of crap to give Boehner the appearance of being tough while in reality it just continues to perpetuate the Washington machine. The bill will be tabled in the Senate then they will gut it to be a 'tax and spend' liberal's wet dream and send it back to the House. They (media included) will say "it's the Boehner bill, it's a republican bill! How can you be against it?" If republicans bail and it doesn't get passed, they'll blame republicans. If they pass it, Obama, Reid and Pelosi continue to get what they want from compliant republicans who wouldn't know conservatism if it bit them on the ass.
BlueFalcon
07-30-11, 00:09
This "Boehner Bill" is pure bullsh*t. It cuts nothing, it has no teeth and while they may put lipstick on it, it's still a pig. The fix has been in all along. Boehner is a country club republican (albeit from modest beginnings) that wants to maintain the status quo. So he an McConnell and Reid have cooked up this pile of crap to give Boehner the appearance of being tough while in reality it just continues to perpetuate the Washington machine. The bill will be tabled in the Senate then they will gut it to be a 'tax and spend' liberal's wet dream and send it back to the House. They (media included) will say "it's the Boehner bill, it's a republican bill! How can you be against it?" If republicans bail and it doesn't get passed, they'll blame republicans. If they pass it, Obama, Reid and Pelosi continue to get what they want from compliant republicans who wouldn't know conservatism if it bit them on the ass.Article I, Section VII: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with ammendments as on other bills.
I hope the thin (very thin) red line (not red as in Marxist. Potus. Red, but as in Conservative Red) in the House will hold the line and cut off the spending junky that we've become as a nation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEF0XkY4X7U
BF
We are in trouble.
Obama was explaining that the unemployment numbers were a little misleading. We are adding private sector jobs but because of lack of tax revenue states are being forced to cut public sector jobs. Doesn't Obama get it? Public sector jobs are make believe jobs. They are a drain on the economy paid for by people with real jobs. Cutting public sector jobs is good.
I have not read any of Obama's ghost writtren autobiographies but I doubt there is even one sentence about his childhood experiences selling lemonade or having a paper route. This guy is absolutely clueless about a free market economy. Receiving a check for work as 'community organizer' is about the extent of his knowledge of how economies function.
Matt Psyche
07-30-11, 23:19
1. The US government is in no way headed toward a default on its debt. 'Failure' to raise the debt ceiling can't cause the US to default on its debts (in the current scenario).You are wrong and your brain is somewhere.
It would be better for all of us if they don't raise the debt limit. Let the "world end" in the terms of the Democrats.You are not understanding this issue at all.
Member #4112
07-31-11, 00:14
No Matt you have it wrong. We have a spending problem and by not increasing the Debt Limit the government will have to live with what it brings in which means, gasp, a whole lot of government programs will have to be terminated. It will be interesting to see what Obama considers "necessary" programs which should be funded. You might note that none of the legislation passed in either the House or Senate address CURRENT spending programs! Get a grip, no one in Washington seems to have a clue execpt the newest member of the House and Senate.
Perry did it here in Texas and guess what, the state did not implode, we are still here and doing fine. Of course some demoncratic oxes got gored.
We are in trouble.
Obama was explaining that the unemployment numbers were a little misleading. We are adding private sector jobs but because of lack of tax revenue states are being forced to cut public sector jobs. Doesn't Obama get it? Public sector jobs are make believe jobs. They are a drain on the economy paid for by people with real jobs. Cutting public sector jobs is good.
I have not read any of Obama's ghost writtren autobiographies but I doubt there is even one sentence about his childhood experiences selling lemonade or having a paper route. This guy is absolutely clueless about a free market economy. Receiving a check for work as 'community organizer' is about the extent of his knowledge of how economies function.The US has been on a gravy train for a least 3 decades now. As on the Titanic, previous administrations have just been rearragning the deck chairs. Obama has not been the Messiah, but he did not run and win on a platform based on a financial crisis and the recession that followed. Most of Obama's spending is due to the weak economy. Fiscal conservatism is crucial, but balancing the budget in the midst of a severe recession is just insane. Yes, we should start now but it is should be long term goal.
To reflect your ideology, I could say that if Bush had spent all the trillions on rebuilding the infrastructure in this country rather than on Iraq and oil, we would not be having this conversation right now.
Member #4112
07-31-11, 11:42
Black Shirt, it's not the infrastructure or the war spending, run the numbers, it's the ENTITLEMENT spending and the entitlement mentality.
Matt Psyche
07-31-11, 13:19
You are talking about irrelevant things. My issue is the seemingly wrong notion that there will be no default w / o raising debt ceiling. Secondly, bunch of disconnected and contradictory sentences you wrote do not make sense to any English speakers. Please retake Econ 101 and Eng101.
No Matt you have it wrong. We have a spending problem and by not increasing the Debt Limit the government will have to live with what it brings in which means, gasp, a whole lot of government programs will have to be terminated. It will be interesting to see what Obama considers "necessary" programs which should be funded. You might note that none of the legislation passed in either the House or Senate address CURRENT spending programs! Get a grip, no one in Washington seems to have a clue execpt the newest member of the House and Senate.
Perry did it here in Texas and guess what, the state did not implode, we are still here and doing fine. Of course some demoncratic oxes got gored.
You are talking about irrelevant things. My issue is the seemingly wrong notion that there will be no default w / o raising debt ceiling. Secondly, bunch of disconnected and contradictory sentences you wrote do not make sense to any English speakers. Please retake Econ 101 and Eng101.Econ 101:
The US Government's failure to raise our own borrowing limit will NOT result in a "default".
A "default" is defined as a situation wherein a borrower fails to pay the payments on their debt.
The US Government enjoys revenues of approximately $200 billion per month.
The payments on the US Government debt is approximately $40 billion per month.
Thus the US Government has and will continue to have plenty of money to service our debts, and you fear mongers should be ashamed of yourselves for so disingenuously describing any failure to raise the US Government's credit limit as a "default".
I hope this makes "sense to any English speakers".
Thanks,
Jax
Matt Psyche
07-31-11, 20:17
You are indicating that the Fed Gov can avoid default simply because the debt interest payment and partial repayment account for 20% of govtl revenue. I would like to remind you that the two things-default and the size of debt payment, are unrelated. The 2011 fiscal budget was enacted, that is, determined, at the end of September 2010. The great portion of the "monthly revenues" you mentioned had been already spent or assigned for various appropiated/authorized items. Regardless of the revenue / debt payment ratio, the govt will have no sufficient amount of money by Aug. 2 (Aug 10 accrding to Bipartisan Policy research Committee) to meet its obligations to pay for the debt. Thanks.
Econ 101:
The US Government's failure to raise our own borrowing limit will NOT Result in a "default".
A "default" is defined as a situation wherein a borrower fails to pay the payments on their debt.
The US Government enjoys revenues of approximately $200 billion per month.
The payments on the US Government debt is approximately $40 billion per month.
Thus the US Government has and will continue to have plenty of money to service our debts, and you fear mongers should be ashamed of yourselves for so disingenuously describing any failure to raise the US Government's credit limit as a "default".
I hope this makes "sense to any English speakers".
Thanks,
Jax
Member #4112
07-31-11, 21:13
Matt, check your translation program, it must be malfunctioning if you were unable to understand my post you highlighted.
Let me see if I can reduce it to its essence.
1. The debt ceiling is not increased resulting in the Federal Government not being able to borrow funds to pay for projects currently authorized.
2. The Federal Government will then have to prioritize which payments will be made; therefore Obama will have to select those programs he believes should be funded and those which will not be funded.
3. Since there will no longer be adequate funds available for all Federal Programs, some programs will be terminated for lack of funding.
4. The State of Texas faced a severe gap between expenditures and income. Despite liberal warnings of a catastrophic collapse of the state if the reductions in spending were enacted none of these dire warnings come to pass. Texas is doing fine, is experiencing greater growth in both business and employment than any other state in the nation.
Obama's experiment in Keynesian economic theory has been a complete failure.
I think I still have my old econ book, will be happy to send it to you. Send me a PM with your address. I'm pretty sure NASA is going to Mars pretty soon.
Matt Psyche
07-31-11, 21:28
Sounds like a good plan. The nation will keep AAA credit, many people will buy the USA bonds, and Wall street will soar. Ciao.
Matt, check your translation program, it must be malfunctioning if you were unable to understand my post you highlighted.
Let me see if I can reduce it to its essence.
1. The debt ceiling is not increased resulting in the Federal Government not being able to borrow funds to pay for projects currently authorized.
2. The Federal Government will then have to prioritize which payments will be made; therefore Obama will have to select those programs he believes should be funded and those which will not be funded.
3. Since there will no longer be adequate funds available for all Federal Programs, some programs will be terminated for lack of funding.
4. The State of Texas faced a severe gap between expenditures and income. Despite liberal warnings of a catastrophic collapse of the state if the reductions in spending were enacted none of these dire warnings come to pass. Texas is doing fine, is experiencing greater growth in both business and employment than any other state in the nation.
Obama's experiment in Keynesian economic theory has been a complete failure.
I think I still have my old econ book, will be happy to send it to you. Send me a PM with your address. I'm pretty sure NASA is going to Mars pretty soon.
BlueFalcon
07-31-11, 21:37
Sounds like a good plan. The nation will keep AAA credit, many people will buy the USA bonds, and Wall street will soar. Ciao.Matt. Let me chime in here. There was no Federal budget enacted in 2010. In fact, there has been no Federal budget passed over the past 842 days.
Keynes was a socialist douchebag. His theory on fiscal policy is fundamentally flawed. I really hate saying this about a fellow Scottsman. At least we have Adam Smith.
Cheers,
BF
Black Shirt, it's not the infrastructure or the war spending, run the numbers, it's the ENTITLEMENT spending and the entitlement mentality.Are you referring to programs where I can just walk in with my palms out, and I qualify, or something that has to meet some requirements?
Ok, the entitlements are a hugh block of the budget. Personally, I think SS and Medicare / Medicaid is COMPULSORY in a civilized society, and I don't mind paying into the system during my working lifetime. Even at higher rates, if it has to be. And so far, they are solvent. The ongoing problem is because Congress and Obama (and past administrations) have failed to deliver on reforms to make it sustainable.
So we have a dysfunctional government, but then if case you didn't know, we have a dysfunctional society as well. Single parents, a drug culture, poor but expensive educational systems, poor / expensive medicated health (despite people living longer). Nobody wants to talk about these things, only ideology.
Sorry, once again, I repeat, you just can't get on your horse and go shoot a buffalo when you decide to have a Bar-B-Q. But then, maybe, you could!
Member #4112
08-01-11, 00:58
Black Shirt, I have to agree with you on the dysfunctional government and society. Social Security, Medicare. Should be covered since folks have PAID for them during their working lives in the form of taxes for those programs and their payments have been matched by their employers. Medicare on the other hand is a pure unfunded giveaway program which increased more than 16% last year. Let me give an example of what is wrong with Medicaid.
A Chinese woman who obviously has money secures a visa to come to the US because she is pregnant with her second child; China has a one child policy. She arrives in the US, goes to an Ob / Gyn physician and pays cash up front for her prenatal care and delivery in full. She informs the physician if the child is a girl she will return to China and the government will abort her. If the child is a boy she will stay and have it. Three weeks later she returns for her next appointment and presents a Medicaid card and demands her money back. Now how in the world does a woman who speaks no English, is in the US on a visa, and has funds get on Medicaid? Beats the hell out of me to but it happens all the time with my clients. People with obvious means of support turn up with Medicaid or worse yet they have Private Insurance and get Medicaid as their Secondary insurance.
So instead of cleaning up the fraud in the system by some sort of meaningful testing / investigation, Congress wants to solve the problem by cutting payments to physicians and hospitals. Go figure.
Now don't get me started on government agencies, payrolls, health benefits and retirement systems which we mere taxpayer serfs and not allowed to participate in.
Sounds like a good plan. The nation will keep AAA credit, many people will buy the USA bonds, and Wall street will soar. Ciao.Yes, that is EXACTLY what will happen if we can rein in the Obama's administration's insane spending.
Unfortunately, Obama wants the country's credit card limit raised because he needs the money to buy votes.
Thanks,
Jackson
Lots of right-wing misinformation continuing here, not too surprised.
It's a spending problem AND a revenue problem, now moreso the latter. I've posted CBPP charts here before, and here's another look at the sources of our debt. Obama's spending is not the main cause, and no matter how many times Fox-bots repeat it, polls show even most Americans do not rank recent spending as the main cause. The top two contributors are the unfunded wars and the Bush Tax Cuts.
The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
Further, the Keynesian model as proven by the Stimulus was a success. No, it did not keep unemployment below 8% as predicted, but that prediction was made before the true depth of private sector job slashing became apparent. The Stimulus saved or created between 1.5-3 Million jobs according to assessments from multiple economists, prevented unemployment from going above 11% and helped restore confidence in the private sector at a critical time. Of course if you listen to right wing politicians they all say it was a failure. But these are politicians. Economists say otherwise.
DEBT DEAL. The debt deal seems good to me. We have more work to do but it's a good start with real cuts. Some on the left are upset that entitlements are now more in play than tax increases, but I see it as part of a broader strategy. Romney is waiting in the wings with his "where are the jobs" campaign, which admittedly will be an uphill slog for Obama (through little fault of his own though). By moving to the right on both tax increases and entitlements, Obama has now ensured these will be focus points in 2012. Americans are going to see entitlements threatened and the rich continuing to get a free pass, which will motivate voters on an emotional level. Dems have data and reason on their side, but these are not enough with the American electorate. Many Dems think Obama has caved or conceded too much, but it's all part of a grand strategy because 2012 is indeed very significant. If Obama wins, PPACA is preserved and we get a big boost in revenue from Bush Tax Cuts expiring and taxes within PPACA. O'Reilly's memo tonight provided a hint that GOP strategists also understand this grand strategy. They know 2012 won't be just about jobs anymore, and they know they can't convince voters that spending cuts alone are the way to go to balance the budget (especially when almost 80% think we need a balanced approach with cuts and revenues). So we are going to hear a lot more now about how Republicans also agree we need more revenues, but the way to do it is with "Tax Reform" such as a Flat Tax. Of course what they won't tell you is that this will shift more tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class and poor. That would be an uphill sell, and Dems will be sure to expose right wing deception along the way.
Obama is shifting the 2012 debate and will harness the strong feelings Americans have about preserving entitlements and having a balanced approach to deficits.
Lots of right-wing misinformation continuing here, not too surprised.
It's a spending problem AND a revenue problem, now moreso the latter. I've posted CBPP charts here before, and here's another look at the sources of our debt. Obama's spending is not the main cause, and no matter how many times Fox-bots repeat it, polls show even most Americans do not rank recent spending as the main cause. The top two contributors are the unfunded wars and the Bush Tax Cuts.
The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
Further, the Keynesian model as proven by the Stimulus was a success. No, it did not keep unemployment below 8% as predicted, but that prediction was made before the true depth of private sector job slashing became apparent. The Stimulus saved or created between 1. 5-3 Million jobs according to assessments from multiple economists, prevented unemployment from going above 11% and helped restore confidence in the private sector at a critical time. Of course if you listen to right wing politicians they all say it was a failure. But these are politicians. Economists say otherwise.
DEBT DEAL. The debt deal seems good to me. We have more work to do but it's a good start with real cuts. Some on the left are upset that entitlements are now more in play than tax increases, but I see it as part of a broader strategy. Romney is waiting in the wings with his "where are the jobs" campaign, which admittedly will be an uphill slog for Obama (through little fault of his own though). By moving to the right on both tax increases and entitlements, Obama has now ensured these will be focus points in 2012. Americans are going to see entitlements threatened and the rich continuing to get a free pass, which will motivate voters on an emotional level. Dems have data and reason on their side, but these are not enough with the American electorate. Many Dems think Obama has caved or conceded too much, but it's all part of a grand strategy because 2012 is indeed very significant. If Obama wins, PPACA is preserved and we get a big boost in revenue from Bush Tax Cuts expiring and taxes within PPACA. O'Reilly's memo tonight provided a hint that GOP strategists also understand this grand strategy. They know 2012 won't be just about jobs anymore, and they know they can't convince voters that spending cuts alone are the way to go to balance the budget (especially when almost 80% think we need a balanced approach with cuts and revenues). So we are going to hear a lot more now about how Republicans also agree we need more revenues, but the way to do it is with "Tax Reform" such as a Flat Tax. Of course what they won't tell you is that this will shift more tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class and poor. That would be an uphill sell, and Dems will be sure to expose right wing deception along the way.
Obama is shifting the 2012 debate and will harness the strong feelings Americans have about preserving entitlements and having a balanced approach to deficits.So, federal politicians spent like drunken sailors both when Bush was president and when Obama was president. What's your point? I didn't vote for either one of them, and I'd venture to say that's true of the majority of others posting here as well.
The charts are a load of crap. They describe tax cuts as costs or government spending. That is bull shit. Apparently when government forces me to pay 35% of what I make instead of 39. 6, the difference is spending. The government is spending money on me. Subsidizing me, because I don't pay enough. That 35% when added to a 10% state income tax and a sales tax and property taxes and, some day, a death tax, that just isn't enough. I'm evil. I'm a burden on society. As you say below, I'm getting a free pass.
We're experiencing European levels of unemployment for an extended period, and you view that as a vindication of Keynsian economics?
There is too much standard rhetoric from both the extreme right and left. I guess if you repeat it often enough, they must be true. Didn't Warren Buffett mentioned that he was paying less percentage of tax than his office administrator. Ah, all those loopholes! Taxation never stopped me from working OT or accepting 2nd jobs. Meanwhile, there is alot of people who would rather go home early and take it easy, but use the excuse that Uncle Sam is the culprit. Then we find out that the "nerdy & stupid" immigrants who never turned down a chance to make more money, are paying cash for their cars.
There is too much standard rhetoric from both the extreme right and left. I guess if you repeat it often enough, they must be true. Didn't Warren Buffett mentioned that he was paying less percentage of tax than his office administrator. Ah, all those loopholes! Taxation never stopped me from working OT or accepting 2nd jobs. Meanwhile, there is alot of people who would rather go home early and take it easy, but use the excuse that Uncle Sam is the culprit. Then we find out that the "nerdy & stupid" immigrants who never turned down a chance to make more money, are paying cash for their cars.Buffet's views are self serving.
He's for the death tax. Berkshire Hathaway bought a number of family owned businesses, because the families couldn't pay the death tax and so had to sell out.
Buffet believes that dividends paid to individuals should be taxed at a higher rate. Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay a dividend. And if memory serves me correctly, Berkshire receives an 85% tax deduction for any dividends it receives. So he doesn't indirectly pay a very high % tax on dividends by virtue of his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway.
Finally, he doesn't sell Berkshire Hathaway stock, which is where practically all his wealth is held. So he doesn't pay much tax. Hell, it's possible his secretary not only pays a higher % of her income in tax, it's possible she pays more tax.
Many wealthy Democrats and some Republicans support higher tax rates because, like Buffet, they profit more from an inefficient system with higher tax rates and loopholes, or, like certain attorneys, they otherwise benefit from their party's policies.
It's a fact that a lot of people are going home early and taking it easy because of taxes, although more so in Western Europe than the USA. It's not just an excuse.
Buffet's views are self serving.
He's for the death tax. Berkshire Hathaway bought a number of family owned businesses, because the families couldn't pay the death tax and so had to sell out.
Buffet believes that dividends paid to individuals should be taxed at a higher rate. Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay a dividend. And if memory serves me correctly, Berkshire receives an 85% tax deduction for any dividends it receives. So he doesn't indirectly pay a very high % tax on dividends by virtue of his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway.
Finally, he doesn't sell Berkshire Hathaway stock, which is where practically all his wealth is held. So he doesn't pay much tax. Hell, it's possible his secretary not only pays a higher % of her income in tax, it's possible she pays more tax.
Many wealthy Democrats and some Republicans support higher tax rates because, like Buffet, they profit more from an inefficient system with higher tax rates and loopholes, or, like certain attorneys, they otherwise benefit from their party's policies.
It's a fact that a lot of people are going home early and taking it easy because of taxes, although more so in Western Europe than the USA. It's not just an excuse.So Buffett and other CEOs received mega payouts in the form of shares / dividends that are either tax exempted or taxed at a lower percentage. In any case, let's just say that the super rich whilst contributing a major share of tax revenues are paying at a lower percentage of their income than the average joe. On the other hand, the percentage of people not paying income taxes is ridiculous. Payroll and sales taxes are not income taxes. Tax reform is needed, I think we can all agree .
"I see the enemy, and it is us". What I was trying to allude earlier is that as a country, our values have decline. It is a cultural thing and it is driven by spending. We don't really have to live in Las Vegas or Washington to get addicted to spending money that we don't have. Instead of casinos, we have malls. To make it even easier, online. Our meals are getting bigger all the time, and our closets & garages are full of things that we got tired of. Savings, yeah, right. Paycheck to paycheck is the norm. Congress is just a reflection of us.
"I see the enemy, and it is us". What I was trying to allude earlier is that as a country, our values have decline. It is a cultural thing and it is driven by spending. We don't really have to live in Las Vegas or Washington to get addicted to spending money that we don't have. Instead of casinos, we have malls. To make it even easier, online. Our meals are getting bigger all the time, and our closets & garages are full of things that we got tired of. Savings, yeah, right. Paycheck to paycheck is the norm. Congress is just a reflection of us.Great post. You've expressed similar thoughts before but not as eloquently. I'd stress the last sentence. Both the American public and the federal government have spent like there's no tomorrow.
Member #4112
08-02-11, 22:07
Black Shirt,"Payroll Taxes" for employees are comprised of three parts, Federal Income Tax, Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax. While you can make the argument the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid and matched by the employer are to pay for future benefits there can be no argument the Federal Income Tax deducted from the employee's pay check is anything but INCOME TAX.
If you look at past posts, WW, Jackson, myself and many more agree with your statement the US is going down hill. You can blame this on the liberals and their idea that anything goes. No honor, no duty above to one's self, no self respect or respect for others, nothing that made the generation that fought WWII and become known as the greatest generation.
My Former Name
08-03-11, 01:17
Lots of right-wing misinformation continuing here, not too surprised.
It's a spending problem AND a revenue problem, now moreso the latter. I've posted CBPP charts here before, and here's another look at the sources of our debt. Obama's spending is not the main cause, and no matter how many times Fox-bots repeat it, polls show even most Americans do not rank recent spending as the main cause. The top two contributors are the unfunded wars and the Bush Tax Cuts.
The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
Further, the Keynesian model as proven by the Stimulus was a success. No, it did not keep unemployment below 8% as predicted, but that prediction was made before the true depth of private sector job slashing became apparent. The Stimulus saved or created between 1. 5-3 Million jobs according to assessments from multiple economists, prevented unemployment from going above 11% and helped restore confidence in the private sector at a critical time. Of course if you listen to right wing politicians they all say it was a failure. But these are politicians. Economists say otherwise.
DEBT DEAL. The debt deal seems good to me. We have more work to do but it's a good start with real cuts. Some on the left are upset that entitlements are now more in play than tax increases, but I see it as part of a broader strategy. Romney is waiting in the wings with his "where are the jobs" campaign, which admittedly will be an uphill slog for Obama (through little fault of his own though). By moving to the right on both tax increases and entitlements, Obama has now ensured these will be focus points in 2012. Americans are going to see entitlements threatened and the rich continuing to get a free pass, which will motivate voters on an emotional level. Dems have data and reason on their side, but these are not enough with the American electorate. Many Dems think Obama has caved or conceded too much, but it's all part of a grand strategy because 2012 is indeed very significant. If Obama wins, PPACA is preserved and we get a big boost in revenue from Bush Tax Cuts expiring and taxes within PPACA. O'Reilly's memo tonight provided a hint that GOP strategists also understand this grand strategy. They know 2012 won't be just about jobs anymore, and they know they can't convince voters that spending cuts alone are the way to go to balance the budget (especially when almost 80% think we need a balanced approach with cuts and revenues). So we are going to hear a lot more now about how Republicans also agree we need more revenues, but the way to do it is with "Tax Reform" such as a Flat Tax. Of course what they won't tell you is that this will shift more tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class and poor. That would be an uphill sell, and Dems will be sure to expose right wing deception along the way.
Obama is shifting the 2012 debate and will harness the strong feelings Americans have about preserving entitlements and having a balanced approach to deficits.If John Keynes is your economic God, or if you think Arthur Lifer had it right, it makes no difference. These models are valid when the car is running down the road between the lines, not when you're driving in the ditch. Putting more gas in the car won't get you out of the ditch, nor will trying to draft the lead vehicle get you up that hill.
Of each dollar we spend. 42 cents is borrowed. We spend more than we get. Others have discussed this in these forums. We all know the numbers. Some of us actually understand them.
My friend Esten's New York progressive outlook is irrelevant; as are my conservative friends on this board for we won't do anything but talk. We join the talking, arguing, and cajoling like those in Congress, in the Administration, on Fox, MSNBC, and forums throughout the Internet. It won't get us out of the ditch. We are destined to get to a point where the gas gauge is near zero, the yellow light is on, and we can't get up the hill. Only then will we act. Only then will we make the right choice. However, it will be too late. The deal signed today is a joke. The Dow fell 265 points as an exclamation point. I've read this story before. It has an ugly ending. When we do make the right choice, stop spending, adjust the tax code, it will be too late. We then will divide the remaining pie, fighting for a piece like jackals. We will all move lower on Maslow's pyramid, progressive and conservative alike will fight for that scrap of meat to survive.
We are like the scorpion and the frog. It's our nature. For you see, we only make the right choice, when it's the only choice.
I forecast that your heros, be they Obama, Boener, Reid, Ryan, etc., will be recorded as fools by future historians.
Where is John Galt to save us?
Black Shirt,"Payroll Taxes" for employees are comprised of three parts, Federal Income Tax, Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax. While you can make the argument the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid and matched by the employer are to pay for future benefits there can be no argument the Federal Income Tax deducted from the employee's pay check is anything but INCOME TAX.
If you look at past posts, WW, Jackson, myself and many more agree with your statement the US is going down hill. You can blame this on the liberals and their idea that anything goes. No honor, no duty above to one's self, no self respect or respect for others, nothing that made the generation that fought WWII and become known as the greatest generation.
Thanks for the clarification in regard to payroll / income tax.
Member #4112
08-03-11, 10:53
I have to agree with you again Black Shirt, the deal passed on Monday in the House and Tuesday in the Senate is a joke and only kicks the can down the road one more time. The markets voted with a 265 point drop in the DOW. The markets were looking for significant cuts in spending; one rating firm even quantified it as being $4 Trillion. The only members of both houses being serious about cuts are the freshman and for their efforts they are now called 'terrorists'.
