Forum: pol
Page 3574
Subject: Obama's Job Package


  Posted by: Tree - [41512710] Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 20:53

Discuss.

Obama's Jobs Package: A Smart Plan, if Not a Game Changer

President Obama's $450 billion stimulus revolves around a plan to extend and expand the payroll tax cut. It also includes incentives for businesses to hire workers -- with a separate tax credit for hiring long-term unemployed workers -- and it extends unemployment benefits for another year. And it's all offset with a plan to reduce our long-term deficit.

In short, this is a tax-side stimulus to encourage business to hire and put more money in the pockets of both the employed and the unemployed.


incentives to hire the long-term unemployed is a great, great thing.
 
1Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 03:12
a) His speaking style has deteriorated since taking office. He’s phonier than in 2008, reading with forced emphasis. At times he achieved the rare, magical combination of seeming desperate and condescending at the same time. - Mickey Kaus
 
2Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 03:29
Did you see the speech? Or just looked until you found someone who saw it for you that slammed it?

Sad that you are only concerned with style, anymore. We've got millions of Americans out of work, a President who gives a speech specifically focusing on jobs, and you post something second-hand about his speaking style.
 
3biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 03:40
I wish he would simply hire a million folks. We have more than enough work to do.

This looks like the most politically feasible, however. Except that the opposition immediately is against whatever he proposes, even though they proposed it first.
 
4Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 03:46
When you've lost Mickey Kaus...
 
5weykool
      ID: 1381381
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 08:33
We already have unemployment benefits. Companies already have incentives to hire. Still, the economy is growing at less than one percent and job creation is, literally, zero.
So lets review:
Unemployment was 8% when Obama took office and now its 9%.
The economy was far better than the economy Carter left Reagan to deal with.
Instead of dealing with the economy Obama chooses to blame the prior administration and do nothing for 2 1/2 years.
The Democrat congress and Obama pass not one but two major job killing bills.
Add to that a failed stimulus package that continues to suck the life out of the economy.

In the short term there is nothing in the plan that will do more harm to the economy.
Hopefully, it will help.
The problem is it is doubtful it will be able to help the economy in the long run and overcome the damage already done by the Obama/Pelosi/Reed regime.
 
6Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 10:27
When you've lost Mickey Kaus...

union critic, supporter of Arizona's anti-immigrant law, defender of Ann Coulter, etc...

he was lost a long time ago. no great shakes.

p.s. you didn't respond to PD's post. guessing you didn't see the speech.

not shocking. as usual, you're basing your opinion on what other people write.
 
7Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 10:33
The problem is it is doubtful it will be able to help the economy in the long run and overcome the damage already done by the Obama/Pelosi/Reed regime.

Is that supposed to be an analysis of 'The problem?" There is no "The problem." There are a myriad of problems, and most of them have absolutely nothing to do with administration policies(and WTF is Reed?). One of these problems is the insistence of laying all blame at the feet of political opponents, instead of presenting honest evaluations based on actual economic conditions.

There's not one person in this country who can conclusively state what current economic conditions would look like not only in this country, but globally, had different paths been taken when Obama took office.

The most common problem I see is too many Americans of all political persuasions attempting to perfect the art of whining. Perhaps it would be beneficial to look at current conditions in places like Somalia, or study conditions that existed in the 1930s while watching your cable TV; talking on your cell phone; typing on your computer; riding in your late model auto; eating safe and fresh food from the local supermarket; and wondering who to plug into your fantasy QB slot now that Manning is down.

Americans, for the most part, are incredibly fortunate to live in this little piece of history. "The problem" is that we can't rely on the government to improve economic conditions, nor can we assign blame to the government as a generic exercise. But as a business owner, I will say this: When I have an employee who constantly whines, I replace them.
 
8DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 10:35
Weykool, thanks for the vapid analysis as usual -- I assume from your commentary that you think the stimulus failed, right?

So, clearly, you think more tax cuts are a bad idea, right, since most of the stimulus was tax cuts?

I didn't even watch the speech either, and really don't care much about it one way or the other -- everyone's comments about it were written before it was even given anyway.
 
9Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 11:11
As the republican talking point goes, this wasn't a jobs program, it was an Obama election program.

Government doesn't create jobs but they sure kill job creation.

He could clean house and remove the business hating, Mao loving agency administrators he put in place, but that and adequate job growth won't happen till he is gone.
 
10Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 11:16
Here's a good analysis re: "The problem"

But corporations are sitting on record piles of cash and they are not expanding their full-time payrolls in this uncertain economic and regulatory environment. And individuals who are credit worthy enough to buy a new home or refinance an existing mortgage have done so or will do so at current interest rates. The problem lies with the masses of those who no longer have positive equity in their homes or have lost their jobs or seen a reduction in their incomes. Low (or even lower) long-term interest rates do nothing for them.



 
11Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 11:32
Government doesn't create jobs but they sure kill job creation.

More vapid, lazy and dishonest economic analysis. Do you have any clue how many jobs in the private sector come from government contracts?

