Sneaky sneaky, welcome to Chicago.
Two votes yesterday. Both voted down by a vote of 58-42. That was the last chance for Congress to make good on their (and the President's) word "not to increase taxes one penny for those making under $250,000 a year."
(1) a permanent extension of the current marginal income tax rates with instructions to offset as necessary through spending reduction
and
(2) a permanent extension of individual income tax rates for small businesses with instructions to offset as necessary through spending reductions.
Democrats approved tax increases on all marginal tax brackets that will rise significantly on individuals, families, and small business, which were five tax rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6%. According to analysis by the Wall Street Journal, an individual in South Carolina making $40,000 next year will pay about $400 more in federal income taxes. A South Carolina married couple earning a combined $80,000 will see their federal income tax rise by nearly $2,200. A married couple earning $160,000 next year could pay $5,500 more to Washington.
Additionally, back in June they voted to raise capital gains taxes costing the average american family an additional $1,600 per year, and re-instated the death tax allowing the government to confiscate 55% of your property when you die.
So there we have it. Raising taxes in a tough economy. 100% formula for another big dip.
I already calculated the impact on my family. $3,120 to $3,960 depending on my investment stratagie. We will need to delay some purchases or cancel a vacation.
The President's Chief Economic Advisor had resigned. Citing frustration.
The President won't listen to her.
"She has been frustrated," a source with insight into the WH economics team said. "She doesn't feel that she has a direct line to the president. She would be giving different advice than Larry Summers [director of the National Economic Council], who does have a direct line to the president."
Here she is in an interview forcing herself to defend a policy she clearly doesn't believe in. I feel sorry for her. . . and us.
http://www.newslook.com/videos/187119-romer-assesses-new-bipartisan-jobs-bill-in-senate
Rejoice in knowing that the Feds can use their your $3900 far more efficiently for the greater good of the country than you possibly could.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 06, 2010, 08:07:06 AM
Rejoice in knowing that the Feds can use their your $3900 far more efficiently for the greater good of the country than you possibly could.
(http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/obama-econ-101.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2010, 07:57:30 AM
Sneaky sneaky, welcome to Chicago.
It's a shame that you guys have chosen Chicago to represent everything you hate about liberals, Democrats, Obama, the Administration, and progressive politics in general. After spending a decade living there, I have to say it's one of the friendliest, most diverse, opportunity-filled, and internationally-oriented cities in the US. It's perhaps the quintessential American city.
So it's a purely personal response when I say, you hating on Chicago is really very much like you hating on the things that make America great. It's startling and troubling to hear how much of us you don't consider to be your countrymen.
I believe these were all amendments to unrelated bills. The Obama Budget/Tax plan will come out in September with the no increases over $250k. They have already said that they are going to let the bush tax cuts expire and people making over $250k a year will be paying a higher marginal rate.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dont-rush-into-tax-selling-moves-now-2010-08-04?reflink=MW_news_stmp (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dont-rush-into-tax-selling-moves-now-2010-08-04?reflink=MW_news_stmp) *Bill From Tulsa Asks...
"The President also proposed making the current long-term capital gains rates permanent, but adding a new 20% rate for those in the newly reestablished 36% and 39.6% brackets. " So if you are $230k+ I guess you might have to pay 20% on long term capital gains tax.
Quote from: we vs us on August 06, 2010, 09:04:55 AM
It's a shame that you guys have chosen Chicago to represent everything you hate about liberals, Democrats, Obama, the Administration, and progressive politics in general. After spending a decade living there, I have to say it's one of the friendliest, most diverse, opportunity-filled, and internationally-oriented cities in the US. It's perhaps the quintessential American city.
So it's a purely personal response when I say, you hating on Chicago is really very much like you hating on the things that make America great. It's startling and troubling to hear how much of us you don't consider to be your countrymen.
I don't hate Chicago. I love the city and the people. I dislike the slimy government there.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 06, 2010, 09:18:16 AM
I believe these were all amendments to unrelated bills. The Obama Budget/Tax plan will come out in September with the no increases over $250k. They have already said that they are going to let the bush tax cuts expire and people making over $250k a year will be paying a higher marginal rate.
Congress reconvenes on September 13th. If they pass a budget they must do it before October 1st (beginning of FY2011). No one believes this will, or even can happen. It is not even on the agenda.
Any other congress, and I would give it a 2% chance of happening. With this congress I give it a 0.00000023% chance of even being brought up. Dems are battling to keep their seats in November. They won't touch anything controversial. These amendments were put forth as a last ditch effort to avoid a catastrophe.
Quote from: we vs us on August 06, 2010, 09:04:55 AM
It's a shame that you guys have chosen Chicago to represent everything you hate about liberals, Democrats, Obama, the Administration, and progressive politics in general. After spending a decade living there, I have to say it's one of the friendliest, most diverse, opportunity-filled, and internationally-oriented cities in the US. It's perhaps the quintessential American city.
So it's a purely personal response when I say, you hating on Chicago is really very much like you hating on the things that make America great. It's startling and troubling to hear how much of us you don't consider to be your countrymen.
Good grief.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2010, 09:43:21 AM
Congress reconvenes on September 13th. If they pass a budget they must do it before October 1st (beginning of FY2011). No one believes this will, or even can happen. It is not even on the agenda.
Any other congress, and I would give it a 2% chance of happening. With this congress I give it a 0.00000023% chance of even being brought up. Dems are battling to keep their seats in November. They won't touch anything controversial. These amendments were put forth as a last ditch effort to avoid a catastrophe.
We will see how hard the Republicans try to hold it up.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2010, 07:57:30 AM
I already calculated the impact on my family. $3,120 to $3,960 depending on my investment stratagie.
Thanks for the extra. I bet Obama gets your money personally and plans to give it as a campaign contribution to Nancy Pelosi.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 06, 2010, 10:00:22 AM
We will see how hard the Republicans try to hold it up.
LOL! We'll see if it even makes it to the floor.
Unsurprisingly, what actually happened is significantly different than how Gaspar presents it. The Democrats have said all along that extending the Bush cuts for all taxpayers is simply not an option. Given that neither of the items voted on yesterday met their criteria, it's no wonder they voted against them.
If they end up not tackling the issue after the recess, I'll be right there with you in lambasting them. Until then, saying they didn't make good on their promise is just disingenuous.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2010, 10:12:22 AM
LOL! We'll see if it even makes it to the floor.
I know, they can stop it from making it to the floor too.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 06, 2010, 10:33:11 AM
I know, they can stop it from making it to the floor too.
Won't even be brought up. If it is, we'll have to see how much stupid crap is attached to it. Voting on these two small simple amendments yesterday would have done the job and kept the president's word. They could have done that if they actually had any intension to, but that is not the case.
They are spending so fast now that any opportunity to grab more cash will not be ignored.
This administration and congress has become a giant tire fire.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2010, 10:58:43 AM
Won't even be brought up. If it is, we'll have to see how much stupid crap is attached to it. Voting on these two small simple amendments yesterday would have done the job and kept the president's word. They could have done that if they actually had any intension to, but that is not the case.
Keep frothing. The Democrats have said all along they aren't going to extend the Bush tax cuts for people over their stated threshold. The amendments yesterday would have done that. They have stated they're going to take up the issue again after the recess. If they don't, you will have plenty of reason to complain at that time.
Quote from: nathanm on August 06, 2010, 11:10:06 AM
Keep frothing. The Democrats have said all along they aren't going to extend the Bush tax cuts for people over their stated threshold. The amendments yesterday would have done that. They have stated they're going to take up the issue again after the recess. If they don't, you will have plenty of reason to complain at that time.
Ok, so they could have struck amendment #1, but why vote this one down?
(2) a permanent extension of individual income tax rates for small businesses with instructions to offset as necessary through spending reductions.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2010, 02:01:11 PM
(2) a permanent extension of individual income tax rates for small businesses with instructions to offset as necessary through spending reductions.
I'd have to see the text of the amendment. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an asinine definition of "small business" or something similar involved. The small business thing is a bit of a canard, though. I don't have the stats at hand, but only a small proportion of the people in the top two tax brackets derive even half of their income from a pass-through tax entity. (S corp, LLC, etc.)
This is probably just the typical pre-election horse puckey. Write a flawed amendment/bill that you know will never pass but sounds good on the surface, then attack your opponent when they vote against it. It's the Washington way, dontchaknow?
If they don't get something done on this by the time tax time rolls around next year (and preferably before the election), I'll be upset. Until then, it's all just posturing.
Edited to add: Where were you last week when the Republicans filibustered a bill that would, among other things, have cut taxes on small businesses? ;)
Quote from: we vs us on August 06, 2010, 09:04:55 AM
It's a shame that you guys have chosen Chicago to represent everything you hate about liberals, Democrats, Obama, the Administration, and progressive politics in general. After spending a decade living there, I have to say it's one of the friendliest, most diverse, opportunity-filled, and internationally-oriented cities in the US. It's perhaps the quintessential American city.
So it's a purely personal response when I say, you hating on Chicago is really very much like you hating on the things that make America great. It's startling and troubling to hear how much of us you don't consider to be your countrymen.
Yeah, that goes beyond "stretch" into the land of isometric exercise (to mix metaphors a little). This is rather obnoxiously disingenuous on your part, wevsus - clearly the references to Chicago refer to the notion of corrupt government, Blagojevich, crooked heavy-handed union thuggery, etc. not an attack on our fellow countrymen and the 'Murican way of life. It's a sad commentary on how you view -your- countrymen that you'd make such an absurd assertion.
