Obama spanks Wall Street.
spanks 'em HARD. :D
by the Gods I love that man! :celebrat:
It remains to be seen what if any changes he will get past the lobbyists.
Careful Merc, you're negativity is slipping... that post was almost neutral. :haha:
check your pm
[Google] Do you mean, Check your PMS? [/Google]
PM, I got no PM, I don't need no stinkin PM. :haha:
[Google] Do you mean, Check your PMS? [/Google]
PM, I got no PM, I don't need no stinkin PM. :haha:
Sorry that was to sugar.
spanks 'em HARD.
I love that man!
Exactly what are you referring to here? Please share.
The
executive salary caps (basically no more than $500,000 for any company accepting government money, but there are a few more details,) and the moderately scathing speech that went along with the announcement.
Salary caps are a drop in the proverbial bucket. "Feel-good", arguably necessary (to change the culture of W.S.) but they are not going to change the economic dynamic directly.
Absolutely, but in this culture of waiting around like spiders for any sign that Obama isn't following his promises of accountability to the nth degree, this is a huge step in the right direction. I would think that most non-supporters, even, can say "well, that was all right."
Under Obama's plan, companies that want to pay their executives more than $500,000 will have to do so through stocks that cannot be sold until the companies pay back the money they borrow from the government.
*Bold mine* I love that part - yep you can make a million or 10, but it only good if you perform and the stock value of the company rises. AWESOME - Oh and you can't sell them until AFTER the company pays back what it already borrowed. I like this.
*Bold mine* I love that part - yep you can make a million or 10, but it only good if you perform and the stock value of the company rises. AWESOME - Oh and you can't sell them until AFTER the company pays back what it already borrowed. I like this.
There's gonna be a loophole in there that you could drive a truck through. I can feel it in my cynical, misanthropic testicles.
I'm afraid you may be right, but I'm still hopeful. Its better than nothing, which is pretty much what we had.
Sounds like a corporate version of "workfare."
Sounds like a corporate version of "workfare."
No, the whole bailout sounds like "A big fucking gift to fat greedy bastards".
No actual work is required or even encouraged.
No, the whole bailout sounds like "A big fucking gift to fat greedy bastards".
No actual work is required or even encouraged.
Well at least some of them got under the wire and got million dollar bonus checks or big assed parties paid for by the taxpayer. Good job Congress! Well done Pelosi and Reid! You guys rock!:mad2:
Wait, I mean you guys Suck.:3eye:
Hearsay details say that only applies to the top five executives. Stock brokers - the employees - routinely get paid more than that in bonuses. The complaint is that WS employees cannot survive on their $200,000+ annual salary. That they might leave the company.
Well, the company should have thought about their problems years ago. But then where is that employee going to go if everyone else must start paying normally and cutting fees. Mutual funds that once charges 1% must now charge 0.1% (just like discount brokerages did to full service brokerages). Or the defective top management who created this problem should step aside so that the few who actually did something to earn a bonus can now run the company.
Well, none of this is going to happen. For all the show, those restrictions are easy to get around such as pay back any TARP moneys now. Better is to simply fire employees who are getting massive bonuses despite creating losses. What would be left are the few employees who are actually productive - who actually earned profits by doing simple things such as due diligence.
When it is all done, we should see many less finance executives, much lower salaries, discounted fees even in hedge funds and mutual funds, salaries in the replacement for the SEC doubled, every investment vehicle traded only on regulated markets, and a complete overhaul of accounting standards that are still as corrupt as when Enron and LTCM existed. Not. Fools will again complain about too much regulation – and buy their favorite congressmen to subvert the rules.
There is nothing on Wall Street that can be trusted without severe regulation both by government and organized open markets. It now appears the same things that created the mythical CA energy crisis are also responsible for $4 per gallon gasoline. Deregulated finance people.
These new rules do almost nothing to address the problem. Even the definition of luxery expenses has been left to the individual Board of Directors to define.
Researchers provide a more optimistic attitude. From the NY Times of 4 Feb 2009:
A Pay Ceiling Could Blunt the Lure of a Wall Street Job
In their National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, Thomas Philippon of New York University and Ariell Reshef of the University of Virginia found that the difference in pay between finance and the rest of industry was slight, if any, except in the late 1920s to 1930 and then again from the mid-1990s to 2006. In those boom years, compensation in finance was 30 percent to 50 percent higher than in the rest of industry.
Well at least some of them got under the wire and got million dollar bonus checks or big assed parties paid for by the taxpayer. Good job Congress! Well done Pelosi and Reid! You guys rock!:mad2:
Wait, I mean you guys Suck.:3eye:
While the dems are wallowing in filth, there's plenty of filth left over for the GOP.
This isn't a "party" thing. It's a "complete failure of the American political system" thing.
You know I would buy into that TGRR if the Demoncrats did not control Congress and the purse strings for the last 2 years.
You know I would buy into that TGRR if the Demoncrats did not control Congress and the purse strings for the last 2 years.
Oh, yeah...and the 5 years before that was full of angelic choirs singing, and the apotheosis of clean government and fiscal responsibility.
:3eye:
And all of our current financial difficulties started in January of 2007, rather than starting in the Carter administration, and carried on since then by both parties in all 3 branches of government.
Silly me. I forgot that the GOP is where all the honest politicians go.
Har har!
You know I would buy into that TGRR if the Demoncrats did not control Congress and the purse strings for the last 2 years.
The Democrats really had very little control over the purse strings, with Bush vetoes (or threats of vetoes) of every appropriations bill....and no where near the 2/3 votes needed to override. Their options were to shut down the government and be blamed for not providing funds for troops on the front lines in Iraq/Afghanistan...holding up Social Security checks, etc. or find a way to at least make the Bush bills more palatable.
At best, you could make a weak case that there was shared responsibility for the last two years....following six years of the Republican Congress abrogating its oversight responsibilities and failing to "check" the excesses of the Bush administration and instead, gave Bush a "blank check."
And all of our current financial difficulties started in January of 2007, rather than starting in the Carter administration, and carried on since then by both parties in all 3 branches of government.
I personally think it started with Reagan supply side ("voodoo" - GHW Bush) economics and deregulation (remember the $billions S&L bail out) and exacerbated by Clinton and the Republican Congress and further banking deregulation in the late 90s when the budget was getting fat and the economy was on a roll.
And then six more years of supply side economics and deregulation with virtually no Congressional oversight....while at the same time, paying for a $hundreds of billions (off budget) for an unprovoked war.
What I find most fucked up of all is that at the base of the Republican alternative stimulus package is more failed supply side economics and the "free market will fix itself" (deregulation) proposals.
The Democrats really had very little control over the purse strings, with Bush vetoes (or threats of vetoes) of every appropriations bill....and no where near the 2/3 votes needed to override. Their options were to shut down the government and be blamed for not providing funds for troops on the front lines in Iraq/Afghanistan...holding up Social Security checks, etc. or find a way to at least make the Bush bills more palatable.
At best, you could make a weak case that there was shared responsibility for the last two years....following six years of the Republican Congress abrogating its oversight responsibilities and failing to "check" the excesses of the Bush administration and instead, gave Bush a "blank check."
Sorry, the Demoncrats own it.
OK ..ignore the facts and the numbers of how Congress works :right:
Its not worth discussing with you.
Ok, but what ever. The Dems have been in charge of Congress for over two years now and have MUCH lower approval ratings when compared to Bush. So explain to me how they cannot accept responsibility for the last two years. They are the MaJORITY, and yet can't get a damm thing done. Don't blame the Republickins. The Dems own it. And you need to own up to it.
Ok, but what ever. The Dems have been in charge of Congress for over two years now and have MUCH lower approval ratings when compared to Bush. So explain to me how they cannot accept responsibility for the last two years. They are the MaJORITY, and yet can't get a damm thing done. Don't blame the Republickins. The Dems own it. And you need to own up to it.
Damm....you cant get things done if you cant override a veto..how hard is that to understand?????
No...in fact, the Democrats in Congress did not have a much lower approval rating than Bush.
Cngress as a whole had lower ratings and if you were to look below the surface, most of it was attributed to the record number of Republican Senate filibusters and the acrimony between the two parties.
J
ob Rating - Democrats
Job Rating - Republicans
Most every poll has the public wanting and trusting the Democrats far more to run Congress.
Trust/Confidence of Political partiesFollow the thread. Congress<Bush.
Follow the thread. Congress<Bush.
You dont get it...comparing a body of 535 with one person, you need to look below the surface for the reasons for dissatisfaction with the 535.
It is attributed more to republican obstructionism and bi-partisan bickering. Thats a fact....thus the much lower poll numbers for the Republicans in Congress than the Democrats when asked the question of satisfaction, by party.
Hotline poll: D - 49, R-26
USA today/Gallup: D - 37, R-25
CNN: D-47, R-24
Harris: D-21, R-22
ABC: D-35, R-25
With the exception of Harris, the Democrats not only have higher numbers than the Republicans in Congrss...but higher number than Bush.
In your words..."you need to own up to it"
And now I am bored with you. :)
No that is bull crap. It was Bush against the Demoncratically controlled Congress. That was the crux of the constant struggle to get things done. Pelosi and Reid own it. They have owned the failures of Congress for the last two years. If things have not been done on the Congressional side of the house it is in their lap no matter how much they traditionally want to pass the buck. The Demoncrats will own the responsibility of the failures of Congress for the last two years and that includes their failures to compromise with the minority. Sorry, that is the way it is.
So...all those polls are bull crap....and president vetoes (or veto threats) dont matter at all.
I love it!
Certainly you don't think for one minute that all of your efforts are some how going to convince me that you are correct about anything you have said. :lol2:
Polls? you referrenced them, I gave them back to you. Enjoy the lies of statistics.
Of course I dont.
There is one of you in every political forum :)
Im off to bed...Sleep well and secure in your beliefs!
No problem. I sleep well when I know that we can agree to disagree.
No that is bull crap. It was Bush against the Demoncratically controlled Congress. That was the crux of the constant struggle to get things done. Pelosi and Reid own it. They have owned the failures of Congress for the last two years. If things have not been done on the Congressional side of the house it is in their lap no matter how much they traditionally want to pass the buck. The Demoncrats will own the responsibility of the failures of Congress for the last two years and that includes their failures to compromise with the minority. Sorry, that is the way it is.