An obvious example that effects our local economy. ATK is the #1 employer in Box Elder County. If that company goes under, you think the people up there are going to say, "Well, government doesn't create jobs."?
We're talking a county that is 85% Republican. They'd be Romney voters even if he wasn't Mormon, because he understands economics better than Perry, Bachmann and Obama.



 
12Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 11:36
#9: Absolutely this was Obama on the trail. The GOP has been on the campaign trail against him since about his first week on the job. About time we saw him with a little fire in the belly.

The rest of your post is just nonsense. If government doesn't create jobs than why are Republicans blaming him for unemployment? The Fed has lowered interest rates to about zero. They've offered tax cuts and breaks across the board. They've pumped billions of dollars into the economy (sadly, as a result of compromise with the GOP, not in the most efficient way but there you go).

"Mao loving"? Really? Please clean the spittle off your monitor before posting again.
 
13boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 11:40
re 10: the link seems to not be working.
 
14Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 11:41
Let's play a game, weykool. It's called "Find the Blame Obama Lays at the Feet of George W. Bush."

Here's the full text to Obama's speech. Have at it.

You are addicted to blaming Democrats for blaming Bush. Your posts continue to be variations on the same theme. But read the damn speech.
 
15Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 11:48
If government doesn't create jobs than why are Republicans blaming him for unemployment? - PD

You've had the answer to that explained to you virtually every day of Obama's administration. You can't threaten business and expect them not to pull in their horns and hunker down until the threat passes and they have weathered the storm.

There are innumerable examples of Obama and his agencies, and Dems in congress threatening businesses.

 
16sarge33rd
      ID: 13856817
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 12:10
BS..there are numerous examples of you crying 'the sky is falling", which is not the same as Obama "threatening" business.
 
17Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 13:11
Agree with Sarge. The meme during the Bush Admin was that Dems were sabotaging the economy whenever they said it was unstable. Now the authors of that meme want to convince us we're in an Obama-caused depression.

More specific to the notion of being threatened, Boldwin, don't you think businesses saw the country's credit rating and even default being used as a political gambit (it's a feature!) as a major "threat"?
 
18weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 14:01
PV:
I never blamed anyone.
I happen to agree with you that there are many factors that contribute the how well or bad an economy is doing.
Economic cycles, the health of the world economy, natural disasters etc.
Government policies which include taxes is another factor.

The California government has been anti-business/jobs for decades and the state economy is in the toilet.
At one point it was said that if California was its own country it would be the 5th largest economy in the world.
Unfortunately, an economy that big can be a tremendous drag on the entire US economy.

So why are businesses sitting on record piles of cash?
As you point out they dont like economic uncertainty.
If your business in manufacturing you are going to think twice about expanding your payroll when you have the effects of cap and trade hanging over your business.
The hypocracy of the Obama speech was to demand more made in America products while the CEO of of GE who moved plants and jobs to china, sits next to the first lady.
Then you have the uncertainty of Obama care hanging over the rest of the business who might otherwise be inclined to hire employees to expand their businesses.
In addition, the jobs plan is supposed to offer tax incentives to hiring the unemployed but in the next breath he threatens business owners with higher taxes.
Deomcrats need to stop the continuous saber rattling about raising taxes if they want to be taken seriously as pro business/jobs.

The importance of the government when it comes to having a growing economy is to create a business friendly environment.
This has to be balanced with environmental concerns, workers rights, public safety, etc.
The pendulum has swung too far to the left and we need to do what we can to swing it more towards the middle if we want to see good economic times again.

PD:
If you need a link to help you with reading comprehension let me know.
 
19Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 14:17
Weykool, in the spam of 5 & 1/2 hours you went from:

Instead of dealing with the economy Obama chooses to blame the prior administration and do nothing for 2 1/2 years.
The Democrat congress and Obama pass not one but two major job killing bills.
Add to that a failed stimulus package that continues to suck the life out of the economy.


to:

I never blamed anyone
 
20Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 14:49
Deomcrats need to stop the continuous saber rattling about raising taxes if they want to be taken seriously as pro business/jobs.

OK, then Republicans need to stop refusing to explore ways to increase revenue if they want to be taken seriously about wanting to tackle the deficit. And unless you make over $250,000 a year, no one is sabre rattling about raising your taxes.



 
21Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 14:49
Heh. Don't get burn marks on your ass, wk, from backing away so quickly.
 
22biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 15:01
California is in trouble because they can't raise taxes, constitutionally. It makes the state ungovernable when your populous demands services but you can't pay for them.
 
23Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 15:10
It's probably worth noting, again, that Obama has not in fact raised taxes on anyone, at any level. In fact, for the vast majority of taxpayers their taxes have gone down as a result of Obama's policies.

The Federal tax rates, as a share of gdp, are at their lowest since the 1960's. And the total tax burden on taxpayers (federal + state + local) is the lowest since 1958.

The GOP would have you believe the opposite of each of these things, which is the only way their fear-laden narrative works.
 
24Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 16:37
Reagan raised taxes, that damned Socialist Marxist Communard!
 
25weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 16:52
I said Obama and his minions spent 2 1/2 years blaming Bush for the bad economy and doing nothing about it .
I said nothing about Obama blaming Bush in his speech, which is what post 14 inplied.
In addition, as my full post explained there are things the government can do to make the economy worse.
That is a far cry from blaming anyone for the things that affect the economy that are beyond the control of the government.

California is in trouble because they can't raise taxes, constitutionally. It makes the state ungovernable when your populous demands services but you can't pay for them.
California has the highest gasoline tax.
California ranks amoung the highest state income taxes for both individuals and corporations.
California ranks amoung the highest state sales tax in the nation.
Property taxes are very high when you consider the inflated property values.
I know the mantra from the left is just keep raising taxes but there is only so much blood you can suck out of the taxpayers.
 
26DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 17:33
It's really easy to win when you just keep making up BS strawmen to argue against. It's a lot harder when you try dealing with reality.
 
27Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 17:51
there are things the government can do to make the economy worse.

That's not really in question, however. There are lot of things the government can do. A more focused stimulus can absolutely help, and is much more likely to do so than the half-assed compromised the first time around.

I think we hashed out California's problems in another thread somewhere. The problem with California is their particular referendum system, which saddles the government with lots and lots of mandated spending.
 
28Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 18:11
It's probably worth noting, again, that Obama has not in fact raised taxes on anyone, at any level. - PD

When I am charged $3,800 for not owning insurance it will be a tax.

A damn big tax increase. Huge. On the poor.
 
29sarge33rd
      ID: 13856817
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 18:12
from post 5:

Unemployment was 8% when Obama took office and now its 9%.
The economy was far better than the economy Carter left Reagan to deal with.
Instead of dealing with the economy Obama chooses to blame the prior administration and do nothing for 2 1/2 years.
The Democrat congress and Obama pass not one but two major job killing bills.
Add to that a failed stimulus package that continues to suck the life out of the economy.


Line 1..OK. Your point?

Line 2..False. The economy tanked in Nov 2008. Obama was not inaugurated until Jan 2009. These are historic facts. Retail, began failing as early as Apr 2008. Sales were WELL below forecast by the mid year mark and never recovered in 2008.

Line 3...Patently false. he passed the stimulus bill. he continued the TARP begun under GWB.

Line 4...Again, patently false. First you alledge in line 3 he did "nothing", then you immediately accuse him of doing 2 detrimental things. Even if nr4 were true (which it is not), it would be definition make nr3 false.

line 5...a favored rightwingnut contention, but patently false. CBO, non partisan, says (and WSJ who detests Dems in general says), the stimulus worked and worked well.

5 allegations, 1 with some truth. 20%...you phailed.
 
30Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 18:35
On the poor.

Actually, the poor are entitled to substantially reduced (in some cases, free) subsidies, if they are between 100% to 400% of the FPL.

In fact, the biggest problem regarding the poor in the bill is the fact that it might be too generous. I understand that a couple making $64 K/year or under is now eligible for Medicare under the law, which was an unforseen (and, as far as I know uncorrected) effect.

Meanwhile, keep up with the "Obama raised taxes" mantra, which worked so well when you called them "death panels."
 
31Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 18:39
Starting Jan 1, 2010 we began to be taxed for the 'Community Living Assistance Services and Support Program'.

We are paying into a 'trust fund' [which will be raided as it comes in] to pay for nursing home costs which we cannot receive for the next five years.
 
32Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 18:42
Dubbed CLASS ACT, ”the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee (Senator Kent Conrad D-ND) called it, “A Ponzi Scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.”
 
33Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 18:44
Jan 1, 2010 should have read Jan 1, 2011.
 
34Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 18:56
After 2012...[aka the election]...a 3.8% Obamacare sales tax will be assessed on the sale of homes. So baby boomers as they downsize for retirement will be hit with a huge and immediate tax. That is $15.2K on a $400K house.
 
35Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 18:56
The CLASS ACT is voluntary. Don't like it, then don't opt in.
 
36Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:02
Withdrawing from medical savings accounts for over-the-counter medicine will now be taxed at 20%. [A 100% increase]
 
37Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:03
The CLASS ACT is voluntary.

Social Security was sold to americans as voluntary at the start too.
 
38Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:04
There is a new 10-percent excise tax on the use of indoor tanning booths.
 
39biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:09
I thought this was about Obama's package...

(I never claimed I was a class act).
 
40Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:23
If your employer's health coverage is better than government mandates, your employer will be taxed 40% for the coverage that excedes government mandates.

I expect most employers will simply kick you off your coverage and pay the fines.
 
41Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:26
Social Security was sold to americans as voluntary at the start too.

Look, if you aren't able to distinguish between what Obama has actually done and what you fear he might be, don't take offense that your posts aren't accepted as being reality-based. Because they aren't.

The CLASS Act is voluntary. Warning that it might not be in the future isn't actually making a point.