Sorry to threadjack, but I found this offensive and needlessly self-righteous.
Quote from: buckeye on August 06, 2010, 03:19:22 PM
Yeah, that goes beyond "stretch" into the land of isometric exercise (to mix metaphors a little). This is rather obnoxiously disingenuous on your part, wevsus - clearly the references to Chicago refer to the notion of corrupt government, Blagojevich, crooked heavy-handed union thuggery, etc. not an attack on our fellow countrymen and the 'Murican way of life. It's a sad commentary on how you view -your- countrymen that you'd make such an absurd assertion.
Sorry to threadjack, but I found this offensive and needlessly self-righteous.
Yeah, that's not really a better interpretation, unless you have some evidence of Obama being involved in some sort of corruption.
Quote from: nathanm on August 06, 2010, 03:23:00 PM
unless you have some evidence of Obama being involved in some sort of corruption.
Thanks Nathan, I needed a hearty laugh.
Quote from: buckeye on August 06, 2010, 03:19:22 PM
Yeah, that goes beyond "stretch" into the land of isometric exercise (to mix metaphors a little). This is rather obnoxiously disingenuous on your part, wevsus - clearly the references to Chicago refer to the notion of corrupt government, Blagojevich, crooked heavy-handed union thuggery, etc. not an attack on our fellow countrymen and the 'Murican way of life. It's a sad commentary on how you view -your- countrymen that you'd make such an absurd assertion.
Sorry to threadjack, but I found this offensive and needlessly self-righteous.
Fair enough. Obviously, as I said, I wrote that as a personal response.
But it's clear that my intent didn't make it into the response. Seems to be par for the course for most of my posts last week.
I've been listening to certain media, certain posters, certain people around me in Tulsa all continue to build this dirty snowball of "unamerican" ideas and themes and objects and places in the world, and slapping "chicago" onto that snowball just tipped me over into too-much land.
I don't argue that Chicago isn't corrupt -- of course it is -- but it's the idea that it's one more thing tossed cavalierly onto the pile of things in the US that are "killing america," along with liberals, and Congress, and the President, and Jeremiah Wright and undocumented immigrants and Biden and taxes and Social Security and Medicare, Obamacare, sanctuary cities, teachers unions, automakers unions, ALL unions, and American automakers.
I'm sick, essentially, of being on the "despised" list all the time. I'm not killing the country, but there's a sizable portion of our citizenry who believe wholeheartedly that I am. They alternately believe I am either destroying the country on purpose or am so blinded by my hunger for more government nannying that I've been misled into supporting socialism/marxism/fascism/the dark side of the Force.
And yeah yeah, whine whine whine. Welcome to politics, right? And 90% of the time I can deal. What's bothering me about it, though, is the underlying message, and that led to my use of the word "countrymen." To me, the underlying message is "get out." It has nothing to do with a fair disagreement about ideas. It actually has nothing to do about ideas at all, or governance, or democracy, or "bipartisanship." It has to do with tribalism, fear, and increasing and not decreasing internal conflict.
So anyway, it worries me to no end that in some ways the Right would purge the country the same way it's purging its own ranks, and ya rly that's what I think a considerable element of the Right is talking about these days. In veiled and not-so-veiled ways.
All of this was in my response to "chicago." And as I look back at it, almost none of it got in the comment. So, I apologize for the lack of explanation, but can't really take back the gist of it. Which still seems salient to me after a weekend off.
Quote from: we vs us on August 09, 2010, 11:43:18 AM
Fair enough. Obviously, as I said, I wrote that as a personal response.
But it's clear that my intent didn't make it into the response. Seems to be par for the course for most of my posts last week.
I've been listening to certain media, certain posters, certain people around me in Tulsa all continue to build this dirty snowball of "unamerican" ideas and themes and objects and places in the world, and slapping "chicago" onto that snowball just tipped me over into too-much land.
I don't argue that Chicago isn't corrupt -- of course it is -- but it's the idea that it's one more thing tossed cavalierly onto the pile of things in the US that are "killing america," along with liberals, and Congress, and the President, and Jeremiah Wright and undocumented immigrants and Biden and taxes and Social Security and Medicare, Obamacare, sanctuary cities, teachers unions, automakers unions, ALL unions, and American automakers.
I'm sick, essentially, of being on the "despised" list all the time. I'm not killing the country, but there's a sizable portion of our citizenry who believe wholeheartedly that I am. They alternately believe I am either destroying the country on purpose or am so blinded by my hunger for more government nannying that I've been misled into supporting socialism/marxism/fascism/the dark side of the Force.
And yeah yeah, whine whine whine. Welcome to politics, right? And 90% of the time I can deal. What's bothering me about it, though, is the underlying message, and that led to my use of the word "countrymen." To me, the underlying message is "get out." It has nothing to do with a fair disagreement about ideas. It actually has nothing to do about ideas at all, or governance, or democracy, or "bipartisanship." It has to do with tribalism, fear, and increasing and not decreasing internal conflict.
So anyway, it worries me to no end that in some ways the Right would purge the country the same way it's purging its own ranks, and ya rly that's what I think a considerable element of the Right is talking about these days. In veiled and not-so-veiled ways.
All of this was in my response to "chicago." And as I look back at it, almost none of it got in the comment. So, I apologize for the lack of explanation, but can't really take back the gist of it. Which still seems salient to me after a weekend off.
+1
And I've never understood this weird demonization of Chicago. Does it have corruption problems? Of course. But many municipalities have problems with this. It shouldn't be tolerated, but it is hardly unique.
That doesn't change the fact that Chicago is a wonderful city, has been for many decades, and demonizing it will have a sizable chunk of the U.S. populace scratching their heads.
It's the same sort of sourpuss silliness where people rip San Francisco for no other reason than it doesn't match their myopic worldview. I have to wonder whether these so-called critics have been in any of these cities at all. I guess all my traveling has me wondering what all of the hatred, paranoia and sullenness is about.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 09, 2010, 12:01:56 PM
+1
And I've never understood this weird demonization of Chicago. Does it have corruption problems? Of course. But many municipalities have problems with this. It shouldn't be tolerated, but it is hardly unique.
That doesn't change the fact that Chicago is a wonderful city, has been for many decades, and demonizing it will have a sizable chunk of the U.S. populace scratching their heads.
It's the same sort of sourpuss silliness where people rip San Francisco for no other reason than it doesn't match their myopic worldview. I have to wonder whether these so-called critics have been in any of these cities at all. I guess all my traveling has me wondering what all of the hatred, paranoia and sullenness is about.
Again. . .I like the city and people of Chicago, but I've done business there, I've had to hire people, quote jobs and contract labor. I used to visit on a weekly basis back in the late 90's to monitor projects we had under construction. I've had to deal with the politicians and the unions (same thing).
Chicago is completely run by labor unions. "Bribery" is considered the norm. You grease palms to get anything done. Doing
anything yourself without paying the "local" will get you hurt.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 09, 2010, 12:20:59 PM
Again. . .I like the city and people of Chicago, but I've done business there, I've had to hire people, quote jobs and contract labor. I used to visit on a weekly basis back in the late 90's to monitor projects we had under construction. I've had to deal with the politicians and the unions (same thing).
Chicago is completely run by labor unions. "Bribery" is considered the norm. You grease palms to get anything done. Doing anything yourself without paying the "local" will get you hurt.
But ... so what?
Obviously, people still flock to Chicago and do business there. People want to move there and live there and start businesses there, and do. Whether unions run the place or not obviously is irrelevant in the overall scheme of things there.
Just because you don't like it and it doesn't fit your business notions doesn't mean it's not vibrant and desirable. So demonizing it seems downright silly in that light.
If folks don't like doing business there, then they shouldn't. It's not like they're forced to. I just don't get the hostility. It's like they're threatened by Chicago or San Francisco or something.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 09, 2010, 12:01:56 PM
+1
And I've never understood this weird demonization of Chicago. Does it have corruption problems? Of course. But many municipalities have problems with this.
Are you freakin serious? Are you comparing the notorious history of corrupt Chicago politics to other "municipalities"' corruption? Good grief, does Blago ring any bells to you?
Gaspar, nevermind.
You can't say things like this anymore it's against the 28th Amendment. You know, the new amendment where offending others is strictly prohibited.
Lighten up guys. The "Chicago Way" has been acknowleged for years as an example of corrupt government, it's in no way meant to disparage the vibrant, thriving metropolis which is Chicago.
Do we need to chug on down to mamby pamby land?
(http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n2/NHfather/photos%20for%20discussions/gunny.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on August 09, 2010, 01:08:37 PM
Are you freakin serious? Are you comparing the notorious history of corrupt Chicago politics to other "municipalities"' corruption? Good grief, does Blago ring any bells to you?
Dozens, if not hundreds, of municipalities have long histories of corruption.
Chicago is not new, nor is it unique.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 09, 2010, 01:31:36 PM
Dozens, if not hundreds, of municipalities have long histories of corruption.
Chicago is not new, nor is it unique.
I'm sorry to have offended. Chicago is a mighty beacon of Progressive politics, and is the guiding light for much of the new Washington machine. I can see how this is a delicate subject for some.
As a fan of the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team and the Green Bay Packers football team, I can say I hate Chicago sports.
The Cubs management refuses to pay the money it takes to get a good team on the field and the Bears are cursed because of an incident during the 1986 Super Bowl.