And we all know that when the GOP controlled all 3 branches of government, all bad things and irresponsible spending had ceased.
Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.
]...
Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.
I wouldnt go that far.
There may be little difference in the manner in which they act, but there are significant differences in their respective policy approaches to government.
The stimulus bill is a perfect example. The Democrats want to spend to create jobs, potentially over 3 million in 18 months according to the CBO...and the Republicans want to lower taxes to create jobs, the failed economic policy of Bush and the previous Republican Congresses, with the near $trillion in tax cuts in 01 and 03.
And we all know that when the GOP controlled all 3 branches of government, all bad things and irresponsible spending had ceased.
Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.
I would agree.
I wouldnt go that far.
There may be little difference in the manner in which they act, but there are significant differences in their respective policy approaches to government.
The stimulus bill is a perfect example. The Democrats want to spend to create jobs, potentially over 3 million in 18 months according to the CBO...and the Republicans want to lower taxes to create jobs, the failed economic policy of Bush and the previous Republican Congresses, with the near $trillion in tax cuts in 01 and 03.
I would disagree. This is a social programs bill cloaked in a simulus package. You are only talking about smalll portions of the bill. Many jobs are not expected to be created for over 4 years from now. How the hell does that help the millions of poor sods out of work NOW? The failure of the Demoncratically controlled Congress for the last two years, you know, that body of government that controls the purse string of our economy, has screwed this up royally. Erase the BS pork and I will support the bill completely. Currently a group of Congressmen from both parties have finally called a truce are are trying to do the right thing, those people are the real workers for the people. Good on them.
Well at least some of them got under the wire and got million dollar bonus checks or big assed parties paid for by the taxpayer. Good job Congress! Well done Pelosi and Reid! You guys rock!:mad2:
Wait, I mean you guys Suck.:3eye:
ummm, that wasn't Pelosi and Reid, that was Hank Paulson. the democrats wrote stuff in the bill about executive pay, but apparently Bush snuck in some clause that negated what they wrote to protect the taxpayers, and because Paulson was exclusively in charge of that money, he changed what it was supposed to be used for and gave it to his buddies on Wall Street.
You know I would buy into that TGRR if the Demoncrats did not control Congress and the purse strings for the last 2 years.
*rolleyes* They had no control over anything. They had, what, a majority of 1 or 2 in the Senate? That isn't enough to pass anything. And bush just vetoed everything anyway, unless it was something he wanted.
The truth is, democrats always try to get along. They
always make concessions. Republicans NEVER do. When Clinton was in office, they completely shut down the government for, what was it, 2 weeks or something? When have democrats ever been so unreasonable? And... republicans would do it again today, even with our economy slipping into the abyss, because they don't give a shit about the people of this country. They only care about their base, and their ideology.
I would disagree. This is a social programs bill cloaked in a simulus package. You are only talking about smalll portions of the bill. Many jobs are not expected to be created for over 4 years from now. How the hell does that help the millions of poor sods out of work NOW? The failure of the Demoncratically controlled Congress for the last two years, you know, that body of government that controls the purse string of our economy, has screwed this up royally. Erase the BS pork and I will support the bill completely. Currently a group of Congressmen from both parties have finally called a truce are are trying to do the right thing, those people are the real workers for the people. Good on them.
You are ignoring the CBO report and the facts on the job creation impact of the current draft of bill that is based more on spending (about 60%) than tax cuts (about 40%).
In fact, more jobs could probably be created in the short term if there was more spending (on infrastructure projects, etc) and less tax cuts, but the Democrats compromised by accepting tax cuts to make it more bi-partisan. Tax cuts have never produced jobs in the short term., unless you have data that would suggest otherwise...
cite please.
I would urge you to take the time to look at the
CBO analysis of the bill in its present form ...nearly 2/3 of the funds will be expended in 18 months and potentially creating more than 3 million jobs..there are no guarantees, economics is not an exact science. Much of the rest is to ensure longer term job stability.
Perhaps you have other objective data....
cite please!
I would disagree. This is a social programs bill cloaked in a simulus package. You are only talking about smalll portions of the bill. Many jobs are not expected to be created for over 4 years from now. How the hell does that help the millions of poor sods out of work NOW? The failure of the Demoncratically controlled Congress for the last two years, you know, that body of government that controls the purse string of our economy, has screwed this up royally. Erase the BS pork and I will support the bill completely. Currently a group of Congressmen from both parties have finally called a truce are are trying to do the right thing, those people are the real workers for the people. Good on them.
Gee Merc, I know you are smarter than this, and trying to blame this on democrats, who have been completely powerless, even though they had a
small majority for the past two years, is fucking insane, and you KNOW it is insane.
It works like this: if people aren't spending money, because they've lost their jobs, or they're afraid of losing their jobs, then companies and businesses lose money. They can't keep producing things (or buying things to supply to people) because people aren't buying. So, businesses continue to lay people off, or worse, they close their doors. If NO ONE is buying anything, then the government can help by pumping money into the economy. If it's in the form of food stamps or unemployment, there is a return of something like $1.75 for every dollar spent (according to Moody's). If it's in the form of tax cuts, it's more like .50 on the dollar (or less), give or take, depending on what kind of tax cut it is (I believe there was one tax that would actually help, but I can't remember what it was called). Giving money to poor people or lower income people puts money into the economy more than giving it to anyone else, because they will spend it. They have to. Middle class people (or wealthier people) are more likely to save it, which isn't usually a bad thing, but at the moment, we need people to buy things. Otherwise, more jobs are lost. Giving the money to states (which many are broke or nearly broke) will ultimately help save jobs, because they are having to cut their budgets, which means laying off people like cops and teachers (hello! education spending! which repubs want to cut out of the bill). But republicans don't want to give money to the states either. They don't want to give money to fund education. They don't want ANY spending. All they want is friggin' tax cuts for the wealthy. The truth is, spending DOES stimulate the economy, no matter what form it takes.
I have a question for all those republicans who think government should play no part in anything, and that government should be kept really, really small, what the hell are you doing in a job that has no place in society? I mean really, they want to get rid of almost all government, hey, them first.
nearly 2/3 of the funds will be expended in 18 months and potentially creating more than 3 million jobs...
Where's the beef?
Tax cuts have never produced jobs in the short term., unless you have data that would suggest otherwise...cite please.
I never stated they would. They do how ever save people money and keeps money in the pocket of the taxpayer. If you think other wise please tell me how I am wrong on that.
I would urge you to take the time to look at the CBO analysis of the bill in its present form ...nearly 2/3 of the funds will be expended in 18 months and potentially creating more than 3 million jobs..there are no guarantees, economics is not an exact science. Much of the rest is to ensure longer term job stability.
Perhaps you have other objective data....cite please!
How does citation work out for ya? :D
Fact Check . org
FACT CHECK: Will stimulus create more than 3 million jobs like Democrats say? Maybe not
By ALAN FRAM , Associated Press
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats say it nearly every day: Their huge economic stimulus package must be rushed to passage because it will create or save 3 million to 4 million jobs.
In fact, those figures are uncertain enough that even some economists who produced them are basically saying: We gave it our best shot.
"The models are based on historic experience," said Mark Zandi, referring to formulas he and other economists use to predict economic behavior. "And we're outside anything we've experienced historically. We're completely in a world we don't understand and know."
Zandi is chief economist at Moody's Economy.com of West Chester, Pa. His projection last week that the House-passed stimulus measure would create 3 million jobs by the end of 2010 — scaled down from a 4 million estimate he made days earlier — have been cited repeatedly by Democrats as justification for the $819 billion legislation.
"Yes, there's a high level of uncertainty," said Zandi, a Democrat who advised Republican presidential candidate John McCain last year. "But my estimates are as good as you're going to get, and they're good enough to be useful in trying to evaluate whether we should do this or not."
Democrats also frequently cite an early January estimate by two economists working for Obama. Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, now top White House economic advisers, said a plan roughly similar to the House-passed version would yield 3.3 million to 4.1 million jobs by late 2010 that wouldn't otherwise exist — but added a catch.
"There is considerable uncertainty in our estimates," their report said, warning that the package's impact on the economy and job creation "are hard to estimate precisely."
Separately, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — lawmakers' official fiscal analyst — estimates that by the end of 2010, the House bill would mean 1.2 million to 3.6 million additional jobs.
The economists' caution highlights the difficulty of gauging how the stimulus would affect an ailing but still huge $14 trillion economy that is shedding 500,000 jobs a month.
There's little doubt the measure — which could grow to $900 billion when the Senate completes its version soon — would help ease unemployment from its sheer size alone. The question is: By how much?
To answer that, economists generally use a two-step process.
First they project how much the legislation would make the economy grow. Then they predict how many jobs that growth would create.
The second part is less complicated because economists tend to rely on rules of thumb. The White House, for example, assumed that each 1 percent increase in the economy's size would produce 1 million jobs.
The initial calculation — how much will the stimulus make the economy grow — is tougher. To make it, economists rely on a mix of facts and assumptions.
They know how much money the House bill contains: $30 billion for road construction, $87 billion to help states pay for Medicaid, $145 billion for $500-per-worker tax breaks, and other components.
From there, though, they make educated guesses, based partly on economic data compiled over many decades.
How quickly will federal agencies spend their stimulus money? Will state and local governments use their shares to avoid firing workers, provide services, cut taxes or as nest eggs? When will people receive tax cuts, and will they spend or save them? How much economic growth does a dollar spent on road-building produce, compared to a dollar used to extend unemployment benefits?
In many instances, economists have slightly different answers, which translate to bigger differences when they produce their job estimates.
"One of the biggest problems for these models is, are you drawing the right conclusions from the past" about future behavior, said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for Global Insight of Lexington, Mass. "Or are there ways in which things have changed in the world?"
Benefit payments, such as aid to the poor, and tax cuts can move quickly to people. Government purchases of goods and services can take longer, especially construction projects which can take years to complete.
But generally, economists consider government spending more reliable than tax cuts for creating jobs. That's because people and businesses sometimes save part or all of their tax cuts instead of spending them, especially if money is tight.
Underscoring how delicate these projections are, on Jan. 21 Zandi predicted the House bill would create 4 million jobs, based on assumptions that all its money would be spent by the end of 2010.