I think the car being in the ditch is not really an accurate metaphor for what is going on. Perhaps a more appropriate metaphor would be the country is in a boat with a leak which is slowly sinking, the true conservative crew is trying to bail water out of the boat to keep it afloat (ie smaller government and less spending) while the liberal crew is bailing water back into the boat (more spending and more government) and the passengers just stand around watching.
The only members of both houses being serious about cuts are the freshman and for their efforts they are now called 'terrorists'.And they're being called "terrorists" by liberal Democrats who won't even call the real terrorists "terrorists".
Stan Da Man
08-03-11, 19:15
Hi all:
I'm just back from eight days in Brazil, and even a couple days in Buenos Aires. Still not enough time. The debt wrangling was impossible to escape even down there.
I know there are many who are unhappy with the outcome. But, it all depends on your perspective. This is a huge win when compared with the absurd notion of handing Obama a blank check "clean" debt limit increase, or even a silly "balanced approach" that he later advocated. Remember "Don't call my bluff, Eric." Well, they called his bluff, and that was all it was. What a surprise. The guy couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag.
It may not seem like much. $92 billion in reduced spending a year or, more accurately, a decrease in the increase in spending, isn't much. But, I think it needs to be placed in context. This is the start. There will be another debt limit fight in 2013. The terrain will have shifted dramatically by then, and there likely will be a much greater opportunity to put the country back on the right path at that time. This version was simply a rebuke to Obama and the Keynesian fools he's been listening to. Doing much more was not possible.
These are some big "IFs" but here goes: IF future Congress sticks to these cuts, IF the second round of cuts is put into place and is not illusory, and IF we can make more progress in 2013, then this all will have been worth it.
Obama's goal here was purely selfish and political. He wanted to put the matter off until after the election because he believed it would enhance his reelection prospects. Instead, the matter will begin heating up again during the election, and it will be a campaign theme. He's predictable. He'll argue for a "balanced approach" and "tax increases on millionaires, billionaires and corporate jet owners." The electorate already grew very tired of this windbag with each subsequent TV appearance the past few weeks. His job approval ratings declined from 55% to 40% during that time frame. Some was attributable to the bin Laden bounce he got, but not all. Most of the country is back to disliking him. Heck, if you reason like Esten, this insta-poll process means Obama ought to simply resign right now. Why wait for the election? The polls show he sucks at being President.
Obama's words will not rally his base. He's digging his own grave with the economy, his misplaced focus on healthcare, and his class warfare. Once he's out of office, then the adults can start to fix things, including with a balanced budget amendment. Until then, not much more than what was accomplished was possible.
Just my two cents.
Buffet believes that dividends paid to individuals should be taxed at a higher rate.This is hugely important. We need to eliminate the 15% capital gains scam giveaway to the wealthy. Capital gains should be taxed at one's personal federal income tax rate.
So, federal politicians spent like drunken sailors both when Bush was president and when Obama was president. What's your point?That it's not just spending, but also revenue. And that most of our debt is due to conservative policies under Bush:
Huge Tax Cuts
Unfunded Wars
Loss of revenues due to Great Recession (a result of reckless free-market capitalism)
The charts are a load of crap. They describe tax cuts as costs or government spending. That is bull shit.Wrong. Nowhere in that article are Bush Tax Cuts listed, described or portrayed as spending.
Apparently when government forces me to pay 35% of what I make instead of 39. 6, the difference is spending. The government is spending money on me. Subsidizing me, because I don't pay enough. That 35% when added to a 10% state income tax and a sales tax and property taxes and, some day, a death tax, that just isn't enough. I'm evil. I'm a burden on society. As you say below, I'm getting a free pass.If you're upset about a 35% tax rate, you must have been seething when the top rate was 39.6% under Clinton.
Dems do not say the wealthy are evil. What they point out is that since Reagen, it is mainly the wealthy that have prospered the most. Middle class prosperity has been marginal. For example between 1979-2007: after-tax income grew +25% for the middle fifth and +281% for the top 1%. This is largely due to lowered tax rates. Dems say that if we have large debts to pay, there should be a shared sacrifice and that includes spending cuts AND tax increases on those who have prospered the most. That is a reasonable position, and is supported by close to 80% of Americans.
We're experiencing European levels of unemployment for an extended period and you view that as a vindication of Keynsian economics?Like Germany? The success of the Stimulus is evidenced by the fact that it ended the recession quickly and that multiple independant economists estimate it created or saved 1. 5-3 Million jobs. The fact that unemployment is now stuck around 9. 1-9. 2% can be attributed to the winding down of Stimulus spending, reduced bank lending, reduced demand, and Big Business cutting to the bone and hoarding profits. There are many factors in play....
The State of Texas faced a severe gap between expenditures and income. Despite liberal warnings of a catastrophic collapse of the state if the reductions in spending were enacted none of these dire warnings come to pass. Texas is doing fine, is experiencing greater growth in both business and employment than any other state in the nation.
Obama's experiment in Keynesian economic theory has been a complete failure.Funny you mentioned those things together. As it turns out, Perry used billions in federal stimulus money to pay 97% of Texas's budget shortfall in fiscal 2010. Keynes helped Perry.
If you look at past posts, WW, Jackson, myself and many more agree with your statement the US is going down hill. You can blame this on the liberals and their idea that anything goes. No honor, no duty above to one's self, no self respect or respect for others, nothing that made the generation that fought WWII and become known as the greatest generation."Anything goes" is more the philosophy of reckless free-market capitalism, which is the core cause of the Great Recession. Dems passed Dodd-Frank reform in response, which Republicans are now trying to weaken so they can go back to the good 'ol days.
Those with honor and a sense of duty are willing to step up and do something, like pay a little more in taxes to address our deficits. I see no honor in protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and poor.
The WWII generation had a great president (FDR) , higher tax rates, and an appreciation of the important role of government in society.
Doppel, your arguments are unusually weak lately. Maybe it's time for a vacation.
BlueFalcon
08-04-11, 02:13
Esten. Bro. Dividends aren't Capital gains. Dividends are taxed at individual marginal rates. I think we should scrap the whole tax code and have a consumption tax. Let the individual decide, through his own consumption, how much tax he will pay. This would piss off a LOT of accountants and attorneys. Oh well. The "regressiveness" arguement against a consumption tax (The Fair Tax) is BS. It would force everyone (even tourists, dealers and hookers.) to participate, with no loopholes or offshore sanctuaries. Cheers-BF.
This is hugely important. We need to eliminate the 15% capital gains scam giveaway to the wealthy. Capital gains should be taxed at one's personal federal income tax rate.
That it's not just spending, but also revenue. And that most of our debt is due to conservative policies under Bush:
Huge Tax Cuts.
Unfunded Wars.
Loss of revenues due to Great Recession (a result of reckless free-market capitalism)
Wrong. Nowhere in that article are Bush Tax Cuts listed, described or portrayed as spending.
If you're upset about a 35% tax rate, you must have been seething when the top rate was 39. 6% under Clinton.
Dems do not say the wealthy are evil. What they point out is that since Reagen, it is mainly the wealthy that have prospered the most. Middle class prosperity has been marginal. For example between 1979-2007: after-tax income grew +25% for the middle fifth and +281% for the top 1. This is largely due to lowered tax rates. Dems say that if we have large debts to pay, there should be a shared sacrifice and that includes spending cuts AND tax increases on those who have prospered the most. That is a reasonable position, and is supported by close to 80% of Americans.
Like Germany? The success of the Stimulus is evidenced by the fact that it ended the recession quickly and that multiple independant economists estimate it created or saved 1. 5-3 Million jobs. The fact that unemployment is now stuck around 9. 1-9. 2% can be attributed to the winding down of Stimulus spending, reduced bank lending, reduced demand, and Big Business cutting to the bone and hoarding profits. There are many factors in play.
BlueFalcon
08-04-11, 02:27
I mis-spoke, errrr, mis-wrote, kinda. Long term Cap gains get preferrential tax treatment. Short term Cap gains are taxed at the individual marginal rate. I learned this the hard way during the crash of 2008. Anyway, I think the whole system is FUBAR and needs to be replaced-BF.
Esten. Bro. Dividends aren't Capital gains. Dividends are taxed at individual marginal rates. I think we should scrap the whole tax code and have a consumption tax. Let the individual decide, through his own consumption, how much tax he will pay. This would piss off a LOT of accountants and attorneys. Oh well. The "regressiveness" arguement against a consumption tax (The Fair Tax) is BS. It would force everyone (even tourists, dealers and hookers.) to participate, with no loopholes or offshore sanctuaries. Cheers-BF.
Member #4112
08-04-11, 03:11
Esten not only are you a liar but a damn liar! Perry and the Texas Republicans balanced our budget shortfall in the last legislature with CUTS in spending not 'stimulus' money. Check your posts from several months ago when it was happening, you were gloating over the fact Texas had a budget shortfall and your perceived notion the state could not close it. Also after the fact you were still quoting an out of date articles about the "catastrophe" taking place in Texas – wrong as usual.
Obama has done everything in his power to denigrate Texas since taking office from gutting NASA to denying funds for natural disasters while doling out billions to states which supported him during the 2008 election or states he needs in 2012. Buddy you need to check your facts, but I guess you would rather make this shit up as you go as usual.
Your boy is going down and going down hard in 2012.
I hate to say it but things are not going to get better. Obama has wasted trillions upon trillions of dollars based on the idea that the economy needed more 'community organizers.' Countless make believe government jobs, which did not have the ability to produce a single paper clip, have been added to the economy. That money is gone, we are up to our necks in debt, the economy is in freefall and we have nothing but a trail of wasted money. I think Obama's understanding of a free market economy flat-lined when he cashed his last 'community organizer' check.
By contrast, go back 30 years when Reagan inherited over 10% unemployment. 20% inflation and 20% interest rates. Did Reagan spend 3 years complaining about the mess that idiot Carter left him. No, and although by this time in Reagan's administration (3rd year) unemployemnt was still high, inflation was still high and interest rates were still high the economy was morphing into a runaway train with 8% and 9% growth during the 3rd and fourth quarters of 1983.
I shutter to think how long we would have stayed in Carter's depression had Obama been in charge during the Reagan years.
Member #4112
08-04-11, 16:49
Esten loves to quote polls but the Market Poll is voting long and loud over the Debt Deal, falling 340 points just today and a total of 1, 170 point since things started looking bad back on July 20th. Nobody is buying the "debt reduction" that was sold in the House and Senate. With our debt now egual to and about to surpass the GDP what makes Obama think taxes are the way to go when he would have to take all the goods and services produced in the US for a year to pay off the debt. It's SPENDING that has to stop, federal and state programs as well as federal and state workers that have to go. We need to be creating REAL jobs not make believe government jobs that produce nothing and consume resources.
My Former Name
08-04-11, 19:44
This is hugely important. We need to eliminate the 15% capital gains scam giveaway to the wealthy. Capital gains should be taxed at one's personal federal income tax rate.Esten,
You have been ripped off. Really gypped, bamboozled, taken. Shit, they saw you coming. Who ever taught you Economics took you for a ride. Demand your money back or least title to the bridge. You know. That bridge in Brooklyn.
You're a great monger, but misled.
You want the capital gains tax repealed so the poor go jobless. Yes, the poor go jobless.
Back in the 80's, I was with a startup company in the computer industry. We were financed by Venture Capital whose investors (rich guys) put up money (versus buying rental apartments or bing cherry farms) to help us grow. Grow we did. We hired thousands of poor people who got good well paying jobs and stock options. Those people later made a bag full of money from the stock. Those rich people did too. In addition, they claimed capital gains. Would they have invested if there weren't favorable treatment of capital gains? Not in a million years! Money always seeks the best return.
Therefore, when those poor people are out looking for a job, collecting food stamps, and about to run out of unemployment, we will send them to you to explain the benefits of no advantages for capital investment. You can show them your bridge
My Former Name,
Agreed. You start a corporation. It makes profits. The corporation pays income tax, both on earnings that are paid as dividends, and also on earnings that are used to grow the size and value of the business.
Esten has gone on record here that both dividends and capital gains received by individuals should be taxed as ordinary income. And that ordinary income should be taxed at 39.6%, or around 42% after additional taxes for health care go into effect. Add to that state income taxes, inflation imbedded in capital gains, and taxation already paid at the corporate level, and he would indeed tax away the majority or most of the profit from many investments. That's the way the Esten Tax Plan would work. Unless you're in a US business that benefits from loopholes, your ultimate tax rate after being taxed twice, once as a corporation and once as an individual, is going to be perhaps the highest in the world. The incentive to take risk is gone. You're working for the US government. If you suceed, it gets most of the profits. If you fail, it pays none of the costs.
So why invest or start a business and create jobs? But maybe that's what Esten wants -- a country where the private sector plays a distant second fiddle to government.
Esten not only are you a liar but a damn liar! Perry and the Texas Republicans balanced our budget shortfall in the last legislature with CUTS in spending not 'stimulus' money.Texas received $12 BILLION in ARRA funds. Are you telling us none of that impacted the state budget?
I know what was done with that money, but I'd like to hear it from you. What did Texas do with that $12 BILLION?
Check your posts from several months ago when it was happening, you were gloating over the fact Texas had a budget shortfall and your perceived notion the state could not close it. Also after the fact you were still quoting an out of date articles about the "catastrophe" taking place in Texas – wrong as usual.That was MoveOn.
Obama has done everything in his power to denigrate Texas since taking office from gutting NASA to denying funds for natural disasters while doling out billions to states which supported him during the 2008 election or states he needs in 2012. Buddy you need to check your facts, but I guess you would rather make this shit up as you go as usual.Look in the mirror buddy. You're just making an ass of yourself.
Try to redeem yourself (somewhat) by admitting your confusion about past posts, and posting an accurate description of what Texas did with the $12 B Stimulus funds.
Member #4112
08-05-11, 18:32
Yea Esten let's change the subject from Cutting Spending, which you don't want to talk about, to the funds Texas received in 2009 from ARRA. Yes Texas did receive $14 Billion dollars in ARRA money not $12 Billion in 2009. It was considerably less than the $38 Billion it could have had. Over 65% of the $14 Billion in ARRA funds went to cover the Feds portion of Medicare / Medicaid, Education, and Unemployment payments. Does that answer your question? Yes it did postpone budget cuts for 2009.
But when the money ran out Texas did the same thing many other states did which was cut Sending, something Obama just does not seem to be able to do. The state continues to pay Unemployment and make up the short fall in Medicare / Medicaid while cutting other spending in such areas as Education. The point now just as it was in the first post was Texas cut Spending and is living within its means, something the clowns in Washington don't seem to be able to do.
I did notice you did not address the fact Texas has greater job and business growth than almost all other states, particularly the welfare states like New York and California which are already bankrupt and living on borrowed time.
You can carp all you want to about how much money Bush spent but Obama has spent more in 2 years than Bush did in 8. I know it's all Bush's fault. So tell me Esten, when does Obama start accepting responsibility? Everything is always Bush's fault, or 'headwinds' buffeting the economy, or the Tea Party, or the rich, or 'I didn't mean Change You Can Believe In tomorrow or next week' to quote the Great One. So tell me when exactly will Obama take responsibility for ANYTHING?
Perry and the Texas Legislature took responsibility and did what had to be done to balance the budget, can Obama do better? I think not.
Esten, you are one of many liberls here who constantly makes as ass of themselves. If you find you can not address the issue you just change the subject. You remind me of Bill Clinton: Admit nothing, Deny everything, Make counter accusations.
Esten has gone on record here that both dividends and capital gains received by individuals should be taxed as ordinary income.It's better than that.
Esten is on record a few months ago equating dividends and capital gains as "free money" that is morally equivalent to the "free money" paid to government program beneficiaries.
Thanks,
Jackson
Member #4112
08-06-11, 11:11
Esten, you still don't get it. Standard and Poor's downgraded the US debt rating from AAA to AA+ citing the failure to reduce spending over 10 years by a minimum of $4 Trillion to address our debt problem. While the other two ratings agencies still have the US on their watch list, they have not YET downgraded our rating. You and the rest of the clowns in Washington don't seem to get the point that it is SPENDING that is the problem. With the debt above 100% of the US's annual GDP no matter how much you raise taxes, even to 100% of income, it won't bring down the debt. Everyone else, ratings agencies, the markets, individual American's understand you can not spend more than you make, but Liberals never seem to get it.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton. ITS SPENDING STUPID!
Member #4112
08-06-11, 11:18
Jackson, we both know in Liberal Speak, free money = someone else's money you give away
Matt Psyche
08-06-11, 20:09
I just don't get why you guys assume that cutting spending will reduce debt better than cutting spending AND raising tax revenues. Intelligent enough, perhaps you started new economics. I admire your confidence that you are smarter than the "clowns in Washington."
Esten, you still don't get it. Standard and Poor's downgraded the US debt rating from AAA to AA+ citing the failure to reduce spending over 10 years by a minimum of $4 Trillion to address our debt problem. While the other two ratings agencies still have the US on their watch list, they have not YET downgraded our rating. You and the rest of the clowns in Washington don't seem to get the point that it is SPENDING that is the problem. With the debt above 100% of the US's annual GDP no matter how much you raise taxes, even to 100% of income, it won't bring down the debt. Everyone else, ratings agencies, the markets, individual American's understand you can not spend more than you make, but Liberals never seem to get it.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton. ITS SPENDING STUPID!
BlueFalcon
08-06-11, 20:31
Matt- Raising taxes reduces the tax base, therefore reduces revenue. This problem is amplified during deflationary cycles (which has been happening since 1999 in U$ denominated debt) , when folks have a "Hunker in the Bunker" mentality and the aggregate social mood has changed from optimistic to pessimistic. We are way out on the right end of the Laffer Curve, raising taxes would sink this economy faster than a rating agency downgrade-BF.
I just don't get why you guys assume that cutting spending will reduce debt better than cutting spending AND raising tax revenues. Intelligent enough, perhaps you started new economics. I admire your confidence that you are smarter than the "clowns in Washington."
Matt Psyche
08-06-11, 20:45
How did you methodologically and scientifically find that the current tax level is after, but not before or at, the top of Laffer curve? Thanks.
Matt- Raising taxes reduces the tax base, therefore reduces revenue. This problem is amplified during deflationary cycles (which has been happening since 1999 in U$ denominated debt) , when folks have a "Hunker in the Bunker" mentality and the aggregate social mood has changed from optimistic to pessimistic. We are way out on the right end of the Laffer Curve, raising taxes would sink this economy faster than a rating agency downgrade-BF.
BlueFalcon
08-06-11, 22:46
Matt: Here it is. A nut in an eggshell. If you want something to go away (eventually) , tax it. If you want something to stick around and grow, subsidize it or otherwise incent it. We punish productivity by having the highest corporate tax rates in the world, double taxation of dividends, etc. We would be closer to the Laffer Curve apex, if not to the left, if we would reduce, or "Fundamentally Transform (BHO. 15 January 2009)" our tax code so folks aren't spending butt-loads of $ trying to evade it. Scrap the tax code and implement the Fair Tax, and we'd be off to the races, on a macro level-BF.
How did you methodologically and scientifically find that the current tax level is after, but not before or at, the top of Laffer curve? Thanks.
Wild Walleye
08-07-11, 00:04
We just lost 30 special ops, including many Seal Team 6 members in a helo that got shot down. Eerily familiar territory, for those old enough to remember. This is Obama's Operation Eagle Claw. If he gets attacked by a bunny, I am going to shit myself.
As predicted long ago, this neo-marxist will be a one-termer, who BTW (also as predicted long ago) will face a primary challenger (someone of better standing than Al Gore-read my former posts to see who that will be).
Member #4112
08-07-11, 16:42
Mat, I have a problem with raising tax rates period. What I don't have a problem with is tax reform which removes loopholes and deductions, lowers tax rates overall and expands the tax base to include more of the neary 50% of folks who don't pay taxes. I have no problem with totally scraping our current tax code and going to either the Fair Tax or Consumption Tax, one or the other but not both.
But back to the root of our deficite problem which S&P and everyone else has cited, we have to fix the entitlement programs. Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security have to be changed, the debate is over on what the problem is it is now who has the guts to do it and how much to cut.
Politicians from both parties have been buying votes with entitlements for decades and it has to stop. Personally I believe if you are a ward of the state, ie accepting government assistance in any form, you lose your right to vote. Taxpayers vote, non- taxpayers don't. Believe me if the politicians had to please only the folks who paid the bills things would change.
If you really want to fix Medicare and Social Secuirty, tell the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, the Judical Branch and all federal employees you no longer have that wonderful taxpayer financed retirement and medical system you now have only Medicare and Social Secuity. See how long it takes them to fix it!
Mat, I have a problem with raising tax rates period. What I don't have a problem with is tax reform which removes loopholes and deductions, lowers tax rates overall and expands the tax base to include more of the neary 50% of folks who don't pay taxes. I have no problem with totally scraping our current tax code and going to either the Fair Tax or Consumption Tax, one or the other but not both.
But back to the root of our deficite problem which S&P and everyone else has cited, we have to fix the entitlement programs. Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security have to be changed, the debate is over on what the problem is it is now who has the guts to do it and how much to cut.
Politicians from both parties have been buying votes with entitlements for decades and it has to stop. Personally I believe if you are a ward of the state, ie accepting government assistance in any form, you lose your right to vote. Taxpayers vote, non- taxpayers don't. Believe me if the politicians had to please only the folks who paid the bills things would change.
If you really want to fix Medicare and Social Secuirty, tell the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, the Judical Branch and all federal employees you no longer have that wonderful taxpayer financed retirement and medical system you now have only Medicare and Social Secuity. See how long it takes them to fix it!Can you be more specific as to what cuts / reforms you would like to see in regard to SS, Medicare and Medicaid. For example, SS receipients get around $2, 000 a month. If you are a couple and both are receiving at these top rates, it can be a comfortable life (no house payments) , but if you are single (divorced, widow) , that is barely an existence. As you know, Americans are not savers, even if a majority are not paying any income tax. It is a consumer driven society where you are driven to spent money and the economy falters if we don't spend. And health care when you are over 65?
Now, reforms have to be enacted to make these programs sustainable for the future. There was talk about privatization, but you know who is going to benefit from that. It is the same people who invented the 401K.
I can tell you exactly what the problem is.
The USA pays twice as much for medical care than the next closest country. Canada and Germany.
Do we receive better medical care?
Cuba which spends 25 cents a person for medical care has a longer life expectancy than the USA.
I am a doctor in the United States and I can tell you this is a farce. If you are overweight, a smoker and an incorrigible alcoholic, go to the end of the line. No liver transplants and no chemotherapy which may add another 2 weeks to your life and no liposuction.
Same with litigation. People who are overweight, smoked cigarettes like they are going out of style and destroyed their liver with alcohol should accept their fate. Don 't blaim pharmacuetical companies.
But try to do this. It is impossible. 60% of every persons lifetime time medical cost are incurred in the last 6 months of their lifes.
Criticize Obama as much as you like but Obama is not the problem. The problem is overweight, alcolholic smokers who want state of the art medical care for their destructive lifestyles.
Obama is not the villian here. The villian is our medical delivery system.
Obama may need to read 'econmics for dummies' but Obama is not the culprit for our entitlement programs which nobody wants to address.
Put another way, I will take Obama over Perry from Texas any day of the week. Perry and his religious nonsense is scary beyond belief.
Matt Psyche
08-07-11, 19:45
That's a better answer than the Laffer curve answer, Thanks.
Mat, I have a problem with raising tax rates period. !
Member #4112
08-07-11, 22:44
Let's start with Social Security.
First it was never meant to be an individual's total retirement.
Second, everyone gets a little statement from the Social Security Administration detailing their wages and payments in and what they can expect to receive at 62, 65+ and 70 years of age. If you can't make it on that number then you need to be taking putting away money to supplement it, I believe I read somewhere that is call responsibility for ones self.
Third the retirement age needs to be increased to match current actuarial tables. The tables we use now were fine in the 40's and 50's when folks went home and died at 62 to 68 years of age, but the population is living longer and have more productive lives. It is crazy to expect Social Security to pay for 25 to 30 years of retirement. If you want to retire early put back the funds you need and do it.
Fourth would be means testing. Millionaires and up don't need Social Security, ie Bill Gates, Warren Buffett et al. Also stop taxing Social Security Benefits!
Medicare.
Ditto for increasing the qualification age and means testing. Also I agree with El Alamo, those who destroy their health via obesity, excessive alcohol / drug consumption and smoking need to look elsewhere for assistance or at least go to the back of the line. Litigation also drives up the cost of medical care as well as the defensive medicine physicians practice to fend off litigation.
Medicaid.
For US citizens only, press one for English press 2 to be disconnected until you can speak English. We are not the Worlds ER, we simply can not afford it.
Welfare / Food Stamps.
If you're receiving either one or both you are going to have to work for it. There are plenty of tasks cities, states, and the fed pays to have done that these folks can do. Instead of Welfare it becomes Workfare. Talk about an exodus from the rolls if you require them to do something for the benefit rather than lay at home in government subsidized housing.
I have to part company with El Alamo on his observations regarding Obama. No Obama did not create the entitlement mess we are in but he is exacerbating it. ObamaCare ie Super Medicaid is not the answer, it only expands one entitlement at the expense of us all. How is that Hope and Change thing working for you now?
Am I a hard hearted cold blooded conservative, you bet your ass I am. I started working at the age of 10 and have not stopped yet.
El Alamo, Doppleganger,
Thanks, reforms for sure. When you say "cuts", you got me a little confused.
A quote by Marc Faber, the investment guru,
"The federal government is sending each of us a $600 rebate. If we spend the money at Wal Mart, the money goes to China. If we spend it on gasoline, it goes to the Arabs. If we purchase a computer, it will go to India. If we purchase fruits and vegetables, it will go to Mexica, Honduras and Guatamela. If we purchase a good car, it will go to Germany. If we purchase useless crap, it will go to Taiwan and none of it will help the American economy. The only way to keep it here is to spend it on prostitutes and beer, since these are the only products still produced in the US. I"ve been doing my part".
Obviously, from a few years ago, I thought you guys might enjoy it. You guys are obviously not doing your part.
I mis-spoke, errrr, mis-wrote, kinda. Long term Cap gains get preferrential tax treatment. Short term Cap gains are taxed at the individual marginal rate. I learned this the hard way during the crash of 2008. Anyway, I think the whole system is FUBAR and needs to be replaced-BF.Hey BlueFalcon, kudos for acknowledging your error. Also glad to see you using some reasoned and academic arguments, such as Laffer curve. You're OK.