That Bears team had the greatest running back of all-time, Walter Payton who was at the time, the NFL's all time leading rusher. Walter had played on many a bad Bears team, but continued to play tougher and better than any other running back in league history. That year, he had almost as many yards from scrimmage as the quarterback threw.
This was the only Super Bowl appearance for him and he deserved to get a touchdown. He didn't, because Mike Ditka let the quarterback have two one yard plunges for scores and late in the game, gave the ball to defensive linemen William Perry to score the other one yard touchdown. The Bears won 46 to 10.
They haven't been back to a Super Bowl since. Not giving your best player in team history a chance to score was bad karma.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 09, 2010, 02:51:44 PM
The Cubs management refuses to pay the money it takes to get a good team on the field
It may have been at one time many years ago, but the Cubs' payroll stands north of $140 million, which is the third-highest in all of baseball.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams
The Cubs do pay good money. It's just they've paid too much good money to aging players who, predictably, got old.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 09, 2010, 01:31:36 PM
Dozens, if not hundreds, of municipalities have long histories of corruption.
Chicago is not new, nor is it unique.
Look no further than Tulsa city government where it's all about 'who you know'...
Interesting how after two pages of obfuscation and hi-jack that the original intent of the thread has vanished like a fart in the wind.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 09, 2010, 04:07:11 PM
Interesting how after two pages of obfuscation and hi-jack that the original intent of the thread has vanished like a fart in the wind.
The original intent of the thread was a fart in the wind. It was mindless scaremongering.
Quote from: nathanm on August 09, 2010, 04:09:36 PM
The original intent of the thread was a fart in the wind. It was mindless scaremongering.
Oh Nate, like all of the other promises he made, lets just wait and see how well this one pans out.
This thread will wait.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 10, 2010, 07:45:02 AM
Oh Nate, like all of the other promises he made, lets just wait and see how well this one pans out.
This thread will wait.
So aside from my Chicagomongering, the thread is pretty much nothing but uncited accusatory hogwash. In the sense that aside from the underlying distrust that Congress will get anything done, the available facts point in the opposite direction of Gassy's original assertion. ie. a budget will pass and all but the upper tier(s) of the Bush tax cuts will stay in place.
But yes, much of this remains to be seen, so feel free to continue to make unfounded assertions that might yet happen, aside from the actual real-world probability of them actually happening.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 09, 2010, 02:51:44 PM
As a fan of the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team and the Green Bay Packers football team, I can say I hate Chicago sports.
The Cubs management refuses to pay the money it takes to get a good team on the field and the Bears are cursed because of an incident during the 1986 Super Bowl.
That Bears team had the greatest running back of all-time, Walter Payton who was at the time, the NFL's all time leading rusher. Walter had played on many a bad Bears team, but continued to play tougher and better than any other running back in league history. That year, he had almost as many yards from scrimmage as the quarterback threw.
This was the only Super Bowl appearance for him and he deserved to get a touchdown. He didn't, because Mike Ditka let the quarterback have two one yard plunges for scores and late in the game, gave the ball to defensive linemen William Perry to score the other one yard touchdown. The Bears won 46 to 10.
They haven't been back to a Super Bowl since. Not giving your best player in team history a chance to score was bad karma.
Here's an oldie but a goodie for ya, RM.......
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 09, 2010, 03:50:29 PM
It may have been at one time many years ago, but the Cubs' payroll stands north of $140 million, which is the third-highest in all of baseball.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams
The Cubs do pay good money. It's just they've paid too much good money to aging players who, predictably, got old.
I beg to differ. The Cubbies have certain, ahem, karmic hurdles to overcome:
(http://www.cobo.org/goodman/sgim/goat.jpg)
Quote from: we vs us on August 10, 2010, 08:27:17 AM
so feel free to continue to make unfounded assertions that might yet happen, aside from the actual real-world probability of them actually happening.
Don't worry, we will!
Couldn't resist:
"Having seen it," Rudyard Kipling wrote of Chicago, "I urgently desire never to see it again. It is inhabited by savages. Its ... air is dirt."
Quote from: Conan71 on August 10, 2010, 10:02:43 AM
Couldn't resist:
"Having seen it," Rudyard Kipling wrote of Chicago, "I urgently desire never to see it again. It is inhabited by savages. Its ... air is dirt."
Mostly because the air was filled with cow-poop dust.
(http://img493.imageshack.us/img493/3032/americancities0509rp.jpg)
In Chicago it is customary to deny any question asked of you. The rules are as follows:
There are only three rules and a Prime Directive which anybody can understand. You don't even need an attorney to understand them --and if you need an attorney, well, you know too much...so look out for Rule #3!
RULE #1...No matter what you see, hear, or do --you don't know anybody and you don't know nothing!
RULE #2...If you capture something on tape or camera -- it doesn't reveal nothing!
RULE #3...If you know what everybody knows in Chicago --well, you still don't know nothing.
The PRIME DIRECTIVE in CHICAGO ...No matter what the vote, Democrats win the election.
Barack Obama: "I only saw Rod Blagojevich one time ... and that was in the stands and from a distance at a Chicago Bears Football Game."
Photographs from that Bears game:
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01202/blagovich-obama460_1202459c.jpg)
These two? They don't know each other! They said they didn't.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Y-DbBvf7R5Y/SUB-6O7pdMI/AAAAAAAATyk/ZkzvpPfKIQU/s400/capt_409e3d37328e409cbad55fc18cbb26dd_blagojevich_corruption_probe__ny138.jpg)
The guy on the left? For all you know he's Santa Claus.
And the guy on the right... well, he's the Easter Bunny! That's all you need to know.
Go to your eye doctor...your eyes are lying to you! Ca'pish?
(http://bokertov.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451bc4a69e201157091b58f970c-800wi)
(http://wizbangblog.com/images/2008/12/wcc12122008.jpg)
(http://www.guerraeterna.com/archives/Blagojevich%20obama.jpg)
(http://kensten.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/obama-and-blagojevich2.jpg)
Remember Jimmy Hoffa? He knew too much and now, well, now no one knows where he is.
Is the big picture clear? Not these pictures! Remember, You've already forgot them...
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/55132/thumbs/s-BLAHGO-large.jpg)
(http://a.236.com/images/photo2/7870/thumbs/OBAMA-AND-BLAGOJEVICH_s1-274.jpg)
Point well taken, We vs us - I appreciate your response and that post did seem out of character for you...
You might be reminded however that any number of (i.e. most) left-wing aspersions are anything but less oversimplified and odious. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 10, 2010, 10:21:21 AM
Yadda-yadda-yadda
Typical Gassy partisan claptrap signifying nothing.
Obama was a true political outsider when he moved to Chicago; he was never part of the Chicago political machine but eventually understood the importance of gaining its respect and securing its tacit endorsement. He ran a very successful voter registration drive called "Project Vote" in the early 90's which put ACORN and other "community organizers" to shame... I've never considered ACORN to be the corrupt/racist group vilified by dogmatic conservatives-- to me they're more like a collection of egotistical yet by and large incompetent activist leaders who enjoy pushing around their army of feckless volunteers... That's why I watched hopefully when this Harvard-educated state senator Obama guy ran for the House against Bobby Rush ten years ago...... he got his butt whipped.... and he had to learn some valuable political lessons.... so I view his pragmatism and egotism with some admiration-- at least he's not a "legacy" like a Daley or a Bush or a LaFortune....
OBAMA IS NOT A SOCIALISThttp://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/10/09/obama-is-not-a-socialist/
QuoteCalling Obama a "socialist" simply isn't logical. He doesn't share the belief that industries should be nationalized by the government or even taken over by the workers as many American Marxists espouse. He may not be as wedded to the free market as a conservative but he doesn't want to get rid of it. He wants to regulate it. He wants "capitalism with a human face." He wants to mitigate some of the effects of the market when people lose. This is boilerplate Democratic party liberalism not radical socialism.
I detest conservatives throwing around the words "socialism" and "Marxism" when it comes to Obama as much as I get angry when idiot liberals toss around the word "fascist" when describing conservatives. I'm sorry but this is ignorant. It bespeaks a lack of knowledge of what socialism and communism represent as well as an ignorance of simple definitions. Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. He will not as president, require businesses to meet targets for production. He will not outlaw profit. He will not put workers in charge of companies (unless it is negotiated between unions and management. It is not unheard of in this country and the practice may become more common in these perilous economic times.).
An Obama presidency will have more regulation, more "oversight," more interference from government agencies, more paperwork for business, less business creation, fewer jobs, fewer opportunities. It will be friendlier to unions, more protectionist, and will require higher taxes from corporations (who then will simply pass the tax bill on to us, their customers). But government won't run the economy. And calling Obama a "socialist" simply ignores all of the above and substitutes irrationalism (or ignorance) for the reality of what an Obama presidency actually represents; a lurch to the left that will be detrimental to the economy, bad for business, but basically allow market forces to continue to dominate our economy.
Obama's friendship with Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Pfleger, Meeks, Khalidi, as well as his working with Richard Daley's Chicago Machine was the result of his overweening ambition and not due to any ideological affinity or strain of corruption in his makeup. He may have taken a scholarly interest in some of the ideas put forth by Ayers and he might have seen working to approve some of Ayers' radical ideas as good politics (Ayers was an ally of Daley in the School wars of the 1990's).
