2 Obama administration officials can't guarantee middle-class Americans won't see tax hike

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hitISYixOv_DC0ABZeYzc6dg2BDAD99R0SFG0

8/3/2009 2:35:14 PM

not solely Obama's decision of course, but this has been pretty frustrating for the past week. The project I have been on for the past 14 months at work, and was scheduled to be on until March 2010 is now canceled and getting destaffed over the next 6 weeks due to the DOE not providing a $1.5 billion loan guarantee that we were told was a "70% Go" 2 months ago. Furthermore, Obama said this at the beginning of the year:

Quote :

"Under my administration, energy programs that promote safe and environmentally sound technologies and are domestically produced, such as the enrichment facility in Ohio[USEC-ACP, my project], will have my full support. I will work with the Department of Energy to help make loan guarantees available for this and other advanced energy programs that reduce carbon dioxide emissions and break the tie to high cost, foreign energy sources"

Yet at the same time, we now have over $3 billion approved for that "cash for clunkers" crap, the additional $2 billion for it being approved the same week that they denied the $1.5 billion for my project.

Of course our client/us get a nice little pat on the back with $50 million (omg thxrs!) for more "research" on this technology (us being a EPC firm, this does absolutely nothing for us). Its a freaking proven technology! They finished research on it here in the US years ago, and nearly identical technology is already used in European countries! Our enrichment process for nuclear here is terribly outdated. The amount of energy used during the enrichment process with this technology is 95% less than gaseous diffusion plants commonly used for power-grade nuclear enrichment currently.

But thanks government for pushing a total of $3B through to get those old cars off the road while snubbing $1.5B to help move us out of the stone ages in nuclear energy production (all while potentially destroying about 2,000 jobs)!

/RANT

[Edited on August 3, 2009 at 2:55 PM. Reason : ]

8/3/2009 2:52:38 PM

No middle-class tax increases, White House insists

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-taxes4-2009aug04,0,2495150.story

Quote :

"'The president's clear commitment is not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year,' spokesman Robert Gibbs says after Geithner and Summers suggested increases had not been ruled out. Despite warnings from President Obama's top economic advisers that new taxes for middle-income Americans cannot be ruled out, the White House insisted today that the president's "commitment" to a campaign pledge to avert new taxes for those earning less than $250,000 a year holds firm."

8/3/2009 4:49:40 PM

we'll see

8/3/2009 4:55:54 PM

A 2.5% tax on your income if you refuse to hop on board the gov't health-care train... now that sure looks like a new tax on everyone.

And Cap-n-Tax ... that will indirectly transfer millions of dollars from average families to gov't pockets via higher energy costs.

8/3/2009 11:43:55 PM

Happy Birthday President Obama

8/4/2009 11:12:17 AM

I'm not sure what the big surprise is about him raising taxes on the middle class. Anyone with half a brain knew he was lying like a motherfucker during his campaign about not taxing people who make less than $250,000. I mean for fuck sakes, he is a politician, whether he can walk on water or not.

8/4/2009 2:04:25 PM

READ

MY

LIPS

NO NEW FAXES

8/4/2009 2:10:32 PM

^^ yeah, you obviously don't spend much time reading TSB (which is probably a good thing)

you're right, it should have been obvious to everybody but people on here are still defending it and when the tax increase eventually does come, they'll go out of their way to justify why it was needed and make up all kind of bullshit excuses

and by people, I'm mostly thinking of moron at the moment

8/4/2009 2:40:53 PM

^ I bet mccain wouldn't have raised taxes, right?

8/4/2009 2:45:09 PM

Has any president ever not raised taxes? I said very clearly to everyone I knew that Obama would almost certainly sign a tax hike into law, especially if he got a second term.

8/4/2009 3:00:31 PM

Quote :

"^ I bet mccain wouldn't have raised taxes, right?"

who knows. But I dont remember him constantly talking about not raising ANY tax on ANYONE under 250k.... and that wasnt his point either.. It was how people defended his BS line on here, and now you are here deflecting.

Dirty, did W raise taxes?

[Edited on August 4, 2009 at 3:02 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2009 3:02:13 PM

Quote :

"^ I bet mccain wouldn't have raised taxes, right?"

yeah and then you'll get responses like this..