Days later, the Congressional Budget Office projected that more than one-third of the bill's spending and tax cuts would not occur until after 2010. In response, Zandi dropped his job creation estimate to 3 million.
The economists' caution highlights the difficulty of gauging how the stimulus would affect an ailing but still huge $14 trillion economy that is shedding 500,000 jobs a month.
There's little doubt the measure — which could grow to $900 billion when the Senate completes its version soon — would help ease unemployment from its sheer size alone. The question is: By how much?
To answer that, economists generally use a two-step process.
First they project how much the legislation would make the economy grow. Then they predict how many jobs that growth would create.
The second part is less complicated because economists tend to rely on rules of thumb. The White House, for example, assumed that each 1 percent increase in the economy's size would produce 1 million jobs.
The initial calculation — how much will the stimulus make the economy grow — is tougher. To make it, economists rely on a mix of facts and assumptions.
They know how much money the House bill contains: $30 billion for road construction, $87 billion to help states pay for Medicaid, $145 billion for $500-per-worker tax breaks, and other components.
From there, though, they make educated guesses, based partly on economic data compiled over many decades.
How quickly will federal agencies spend their stimulus money? Will state and local governments use their shares to avoid firing workers, provide services, cut taxes or as nest eggs? When will people receive tax cuts, and will they spend or save them? How much economic growth does a dollar spent on road-building produce, compared to a dollar used to extend unemployment benefits?
In many instances, economists have slightly different answers, which translate to bigger differences when they produce their job estimates.
"One of the biggest problems for these models is, are you drawing the right conclusions from the past" about future behavior, said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for Global Insight of Lexington, Mass. "Or are there ways in which things have changed in the world?"
Benefit payments, such as aid to the poor, and tax cuts can move quickly to people. Government purchases of goods and services can take longer, especially construction projects which can take years to complete.
But generally, economists consider government spending more reliable than tax cuts for creating jobs. That's because people and businesses sometimes save part or all of their tax cuts instead of spending them, especially if money is tight.
Underscoring how delicate these projections are, on Jan. 21 Zandi predicted the House bill would create 4 million jobs, based on assumptions that all its money would be spent by the end of 2010.
Days later, the Congressional Budget Office projected that more than one-third of the bill's spending and tax cuts would not occur until after 2010. In response, Zandi dropped his job creation estimate to 3 million.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/38809947.html
As this guy said:
Last update: February 2, 2009 - 12:28 PM
Featured comment
in Other Words
It's all BS. The great majority of money will just move EXISTING jobs from the private to public sector. Unions are paid off,trial lawyers … read more are paid off, Democratic states get paid off.Certainly a few jobs may result fron the spending, but not until year 2013 when The Obama will be the one unemployed.
Shame you cant hold the "guy" in your editorial to the same standards you hold me and others here with whom you might disagree and badger him to cite sources for his claims. But of course, since you agree with him, who needs cites!
Here is the issue.
The economy is fucked up more than anytime in our lifetime and getting worse.
There are three basic ways to "fix" it.
1) Do nothing and it will fix itself.
2) Stimulate the economy with tax cuts....the supple side/trickle down theory.
3) Stimulate the economy by creating jobs through government spending...the great depression/new deal theory.
If you like the first...provide any evidence that it will work.
Same with the second....show how the failed supply side solution will work this time.
I think the best option is the third and the non-partisan CBO agrees. Their analysis projects a potential impact of creating up to 3 million jobs in the the fist 18 months. And as I said, there are no guarantees...economics is not an exact science.
The current mix of 60% spending/40% tax cuts would even be ok with me.
Its easy to keep crying "bullshit"...its tougher to propose a solution.
You are great with the superficial one lines (what change, where's the beef, its all BS, its all the Dems fault for the last two year, stats are lies)
You certainly havent shown much depth of discussion.
So whats you're solution? Simple question...no bullshit, please!
How would you suggest fixing the economy?
I'll even make it easy for you...pick a number:
1) do nothing
2) tax cuts
3) government spending
4) none of the above
5) all of the above
6) i have no fucking idea..i just like being negative
..and support it with objective primary sources, not editorials like the above, which by their very nature are biased and never cite sources.
Demonstrate to the dwellers that you really arent as superficial and negative as you come across. :)
Can you tell me how the Pelosi/Reid?Obama plan (whatever) differs from that which Japan did for a decade?
Can you tell me how the Pelosi/Reid?Obama plan (whatever) differs from that which Japan did for a decade?
According to Nobel economist Paul Krugman and many others, the comparison to Japan that appears to be the talking points of those opposed to spending here, ignores two facts:
[INDENT]Japan was timid in spending and in fact overrepresented how little they spent on job creaton, and yet still created jobs.
Until, after one-two years, they decided to try to balance the budget and raised the national sales tax, killing whatever economic progress they made up to that point.
Media cite Japan's "lost decade" to criticize Obama's economic stimulus plan, but economists disagree [/INDENT]
To do it right will take more courage than the Japanese...understanding that the impact on the deficit will be significant (although no more significant than Bush's tax cuts and Iraq war, which contributed to raising the US debt from just under $5 trillion when he took office to $10 trillion when he left office)
But I would ask again...what would you suggest as a more viable option with a greater likelihood of success?
Can you tell me how the Pelosi/Reid?Obama plan (whatever) differs from that which Japan did for a decade?
It makes one mistake that the Japanese made. It protects the problem. The Pelosi/Reid/McConnel/Bernanke/Paulson/Tax cut myth solutions only do the same thing.
Threat of bankruptcy is essential to force the necessary changes including destruction of top management jobs (and few employee job losses), the breakup and sale of massive inefficient organizations (ie GM, AIG, US Steel, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Chrysler, some drug companies, Sears/Kmart) that routinely stifle innovation and make money by only playing money games, heavy regulation (government or open market) on industries that are historically corrupt without that regulation (ie stock brokers, investment bankers, energy traders), and to cause companies to innovate again rather than believe the purpose of a company is to make money.
Japanese did nothing to address the problem because they protected the problem. Eventually, a prolonged recession (due to continued protection from free market forces) forced those changes to happen. Many Japanese companies - especially their banks - needed massive shakeup that only a bankruptcy threat can provide.
The American government has, instead, protected the problem such as AIG, Chrysler, GM, banks, and other institutions that need new management or be sold off S&L style.
But then the economic stimulus plan that Obama will get only blunts the short term economic problems and does not address what creates recessions. Its not what he wanted. But then many here also foolishly still believe that tax cuts create economic growth. And so the stimulus plan is more tax cuts - at the expense of economic solutions.
So what is your vote on this Tom? Are you for it or against it - why?
Maybe we should have a poll on this. I think it would be interesting. Anyone who knows how to do a poll, please?
Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.
Very little it seems.
The executive salary caps (basically no more than $500,000 for any company accepting government money.....
Ok. What does this mean?
"The restrictions will most affect large companies that receive "exceptional assistance," such as Citigroup.
The struggling banking giant has taken about $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program."
Does it mean that there are no restrictions to say, a renown failing newspaper that might accept just 1 billion in US taxpayer money? Is one billion "exceptional assistance" and will the cap effect the executives of the company that accepts the cash?
...in Other Words
It's all BS. The great majority of money will just move EXISTING jobs from the private to public sector. Unions are paid off,trial lawyers … read more are paid off, Democratic states get paid off.Certainly a few jobs may result fron the spending, but not until year 2013 when The Obama will be the one unemployed.
ummmm, bullshit, and you know it. You KNOW people who are out of work and desperately need a job. So how would giving money to the state, so they can do some of the construction jobs planned, take away existing jobs? These people have been looking for a steady job
for months. There are none!
It makes one mistake that the Japanese made. It protects the problem. The Pelosi/Reid/McConnel/Bernanke/Paulson/Tax cut myth solutions only do the same thing.
Threat of bankruptcy is essential to force the necessary changes including destruction of top management jobs (and few employee job losses), the breakup and sale of massive inefficient organizations (ie GM, AIG, US Steel, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Chrysler, some drug companies, Sears/Kmart) that routinely stifle innovation and make money by only playing money games, heavy regulation (government or open market) on industries that are historically corrupt without that regulation (ie stock brokers, investment bankers, energy traders), and to cause companies to innovate again rather than believe the purpose of a company is to make money.
Japanese did nothing to address the problem because they protected the problem. Eventually, a prolonged recession (due to continued protection from free market forces) forced those changes to happen. Many Japanese companies - especially their banks - needed massive shakeup that only a bankruptcy threat can provide.
The American government has, instead, protected the problem such as AIG, Chrysler, GM, banks, and other institutions that need new management or be sold off S&L style.
But then the economic stimulus plan that Obama will get only blunts the short term economic problems and does not address what creates recessions. Its not what he wanted. But then many here also foolishly still believe that tax cuts create economic growth. And so the stimulus plan is more tax cuts - at the expense of economic solutions.
Well said. And I think they should get rid of all the tax cuts (except the ones they originally actually wanted) and put the spending money back in that republicans demanded they take out, and force them to fillibuster or just pass it without any republicans. Call their bluff. See if they really are willing to shut down the government again, when we are in such dire straights. I mean really. McCain wrote a bill that was nothing BUT tax cuts, and every republican voted for it. Have they learned NOTHING?
Paul Krugman is the one they should be listening to. He has a better grasp of the situation than any other economist I've heard talk about it. And, he wrote a book about it (predicting it) before it happened, back in 1999 or something.
Well said. And I think they should get rid of all the tax cuts (except the ones they originally actually wanted) and put the spending money back in that republicans demanded they take out, and force them to fillibuster or just pass it without any republicans. Call their bluff.
Long before we can do that, first, we must decide what is necessary to _fix_ the economy. Many still advocate throwing money at the economy to fix it. Same nonsense was from extremist liberals and conservative alike. Ironically, the same Republicans who openly advocated this concept under George Jr are now screaming about TARP costs while advocating what we know never works long term - tax cuts without spending cuts.
Long before anyone can decide how to respond, we as a people must first define a difference between throwing money at a problem (ie money given without strings to bad banks) verses investing in long term projects that actually have an ROI. Every project by government or private industry has a Return on Investment for society. A concept that many still do not understand as we advocated nonsense such as the privatization of Social Security - only because it was promoted by a political agenda.