[To say nothing of the fact that Social Security, from Day 1, was never voluntary. Some industries (like farming) were except from withholding, but everyone in industries covered by the law were required to contribute FICA. Saying it was "voluntary" is like saying "if you don't like it you can volunteer for another job in a different field.]
 
42Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:26
A fee will be applied [and passed on of course...read taxes] to all health insurance providers based upon net premiums and any third party fees associated with the administration of those programs. The fees will total $6.7 billion annually. This figure begins at $8 billion in the Reconciliation Act and rises to $14.3 billion by 2018.
 
43Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:28
Cosmetic surgery will be taxed 5% by Obamacare.
 
44Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:30
The pharmaceutical industry will be taxed an extra $2.3 billion annually by Obamacare which will be passed along to you, the consumer.
 
45Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:31
The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers.

Taxing little timmy's crutches.
 
46Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:33
The new Obamacare tax enforcement will require 16,500 new “combat trained” IRS agents armed to the teeth with shotguns.

It's not coming out of Obama's pocket.
 
47Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:34
So don't tell me Obama lowered my taxes. Liar.
 
48Tree
      ID: 7859918
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 19:59
Social Security was sold to americans as voluntary at the start too.

no it wasn't. another internet meme of falsehoods.

(on a computer where java isn't working)

dismissed here: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/fdrs-voluntary-social-security/

or here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

or any number of places.

another falsehood and/or lie presented by you.

LIAR. TIME AND TIME AGAIN.





 
49Great One
      ID: 157433020
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 20:10
Apparently he goes tanning and has had plastic surgery.
 
50Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 20:28
So don't tell me Obama lowered my taxes. Liar.

No personal federal taxes have risen under Obama. None. Most have fallen.

After spinning fantastical tales of IRS brownshirts and forced CLASS Act paycheck deductions (and death panels, etc) for you to simply call someone a liar on a provable point is simply hilarious.

You know, of course, that most all of those "taxes" (which aren't taxes at all) were agreed to (in some cases, suggested by) the insurance companies who will sell those devices or those services?

And calling everything "taxes" merely clarifies for us your muddied thinking on the issue, really.

What's next--the price of a first class postage stamp has risen under Obama--TAX INCREASE!!!@@!!
 
51Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 20:37
I've explained to you since before he was elected, 'The Illinois way'. Illinois politicians for several decades have simply refused to raise income taxes and raise stealth taxes and fees instead. Then they trumpet that they haven't raised taxes when they raised taxes on everything up to and including air and water.

You know he does it. And then you tell everyone not to look behind the curtain at what he is actually doing to suck us dry.
 
52Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 20:41
And believe me, the Illinois politicians who mentored Obama have raised Illinois 'revenue enhancement' to devastating business crushing levels. Businesses are leaving as fast as they can pack.

The business reaction to Obama on the national stage was predictable.
 
53sarge33rd
      ID: 13856817
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 20:42
The only one sucking us dry...is the one spreading falsehoods, innuendo and lies.

See, it is untruths, billed AS truths; which bleed the society dry. Between you and WK.....the rest of us need a fkn tourniquet.
 
54Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 20:43
Taxes are not fees. And vice versa. Simple stuff. For a guy who doesn't like Grover Nordquist, you seem taken by his dictionary.

Somehow covering the cost of things has to happen, or we continue having to borrow to do so. Charging fees to insurance companies with their record profits and billions of cash on hand seems to be the best way to do it.

Perhaps you've got another idea. So long as it doesn't involve gratuitously slamming Obama I'm all ears.
 
55Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 20:55
Well guess what? The enforcement of the Obamacare tax increases I just listed resides with the IRS.

When the states tried to kill unconstitutional Obamacare mandates Obama defended them as taxes.

Just in the Obamacare penalty alone that I will be facing, my taxes will double.

That's what I call regressive and huge.

And you can just get honest and quit telling people he didn't raise my taxes.
 
57Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 21:33
once again, avoiding the reaction to post 37, where you simply lied.

that's the funny thing about you - you are called out on your lies repeatedly - and they are proven to be absolute untruths, and you simply ignore the fact you lied, and go skipping along as if you've done nothing wrong.

time and time again.
 
58Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 21:37
And you can just get honest and quit telling people he didn't raise my taxes

He didn't. You calling non-taxes taxes doesn't make them so. I'm sorry it pains you so much that you are now paying a smaller part of your income to the federal government since Obama was elected.

The IRS also collects tariffs. Are they now taxes?
 
61Wilmer McLean
      ID: 28855111
      Sun, Sep 11, 2011, 02:56
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Politifacts -- Promise Broken

We were willing to give President Barack Obama a Compromise rating on this promise when a new cigarette tax went into effect. But the latest health care bill includes more broad-based taxes that are pushing us toward Promise Broken.

We should state at the outset that if you think Obama only meant he would not raise income taxes on people making less than $250,000, then you might think Obama is keeping his promise. The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, and Obama said he would extend those tax cuts for those making less than $250,000. We still have that promise rated In the Works. People who make more than $250,000 will likely see their taxes go up, just as Obama promised during the campaign.