But frankly, Obama is someone who impresses me as having no real ideology save that which can get him elected. His campaign has shown him to pander....
That last quip sounds strangely like the accusations of "pandering" made against Bill Clinton by Dem-rival Paul Tsongas and then systematically co-opted and adopted as a Republican meme throughout the 90s....
Rather than read and listen to all the character assassination hyperbole brought up by the likes of Beck, Hannity, Rush, Palin, etc etc..... here's some additional reason-based criticism of Obama's dealings with the "Chicago machine" that is actually three-dimensional..... go figure....
OBAMA'S COMPLICATED DANCE WITH THE CHICAGO MACHINE
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/08/24/obamas-complicated-dance-with-the-chicago-machine/
While I dislike and disagree with the sentiments from the dude over at rightwingnuthouse.com, at least he writes with some nuance rather than all that "mama Grizzly loves America more than liberals do" nonsense.... my views and opinions are closer to the articles listed below.....
Dec. 8, 1995 - What Makes Obama Run? http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/what-makes-obama-run/Content?oid=889221
June 12, 2008 - Is Obama a Chicago Politician?Guess it depends on your definition—or redefinition—of the term.
By Ben Joravsky
***FWIW, Ben Joravsky is one of my favs as a critic of Chicago city politics.... his stuff on Chicago TIF districts is priceless....
http://www1.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/theworks/080612/
QuoteAs for Chicago in 2008 being a hospitable time for organizers "like the young Barack Obama," the truth is that Daley's pretty well destroyed community organizing in Chicago. Many of the fiercest groups have either disappeared or been co-opted—they pull their punches because, like the aldermen, they don't want to get on the mayor's bad side. It took activists years to get the smoking ban passed over Daley's opposition, and even then the mayor forced them into watering it down. Despite backing from Cardinal George and would-be independent aldermen, activists still can't get an affordable housing ordinance through the City Council, though they've been trying for more than a decade. There used to be several vigilant budget watchdog groups in Chicago, with the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group leading the pack. Now there are none.
Should Obama go along with all this? Well, look at it from his perspective. He first came to town in the mid-80s, working as a community activist for three years. When he returned in the early 90s, just out of law school, he was bright, young, and incredibly ambitious, and the first thing he learned—the first thing any ambitious young wannabe politician learns around here—is that there's no future in Chicago for anyone who defies Mayor Daley.
The best you can do is discreetly look the other way. You might speak out occasionally against the more blatant examples of corruption—but only if reporters force you to. Otherwise you pretend not to notice. And it goes without saying that you enthusiastically endorse the mayor's reelection—or his Olympic plans.
For Obama, kissing the mayor's ring is like putting that flag pin on his lapel. It's part of the game he's had to play to get elected. It got him to the U.S. Senate. And if he makes it all the way to the White House, it probably will have been worth it.
So how should Obama play it when the Republicans launch their attack ads linking him to Daley's Chicago? He should ditch the script that Conley so thoughtfully offered in Salon. He doesn't need that fantasy of civility, consensus, racial harmony, and community empowerment. He can tell it like it is. If anything, Daley taught him to be ruthless, devious, and shrewd.
Your cited article lost me at the point he claimed President Obama doesn't believe in the government or employees taking over or owning corporations. Have you taken a look at who the major shareholders are in GM and Chrysler lately? Almost made that piece sound prophetic as I think the archive date is 2008.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 10, 2010, 10:33:47 PM
Your cited article lost me at the point he claimed President Obama doesn't believe in the government or employees taking over or owning corporations. Have you taken a look at who the major shareholders are in GM and Chrysler lately? Almost made that piece sound prophetic as I think the archive date is 2008.
Yawn.
"We are acting as reluctant shareholders because that is the only way for GM to succeed." - President Barack Obama
Of course, for Oklahoma Republicans and for those so-called Oklahoma "independents" and "libertarians" who also happen to think Fox News is "fair and balanced".... it's all part of some pinko-commie socialist conspiracy plot, which means Obama must be lying because he's determined to dismantle the free enterprise system........... geez, get a grip. :P
7/30/2010 Visiting Obama deserves credit for saving GM, ChryslerBY TOM WALSH
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
http://www.freep.com/article/20100730/COL06/7300387/Visiting-Obama-deserves-credit-for-saving-GM--Chrysler
QuoteOK, I get it.
People don't like bailouts -- of Wall Street or Detroit.
Most people who work hard and behave responsibly resent it when their tax dollars are used to prop up big companies run aground by insanely wealthy executives.
Here's the key analogy, though.
People didn't like the rationing of sugar, butter, meat and gasoline during World War II, either. But citizens supported these anti-free-market intrusions as necessary in a time of national emergency.
They assumed in the 1940s that government would restore economic freedoms when the war ended, which is what happened. And that's pretty much what's happening today in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and federal response.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are stunning results. Obama is right to celebrate them. We all should.
That's a riot. Post more! :D
Sure.
Paul Abrams
Posted: November 2, 2009
Pop Quiz: Under Reagan, What Was Peak Unemployment, How Long Before It Began Declining?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/pop-quiz-under-reagan-wha_b_341348.html
QuoteCertainly, as good students of history, you recognize that Reagan did not inherit the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Nor did he inherit two wars, nor the collapse of the automobile industry, nor 8 years of budget profligacy, nor the radical right wing championing (and avoiding service in) another war or two or three. The retirement of the baby-boomers was 25 years in the future, not already ongoing and accelerating.
And, of course, you don't need little Johnny Boehner to tell you that tax rates, even for the wealthiest Americans, are now already 14% lower than Reagan's 1981 tax cut, nor that 95% of Americans received a tax cut in the Obama stimulus, nor that tax rates will still be 10.5% lower for the wealthiest when Obama allows the George W tax cuts to expire, nor that those cuts were intended to expire for the simple reason that they were projected then to cause to big a hole in the deficit.
But this, of course, begs the question as to what the Reagan tax cuts, such as they were, actually did achieve. At the same point in Reagan's Presidency as we are now at in Obama's, what was unemployment, and how long before it began to decline?
Class, I am shocked, shocked, that no one is raising his right hand. So, I'll tell you. Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.6%, no wars, no major financial crisis, a still robust auto industry, a right wing clamoring for increased defense spending (that helps domestic employment), no retiring baby boomers actually taking down social security funds.
To answer the pop quiz: the unemployment rate under Reagan went from 7.6% to 9.7-9.8% in the summer after his inaugural, and remained at that level for two years, before it began to decline in the summer of 1983. In "Obama-time", that would be the equivalent of the summer of 2011. Moreover, the economy did not begin improving until the Spring, 1983, in "Obama-time" that is Spring, 2011.
There are those (your teacher included) who have difficulty separating the effects of the Reagan tax cuts from pure old Keynesian pump-priming deficit spending that accompanied these Reagan tax cuts. And, lest Republicans whine that Reagan had a Democratic Congress, remind them that Reagan himself never even submitted a balanced budget!
Surprise question for extra credit: what was Reagan's approval rating in January, 1983, two years into his Presidency? Again, no one raising their right hand except Dickie Cheney and OJ? OK, the correct answer: 35%--an approval rating only Dick Cheney and OJ Simpson would cheer.
I don't know that you can really compare what Presidents Reagan and Obama inherited with the same yardstick. President Obama came in after a sudden and huge melt down in the financial system which included unprecidented energy prices due to crazy trading practices, and two active war fronts.
President Reagan came in at a time of consistently rising unemployment, an energy crisis caused by a shortage of oil in 1979, a foreign policy crisis with hostages in Iran, the cold war with a huge adversary, and record high interest rates amongst other issues.
I think we are perhaps being a bit impatient with the Obama Administration's approach to our problems. Certainly, if unemployment is down, GDP is up, and government spending is on it's way to being reined in by the time the '12 election gets here, he deserves every bit as much credit for that as he's getting in derision right now.
Reagan revisionists can continue to slam him all they like. The fact remains that the day he left office unemployment was lower, GDP was up, interest rates were lower, inflation was under control, and tax reciepts increased on average by 8.2% per year. All in all, Americans were in better shape in 1988 than they were in 1980. Other than the increase in deficit spending, President Reagan's team left America better off at the end of its term. The numbers are indisputable.
There are similarities, but direct comparisions are impossible looking back 30 years. The whole dynamics of the workforce have changed: our manufacturing base has changed as we were losing the rust belt overseas and have evolved in to a more tech savy and service-oriented economy. Lending policies are different, trading in commodities has changed, whole new securities were devised for trading. We've basically invented many new ways in the last 30 years to make money from pushing paper as one engine of the economy.
Posting of lib revision graphs in 3. . .2. . .1
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2010, 12:15:44 PM
I don't know that you can really compare what Presidents Reagan and Obama inherited with the same yardstick. President Obama came in after a sudden and huge melt down in the financial system which included unprecidented energy prices due to crazy trading practices, and two active war fronts.
President Reagan came in at a time of consistently rising unemployment, an energy crisis caused by a shortage of oil in 1979, a foreign policy crisis with hostages in Iran, the cold war with a huge adversary, and record high interest rates amongst other issues.
I think we are perhaps being a bit impatient with the Obama Administration's approach to our problems. Certainly, if unemployment is down, GDP is up, and government spending is on it's way to being reined in by the time the '12 election gets here, he deserves every bit as much credit for that as he's getting in derision right now.