Whereas infrastructure investments were long needed and should have an ROI, still, many want that to restore the economy this year. If yes, then it is not economic stimulus - only welfare. Typically solutions mean projects today fix the economy in four years. Meanwhile, bankruptcy, job loses and income reductions are necessary especially in economic areas most unproductive and harmful - ie Wall Street, Detroit, hedge funds, and anywhere that top management foolishly said the purpose of a company is to make a profit; ignored what only matters - the product.
A philosophy if we really want to fix this economy? The product is everything.
I wouldnt go that far.
There may be little difference in the manner in which they act, but there are significant differences in their respective policy approaches to government.
They both hate rights. The Dems attack amendments II and X first, and the GOP attacks I, IV, and IX before the others, but they both hate the fact that they can't (at least yet) jam steering wheels up the arse of the electorate and drive it around.
They're both incompetent (thank God).
They both concentrate on handing the treasury over to their lobbyists.
*rolleyes* They had no control over anything. They had, what, a majority of 1 or 2 in the Senate? That isn't enough to pass anything. And bush just vetoed everything anyway, unless it was something he wanted.
The truth is, democrats always try to get along. They always make concessions. Republicans NEVER do. When Clinton was in office, they completely shut down the government for, what was it, 2 weeks or something? When have democrats ever been so unreasonable? And... republicans would do it again today, even with our economy slipping into the abyss, because they don't give a shit about the people of this country. They only care about their base, and their ideology.
Clinton shut the government down (twice), when he turned the GOP's budget away for excessive spending, not the other way around.
It was about the only thing the schmuck did that was worth a damn.
It was about the only thing the schmuck did that was worth a damn.
Haiti, the Balkans, the averted Pakistan Indian war, welfare, responsible budgets, the 1996 Federal Communication Act, completely defagging Saddam (which we did not realize at that time), stopping massive worldwide terrorism planned for the Millennium (including LAX, NY Time Square, Toronto, Egypt, Amman Jordan, etc.), worldwide respect for America never seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis, ...
Haiti, the Balkans, the averted Pakistan Indian war,
Not our fucking problem.
responsible budgets,
Already said I liked that.
the 1996 Federal Communication Act,
That was no accomplishment. The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued the historic industry consolidation begun by Reagan, whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996 and 6 in 2005.
completely defagging Saddam (which we did not realize at that time),
Saddam was defanged during the 1990/1991 trade show.
stopping massive worldwide terrorism planned for the Millennium (including LAX, NY Time Square, Toronto, Egypt, Amman Jordan, etc.),
Um, yeah. Credible link to these threats?
worldwide respect for America never seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis, ...
...Handed over the last dregs of our country to East Asia, by signing Bush 41's NAFTA crap. Hired a Nazi named Reno. The Clipper Chip. Pardoned a pack of scumbags. Waffled on the Gays in the military business. Threatened doctors in CA who advised using pot on chemo patients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
...the averted Pakistan Indian war,
Not our fucking problem.
Not our fucking problem if two nuclear powers on the planet we inhabit go to war? C'mon. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Not our fucking problem if two nuclear powers on the planet we inhabit go to war? C'mon. :rolleyes:
Let them go at it. We need a population reduction.
Quote:
Not our fucking problem if two nuclear powers on the planet we inhabit go to war? C'mon. :rolleyes:
Meh. We receive more crud from the testing in the 60s than we would if those two attention whores burn each other to cinders.
The Chinese will catch some, though. Boo hoo hoo.
A long list of denials without a single supporting fact? Let's add reality to some of your denials:
The 1996 Federal Communication Act:
That was no accomplishment. The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued the historic industry consolidation begun by Reagan, ...
Meanwhile the act forced anti-innovative communication companies to either provide a stifled 1981 technology called DSL, OR open their lines so that anyone could provide broadband. Yes, DSL technology was demonstrated even in 1981 when American communication companies were routinely stifling innovation - until 1996. Technology that should have been widely available in the 1990s still was not available until the 1996 Federal Communication Act all but required it.
Stopping massive worldwide terrorism planned for the Millennium (including LAX, NY Time Square, Toronto, Egypt, Amman Jordan, etc.):
Um, yeah. Credible link to these threats?
You are supposed to learn basic history before having opinions. Those attacks stopped by Clinton are common knowledge. Even described in detail by Richard Clark who was head of the White House CounterTerrorism Security Group (CSG). It takes almost nothing to learn how Clinton mobilized then entire government resulting in Diana Dean finding an LAX bomb in WA. Same attacks to even sink the USS The Sullivans failed (because bombers loaded too much explosives and sunk their own boat).
Clinton regarded bin Laden as the number one threat to America which is why he even created Alec Station - a group assigned only to get bin Laden. As Richard Clark so bluntly said, "George W Bush, who failed to act on the threats from Al Qaeda despite repeated warnings ..." Clinton personally warned President-elect Bush of the threat he considered the most dangerous. Nobody could have asked more of Clinton. When Cofer Black warned of the Millennium attack in December 1999, Clinton responded by mobilizing every government agency. FISA judges (secret courts to authorize wiretaps during national emergencies) were swamped with subpoena requests. Even the RCMP were informed of sleeper cells they did not know about. You did not know any of this? Meanwhile, George Jr latter disbanded Alec Station because terrorism was not a threat.
All that is common knowledge to those who learn. Naysaying is how those without knowledge use Limbaugh tactics to deny reality.
No credible links are necessary because you are expected to first know this basic history before having opinions. If you know Clinton did so little, then you must deny what every informed American knows: what Diana Dean did.
Not our fucking problem.
A language often associated with those who always know and need not learn facts. Therefore you know Pakistan is not our f problem?
Knowledge easily identifies what is probably the greatest threat to the world and the US: Pakistan. Apparently you did not learn a long list of reasons why, or just don't care to know. So you have no appreciation of what Clinton did.
Clinton regarded bin Laden as the number one threat to America which is why he even created Alec Station - a group assigned only to get bin Laden.
Then why didn't he take him out when Bin Laden was handed to him on a silver platter? Sounds like revisionist history to me.
Then why didn't he take him out when Bin Laden was handed to him on a silver platter? Sounds like revisionist history to me.
Because Bin Ladin was never handed to him on a silver platter. That business has been debunked more times than I care to mention, and people STILL trot it out.
Clinton was a schmoe. Very few people will argue against that. But the "silver platter" business isn't true. It's just a stale Rovian talking point...effective vs Gore back in 2000, but a lie nonetheless.
You are supposed to learn basic history before having opinions.
Hey...conversation over.
When you can speak in a civil tone, let me know and we can continue.
TGRR,
Knows that appeal to "common knowledge" isn't evidence for a position.
:D
Hey...conversation over.
When you can speak in a civil tone, let me know and we can continue.
TGRR,
Knows that appeal to "common knowledge" isn't evidence for a position.
:D
Heh:
No credible links are necessary because
.
And that's all she wrote.
Because Bin Ladin was never handed to him on a silver platter. That business has been debunked more times than I care to mention, and people STILL trot it out.
From factcheck -
Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa's claims were not in fact present for the meeting.
Bill & Hillary's "Position"
U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed
Sudan's Offer to Arrest Militant Fell Through After Saudis Said No
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 3, 2001; Page A01
The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.
It would be virtually unheard of to have concrete evidence on a matter like this.
Odd that the man in question was never a representative of the Sudanese government, and Sudan says they have no fucking clue who he is or what he was talking about.
But some neocon nutcase named Lawrence Wright says otherwise, so all involved people are therefore lying or part of a conspiracy.
Also...Newsmax? Are you taking the piss? Why not just link to Rush Limbaugh and be done with it?
Look it up yourself then. The newsmax link is audio of Clinton himself. If you had cared to actually read the links or check out the cites instead of frothing at the mouth like an idiot. The Washington Post link or the Factcheck ink weren't good enough? There were tons of links on subject. Do your homework next time. THis time you get an "F" as in FAIL.
Look it up yourself then. The newsmax link is audio of Clinton himself. If you had cared to actually read the links or check out the cites instead of frothing at the mouth like an idiot. The Washington Post link or the Factcheck ink weren't good enough? There were tons of links on subject. Do your homework next time.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html
So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.
THis time you get an "F" as in FAIL.
:lol: And you get a "P" as in Partisan Hack, Gullible, 1 each.
Then why didn't he take him out when Bin Laden was handed to him on a silver platter?
He repeatedly did using what was available. What secret did you withhold rather than contribute?
:lol: And you get a "P" as in Partisan Hack, Gullible, 1 each.
Why? Because he opposes your view? I fail to understand your logic.
Why? Because he opposes your view? I fail to understand your logic.
Naw, because he decided to start screeching at me because I wouldn't accept the word of one neocon freak over everyone actually involved and/or present when the situation occurred.
Sorry if you're having trouble with it.
You should reread my post - I stated that there wasn't "concrete" evidence. Then supported my claim with several links from the mul-tit-ude of sources available.
Oh, and using the same link as I doesn't really support your case. Especially if you read more than just the first few lines.
You should reread my post - I stated that there wasn't "concrete" evidence.
Then there isn't evidence.
I accept your surrender in this matter.
Then there isn't evidence.
I accept your surrender in this matter.
Fail.
Fail.
Oh, okay. :lol:
So when you ask me for a link, and I say, "well, there's no actual evidence for my position, you'll just have to believe me", you won't see anything wrong with that?
Right?
:lol:
Ask around. See what others think.
Ask around. See what others think.
Oh, okay, so the facts of a given event are dictated by the opinions of some people on an internet political forum?
Is that what you're saying?
Oh, okay. :lol:
So when you ask me for a link, and I say, "well, there's no actual evidence for my position, you'll just have to believe me", you won't see anything wrong with that?
Right?
:lol:
You're entitled to your opinion, and to express it here. In fact, we welcome it. Helps get to know you better.
If you try passing off your opinion as fact, you're going to get dropped on though. That's pretty fair warning.
Best to provide links from credible sources to support the views you offer as fact if someone asks.
Absolutely not. Never said that.
What I said was when you state,
"So when you ask me for a link, and I say, "well, there's no actual evidence for my position, you'll just have to believe me", you won't see anything wrong with that?"
Ask around and see what others think about your statement.
So when you ask me for a link, and I say, "well, there's no actual evidence for my position, you'll just have to believe me", you won't see anything wrong with that?
READ the
post -
If you try passing off your opinion as fact, you're going to get dropped on though. That's pretty fair warning.