I acknowledge dividends are not capital gains. But both get preferential tax treatment. Long term capital gains at 15% and qualified dividends at 15% or less. The vast majority of this benefit goes to the rich, with a corresponding huge loss in federal revenue. This simply helps the rich get richer, increasing economic inequality. Why should people with 6, 7 and 8-figure income from capital gains & dividends get a 15% tax rate? It is (yes, Jackson) basically free money relative to the work involved. Meanwhile a construction worker working his ass off may be paying a 25% or higher rate.
How do conservatives justify that? Even with these consumption tax or Fair Tax ideas, the common denominator I always see is that the wealthy benefit (or are protected). Even if it means passing more of the tax burden on the middle class and poor. You do realize that for decades now, since we started lowering top income tax rates, wealth at the top has grown far, far more than it has for everyone else. Why support trends that further increase economic inequality and plutocracy?
Please spare me the trickle-down line. The data is in, and it's a lie.
You also copped out on Matt's question about where we are on the Laffer curve. Admit it, you don't know. Historical evidence would indicate we're to the left of apex, see below.
Raising taxes reduces the tax base, therefore reduces revenue.And the converse, lowering taxes increases revenue. Right? Well we have historically low tax rates now, why are revenues down? I guess it's not so automatic or simple. For some perspective look at Clinton and Bush43 eight-year data in the following chart:
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/
There are many charts and tables like this. They pretty much all show the same thing. As percent of GDP, Bush Tax Cuts never generated greater revenues than under Clinton.
We need to cut spending, AND we need to end the Bush Tax Cuts.
Criticize Obama as much as you like but Obama is not the problem.WOW. Never thought I'd read that from El Alamo !
Put another way, I will take Obama over Perry from Texas any day of the week. Perry and his religious nonsense is scary beyond belief.Very interesting.
Check this out:
Perry vetoed legislation that would have made texting while driving punishable with a $200 fine. Perry called it an 'overreach' and 'government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults. '
Member #4112
08-08-11, 10:32
Admit it Esten, you will not be happy until we are the Peoples Republic of American.
Admit it Esten, you will not be happy until we are the Peoples Republic of American.Check that.
Esten will not be happy until we are all equally poor.
Thanks,
Jackson
Obama is not the villian here. The villian is our medical delivery system.
Obama may need to read 'econmics for dummies' but Obama is not the culprit for our entitlement programs which nobody wants to address.Obama may not be "the culprit", but he is woefully unqualified and completely void of the leadership capabilities necessary to craft a solution to the problem.
That is, unless the problem can be solved with a campaign speech.
ROTFLMAO!
Thanks,
Jackson
Matt Psyche
08-08-11, 14:12
Leadership is a very vague, if not illusionary, concept and very difficult to measure, especially in times of divided government. Most presidential scholars do not have the ISG members' knowledge to estimate that McCain or whoever would have done better or worse than Obama IN THE SAME POLITICAL AND ECONOIC CONTEXT. It is hard to define leadership and difficult to find objective indicators to meaasure the leadership. Secondly, it is highly questionable, especially to conservatives and libertarians, as to how much govt and the president, thereby including presidential leadership, could influence (=change) the whole national economy. This country is a federal nation and the presidency is only one of the three branches. Thanks.
Obama may not be "the culprit", but he is woefully unqualified and completely void of the leadership capabilities necessary to craft a solution to the problem.
That is, unless the problem can be solved with a campaign speech.
ROTFLMAO!
Thanks,
Jackson
Matt Psyche
08-08-11, 15:08
These posts do not represent the posters' intelligence or the quality of this thread. Humbly yours,
Admit it Esten, you will not be happy until we are the Peoples Republic of American.
Check that.
Esten will not be happy until we are all equally poor.
Thanks,
Jackson
Member #4112
08-08-11, 15:41
I just love the liberals believe they are the ultimate judge of what others think, say and believe. That no ones opinion is valid or has merit unless they have sprinkled the holy water of their opinion over it.
Stan Da Man
08-08-11, 17:48
These posts do not represent the posters' intelligence or the quality of this thread. Humbly yours,In case you missed it, which I doubt, the object of those posts gives as often as he gets, and is prone to offering up either unsupported opinion or outright falsehoods. Small wonder that folks respond or that they may not meet your definition of civility. Frankly, I'm more surprised at the restraint than at the attacks.
John Kerry suggested this weekend that the tea party's ideology just isn't valid and blamed the media for indulging those who espouse opinions with which he disagrees, namely limited government. That's typical of the left. It's fair to attack, demonize and denigrate others' opinions with which they disagree, e. G, tea partiers are terrorists. But, then they retreat to "civility" and characterize everyone else as bloodthirsty heathens at the first perceived opportunity.
A recent example would be all of the chiding and castigation that emerged from the left after Gabriel Giffords was shot. That weekend, it was all the tea partiers fault, particularly Sara Palin and her web ad featuring a rifle scope. Then, it turned out that the lunatic was, if anything, a left-leaning lunatic. And, now they're back to labeling those with whom they disagree as "hostage takers" and "terrorists."
It's absolutely true that conservatives respond in kind, but they're not the ones that jumped on the civility bandwagon, so they're nowhere near as hypocritical as the left and its puppets in the media. Unfortunately, it's a sign of the times that many have grown to accept this double standard. It's also one of the reasons the mainstream news media has struggled for about two decades. Few trust them any more, and for good reason.
Wild Walleye
08-08-11, 17:49
I just love the liberals believe they are the ultimate judge of what others think, say and believe. That no ones opinion is valid or has merit unless they have sprinkled the holy water of their opinion over it.It would have to be nondenominational, secular, environmentally-safe, union-bottled water ($25 / gallon)
Wild Walleye
08-08-11, 17:56
I suspect that we will all be hearing the following, quite a bit in the coming year and a quarter:
Are you better off now, than you were four years ago?
How about 1, 2 or3 years ago?
Everything has gotten progressively worse since Obama took office. Everything.
Liberals will try to blame it all on Bush. That isn't going to work anymore because everyone knows that the problems we have today have little to nothing to do with Bush. I would love to hear the explanation of what Obama has done with the 5.6% unemployment rate and a triple-A bond rating that he inherited from Bush.
With all due respect to El Alamo, Obama is the problem. Pelosi is the problem, Reid is the problem, all democrat members of congress are the problem. Boehner, Snowe, Collins and any republicans, not committed to real cuts federal spending, are the problem.
As for the comment inferring that Perry is a religious nut, please give me a break. They railed against JFK because he was a Catholic and was going to force his religion on the nation. If you're just going to assume that someone who has faith, and is not afraid of saying so, is a zealot who deserves to be castigated, you're ready for your Brown Shirt. Head on down to the liberal commissary to get fitted for it.
Stan Da Man
08-08-11, 19:24
Campaign season will start to get into full swing here in a few months. There is much to complain about. Nonetheless, I have a feeling that the successful candidate on the Republican side will be the one who can look at things through rose-tinged glasses. It could have been far worse:
1. We could have wasted far more Stimulus and Stimulus II dollars. The Keynesians currently in office have nowhere to hide from the mess they have made of things. The best they can do is to say, 'We underestimated how much we needed to spend. It should have been trillions more. ' Think of the mess we would be in if they had had their way? Thankfully, it only cost us a few trillion to debunk Keynesianism and put this grand lie to rest for good. Liberals will continue to try to resurrect this theory, but reality will always beat them over the head. Thankfully, we aren't trillions further in the hole.
2. We could have given Barack Obama the "clean" debt limit increase he asked for last January. Had we done so, the nitwit likely would have blown through most of it already. He would be on his way to arguing that the two trillion dollar increase was not nearly enough to "save" the economy. Thankfully, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell were not stupid enough to fall for it, even when the lemmings in the press started to push for it.
3. We could have a far worse unemployment and underemployment rate. Obama has been attempting to foment class warfare on "millionaires, billionaires, corporate jet owners" and just about anyone who actually produces wealth and provides jobs in this country. Thankfully, the Tea Party and Republicans wouldn't fall for it. The unemployment rate is bad; but it could have been worse if Obama got his way.
4. But for Obama's poor management of the economy, we might be stuck with ObamaCare. This so-called mandate will be the biggest job killer in our lifetimes. As any business owner can tell you, it will create a very strong incentive to drop employee health coverage. I won't belabor this point, but I have been forced to examine ObamaCare in detail by our health insurance brokers. My company now employs 1, 400 and pays for 80% of each individual's health insurance premium. We would not be able to do this under ObamaCare. Dropping coverage and paying the penalty will be the clear and only choice. But, as matters stand, there is a fair chance the whole shebang will be rolled back in early 2013. No single action item will boost business confidence more than rolling back this monstrosity.
5. Obama wasted so much time and rhetoric on health care during his first year, he failed to focus on his other agenda items, like protecting the union buddies that got him into office. He had control of both houses when he came into office. Things like card check should have been an afterthought for Dems. But, Dems were too euphoric to focus, and they overreached on health care, so they failed to pass many items on their agenda. By the time they looked up, it was too late. Ted Kennedy's seat was lost, they had no more filibuster-proof majority. After just one year of dizzyingly bad politics and decisions, they were on their way to the worst mid-term losses in our lifetimes. When Obama took office, they were proclaiming the death of conservatism. They greatly exaggerated. As matters stand, the press is much more likely to be proclaiming the death of progressivism as the door hits Obama on the backside when he leaves office in a year.
6. Things could have kept going apace for another 20 years as we slowly dug our own graves. There's little doubt America was on a slow decline with an inability to muster the political will to fix things. The slow creep of entitlements would have suffocated us eventually. Obama came along and told us that government was the solution Not the problem. In a scant three years, he has demonstrated just how utterly wrong this ideology is. We needed a shock to the system to get us back on the right path. There's no guarantee that this is it. But, I would prefer this shock to the 'death by a thousand paper cuts' that we were enduring under entitlement creep and the growth of the nanny state.
We're not finished with the malaise yet. But, it's not all bad, either. Obama set out to destroy the capitalist foundations on which the country was built. He didn't quite get there; not yet, anyway. If we learn from this mistake, we will be better for it. The glass isn't empty yet.
Matt Psyche
08-08-11, 19:42
I am not talking about civility. It is about silliness. I just do not want to be a clown dealing w / idiots. Should I do the same? Should I post like "you are demon because you hate poor" or "admit, you want the USA to become like Brazil"?
they may not meet your definition of civility. Frankly, I'm more surprised at the restraint than at the attacks.
Matt Psyche
08-08-11, 21:41
Good one. So funny!
It would have to be nondenominational, secular, environmentally-safe, union-bottled water ($25 / gallon)
Stan Da Man
08-09-11, 00:03
I am not talking about civility. It is about silliness. I just do not want to be a clown dealing w / idiots. Should I do the same? Should I post like "you are demon because you hate poor" or "admit, you want the USA to become like Brazil"?
they may not meet your definition of civility. Frankly, I'm more surprised at the restraint than at the attacks.Huh? You don't like "silly" comments? I submit you're never going to be pleased since you can't control other folks' comments. If you don't want your fake screen name associated with "clowns" then I might suggest a different thread on this board. There are plenty of places with more serious discussions to suit a cultured and refined man such as yourself. Leave the politics to the clowns. The Democrats did.
And, since you called me out, I will admit it. I do want the USA to become more like Brazil in many, many ways. Having just spent a week there, I can identify a number of charming customs and business establishments that I would import straight away. If that makes me a demon or a clown, then so be it.
Stan writes some good Krauthammer-like essays and attack pieces. But more often than not, he slips in numerous distortions and exaggerations which are easy to expose. It's time again to point out a few.
I know there are many who are unhappy with the outcome. But, it all depends on your perspective. This is a huge win when compared with the absurd notion of handing Obama a blank check "clean" debt limit increase, or even a silly "balanced approach" that he later advocated.A large majority of Americans did, and still do, support a balanced approach.
Republican refusal to compromise is probably a big part of why they received such a high disapproval rating (72% Disapprove) on the debt ceiling negotiations.
Remember "Don't call my bluff, Eric." Well, they called his bluff, and that was all it was. What a surprise. The guy couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag.You probably don't even remember what bluff Obama was referring to. That was during a meeting when Cantor kept insisting there be a two-step approval for raising the debt limit. Obama insisted there not be another 'hostage' situation where the ceiling might not be raised. He was firm on that and won. The two-step process agreed on only leaves in question how the ceiling will be raised in step 2, not if it will be raised.
But for Obama's poor management of the economy, we might be stuck with ObamaCare. This so-called mandate will be the biggest job killer in our lifetimes. As any business owner can tell you, it will create a very strong incentive to drop employee health coverage. I won't belabor this point, but I have been forced to examine ObamaCare in detail by our health insurance brokers. My company now employs 1, 400 and pays for 80% of each individual's health insurance premium. We would not be able to do this under ObamaCare. Dropping coverage and paying the penalty will be the clear and only choice. But, as matters stand, there is a fair chance the whole shebang will be rolled back in early 2013. No single action item will boost business confidence more than rolling back this monstrosity.The article and business survey below on the Affordable Care Act contradicts your view.
Don't worry though, if your business goes belly-up I'm sure you could get a job writing for HotAir.com
More Employers to Offer Health Care, Reports Find
http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/legal-hr/2011/06/22/small-business-health-care/
Despite confusion and mixed emotions in the small business community regarding health-care reform, more mom and pops are expected to offer health care coverage to their employees under the Affordable Care Act, according to a survey.
A study from the Urban Institute,"The Effects of Health Reform on Small Businesses and Their Workers," finds that tax incentives will drive smaller firms to begin offering coverage to their employees. Large companies, which have been more likely to provide insurance for workers, are expected to continue offering coverage. The study was sponsored by the non-partisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
"We find generally positive effects of the ACA on small firms," the report said."Employers with fewer than 50 workers will experience substantial savings on health costs; employers with 50 to 100 workers will see a very small cost increase."
The smallest firms are expected to see an increase in offer rates under the act, while offer rates for those with 25 or more employees will remain stable, the report said.
Workers at small firms, and their families, are going to "reap substantial benefits from Medicaid expansion, individual health insurance exchanges and premium subsidies to low-income families," UI said. This should lead to reduced rates of un-insurance for this particular group.
A second study released Tuesday,"State-Level Trends in Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance: A State-By-State Analysis," reported that although today fewer Americans are getting insurance coverage through their employer, the reform act will help to bring these numbers back up.
Matt Psyche
08-09-11, 02:20
OK. Esten is a stinky neo-Marxist and you are capitalist wh*re who wants to brazilize (whatever that is) the USA. I am sure everybody is happy now. Thanks.
Huh? You don't like "silly" comments? I submit you're never going to be pleased since you can't control other folks' comments. If you don't want your fake screen name associated with "clowns" then I might suggest a different thread on this board. There are plenty of places with more serious discussions to suit a cultured and refined man such as yourself. Leave the politics to the clowns. The Democrats did.
And, since you called me out, I will admit it. I do want the USA to become more like Brazil in many, many ways. Having just spent a week there, I can identify a number of charming customs and business establishments that I would import straight away. If that makes me a demon or a clown, then so be it.
Esten,
You have been ripped off. Really gypped, bamboozled, taken. Shit, they saw you coming. Who ever taught you Economics took you for a ride. Demand your money back or least title to the bridge. You know. That bridge in Brooklyn.
You're a great monger, but misled.Hey MFN, it seems like ages since we dined in El Establo. I miss that place almost as much as the Recoleta clubs.
I took your advice and called the company I got my online diploma in Economics from. But when I asked for my money back, they just laughed at me.
Back in the 80's, I was with a startup company in the computer industry. We were financed by Venture Capital whose investors (rich guys) put up money (versus buying rental apartments or bing cherry farms) to help us grow. Grow we did. We hired thousands of poor people who got good well paying jobs and stock options. Those people later made a bag full of money from the stock. Those rich people did too. In addition, they claimed capital gains. Would they have invested if there weren't favorable treatment of capital gains? Not in a million years! Money always seeks the best return.Back in the 80's. When capital gains tax was 33%? Right there your argument is demolished.
Historical precedent shows that higher rates will not deter investment. As you said, money seeks the best return. Where else can you get the kind of returns that successful startups with stock options can provide? Not many places. A 100% profit taxed at 39% is still a better return than a 3% profit taxed at 15. You get the idea.
Wild Walleye
08-09-11, 15:12
Back in the 80's. When capital gains tax was 33%? Right there your argument is demolished.It should surprise no one that you are talking out your rear end, once again. You are either the most intellectually dishonest or most ignorant (or a hybrid of the two) individual with whom I have conversed. You go ahead and live in your imaginary utopia where facts don't matter.
At no point in time during the decade of the 80's did the capital gains tax rate exceed 28%. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate in the US was 70%, in 1982 it dropped to 50% and by the end of the decade it was 28%. The top capital gains tax rate in 1978 was 39.875% which was cut to 28% in '79 and cut again to 20% in '81. After '86, the cap gains tax went up to 28%, still a huge cut from 39.875%.
Your usual argument that special treatment of capital gains only benefits the rich is complete and utter nonsense, fabricated by the left solely to support their quest to expropriate the private property of the citizenry. According to the Treasury, more than 50% of all capital gains taxes collected during the 50s and 60s, were paid by individuals earning under$50k per year (in 1972 dollars). From 1942-1992, people earning $100K or less (in 1992 dollars – that is $30K in 1972 dollars) paid one third of all capital gains taxes, collected by the US. In 1970, 50% of all capital gains taxes came from individuals earning $30k or less (1970 dollars). Higher capital gains rates punish the middle class. End of story.
Historical precedent shows that higher rates will not deter investment.
When will you provide us with an actual example of this phenomenon?
As you said, money seeks the best return. Where else can you get the kind of returns that successful startups with stock options can provide? Not many places. A 100% profit taxed at 39% is still a better return than a 3% profit taxed at 15. You get the idea.
No, I don't. If you tax cap gains at 3%, I can assure you that new capital investment will shatter all past records.
If you tax cap gains at 39%, people will demand compensation in a form that is taxed at the lower, regular income rate.
You are hopeless and clearly put little or no thought into your posts.
Historical precedent shows that higher rates will not deter investment. As you said, money seeks the best return. Where else can you get the kind of returns that successful startups with stock options can provide? Not many places. A 100% profit taxed at 39% is still a better return than a 3% profit taxed at 15. You get the idea.Esten you are totally ignoring risk. The 3% return is supposed to be low risk, but the startups are extremely high risk. As many of the dot com paper millionaires found out when the bubble burst.
Stan Da Man
08-09-11, 20:47
Well, I must say, but for the fact that he's made such a mess of the country, I would enjoy watching the Left eat one of their own. For the past week or so, it hasn't been right wing commentators who have been hammering at Obama. Yes, there are op-eds and commentaries now and again. But, if you've been paying attention, it is the Left that is now starting to feast on Obama. They blame Obama for not being "progressive enough," for being "irresolute," for being "cowardly," inexperienced, emotionless, egotistical, and for being stupid. Seriously.
These are all left of center writers. Shocking that they could say such things about a guy they called "sort of God" after the election. Remember when God won a Nobel Peace Prize. How much have they cheapened that award by bestowing it on someone as unworthy as Obama?
None of these writers and commentators have enough balls to admit what conservatives have been saying all along. True to form, they blame Obama for deceiving them, or they simply point to whichever character flaw they chose to highlight and omit to mention the fact that they're just now seeing these tics in the cold light of day, when it's been plain as Spock's ears that the flaw has been there all along.
Again, I repeat, I would be tempted to get some popcorn and watch this self-immolation. But, unfortunately, Obama's left a mess in his wake, and the rest of us are going to have to clean it up. It will take some time. But, if any of you get some break time, enjoy the show!
At no point in time during the decade of the 80's did the capital gains tax rate exceed 28%. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate in the US was 70%, in 1982 it dropped to 50% and by the end of the decade it was 28%. The top capital gains tax rate in 1978 was 39.875% which was cut to 28% in '79 and cut again to 20% in '81. After '86, the cap gains tax went up to 28%, still a huge cut from 39.875%.You are correct Walleye. I quickly checked what I considered a reliable source yesterday which listed the 1986-89 top rate at 33%. Upon further checking this was only the top rate for taxpayers subject to phaseouts. 28% was otherwise the top capital gains rate as you stated.
That doesn't change my point though. Which is there was significant investment in business in the 80's and 90's when capital gains tax rates were higher than today. I agree lower rates will tend to encourage investment, but I do not agree that higher rates will discourage investment, at least significantly, if those investments are still giving the best returns around.
Your usual argument that special treatment of capital gains only benefits the rich is complete and utter nonsense,That isn't my argument. My argument is that it mostly benefits the rich.
See below. We can find some common ground, I believe.
Esten you are totally ignoring risk. The 3% return is supposed to be low risk, but the startups are extremely high risk. As many of the dot com paper millionaires found out when the bubble burst.I agree there are distinctions to be made, not just on risk but also on jobs created. Here is what I have a problem with.
Millionaires, billionaires and hedge funds are extracting huge sums of money from the economy by parking their cash in relatively safe investments. The yields may be low for dividends (2-3% typically) but the profits are huge because the amounts invested are huge. While they may lose money on stock movements, these guys for the most part know what they are doing and make net profits here as well, often with higher yields. The amounts are staggering. For example, the top 10 hedge funds made $28 Billion in the second half of 2010 alone.
Very little of this money (if any) is going to job creation. They aren't 'job creators'. They are professional parasites. This is not worthy of preferential tax treatment.
Here's what I CAN agree on, and I know you guys do as well: Low (maybe zero?) capital gains tax rates on investments which directly and demonstrably create jobs. Like the startup MFN described in his story.
But that's it. The professional hedge fund parasites and other wealthy folks can't tag along if their investments are just a drain on the economy without creating jobs (or worse, killing jobs in the name of 'shareholder return').
Wild Walleye
08-10-11, 13:31
You are correct Walleye.My work here is done.
My work here is done.I can actually hear you purring.
WorldTravel69
08-22-11, 12:46
A Wish To Live Forever
I met a fairy today that said she would grant me one wish.
"I want to live forever," I said.
"Sorry," said the fairy,"I'm not allowed to grant wishes like that!"
"Fine," I said,"then I want to die after Congress get their heads out.
Of their asses!"
"You crafty bastard," said the fairy.
Wild Walleye
08-23-11, 03:12
I can actually hear you purring.Like the diamond-bedazzled kitty sitting in Blofeld's lap (hint: somethings "are Forever")
WorldTravel69
08-23-11, 03:42
Lincoln Cover Up.
Have you seen the movie?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0968264/
What the Republicans will do to Cover Up There Failures.
Now this is scary. Obama is referring to the federal government as the 'federal family'. Hello, Big Brother.
When is Obama going to realize that the government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem.
The private sector is the source of every job in the country. The government pays it bills and employees from money taken / extorted from the private sector. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that burdening the private sector with unnecessary regulations, burdonsome taxes and harrassment is going to result in a nonfunctioning economy - which it appears we now have.
Wild Walleye
09-02-11, 12:48
Now this is scary. Obama is referring to the federal government as the 'federal family'. Hello, Big Brother.
When is Obama going to realize that the government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem.Narcissistic, no-Marxist, would-be dictators never change their stripes. However, come November 2012 (so long as our ruler allows us to have an election) he will get a pretty strong indication that a plurality of his subjects don't think govt is the answer. Shortly after that, the new president, with majorities in both houses, will repeal Obamacare (one of his / her campaign promises).
As some wizened wanderer opined some 25-26 months ago (within this very thread) Obama had already turned off the constituents (that is everyone who voted for 'Hope and Change" and not because he is black. This group excludes the hard left) that were fundamental in his election and would not vote for Jimmy Carter, I mean Obama for a second term. Further, it was pointed out the many democrats would call for Hillary to challenge BHO in the primary. If she thought she could win the general election (she knows she could win a primary against BHO) she'd run. It was pointed even earlier, that giving Hillary State was a move to box her out of a potential primary challenge. Hillary has done him one better by being virtually invisible, except on a few notable occasions (all of which were offshore) and by keeping herself at such a distance none of BHO's disastrous policies and opinions can be directly linked to her (we know she's not to far from him ideologically, but she doesn't want voters thinking that).
The private sector is the source of every job in the country. The government pays it bills and employees from money taken / extorted from the private sector. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that burdening the private sector with unnecessary regulations, burdonsome taxes and harrassment is going to result in a nonfunctioning economy - which it appears we now have.Liberalism is a LIE. To convince people of the LIE, you must support it with more lies. If you keep telling the same lies over and over, some people (even some smart people) will begin to believe it. The American people have been duped more than once into trying liberalism / socialism-lite and the like but you can't fool all the people all the time. Even people who supported BHO can't argue with the facts. Liberal ideologues can't even come up with twisted arguments to support him so they say his failures are from not going far enough to the left.
If elections are held as scheduled, BHO is likely to loose in a landslide of Carter-like proportions. The Senate will likely be under Republican control and the Republican majority in the house will widen. If the Republicans, led by the new president, don't immediately repeal Obamacare, eliminate base line indexing, eliminate most if not all czars, the DOE, Commerce and start to cut the size of government (cutting the rate of growth is not the same thing) they will prove that they too are unworthy.
WorldTravel69
09-03-11, 02:02
When did this happen?
NOT UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA!
AIG,"Too Big To Fail". If have not seen the movie, SEE IT, OR read your History.
"Unnecessary regulations", MY ASS.
Now this is scary. Obama is referring to the federal government as the 'federal family'. Hello, Big Brother.
When is Obama going to realize that the government is not the answer to our problems, *government is the problem."""""
The private sector is the source of every job in the country. The government pays it bills and employees from money taken / extorted from the private sector. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that [[[[[[[ burdening the private sector with unnecessary regulations]]]]]], burdensome taxes and harassment is going to result in a non-functioning economy. Which it appears we now have.
When did this happen?
"Unnecessary regulations", MY ASS.Guese you have been asleep at the switch dude! We can't even buy toilets in the US that work properly since the tree hugger types like you regulated all other types of toilets out of existence during the clinton years. Got to flush the ones in my house at least twice to get the job done! LOL! Democrats LOVE regulations on small business. It's regulations on home mortgages that they dislike as it stands in the way of the poor little guys getting to own a house they can't afford. Suggest YOU pay attention to history dude! The facts of the matter are totally NOT on your side. Better to let liberal sleeping dogs lie. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Member #4112
09-03-11, 12:34
You got to just love this one.
Gibson (the folks who make some of the greatest guitars) have been raided twice by the DOJ, once in 2009 and again this year. No, not for working illegal's but because they are importing wood from India for finger boards on the guitar necks and American workers are doing the work. DOJ has raided them twice because they suspect Gibson is violating – now get this – an INDIAN LAW prohibiting wood products not finished by INDIAN WORKERS from export. Gibson is not accused of violation of any US statute but suspected of a possible violation of a law enacted in India. Now the US Government is worried about enforcing the laws of foreign countries and denying work to American workers! Gibson is not taking this lying down and is raising hell about it.