The arguments over propsed tax policies on TSB before the election were so annoying - I saw that stupid graph about tax rates for various income levels about 100 times - there were plenty of people on here convinced that Obama wouldn't raise taxes on the middle-class but now it's "well, he HAS to" or "he's not going to raise it THAT much" or "McCain wouldn't done the same thing"

8/4/2009 3:09:38 PM

Quote :

"who knows. But I dont remember him constantly talking about not raising ANY tax on ANYONE under 250k.... and that wasnt his point either.. It was how people defended his BS line on here, and now you are here deflecting"

You're right. The McCain camp's point was not "We won't raise taxes on the middle class!". Their point was "Obama will raise taxes on the middle class!". Go figure Obama reacts with a denial "BS line", but it's not a "Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES" kind of extreme.

Poor H.W.

8/4/2009 3:34:46 PM

^^ the point is that BOTH presidential candidates said they weren't going to raise taxes on the middle class. So if your position is that politicians are liars, then what exactly is the reason for you being in this thread?

If politicians are liars, then what is your goal? Because not voting for Obama wouldn't have helped your situation, or anyone's situation, from your perspective. Your statements are pointless.

8/4/2009 3:49:15 PM

Quote :

"So if your position is that politicians are liars, then what exactly is the reason for you being in this thread? "

My position is it's amusing to me how all you Obama lovers are finding out that he was full of shit this whole time but yet you still refuse to admit that he's just like everybody else. That's what you all rallied around during his campaign - he was a different kind of politician, a breath of fresh air, blah blah blah.

Those that voted for McCain weren't blind to the fact he wasn't a perfect candidate - it was really a question of which was worse.

8/4/2009 4:00:18 PM

Do you really think that? It was the extreme minority who REALLY thought he was a different breed of politician.

Quote :

"Those that voted for McCain weren't blind to the fact he wasn't a perfect candidate - it was really a question of which was worse."

That's how it is pretty much EVERY election. This isn't some kind of shocking revelation. And among educated voters who chose to vote for Obama, I'm sure this was the overriding sentiment...

8/4/2009 4:04:14 PM

Quote :

"It was the extreme minority who REALLY thought he was a different breed of politician"

by extreme minority do you mean 49% of the people who voted for Obama?

cause as far as TWWers go (and all you have to do is look at pre-election threads), the majority of people who voted for Obama did think he wasn't just some average politician...they thought he was the polar opposite of Bush, they thought he was so different than anyone else who had ever run for office...

I also think the fact that Obama won overwhelmingly over McCain, in a much larger margin than Bush beat Gore or Kerry, or Clinton beat Dole, is more evidence that people thought he was such a different type of politician

saying it was the extreme minority who thought he was a different kind of politician seems like more of the same revisionist history that moron is coming with

[Edited on August 4, 2009 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2009 4:06:38 PM

Quote :

"It was the extreme minority who REALLY thought he was a different breed of politician. "

totally disagree, people acted like we had overthrown a dictator and replaced him with Robin Hood

especially if we're narrowing it down to tww'ers like ^ said

8/4/2009 4:13:07 PM

8/4/2009 4:24:35 PM

Quote :

" Those that voted for McCain weren't blind to the fact he wasn't a perfect candidate"

Haha... which Obama supporters here were saying he was the perfect candidate?

Quote :

"My position is it's amusing to me how all you Obama lovers are finding out that he was full of shit this whole time but yet you still refuse to admit that he's just like everybody else."

Obama is pretty clearly different than Bush, by a HUGE margin.

8/4/2009 4:27:51 PM

Quote :

"Obama is pretty clearly different than Bush, by a HUGE margin"

oh really? he's continued/resumed/maintained most of the freedom stealing programs that bush either started or kept going...he certainly is down to spend tons of money like bush...whats the huge margin? the basic Republican vs. Democrat margin that every Democratic President has different than every Republican President?

serious question...aside from their parties and therefore basic political differences, how are they so HUGELY different?

8/4/2009 4:32:36 PM

obama can pronounce words which is p. cool

8/4/2009 4:34:46 PM

Yeah, hes fucking the country....but at least he can read and pronounce words on his teleprompter correctly.

8/4/2009 4:46:16 PM

Would you rather be fucked over by someone dumber than you?