Unless you're on the right, when you can just say you don't have evidence, but everyone has to believe you anyway.
Or words to that effect.
READ the post -
I did. I even let it slide the first time. Then you brought it up again.
Well, I'm not a right leaning person. Definitely more liberal than conservative, but I don't have a problem with discussions here where my conservative friends get on their high horses and start sprouting horns and stuff. They're all pretty reasonable most of the time, and when they're not, I usually just stop talking to them, or start cracking jokes. We all have that right. ;) I don't think any of them think I'm stupid for my views though, and I don't think they'd think that of anyone else either.
Sure, things get heated sometimes, and people start getting personal, but it blows over.
The important thing to remember is, the conservatives are always wrong, even if they don't realize it. ;) It's our job as liberals to guide them through the murky waters of life to ultimate enlightenment.
YOU'RE WRONG Ali! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
now where is my damned horse
The important thing to remember is, the conservatives are always wrong, even if they don't realize it. ;) It's our job as liberals to guide them through the murky waters of life to ultimate enlightenment.
I believe that like I believe that all liberals are socialists cloaked in clothing none of them can recognize each other by. Wait. That might be true. Ok, carry on. :D
lol...you make me laugh classic.
eta: you too merc. ;)
YOU'RE WRONG Ali! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
now where is my damned horse
He is right here:
The important thing to remember is, the conservatives are always wrong, even if they don't realize it. ;) It's our job as liberals to guide them through the murky waters of life to ultimate enlightenment.
What passes for liberalism today isn't right, either.
Outside of Berkeley, anyway.
What passes for liberalism today isn't right, either.
Outside of Berkeley, anyway.
Berkley!?!?!? :D
Dude, now I will have to
. K?
What passes for liberalism today isn't right, either.
Outside of Berkeley, anyway.
What do you mean by that?
What passes for liberalism today isn't right, either.
Of course not - Its left - Duh!
What do you mean by that?
I mean what passes for liberalism at Berkeley has zero to do with liberalism as understood by the founders and their contemporaries.
Berkley!?!?!? :D
Dude, now I will have to . K?
I can see that I need to use smaller words when I respond to you.
TGRR,
Hopes that might help with your context problem.
Well, I don't go to berkely and I don't really know what the founders of liberalism thought it should be like.
I've been labled a liberal on this board, so that's what I am for all intents and purposes through the course of discussions here.
I've been labled other things too, but they don't have much relevance to current events of political discussion. :)
Well, I'm not a right leaning person. Definitely more liberal than conservative, but I don't have a problem with discussions here where my conservative friends get on their high horses and start sprouting horns and stuff. They're all pretty reasonable most of the time, and when they're not, I usually just stop talking to them, or start cracking jokes. We all have that right. ;) I don't think any of them think I'm stupid for my views though, and I don't think they'd think that of anyone else either.
Sure, things get heated sometimes, and people start getting personal, but it blows over.
The important thing to remember is, the conservatives are always wrong, even if they don't realize it. ;) It's our job as liberals to guide them through the murky waters of life to ultimate enlightenment.
wellll, they are entitled to their wrong opinion... :p
Clinton shut the government down (twice), when he turned the GOP's budget away for excessive spending, not the other way around.
It was about the only thing the schmuck did that was worth a damn.
Well then, I guess it depends on who you ask.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_shutdown_of_1995
The Republicans tried to blame Clinton for the shutdown, but Clinton got a break two days later when Gingrich made a widely-reported complaint about being snubbed by Clinton; Tom DeLay called it "the mistake of his [Gingrich's] life".[1]
Delay writes in his book, No Retreat, No Surrender:[3]
"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One...Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child..The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same."
I mean what passes for liberalism at Berkeley has zero to do with liberalism as understood by the founders and their contemporaries.
You mean kind of like what passes as conservatism in the republican party today has zero to do with conservatism as understood by the founders and their contemporaries? :D
Come on now, Wiki is constantly updated and counter updated by people with political agendas. If you don't believe me ask UT about his experience with annotations on Wiki.
You mean kind of like what passes as conservatism in the republican party today has zero to do with conservatism as understood by the founders and their contemporaries? :D
And who can authenticate that? You? For every opinion about what "founders" thought and believed there is a counter arguement.
Well, I don't go to berkely and I don't really know what the founders of liberalism thought it should be like.
I've been labled a liberal on this board, so that's what I am for all intents and purposes through the course of discussions here.
I've been labled other things too, but they don't have much relevance to current events of political discussion. :)
I'm a proud liberal, and if I could afford to live in Berkley, I would go in a heartbeat! Hell yes!
You mean kind of like what passes as conservatism in the republican party today has zero to do with conservatism as understood by the founders and their contemporaries? :D
Precisely.
Of course, back then, they called conservatives "Tories".
:lol:
And who can authenticate that? You? For every opinion about what "founders" thought and believed there is a counter arguement.
Nonsense. What passes for conservativism today was a philosophy mainly held by Alexander Hamilton and 300,000 pissed off tories.
I'm a proud liberal, and if I could afford to live in Berkley, I would go in a heartbeat! Hell yes!
So, you support gun ownership, right?
Come on now, Wiki is constantly updated and counter updated by people with political agendas. If you don't believe me ask UT about his experience with annotations on Wiki.
I know. But it is still a credible resource. And it appears that some people hold Clinton responsible while others hold republicans responsible. One thing is for certain, republicans are not interested in compromise. Never have been, never will be. Democrats always compromise.
And who can authenticate that? You? For every opinion about what "founders" thought and believed there is a counter arguement.
Oh good grief. Conservatism is supposed to be about fiscal responsibilty, and republicans, since Reagan, have been anything BUT.
So, you support gun ownership, right?
Not if you want to live in Berkley! Diane Feinstein’s back yard. You know miss Gun-Grabber herself. The one who wants to take guns away from people yet she secretly owns one herself? pssst.... don't tell anyone.
Oh good grief. Conservatism is supposed to be about fiscal responsibilty, and republicans, since Reagan, have been anything BUT.
So now you are going to tell me how Demoncrats are fiscally responsible with the latest spending package. :lol2:
So, you support gun ownership, right?
I do. But I also support reasonable laws and regulations to keep them from getting into the wrong hands. And ftr, I do not own a gun. I have never owned a gun. I have never felt the need to own a gun. And I lived in Los Angeles for 10 years, 1 1/2 of which were in the hood in Venice. Never had a problem. Ever.
So now you are going to tell me how Demoncrats are fiscally responsible with the latest spending package. :lol2:
Well what would you suggest we do? We have to do something, and most economists are saying the package is actually not big enough.
If bush had not run our deficit into the stratosphere with his stupid wars, we would not be in this mess. We would have the money to handle the situation and wouldn't have to borrow it.
Nonsense. What passes for conservativism today was a philosophy mainly held by Alexander Hamilton and 300,000 pissed off tories.
Cool, and the Liberals of 200 years ago are the same of today? :lol2:
Well what would you suggest we do? We have to do something, and most economists are saying the package is actually not big enough.
If bush had not run our deficit into the stratosphere with his stupid wars, we would not be in this mess. We would have the money to handle the situation and wouldn't have to borrow it.
The deficit has little to do with it. Of course we would still have to barrow it.
Got to run, you'all have fun. :D
Not if you want to live in Berkley! Diane Feinstein’s back yard. You know miss Gun-Grabber herself. The one who wants to take guns away from people yet she secretly owns one herself? pssst.... don't tell anyone.
My point exactly.
A classic liberal doesn't believe in gun ownership...they INSIST on it. Fatally, if necessary.
What passes for liberalism today is something like watered down British nanny-statism.
Cool, and the Liberals of 200 years ago are the same of today? :lol2:
You catch on quick, don't you?
Maybe it was those posts where I said that wasn't the case.
TGRR,
Will type slower, and use smaller words.
Typing slower is always helpful.
My point exactly.
A classic liberal doesn't believe in gun ownership...they INSIST on it. Fatally, if necessary.
What passes for liberalism today is something like watered down British nanny-statism.
huh? How do liberals INSIST on gun ownership? Please explain.
"classic" liberal = American Revolutionary
D'OH.
There are a lot of liberals who own guns. I think the argument lies in imposing certain kinds of gun control measures so guns don't fall into the wrong hands, which is a reasonable thing to want. Conservatives don't believe any kind of gun control, and that is a shame. I don't know anyone who thinks we should completely get rid of all guns, and that no one should be allowed to have one.
"classic" liberal = American Revolutionary
wait... what'd I do?
Obviously started a debated about gun control and liberals, who in todays world are the most anti-gun group next to Democrats. :D
huh? How do liberals INSIST on gun ownership? Please explain.
They insist on the RIGHT to gun ownership, to be precise.
That 2d amendment didn't write itself. A couple of hippies named Madison and Jefferson made it happen. Ben "flowerchild" Franklin approved of it, and so did some lefty pervert named John Jay.
D'OH.
There are a lot of liberals who own guns. I think the argument lies in imposing certain kinds of gun control measures so guns don't fall into the wrong hands, which is a reasonable thing to want. Conservatives don't believe any kind of gun control, and that is a shame. I don't know anyone who thinks we should completely get rid of all guns, and that no one should be allowed to have one.
Define "wrong hands"?
I mean, I pretty much hate everyone I know, and I have managed not to kill any of my neighbors so far, right?
The way the amendment is worded, unless you have had your rights stripped by a felony conviction by a jury of your peers, you should be able to walk down the street with a flamethrower, if that's what you want to do.
Obviously started a debated about gun control and liberals, who in todays world are the most anti-gun group next to Democrats. :D
DOIN IT WRONG.
Today's "liberals", I mean. By the classic (and dictionary) definition, a liberal is interested in continually increasing individual liberties, not finding ways to limit them.
But now "liberal" means some hippie-ass PETA crap in which you cannot say
badwrong things or eat some red meat or shoot inanimate things on your own property, just for the hell of it. No, today's "liberals" are not really any different than the Jesus & Fear crowd on the right. Together, they are the No Fun crowd, and in a CIVILIZED society, they'd be laughed out into the wasteland, and they would breed no more.
But I'm not in a civilized society, I'm in America, and I am told I have to choose between Sean Hannity and Air Fucking America, and the very thought of this false dichotomy makes me want to exhume William Jennings Bryan and shit in his festering ribcage.