Stan Da Man
09-03-11, 19:24
Guese you have been asleep at the switch dude! We can't even buy toilets in the US that work properly since the tree hugger types like you regulated all other types of toilets out of existence during the clinton years. Got to flush the ones in my house at least twice to get the job done! LOL! Democrats LOVE regulations on small business. It's regulations on home mortgages that they dislike as it stands in the way of the poor little guys getting to own a house they can't afford. Suggest YOU pay attention to history dude! The facts of the matter are totally NOT on your side. Better to let liberal sleeping dogs lie. Happy Mongering All. ToymannTry buying a lightbulb.
I am really looking forward to January 2013 when we can finally rid ourselves of the miserable failure impersonating the US President. Unfortunately, the three best candidates aren't in the race: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Paul Ryan (in that order) but a pet rock would be better than Obama.
Does anyone believe that this guy's speech on Thursday brings with it any chance of improving things? The best that can come out of it is that Obama will outline the path to failure. Whatever he suggests, run the other way. Please, no more ideas from this administration.
You got to just love this one.
Gibson (the folks who make some of the greatest guitars) have been raided twice by the DOJ, once in 2009 and again this year. No, not for working illegal's but because they are importing wood from India for finger boards on the guitar necks and American workers are doing the work. DOJ has raided them twice because they suspect Gibson is violating – now get this – an INDIAN LAW prohibiting wood products not finished by INDIAN WORKERS from export. Gibson is not accused of violation of any US statute but suspected of a possible violation of a law enacted in India. Now the US Government is worried about enforcing the laws of foreign countries and denying work to American workers! Gibson is not taking this lying down and is raising hell about it.That's nothing. How about three individuals sentenced to eight years in USA prison for importing lobsters in plastic packaging, contrary to a Honduran law: http://www.overcriminalized.com/CaseStudy/McNab-Imprison-by-Foreign-Laws.aspx
The enviro-idiots are out of control. The USA is severely f__ed up.
Does anyone believe that this guy's speech on Thursday brings with it any chance of improving things? The best that can come out of it is that Obama will outline the path to failure. Whatever he suggests, run the other way. Please, no more ideas from this administration.The speech on Thursday will outline Obama's plan to spend more money to "create jobs", legislation which he knows from inception will not make it through Congress because of the additional deficit spending it would entail, but nevertheless accomplishing his goal of setting him up to campaign that the Republicans prevented him from creating jobs by "blocking" his plan.
Thanks,
Jackson
All you guys seem to do is ***** and moan, but consistently fail to explain how Obama is hampering your own businesses.
Awhile back there was a credible argument on the 1099 Form requirement, but that has since been repealed. Obama also ensured there would not be another debt ceiling squabble until 2013, which every business owner should be thankful for.
The central right wing talking points are that taxes and regulation are the problem. That's hard to see from the record profits that big businesses are enjoying. What about small business? According to the article below, these talking points are largely bs for small businesses as well. Yet again, the right wing proves they have little to offer except hot air and empty rhetoric.
Regulations, taxes aren't killing small business, owners say.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html
McClatchy reached out to owners of small businesses, many of them mom-and-pop operations, to find out whether they indeed were being choked by regulation, whether uncertainty over taxes affected their hiring plans and whether the health care overhaul was helping or hurting their business.
Their response was surprising.
None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it. Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-09 and its grim aftermath.
The answer from Rick Douglas — the owner of Minit Maids, a cleaning service with 17 employees in Charlotte, N. C. — was more blunt.
"I think the rich have to be taxed, sorry," Douglas said. He added that he isn't facing a sea of new regulations but that he does struggle with an old issue, workers' compensation claims.
Douglas told The Charlotte Observer that he's hired more workers this year, citing pent-up demand from customers.
Then there's Rip Daniels. He owns four businesses in Gulfport, Miss. : real estate ventures, a radio station and a boutique hotel / bistro. He said his problem wasn't regulation.
"Absolutely, positively not. What is choking my business is insurance. What's choking all business is insurance. You cannot go into business, any business — small business or large business — unless you can afford insurance," he told Biloxi's Sun Herald.
Lynn Swager, a co-owner of Brass on Ivory in Edgewater, Md, sells, rents and repairs musical instruments. She faces a completely different sort of challenge.
"The thing that chokes us, believe or not, is the Internet. There are so many things that are accessible on the Internet that they can purchase for less than I can purchase from my distributor," Swager told McClatchy."Everybody thinks the Internet is this great thing that is happening to the world, but it is really, I think, killing a lot of small business. People that we talk to that are no longer in business say the same thing exactly."
All you guys seem to do is * and moan, but consistently fail to explain how Obama is hampering your own businesses.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.htmlYou've got a point. In part because of the recession and now a Republican House of Representatives, he hasn't implemented much so far. It's items on the horizon so far that are of most concern. Higher health care costs and higher taxes in 2013, potential rolling blackouts in certain areas in 2014, and crises that will arise at some point because of the debts government is incurring, for example. The only effect on my business has been the debasement of the currency, and Bernanke & Co. are as much to blame as the Administration. Previous Congresses and the Bush Administration played a part in that too. I know certain industries and companies have been hit hard though -- anyone who's providing oil services in the Gulf of Mexico for example.
Wild Walleye
09-04-11, 21:41
You got to just love this one.
Gibson (the folks who make some of the greatest guitars) have been raided twice by the DOJ, once in 2009 and again this year. No, not for working illegal's but because they are importing wood from India for finger boards on the guitar necks and American workers are doing the work. DOJ has raided them twice because they suspect Gibson is violating – now get this – an INDIAN LAW prohibiting wood products not finished by INDIAN WORKERS from export. Gibson is not accused of violation of any US statute but suspected of a possible violation of a law enacted in India. Now the US Government is worried about enforcing the laws of foreign countries and denying work to American workers! Gibson is not taking this lying down and is raising hell about it.The people at DOJ told Henry (CEO of Gibson) that is he just outsourced the jobs to Madagascar (the first raid was re: Madagascan Ebony) there would be no problem. Scary still, the Indian Govt has never uttered a complaint about Gibson's practices.
Now that is "Hope and Change" we can believe in! Misuse the DOJ to throw a bone to your enviromental-extremist supporters, American workers be damned!
Four more year! Four more years! (what do you expect? When you're in the gulag, four years seems like a couple of months).
Wild Walleye
09-04-11, 21:46
Does anyone believe that this guy's speech on Thursday brings with it any chance of improving things?I do. It will reaffirm his complete ineptitude an will serve to convince even more of his supporters to become former supporters. About the only supporters he will have left will be black voters (70% approval ratings amongst black voters) because they feel that abandoning BHO is abandoning their race. However, even they will discover how bad BHO is for black Americans (27% unemployment).
The best that can come out of it is that Obama will outline the path to failure. Whatever he suggests, run the other way. Please, no more ideas from this administration.Agreed. This is a lame duck presidency (you heard it here first). Anything that helps to restrict his power to do more damage to America between now and when he is voted out of office, is a good thing.
Wild Walleye
09-04-11, 21:49
The speech on Thursday will outline Obama's plan to spend more money to "create jobs", legislation which he knows from inception will not make it through Congress because of the additional deficit spending it would entail, but nevertheless accomplishing his goal of setting him up to campaign that the Republicans prevented him from creating jobs by "blocking" his plan.
Thanks,
JacksonAbsolutely. He is going to say "I propose we give a trillion dollars evenly divided amongst those of you who vote for me a year from November. If you don't get it, it is because those GOP bastards in the House wouldn't let me give it to you. So vote BHO 2012."
Wild Walleye
09-04-11, 22:01
All you guys seem to do is ***** and moan, but consistently fail to explain how Obama is hampering your own businesses.BHO has destroyed my business by completely and unequivocally ending virtually all private, venture (I. E. Not established and cash-flowing) investment and has killed the entrepreneur class in America (the only people who can put the millions he has put in the unemployment line back to work). Worse yet, his perpetual printing of money and quantitative easing has provided free money to large institutional investors who now have no reason for seeking any investments other than getting free money from the govt (something I pointed out almost two years ago).
Awhile back there was a credible argument on the 1099 Form requirement, but that has since been repealed.If they put hurricane proof deck chairs on the Titanic, would that have changed the outcome?
Obama also ensured there would not be another debt ceiling squabble until 2013, which every business owner should be thankful for.You obviously are not and never will be a business owner. He put it off until 2013 so as to avoid having to face the enormity of the debt he has racked up in 3 short years, during the campaign. The 'debt deal' that you trumpet guarantees that our nation will amass another $7T in debt over the next 7-10 years. Wow, as a business owner, that makes me feel a squiggly inside.
The central right wing talking points are that taxes and regulation are the problem. That's hard to see from the record profits that big businesses are enjoying.You mean amidst BHO's jobless-recovery? Jobless because new regulation prohibits hiring. Double dip because all of the profits thus far have been from doing more with less (people). Considering that 70% of the US economy is dependent upon consumer spending and so many would-be consumers are out of work, we're double dipping. If you exclude the phony govt spending numbers, we never emerged from the recession.
What about small business? According to the article below, these talking points are largely bs for small businesses as well. Yet again, the right wing proves they have little to offer except hot air and empty rhetoric.Post all the drivel you want. If things were good for small business, we'd be rocking and rolling at 3%+ annual GDP growth and real unemployment would be coming down, not going up. Just wait for the spike in divorces, once BHO is out of office and people can afford lawyers.
I like to be civil but it is difficult when dealing with the brazen and dangerous stupidity that you display. Lives are being destroyed every day of this economic calamity and you keep chirping that all is well cause Gini or Houdini says so. You are both an idiot and a useful idiot.
Ignorance is a choice and for you, a life style.
Gato Hunter
09-05-11, 01:21
Jackson, can you hard code a script that requires you to make two posts about chicas before you can post in this fucktarded pissing into the wind contest?
Jackson, can you hard code a script that requires you to make two posts about chicas before you can post in this fucktarded pissing into the wind contest?Chew on this dude!
When Obomanation first became president he put this small business f-you in place 3 months retroactive. These are facts NOT fiction. Historically employees that lost their job that included healthcare were eligable for COLBRA benefits. These extended healthcare benefits were managed through the previous employer BUT paid by the ex-employee. To make a long story short, Obomanation changed the guidelines retroactively to three months before he took offfice that the EMPLOYER was now responsible to pay 65% of the ex-employees COLBRA for 15 months after the employee was let go. More over! He defined termanation as "voluntary termination" that was unclear as to fiired for cause or laid off. Thus, in almost all cases, even if the employee was incompetant and deserved to be fired THEY GOT THE BENEFIT! Luckily, he was unable to put this into law as he lost the house. That said, employers caught in this behind the scenes, presidential fucking of small business, before it ran out of steam HAD TO PAY THIS EXTENDED POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT. My company had to pay north of $7000 for an incompetant employee that we let go (she went the whole 15 months at 650 per month to the company, she paid 350, employee plus child benefit). So Esten, and others, what do you think of these apples. And ya all wonder why small business was shell shocked during the first 2+ plus years of Obamanations rule. Tick. Tick. Tick. We in small business are waiting for the madness to end!
Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Wild Walleye
09-05-11, 19:15
I have posted a chica post or two and will continue to do, as soon as I get my ass back to Bs As (next 60 days if all goes well).
Debating the fact that roughly 10% (it's really higher but I won't split hairs) of Americans, who want to work, have not been able to find work for more than two years (imagine running your family finances for two years without bringing more than a few hundred bucks a month) is pissing in the wind to some and a matter of great import to others.
Monger on!
All you guys seem to do is * and moan, but consistently fail to explain how Obama is hampering your own businesses.
The central right wing talking points are that taxes and regulation are the problem. That's hard to see from the record profits that big businesses are enjoying. What about small business? According to the article below, these talking points are largely bs for small businesses as well. Yet again, the right wing proves they have little to offer except hot air and empty rhetoric.My reply to Esten who has probably never operated even a limonade stand is:
Private businesses would be more than happy to invest their profits in hiring new employees.
But why should they? The cost of new employees, gracias a Obama, could destroy their businesses. Unlike Obama, private business have to account for every penny they spend. The private sector does not have the same printing press that Obama has to cover its debts with phoney baloney money. When the private sector makes mistakes they pay for it - they go out of business. When Obama, who I am beginning to think is a retard, makes mistakes, he cranks up his printing press.
At the end of the day, remember, every f===== job in in United states is dependent on the private sector. The government pays its bills and its employees with the money it taxes / extorts from the private sector.
If the private sector is hesitant to hire new employees under the draconian regulations instituted by Obama, it only goes to show that at least the private sector is following fiscally sound policies.
The chances of Obama addressing our unemployment crisis is about the same as Castro / Cuba addressing their economic woes.
Until Obama realizes that that the government is not the answer to our problems and wakes up to the fact that government is the problem, we are doomed.
Punter 127
09-06-11, 08:43
Jackson, can you hard code a script that requires you to make two posts about chicas before you can post in this fucktarded pissing into the wind contest?Now wouldn't it be a kick in the ass if Jackson did as you ask, considering he post in this thread but seldom post chica reviews.
Hey Jax how about giving us a couple of reviews on some of your private stock before you post in this thread again? LOL.
Isn't it a wonderment how all the leftwing-nuts want to shut this thread down just because we don't kowtow to their Messiah. Where the hell were these babbling kvetches when Bush was in office and being slammed on a nonstop basis?
I say tough shit to the bellyachers, if you can't take the heat don't read the thread.
Didn't we go over all this before a few times?
Member #4112
09-06-11, 10:41
Thought I would pass this little tidbit along. It goes a long way in explaining Obama's utter failure to understand business.
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.
T. Roosevelt: 38%
Taft: 40%
Wilson: 52%
Harding: 49%
Coolidge: 48%
Hoover: 42%
F. Roosevelt: 50%
Truman: 50%
Johnson: 47%
Nixon: 53%
Ford: 42%
Carter: 32%
Reagan: 86%
GH Bush: 51%
Clinton: 39%
GW Bush: 55%
And the winner is:
Obama: 08%
This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in a job not supported by tax money and that includes Obama!
Stan Da Man
09-06-11, 22:27
Thought I would pass this little tidbit along. It goes a long way in explaining Obama's utter failure to understand business.
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.But, remember, business experience is unnecessary because Obama is the smartest President we've ever had. Why rely on experience from the outside when you're brilliant? At least the media and the Nobel committee keep telling us that.
I'm still waiting for the proof, or at least transcripts that provide some evidence of this. You would think that the media could find those transcripts. After all, they managed to dig up Perry's old transcripts in a couple of weeks, yet haven't been able to muster any on O for the past four years. But it's different for the media when it's a Republican.
You also have to love O's non-response to Jimmy Hoffa's comments about "taking out the sons of be*tches" and going to war with the Tea Party. Where's the civility, Barack? He pretended Biden was misquoted when he called the Tea Party "terrorists." But, it's pretty hard to do that with Trumka, when he gave the introduction this weekend. He's the "See No Evil; Hear No Evil; Speak No Evil" President, at least when the comments are made by your union buddy who controls the millions you need to have any prayer at re-election.
BHO has destroyed my business by completely and unequivocally ending virtually all private, venture (I. E. Not established and cash-flowing) investmentDestroyed? Please explain.
Completely and unequivocally? Once again you demonstrate that nothing you say can be believed.
Here are 121 Venture Capital deals in the past 30 days. And a report showing Q2 2011 registered $7.6B of venture capital funding invested in 768 deals representing a nine-quarter high on both dimensions.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/29/venture-capital-deals-15/
http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/venture-capital/venture-capital-report-quarterly-q2-2011
It would appear deals slowed in 3Q, you can thank the Tea Party debt ceiling debacle for that. Obama did you a favor by ensuring the country won't have to go through that type of uncertainty again in another 6 months.
You're going to have to come up with a different explanation for your business failure, instead of blaming it on Obama killing private investment. PPACA, or the prospect of higher Clinton-era taxes, aren't going to significantly deter investment themselves. Maybe your business just isn't that attractive an investment. Or maybe after meeting you the VC's had second thoughts about doing business with a nutjob.
Member #4112
09-07-11, 13:02
Esten, why would WW wish to detail the specifics of his company to you just to be ridiculed for being either too dumb to run the company correctly, you already inferred this in your response, or having a company of little value therefore not attracting investment which you clearly accused him of?
As I recall when I detailed my response to ObamaCare and its potential affect on my decision to either continue healthcare benefits for my employees or discontinue them and pay the fine, your response was I was a hard hearted, money grubbing, employer who cared little for his employees.
So again I can see no point in attempting to detail company specifics to someone out of touch with the operational realities of business.
Obama did you a favor by ensuring the country won't have to go through that type of uncertainty again in another 6 months.Esten, Obama did himself and his reelection efforts a favor by "by ensuring the country won't have to go through that type of uncertainty again in another 6 months".
Now I know that Esten is not only "out of touch with the operational realities of business.", but he's also "out of touch with the operational realities of politics".
Thanks,
Jackson
Esten, why would WW wish to detail the specifics of his company to you just to be ridiculed for being either too dumb to run the company correctly, you already inferred this in your response, or having a company of little value therefore not attracting investment which you clearly accused him of?He just went down in flames with his lie that Obama has killed virtually all private investment. If he cares to try to redeem himself with a better argument, I'm happy to listen.
I can understand his reluctance to get into details though, and your attempt to defend him not doing so. Getting into the details might reveal that his business failure in fact had nothing to do with Obama.
To set the record straight. I don't think the economy is great, or that Obama is without fault. However I don't think the economy is terrible either, or that the causes of unemployment are entirely or even mostly because of Obama. Conservatives would have us believe otherwise. I like to call out the bs, though it is often boring and easier than swatting at dead flies.
As I recall when I detailed my response to ObamaCare and its potential affect on my decision to either continue healthcare benefits for my employees or discontinue them and pay the fine, your response was I was a hard hearted, money grubbing, employer who cared little for his employees.Hmmm. I don't recall that and if you can re-post or link it here please do. I'm quite sure I never used those words, and in fact on 4-20-11 I told you "Your hard work and success and concern for your employees is to be commended.".
What I DO recall, is calling you out on not wanting to be part of any "shared sacrifice" to address our deficits. If faced with a tax increase, you said you would pass that burden entirely on to others.
So again I can see no point in attempting to detail company specifics to someone out of touch with the operational realities of business.Sounds like another cop-out from making a credible argument on how Obama is hurting your business. I'm still waiting for one, waiting and waiting and waiting....
Member #4112
09-08-11, 11:10
You already know where the post is, you quoted from it. I love your 'shared sacrifice' language. How about we 'share the sacrifice' with the nearly 50% of the population who do not pay any income taxes as well as the wealthy! Isn't that the 'shared' in sacrifice?
Esten, are we on the same planet? You like to tout a few investments of venture capital but you are apparently blind to the fact the economy is not growing, unemployment is creeping up even with Obama's cooked numbers, the dollar remains weak, and your boy Obama can do nothing but make speeches full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. Like the CBO said earlier – they don't score speeches! So where is all this growth the guys are generating in the economy? Sure a few venture capitalists are cherry picking while the market is down, but it is small business that does the heavy lifting on jobs and I don't see any of that happening.
I wonder how Buffett is feeling now about his investment in Bank of America. Maybe he will now take it over and make it part of his personal fiefdom. By the way Warren Buffett does not pay employment taxes like the rest of us.
To set the record straight. I don't think the economy is great, or that Obama is without fault. However I don't think the economy is terrible either, or that the causes of unemployment are entirely or even mostly because of Obama. Conservatives would have us believe otherwise. I like to call out the bs, though it is often boring and easier than swatting at dead flies.
Esten's thoughts above.
The issue is not that the economy is in the tank and unemploymernt and underemployment is causing misery for 25% of the population.
We have had similar unemployemnt and underemployment before.
The issue is that before we always had someone in the White House who understood that only the private sector can remedy unemployment and underemployment. Obama is clueless. Take away his telepromptor and I doubt Obama can speak in complete sentences. Whether Obama should be classified as imbecile/moron or idiot is a moot point. Obama, when it comes to understanding the economy, is definitely somewhere in that range.
However, to give Obama credit, Obama can pick basketball and football winners. I was impressed that he picked Connecticut in last years NCAA basketball tourniment. Unfortunately, that skill is not going to translate into lowering unemployment and underemployment.
Also impressive is how many vacations Obama and his family can pack into a 52 week year.
Gato Hunter
09-08-11, 17:39
I think I large reason we have under employment, or unemployment is that most are not educated enough, or have worthless degrees. Like English, Art, History, and yes MBA's. I hire people for a very highly skilled company and let me tell you there are many morons out there. The world in general is kicking the US's asses in the area of math, science and engineering. These are the skills that create, innovate and have trickle down jobs like secretary's, and box kickers. Something the US has forgot about.
Plowing more money into education will not help in the short term though, nor will funding worthless degrees.
Member #4112
09-08-11, 18:49
I have to agree that hard degrees where you can create something is what we as a nation need to focus on. But I have to disagree regarding MBAs and MSAs, you still have to have someone with management skills to make the pieces fit together and accountants to measure what is and is not profitable. No going concern of any size can run for long without managment and accounting information systems. I have to admit MBA's are not what they were in the past, with every university in the country handing them out like they were free candy. While I know many engineers and other hard science types the one's who can manage are a very small minority.
Gato Hunter
09-08-11, 18:54
Go to a job fair in the US and throw a nickel over your shoulder and you will hit an MBA looking for a job.
Member #4112
09-08-11, 19:01
Can not argue with that. But I would not be tossing change around at a job fair, you could start a riot!
Stan Da Man
09-08-11, 22:33
This guy clearly does not get it. He really is stupid.
So, his three big proposals in his jobs speech were:
1. Extend the payroll tax holiday for certain workers, but go from a reduction to 4. 2% to a reduction of 3. 1%: How exactly will that create jobs? It won't. Employers have no incentive to create jobs from this. The benefit goes to employees. It doesn't reduce employer costs one whit, or make hiring any more attractive. That's $175 billion of his "jobs" program. A strategy that already has been tried and failed.
2. Extend unemployment benefits for an additional year: How exactly will that create jobs? It won't. He's just given the unemployed another year's worth of incentives to not look for work. If you think it's tough to find a job right now, what do you think will make you look a little harder? Getting more free money or cutting that off and making the job search absolutely imperative. This guy's a true idiot. His best argument, as articulated by his Town Fool Jay Carney, is that this is "stimulative" because the unemployed will spend the money. What a crock of sh*t. Why not just pay everyone not to work? He thinks that everyone else puts their cash in mattresses, rather than investing it and spending it.
The foregoing two proposals stem from the Keynesian, gravity-defying "trickle up" theory of economics. Defying gravity doesn't work, and neither will these policies. They don't create jobs. And they're not stimulative because they have no multiplier effect whatsoever.
3. His third proposal is to give some employers a tax credit for hiring someone who has been unemployed for six months or more: That won't create jobs, either. The last time he tried this, all employers responded the same way. You don't create any more jobs. You just come up with a form in your recruiting package to ferret out who has been unemployed longest such that you will qualify for a tax credit if you happen to hire that person. Then, you still don't necessarily hire that person. They get the job only if two or more applicants are "tied." It's not worth $4, 000 to hire a crappy employee. This, again, does nothing to create jobs. Like Cash for Clunkers, it shifts the jobs around a bit, but it creates no additional economic activity.
He had a month to think about it and spent a bunch of time at Martha's Vineyard, and this is the best he could come up? Really? Anyone who continues to assert that this guy is smart is just waving the partisan flag.
Finally, Town Dunce Jay Carney told us earlier in the week that Obama's plan would all be "paid for" without additional spending. When pressed, he refused to give details. Now we know why. How is it paid for? Because O said he would punt that math to the Deficit Reduction Committee. Instead of asking the Committee to find $1. 5 trillion in cuts, he'll just ask them to find $2 trillion. Voila! Paid for! Except for one thing. As everyone knows, they won't even be able to come up with the $1. 5 trillion. Adding another half trillion to their task won't change a thing. Nor will it make Obama's plan "paid for." He's just looking for someone to share the blame since he's unwilling to do the dirty work himself.
One year until we get rid of this idiot and get a real president.
Esten, Obama did himself and his reelection efforts a favor by "by ensuring the country won't have to go through that type of uncertainty again in another 6 months".Jackson, of course in many things politicians do, there is an element of political positioning. And always, what's good for the economy is good for the President.
The real litmus test is this: Is it good for the economy, for the country, for Americans?
The overwhelming consensus has been that the debt ceiling debacle was BAD all around for business certainty and the economy. Why would businesses want to repeat that again in 6 months? They don't.
It would be nice to see you post and say "Obama did the right thing here for business and the economy." I suspect you just can't bring yourself to say it, but I would be impressed if you did.
You already know where the post is, you quoted from it.Doubling down, are we? I did take the time to go back and review that discussion. And nowhere did I see you discussing PPACA and me calling you a "hard hearted, money grubbing, employer who cared little for his employees.". It was a tax discussion and I said you were self-interested for wanting to pass on a tax increase without bearing any of it yourself. So please post / link your alleged statement. If it doesn't exist admit you were wrong.
I love your 'shared sacrifice' language. How about we 'share the sacrifice' with the nearly 50% of the population who do not pay any income taxes as well as the wealthy! Isn't that the 'shared' in sacrifice?
Here we have Doppel, an individual with one of the highest incomes in the country (in the top 2%), who doesn't want to pay any more tax but proposes people living in poverty pay more tax.
That isn't just sad, it's pathetic.
No Doppel, the shared sacrifice is on both the taxation and spending sides. When government spending is cut (be it govt jobs, SS, Medicare, food stamps, infrastructure, unemployment benefits, etc) , it's the poor and middle class who take almost all the hit. Sure, cuts in some of these areas might affect the wealthy as well, but the effect on their wealth and lifestyle is insignificant. The wealthy sacrifice little when government spending is cut.
Esten, are we on the same planet? You like to tout a few investments of venture capital but you are apparently blind to the fact the economy is not growing, unemployment is creeping up even with Obama's cooked numbers, the dollar remains weak, and your boy Obama can do nothing but make speeches full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. Like the CBO said earlier – they don't score speeches! So where is all this growth the guys are generating in the economy? Sure a few venture capitalists are cherry picking while the market is down, but it is small business that does the heavy lifting on jobs and I don't see any of that happening.I suggest you spend some time researching the underlying causes of the current economic situation, you will find many factors at work including several a direct result of free-market capitalism and conservative ideology. The creation and bursting of the housing / financial bubble, mass private sector layoffs, foreclosures and underwater mortgages, banks re-plenishing capital, governments laying off workers, and deep and continued (though unnecessary) cost-cutting by large corporations. It's not quite as simple as "It's Obama's fault".