Reagan revisionists can continue to slam him all they like. The fact remains that the day he left office unemployment was lower, GDP was up, interest rates were lower, inflation was under control, and tax reciepts increased on average by 8.2% per year. All in all, Americans were in better shape in 1988 than they were in 1980. Other than the increase in deficit spending, President Reagan's team left America better off at the end of it's term. The numbers are indisputable.
There are similarities, but direct comparisions are impossible looking back 30 years. The whole dynamics of the workforce have changed: our manufacturing base has changed as we were losing the rust belt overseas and have evolved in to a more tech savy and service-oriented economy. Lending policies are different, trading in commodities has changed, whole new securities were devised for trading. We've basically invented many new ways in the last 30 years to make money from pushing paper as one engine of the economy.
You are correct.. Obama's first year US revenue was down 16.62% from the previous year. 16.62%!! Thats a huge chunk of money to go away. Which tells you just how bad everything got. Oh, and yes, Reagan did increase GDP but he managed to increase spending even more.
Year US Revenue % Spending %
1974 263.2 --- 269.4 -----
1975 279.1 6.04% 332.3 23.35%
1976 298.1 6.81% 371.8 11.89%
1977 355.6 19.29% 409.2 10.06%
1978 399.6 12.37% 458.7 12.10%
1979 463.3 15.94% 504 9.88%
1980 517.1 11.61% 590.9 17.24%
1981 599.3 15.90% 678.2 14.77%
1982 617.8 3.09% 745.7 9.95%
1983 600.6 -2.78% 808.4 8.41%
1984 666.4 10.96% 851.8 5.37%
1985 734 10.14% 946.3 11.09%
1986 769.2 4.80% 990.4 4.66%
1987 854.3 11.06% 1004 1.37%
1988 909.2 6.43% 1064.4 6.02%
1989 991.1 9.01% 1143.7 7.45%
2005 2153.6 --- 2472 ----
2006 2406.9 11.76% 2655.1 7.41%
2007 2568 6.69% 2728.7 2.77%
2008 2524 -1.71% 2982.6 9.30%
2009 2104.6 -16.62% 3518.2 17.96%
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf
Quote from: Gaspar on August 11, 2010, 01:18:23 PM
Posting of lib revision graphs in 3. . .2. . .1
I don't think there's a reasonable person on the planet who would refuse to give Volcker the credit he deserves in bringing down inflation. And Reagan could have done a lot worse for us economically. He rolled back many of his tax cuts to pay for his ridiculous defense spending.
The economic recovery wasn't nearly what the hagiographers like to claim, but it was indeed there, and not insubstantial.
Quote from: nathanm on August 11, 2010, 02:06:22 PM
I don't think there's a reasonable person on the planet who would refuse to give Volcker the credit he deserves in bringing down inflation. And Reagan could have done a lot worse for us economically. He rolled back many of his tax cuts to pay for his ridiculous defense spending.
The economic recovery wasn't nearly what the hagiographers like to claim, but it was indeed there, and not insubstantial.
Should President Obama be fortunate enough to preside over a significant recovery, I hope you will minimize his efforts with the same glee you have used in minimizing President Reagan's.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2010, 03:11:06 PM
Should President Obama be fortunate enough to preside over a significant recovery, I hope you will minimize his efforts with the same glee you have used in minimizing President Reagan's.
If the graph looks the same, I will happily give him the same credit. The fact of the matter is that Reagan's recovery wasn't particularly robust. Better than what we've gotten so far out of Obama on that count, but the economy wasn't so hot in 1982, either, so I agree that more time is needed to see how well his policies will end up working.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 11, 2010, 01:24:27 PM
You are correct.. Obama's first year US revenue was down 16.62% from the previous year. 16.62%!! Thats a huge chunk of money to go away. Which tells you just how bad everything got. Oh, and yes, Reagan did increase GDP but he managed to increase spending even more.
Year US Revenue % Spending %
1974 263.2 --- 269.4 -----
1975 279.1 6.04% 332.3 23.35%
1976 298.1 6.81% 371.8 11.89%
1977 355.6 19.29% 409.2 10.06%
1978 399.6 12.37% 458.7 12.10%
1979 463.3 15.94% 504 9.88%
1980 517.1 11.61% 590.9 17.24%
1981 599.3 15.90% 678.2 14.77%
1982 617.8 3.09% 745.7 9.95%
1983 600.6 -2.78% 808.4 8.41%
1984 666.4 10.96% 851.8 5.37%
1985 734 10.14% 946.3 11.09%
1986 769.2 4.80% 990.4 4.66%
1987 854.3 11.06% 1004 1.37%
1988 909.2 6.43% 1064.4 6.02%
1989 991.1 9.01% 1143.7 7.45%
2005 2153.6 --- 2472 ----
2006 2406.9 11.76% 2655.1 7.41%
2007 2568 6.69% 2728.7 2.77%
2008 2524 -1.71% 2982.6 9.30%
2009 2104.6 -16.62% 3518.2 17.96%
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf
People who blast President Reagan's defense spending are forgetting historical perspective of national security at the time. The Cold War still existed with nuclear holocaust as a very real possibility as we were faced with hostile Soviet leaders until Mikhail Gorbachev. As well, much of our weaponry and vehicle inventory were aging relics from WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam eras. There was also a growing third world threat from the middle east with Iran, Libya, and Afghanistan leading the way. I can still remember incidents like KAL 007 and having a very real concern about whether or not an incident like that could be a catalyst for a major war.
Defense spending creates and keeps a lot jobs here in the U.S. About 5,000,000 alltogether. Many of those are very good paying engineering and technical jobs, much like those the space program provides. Certainly one can argue that money could be spent elsewhere in the budget on different initiatives like alternative energy and transportation and have the same effect, I can't say I disagree entirely. Many defense projects are necessarily kept in the U.S. for security purposes which means it secures jobs for Americans which cannot be outsourced. The same can't be said for spending on alt energy (windmills and solar being built in China).
http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/071001-jobcreation.pdf
Reagan's economic philosophies weren't perfect and did not all work as designed. It's what happens when theory meets reality and is mixed up with politics. However, he did preside over the longest period of peacetime growth in U.S. history up to that point. That's something even the most jaded economists have agreed upon.
Quote from: nathanm on August 11, 2010, 03:17:16 PM
If the graph looks the same, I will happily give him the same credit. The fact of the matter is that Reagan's recovery wasn't particularly robust. Better than what we've gotten so far out of Obama on that count, but the economy wasn't so hot in 1982, either, so I agree that more time is needed to see how well his policies will end up working.
My confusion is that Regan's policies were bold and easy to identify as stimulus. They immediately returned massive amounts of capital to those who earned it. They loosened regulation and made an immediate impact.
President Obama's efforts seem to belong to the opposite path. New layers of government, additional regulations, and the promise of delivering more money to Washington. The only similarity is an increased debt. However the increase in debt under Obama dwarfs anything Regan could have ever dreamed of.
So, my point is that no one can provide a nice concise list of the bold actions that President Obama has taken to stimulate the economy. Only a shopping list of new programs, public projects, and a hundred or so new bureaucracies.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 11, 2010, 03:41:29 PM
My confusion is that Regan's policies were bold and easy to identify as stimulus. They immediately returned massive amounts of capital to those who earned it. They loosened regulation and made an immediate impact.
President Obama's efforts seem to belong to the opposite path. New layers of government, additional regulations, and the promise of delivering more money to Washington. The only similarity is an increased debt. However the increase in debt under Obama dwarfs anything Regan could have ever dreamed of.
So, my point is that no one can provide a nice concise list of the bold actions that President Obama has taken to stimulate the economy. Only a shopping list of new programs, public projects, and a hundred or so new bureaucracies.
And that probably is my best answer as to why President Reagan's policies get so much grief. If you can't find anything to point to your own success, simply tear down someone else to make yourself look better. That or point out the mistakes of someone else as justification for making even bigger mistakes yourself.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2010, 03:45:28 PM
And that probably is my best answer as to why President Reagan's policies get so much grief. If you can't find anything to point to your own success, simply tear down someone else to make yourself look better. That or point out the mistakes of someone else as justification for making even bigger mistakes yourself.
Exactly. I think that perhaps much of the uncertainty that is paralyzing the economy now could have been avoided if The President had simply chose to lead, rather than use the crisis as an excuse to pass a bag of hammers and score points with his counterparts.
"The best thing a President can do for the economy is give people confidence in it" -Conanism
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2010, 03:39:34 PM
People who blast President Reagan's defense spending are forgetting historical perspective of national security at the time. The Cold War still existed with nuclear holocaust as a very real possibility as we were faced with hostile Soviet leaders until Mikhail Gorbachev. As well, much of our weaponry and vehicle inventory were aging relics from WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam eras. There was also a growing third world threat from the middle east with Iran, Libya, and Afghanistan leading the way. I can still remember incidents like KAL 007 and having a very real concern about whether or not an incident like that could be a catalyst for a major war.
Defense spending creates and keeps a lot jobs here in the U.S. About 5,000,000 alltogether. Many of those are very good paying engineering and technical jobs, much like those the space program provides. Certainly one can argue that money could be spent elsewhere in the budget on different initiatives like alternative energy and transportation and have the same effect, I can't say I disagree entirely. Many defense projects are necessarily kept in the U.S. for security purposes which means it secures jobs for Americans which cannot be outsourced. The same can't be said for spending on alt energy (windmills and solar being built in China).
http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/071001-jobcreation.pdf
Reagan's economic philosophies weren't perfect and did not all work as designed. It's what happens when theory meets reality and is mixed up with politics. However, he did preside over the longest period of peacetime growth in U.S. history up to that point. That's something even the most jaded economists have agreed upon.