Oh, goddammit.
I pretty much hate everyone I know
So do you go to all the local funerals and shit on graves? lol (Alluding to your comments about Bush of course)
So do you go to all the local funerals and shit on graves? lol (Alluding to your comments about Bush of course)
No. There simply isn't enough Metamucil.
So you seem to find the idea of shitting on dead people pretty enticing.
Have you spoken to your therapist about that? ;)
So you seem to find the idea of shitting on dead people pretty enticing.
Yeah, I'm working on that.
Have you spoken to your therapist about that? ;)
Therapist? Why would I have a therapist?
TGRR,
Really, really together.
ahuh...lol That's good. That's very very good. The world is a safe place after all.
ahuh...lol That's good. That's very very good. The world is a safe place after all.
Yeah, it's all fluffy white clouds and pink monkeys and shit. :3eye:
Well it is in my world. :)
btw, you can call me Pollyanna if you like.
DOIN IT WRONG.
Today's "liberals", I mean. By the classic (and dictionary) definition, a liberal is interested in continually increasing individual liberties, not finding ways to limit them.
But now "liberal" means some hippie-ass PETA crap in which you cannot say badwrong things or eat some red meat or shoot inanimate things on your own property, just for the hell of it. No, today's "liberals" are not really any different than the Jesus & Fear crowd on the right. Together, they are the No Fun crowd, and in a CIVILIZED society, they'd be laughed out into the wasteland, and they would breed no more.
But I'm not in a civilized society, I'm in America, and I am told I have to choose between Sean Hannity and Air Fucking America, and the very thought of this false dichotomy makes me want to exhume William Jennings Bryan and shit in his festering ribcage.
Oh, goddammit.
Can't disagree with any of that. Other than others may disagree with your ability to define liberals of today.
Can't disagree with any of that. Other than others may disagree with your ability to define liberals of today.
Liberal in the 18th century:
Liberal in the 21st century:
So they were all boys in puffy pants and long coats the 18th century and now they're girls who really should go see a hairdresser?
So they were all boys in puffy pants and long coats the 18th century and now they're girls who really should go see a hairdresser?
Hey, the guy standing on the left was the best pit fighter of his day, and the girl is Barbara Streisand, America's Wailer-in-Chief.
yes well, in any case, I guess there's no law against fighting in funny clothes. Check out WWF! ;) I don't think there's a law against wailing either.
Define "wrong hands"?
I mean, I pretty much hate everyone I know, and I have managed not to kill any of my neighbors so far, right?
The way the amendment is worded, unless you have had your rights stripped by a felony conviction by a jury of your peers, you should be able to walk down the street with a flamethrower, if that's what you want to do.
Mentally ill people who go on shooting sprees. Kids who go on shooting sprees. In some of those instances, the people involved legally purchased weapons, even though they should not have been able to.
*edit to add* When the 2nd ammendment was written, we didn't have the same kind of weapons we have now.
Mentally ill people who go on shooting sprees. Kids who go on shooting sprees. In some of those instances, the people involved legally purchased weapons, even though they should not have been able to.
*edit to add* When the 2nd ammendment was written, we didn't have the same kind of weapons we have now.
I could give you countless examples of extreme behavior by otherwise previously legally sane people. You know them as well. So what's the point? We just start to restrict Constitutional rights because of a few nuts when 99% of the rest of people are doing it all right?
The way the amendment is worded, unless you have had your rights stripped by a felony conviction by a jury of your peers, you should be able to walk down the street with a flamethrower, if that's what you want to do.
Flamethrowers are legal. ;)
I would bet that is not a true statement.
You can put that money in the tip jar.:p
Damm. I stand corrected! Well some states regulate them, but according to that 40 don't!:blush:
Ok, now I want one.
Mentally ill people who go on shooting sprees. Kids who go on shooting sprees. In some of those instances, the people involved legally purchased weapons, even though they should not have been able to.
Dumbasses killing a family of four with their monster SUV. In some of those instances, the people involved legally purchased an automobile, even though they should not have been able to.
*edit to add* When the 2nd ammendment was written, we didn't have the same kind of weapons we have now.
So what? When amendment III was written, we didn't have the system of barracks we have now. Would you like to erase amendment III?
You can put that money in the tip jar.:p
Okay, I love this country a little bit.
I could give you countless examples of extreme behavior by otherwise previously legally sane people. You know them as well. So what's the point? We just start to restrict Constitutional rights because of a few nuts when 99% of the rest of people are doing it all right?
How is it restricting anyone's Constitutional rights to require a reasonable waiting period and extensive background check before getting a lethal weapon? Or to require special permits for certain kinds of weapons? I'm sorry, but certain people just should not be able to legally purchase weapons, and most people have no business owning machine guns or certain other kinds of weapons.
I will go one step further though, and say the health care system is also at fault, because deregulation has tied their hands. Some people who have gone on shooting sprees should not have even been out in the general public because they had severe mental problems, and it was KNOWN they had these problems. But the law has been watered down so bad that it is almost impossible to hold someone against their will.
So it isn't JUST gun control issues that need to be addressed. does that make you happy? ;)
Dumbasses killing a family of four with their monster SUV. In some of those instances, the people involved legally purchased an automobile, even though they should not have been able to.
And those people should be charge with vehicular homicide. Frankly, I think it's WAY to easy to get driving permits today, and many people are WAY too distracted to be behind the wheel of a car. I can't tell you how many times I have almost been driven over (I drive a Geo metro convertible,
tiny car) by some moron in an SUV who is talking on a fucking cell phone not paying attention to their surroundings. IMO, I should be able to shoot their ass.
So what? When amendment III was written, we didn't have the system of barracks we have now. Would you like to erase amendment III?
Oh good grief. That is ridiculous and does not even deserve a response.
How is it restricting anyone's Constitutional rights to require a reasonable waiting period and extensive background check before getting a lethal weapon?
Because the wording of the second amendment says "...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be
infringed.
Shall we look up "infringed" in the dictionary?
And those people should be charge with vehicular homicide. Frankly, I think it's WAY to easy to get driving permits today,
Well, hell. Why not just wrap everyone in bubble wrap and lock them in their houses? Safer that way.
Oh good grief. That is ridiculous and does not even deserve a response.
Sucks when you can't support your argument, hmm?
Well, hell. Why not just wrap everyone in bubble wrap and lock them in their houses? Safer that way.
No, but driving is not a right, it's a priviledge.
Sucks when you can't support your argument, hmm?
I wasn't arguing against ammendment III, so why should I respond to that? Saying I can't support an argument about the third ammendment when I never said anything about the third ammendment is you just being argumentative and trying to confuse the issue.
Because the wording of the second amendment says "...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Shall we look up "infringed" in the dictionary?
Infringed means to violate. It is not infringing on anyone's right to own a weapon simply because you make them go through a waiting period, or have restrictions on certain kinds of weapons. "The right to bear arms" does not mean you have the right to own a machine gun, and if someone is mentally unstable and could pose a danger to society, why should we give them a license to kill? Do you think
anyone should be able to own
any kind of weapon they want?
You can have my nuclear bomb when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
Because the wording of the second amendment says "...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Shall we look up "infringed" in the dictionary?
No right is absolute and regarding the 2nd Amendment, the Roberts court made that clear in its decision in the Heller (DC gun ban) case.
The finding of the Court, written by Scalia:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
..
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms....
http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
But it doesnt address Obama spanking Wall Street.
No right is absolute and ~snip~
paging mr radar, paging mr radar.
paging mr radar, paging mr radar.
is this radar dude one of the framers of the Constitution brought back to life to tell 21st century America what "they" meant 200+ years ago?
Wow. I thought that was why those framers established the federal judiciary of "one Supreme Court and such inferior courts..."
I dont understand why the words of Scalia in the Heller decision are so hard to interpret...
"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.."is this radar dude one of the framers of the Constitution brought back to life to tell 21st century America what "they" meant 200+ years ago?
Wow.... :corn:
I'll match your radar with a scalia....but hold the beer.
I'm not meaning to disparage Mr. Radar. but....
In the meantime, why do you think this so hard to interpret> "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..."
I don't disagree with that statement. I was paging radar because long time dwellars are very familiar with what his response to this:
Originally Posted by Redux
No right is absolute and ~snip~
Infringed means to violate. It is not infringing on anyone's right to own a weapon simply because you make them go through a waiting period, or have restrictions on certain kinds of weapons. "The right to bear arms" does not mean you have the right to own a machine gun, and if someone is mentally unstable and could pose a danger to society, why should we give them a license to kill? Do you think anyone should be able to own any kind of weapon they want?
Infringed can also be defined as "to encroach upon".
And yes, it does mean I have the right to a machine gun. Or a tank, if I can afford one.
And yes, unless you are denied your rights after due process of law or previous commitment by a competent court for mental defect, anyone should be able to own any weapon.
No right is absolute and regarding the 2nd Amendment, the Roberts court made that clear in its decision in the Heller (DC gun ban) case.
The finding of the Court, written by Scalia:
But it doesnt address Obama spanking Wall Street.
Scalia is a freedom hating fuckwit that in any civilized nation would be beaten daily for his own good. Instead, since we are not in a civilized country, he is a Supreme Court Justice, who makes Samuel Alito look like Thurgood Marshall.
Just saying.
And yes, unless you are denied your rights after due process of law or previous commitment by a competent court for mental defect, anyone should be able to own any weapon.
So the Rat Pack once bought a Sherman Tank. Rode it up and down Sunset Blvd.
So the Rat Pack once bought a Sherman Tank. Rode it up and down Sunset Blvd.
Now THAT'S what I'm talking about.
TGRR,
Off to get his before some liberal has a hissy fit.
Only if they put rubber treads on it and obey existing motor vehicle statutes.;)
Only if they put rubber treads on it and obey existing motor vehicle statutes.;)
I can make a tank street legal, I think. Except maybe the wheel base part.
Then I say you're entitled to have it.:D
Infringed can also be defined as "to encroach upon".
And yes, it does mean I have the right to a machine gun. Or a tank, if I can afford one.
And yes, unless you are denied your rights after due process of law or previous commitment by a competent court for mental defect, anyone should be able to own any weapon.
No, it doesn't. And no, they shouldn't. You are taking the 2nd ammendment to the extreme. By your reasoning, Ted Kaczynski was perfectly within his rights to make bombs and send them to people.