There's plenty of focus on small business in the American Jobs Act. Obama deserves a lot of credit for what he's done recently to promote conditions for economic certainty and job creation. No doubt you'll be opposed to his efforts, but you'll be on the minority side of public opinion, a place where conservatives often find themselves.
I think I large reason we have under employment, or unemployment is that most are not educated enough, or have worthless degrees. Like English, Art, History, and yes MBA's. I hire people for a very highly skilled company and let me tell you there are many morons out there. The world in general is kicking the US's asses in the area of math, science and engineering. These are the skills that create, innovate and have trickle down jobs like secretary's, and box kickers. Something the US has forgot about.I agree. It's also revealing when you break down unemployment by educational degree, you see almost perfect inverse correlation.
Unemployment rate in 2010 (%)
1.9% Doctoral degree
2.4% Professional degree
4.0% Master's degree
5.4% Bachelor's degree
7.0% Associate degree
9.2% Some college, no degree
10.3% High school diploma
14.9% Less than a high school diploma
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey
May 4, 2011
Data are 2010 annual averages for persons age 25 and over
Member #4112
09-09-11, 11:49
Esten and his comrades discussing Obama and the economy, ' That's what I saw said the blind man, that's what I heard said the deaf one.
Esten, you make yourself look the fool with these defenses.
Quote Esten:
'It was a tax discussion and I said you were self-interested for wanting to pass on a tax increase without bearing any of it yourself. '
No Esten you did not use the exact words but though you attempt to use polite terms the intent and meaning are the same.
Quote Esten:
'Here we have Doppel, an individual with one of the highest incomes in the country (in the top 2%) , who doesn't want to pay any more tax but proposes people living in poverty pay more tax. '
Yea that's right buddy I'm right up there with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett et al raking in the dough. Better check your facts again, I'm in the top 6% not the top 2% but what is the difference between $200k per year and $2 million and up per year when we are talking politics with a flaming liberal socialist.
Esten are you now you are trying to tell us the nearly 50% of the nation that does not pay income tax are living at the poverty level? Right on Comrade!
Quote Esten:
'The overwhelming consensus has been that the debt ceiling debacle was BAD all around for business certainty and the economy. Why would businesses want to repeat that again in 6 months? They don't. '
No Esten, the reason the debt ceiling debacle was bad for the nation was because Congress and Obama could not agree to cut a minimum of $4 trillion from the budget. A figure the rating agencies put out there nearly two months before the 'debacle' began. The problem was businesses and the world fininancial markets wanted to see the federal budget reigned in and it did not happen.
The initial recession was not Obama's fault but the continuation of it, the steady erosion of the dollar's value and unemployment remaining above 9%, though Obama promised if the stimulus was passed it would not go over 8%, is a direct result of his failed policies.
It took Obama nearly three years to figure out we needed a jobs program? Why didn't he pass it in the first two years when he had bullet proof majorities in both houses? Now his 'new' program is more of the same failed policies.
You can argue till the cow's come home but the stagnant economy is Obama's mess and it will dethrone him in November 2012.
If you really want to know who is to blame for the economic mess we are in, it is us, the voters. The voters are the equivalent of a manager of a baseball team. We decide who plays first base, who bats cleanup, who pinch hits etc.
Unfortuneately, during the last election, when the bases were loaded and we were in the hole a couple of runs, we looked at the lineup and made a peculiar decision. We had Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe Dimaggio, 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson and Ted Williams available to pinch hit but we sent the scrawny ballboy, who wasn't sure what end of the bat to hold, up to the plate.
No Doppel, the shared sacrifice is on both the taxation and spending sides. When government spending is cut (be it govt jobs, SS, Medicare, food stamps, infrastructure, unemployment benefits, etc) , it's the poor and middle class who take almost all the hit. Sure, cuts in some of these areas might affect the wealthy as well, but the effect on their wealth and lifestyle is insignificant. The wealthy sacrifice little when government spending is cut.Esten, the people who have their hard earned money taken from them by the government are the ones who are doing the sacrificing, not the people who might receive less of what to them is free money.
Obama deserves a lot of credit for what he's done recently to promote conditions for economic certainty and job creation.ROTFLMAO!
Esten, can you actually say that with a straight face?
Anyway, you can preach that BS to the country's "nothinkums" because they're too stupid to know better, but it won't fly here.
Thanks,
Jackson
Esten is an enigma to me.
Sort of like an alchemist in the middle ages who spends his life trying to turn lead into gold.
It won't happen.
When we need to reward people for hard work, taking chances to better themselves, Esten sits on his ass and proclaims that hardworking people, taking chances to better themselves, should be punished and that the loafers of society are the real victims.
In reality the hardworking people as well as ther loafers are victims of Obama's braindead policies. Obama may be worse than Carter and probably is because at least Carter was recognized as an idiot while Obama and his supporters have not yet realized that Obama is an idiot.
I have had enough. I predict a landslide in the next election against the freeloaders of society, championed by that imbecile/moron/idiot Obama.
It is time we realized that the world economy is throwing us curve balls and we need to reward people who can handle curve balls and stop making excuses for people who can't handle curve balls.
Anyway, I don't know about the rest of you, but Estens nonsense is offensive to me.
i think esten should retire to his double wide, collect his food stamps and the remaining 10 days of his unemployment insurance and bid us a final farewell.
On the other hand, we could look at estens nonsense as comedy relief and the product of too many acid trips during his youth.
No Esten you did not use the exact words but though you attempt to use polite terms the intent and meaning are the same.Good to see you admit at least part of your error. You are still wrong on the intent. My point is absolutely not about whether you are good to your employees or not, it seems you are. My point would be the same whether you passed a tax increase onto your employees or your customers. And the point is this: you object to doing anything more than you are doing now to help address our country's debt. You have plenty of ideas about how others can help, but believe you are entitled to an exception. IMO that simply makes you self-interested, and no patriot.
Yea that's right buddy I'm right up there with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett et al raking in the dough. Better check your facts again, I'm in the top 6% not the top 2% but what is the difference between $200k per year and $2 million and up per year when we are talking politics with a flaming liberal socialist.Check my facts OK....
I earn over $250K, own my own business, employ 22 accountants / CPAs / office staff, drive a 5 year old car and an 11 year old truck, live in a nice home but believe me I am damn sure not 'rich'. As one of those lunk head small business owners who would get caught in Obama's tax hike let me tell you what will happen.
I currently provide healthcare benefits for my employees, three weeks paid leave, paid continuing education allowance, and a 401 (k) which includes Safe Harbor contributions of 3% with an additional minimum of 3% and maximum of 9% in Profit Sharing depending on the profitability of the business year.
Well when Obama hits me with higher personal taxes here is what goes at a minimum: one week of paid leave, continuing education allowance and when ObamaCare kicks in probably healthcare as it appears to be cheaper to pay the fine than insure the employees but we still don't know for sure since HHS / IRS are still writing the rules.Hmmm. Before it was $250K+ (in the top 2%) , now its 200K. Not that I care much about your personal finances, but you're the one posting this (inconsistent) information. Check my facts? You put your foot in your mouth once again.
Perhaps you were bluffing before, so you could show us how harmful your tax increases would be to your business. At 200K, your taxes aren't going up and all that 'harm' is pure fantasy.
Esten are you now you are trying to tell us the nearly 50% of the nation that does not pay income tax are living at the poverty level? Right on Comrade!Nope. All of the people affected by your proposal are not living in poverty. But all people living in poverty (who have income) would be affected.
No Esten, the reason the debt ceiling debacle was bad for the nation was because Congress and Obama could not agree to cut a minimum of $4 trillion from the budget. A figure the rating agencies put out there nearly two months before the 'debacle' began. The problem was businesses and the world fininancial markets wanted to see the federal budget reigned in and it did not happen.Keep fooling yourself, the amount of the debt agreement was secondary to the uncertainty over what might happen if the limit wasn't raised. It was all over the news, I guess you missed it. As far as the $4T, that's exactly what Obama was pushing for. Repubs refused because they made a pledge not to raise taxes, contrary to majority public opinion. Republicans pushed for a smaller deal than $4T with cuts alone. Shouldn't you blame them?
I think esten should retire to his double wide, collect his food stamps and the remaining 10 days of his unemployment insurance and bid us a final farewell.
On the other hand, we could look at estens nonsense as comedy relief and the product of too many acid trips during his youth.Dude, I am still young and living the life!
When I wake up at 3pm, I head down to the beach with my surfboard to catch some waves and rays. Then I come back home and take a nap. When I wake up again I toss a few pop tarts in the toaster for dinner and turn on MSNBC to watch Hardball and my other favorite shows. In the evening I cook a splif, connect to AP and search for 'El Alamo'. You post so many variations of 'Obama can't fight his way out of a paper bag' it's hysterical! Once, I laughed so hard I shit my pants. Then I relax with some chocolate milk and watch my favorite videos of Obama on youtube before I go to bed.
Peace out....
Esten.
I am glad you are not taking my posts seriously. I am stuck in Key west for another week or so and have nothing better to do than post on this forum. When I return to Paraguay Obama, the national debt and the price of rice in China will be the farthest thing from my mind.
Member #4112
09-10-11, 15:46
Good to see you admit at least part of your error. You are still wrong on the intent. My point is absolutely not about whether you are good to your employees or not, it seems you are. My point would be the same whether you passed a tax increase onto your employees or your customers. And the point is this: you object to doing anything more than you are doing now to help address our country's debt. You have plenty of ideas about how others Can help, but believe you are entitled to an exception. IMO that simply makes you self-interested, and no patriot.
Check my facts OK.
Hmmm. Before it was $250K+ (in the top 2%) , now its 200K. Not that I care much about your personal finances, but you're the one posting this (inconsistent) information. Check my facts? You put your foot in your mouth once again.
Perhaps you were bluffing before, so you could show us how harmful your tax increases would be to your business. At 200K, your taxes aren't going up and all that 'harm' is pure fantasy.
Esten, I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain tax code to you or what an LLC is since you don't seem to grasp the financial operations of a business beyond taxing it.
This year it appears my gross income will be down due to clients reducing their expenses and having given discounts to retain clients where necessary, something I doubt you understand. That notwithstanding, I don't know what graph you are looking at but neither $200K nor $250k is in the top 2% of income. I'm sure you can come up with something somewhere from a liberal site which will support your contention but neither it nor you are in touch with reality.
Esten permit me to provide you with an example of your rhetoric.
Obama and you are up an unsanitary tributary with no means of locomotion.
More succinctly the literal translation is:
Obama and you are up shit creek without a paddle.
I hope you get the point.
I have become weary of your and most liberal's attempt to shift your perceived guilt over conditions you perceive as unfair to those who are productive and readily accept responsibility of their actions and their lives. Using this as an excuse to plunder and pillage from the productive the fruits of their labors to ease your perceived guilt to feed the leaches on the body politic.
Esten, you seem so ready to criticize and pass judgment on others, what is your financial situation?
Esten, while you rail against conservatives and independents no one is stopping you from writing a check as big as you may wish to 'share the sacrifice'.
Go for it big guy. You can post a copy of it on the board so we the unwashed and unwilling can marvel at your largess
Matt Psyche
09-10-11, 15:58
Should voters be blamed for the divided government today, Democratic president, or something else? Unclear to me.
If you really want to know who is to blame for the economic mess we are in, it is us, the voters. The voters are the equivalent of a manager of a baseball team. We decide who plays first base, who bats cleanup, who pinch hits etc.
Unfortuneately, during the last election, when the bases were loaded and we were in the hole a couple of runs, we looked at the lineup and made a peculiar decision. We had Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe Dimaggio, 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson and Ted Williams available to pinch hit but we sent the scrawny ballboy, who wasn't sure what end of the bat to hold, up to the plate.
Should voters be blamed for the divided government today, Democratic president, or something else? Unclear to me.Hi MP.
Let me clear that up for you.
The voters should be blamed for hiring an inexperienced college professor to be the chief executive officer of the largest organization in the world.
I would also add that the people who hired this guy should themselves be fired for making such a poor management decision, but on reflection I realize that many of them have.
Thanks,
Jackson
Matt Psyche
09-11-11, 17:29
OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.
Hi MP.
Let me clear that up for you.
The voters should be blamed for hiring an inexperienced college professor to be the chief executive officer of the largest organization in the world.
I would also add that the people who hired this guy should themselves be fired for making such a poor management decision, but on reflection I realize that many of them have.
Thanks,
Jackson
I hate to say it, but it is obvious Obama is a complete fraud. Obama's real calling in life is.
1) drug dealer.
2) evangelist defrauding gullible retirees.
3) selling swampland in the everglades.
4) selling miracle exercise machines which turn gorditos into Charlie Atlas.
5) selling penny stocks which were worthless yesterday, are worthless today and will be worthless tomorrow.
Obama is a fraud. Wake up and smell the roses.
Obama is a disgrace. Supporters of Obama are retards looking at a donkey and trying to call it a racehorse. And these retards put him in the White House.
The least supporters of Obama could do it pony up and admit they elected and imbelcile / moron / idiot
OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.God almighty. How could anyone f* up the economy more than Obama. Unemployment which will not recover, debt downgrades and a dollar which has the value of toilet paper.
If my dog Rocky had been elected President the unemployment rate would be lower than it is today, the US dollar would have some value, and our debt would not have been downgraded and the laughing stock of the world.
However, the real issue is that Obama, no matter how long that idiot is in office, will never address the crisis in unemployemt. Obama is clueless.
How can the supporters of Obama look at this donkey and continue to call him a racehorse.
This is surreal. How much longer can we look at this idiot and think he has a plan.
Do yourself a favor. dump Obama and put up credible Democratic candidate for the presidency.
Don't fret about Obama. Obama's future is in selling street drugs, becoming an evangelist and stealing from gullible retirees, selling penny stocks, selling swamland in the everglades or being the front man for miracle exercise machines and worthless diet pills.
Stan Da Man
09-12-11, 19:43
OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.This question is a variation on the theme that the White House and various liberal politicians, commentators and bloggers have started asking. Two years ago, Obama was going to save the country. The Stimulus was essential. ObamaCare was going to reduce the deficit. Obama was going to save us from too-big-to-fail banks. His "smart" policies would soon end the recession and start us growing again. Now, all of this has failed. The Emperor has no clothes. His "smart" policies are revealed for what they truly are: Dumb.
So, now the Left is trying to switch the debate. They implicitly concede that Obama's policies haven't worked, but they either argue that it would have been worse without Obama, or they ask "What could anyone have done differently?"
Of course, there's no way to definitively rebut this. It's impossible to 'prove' a negative. One would have to go back in time, substitute in McCain and legitimate policies, and then demonstrate the effect. Short of that, it's all argument. There have been many responses on what Obama screwed up. But, the proof is in the pudding. Obama's policies have not succeeded. Whether they caused the current malaise (Jimmy Carter's word) or not is open to debate, but the arguments that resonate with the public clearly are not on Obama's side, as evidenced by his abysmal approval ratings.
I'll list my three major failures, each of which McCain would either not have supported or would undoubtedly have done differently:
1. The Stimulus: Obama used the so-called stimulus as a mechanism to pay back his supporters. He siphoned federal funds and gave it to state and local governments which overwhelmingly consist of unionized workers, green groups, and allocated other portions to supposedly 'shovel-ready' projects. He could have allocated these fund to WPA style projects, but that wouldn't have put money as directly in the hands of his supporters. As a consequence, governments used the funds to prop up their bloated bureaucracies for an an additional 1-2 years. They didn't create any jobs. These funds just let state and local governments kick the can down the road for an additional 12-18 months until the new money ran out. The result? Now that the money's run dry, they've still got to address their problems, but they're a bit worse off because their unfunded liabilities are that much larger. One further irony is that these sectors are now contributing greater to the unemployment rate that Obama is responsible for. Like Cash for Clunkers, he just pushed the consequences further out, but his stimulus did nothing to help. As for 'green jobs, ' they've been an unmitigated disaster. The only benefit is that they exist as just one more example of how government fails when it tries to intervene like this. And, Obama's stimulus also proved that it's one thing to say you're allocating funds to shovel ready projects, and another thing to actually do so. There were many other failure points associated with the Stimulus, but the above is a good start.
2. ObamaCare: As with the Stimulus, there are many failure points here. But I will cite just two. First, the approach was pathetic. Obama shares blame with his Democratic Congress on this. After promising to have hearings on CSPAN and to be the most open government ever, Democrats used dirty, backroom dealings to ram this through. This was the beginning of the end for Obama and ObamaCare. These dirty dealings ranged from things like the 'cornhusker kickback, ' to the secret deals he cut with pharmaceutical companies and insurers, to the post-enactment waiver process, to the parliamentary reconciliation process used to get this passed after Scott Brown took Kennedy's seat. At the end of the day, this was the filthiest piece of legislation that ever came out of Congress. Then, the way they tried to sell it to the American public was pathetic. They had the CBO score the plan as deficit reducing based on 10 years of revenue and 6 years of costs. As everyone knows, the CBO is supposed to be neutral. That doesn't mean it's competent, however, and previous CBO estimates on the cost of social legislation have been wildly inaccurate, invariably erring on the wrong side of the cost equation. But, Obama gerry-rigged the outcome with a garbage-in, garbage-out methodology. This further contributed to the filthy nature of this garbage dressed up as a social program, and it undermined any confidence the public had that this administration was going to be 'different' in a positive way.
The second biggest problem with ObamaCare is the uncertainty it has created. Leave aside for the moment the obvious fact that this social legislation will impose huge additional costs on businesses. Businesses can deal with that if they know what those costs are. It may represent another millstone around the neck of many small businesses, but there is benefit to knowing whether your company will sink or swim. Aside from that, however, Obama and Democrats included the individual mandate and no savings clause in the legislation. Despite what liberal scholars said early on, it is obvious at this point that the individual mandate is of dubious legitimacy. It may be upheld; it may be struck down. This is the sort of uncertainty that kills businesses, especially for something like this that makes up such a large portion of overhead. Businesses don't know what it will cost or even if they will ever have to deal with ObamaCare. As an example of how this affects business, I'll offer this: My business has to bid on various different contracts each year. They generally last for 3-4 years or longer, and each contract usually represents $30-$40 million or more. The bidding process requires that each bidder assess his costs today, and project costs into the future. I can't do that right now with health care costs. I know that if ObamaCare isn't repealed, there will be no choice but to dump our health plan. That's because the penalties included in ObamaCare – even for employers offering coverage – are prohibitive. My company and many others will find themselves in the same boat. But, that doesn't solve the problem, because there's no way to get a good fix on what it will cost to dump your medical plan, either. The result is uncertainty. It's difficult to bid on anything because you don't know whether you'll be pricing yourself out of the market or driving yourself out of business in three years. If we were talking about the cost of paperclips, it would be a different matter. But, this is a substantial expense that is now totally gray, which is a significant problem for any business that has to price its products or services.
3. Miscellaneous Market Interference Programs: This includes TARP, Cash for Clunkers, Dodd-Frank, the first-time homebuyer credits, the CIT bailout (followed by bankruptcy) , the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the payroll credit, the unemployment hiring credit, the continued extension of unemployment benefits, and many more. These last three did nothing to revive employment or the economy, yet they formed the cornerstone of Obama's 'jobs' speech. There are many, many more that can be put in this category. Most of Obama's stimulus-lite programs suffer from the same basic flaw: They rely on Keynesian, trickle-up economic theory that just doesn't work. If McCain did nothing, absolutely nothing, we would be far better off today. McCain was certainly not a great candidate, but he did not share Obama's vision (or illusion) that government can solve all problems and should stick it's nose into everyone's business to the greatest extent possible. That's debatable, but it's a fundamental Left-Right difference, so I feel safe in saying that McCain would not have butted in as frequently as Obama, and would not have governed from the ill-founded premise on which Obama purports to govern.
There are many, many other areas that could be highlighted: The favors Obama owes Big Labor, which have stifled job creation; Obama's failure to pass free trade agreements, which he has now larded with more favors for Big Labor; his confidence sapping "millionaires and billionaires" rhetoric, which stifles capital investment; his appointment and reliance of incompetent political advisors, such as Tim Geitner and many others; his crony capitalism; his enshrinement of too-big-to-fail. But, I'm sure there is a character limit here at AP, and anyone who has made it this far will appreciate conclusion, so I'll save all those for another post.
I think Obama had a plan and so far Obama has been pretty successful in putting his plan in place.
Plan #1:
Downgrade American debt. Almost an unthinkable task considering that the USA has had Triple AAA debt rating for centuries. However, Obama almost effortlessly, with grace and style, was able to downgrade america's debt in a matter of months. And, not only that, Obama has put in place further downgrades of america's debt with his job stimulus plan #2 which should be correctly categorized as Obama's debt downgrade plan #2.
Do not underestimate what Obama was able to do. Downgrading america's debt is the equivalent of running a 2 minute mile, swimming the Atlantic Ocean in 12 hours or leaping Mt. Everest in a single bound. Almost unthinkable to us mere mortals but not to "the one"
2) Plan #2.
Reduce america's industrial output to somewhere between the belgium congo and zimbabwe. This is progressing nicely and should be a reality within months.
3) Plan #3.
Increasing hunger, starvation and bloated bellies in the United States to as level that surpasses the Sudan and Somalia. Again, Obama is on top of this.
However, I will always be in awe of Obama because he has been able to move forward with his agenda while maintaining the braindead support of millions of supporters who resemble zombies from 'the night of the living dead'. On second thought, maybe Obama's supporters are the actual cast members of 'the night of the living dead'
OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.
If McCain did nothing, absolutely nothing, we would be far better off today.That's your answer.
Rock Harders
09-12-11, 23:59
Mongers-
Why can't somebody pull Colin Powell out of retirement and have him run for the Republican presidential nomination? He is a level-headed middle of the road guy with strong leadership credentials and experience. Yes, I did support Obama v. McCain (PALIN) ; however, it is quite clear that Obama is not doing a competent job at this time and does not deserve to be re-elected. The only good things he has accomplished, IMO, were saving GM and killing OBL; everything else has pretty much been a disaster. If the Republicans nominate George Bush's degenerate twin (Rick Perry) we very well might get stuck with four more years of economic quagmire and poorly timed and executed legislation that is likely in another Obama term. In Obama's defense, the international debt crisis that is about to bring down the house is NOT his fault and the housing crisis that initiated the current downturn is also not of his making. However, with a better chief executive at the helm, the US economy would surely be in a better place than it is today.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Here is a concise summary of what Doppelganger has told us in the discussion about his business, paraphrased:
I can't explain how Obama is hurting my business, but he is, and he's going down.
OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.As a Republican president McCain probably would have passed a smaller stimulus. Not only were economists pushing for a strong stimulus package in January 2009, so was the US Chamber of Commerce, which represents 3 million businesses. USCoC president Tom Donahue said back then,"What we are talking about is a defibrillator. We are trying to shock the economy."
A smaller stimulus would have been very bad for the country. In January 2009 when the details were being hammered out, people knew big layoffs were in progress and would continue. At the time it was predicted the Recovery Act would keep unemployment below 8%. But everybody underestimated just how deep the job slashing would be in 2009. Hindsight is 20-20, and economists now understand the Recovery Act was too small. Still, economists estimate the Recovery Act created or saved 2-3 Million jobs, and lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7%-1.8%.
If McCain had approved a stimulus half the size of the Recovery Act, by the above measures the unemployment rate would now be closer to 10% with up to 1.5 Million more people unemployed.
If McCain had done nothing, which is what would have happened under Tea Party philosophy, not only would there not have been a stimulus, but unspent TARP funds would likely not have been spent either. As a result we would have entered a full-blown Depression.
If you need any further proof about the Stimulus, have a look at the chart in the article below. Every time you hear a conservative say that the Stimulus was a failure, think of this chart.
GOP Derides Obama Jobs Plan As 'Second Stimulus, ' Ignoring Success Of The First
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/09/315347/gop-second-stimulus/
There is a known psychological technique in which by repeating a lie often enough, people with weak minds start to believe it as fact. When people state the Stimulus was a failure, they are either practicing this psychological technique, or showing they have become a victim to it. Just tonight on TV, Rick Perry said that the Stimulus created zero (0) jobs. You can be sure some people in the audience at this Tea Party debate believed him.
Better than listening to what the politicians say (on either side), listen to what economists say.
Member #4112
09-13-11, 10:15
1. Esten, your education about business in not my job, but if you insist take a look at Stan's response to your nonsense.
2. What no response to writing a check to "share the sacrifice"?
3. What no response to your trying to push your precieved guilt on to everyone else and using that as a pretense to seprate the working class from their money?
4. Esten, even your boy Obama figured it out, instead of Obama and the Democrats trying to prove a negative. "The economy would have been worse I had not taken the action I took". Attempting to prove it kept eating Obama and the Democrats a new asshole. Now Obama and the Democrats are attempting to turn the tables asking the Republicans to prove a negative, if McCain had been president things would have been different / better / worse. You can not unring the bell.
Punter 127
09-13-11, 11:04
Esten, no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a pig.
Keynesian Economists and their f*cked-up thinking is what led us to this mess.
Trying to make the poor rich by making the rich poor just doesn't work.
Europe is learning that lesson the hard way right now, the Euro's collapsing and the domino effect will follow. Just a matter of time.
The American people have lost faith in Obama as problem solver.
When guys like Rock Harder say 'it is quite clear that Obama is not doing a competent job at this time and does not deserve to be re-elected' Then Obama is in deep shit.
It doesn't matter if Obama is responsible or not for the current situation, he promised the American people he could fix our problems and he has failed big time. He will be held accountable, the voters will be looking for blood. I think a Perry / Rubio ticket would blow Obama out of the water. (I would rather have Chris Christie but I can live with Perry.)
If Obama really cared about the United States and the Demacrat party he would resign, or at least not run for re-election.
Democrat or Republican; either way you're screwed! Its like asking what kind of bread you'd like your shit sandwich served on.
Obama hates America, his wife hates white people. I am doubly screwed because I am both white and American! Like going to Madaho's and paying all that money to the house and chica; Who's really screwing who? I guess at least the chica gets a drink, all I get is a fuckin' 22% increase in my health insurance premiums for Obama Care!
Bend over America, there will be no lube until 2016. Maybe!
Member #4112
09-13-11, 14:35
You have to love this one:
Oregan State University Athletic Director Bob DeCarolis was runing out of money was about to fire his basketball coach Craig Robinson.
Word gets to Washington about this layoff and Undersecretary of Education Martha Kanter is dispatched to Oregan State with $17 Million in stimulus money and guess what? Coach Robinson keeps his job.