I was just trying to point out that spending increased in 1980 and 1981 by 17% and 14.77%. Spending government money on defense projects which then helps bolster the economy using government funds. When Obama takes a 17% drop in revenue and american households lose 11.1 trillion in wealth in 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/business/economy/13wealth.html) They increase spending by 17.96% and spend it on non-defense spending (1. we are already spending a crap load on defense spending 2. As we found out when we buy a bunch of equipment we have to spend a bunch to maintain it or retire it). The income tax brackets are planned to be within 1% of Reagan's (assuming they pass his budget) and I think with a lower capital gains tax than Reagan.
So the threat of nuclear war vs a 1 year revenue drop of 16% and the near meltdown of the entire market. The same increase in spending, near the same tax brackets. Except one of them gave amnesty to illegals.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 11, 2010, 07:05:33 PMExcept one of them gave amnesty to illegals.
And I suspect the other will as well with a more sweeping bill. Let's hope this time it includes serious attention to preventing illegal migration as well.
You are right, we aren't going back to near the tax rates of pre-Reagan. However, there's all sorts of legislation out there with "fees" which curiously aren't really taxes even though they are remittances to the treasury. One thing the Obama Administration also is not doing which Reagan tried to do was shrink the size and reach of government. President Clinton made good on continuing that notion, unfortunately the Bushes didn't get that memo.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 12, 2010, 09:25:18 AM
And I suspect the other will as well with a more sweeping bill. Let's hope this time it includes serious attention to preventing illegal migration as well.
You are right, we aren't going back to near the tax rates of pre-Reagan. However, there's all sorts of legislation out there with "fees" which curiously aren't really taxes even though they are remittances to the treasury. One thing the Obama Administration also is not doing which Reagan tried to do was shrink the size and reach of government. President Clinton made good on continuing that notion, unfortunately the Bushes didn't get that memo.
To me the basics of "reducing the government" is all about how much money the government spends. I don't see double digit growth in spending "reducing the size of government". For example laying off half of the government workers and paying the rest triple isn't "reducing" the government. Just like dropping costs in the government but then spending WAAAAY more on military isn't reducing the government. Its just moving where the money goes. If there really was a reduction in the goverment we probably would have seen some non growth years as we ramped down after the cold war. (Maybe it took until Clinton, I dunno). The whole thing is so freaking complicated its hard to tell pancakes is going on.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 12, 2010, 01:25:36 PM
To me the basics of "reducing the government" is all about how much money the government spends. I don't see double digit growth in spending "reducing the size of government". For example laying off half of the government workers and paying the rest triple isn't "reducing" the government. Just like dropping costs in the government but then spending WAAAAY more on military isn't reducing the government. Its just moving where the money goes. If there really was a reduction in the goverment we probably would have seen some non growth years as we ramped down after the cold war. (Maybe it took until Clinton, I dunno). The whole thing is so freaking complicated its hard to tell pancakes is going on.
Even President Clinton's cuts to the federal payroll come under scruitiny and some suggest they never happened and were the result of "parsing". Don't get me wrong, I give the Clinton Admin serious props for continuing the peacetime growth and many of their fiscal policies. His record has been distorted on many fronts. Of course, if you cut government jobs you create more unemployment and in this political climate no one wants to add to the jobless count. The government could always outsource more services which would require more private sector jobs, but the government still pays in full for those jobs.
My personal belief is you don't create any more bureaucracies like this new agency to oversee the financial industry. You re-purpose existing agencies to enforce the new regs. Allow jobs to go away via attrition. As the need for the postal service shrinks, start cutting back via attrition. Give people recieving UE benefits contract work until they can find another job.
Someday we may figure out, like in the UK where many live on the dole, there simply are not enough jobs to go around for everyone and we will finally see the foolishness in our lax enforcement of immigration laws.
"Despite declarations to the contrary from elected officials across the political spectrum, the federal government is much bigger, not smaller, than it was 30 years ago.
Only by using the narrowest possible definition of the true size of government--headcount in the federal civil service--could President Clinton declare that "the era of big government is over" in his 1996 State of the Union address. Although Clinton's declaration earned a roar of applause from both sides of the aisle, it was a partial truth at best, a false claim at worst. Counting all the people who deliver goods and services for Washington, while removing the masking effects of the huge Defense Department downsizing, Clinton would have been much more accurate to say that the era of big government was continuing pretty much unabated. And that is precisely what the vast majority of Americans want.
A more realistic headcount begins with the 1.9 million full-time permanent civilian federal workers who get their paychecks and identification cards from Uncle Sam. Add in the 1.5 million uniformed military personnel and 850,000 U.S. Postal Service workers who were counted in the federal workforce until their department became a quasi-government corporation in 1970, and the total full-time permanent federal workforce was just under 4.3 million in 1996, the last year for which good numbers are available on both the visible and shadow federal workforce.
Add in the people who work under federal contracts and grants or mandates imposed on state and local governments and the illusion of smallness becomes clear. In 1996, the federal government's $200 billion in contracts created an estimated 5.6 million jobs, its $55 billion in grants created another 2.4 million jobs, and its array of mandates in such fields as air and water quality and health and safety regulation encumbered another 4.7 million jobs in state, county and municipal governments. Add these 12.7 million shadow jobs to the 4.25 million civilian, military and postal jobs, and the true size of government in 1996 expands to nearly 17 million, or more than eight times larger than the standard headcount of 1.9 million used by Congress and the President to declare the era of big government over. And the count does not even include the full-time equivalent employment of the people who work on a part-time or temporary basis for Uncle Sam--for example, the 884,000 members of the military reserves. "
http://www.govexec.com/features/0199/0199s1.htm
Quote from: Conan71 on August 12, 2010, 01:42:01 PM
Even President Clinton's cuts to the federal payroll come under scruitiny and some suggest they never happened and were the result of "parsing". Don't get me wrong, I give the Clinton Admin serious props for continuing the peacetime growth and many of their fiscal policies. His record has been distorted on many fronts. Of course, if you cut government jobs you create more unemployment and in this political climate no one wants to add to the jobless count. The government could always outsource more services which would require more private sector jobs, but the government still pays in full for those jobs.
My personal belief is you don't create any more bureaucracies like this new agency to oversee the financial industry. You re-purpose existing agencies to enforce the new regs. Allow jobs to go away via attrition. As the need for the postal service shrinks, start cutting back via attrition. Give people recieving UE benefits contract work until they can find another job.
Someday we may figure out, like in the UK where many live on the dole, there simply are not enough jobs to go around for everyone and we will finally see the foolishness in our lax enforcement of immigration laws.
"Despite declarations to the contrary from elected officials across the political spectrum, the federal government is much bigger, not smaller, than it was 30 years ago.
Only by using the narrowest possible definition of the true size of government--headcount in the federal civil service--could President Clinton declare that "the era of big government is over" in his 1996 State of the Union address. Although Clinton's declaration earned a roar of applause from both sides of the aisle, it was a partial truth at best, a false claim at worst. Counting all the people who deliver goods and services for Washington, while removing the masking effects of the huge Defense Department downsizing, Clinton would have been much more accurate to say that the era of big government was continuing pretty much unabated. And that is precisely what the vast majority of Americans want.
A more realistic headcount begins with the 1.9 million full-time permanent civilian federal workers who get their paychecks and identification cards from Uncle Sam. Add in the 1.5 million uniformed military personnel and 850,000 U.S. Postal Service workers who were counted in the federal workforce until their department became a quasi-government corporation in 1970, and the total full-time permanent federal workforce was just under 4.3 million in 1996, the last year for which good numbers are available on both the visible and shadow federal workforce.
Add in the people who work under federal contracts and grants or mandates imposed on state and local governments and the illusion of smallness becomes clear. In 1996, the federal government's $200 billion in contracts created an estimated 5.6 million jobs, its $55 billion in grants created another 2.4 million jobs, and its array of mandates in such fields as air and water quality and health and safety regulation encumbered another 4.7 million jobs in state, county and municipal governments. Add these 12.7 million shadow jobs to the 4.25 million civilian, military and postal jobs, and the true size of government in 1996 expands to nearly 17 million, or more than eight times larger than the standard headcount of 1.9 million used by Congress and the President to declare the era of big government over. And the count does not even include the full-time equivalent employment of the people who work on a part-time or temporary basis for Uncle Sam--for example, the 884,000 members of the military reserves. "
http://www.govexec.com/features/0199/0199s1.htm
I just look at the final numbers. If he did increase headcount over Bush Sr by a bunch he was damn good at it.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf
Clinton outlays increased about 3% every year. That is pretty in line with inflation. I don't like the fact they choose Clinton, one of smallest increase in government spending in the last 30 years (by percentage). To say that the government is big. My problem is (listenting to people talk about) the "myth" (which they think is true because they don't pay any attention) that Republicans somehow equate to a smaller government when no matter what they do with this job or that job they are blowing 3x that somewhere else and jacking up the debt. My smaller government spends less money. A republican's smaller government spends less money on that and 3 times (less money) on the other.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 12, 2010, 02:25:24 PM
My problem is (listenting to people talk about) the "myth" (which they think is true because they don't pay any attention) that Republicans somehow equate to a smaller government when no matter what they do with this job or that job they are blowing 3x that somewhere else and jacking up the debt. My smaller government spends less money. A republican's smaller government spends less money on that and 3 times (less money) on the other.
"Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain"
(http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/ManBehindTheCurtain.jpg)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=1 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=1)
Speaking of Reagan .... Here is what his director of the Office of Management and Budget has to say
I don't put much stock in kiss and tell stories from forgotten members of past administrations.
It's common sense: passing tax cuts at a time of increased spending doesn't make the best fiscal sense, especially following through with new defense spending required by conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and unprecidented natural disasters at home as well as creating a huge new bureaucracy for the Homeland Security Dept. You had a perfect storm going on in 2001, President Bush could leave everything alone and risk a deeper recession or try and stanch it the best way "fiscal conservatives" knew how: let the wealthy and corporations keep more money and create jobs. We wound up with pretty much full employment for a sustained period.
Problem was, Congress ignored all the signs of impending doom with Freddie and Fannie and continued to spend like drunken frat boys.
In my world, I can't simply print more money when I outlive my means and credit limits. Congress can.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 12, 2010, 03:20:02 PM
We wound up with pretty much full employment for a sustained period.
Which we had through much of the late 90s, until the second bubble popped (the first was LTCM, the second was built by Enron, they got better at it after that)
Part of our unemployment problem is simply efficiency increases. To some degree, it takes fewer people to do the same work now than it did 10 years ago. The larger part is the nearly nonexistent inflation scaring people regarding a possible coming deflation. This new normal sucks, and I think it would have helped mightily if we'd gotten a stimulus big enough to be responsive to the problem.
The reason I call this the new "normal"? Sales tax receipts are up in many states, while unemployment is stagnant at best, while inflation continues to trend downward toward deflation. Mild (3-4%) inflation is good for employment. No inflation or outright deflation is not, as it increases the cost of the borrowing necessary for expansion. If the Fed keeps doing its level best to emulate the Bank of Japan, I think it's fair to say we'll continue to look like Japan economically. It doesn't help that banks are mainly lending far in excess of the rate of inflation (obviously the interest rate has to be above inflation, but historically the spread has been lower). Great for bank profitability, allowing them to recapitalize, but not so great for the economy as a whole.
The challenge, of course, is to get inflation back to target without overshooting, which we all know our beloved Fed has been known to do. (They're pretty damn good at helping bubbles along!) Of course, if they responded quickly to signs of inflation increasing above target, they could probably get it back under control without having to go to the Volcker extremes of the early 80s. If they responded as well to it as they have been lately, maybe not. I still think it would be worth it.
Edited to add: And you know what really chaps my donkey? Blaming Fannie and Freddie. Their mortgage book looked vastly superior to most commercial banks, yet they got the blame while the commercial banks had everything possible that could be done, by hook or by crook, to prop them up and make them profitable enough to out earn the steaming piles of smile that were their balance sheets. By all rights, every big bank in this country should have failed, and spectacularly.
Fannie and Freddie's forays into the CDO market were much more responsible than those of Bank of America, Citi, or Chase. Hell, Bank of America was outright lying about their leverage for some years, using repos to hide their liabilities at the end of the quarter in a way that makes Bear & Lehman look like saints, but it doesn't get reported on. The GSEs didn't cause this mess. The banks selling loans to them and the brokers originating the loans are far more at fault here. The first for not doing their job, which was to verify the contents of the loan application, and the second for encouraging people to lie about their income and take exotic loans when the exotic loan was really only better for the broker, who gets paid much more for subprime, interest only, and other weird products that make the banks more money.
The brokers were bad enough that I wouldn't be entirely opposed to forcing their only compensation to be from the borrower, rather than letting them get it from the bank that originates the loan.
Edited to add: Sorry for the novel.
I think you and I are in agreement about new norms. Maybe we are finally learning our lesson and we are entering an age of personal and corporate austerity. That is until someone figures out what the next thing to pump and plunder is ;)
Efficiency in production is certainly better than 10 years ago, but we've also been very successful in purging a lot of jobs to countries with extremely low standards of living. After labor gets too expensive in China, Taiwan, Mexico, and India, there will be another cheap labor haven which will spring up.
Fannie and Freddie were every bit as caught up in the loan gorging as the banks. They could have clamped down at any time through edict and audit to promote more responsible lending since they were the ultimate guarantor of the loans. There were warnings which went unheeded for a long time prior to the debacle.
The problem is, in our current political environment is no one wants to put the brakes on an over-heated economy, so regulations don't come around until AFTER a major cataclysm when it suddenly looks like a great idea to the majority of the electorate. Clinton didn't want to do it, Bush didn't want to. Now that there's a huge pile of ashes, Obama is working best he knows how to sweep them up. The problem he faces is the cadre of greedy Representatives and Senators who want pork in every bill and want the special interests who funded their campaigns to not be affected adversely with any regulation.
The next time the Dow goes up 30% or so in a year or home sales take an unusual spike, we need to take a closer look at what's causing the exhuberance and figure out how to modulate it. This binge and purge takes such a huge toll on so many when the bottom falls out every time.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 13, 2010, 12:44:50 PM
I think you and I are in agreement about new norms. Maybe we are finally learning our lesson and we are entering an age of personal and corporate austerity. That is until someone figures out what the next thing to pump and plunder is ;)
Efficiency in production is certainly better than 10 years ago, but we've also been very successful in purging a lot of jobs to countries with extremely low standards of living. After labor gets too expensive in China, Taiwan, Mexico, and India, there will be another cheap labor haven which will spring up.
Fannie and Freddie were every bit as caught up in the loan gorging as the banks. They could have clamped down at any time through edict and audit to promote more responsible lending since they were the ultimate guarantor of the loans. There were warnings which went unheeded for a long time prior to the debacle.
The problem is, in our current political environment is no one wants to put the brakes on an over-heated economy, so regulations don't come around until AFTER a major cataclysm when it suddenly looks like a great idea to the majority of the electorate. Clinton didn't want to do it, Bush didn't want to. Now that there's a huge pile of ashes, Obama is working best he knows how to sweep them up. The problem he faces is the cadre of greedy Representatives and Senators who want pork in every bill and want the special interests who funded their campaigns to not be affected adversely with any regulation.
The next time the Dow goes up 30% or so in a year or home sales take an unusual spike, we need to take a closer look at what's causing the exhuberance and figure out how to modulate it. This binge and purge takes such a huge toll on so many when the bottom falls out every time.
I agree with you 100%. Only problem is that while middle class earning has stayed relatively stagnant the top earnings have doubled. So you have a case where all the money with money is growing exponentially and they are who buy the politicians to make the policy.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 13, 2010, 01:30:26 PM
I agree with you 100%. Only problem is that while middle class earning has stayed relatively stagnant the top earnings have doubled. So you have a case where all the money with money is growing exponentially and they are who buy the politicians to make the policy.
Please, let's not engage the "rich getting richer" meme. It's old, unproductive, and smacks of jealousy. Money has always bought influence in this country. Politicians
pander craft their message to appeal to the majority of voters: the middle and underclass so they can get elected to do the work of those who actually paid for them to get the message out: the rich and corporations. If anything, the volume of millionaires and billionaires has grown by an amazing amount in the last century, so technically more people have more influence on those who make the laws. They've also employed more an more people in the middle class. By percentage it's remained stagnant, but it's managed to keep up somewhat well with the growth in overall population.
/talking out of my arse
Quote from: Conan71 on August 13, 2010, 01:52:22 PM
Please, let's not engage the "rich getting richer" meme. It's old, unproductive, and smacks of jealousy. Money has always bought influence in this country. Politicians pander craft their message to appeal to the majority of voters: the middle and underclass so they can get elected to do the work of those who actually paid for them to get the message out: the rich and corporations. If anything, the volume of millionaires and billionaires has grown by an amazing amount in the last century, so technically more people have more influence on those who make the laws. They've also employed more an more people in the middle class. By percentage it's remained stagnant, but it's managed to keep up somewhat well with the growth in overall population.
/talking out of my arse
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/15/pf/millionaires/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6282M220100309
Millionaires did drop off in 2008.. but 2004 to 2007 they went up 4 times. Of course a millionaire isn't that much any more.
"The number of millionaires in the United States surged 14 percent in 2003, to 2.3 million"
"The current total is still well below the record 9.2 million millionaire households reported in 2007, Spectrem said."
I wasn't exactly trying to say the fact that average wages have stayed exactly the same for about 10 years while the top few percent have gained a bunch.
I didn't do it very well but I was trying to talk about investing in the stock market and overall market manipulation (more money more control). I don't invest in a wide assortment of stocks and the stocks I do invest in I watch. So I watch things like trades executing 20% below the bid. The huge sell off triggering stop loss orders to hit at a certain threshold and then jumping right back up when they buy back all the little guys stop loss orders. Etc etc. Then you have high frequency trading which is just awesome. I don't have the ability to manipulate the market like that, it takes big money.
The big money that has huge incentives like paying 46% less in taxes than my top tax bracket on my full time job, my business, and my other investments in a privately held small business.
Trog, no doubt there's a fair amount of passive investment which goes on (i.e. day traders) where the mission of the investor isn't providing jobs but soley making money. Dividend type investors get something in return for their faith in the company and they help to provide jobs. I don't fault either one for their goals or style of investing.