Not at all, there's no amendment that says you can hurt someone else that's not hurting you :headshake
No, it doesn't. And no, they shouldn't. You are taking the 2nd ammendment to the extreme. By your reasoning, Ted Kaczynski was perfectly within his rights to make bombs and send them to people.
cough Bullshit, bullfuckingshit /cough
No, it doesn't. And no, they shouldn't. You are taking the 2nd ammendment to the extreme. By your reasoning, Ted Kaczynski was perfectly within his rights to make bombs and send them to people.
I'm reading it as written.
And Kaczynski was perfectly within his rights to make bombs. But what in what I have said says he had the right to send them to people?
Owning a gun doesn't give me the right to shoot people I don't like.
I'm reading it as written.
And Kaczynski was perfectly within his rights to make bombs. But what in what I have said says he had the right to send them to people?
Owning a gun doesn't give me the right to shoot people I don't like.
Well this is the crux of the problem.
Let's say for the sake of argument that you can legally make a bomb as a weapon under the rights stated in your constitution, and you intend to use it on someone. Why is it legal for you to do that, but it's not legal for you to be arrested because you have that weapon and you're planning on killing someone with it. Why is it only legal to arrest you after you've done the killing?
Surely that makes no moral sense what so ever.
Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself. If you attempt to or there is evidence to suggest that you are planning to use it against someone that is illegal. Otherwise, not.
Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself.
Which is why everyone has the right to own 155 mm howitzers.
I'll have to ass-ume thats more of your humor.
Well this is the crux of the problem.
Let's say for the sake of argument that you can legally make a bomb as a weapon under the rights stated in your constitution, and you intend to use it on someone. Why is it legal for you to do that, but it's not legal for you to be arrested because you have that weapon and you're planning on killing someone with it. Why is it only legal to arrest you after you've done the killing?
Surely that makes no moral sense what so ever.
If you can prove that I'm planning to kill someone with a gun (or a bomb, etc), you can arrest me for conspiracy to commit murder, and be perfectly constitutional about the whole thing.
I fail to see your point. Perhaps I'm just not reading you right. Could you clarify it?
Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself.
Not the point. I have the right to bear arms. Self-defense is not necessary to justify that right.
Which is why everyone has the right to own 155 mm howitzers.
Yep. But have you ever tried to clean one? Plus, the neighbors bitch when you plink at stuff behind the house.
TGRR,
Lives in AZ, where we actually CAN (and do) target shoot from the back porch.
Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself.
Not the point. I have the right to bear arms. Self-defense is not necessary to justify that right.
Yes it is. Thats the basis of it. If you disagree, then why you have "the right to bear arms."
Back on topic....
Thain ordered to disclose Merrill bonus details
A New York judge has ruled that John Thain, former chief executive of Merrill Lynch, will have to name names in a state probe into bonuses paid out at Merrill in late December, just days before Bank of America acquired the firm.
The ruling is a victory for New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo, who is investigating why Merrill paid out $3.6bn in bonuses during a year in which the firm reported losses of $28bn, and a potential setback to BofA, which had warned Mr Thain not to discuss details of the payments.
Mr Thain, who gave a lengthy deposition to state prosecutors last week about the bonuses, refused to discuss individual pay-outs, according to court filing from Mr Cuomo’s office on Monday. The filing indicated that Mr Thain’s lawyer, Andrew Levander, told prosecutors: “I don’t want to have him sued by the company for their saying he’s violating someone’s privacy.”
New York state supreme court justice Bernard Fried ruled that Mr Thain would have to answer the attorney general’s questions, which he is expected to do on Tuesday, but said specific information about individual bonuses need not be made public.
According to Mr Cuomo’s court filing, Merrill Lynch established its $3.6bn bonus pool on December 8, and did not reduce it during the following weeks, even though Merrill’s pre-tax operating losses turned out to be $7bn more than anticipated at that time. For the fourth quarter, Merrill Lynch recorded $21bn in pre-tax operating losses.
When the Financial Times disclosed the early pay-outs last month, BofA blamed the payments on Mr Thain. But evidence has emerged that Ken Lewis, BofA chief executive, and members of his transition team had a greater degree of knowledge of the matter than they indicated.
According to people at Merrill Lynch, two senior members of BofA’s team were involved in the bonus process. All three BofA executives have been issued subpoenas by Mr Cuomo’s office.
A spokesman for Mr Thain said: “Bank of America directed Mr Thain not to discuss specific bonus details. We continue to co-operate fully.”
In response to the ruling, BofA said, “[The] ruling [is] consistent with company’s position that the information is private and should remain private to protect rights of individuals and the competitive position of company”.
I think the right to privacy went out the window when they used public money to pay out bonuses while posting a huge loss. Is this some sort of new math or something?
[COLOR="Silver"][SIZE="1"](thanks tw, but we do NOT need another Enron accounting wacko-extremist cut and paste post)[/SIZE][/COLOR]
So you think privacy comes before truth, in the public good? And ethics violations? I'm sorry, but I think Thain should go to prison, and anyone at BOA complicit in this. Those people took public funds, because they had to. They caused this mess. NO, they created it. I'm fucking sick of the greed of rich people. (not that all rich people are greedy. but the ones who aren't wouldn't be hiding.)
What are you talking about?
So you think privacy comes before truth, in the public good? And ethics violations? I'm sorry, but I think Thain should go to prison, and anyone at BOA complicit in this. Those people took public funds, because they had to. They caused this mess. NO, they created it. I'm fucking sick of the greed of rich people. (not that all rich people are greedy. but the ones who aren't wouldn't be hiding.)
Good God, is that a repeated rant?
What are you talking about?
Sorry, I misread your post. My bad. :blush:
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow
The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined.
To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).
Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.
Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.
A long, but interesting look from the "other side"
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow
A long, but interesting look from the "other side"
ho hum. While I agree that Obama may be a little too optimisitic about how long the recession will last and how strong the recovery will be, he gets creamed for not being positive enough and using too much negative languange about where we are now, and now he is getting creamed for being positive. He just can't win. Maybe he should just keep his mouth shut. God forbid we have a president who actually tries to be honest with us.
You could have read the article.
A long, but interesting look from the "other side"
Then add facts to that citation to see it starts with a lie based in a half truth.
The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes,
John Kennedy's tax cut created a short term economic gain - followed by a harmful downturn. But again, those who want to spin myths ignore the lessons of history. Any economic boom created by money games means economics takes revenge later. Tax cuts to create economic wealth explains bad economic numbers for the next four years.
Basic knowledge does not come from a political agenda. Had classicman read that first sentence, then he knew the author was flawed. Tax cuts to create economic wealth is only believed by those too niave to learn and too ignorant to see throught extremist propaganda.
Any harm to the Dow today is directly traceable to George Jr and wacko extremists politics. Same people who promoted the Kennedy tax cuts as a solution back then are a major reason for economics taking revenge today.
Yes, Obama is being accused of talking negatively because that is what the economics who have studied these conditions in detail have been warning. Do you want Obama to tell the truth - or lie? If classicman had grasped the citation, then he immediately saw a political agenda that contradicts what this nation's best economist were saying only months ago in San Francisco.
A GDP drop of 9% which takes two years to reach bottom. Unemployment averages 7% and keeps dropping for five years. Housing prices take five years to drop 36%. Government debt rises 86%. Scary part is that America has already surpassed some of these averaging numbers. However statistical variations for 'average' GDP and unemployment numbers are large.
Thank you George Jr for debts we must still pay for such as the $1trillion for "Mission Accomplished".
George Sr was not that dumb. George Sr got the world to pay for Desert Storm. Economics is now taking revenge for wacko extremist economics just like economics did 1975 and 1979 for 1968 and 1970 Vietnam, Nixon's refusal to raise taxes, and numerous economic incentives that created Gerald Ford's stagflation.
Any economic pain today is directly traceable to eight year of wacko extremists who even said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". Guess what. Deficits do matter. But Cheney was preaching to those who never learned from history. Deja vue for those who would again deny these lessons and again promote Kennedy tax cuts. Economics again taking revenge. Only the ignorant and naive would blame Obama. And yet that is what wacko extremists (Palin supporters) are doing.
add facts Kennedy's tax cut economic gain - harmful downturn spin myths ignore lessons money games revenge later Tax cuts bad numbers
Basic knowledge political agenda. Tax cuts economic wealth niave ignorant extremist propaganda.
directly traceable George Jr wacko extremists . Kennedy tax cuts revenge.
Obama talking truth lie? political agenda contradicts
GDP drop reach bottom keeps dropping Housing prices drop debt rises. Scary part
George Jr "Mission Accomplished" George Sr not dumb
Desert Storm taking revenge wacko extremist Vietnam, raise taxes, and economic incentives created stagflation.
economic pain directly traceable wacko extremists "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" Cheney preaching never learned Deja vue deny lessons tax cuts. taking revenge. ignorant naive bblame Obama. wacko extremists.
Maybe just maybe we need a little short term help to stem the tide of rising unemployment, reduced monetarycirculation, lowered production and falling housing prices. Maybe tax cuts do help - even if its in only for the short term to keep more people working and to buy some time. Just for the short term till the long term plan kicks in... Maybe?
China February Auto Sales Rise 25% After Tax Cuts
March 10 (Bloomberg) -- China vehicle sales surged 25 percent in February, the first gain in four months, after the government cut taxes on some models, helping the country extend its lead as the world’s largest auto market this year.
Sales of passenger cars, buses and trucks climbed to 827,600. The tally in the first two months rose 2.7 percent to 1.56 million, compared with a 39 percent decline to 1.35 million in the U.S.
China has halved retail taxes on small cars and drawn up plans to give out vehicle subsidies in rural areas to revive demand after auto sales rose at the slowest pace in a decade last year. Combined with the country’s wider 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion) economic stimulus package, the policies have caused General Motors Corp. to roughly double its forecast for China’s nationwide auto market growth this year.
“Consumers are regaining confidence because of the government’s stimulus policies,” said Ricon Xia, an analyst at Daiwa Research Institute in Shanghai. “Still, vehicle sales may fluctuate in the coming months.”
Passenger-car sales, including sport-utility and multipurpose vehicles, rose 24 percent last month to 607,300, the association said. In the first two months, the tally climbed 5.8 percent to 1.22 million.