What a heart warming stimulus story.
Now as Paul Harvey would say is the rest of the story.
Who is Craig Robinson to receive such attention from Washington to the tune of $17 Million in stimulus money you may ask? Well he just happens to be Michelle Obama's brother, that's right the brother-in-law of the president.
Don't you just love a success story involving YOUR TAXE MONEY and STIMULUS SPENDING TO SAVE ONE JOB!
You have to love this one:
Oregan State University Athletic Director Bob DeCarolis was runing out of money was about to fire his basketball coach Craig Robinson.
Word gets to Washington about this layoff and Undersecretary of Education Martha Kanter is dispatched to Oregan State with $17 Million in stimulus money and guess what? Coach Robinson keeps his job.
What a heart warming stimulus story.
Now as Paul Harvey would say is the rest of the story.
Who is Craig Robinson to receive such attention from Washington to the tune of $17 Million in stimulus money you may ask? Well he just happens to be Michelle Obama's brother, that's right the brother-in-law of the president.
Don't you just love a success story involving YOUR TAXE MONEY and STIMULUS SPENDING TO SAVE ONE JOB!
There are probably hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of stories like this. It make me sick. These lovers of big government extort money from hardworking people and spend our money like drunken sailors. Then they have the nerve to claim they feel the pain of the little people. These as***** have no shame
But what do you expect from someone like Obama who grew up in the sewers of chicago and has spent a lifetime scamming and deceiving the public.
Another good one is the $500 million dollar loan to a solar energy company run by one of Obama's biggest campaign contributors. Not only was the money completely wasted, the company went bankrupt losing every cent of our $500 million because of mismanagement and producing nonfunctional solar panels.
If that doesn't identify Obama as completely incompetent I don't know what does. I think Obama's check signing priviledges should be revoked.
Stan Da Man
09-13-11, 19:24
We frequently see talk here about "shared sacrifice" by the "rich" to help out "the poor," who can't help themselves. As I and others here have said, the term "poor" as applied to anyone in the USA is relative. It's relative to both "the poor" in other countries, as well as to "the poor" of our parents and grandparents age. By any measure, our "poor" today are very well off in relation to these comparisons.
The Left uses census data to label people "poor," and then to argue that the "rich" have to pay their "fair share." When you see these arguments, remember what "poor" really means. This from a fairly good article today on the subject:
According to data compiled by other government agencies, the typical household considered 'poor' by census officials has a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household has cable or satellite TV, two color televisions, a DVD player and a VCR. If children (especially boys) are in the home, they have a video game system such as Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household has the ordinary conveniences: refrigerator, oven, stove, microwave.
Half the poor now have a personal computer. A third have a widescreen TV (plasma or LCD) ; a quarter have a digital video recorder such as TiVo.
In all these cases, USA Department of Energy data say so. Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in households defined by the Census Bureau as poor. In part, this is a result of the normal downward trend of prices in the years after a product is introduced. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent; over time prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population.
The Left uses the declining relative prices of many amenities to argue that it's no big deal that poor households have air conditioning, computers, cable TV and widescreen televisions. They argue that even though most poor families have a house full of modern conveniences, the average poor family still suffers from substantial deprivation in basic needs such as food and housing.
Fortunately, that's not the case.
Let's look at housing. The old-stream media usually present America's poor living in real deprivation: a large family crowded into a leaky, rundown trailer, for example. But only a tenth of the poor live in mobile homes, according to government data; half live in single-family houses and the remaining 40 percent live in apartments.
These homes in most cases are in good repair and almost never overcrowded, according to the government's own statistics. Poor Americans, on average, live in larger houses or apartments than does the average, non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany or the United Kingdom.
The media cry with alarm that 'nearly one in four kids' in the nation are hungry. Again, government data show otherwise. Fully 96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during 2009, despite the severity of the recession, according to data from the USA Department of Agriculture.
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/13/understanding_poverty_in_the_us.html
The article notes earlier that so many people are labeled "poor" because the government doesn't consider means-tested welfare assistance when running the numbers.
My point? The rich already are sacrificing enough. Where's the "shared" sacrifice from these folks? I'm not arguing that they should be taxed to any great degree. But, clearly if you can afford all the do-dads despite a poverty-level income, you're not really being asked to sacrifice at all. Especially when compared with our forebears and "the poor" in other countries, our "poor" have nothing to complain about. That won't stop the Left from bleating. But, when you hear their blather, don't immediately envision someone starving or wanting for food. Envision someone pining away for the latest X-Box game on your dime, or saving your money for a 46" LCD. That's certainly a generalization. But, it's also more true than the images the Left would have you believe.
Yeah. This came out in March 2010. Was debunked almost immediately by ESPN.
Analysis: While it's true that Oregon State University head basketball coach Craig Robinson is Michelle Obama's brother, virtually everything else in this message is false.
Far from having his job on the chopping block, Robinson's six-year coaching contract with OSU was recently extended through 2016 (an additional two years) , and it had nothing to do with federal stimulus grants, according to Assistant OSU Athletic Director Steve Fenk."For the record," he said in an email,"Craig Robinson has coached Oregon State to its best back-to-back seasons since the early 1990s."
Furthermore, though Oregon State has received a total of over $26, 000, 000 in federal stimulus grants to date — at least half of it in 2009 — there is no record of Department of Education Under Secretary Martha Kanter (or any other government official) being "dispatched to Corvallis with $17, 000, 000 in stimulus money."
Another Oregon school, University of Oregon, has received even more federal stimulus funds to date: at least $40, 000, 000, according to the Eugene Register-Guard. No Obama family members work there, so far as I know.
When I asked OSU Director of Athletics Bob De Carolis to comment on this rumor — which is as much a smear against him as it is against Coach Robinson and the Obama administration — his response was succinct: "There is absolutely no truth to any of this, period."
Member #4112
09-13-11, 20:21
Jughead, glad you are on a first name bias with the athletic director at Oregon State University and can call him up for a comment on the spur of the moment, but buddy you need to get your facts straight.
Oregon State University received $17. 8 Million Dollars from the state, which got it from the Federal Stimulus package, and I am quite sure that the fact Craig Johnson was the President's brother in law had nothing to do with the funds being channeled to OSU and the subsequent extension of his contract. He does not have a winning record and what would you expect the athletic director to say – yea we got a direct pipeline to Michelle and the cash?
Here is the link to the article, OSU got the lion's share of the state / federal money and I sure Craig's relationship with the Pres had nothing to do with it. Right!
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2009/10/most_stimulus_jobs_in_educatio.html
"But I was wrong. According to the state's figures, Oregon State University has preserved or created the equivalent of 394 full-time jobs by spending $17. 8 million of state fiscal stabilization"
Quoted from your article.
394 Jobs does not equal one coaching position. While your author admits her error she fails to mention U of O's funding.
And yes, I am on a first name basis with the AD at OSU.
Member #4112
09-13-11, 23:29
"But I was wrong. According to the state's figures, Oregon State University has preserved or created the equivalent of 394 full-time jobs by spending $17. 8 million of state fiscal stabilization"
Quoted from your article.
394 Jobs does not equal one coaching position.Glad you are on a first name basis with the AD, but the key to your quote above is "preserved or created the EQUIVALENT of 394 full time jobs" the slippery way to alude to creating jobs while not creating any jobs at all. Never had an equivalent job, but have played the word games to make things seem something they are not, just double speak. I would suggest you go check on what the defination of "preserved or created the equivalent" means and I am sure you will be shocked. Also the article clearly states OSU did receive $17. 8 million in funding. Go check how much Stumulus money Oregon received from the Fed for education and how much went to Oregon State vs all the other schools in the state including grade 12 and below where the money was really needed. I'm sure having the Pre's brother in law there had nothing to do with it.
Punter 127
09-14-11, 02:36
A record 46 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010, pushing the US poverty rate to its highest level since 1993, according to a government report on Tuesday on the grim effects of stubbornly high unemployment.
Underscoring the economic challenges that face President Barack Obama and Congress, the US census Bureau said the poverty rate rose for a third consecutive year to hit 15. 1% in 2010. The number in poverty was the largest since the government first began publishing estimates in 1959.How's that for 'Change You Can Believe in'?
A record 46 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010, pushing the US poverty rate to its highest level since 1993, according to a government report on Tuesday on the grim effects of stubbornly high unemployment.
Underscoring the economic challenges that face President Barack Obama and Congress, the US census Bureau said the poverty rate rose for a third consecutive year to hit 15. 1% in 2010. The number in poverty was the largest since the government first began publishing estimates in 1959.It's George Bush's fault!
All hucksters have their Waterloo.
It is completely clear that Obama looks upon the Presidency as a hobby/joke rather than a responsibility.
Bad for us, amusing for Obama.
Obama is probably astonished that someone who cannot speak in complete sentences without a telepromptor was elected President of the USA.
The roman empire had similar problems. Rome had mentally ill, childlike emperors prior to its demise.
Now we know why rome fell.
I predict Obama will spend his remaining time in office camped out at golf courses while attending rap concerts at night. It goes without saying that Obama's family, with an entourage of thousands, will be enjoying non stop vacations. Gladiator contests are also a possibility.
The second biggest problem with ObamaCare is the uncertainty it has created. Leave aside for the moment the obvious fact that this social legislation will impose huge additional costs on businesses. Businesses can deal with that if they know what those costs are. It may represent another millstone around the neck of many small businesses, but there is benefit to knowing whether your company will sink or swim. Aside from that, however, Obama and Democrats included the individual mandate and no savings clause in the legislation. Despite what liberal scholars said early on, it is obvious at this point that the individual mandate is of dubious legitimacy. It may be upheld; it may be struck down. This is the sort of uncertainty that kills businesses, especially for something like this that makes up such a large portion of overhead. Businesses don't know what it will cost or even if they will ever have to deal with ObamaCare. As an example of how this affects business, I'll offer this: My business has to bid on various different contracts each year. They generally last for 3-4 years or longer, and each contract usually represents $30-$40 million or more. The bidding process requires that each bidder assess his costs today, and project costs into the future. I can't do that right now with health care costs. I know that if ObamaCare isn't repealed, there will be no choice but to dump our health plan. That's because the penalties included in ObamaCare – even for employers offering coverage – are prohibitive. My company and many others will find themselves in the same boat. But, that doesn't solve the problem, because there's no way to get a good fix on what it will cost to dump your medical plan, either. The result is uncertainty. It's difficult to bid on anything because you don't know whether you'll be pricing yourself out of the market or driving yourself out of business in three years. If we were talking about the cost of paperclips, it would be a different matter. But, this is a substantial expense that is now totally gray, which is a significant problem for any business that has to price its products or services.Stan continues to be the best at attempting reasoned arguments from the right, though his bias and spin are clear. Many others here appear to be driven by emotion and shallow analysis.
Right wing media / politicians often mention that business uncertainty is holding the economy back, especially uncertainty about the costs of the new health care law (PPACA). But like everything they say, it needs to be questioned, backed up and put in context.
Looking at Stan's argument, there are several key omissions.
First, uncertainty is not new, businesses deal with many types of uncertainty on a regular basis. This includes uncertainty on a wide range of factors, depending on the business: results of contract negotiations (price of raw materials, supplies, labor, etc) , price of oil, inflation, interest rates, exchange rates, consumer sentiment, housing prices, etc. Stan points out that heathcare is a substantial business expense, but the uncertainty only applies to the delta, the change. Some of these other factors are equally if not more impactful to the cost of doing business than the delta on a health care reform. And yet somehow, businesses have always managed to navigate these uncertainties.
Second, Stan fails to mention that it's a level playing field. To the extent that a business is dealing with uncertainty on PPACA, so are their comparable competitors.
Third, and perhaps most telling, is that Stan makes no mention of how uncertainty over PPACA has impacted the profits and hiring decisions of his business. If there had been significant impact, it seems unlikely Stan would have failed to tell us.
As in the article below, which I've mentioned before but bears repeating, business owners report many other reasons they are not hiring beyond 'uncertainty about PPACA'. And other businesses are hiring and growing, so clearly they weren't held back. It seems DEMAND is much more of a factor than anything else.
What this all points to, is that the impact of any uncertainty of PPACA on businesses is likely limited in scope, and manageable. I'm open to Stan elaborating on how PPACA is harming his business, but so far his case is underwhelming.
Regulations, taxes aren't killing small business, owners say
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html
Stan continues to be the best at attempting reasoned arguments from the right, though his bias and spin are clear. Many others here appear to be driven by emotion and shallow analysis.Congratulations Stan
Punter 127
09-15-11, 05:25
Mortgage Default Notices Surge 33% Nationwide, 55% in California, 200% by Bank of America; Corresponding Jump in Foreclosures Will FollowHttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/Mortgage-default-warnings-apf-157937671.html?x=0
More 'shallow analysis' I guess, just like the voters in New York and Nevada appear to have been 'driven by emotion' Yesterday. LOL
The special elections were just a preview of things to come.
I am astonished that Obama gives lip service to increasing the quality of education in the United States. It appears that Obama has a genuine concern about the quality of education in our country. But, who know, maybe Obama is just mouthing what was put on his telepromptor.
Obama's concern for education is astonishing because it is obvious Obama would do better with a less educated populace. As people become more educated and encounter more life experiences they readily recognize how shallow Obama is and how braindead his supporters are.
Better for Obama to cut off funding for education at about the second grade. Furthermore, anyone with more than a 4th grade education should have their voting rights eliminated. But even this might not be enough. I think even a marshmallow, mushroom or chipmunk is capable of recognizing Obama's incompetence.
Punter 127
09-15-11, 20:55
I am astonished that Obama gives lip service to increasing the quality of education in the United States. It appears that Obama has a genuine concern about the quality of education in our country. But, who know, maybe Obama is just mouthing what was put on his telepromptor.
Obama's concern for education is astonishing because it is obvious Obama would do better with a less educated populace. As people become more educated and encounter more life experiences they readily recognize how shallow Obama is and how braindead his supporters are.
Better for Obama to cut off funding for education at about the second grade. Furthermore, anyone with more than a 4th grade education should have their voting rights eliminated. But even this might not be enough. I think even a marshmallow, mushroom or chipmunk is capable of recognizing Obama's incompetence.Perhaps it's because he plans to use government schools as Socialist Indoctrination Centers.
Oh wait they're already doing that, I think Esten went to one of those schools.
WorldTravel69
09-16-11, 03:29
I hope all mongers, are not thinking this thread is a Independent News Thread.
This is a Republican Business Man Thread.
They are not for the Workers, they are for taking away your Dreams of a House, Home, and a Living wage, Away.
Democrats are not much better, but they are the only Working Man's Hopes.
P.S.
If they were good business men they would have reopened TL's restaurant, "Under New Management". But all they can do is Blow Smoke on this thread.
Member #4112
09-16-11, 11:18
Hey Esten, I noticed that magic $4 Trillion cut from the budget number came up again. You know the one the ratings services said was necessary to indicate the United States was serious about getting our runaway spending under control.
A group of 36 Senators comprised of both Democrats and Republicans pushing the 'Super Committee' to not cut just $1. 2 Trillion but to cut $4 Trillion from the budget. What is laughable is most of the Democrats pushing this new spending limit voted against such cuts back in August.
You think maybe after what happened in New York's special election is causing these Democrats to cease being 'good soldiers' for Obama and start worrying about their own sorry butts?
I hope all mongers, are not thinking this thread is a Independent News Thread.
This is a Republican Business Man Thread.
They are not for the Workers, the are for taking away your Dreams of a House, Home, and a Living wage, Away.
Democrats are not much better, but they the only Working Man's Hopes.WT, did you ever stop to think that without the "evil business men" organizing and managing the businesses where the workers are employed, that the workers would instead be standing around with their thumbs up their collective asses?
I know your answer: The workers would just organize themselves and start their own businesses, but then they would become the evil business men you so despise.
Employees are employees because the don't have the guts to take the risk, put their money where their mouth is and start a business, so instead they prefer to let somebody else take the risk so they then band together and monopolistically mass-extort money from the guy who did take the risk.
I've got a simply solution to anybody who feels his employer isn't paying them enough: Quit, and go start your own business, that is assuming you have the guts!
BTW, I've never met a business person who advocated taking away any employee's dreams of owning a house. What a propagandist's joke! I can see the employment interview now: The evil business person is talking to the prospective employee, telling him "We want to hire you, but you must agree that as a condition of your employment you are no longer permitted to dream of owning your own house."
Keep drinking the kool-aid, comrade.
Thanks,
Jackson
FYI: This may come as a revelation to you, but there are lots of "evil business men" who are also Democrats.
I hope all mongers, are not thinking this thread is a Independent News Thread.
This is a Republican Business Man Thread.
They are not for the Workers, they are for taking away your Dreams of a House, Home, and a Living wage, Away.
Democrats are not much better, but they are the only Working Man's Hopes.What you're for is eventually going to bankrupt the country. We're going to end up like Greece.
Punter 127
09-17-11, 02:08
I hope all mongers, are not thinking this thread is a Independent News Thread.
This is a Republican Business Man Thread.
They are not for the Workers, they are for taking away your Dreams of a House, Home, and a Living wage, Away.
Democrats are not much better, but they are the only Working Man's Hopes.
P. S.
If they were good business men they would have reopened TL's restaurant,"Under New Management". But all they can do is Blow Smoke on this thread.I'm starting understand 'driven by emotion and shallow analysis'
Surly you jest, you don't really think the Democrat party or labor unions have the 'working Man's' best interest at heart, do you?
I'm starting understand 'driven by emotion and shallow analysis'
Surly you jest, you don't really think the Democrat party or labor unions have the 'working Man's' best interest at heart, do you?WT69 is a nice fellow. Sadly, when it comes to america and politics, just plain "rode hard and put up wet". LOL. Too many breakfast meetings with Pelosi the last couple of years. One minute he wants this thread taken down, the next he is posting on it! Stupid is as stupid does! Nice but just plain dumb is no way to go though life brother. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
If they were good business men they would have reopened TL's restaurant, "Under New Management". But all they can do is Blow Smoke on this thread.Here's an idea: If you think that it's such a good investment, why don't YOU cash in your retirement assets and use YOUR money to reopen TL's restaurant?
[deafening silence here]
Yea, that's what I thought.
Thanks,
Jackson
I'm starting understand 'driven by emotion and shallow analysis'
Surly you jest, you don't really think the Democrat party or labor unions have the 'working Man's' best interest at heart, do you?At the moment, perhaps not. But why did unions evolve in the first place? Why did Communism appeal to the masses? The rich and powerful will always try to control and maintain their domination. That is the natural order of "caveman" thinking" until you have been able to develop a higher sense of decency and social responsibility.
Power corrupts, and money is power. And right now, the unions are corrupt. But we need to share. It is not socialism.
WorldTravel69
09-17-11, 10:33
I would, but my retirement funds equal about two months of your Membership fees.
Here's an idea: If you think that it's such a good investment, why don't YOU Cash in your retirement assets and use YOUR Money to reopen TL's restaurant?
[deafening silence here]
Yea, that's what I thought.
Thanks,
Jackson
Member #4112
09-17-11, 11:15
Why did the company in Maryland that made the best buggy whips in the entire United States go out of business? Their product was obsolete.
Same with Unions, there was a time when unions preformed a useful function to the benefit of their workers, but those days have passed. Today unions exist to perpetuate their own existence, deal in political influence and cronyism with the dues they collect from their members and not for the benefit of their members.
Proof you say, look to the South where states have 'right to work' laws, the unions can never get traction in these states and companies are increasingly leaving the unionized North for the right to work states. Unions continually price their employer's right out of the market with their continuing demands for higher wages and greater benefit packages.
The auto industry is a good example.
The only place the unions are gaining ground is in the governmental sector, the one that devoirs cash and produces no product.
Take a look at the union action up in Washington state, something the liberal news media seems to be ignoring for the most part. A private company builds a facility with private funds and decides to not use union labor, which is their right.
The union demands the 'right' to work at the facility and when they are told the owners will not use the union, union workers literally storm the gates of the facility, assault the security guards, destroy equipment and spill grain out of the storage bins. A Federal judge found the union in contempt for the actions and the sheriff is reviewing security video to make arrests in the matter. What does the union do, they march on the courthouse and dare the sheriff to arrest anyone.
The unions are more like the Mafia today with their strong arm tactics. While the Labor Relations Board tries to shutter Boeing's plant in South Carolina, an "at will" state, to benefit the union in Washington state but takes on action with the hooligans on the docks?
At the moment, perhaps not. But why did unions evolve in the first place? Why did Communism appeal to the masses? The rich and powerful will always try to control and maintain their domination. That is the natural order of "caveman" thinking" until you have been able to develop a higher sense of decency and social responsibility.
Power corrupts, and money is power. And right now, the unions are corrupt. But we need to share. It is not socialism.Caveman thinking? It's not the 1850's any longer. Stan dug this up a few days ago: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/13/understanding_poverty_in_the_us.html
During many years, my standard of living was below that of many people who receive government benefit payments, even though I was paying lots and lots in income tax. And working very hard. 10-12 hours a day. 7 days a week. If your sense of decency and social responsibility entails me paying for other peoples' wide screen televisions and I-phones, it's warped. A substantial part of my taxes is squandered by the government. I believe a much smaller part of donations I make, for vaccines and disaster relief, is squandered.
You can take most of what the "Republican businessmen"* make in this country, and you're still not going to be able to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs. In fact, when you do that, you'll succeed in making the country, including the poor, less prosperous than they are now. What this country needs, as you've rightfully pointed out several times here, is thrift among the populace and efficiency in government.
*WT69's words, not yours
Punter 127
09-18-11, 00:22
At the moment, perhaps not. But why did unions evolve in the first place?They were a necessary evil at one time.
Why did Communism appeal to the masses?I don't know that it does or has?
The rich and powerful will always try to control and maintain their domination.As do the unions which are now rich and powerful.
That is the natural order of "caveman" thinking" until you have been able to develop a higher sense of decency and social responsibility.Not likely to happen in our lifetime.
Power corrupts, and money is power. And right now, the unions are corrupt.I could not agree more.
But we need to share.How about we all need to contribute our fair share and earn what we receive?
It is not socialism.Really, then what is it?
WorldTravel69
09-18-11, 00:49
Study your history.
The reason there was a Middle Class was because of the Unions.
The reason there are vacations was because of the Unions.
The reason there is a 40 hour work week is because of the Unions.
The reason there is Overtime Laws is because of the Unions.
The reason there is Child Labor Laws was because to the Unions.
The reason some of You have Health Care was because of the Unions.
The reason the Middle Class is dieing is because mainly the Republicans and their Buddies, Big Business.
The main reason their are less jobs at home, is because of "Out Sourcing" that the Republicans and the Democrats Let them do it.
Oh, yes, The right to Work States do not have many of the above Reasons.
"Greed is Good". Gee, who would say that.
Just remember the Republicans have Never been for the Workers.
You don't like Obama Care, but Romney Care is Okay?
Why did the company in Maryland that made the best buggy whips in the entire United States go out of business? Their product was obsolete. Same with Unions, there was a time when unions preformed a useful function to the benefit of their workers, but those days have passed. Today unions exist to perpetuate their own existence, deal in political influence and cronyism with the dues they collect from their members and not for the benefit of their members.
Proof you say, look to the South where states have 'right to work' laws, the unions can never get traction in these states and companies are increasingly leaving the unionized North for the right to work states. Unions continually price their employer's right out of the market with their continuing demands for higher wages and greater benefit packages. The auto industry is a good example. The only place the unions are gaining ground is in the governmental sector, the one that devoirs cash and produces no product.
Take a look at the union action up in Washington state, something the liberal news media seems to be ignoring for the most part. A private company builds a facility with private funds and decides to not use union labor, which is their right. The union demands the 'right' to work at the facility and when they are told the owners will not use the union, union workers literally storm the gates of the facility, assault the security guards, destroy equipment and spill grain out of the storage bins. A Federal judge found the union in contempt for the actions and the sheriff is reviewing security video to make arrests in the matter. What does the union do, they March on the courthouse and dare the sheriff to arrest anyone.
The unions are more like the Mafia today with their strong arm tactics. While the Labor Relations Board tries to shutter Boeing's plant in South Carolina, an "at will" state, to benefit the union in Washington state but takes on action with the hooligans on the docks?
Member #4112
09-18-11, 01:02
Study your history.
The reason there was a Middle Class was because of the Unions.
The reason there are vacations was because of the Unions.
The reason there is a 40 hour work week is because of the Unions.
The reason there is Overtime Laws is because of the Unions.
The reason there is Child Labor Laws was because to the Unions.
The reason the Middle Class is dieing is because mainly the Republicans and their Buddies, Big Business.
The main reason their are less jobs at home, is because of "Out Sourcing" that the Republicans and the Democrats Let them do it.
Oh, yes, The right to Work States do not have many of the above Reasons.
"Greed is Good". Gee, who would say that.
Just remember the Republicans have Never been for the Workers.Sorry WT69 but the right to work states have all the same laws you mentioned above and also have a thriving middle class. If unions are the savior of the middle class why are they unable to gain traction in right to work states, losing membership even in states without the "right to work" statutes, and only gaining membership among state and federal government workers?
Unions did great things for employees in the later 1800's and up to the mid 1960's but then morphed into what they originally were against, rich powerful machines. I am sure the union founders would be proud of the unholy alliance between orgainzed labor / crime and the Democratic party.
Get a grip WT, the unions are like the buggy whip company, they have out lived their usefullness.
Any comment on the unions in Washington state?
Rock Harders
09-18-11, 08:26
Mongers-
I am no fan of unions (especially in the public sector, where unions should be illegal) however some interesting observations should be noted regarding unionized states v."right to work" states which in many ways will validate some of WT69's points. The top states in terms median household income are all more "unionized" states whereas the bottom ranked states are all "right to work" states."Right to Work" states are attracting businesses because they can get away with paying workers in those states very low wages; as such, those states have rich capitalists and service providers (lawyers, accountants, doctors) and cheap labor with very little of a middle class in between. Also keep in mind that the public educational systems in the states with the highest median household incomes (and higher rates of unionization) are FAR superior to those found in the states with the lowest median household incomes (not coincidentally the "right to work" states". What made the USA great was not rich capitalists making millions in profits while their employees scrape by with a meager living; what made the country great was the fact that from WWII until very recently the vast majority of Americans could earn a decent wage and expect to lead a middle class existence (own a house, car, vacations, send kids to higher educational institutions) simply by playing by the rules and working hard. The bottom line is that private sector trade unions (plumbers, electricians, roofers, carpenters, construction workers, etc) DO boost the middle class and are still relevant in today's economy.
RH
Member #4112
09-18-11, 11:49
HR, I agree with you whole heartedly on the unionization of governmental employees, but have to disagree with you on big private sector labor unions.