I'm incredibly unsophisticated when it comes to buying and selling individual issues. I buy what I like and understand, and what I see as undervalued, or a simple hunch. I might also be familiar with their industry and their place in it. I don't look at number of trades or ratios so much. The only stock I ever sold due to so few people manipulating the price was BGP (Borders). That was one I averaged at about .60 and got out around $3.00. It wound up going higher but I felt it was over-valued even at $2.00 and so few trades made me wonder.
I don't get all technical with my trades and I don't give two shits what guys like Jim Cramer say, since he invests, anything he says is bound to be self-serving.
At any rate, it looks like we had a millionaire bubble in '04 to '07. ;) Those people were likely previously middle class so it kind of scotches the notion that the middle class is stuck in the middle.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 13, 2010, 04:07:58 PM
Those people were likely previously middle class so it kind of scotches the notion that the middle class is stuck in the middle.
Yep, the upper middle class ($75,000-$125,000/yr income is one definition I've seen used) has generally been pulling away from people closer to the median in both wealth and income. The folks higher up on the ladder are increasing their wealth and income faster than the upper middle class. It's like the expansion of the universe as a result of the big bang. The farther away you look (from the perspective of a poor person), the faster they're flying away from you.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2010, 04:20:07 PM
Yep, the upper middle class ($75,000-$125,000/yr income is one definition I've seen used) has generally been pulling away from people closer to the median in both wealth and income. The folks higher up on the ladder are increasing their wealth and income faster than the upper middle class. It's like the expansion of the universe as a result of the big bang. The farther away you look (from the perspective of a poor person), the faster they're flying away from you.
Those people in the $75 to $125K income bracket typically have college degrees or post-graduate degrees. They have put forth the time and effort and are rewarded for the skills they bring to the job market. Any poor person who has the desire and cognitive capacity can manage to get a masters or doctorate level degree.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 13, 2010, 04:25:12 PM
Those people in the $75 to $125K income bracket typically have college degrees or post-graduate degrees. They have put forth the time and effort and are rewarded for the skills they bring to the job market. Any poor person who has the desire and cognitive capacity can manage to get a masters or doctorate level degree.
Yeah, they can go tens of thousands of dollars in debt and then not find a job that will service that kind of debt. ;) (seriously, I know a bunch of people with masters and doctorate degrees who have been laid off in the last couple of years)
The point is that even people who make it into lower level management aren't keeping up with the gains made by upper level management and professionals, who are completely eclipsed by the gains of executives and other high-income earning people.
You do realize that at some point when the rest of the country gets squeezed out, there will be lots of resentment and possibly organized action against the haves? It has happened time and time again throughout history. That's why the middle class is so important. They make up a large portion of the population, and they're the ones who organize revolutions when society stops working for them. Gotta keep 'em fat and happy or they'll revolt. Unless you have the Stasi or KGB on your side. Then it doesn't really matter what happens to anybody outside of the ruling class.
Nobody invests n the stock market to create jobs. They do it to make money. The reduced capital gains tax reduces the investment in small businesses. How man Tulsa based business that aren't on the stock market are you invested in? Now how much do you have invested in other companies? (don't answer that). Why can I invest in another company and make money I can pay as low as 15% regardless of my income but when I invest in my own business I can pay up to 38%. "Small Business" is the way to make jobs as all the stats say. But the tax policy is slanted towards huge companies. How many small businesses in Tulsa are publicly traded companies? Probably not very many. Does anybody on here know somebody who owns a company that is publicly traded?
I'm not saying that it is less risky to invest in new business. I am saying there is 0 incentive to do so. For those with lots of cash.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2010, 04:35:05 PM
Yeah, they can go tens of thousands of dollars in debt and then not find a job that will service that kind of debt. ;) (seriously, I know a bunch of people with masters and doctorate degrees who have been laid off in the last couple of years)
I can't dispute that but it does help to choose a major that has decent prospects of a career opportunity. I see two main paths in college. One is the age old path of the wealthy for their kids to become more culturally well rounded. It does not necessarily lead to a job but if you are born into money, all you have to do is not lose it.
The second path is what most (myself included) do which is to try to prepare for a more financially rewarding career that hopefully you can also enjoy. Some majors, I'll pick on Liberal Arts since I'm an engineer, make you more aware of many things but don't necessarily prepare you for a career that will put you in a financial class commensurate with your efforts. However, that "well rounded-ness" may make you fit into many more spots than a more specific degree.
Degrees don't really get you te type of money to get the top .5%
Quote from: Trogdor on August 16, 2010, 08:41:49 AM
Degrees don't really get you te type of money to get the top .5%
That usually requires knee-pads...
Quote from: Trogdor on August 16, 2010, 08:41:49 AM
Degrees don't really get you te type of money to get the top .5%
Mainly because it's either hitting on the right opportunity like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or you are born into it.
I don't know of anyone who aspires to be in the top .5% except for envious libs ;)
Why is there such an obsession with demonizing the top earners in this country? Those people typically give the most to the arts, health foundations, scholarship funds, charitable community foundations, etc. They are the biggest consumers. I really could care less I will never reach that level. I'm more than happy with what I have and my real wealth isn't measured in dollars anyhow.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2010, 09:46:04 AM
I really could care less I will never reach that level. I'm more than happy with what I have and my real wealth isn't measured in dollars anyhow.
I completely agree with this.
I do not agree that the wealthy are necessarily all nice people who do good things with their money. Some of them lie and cheat, as is evidenced by the many accounting scandals in recent years. On the other hand, some less wealthy also lie and cheat. They just don't usually have the capacity to do as much damage. On the gripping hand, the wealthy have a system of Government that generally is set up to work for them, whereas we mere mortals do not.
Given that the wealthy are out there advocating in Government for their own benefit, I fail to see why the less well off should refrain from doing the same. Insert something about a goose and gander here.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2010, 09:46:04 AM
Mainly because it's either hitting on the right opportunity like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or you are born into it.
I don't know of anyone who aspires to be in the top .5% except for envious libs ;)
Why is there such an obsession with demonizing the top earners in this country? Those people typically give the most to the arts, health foundations, scholarship funds, charitable community foundations, etc. They are the biggest consumers. I really could care less I will never reach that level. I'm more than happy with what I have and my real wealth isn't measured in dollars anyhow.
Given "globalization" (AKA we want to pay you as much as workers in China) and the increasing gap in money (middle class's wages stagnant for quite a while). It will be important to be in the top few percent to keep standard of living. Which will in turn get your kids into the club, etc etc.
Quote from: nathanm on August 16, 2010, 09:56:54 AM
I completely agree with this.
I do not agree that the wealthy are necessarily all nice people who do good things with their money. Some of them lie and cheat, as is evidenced by the many accounting scandals in recent years. On the other hand, some less wealthy also lie and cheat. They just don't usually have the capacity to do as much damage. On the gripping hand, the wealthy have a system of Government that generally is set up to work for them, whereas we mere mortals do not.
Given that the wealthy are out there advocating in Government for their own benefit, I fail to see why the less well off should refrain from doing the same. Insert something about a goose and gander here.
Again. . .I say rejoice then. As a "mere mortal" you should be enjoying this victory. This economy will continue to represent the spoils of your conquest. The mighty War on Wealth is at hand. Continue to rattle your swards. Rejoice!
Quote from: Gaspar on August 16, 2010, 10:13:47 AM
Again. . .I say rejoice then. As a "mere mortal" you should be enjoying this victory. This economy will continue to represent the spoils of your conquest. The mighty War on Wealth is at hand. Continue to rattle your swards. Rejoice!
The economy will continue to represent the dithering of the Fed in the face of impending doom, not anything the Democrats did. (other than their too small by at least half stimulus)
There isn't a war on wealth anywhere except in the mind of yourself, the right wing nutjobs, and the feckless Congressional Republicans who will say anything, no matter how inaccurate, in a cynical attempt to get votes no matter what the ultimate cost to the American people. They've been talking gloom and doom since day one of the Obama Presidency, yet their dire predictions have failed to come to pass. Because they're completely wrong on the issues.
Doom may be upon us, but the reasons for it are far beyond the analytical capacity that the right wing radio talkers have demonstrated. Hell, they refuse to listen to Reagan Republicans, instead preferring to call them turncoats.
I like how the highest tax rate averaged about 75% or so from 1932 to 1982 but 39% is just going to make the whole country collapse.
(http://www.changetowin.org/connect/images/penn-barbrady.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on August 16, 2010, 10:32:57 AM
The economy will continue to represent the dithering of the Fed in the face of impending doom, not anything the Democrats did. (other than their too small by at least half stimulus)
There isn't a war on wealth anywhere except in the mind of yourself, the right wing nutjobs, and the feckless Congressional Republicans who will say anything, no matter how inaccurate, in a cynical attempt to get votes no matter what the ultimate cost to the American people. They've been talking gloom and doom since day one of the Obama Presidency, yet their dire predictions have failed to come to pass. Because they're completely wrong on the issues.
Doom may be upon us, but the reasons for it are far beyond the analytical capacity that the right wing radio talkers have demonstrated. Hell, they refuse to listen to Reagan Republicans, instead preferring to call them turncoats.
Ah, but you never hear the wingers complaining about "wealth gaps". The only people I know of who talk about the top five percent with 34% of the wealth are, in fact, liberals.
Who are all these thousands of less fortunate people who inhabit the nice neighborhoods in midtown, south Tulsa, Jenks, Owasso, Broken Arrow, etc.? Middle class America isn't slowly eroding away. Less Maddow, less Olberdoosh. Good prescription.