Sales of cars with engines or 1.6 liters or less jumped 19 percent in the first two months. Their market share gained by 7.71 percentage points.
Rising sales and production cuts by automakers has caused the nation’s stockpile of unsold vehicles to fall to the lowest in two years last month, the grouping said.
Commercial-vehicle sales fell 6.9 percent in first two months as the sector received less government support than passenger cars, the group said. Truckmakers are now seeking similar stimulus plans, it added.
Maybe just maybe we need a little short term help to stem the tide of rising unemployment, reduced monetarycirculation, lowered production and falling housing prices. Maybe tax cuts do help - even if its in only for the short term to keep more people working and to buy some time. Just for the short term till the long term plan kicks in... Maybe?
China February Auto Sales Rise 25% After Tax Cuts
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes such a short-term tax cut:
[INDENT]Sales Tax Deduction for Vehicle Purchases. The bill provides all taxpayers with a deduction for State and local sales and excise taxes paid on the purchase of new cars, light truck, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles through 2009. This deduction is subject to a phase-out for
taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of $125,000 ($250,000 in the case of a joint return). This proposal is estimated to cost $1.684 billion over 10 years[/INDENT]
In fact, overall, about 1/3 of the provisions (and costs) of the bill are tax cuts and other tax relief/incentives.
You could have read the article.
ummm, I
did.
Maybe just maybe we need a little short term help to stem the tide of rising unemployment, reduced monetarycirculation, lowered production and falling housing prices. Maybe tax cuts do help - even if its in only for the short term to keep more people working and to buy some time. Just for the short term till the long term plan kicks in... Maybe?
China February Auto Sales Rise 25% After Tax Cuts
You can get cars here now for 0 tax. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think tax cuts will do much of anything but put more money into the pockets of the people who need it the least.
You can get cars here now for 0 tax. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think tax cuts will do much of anything but put more money into the pockets of the people who need it the least.
is this a state thing, or do you refer to the
'The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009' where you can itemize your sales tax paid on a car on your federal return? there's a big difference. [COLOR=Black] [/COLOR][COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black]meaning, you save xx% of your tax paid depending on your income bracket. ...i
f you paid $2000 tax on a car, and are at the 17% tax bracket, you pay[/COLOR] [/COLOR]
$340 less tax :: finger pop, swirl ::
some states don't charge sales tax far cars anyway......so those people don't benefit from the new 'program' anyway.
SEC. 1008. ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION FOR STATE SALES TAX AND
EXCISE TAX ON THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN MOTOR
VEHICLES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 164 is amended
by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
‘‘(6) Qualified motor vehicle taxes.’’.
(b) QUALIFIED MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES.—Subsection (b) of section
164 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(6) QUALIFIED MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the
term ‘qualified motor vehicle taxes’ means any State or
local sales or excise tax imposed on the purchase of a
qualified motor vehicle.
‘‘(B) LIMITATION BASED ON VEHICLE PRICE.—The
amount of any State or local sales or excise tax imposed
on the purchase of a qualified motor vehicle taken into
account under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed the portion
of such tax attributable to so much of the purchase
price as does not exceed $49,500.
‘‘(C) INCOME LIMITATION.—The amount otherwise taken
into account under subparagraph (A) (after the application
of subparagraph (B)) for any taxable year shall be reduced
(but not below zero) by the amount which bears the same
ratio to the amount which is so treated as—
‘‘(i) the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(I) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross
income for such taxable year, over
‘‘(II) $125,000 ($250,000 in the case of a joint
return), bears to
‘‘(ii) $10,000.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘modified
adjusted gross income’ means the adjusted gross income
of the taxpayer for the taxable year (determined without
regard to sections 911, 931, and 933).
H. R. 1—204
‘‘(D) QUALIFIED MOTOR VEHICLE.—For purposes of this
paragraph—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified motor
vehicle’ means—
‘‘(I) a passenger automobile or light truck
which is treated as a motor vehicle for purposes
of title II of the Clean Air Act, the gross vehicle
weight rating of which is not more than 8,500
pounds, and the original use of which commences
with the taxpayer,
‘‘(II) a motorcycle the gross vehicle weight
rating of which is not more than 8,500 pounds
and the original use of which commences with
the taxpayer, and
‘‘(III) a motor home the original use of which
commences with the taxpayer.
‘‘(ii) OTHER TERMS.—The terms ‘motorcycle’ and
‘motor home’ have the meanings given such terms
under section 571.3 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations
(as in effect on the date of the enactment of
this paragraph).
‘‘(E) QUALIFIED MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES NOT INCLUDED
IN COST OF ACQUIRED PROPERTY.—The last sentence of subsection
(a) shall not apply to any qualified motor vehicle
taxes.
‘‘(F) COORDINATION WITH GENERAL SALES TAX.—This
paragraph shall not apply in the case of a taxpayer who
makes an election under paragraph (5) for the taxable
year.
‘‘(G) TERMINATION.—This paragraph shall not apply
to purchases after December 31, 2009.’’.
(c) DEDUCTION ALLOWED TO NONITEMIZERS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 63(c) is amended
by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking
the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and inserting ‘‘,
and’’, and by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
‘‘(E) the motor vehicle sales tax deduction.’’.
(2) DEFINITION.—Section 63(c) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(9) MOTOR VEHICLE SALES TAX DEDUCTION.—For purposes
of paragraph (1), the term ‘motor vehicle sales tax deduction’
means the amount allowable as a deduction under section
164(a)(6). Such term shall not include any amount taken into
account under section 62(a).’’.
(d) TREATMENT OF DEDUCTION UNDER ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM
TAX.—The last sentence of section 56(b)(1)(E) is amended by
striking ‘‘section 63(c)(1)(D)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraphs (D) and
(E) of section 63(c)(1)’’.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to purchases on or after the date of
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes such a short-term tax cut:
I am aware of that and I think its a great thing. I was specifically referring to tw's post. Thanks for the informed link & quotes to further support my point
What it doesnt include is tax cuts for the top wage earners.
There is no evidence that such tax cuts "trickle down" and provide a stimulative effect as claimed repeatedly by the supply siders.
ok, then take them all out. Fuck it.
ok, then take them all out. Fuck it.
Wait. So you are only for tax cuts to the rich?
HA HA HA HA I knew I could count on you! where ya been all day?
HA HA HA HA I knew I could count on you! where ya been all day?
Work. Apparently I don't get paid if I don't go.
TGRR,
That's the MAN trying to KEEP ME DOWN!
Barack Obama, US president, on Wednesday said he “did not begrudge” the multi-million dollar bonuses given out to Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and added that their large pay-outs were a consequence of America’s “free market system”.
Mr Obama’s comments, in an interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, are likely to attract further controversy at a time when public anger over the Wall Street bonuses is increasingly being directed at Washington. They were also on Wednesday contrasted with Mr Obama’s recent criticisms of the “obscene” bonuses paid out on Wall Street as evidence that the White House was unable to sustain a clear message on the subject.
Link
Well which is it? After blasting these guys for so long, In March 2009 it was "Bonuses are violation of "our fundamental values" now suddenly its "That is part of the free-market system.” WTH? Which is it?
It's both. It's the way the free market system works, and an example of the more-for-me-fuck-you-and-the-country mentality of wall street.
What do you want him to do? If he bad mouths the system, then the republicans/tea baggers scream socialism. If he doesn't, they scream duplicity. Remember it's congress that has to fix this shit.
Link
Well which is it? After blasting these guys for so long, In March 2009 it was "Bonuses are violation of "our fundamental values" now suddenly its "That is part of the free-market system.” WTH? Which is it?
That is because his admin is filled with GS lackey's. Why would he screw his own appointee's?
Remember it's congress that has to fix this shit.
Exactly. In fact I would be a much bigger supporter of Obama if the Congress wasn't so screwed up.
That is because his admin is filled with GS lackey's.
So why are those GS lackey's so viciously attacking GS's bonuses and other questionable activities. Oh. That is what GS wants its lackey's to do.
Obama can't spank his own monkey without bragging about it.
There is probably a better thread for this, but...
There have been many Dwellar complaints over the fact that no bank executives
have been held personally accountable for the financial crisis starting back in 2008.
The following article seems to me to hold out some hope, after all.
How to Punish Corporate Fraudsters
NY Times - ERIC R. HAVIANOCT. 22, 2015
<snip>Few outside the legal community are familiar with the concept of “exclusion,”
which permits many federal agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission,
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Department of Health and Human Services
— [COLOR="Red"]to temporarily or permanently block corporations that violate their rules from doing business with them.
Importantly, it can also be applied to individual corporate officers, such as chief executives
and lower-level executives, and is especially effective in the finance and health care industries.[/COLOR]
Since most big banks are federally insured, and many large health care companies do business
with Medicare or Medicaid, barring an executive from that work can be a professional death sentence.
For example, the F.D.I.C. can bar someone for life from any federally insured bank
by demonstrating in an administrative hearing that the person violated federal banking regulations
or failed to correct any “unsafe or unsound practice.”
To exclude a health care executive from federal health programs,
the Department of Health and Human Services can also conduct an administrative hearing
to show that the executive engaged in fraud. And the S.E.C. can bar a financial services executive
by filing a civil case in federal court, showing that the person is unfit “to serve as an officer or director”
of a public company and proving that the executive knew about or recklessly ignored the improper activity.
Others have also been barred from any federally regulated bank over the past 15 years,
including the former C.E.O. of the now-defunct American Sterling Bank
and an executive of Louisiana’s First Guaranty Bank.
In addition, the Bear Stearns executives who were acquitted of criminal charges after the financial crisis
were later barred from the securities industry for several years.
<snip>
Yes, that does sound hopeful. But I am skeptical that the tool will be used.
Well, it's probably too late for the 2008 economic crisis.
But for the serious fight that is coming on Medicare cost reductions,
it might carry some weight (after the fact), or even as a
preventative measure that would get the attention of CFO's, etc.
.
I'm pessimistic. For show they might throw a token or two who are ready to retire and have the golden parachute in their pocket, under the bus. But I'd be surprised at even that because it would affect the company's stock, and even if that was temporary stockholders would be ragging on their congress critters.
Yup ... 7 YEARS later they are going to effectively blackball their financial friends and biggest political supporters ... Are you high?