The unions are pricing themselves out of the market which is why companies are moving to right to work states with lower labor costs. We as a nation are pricing ourselves out of the global market for many goods which we at one time manufactured but now import. The US does not operate in a vacuum we have to compete with the rest of the world and labor cost is one of those componets.
If you look at the unionized states you will see the middle class income levels you are touting are falling and ranks of those considered at the poverty level are rising due to the industries on which they depend failing to be competitive. If you can't compete you go out of business and no one has a job. Labor unions have a sense of entitlement when it comes to pay and benefits, totally ignoring the fact there would be no job at all without the folks who have the guts to take the risks of building companies that provide those jobs.
The problem with Americans is we have become lazy and complacent, riding the wave of the Greatest Generation from the 40's. 50's & 60's and that wave has run out. The majority of Americans no longer have the work ethic their parents and grandparents who provided the skilled workforce driving the American economy from that era but have become dependent on Big Government to take care of them.
Have not hear a word about labor, Boeing, and the Washington state longshoremen.
That as human beings, we tend to make the same mistakes and self destruct. Both individually and collectively. We don't even need to go into ideology, religion, race, class, gender, etc. We are a sorry lot. Everything we touch has a huge dose of self interest. Whether it be who we vote, or who our friends are, who we marry, even what charity do we donate. We always rationalize, and we often lie, yet, when we look in the mirror, we always see near perfection.
I only know that when I gave a 20 baht note to the young mother with the newborn baby on the overpass bridge, she look up as I kept walking and the stare told me that she thought I was a mix of Donald Trump and Gandhi. I felt good even though it was 66 cents.
Congratulations StanTiny, you're second best at attempting reasoned arguments from the right.
1. Esten, your education about business in not my job, but if you insist take a look at Stan's response to your nonsense.
2. What no response to writing a check to "share the sacrifice"?
3. What no response to your trying to push your precieved guilt on to everyone else and using that as a pretense to seprate the working class from their money?Yes, I reviewed Stan's post and exposed his weak argument on business uncertainty. See my response. In addition your case on how Obama is hurting your business continues to be non-existent.
Lately a number of Republicans have invited Democrats to write a check to the Treasury. Dems have a better idea. Let's close the loopholes and raise the rates on those who can afford it, so ALL of this group contributes to the effort. Much more effective. We'll gladly pay more. It's not about guilt. It's about practical, moral, and sound economic solutions. The wealthy have done extremely well over the past three decades, as various tax rates have been lowered. The middle class has not shared in the prosperity to nearly the same degree.
Have a look at this chart:
Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220
Http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Mortgage-default-warnings-apf-157937671.html?x=0
More 'shallow analysis' I guess, just like the voters in New York and Nevada appear to have been 'driven by emotion' Yesterday. LOLSince you simply posted an article title and link, in your case this would be an example of 'no analysis'.
The housing and foreclosure problem is largely a result of free-market capitalism. The rich elite (for the most part) profit from the boom and bust cycles, but when the mass layoffs come, it's the middle class that takes most of the hit.
Trying to make the poor rich by making the rich poor just doesn't work.That is not a liberal goal. We believe you don't build a great society by policies that worsen economic inequality. That is the trajectory we have been on for three decades and the middle class has barely made a gain.
Europe is learning that lesson the hard way right now, the Euro's collapsing and the domino effect will follow. Just a matter of time.Have a look at Germany. Private enterprise and prosperity can easily co-exist with higher taxation and a stronger government.
Keynesian Economists and their f*cked-up thinking is what led us to this mess.Probably one of the most absurd statements I've read here. Please, provide your analysis of how Keynesian Economists are responsible for the events and fallout from the Great Recession.
Stan Da Man
09-19-11, 04:13
Good to see President Obama has finally wisened up on tax rates. Word has it, he's going to proposed that "millionaires and billionaires" pay the same tax rates as the middle class. This excerpt from today's spin:
A White House official said the proposal would be included in the president's proposal for long term deficit reduction that he will announce Monday. The official spoke anonymously because the plan has not been officially announced.
Obama is going to call it the "Buffett Rule" for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained that rich people like him pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-seek-tax-rate-wealthy-225820977.html
Well, it's about time. I'm all for this. The middle class pays exactly 4. 7% in taxes on their income. Really. That's their effective federal tax rate:
Income taxes: A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4. 7 percent of its income in federal income taxes this year, according to a new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. This is the third-lowest percentage in the past 50 years, after 2008 and 2009.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151
I would love to pay 4. 7% in federal taxes. Well, maybe I've got it wrong. Maybe he's saying that the "millionaires and billionaires" should pay the same in federal taxes when everything is taken into consideration, including medicare, social security and federal tax rates. Well, in that case. The middle class pays less than 14. 3% in federal taxes when everything is considered:
Households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid an average of 14. 3 percent of their income in overall federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which data are available, according to CBO. [2] This is just slightly above this group's effective tax rate of 13. 8 percent in 2003, which was the lowest level since at least 1979.
Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare, than they do in income taxes. Thus, the 14. 3 percent figure reflects the impact of payroll taxes far more than income taxes.
Due to the impact of the recession and the temporary tax cuts in the Recovery Act, particularly the Making Work Pay tax credit, CBO data will likely show that middle-income families faced significantly lower effective overall federal tax rates in 2010 than in 2007.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151
Well, what's a 10% difference? My effective federal tax rate last year was 27 percent. My marginal tax rate last year was, of course, 35 percent. So, I'll take 4.7 percent or 14. 3 percent at the federal level. Glad to see this socialist nut is coming around.
Anyone want to bet that this clueless President of ours is going to try to find a way to argue that the middle class is actually paying much more than what the statistics show? Please, check my cites and review the math. There is no argument, none, that the middle class is paying more in tax than "millionaires and billionaires." Even Warren Buffet's argument holds no water. If his secretary is paying a 19% federal tax rate, it's because he's paying him or her more than $200, 000 a year. This means that he or she qualifies as one of the "millionaires and billionaires" under Obama Math. It also means that Buffett is too cheap to give his secretary much (if any) stock, such that he or she would pay tax at lower long term cap gains rate of 15 percent, which still is higher Than the rates at which the middle class pays taxes, no matter how you measure it.
My argument isn't that the middle class should pay more. They pay less than the rich, even uber-billionaires like Warren Buffett who intentionally pays tax only on capital gains and dividends. That's fine by me. My argument is simple. To paraphrase James Carville: It's the spending, stupid.
To quote James Carville, there's one word that sums up what this administration should be doing now: Panic! In thirteen and a half more months, we'll be rid of this sorry excuse for a President. Until then, it's all class warfare rhetoric, all the time. It's all he's got left; the last refuge of scoundrels.
Punter 127
09-19-11, 12:25
Http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Mortga.37671.html?x=0
More 'shallow analysis' I guess, just like the voters in New York and Nevada appear to have been 'driven by emotion' Yesterday. LOL
Since you simply posted an article title and lin[k, in your case this would be an example of 'no analysis'.
The housing and foreclosure problem is largely a result of free-market capitalism. The rich elite (for the most part) profit from the boom and bust cycles, but when the mass layoffs come, it's the middle class that takes most of the hit.Sorry I didn't have time to child esten proof my post, most of the readers have the ability to read the article and don't need an explanation. However if you are willing to learn we will try to take you by the hand.
The housing problem was caused by the manipulation of interest rates and the money supply. Also government regulations that required the the lowering of loan qualification standards contributed to the foreclosure problems.
Obama promised the American people he could fix our problems, he has failed big time. He will be held accountable by the voters.
Trying to make the poor rich by making the rich poor just doesn't work.
That is not a liberal goal. We believe you don't build a great society by policies that worsen economic inequality. That is the trajectory we have been on for three decades and the middle class has barely made a gain.I agree that the middle class has always carried the load in this country. But I don't see the left as helping the middle, rather they seem more interested in expanding the lower class. Would you like to tell us what percentage of Americans now pay zero income tax? Who was that guy that said 'Spread the Wealth Around'?
Europe is learning that lesson the hard way right now, the Euro's collapsing and the domino effect will follow. Just a matter of time.
Have a look at Germany. Private enterprise and prosperity can easily co-exist with higher taxation and a stronger government.Sorry I trust the private sector more than I do government and I prefer freedom to government dictates. If you like 'higher taxation and a stronger government' may I suggest you consider relocating? One word of caution though, when the Euro breaks up it may not be so nice there.
Keynesian Economists and their f*cked-up thinking is what led us to this mess.
Probably one of the most absurd statements I've read here. Please, provide your analysis of how Keynesian Economists are responsible for the events and fallout from the Great Recession.Now our self appionted teacher is not only grading our post, he's also assinging home work. Dude Keynesian theory has dominated economics in this country for years. Obama has used Keynesian economics through government stimulus programs, which has just kicked the can down the road and buried us in debt. And we have more unemployment now than we had when Obama took office. Try studying the theory of business cycles provided by Austrian economists.
Austrian business cycle theory is that artificial credit expansion through central bank policies ultimately results in unsustainable booms, leading to asset price bubbles, which leads to recessions. Theoretically, this is the most precise explanation of the Great Recession.
Esten since you only seem to be able to find left wing propaganda pages let me help you a little. 'Austrian Business Cycle theory basically points out the disastrous effects credit expansion can have on the economy, and with highly developed financial markets where slight movements in interest rates are channeled quickly towards investment movements, these disastrous effects are likely to be more profound. Hence, there is a need for a change in the way monetary policies, fiscal policies and every other policy which affects business are operated. This change is particularly essential in developed countries with highly developed financial markets. Policy makers in those as well as other countries should not depend on Keynesian economics or Monetarist ideologies, but should learn from the events which led to the global recession. '
Member #4112
09-19-11, 14:09
OK Esten let me walk you through it, but I am sure at the end of the discussion you will respond with either it was 'George Bush's fault' or 'Obama inherited a terrible economy and he actions kept it from being worse'
My firm provides management and accounting information system support for our clients. For you Esten I will employ the KISS principle, keep-it-simple-stupid.
For single and multi-specialty medical group clients:
The problem is folks don't have the money for co-pays and deductibles or want to hold on to the cash and seek only that care which is urgent reducing my client's gross receipts while expenses continue to rise causing layoffs of physicians and support staff which means they have less money to pay my firm as well for our services. Don't give me ObamaCare will turn medicine around, my clients see it for the unmitigated disaster it will be and they are the ones delivering the services.
Commercial construction clients:
No new significant construction projects are being initiated by their clients and those that were slated for starts in 2009, 2010 and this year have been shelved unless they were already out of the ground. Their clients are holding on to their money and waiting to see what happens within their individual business sectors, ie uncertainty. My clients are getting by doing what smaller jobs are available and again we are looking at cut backs which include my firm's services.
General business clients:
Same problem here, folks are not spending so their receipts are down with the same results as the other two groups of clients.
Conclusion:
My company is tied to the fiscal health of my clients and they are a pretty gloomy bunch. Their income has declined each year since 2008 and none of us see any hope of it becoming better any time soon.
Obama:
Nothing he has done as improved the economy and no one is buying the 'It would have been worse' argument any more. Class warfare, sky rocketing deficit spending and blaming Bush is not cutting the mustard any more either. After nearly 3 years, two of which the Democrats controlled it all, Obama has produced the same stagflation we saw under Jimmy Carter. Its Obama's polices and his economy and unemployment which put him out of the White House, and none too soon IMHO
Member #4112
09-19-11, 18:10
As an addendum to my earlier post I present for your consideration Esten the following which affects a broad spectrum of companies:
When Obama took office diesel fuel was $2. 29 / gallon, today it is $3. 86 / gallon.
Why the 68% rise in the price for a gallon of diesel fuel?
It's simple, oil is denominated in Dollars when Obama and company continued to pump / print more dollars thereby devaluing the Dollar on the world market the cost of diesel fuel went up in the United States even though the true cost of oil rose less than 20%.
Why is this important?
Transportation costs have risen driving up the cost of everything from cotton to concrete. Ask anyone in the construction business about the cost of materials shipped to a job site.
I think we should award medals to whoever can wade through Esten's nonsense.
However, I don't think Esten expects his posts will be embraced by people with IQ's greater than their shoe size.
Esten's targets are braindead morons incapable of independent thinking. For this group Esten's nonsense probably ranks alongside the Gettysburg Address, Magna Carta and the Holy Bible
Stan Da Man
09-20-11, 14:09
Yesterday, I sent FactCheck. Org Obama's bogus claim that many of the wealthy pay less in taxes than the middle class. They're quick. They refuted it in less than 24 hours. That's a reflection on how fast they take up issues, but also how easy it is to show Obama's a liar on this issue:
President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday."That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1.470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237, 000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html
So, all of Obama's rhetoric is about less than one percent of "millionaires and billionaires?" Sure. Sure. How is it that he consistently fails to mention that the vast, vast majority of high income taxpayers pay much, much more taxes than the middle class? Or, that much of the middle class pay zero federal income tax? Obviously, because none of this is about any real effort to solve the deficit, or even about fairness. This is about Obama Campaign 2012. He had no intention of proposing anything to create jobs or stimulate the economy. His jobs speech was just a campaign speech, plain and simple.
Now, we should see some enterprising journalist investigating Buffett's bogus claim that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. But, since this is the Left Wing media, they'll spend time trying to dig up Rick Perry's transcripts, but they can't find any time to scrutinize the latest Obama sound bite. C'mon Warren. Show us the details. You want to go public with comments like that? Pony up.
It's all a bunch of nonsense. Buffett is in thick with this administration. I guarantee you there are all sorts of behind the scenes discussions with him that we'll never hear about, ranging from how the administration would backstop GE and Goldman Sachs, to the administration's plans to ensure B of A doesn't fail. Knowing those details means a lot. Buffet loaned both GE and Goldman billions on sweetheart terms and made billions in the process. He's just done the same with B of A. He's a shrewd investor. But, he's also smart enough to know that it's easier to make money when the administration has a thumb on the scales in your favor.
And, notice how Buffett hasn't mentioned anything about supporting a "wealth tax" that would affect him, unlike the so-called Buffett Rule? If you want to see Buffett's true spots, ask him about that. He may have given billions to charity, but he's stashed plenty away for himself. Ask him whether it's a good idea to take 2 percent of that a year and hand it to the government. Then, you'll see how "fair" Warren Buffett is.
Member #4112
09-20-11, 14:14
According to new figures released by the IRS the income group Obama wishes to target with the "Buffett Rule" are already paying taxes at a much higher percentage rate than the typical middle class families Obama is allegedly attempting to protect. The "Buffett Rule" was intended to insure the evil "rich" pay "their fair share" of taxes, but guess what according the IRS they already are and then some!
Esten consider this, the top 0. 2% (that's two tens of a percent not two percent) of tax payers are paying 21% of all taxes.
Does this mean the evil rich get a TAX CUT under the "Buffett Rule"? I doubt it but this clearly shows Obama's 'Buffett Rule' is pure class warfare politics at its most cynical.
I hope all mongers, are not thinking this thread is a Independent News Thread.
This is a Republican Business Man Thread.
They are not for the Workers, they are for taking away your Dreams of a House, Home, and a Living wage, Away.
Democrats are not much better, but they are the only Working Man's Hopes.The operative word here is 'Republican'. Businessmen are not the problem per se.
What we've learned in this thread I think is that Republican businessmen think very highly of themselves and their business achievements. Moreover, they also think the government's top priority should be business success and profitability.
What they repeatedly ignore is that the government's role goes beyond creating conditions to help business. The role of government is to serve all people through the programs and services it provides. And this is a reflection of the will of the people.
If the government tries to do something that may benefit many people, but may have some downside for a particular business or industry, it is the Republican businessman who will complain first and loudest.
Austrian business cycle theory is that artificial credit expansion through central bank policies ultimately results in unsustainable booms, leading to asset price bubbles, which leads to recessions. Theoretically, this is the most precise explanation of the Great Recession.I give you credit for bringing up a worthy angle in the discussion, on credit expansion and interest rates. I've heard the argument before that Greenspan kept interest rates too low too long, which drove investment seeking higher returns elsewhere. Is that your argument as the main cause of the housing bubble?
Would you like to tell us what percentage of Americans now pay zero income tax? Who was that guy that said 'Spread the Wealth Around'?Sure it's a big number, due to Republican low-tax philosophy, and the effect of capitalism shifting wealth from bottom and middle to the top. From an economic perspective, the single most important thing we can do now is to shift that wealth back from the top down, in a manner which still encourages and rewards individual effort.
Punter 127
09-21-11, 11:45
Austrian business cycle theory is that artificial credit expansion through central bank policies ultimately results in unsustainable booms, leading to asset price bubbles, which leads to recessions. Theoretically, this is the most precise explanation of the Great Recession.
I give you credit for bringing up a worthy angle in the discussion, on credit expansion and interest rates. I've heard the argument before that Greenspan kept interest rates too low too long, which drove investment seeking higher returns elsewhere. Is that your argument as the main cause of the housing bubble?Esten I'm not an economist but here are some 'Recession Facts and Explanations', I didn't write it but I think it has merit.
A chain of events led to the economic recession of 2007 – 2010. After the bursting of the NASDAQ Bubble or the Dot Com Bubble in 2000 (where bubble refers to temporary and unnatural price hikes) the Federal Reserve System started lowering the Federal funds rate to historic levels (up to around 1%) and eased credit conditions, where the federal funds rate is the interest rate at which private depository institutions (mostly banks) lend balances (federal funds) at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions, usually overnight.
This expanded the money supply to such an extent that financial institutions started offering loans to buyers with low credit scores, where a credit score represents the creditworthiness of a person. These borrowers are called 'subprime borrowers'. Government Sponsored Agencies such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as Fannie Mae) , Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) etc. Channeled a large number of these credit flows into the real estate market to expand the secondary market for mortgages through mortgage backed securities. Due to lower federal funds rates, the adjustable rate mortgages charged lower interest rates, and since asset prices are inversely related to interest rates, this credit flow led to increases in housing prices.
After the initial success of offering subprime mortgages, the practice expanded dramatically and the terms on which borrowers were given loans started becoming more creative and risky. Now, financial institutions consider the current value of the borrowers' property to find out whether a person is eligible for mortgage refinancing or not. For this reason, since housing prices were rising, many of these subprime borrowers took loans they could not afford in the anticipation that they would be able to refinance at more favorable rates once the prices of their houses increased. Easy credit also resulted in excessive investment on housing as well, as a result of which demand for housing started rising and more and more houses were being built.
By late 2004, the Federal Reserve System thought that the US economy was growing fast enough and started raising the federal funds rate up to 5. 25% in January of 2007. As an immediate result of this, it became much more expensive to borrow money, so less people could afford to buy a house. This caused a fall in the demand for housing and house prices, which had been increasing rapidly in the previous years, began falling moderately. For this reason, subprime borrowers could not refinance their loans, which caused many of these borrowers to default and their houses were foreclosed on. The values of the 'Mortgage-backed securities' in USA declined sharply as a result of those defaults. These events led to a decline in mortgage cash flows for the banks, banks started facing losses, capital levels of the banks depleted and banks started failing. This created the 'Liquidity crunch' or Credit crunch' in USA, which slowed down business activities, decreased the values of stocks of the banks and businesses and created massive unemployment. Through the financial markets, this crisis spread throughout the world.It really doesn't matter what caused the recession, what's important is the fact that Obama said he could cure what ailed us and he has failed miserably.
Would you like to tell us what percentage of Americans now pay zero income tax? Who was that guy that said 'Spread the Wealth Around'?
Sure it's a big number, due to Republican low-tax philosophy, and the effect of capitalism shifting wealth from bottom and middle to the top. From an economic perspective, the single most important thing we can do now is to shift that wealth back from the top down, in a manner which still encourages and rewards individual effort.We've all heard your jiberish before but no intelligent person believes such tommyrot, it's utter foolishness, and complete nonsense.
Look I'm sure you think your theory is very Robin-Hoodnistic but you need to remember Robin Hood was a thief.
Member #4112
09-21-11, 13:28
Esten, we all wait with bated breath for your latest missive on Obama's 'Buffett Rule'.
Since the IRS just blew Obama and company out of the water with the actual rates the approximate 320, 000 Americans making $1 million or more pay an effective rate of 27% while the average middle class family pays an effective rate of 15.
What a shock that must have been for Obama to be stabbed in the back by one of his own agencies, not only does this small segment of Americans pay the bulk of the taxes, not only do 47% of Americans pay no income taxes at all, these evil rich are paying an effective rate 80% higher than the average middle class American.
I just can't wait to see you try to turn this one around as Obama purportedly tries to save the middle class from the evil rich with an outright lie.
By the way, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway acknowledges it owes back taxes from 2002 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009 totaling nearly $1 Billion dollars. I would think Mr. Buffett would get his personal and professional house in order before he starts preaching to the rest of us about tax matters.
Punter,
I read the piece you quoted. I think there is wide agreement that there were multiple reasons for the housing bubble. I have no problem believing interest rates and easy credit were among them.
But you just haven't made a convincing case that these factors, or that "Keynesian Economists", are mainly responsible for our current situation. The Stimulus is what is commonly referred to these days when talking about Keynesian theory, and that has actually been a big part of how we stabilized the economy and avoided a Depression. You claim the Stimulus buried us in debt, which is untrue since Stimulus spending is a very small piece of current debt.
It appears you expand the definition of Keynesian theory to include efforts to stimulate the economy through interest rates. Fine. But the argument you present makes it sound like the bubble was almost entirely policy driven, with interest rates in effect the first domino setting in motion all the other dominos. What a convenient scapegoat! I am sure some of the best and brightest minds on Wall Street have spent many hours refining this explanation, to divert attention away from the central role that reckless Wall Street behavior played.
The role of Wall Street and other private sector (real estate) players is glaringly absent in your argument. Your article states "... asset prices are inversely related to interest rates...". So with record-low rates now, how come we don't have another housing bubble forming now? Oh wait, it's a different asset now. Maybe gold. This proves there is nothing automatic about low interest rates fueling housing bubbles. Investors will put their money where they see the best, or safest, opportunities depending on their risk appetite. Wall Street created what was marketed as a safe and attractive investment in MBSs, sold not just to GSEs but also global investors with huge pools of cash seeking good returns. I see no evidence that investors would not have purchased them if rates had been a few points higher. The entire trail from mortgage origination to securitization was well-greased to enrich private sector players at every step. To keep the money flowing, more and more mortgages needed to be fed in, like fueling a train with coal. This encouraged even lower payment ARMs and laxer underwriting. And then there was speculation. Even the Austrian theory proponents agree that speculation played a huge role, and this is evidenced by the corresponding bubble in commercial real estate. Not to mention the "get rich through real estate" mentality that people like Donald Trump peddled while the bubble was growing.
In short, the private sector was the protagonist in the housing / financial bubble. Greed, fraud, and poor risk management were key elements. Charles Munger, vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and a Republican, described it colorfully: "The bubble in America was caused by some combination of megalomania, insanity and evil in, I would say, investment banking, mortgage banking." To ignore these factors and blame it all on 'Keynesian Economists' is absurd.
Face it, our current situation is largely a result of reckless free-market capitalism.
Member #4112
09-22-11, 11:10
Still nothing to say Esten? Your silence is deafening!
Strange you only wish to argue abstract theory regarding the housing bubble and economic theory rather than address issues you have raised.
Regarding the housing bubble, it is pretty obvious the root cause was the Democrats attempt to expand home ownership by using lower credit thresholds at Freddy and Fanny which led to the conditions allowing the market to take advantage of the situation with mortgage backed securities. All the items you list regarding greed are true to a certain extent but you ignore the fact the SEC was asleep at the switch, failing to enforce the statues in place to prevent these excesses from occurring. Instead the SEC was watching porn.
As far as Obama's 'Buffett Rule', he is still beating the class warfare drum in the face of hard evidence provided by the IRS directly contradicting his statements.
I can only assume Obama attended the Paul Joseph Goebbels' school of public communication.
Goebbels' quote:
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and / or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
Stan Da Man
09-22-11, 19:27
Our President is now out stumping on the theme that his soak-the-rich tax proposal "isn't class warfare. It's math."
This has to be one of the most absurd statements to come out of his mouth. If it truly is "math" then we should all be very afraid. He's relying on a lie, told by Warren Buffett, that his secretary paid a higher rate of tax than Buffett. That's pure drivel and has been exposed as such repeatedly this week. The truth is starting to come out that the so-called rich pay far, far more than the middle class in taxes, measured by dollars or rates. Obama knows this but couldn't pass up on the opportunity for a sound bite. Unfortunately for him, this one bit him in the arse. When he talks about "shared sacrifice" someone needs to ask: How much more are those paying zero being asked to contribute?
In his recent NY Times article, Buffett didn't actually say that he paid a lower rate of tax than his secretary. I think that's because he knows that's a lie and got away with saying it several years ago. Instead, he said he paid a lower rate of tax than any of the other 20 people in his office, which may or may not include his secretary. He also made a bunch of wild claims that they all pay between 33 and 41 percent.
Back in 2007 when he was campaigning for Hillary Clinton, Buffett did _ say that he paid a higher tax rate than his secretary. Here was his claim back then:
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17. 7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60, 000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Buffett, of course, is lying. The top tax bracket for someone earning $60, 000 is 25 percent, and that only applies to income over $35, 000. Income below that is taxed at a much lower rate. Plus, Buffett expects us to believe that his secretary: (a) had no deductions; (be) had no exemptions; (see) did not contribute to a 401k, etc, etc. No retirement plan contribution by Buffett's secretary? That's a laugh. Plus, there is no top tax bracket that would push anyone into a 41% rate, as Buffett recently claimed. He'll argue that he was bundling up a whole bunch of taxes, medicare, social security, SDI and state taxes. I still think he's lying on that. But, of course, then he's comparing apples (his own federal income tax rate) to oranges (the sum of all taxes paid by others) to arrive at a misleading proposition.
There are a whole variety of reasons why someone like Warren Buffett would tell these lies. But, the more interesting phenomenon is, why hasn't a single member of the left wing media bothered to investigate this obvious fabrication? Now that Obama has turned this into a campaign theme, and simultaneously demonstrated that he doesn't understand taxes or math, will the left wing media investigate? Remember how they called for Trump to release his tax returns after he challenged Obama's birth certificate? Why don't these same folks ask for the equivalent from Buffett and his secretary, especially since Buffett (unlike Trump) put his own taxes directly at issue?
Unfortunately, these are the sorts of things that happen every day in the United States. It's the primary reason why Fox News is such a huge success. People got tired of being lied to by left wing acolytes, who took them for granted. Fox may not be any better in the Truth Department, but if you're going to watch the news, you may as well get your slant from someone who shares your perspective.