But Obama's campaign rhetoric took him beyond just income taxes. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes," Obama said. It's that "not any of your taxes" that is the sticking point.

The health care law that Obama signed on March 23, 2010, raises taxes on some things regardless of income. Two taxes in particular stand out. A tax on indoor tanning services begins this year. And in 2014, people will have to pay a fine, levied through their income taxes, if they don't have health insurance. Neither of these taxes are pegged to income.

Obama has made the case that the tax penalty for people who decline to buy insurance should not be considered a broken promise on taxes. If that tax, better known as the individual mandate, were the only new measure we were considering, we might be inclined to rate this a Compromise. But the fact is, if you're a happily uninsured smoker who likes to tan, you are facing a triple whammy.

Obama made many other tax promises that are rated In the Works, and may ultimately move to Promise Kept. But this promise was so broadly phrased that almost any type of revenue-generating measure could have contradicted it. We're now willing to rate it Promise Broken.
 
62Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Sep 11, 2011, 04:04
Politifact, as much as I admire them, are at times wrong. They are wrong here. Those aren't individual taxes. The indoor tanning tax is an excise tax on companies, not on individuals.

Plain and simple: Obama simply hasn't raised any individual (or family) taxes at any income level. And many have gone down.
 
67Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Sep 11, 2011, 12:53
House to Obama: Your jobs package is DOA.
 
80J-Bar
      ID: 107281218
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 23:06
Has the senate voted on Cut,Cap, and balance act yet? What about Ryan's budget bill?
 
81Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 23:46
1. Not yet. But it is in the system, as it were.

2. The Ryan and Obama plans were both voted down in May in the Senate.
 
82Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 06:39
“We are better than that. We are smarter than that.” - O
Obama speechifies his Jobs Bill stump speech at:
  • a bridge project that does not qualify for the Jobs Bill
  • a bridge project that does not provide new jobs because it wouldn't even start before 2015
  • a bridge repair project at a bridge that does not need repairs.
Now that's a campaign staff.
 
83Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 11:13
Holding out for "shovel ready projects" is pretty stupid, IMO. A holdover from when he was trying to get Republicans, in vain, to do the right thing about the stimulus.

Its about time he went into campaign mode. Republicans have been negotiating in bad faith with Obama since week one--he should be taking his case directly to the people since most of his ideas are overwhelmingly approved by people.
 
84Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 11:33
The point of 'shovel ready' even from Obama's POV, I thot, was that it would fix a current problem. Unemployment today. Unfreeze the market today. Not 'we'd really like to squander it later but those pesky republicans insist we stimulate the economy now'.
 
85Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 11:52
Shovel-ready projects are those that have gone through engineering, planning approval, early site prep, etc but did not proceed from there.

In my experience as a municipal planner, the reason those projects didn't go past that is usually (not always, but most always) because there is a fatal flaw in the project at that point.

It is far, far better to work on projects from the start rather than try to inject money into project that typically shouldn't be prodded. You get better projects, more community orientation ones, and the money is spread out over a longer period of time.

I realize that both Obama and the GOP thought recovery would come about quicker, and hence the shorter timetable on funding for these projects. But that isn't the case anymore.
 
86Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 10:31
My understanding is that only 6% of the stimulus money went to infrastructure projects.

If it's doable, I would think a crucial democrat project would be to convince the public the stimulus money was spent responsibly, effectively and relatively free of cronyism. Dems have a long long way to go till they convince the public that they aren't squandering a whole generation's worth of capital and spreading it around to their buddies.

I don't think the case can be made.
 
87sarge33rd
      ID: 118582410
      Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 12:11
Its already been proven, the original stimulus worked. I dont think you give a sh*t, to accept proof of anything Dem doing anything beneficial.
 
88Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 17:59
*to your satisfaction.

Which rigorous criteria was met they day O signed the bill.
 
89sarge33rd
      ID: 118582410
      Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 18:08
No B...to any except those who will blindly, stubbornly, stupidly even in light of the contrary evidence; hold to their biased position. Like, oh I dont know.....birthers maybe.
 
90Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 18:10
Whether it worked as advertised isn't the point, sarge. It wasn't enough, and it wasn't targeted the way it should have been. Even then we knew it wasn't the best piece, as it was a large compromise legislation. And (as I mentioned above) neither Obama nor the GOP expected recovery to be this slow.

The point is, what do we need now?

Moody's indicates that, if passed as proposed, the legislation will knock down unemployment by a bit over 1%. This seems like a very little bit, but given the length of time people are out of work and the state of the economy, that 1% might very well be what helps accelerate the recovery.

To say nothing of the fact that we are already paying unemployment compensation for so many of those people--putting that money into a more direct stimulus program focused on job creation is almost certainly a better way to spend the money.
 
91Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Sep 29, 2011, 13:59
Some cautiously optimist numbers almost across the board.

Just read that communication equipment and other hardware purchases were up a bit as well.

Surprising (to me) but any good news is good news.
 
92Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 16:43

Cantor to Obama on jobs bill: DOA.

Meanwhile, the House GOP releases draft LHHS budget, which slashes job training programs.
 
93Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 04:05
Harry Reid explains 'The Jobs Bill', [and all of Obama's stimulus bills actually]
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday indicated Congress needs to worry about government jobs more than private-sector jobs, and that this is why Senate Democrats are pushing a bill aimed at shoring up teachers and first-responders.

“It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about,” Reid said on the Senate floor.
------
Reid reiterated his emphasis on creating government jobs by saying Democrats are looking to “put hundreds of thousands of people back to work teaching children, have more police patrolling our streets, firefighters fighting our fires, doing the rescue work that they do so well … that’s our priority.” He said Republicans are calling the bill a “failure” because they are “using a different benchmark for success than we are.”
Twenty percent real unemployment is 'just fine' in Harry Reid's book. As long as we maintain the era of big government all is well.

AKA Europe.
 
94Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 10:10
Well, to back up Baldwin's point, the GOP filibuster a bill to put more firefighters and teachers (i.e, public sector employees) back to work.

We wouldn't want millionaires funding any stinking teachers or firefighters, would we? After all, those are public sector employees.
 
95Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 17:32
I just read that the average federal employee in Washington DC earns well north of $140,000 yearly.

They can damn well share the depression with the rest of us.
 
96Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 17:53
I just read that the average federal employee in Washington DC earns well north of $140,000 yearly.

You are the most gullible fool, that claim is preposterous. Even you must realize the number of clerical staff in DC.

Nice link, too.
 
97Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 18:43
Bloomberg:

Public sector Washington DC edges out private sector silicon valley for wealthiest metro area.
Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation’s greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out San Jose as the wealthiest U.S. metropolitan area, government data show.
---
The figures demonstrate how the nation’s political and financial classes are prospering as the economy struggles with unemployment above 9 percent
---
“Wall Street has moved to K Street,” [someone tell OWS - B] said Barbara Lang, president and chief executive officer of the DC Chamber of Commerce, referring to the Washington street that’s home to prominent lobbying firms. “Those two industries clearly have grown in our city.”
---
The flow of federal dollars in and around the nation’s capital helped the region weather the economic slump better than most areas and is contributing to its recovery. The unemployment rate in the Washington metro area in August was 6.1 percent, compared with 10 percent in San Jose [aka silicon valley - B],
---
“The region did experience a shorter, shallower recession than San Jose,” said Sara Kline, a Washington analyst at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania. “The federal government stepped in to take efforts to dampen the recession. It was focused to some extent in the D.C. area as well, given the presence of federal workers there and contractors. That insulated it from more of a downturn.”

Federal government spending for programs excluding Social Security and Medicare in fiscal year 2011, which ended on Sept. 30, rose to $2.38 trillion from $2.3 trillion the previous year
Like I said, there is no reason the political class aka leeches deserve to suck the rest of us dry so that they don't have to experience the same depression they led us into.

Or maybe you think the public sector produces something other than the spreading of misery and silicon valley is the leech.
 
98sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 18:45
The politicians who "led us into" this depression, carry the tag of REP, and were but enablers of the CEOs who "led us" into this quagmire. you know, those great bastions of capitalism, is who caused this mess B.
 
99Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 19:15
I guess I could show you Barney Frank telling off Bush's bank regulators for the millionth time about how healthy the sub-prime market was and what a great job FM/FM were doing, but you apparently you think Barney Frank is a Republican when it suits your purposes.
 
100Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 19:20
Let's hear all the democrats one more time.



Tell me again how the republicans were the ones against regulating the sub-prime market and FM/FM.

Someone help me with a term I can use to describe Sarge's blindness and amnesia on this subject that passes the civility test.
 
101sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 19:26
Try doing a little honest research B. Explore the causes of the Great depression and what led to the enactment of Glass-Steagall. Then how GLB rescinded that Act, and explore the deregulation of the financial industry during the Bush administration. THERE, lies the root causes for this fiasco. But to conclude such, requires unbiased honesty on your part, and thus is not expected by any here to ever be seen.
 
102Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 19:29
Barney telling a complete lie:



What he really said:

 
103Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 19:50
Glass Stegall was repealed during Clinton's administration with only 8 nay votes in the Senate.

How that is supposed to defang what the Democrat's said in preventing any regulation of the sub-prime market escapes me.
 
104sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:03
Glass-Stegall was repealed BY the Graham-leach-Bliley Act....I'd think you'd know that
 
105Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:04
That was the repeal. Yes. Whatever would I do without your illumination.
 
106Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:06
It happened in 1999 during the Clinton administration like I said. Whatever was your point?
 
107sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:08
good gawd B...is objectivity and comprehension entirely out of your grasp?


Tell you waht, read up on the passing of Glass-Steagall, then come back and we can talk. Right now, w/o your apparently understanding GS, there is no point.
 
108Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:10
It was repealed almost unanimously during a democrat administration. What is your malfunction?
 
109sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:11
go away...troll


unless and until you understand WHY GS was passed in the first place, and then admit that it was replaced by a REP controlled Congress and an Act authored BY Republicans, then you will not understand.

Either catch up, or shut up.
 
110sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:17
and while you are at it....research the per centage of subprime mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie. No way in hell, that minimal holding, caused the recession. Can NOT honestly be said.

though I do not recall the last time anyone accused you of being honest.
 
111Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:19
And the benificiaries of Graham-leach-Bliley Act rewarded the Democrat party by campaign donations

In 2008

In 2010

And in 2011
Obama’s raised more money for Democrats from Wall Street donors than all Republican candidates combined
So how does any of this take away from democrats preventing regulation of the sub-prime market leading up to the bubble bursting?
 
112sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:23
read and learn..unbiased research B

explore the depression of the late 19th century and its cause

explore the depression of the 1930s and its cause,

explore WHY GS was written and enacted..what it prevented,

then look at what your REPUBLICANS did with GLB,

an d lets see if comprehension will cause ANY honesty within you, or whether you will continue to be obtuse, twist and turn the truth, and essentially lie your ass off while claiming the Christian moral high ground.
 
113Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:30
Until you read 'All The Devils Are Here', the definitive book on how the collapse happened, like I have, don't be lecturing me about any of it.

Answer why the democrats prevented regulation of the sub-prime market to in their minds increase the percentage of poor owning houses?

Answer how the Graham-leach-Bliley Act is Bush's fault when it was passed almost unanimously during Clinton's term?

Even if it were Bush's fault which obviously it wasn't, how does that expunge the guilt from Barney Frank and friends preventing regulation of the sub-prime market?

And then you can ask why FM/FM lowered their mortgage guidelines every year.

As it happens, FM/FM were at the absolute ground zero center of the meltdown. There was a race to the bottom as private brokers competed with the unfair advantage GSE's enjoyed because of their government monopoly 'will never be allowed to fail' status.

 
114sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:34
when/where did I say GLB was Bushs fault? Strawmen....


and since I am sic to death of your bullsh*t bullheadedness.....screw your friggin book..look at history and not a biased review
 
115sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:38
fannie and freddie were so far from "ground zero", it aint even funny. WALL STREET, was ground zero.
 
116Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:41
when/where did I say GLB was Bushs fault? Strawmen..

Sarge#98 - The politicians who "led us into" this depression, carry the tag of REP and you seem to think GLB was the key.
 
117sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:48
Sen Graham, Rep Leach and Rep Bliley, the 3 authors of GLB are/were Republicans. Or will you prete4nd to not know who wrote GLB?
 
118Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:53
WALL STREET, was ground zero

The competition to sell ever more risky products to Wall Street, carried on between private brokers and the GSE's was the cause. If FM/FM had been held to invariant standards, or if the private brokers hadn't had to compete with a government monopoly, or if ratings institutes had stuck with 'buyer pays', instead of 'seller pays', or if derivatives had clearinghouses and oversight and CDO's had never been invented, and if most importantly if the banking committees had insisted FM/FM accepted OFHEO guidance we would have had a chance to avoid this.
 
119Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:55
Do you think for one second that the lobbyists who lobbied for GLB aren't the same ones flooding Obama with cash?
 
120Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:12
Can't handle the current debate, so you need to try to resurrect old ones?
 
121sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:34
The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. This repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial bank.

from Glass-Steagall wiki

now, WHAT did GLB remove?

The conflict of interest prohibition which prevented investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks? This prohibition, ensured that no one selling packaged investments, had access to depositors funds for the purchase OF those packaged investments. Courtesy of GLB, investment bankers selling crap mortgage backed securitues, could now as officers of a commercial bank, use that banks deposited funds to BUY those same crap mortgage backed securities.

And B, you HONESTLY dont see any problem with this???????
 
122Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:35
Yeah, Sarge has to bring back that 'black is white and the sun is the moon' argument again.
 
123sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:36
smdh...yep, DONE with you B
 
124Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:39
This is Sarge burying post#97 under so much spam so no one reads it.
 
125sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:45
no, that was sarge correcting the erroneous assumption behind your post 97, which your summarized within 97 when you said:

Like I said, there is no reason the political class aka leeches deserve to suck the rest of us dry so that they don't have to experience the same depression they led us into.


It has GOT to svck being you, and finding yourself constantly shot all to hell by the truth.
 
126Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:56
Sucking is having to protect Barney Frank's guilty @$$. That is some job you have there.
 
127DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 22:07
Wheeeeeeee... love to see Boldwin off the meds again!
 
128Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 22:07
If there is one thing we know about Obama's jobs package, it is that Barney Frank is guilty of something big but non-specific. Enough to cause people to completely lose both perspective and focus...
 
129Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 22:20
Just watch him talk in the preceding embeds.
 
130Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 22:26
What we do know about Obama's 'Job's package' is that it's purpose is to prop up the bloated public sector at the expense of the private sector.