Punter 127
09-22-11, 20:42
But you just haven't made a convincing case that these factors, or that "Keynesian Economists", are mainly responsible for our current situation. The Stimulus is what is commonly referred to these days when talking about Keynesian theory, and that has actually been a big part of how we stabilized the economy and avoided a Depression. You claim the Stimulus buried us in debt, which is untrue since Stimulus spending is a very small piece of current debt.
It appears you expand the definition of Keynesian theory to include efforts to stimulate the economy through interest rates. Fine. But the argument you present makes it sound like the bubble was almost entirely policy driven, with interest rates in effect the first domino setting in motion all the other dominos. What a convenient scapegoat! I am sure some of the best and brightest minds on Wall Street have spent many hours refining this explanation, to divert attention away from the central role that reckless Wall Street behavior played.It's not my place to convince you of anything, I present my opinion and you can take it or leave it. But I will point out a few things and then move on. The USA Was already in a hole and all the excess spending has buried us. The USA Economy is fucked and it will take drastic changes to dig our way out of this hole grave.
I'm not expanding the definition of 'Keynesian theory', monetary policy (including interest rate) and the use of stimulus is very much Keynesian economics. Perhaps you should research Keynesian economics a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
All your finger pointing is just a smoke screen to direct us away from the fact that Obama promised he could cure what ailed us and he has failed miserably.
Obama: 'The Economy's Gotten Better Than It Was When I First Took Office'
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-the-economys-gotten-better-than-it-was-when-i-first-took-office-really/
Lets take a look at that claim and the economy over the last two-and-a-half years.
The president advocated a $787 billion stimulus bill that would keep unemployment below 8 percent. Since then, our economy has lost more than 1.3 million jobs and the unemployment rate has averaged over 9 percent.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/13/GOP-Obama-made-weak-economy-worse/UPI-79031313237917/
In March, the average price for a gallon of gas doubled Since President Obama took office. It Averaged $1.79 then. It averages $3.59 today.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/30/gas-prices-double-under-obama/
The national debt totaled about $10.7 trillion in December 2008. Today the national debt stands at almost $14.6 trillion.
http://nationaldebtbusters.blogspot.com/2009/01/newest-national-debt-statistics-posted.html
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Standard & Poor's downgraded the USA credit-rating for the first time in history.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/standard-poors-downgrades-u-s-credit-rating-for-first-time-in-history/
And those are just a few stats,' for you to spin.
I was getting around to you Doppel.
I appreciate you took the time to try to explain more how Obama is hurting your business. I am open to listening to legitimate arguments.
For single and multi-specialty medical group clients:
The problem is folks don't have the money for co-pays and deductibles or want to hold on to the cash and seek only that care which is urgent reducing my client's gross receipts while expenses continue to rise causing layoffs of physicians and support staff which means they have less money to pay my firm as well for our services. Don't give me ObamaCare will turn medicine around, my clients see it for the unmitigated disaster it will be and they are the ones delivering the services.
Commercial construction clients:
No new significant construction projects are being initiated by their clients and those that were slated for starts in 2009, 2010 and this year have been shelved unless they were already out of the ground. Their clients are holding on to their money and waiting to see what happens within their individual business sectors, ie uncertainty. My clients are getting by doing what smaller jobs are available and again we are looking at cut backs which include my firm's services.
General business clients:
Same problem here, folks are not spending so their receipts are down with the same results as the other two groups of clients.
Conclusion:
My company is tied to the fiscal health of my clients and they are a pretty gloomy bunch. Their income has declined each year since 2008 and none of us see any hope of it becoming better any time soon.Unfortunately, you let me down. I was hoping you'd have some specific example of how Obama is hurting your business, like a tax or regulation which was clearly, demonstrably affecting your business.
But all you got is the 'general malaise' argument. That things aren't better, people don't have money, or aren't spending, and it's Obama's fault.
That's the type of 'shallow analysis' I was talking about. Yes, Obama did inherit the worst economic downturn in decades, and things WOULD likely have been even worse without the steps that have been taken. You can stay in your pretend-world where you believe things would have magically been much better with a Republican president, but I prefer to look a little deeper than that.
I suspect that despite the facade, you recognize that free market capitalism itself is at the root of much of your clients situation and behavior. Giant real estate bubbles (commerical and residential) and mass layoffs, all contribute to the factors you described. I understand it's hitting your wallet, but that's no excuse for a superficial analysis.
Face it, you're just another casualty of boom-and-bust capitalism. Looking for an easy scapegoat that doesn't conflict with your ideology.
BTW, if nothing Obama has done has improved the economy, how do you explain the chart below. I shall await your answer.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/09/315347/gop-second-stimulus/
Our President is now out stumping on the theme that his soak-the-rich tax proposal "isn't class warfare. It's math."
This has to be one of the most absurd statements to come out of his mouth. If it truly is "math" then we should all be very afraid. He's relying on a lie, told by Warren Buffett, that his secretary paid a higher rate of tax than Buffett. That's pure drivel and has been exposed as such repeatedly this week. The truth is starting to come out that the so-called rich pay far, far more than the middle class in taxes, measured by dollars or rates. Obama knows this but couldn't pass up on the opportunity for a sound bite. Unfortunately for him, this one bit him in the arse. When he talks about "shared sacrifice" someone needs to ask: How much more are those paying zero being asked to contribute?
In his recent NY Times article, Buffett didn't actually say that he paid a lower rate of tax than his secretary. I think that's because he knows that's a lie and got away with saying it several years ago. Instead, he said he paid a lower rate of tax than any of the other 20 people in his office, which may or may not include his secretary. He also made a bunch of wild claims that they all pay between 33 and 41 percent.This is too funny! LOL
Ranting and accusing Obama and Buffett of lying. I guess this guy just doesn't understand effective tax rates and how investment income is taxed.
Member #4112
09-23-11, 01:44
Esten you make this too easy. What a liberal rag of a web site. Your cited chart is titled "Job Changes" and uses the same slippery terminology as Obama with the touchy feely "created or supported" jobs. That's right up there with "equivalent jobs".
By looking at your little graph I am at a loss to understand how we could be still be at 9. 1% unemployment since you graph shows "Job Changes" above that prior to the recession in 2007 and 2008. Well what can I expect from you but the same old tired liberal trash with cooked numbers.
By the way just in case you missed it, the top tax rate is 35% on TAXABLE income, that is line 32 income which is after all deductions and adjustment and it's been 35% for several years. How in the world Obama and Buffett came up with his employee paying, depending on which version of the story you hear. 36% up to 41% in federal income tax is beyond me but as you can see below is a bald face lie. Here are the actual rates from the IRS, now remember these are TAXABLE income.
2011 IRS Tax Brackets.
2011 IRS Tax Brackets
Here are the 2011 tax tables, which make it easy to find which marginal tax bracket you are in:
Tax Bracket Single Married Filing Jointly Head of Household
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500 $0 – $17,000 $0 – $12,150
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500 $17,000 – $69,000 $12,150 – $46,250
25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600 $69,000 – $139,350 $46,250 – $119,400
28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400 $139,350 – $212,300 $119,400 – $193,350
33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150 $212,300 – $379,150 $193,350 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150+ $379,150+ $379,150+
Esten, guess you did not read the diesel post or just have a problem with the facts. That one post on just one item which has caused expenses to rise explains why my clients, especially in construction are having problems.
Still waiting on you 'Buffett Rule' missive. Probably going to wet my pants LMAO on that one.
Esten the one who does not understand the tax laws is you. Go to www.irs.gov and do a little reading so you don't continue to screw it up.
Federal income tax is progressive, meaning higher incomes are taxed at higher rates. But there is an important exception. The tax rate on certain types of investment income such as long term capital gains and dividends is capped at 15%.
The greater the share of your taxable income comprised of such investment income, the closer your overall, net tax rate will be to 15%. This is called the effective tax rate --- total tax / total taxable income. Many wealthy people derive a large share of their total income from such investments, which significantly lowers their effective tax rate.
The Buffett Rule would ensure the effective tax rate of filers with 1-million+ taxable incomes would not be lower than that paid by middle-class filers, which can be up to 28% or higher depending on how you define middle class.
PolitiFact gives Buffett's claim a 100% True rating
Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
Member #4112
09-23-11, 08:27
Esten, wrong again!
I guess you didn't read the Internal Revenue Service's release of the ACTUAL tax rates paid by households making $1 million per year or more.
There are only 320, 000 households in this group.
The average "middle class" households paid an effective rate of 15%
The households making $1 million and greater paid an effective rate of 29%
I'm not even going to try to explain "effective rate" to you since you already know what it is but continue to ignore the FACTS for political expediency.
PolitiFact = PolitiCrap and so does your argument. Buffett and Obama's argument is a lie start to finish.
The number of households deriving their entire income from long term gains at the 15% tax level, which is the group we are talking about here, is so small as to be irrelevant when discussing tax policy. If I recall the number correctly it is one one hundredeth of a percent of the population. Just another attempt to raise the capital gains tax.
Hope you looked at who else will be affected by the 'Buffett Rule'. Like everything else coming out of Obama's mouth it's smoke, mirrors and half truths.
Obama's 'Buffett Rule' is a lie, he knows it, you know it and so do most folks with a wit of intelligence. I look for him to make some 'adjustment' to his pitch shortly as his new class warfare pitch fails to get traction.
Stan Da Man
09-23-11, 21:46
There has been some excellent pushback exposing Obama's and Buffett's lies about taxes. This is one of the better ones, in my opinion:
President Obama is right. It is time for 'fairness. ' It is time to ask some Americans to do more, contribute more, sacrifice more. But like most things Mr. Obama does, he has singled out the wrong group. The rich and business owners already pay far too much in taxes. They already sacrifice too much. They already share their wealth too much. The top 1 percent of income earners (almost all of whom are small-business owners) already pay 40 percent of the personal income taxes in America, more than the bottom 95 percent combined.
The top 20 percent of income earners pay almost 100 percent of the income taxes in this country. That means 80 percent of the population pays almost no income taxes and a full 50 percent pay zero income tax.
Mr. Obama said, 'Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. ' The problem with that statement is that it's a lie. Let's get the facts straight. The typical household with more than $1 million in income will pay an average of 29. 1 percent in federal taxes this year. The typical household making between $50, 000 and $75, 000 will pay 15 percent in taxes. Lower-income households (below $50, 000) will pay an average of 12. 5 percent in federal taxes (most in the form of Social Security taxes). In dollar terms, that means the typical millionaire will pay $290, 000 in taxes and the typical middle-class family earning $50, 000 will pay $7, 500. But most importantly, almost all of that $7, 500 is Social Security taxes, which theoretically they will get back after they retire.
Why doesn't Mr. Obama quote the actual numbers and ask Americans if this sounds fair? One American pays $290, 000 in taxes. The other pays $7, 500. Mr. Obama calls this 'unfair. ' As you can see, he's right. It's definitely unfair. Unfair to the 20 percent of the citizens who pay virtually 100 percent of the cost of government benefits, which are enjoyed for free by the other 80 percent of the population.
Full article here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/21/obama-is-right/
The author also makes a good point. The majority of middle class taxes at 15% or less are made up of the social security and medicare portions. According to those who don't believe that social security is a ponzi scheme, these taxes are being set aside for these taxpayers when they retire or need medicare. It's like counting 401k or IRA contributions as a "tax." Again, the premise is that you don't believe social security is a ponzi scheme, and that all the money you Put aside today will be there when you retire.
The final point here is one that is simmering just beneath the surface. The truth is that social security is A ponzi scheme. It relies on "fresh" money coming in to pay benefits promised to those who already contributed, and the promised benefits exceed what was contributed. Not through investment gains. But what are the Left's latest proposals to fix this mess they've created? To means-test social security so that the rich wouldn't be able to get anything back.
Sadly, this and other fixes will absolutely be necessary to even start fixing this poorly designed social program. But, then, what's the upshot? The "millionaires and billionaires" will pay a much higher tax rate, much, much higher absolute tax dollars, and will pay the full bore of their social security contribution which literally will become just another tax on them since they will never see any benefit. In other words, the same guy in the example above, who paid $290, 000 in taxes, can flush the $7, 000 or so allocated to social security down the drain. To him, it's other people's money. He'll see no benefit. Meanwhile, the middle class taxpayer whose $7, 500 in tax was made up of about $4, 000 in social security, will see $7, 500 in benefit from that program. He'll necessarily get more benefits than he paid in. That's the whole reason to do means-testing.
Where is the fairness in this?
Member #4112
09-24-11, 00:03
Esten's response will be simple.
They can pay more so they should pay more. Fairness is a sham arguement, Obama's Trojan Horse.
Doppel and Stan insist that Obama and Buffett are lying, about whether millionaires pay a lower federal income tax rate than the middle class.
Oddly, I can't find any articles that back them up. No article I've seen (including ones on WSJ and Bloomberg) dispute the claim, and most provide a similar explanation to what I did. See, Obama and Buffett weren't comparing averages, or saying that all millionaires pay lower rates. They are just saying it happens. Everybody seems to understand that, except Doppel and Stan.
So guys, where's the proof of the lie? Where's the beef?
That Wendy's commercial is a classic....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0
Member #4112
09-24-11, 17:40
Doppel and Stan insist that Obama and Buffett are lying, about whether millionaires pay a lower federal income tax rate than the middle class.
Oddly, I can't find any articles that back them up. No article I've seen (including ones on WSJ and Bloomberg) dispute the claim, and most provide a similar explanation to what I did. See, Obama and Buffett weren't comparing averages, or saying that all millionaires pay lower rates. They are just saying it happens. Everybody seems to understand that, except Doppel and Stan.
So guys, where's the proof of the lie? Where's the beef?
That Wendy's commercial is a classic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0So Esten you could not find any quotes from Buffett which were contradicted by fact. I had no problem at all finding these quotes. Just Google 'Warren Buffett Tax Quotes Secretary'.
Ok Esten here are Warren Buffett's quotes:
Source of the first quote:
http://tusb.stanford.edu/2007/07/warren_buffet_has_a_lower_tax.html
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.Source of the second quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.Now Esten Google 'IRS 2010 Tax Brackets' or just go to www.irs.gov
HERE IS THE PROOF BUFFETT IS LYING!
Since we are talking about 2010 income and Buffett clearly states his secretary makes $60, 000 dollars per year according to the IRS the income levels from $34, 000 up to $82, 400 per year is taxed at 25% and these brackets are for the highest tax rate of Single with no Deductions!
The 25% tax rate is applied only to earnings at that level, $34K to $82.4K. The income earned between $0 and $8. 375K is taxed at 10% while the next level of $8. 375K to $34K is taxed at 15%. Which means Buffett's secretary's marginal rate is 18% max if she was taxed on the entire $60K without benefit of even the STANDARD PERSONAL DEDUCTION afforded to anyone in that tax bracket.
So Buffett's claim his secretary paid 30% is a bald face LIE.
According to the IRS the next tax levels are 28%, 33% and the top rate is 35%, nope no 30% tax rate so you can not say he was talking bracket and not effective rate.
Don't choke on the beef big guy.
Stan Da Man
09-24-11, 22:42
So Esten you could not find any quotes from Buffett which were contradicted by fact. I had no problem at all finding these quotes. Just Google 'Warren Buffett Tax Quotes Secretary'.He's not worth your time of day. The guy just ignores the facts when proven wrong.
Here's the quote from the article I posted below, right before Esten claimed he was searching in vain for any article saying that Obama or Buffett was lying: "Mr. Obama said, 'Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. ' The problem with that statement is that it's a lie."
The article went on to prove it with numbers. I linked the article. Here's another one: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/09/buffett-rule-is-based-on-anecdotal.html You can only miss these if you deliberately blind yourself to them.
It's no use arguing with Esten. He essentially puts his hands over his ears and shouts,"LALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU," whenever he doesn't like the results. As I've said before, he's a lost cause.
Esten, I don't know how you define "middle class", but since 40% to 50% of "taxpayers" actually don't pay income taxes, statements coming from Obama, Buffet, and you don't make a lot of sense. The three of you believe that social security and medicare should be lumped in with the income tax. Could you tell me why payments towards pensions and medical insurance should be considered income taxes?
The 15% tax on dividends and capital gains received by shareholders is on top of a 35% tax paid by corporations. If Obama, Buffet and you have your way, it will be a 43% tax on top of a 35% tax. Because Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, doesn't pay dividends, and because Buffet doesn't sell Berkshire Hathaway stock, he doesn't pay taxes. Buffet's positions are self serving. I prefer Art Laffer's proposal. A 50% tax on the wealth of all billionaires. I'd make Laffer's proposal more restrictive though. Confine the tax to individuals like Buffet who pay minimal tax while accumulating great wealth. Buffet paid $6. 9 million tax in either 2009 or 2010 according to the editorial he wrote for the New York Times. Taking a wild guess, he may pay 20 times that, or $140 million over his lifetime. His net worth, depending on when you measured it, has been in the range of around $30 billion to $50 billion in recent years. He will pay a fraction of 1% of his net worth in taxes over his lifetime. If measures proposed by you, Obama, and Buffet are implemented, he'll still just pay a fraction of 1%.
I'm being disingenuous here because I actually believe that Berkshire's corporate income taxes caused Buffet to indirectly pay more than his fair share of the income tax. But the man is a hypocrite -- if he wants to promote higher taxes on dividends and the estate tax, fine, but he should call a spade a spade. A high tax on dividends makes a non-dividend paying company like Berkshire comparatively more attractive to investors. The estate tax helps Berkshire accumulate family-owned businesses -- whose owners have to sell out to Buffet or someone else in order to pay the estate tax. From his personal perspective, taxes on dividends and capital gains and the estate tax don't matter, because Buffet won't pay them.
I guess you didn't read the Internal Revenue Service's release of the ACTUAL tax rates paid by households making $1 million per year or more.
There are only 320, 000 households in this group.
The average "middle class" households paid an effective rate of 15%
The households making $1 million and greater paid an effective rate of 29%I agree with the 29% for $1 million+ households, but the 15% for middle class looks too high. Based on IRS statistics for 2009, the middle class paid around 10% to 12.5%. Go to http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html. Then click on "2009" under "All Returns: Selected Income and Tax Items," and download the Excel spreadsheet. Look at column S.
The tax rate in 2009 for those with $1 million+ income was about 2.5X the tax rate for those with $30,000 to $100,000 income.
I searched for credible references beyond the one article that was posted. I found none claiming a lie. Citing IRS tax tables isn't proof that Buffett lied about his secretary. There's a good reason reputable news media aren't making such accusations. You need evidence.
Since you guys know so much about the finances of Warren Buffett's secretary, tell us:
What was her bonus? And what taxable income did she report on her Form 1040?
I searched for credible references beyond the one article that was posted. I found none claiming a lie. Citing IRS tax tables isn't proof that Buffett lied about his secretary. There's a good reason reputable news media aren't making such accusations. You need evidence.
Since you guys know so much about the finances of Warren Buffett's secretary, tell us:
What was her bonus? And what taxable income did she report on her Form 1040?It's not a lie. Neither was Bill Clinton's statement,"I did not have sex [sexual intercourse] with that woman."
The way you and Obama and Buffet calculate income tax rates is misleading and just as bad as a lie. You call social security and medicare payments income tax. You ignore the taxes Buffet pays indirectly by virtue of his ownership of Berkshire Hathaway. And you extrapolate Buffet's tax situation to every other person who makes over $1 million per year.
I think you're onto something though. It wouldn't surprise me if Warren Buffett's secretary is getting paid $250,000+ per year, so that her tax rate is higher than someone you'd consider "middle class."
Member #4112
09-26-11, 01:33
Esten, Buffett has referenced in many statements his secretary made $60, 000 in salary on which she paid according to Buffett 30% in income tax.
Those are Buffett's perimeters not mine.
For her to have paid an effective rate of 30% in income taxes she would have had to have been in the top 2 to 3% of wage earners. You're now trying to tell us she got over $940K in bonuses? This is beyond absurd; the math just does not work unless you operate in an alternative universe where 2+2=6 billion.
Guess you failed math and reading as well as critical thinking. ROFLMAO.
Stan's right, discussions with you is like a discussion with a petulant child. But I have to disagree with Stan on the age, not a 3 year old but more like one that is not quite potty trained yet.
The main stream media has not called out Buffett for the lie, what a shocker! They have not called out Obama on his either. Other news agencies and political writers have, but I am sure you consider them part of the great right wing conspiracy and untrustworthy.
Stan Da Man
09-26-11, 17:34
I think you're onto something though. It wouldn't surprise me if Warren Buffett's secretary is getting paid $250,000+ per year, so that her tax rate is higher than someone you'd consider "middle class."Doppel's right, and I quoted it earlier in this thread a few days back. Buffett claimed his secretary earned $60, 000 and paid a 30 percent tax rate.
At $60, 000, and assuming his secretary is single, takes only the standard deductions, made no retirement plan contribution and had no other exemptions, the secretary would pay 16. 1 percent. A simple tax return, assuming the worst case scenario, proves the point. The tax wouldn't even approach 30 percent, even if you included payroll taxes, which no one doing this comparison would include.
Now, if Buffett paid some huge bonus to his secretary, which is the same as income, but didn't disclose that, well, then, he's lying. He simply omitted a crucial fact. Lies are defined two ways: The positive misstatement of a known fact, or the intentional omission of a material, known fact which would render a statement misleading.
If I say,"Give me $500 and I will paint your house," that statement would be a lie in either of two scenarios. First, if I take the $500 and have no intention of paining your house, I have lied. Second, if I take the $500 and fail to disclose that I don't intend to paint the house for 50 years, I have lied. Only by engaging in Clintonesque semantics can someone say that the second scenario is not a lie. So it is with Buffett.
Member #4112
09-26-11, 19:28
Stan, to come up with the 18% effectice tax rate, I had to consider the entire amount, $60K, as line 32 / taxable income no deductions what so ever.
If you run the numbers at our current tax bracket's to find out what level of income was necessary for a 30% effective rate, Esten, Buffett and Obama's argument is a joke.
Esten is using the Clinton defense,"that dependends on what is, is".
Esten is just trying to jerk our chain. We already smoked him.
Esten is just trying to jerk our chain. We already smoked him.Exactly.
Jackson
Now that cracks are starting to appear in their argument, those accusing Buffett of a lie are attempting to re-define "lie" and banding together in solidarity. LOL! Since they haven't yet admitted they were wrong, let's continue.
This all goes back to a speech Buffett gave at a fundraiser in 2007. According to ABCNews last week,"A few years ago, Buffett said his secretary made $60, 000 and paid 29 percent in taxes.". He didn't claim that a 60K income is taxed at 29%. If it was a mere matter of tax brackets then he would have just consulted the IRS tables, as those here have been doing. Buffett was clear this was based on a survey in his office. The whole point of the exercise was to look at effective tax rates for people in his office.
You're now trying to tell us she got over $940K in bonuses? This is beyond absurd; the math just does not work unless you operate in an alternative universe where 2+2=6 billion.
Guess you failed math and reading as well as critical thinking. ROFLMAO.Your 940K isn't even close. It works out closer to a 240K bonus. Add 60K base for total 300K. This is based on 2006 tables for a single filer and including FICA taxes. I'd be glad to share the math if you dispute. Now a 240K bonus sounds high. But see this:
Bonus Bonanza
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/item_84yJMCaGF06H9IZaSsrttO
While the average is only a statistical snapshot, the real bonus packages. To be distributed in the first quarter of next year. Are equally impressive, ranging from around $3, 000 for a mailroom clerk to $20 million for top bosses.
"It's not unusual for an administrative assistant or a secretary of a very senior person to get more than $200, 000," said Alan Sklover, a compensation lawyer who represents Wall Street executives.A 240K bonus for Buffett's admin is right in line with the quote from this compensation expert.
So Buffett's alleged statement at this fundraiser back in 2007 is plausibly correct, since he was only stating the effective tax rate of his own secretary.
Member #4112
09-27-11, 13:00
Esten, why bother to go back only 5 years for a tax rate you like, why not go back to 1959 or 1955 to find a rate that fits your 'facts'. We smoked you but you just can't admit it.
Your defense and reasoning is becoming so convoluted as to be posted in my office for my staff to get a good laugh each day. This one has them rolling on the floor.
Keep them coming Esten, my folks love the comic relief.
Stan Da Man
09-27-11, 16:36
A perfect example of Buffett hypocrisy took place at an Obama campaign event. Well, it couldn't have been a campaign event because Obama is flying to all of these things, raising millions of dollars for himself, and paying for the Air Force One ride with government funds. So, it definitely wasn't a campaign event.
But, to the point, here's what this obvious Google plant asked: "I don't have a job, but that's because I've been lucky enough to live in Silicon Valley for a while and work for a small startup down the street here that did quite well. So, I'm unemployed by choice. My question is: Would you please raise my taxes," a man at the Linked In townhall in California asked President Obama today. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/26/rich_townhall_audience_member_asks_obama_please_raise_my_taxes.html
Well, isn't that special? So this guy wants higher taxes now that he's made a pile of dough, is "unemployed" by choice, and owns Google stock which pays no dividends. Of course, he doesn't even say he owns any more Google stock, so even if it did pay dividends, he may be shielded, and he may already have paid all capital gains at the low rates he now wants raised.
As can be seen the in the linked video, this guy, like Buffett, wants taxes raised on everyone else. He has no job, so he has no salary, no federal income tax, pays no social security tax, no medicare tax. He owns (or owned) Google stock, so he receives no dividends on which to pay tax. He probably sold all or a large portion of his Google stock already, so he likely wouldn't even be affected by a capital gains hike.
But, the Left points to comments from folks like this as their justification for raising taxes on everyone else except themselves. Elizabeth Warren's recent preposterous comments are just additional examples of this tortured reasoning and hypocrisy.
Why doesn't anyone ever suggest to these folks: Write a check. Here's the IRS's address. If you really feel guilty about the pile of dough you've socked away, what's stopping you? Why is it that you now want to raise taxes on everyone else besides yourself?
After WWII many Nazi's tried to justify their actions with the excuse that they were just following orders. It was decided that this excuse was inadequate. Any nitwit should have known that their orders were is gross violation of human rights.
I get the same sense with Esten and gang. Any nitwit can tell that Obama is a moron and his plans are a fast track to increased unemployment, hunger and misery. However I have the feeling that Esten and gang will one day defend their ridiculous support for Obama with the explanation that they were just following orders.
Esten, why bother to go back only 5 years for a tax rate you like, why not go back to 1959 or 1955 to find a rate that fits your 'facts'. We smoked you but you just can't admit it.The Buffett statement you've been debating for several days is from 2007, and references 2006 tax returns. For fact-checking it is the 2006 tax tables that should be used.
You're not very good at this, are you?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.