The average two income federal employee family are the rich even by Obama's definition...$250K yearly, and the long-suffering middle class is supposed to bail them out while no one bails out the middle class.

See post #97 which Sarge doesn't want you to read, thus the detour.
 
131Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 23:37
Where in #97 does it state that the average two income federal employee family make $250k a year?

It says,

Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation’s greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out San Jose as the wealthiest U.S. metropolitan area, government data show.

Federal employees include members of Congress,
members of the cabinet, the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, etc. Nowhere does it state the average federal employee makes the salaries claimed.

Are congresspersons like Michelle Bachmann, with a residence in the DC metro, part of the equation? If so, shame on her for contributing to the long-suffering of the middle class
 
132sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 23:38
gawd B, if your hatred werent already toxic enough, let us all get this straight:

you advocate the dismissal of Police Officers, Fire Fighters, First Responders and Teachers BECAUSE they are on the public payroll and should be forced to share in YOUR economic hardship. Is that essentially correct?

yet you would and DO, argue that in your economic good times, you should not be required to share that with others?

So a fair summary would be that like a spoiled teenage child, you want-want-want-want and ALL of it, someone else should pay for.

In the words of a British friend of mine...piss off.
 
133Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 00:16
"Compensation" includes benefits such as health care, retirement, and so on. FYI.

Those embeds, Boldwin, as about Fannie Mae. Nothing about Obama's jobs bill.

I know you want to wrench this discussion onto ground you feel more comfortable, but stop it. There are plenty of other threads in which you can concentrate all your half-baked Democratic demonizing.
 
134Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 00:59
This is Sarge burying post#97 under so much spam so no one reads it.

it's been read. it's another of your lies or mis-truths.

I just read that the average federal employee in Washington DC earns well north of $140,000 yearly.


is not the same as

Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000


never mind that the dollar figures are off, but there is a GIANT difference between what one *earns* and what one's *compensation* is. I would expect anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of how being employed works to understand that, but i guess i'd be wrong.

what one EARNS, is one's salary. one's COMPENSATION includes benefits, from health insurance to 401ks PDOs to vacations and everything in between.
 
135sarge33rd
      ID: 309252112
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 01:38
Table of Geberal Salaries by GS Grade and Step

It takes a GS 15 (the highest possible 'rank', Step 10 (the highest Step); to see a salary of 129k/yr.

That lone fact, shoots hell out of B's contention that a couple is paid in excess of 250k/yr.


FAQ re Federal pay grades, steps, time in service requirements, etc etc

 
136Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 09:00
Lol!

This isn't debatable. You can't finesse this. These are the official census figures.
 
137Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 09:15
And the trends are even more revealing!
#2 In 2005, 7420 federal workers were making $150,000 or more per year. In 2010, a whopping 82,034 federal workers were making $150,000 or more per year. That is more than a tenfold increase in just five years.

#3 In 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense had just nine civilians earning $170,000 or more. When Barack Obama took office, the U.S. Department of Defense had 214 civilians earning $170,000 or more. In June 2010, the U.S. Department of Defense had 994 civilians earning $170,000 or more.

#4 Last year, federal employees “earned” approximately 447 billion dollars in total compensation.

#5 According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, federal workers earn 30 to 40 percent more money on average than their counterparts in the private sector.

 
138Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 10:20
are you proposing we slash military spending significantly?
 
139biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 10:51
Links to census data you are referring to please, not the spin.
 
140Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 11:04
bili

I am quoting Bloomberg. Bloomberg says that is what the census data says. Do you think that is a biased source?
 
141DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 11:30
Once again, post 137 is cleverly (???) edited to make it sound as though that's their salary, when it should be pointed out that it includes all compensation including health care and benefits of all kinds (which of course begs the question of how precisely those are calculated, a factor conveniently left out of the article altogether).

There may actually be SOMETHING to this, but when you kind of can't get the basic facts like that right, it's sort of hard to take you seriously. (That isn't the only reason for that problem, of course.)
 
142DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 11:32
(From the USA Today article cited in the link in 137):

Jessica Klement, government affairs director at the Federal Managers Association, says the government's official pay analysis shows that federal workers earn less than private workers for comparable jobs."
 
143DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 11:36
Still more LOLZ from that same article in 137:

#7 More than 50 percent of the members of the U.S. Congress are millionaires.

#8 The median wealth of a U.S. Senator in 2009 was 2.38 million dollars.

The extensive analysis of how wealthy they were before they became members of the U.S. Congress, or more specifically U.S. Senators, is not given. I await the reconciliation of this minor detail with "people should be allowed to make as much as they want and how dare the government touch any of it". Unless you're IN the government, then you should have to take a vow of poverty so those people not in the government should be able to have even more, I guess.
 
144Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 12:59
What we want, apparently, are minimum wage earners to protect our rights, pass laws, protect people, fight fires, teach children, etc.

None of this sudden outcry over federal employee pay (who got a big 1.4% raise last year, I believe) is talked about in-context. Because context would humanize the government and its workers, and the Right can't stand for that. The first step to demonizing people is to de-humanize them.