8/4/2009 4:48:49 PM

Quote :

"serious question...aside from their parties and therefore basic political differences, how are they so HUGELY different? "

There are a few big policy changes he made regarding the US's perspective on technology (stem cell research, energy policy, FCC), and most importantly his foreign policy (practically every facet of our foreign policy is different than under Bush).

The overarching quality that makes him very different than Bush though is that he speaks to and actually answers questions from the media in a fairly clear way, without appealing to nebulous concepts like "axis of evil", and his staff does the same.

As he noted during his campaign, he's a pragmatist as opposed to Bush being a self-described ideologue, and has acted in a pragmatic manner.

8/4/2009 5:05:10 PM

Quote :

"he speaks to and actually answers questions from the media in a fairly clear way"

wow

most would agree that he speaks and speaks and speaks... but actually answering the question is up for debate i think.

8/4/2009 5:08:09 PM

^ are you kidding? The whole gates things we because Obama actually answered the question from a reporter of "what do you think the gates case has to say about race relations in America."

And the fact that he puts himself in front of reporters so much is more than what Bush did.

[Edited on August 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

8/4/2009 5:12:36 PM

^haha, the gates answer. you mean the one he spend the next day trying to define "stupidly"?

gtfo.

He spends more time in front of reporters? hahaha

You have a good night sir.

8/4/2009 5:22:57 PM

^ would you rather he hide himself in the whitehouse like Bush? Or stick to a script?

Quote :

" According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Bush’s pressers were the most infrequent of “any president in the television age.”"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/20/publiceye/entry2111365.shtml



These things make the government seem a lot more transparent and involved, compared to the secret shadow government Cheney seemed to love.

[Edited on August 4, 2009 at 5:38 PM. Reason : ]

8/4/2009 5:35:31 PM

Yeah, I'd like Obama to read scripts to me from a teleprompter more often.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsb68qrypds

[Edited on August 4, 2009 at 5:40 PM. Reason : Oops! That 'prompter's been working overtime. ]

8/4/2009 5:39:40 PM

^ that kind of disproves what I'm sure you think is a very clever point.

GG on your misdirection attempt though.

[Edited on August 4, 2009 at 5:43 PM. Reason : ]

8/4/2009 5:42:33 PM

^ I'm sure that you think it's a clever point.

8/4/2009 5:43:30 PM

Quote :

"^ would you rather he hide himself in the whitehouse like Bush? Or stick to a script?"

we'd rather he wasn't there at all.

Quote :

"As he noted during his campaign, he's a pragmatist as opposed to Bush being a self-described ideologue, and has acted in a pragmatic manner."

burning through billions of dollars that don't exist, and trying to do more of the same, isn't that practical.

[Edited on August 4, 2009 at 7:03 PM. Reason : ]

8/4/2009 7:02:15 PM

Quote :

"These things make the government seem a lot more transparent and involved,"

But they're still not transparent, so it doesn't really matter now does it?

8/4/2009 7:14:57 PM

Quote :

"Florida Congressman: Stimulus Bill Is Funding Porn by Jack Thompson 08/04/2009 Florida’s Republican Congressman from its Sixth District, Rep. Cliff Stearns, has recently charged that $50 million in the $787 billion economic stimulus bill is being used to fund the National Endowment for the Arts and that some of this taxpayer money is funding pornography. Congressman Stearns has provided to HUMAN EVENTS a letter signed by fifty Congressmen to NEA Chair Patrice Walker Powell complaining about such inappropriate funding -- funding that violates prior promises by the NEA that it would not spend money to promote such perversion and that such funding clearly causes a political problem for the NEA at a time when Americans want their tax dollars spent to stimulate the economy, not stimulate porn customers. A copy of the letter to the NEA chair is here. Here are just three examples of some of the NEA “stimulus” grants, according to Stearns: • $50,000 to the Frameline film house to screen Thundercrack, which Frameline describes as "the world's only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla. Ecstasy so great that all heaven and hell becomes just one big old Shangri-La! You will be seduced into accepting this orgy of sexual liberation!” • $25,000 to San Francisco’s CounterPULSE to make Perverts Put Out in the NEA’s “dance” category. This weekly performance is called “ a pansexual performance series.” • A $25,000 grant to Jess Curtis/Gravity, Inc., whose most recent work is the Symmetry Project in which nude couples, including children, are mounted on each other in various poses. Stearns has been leading the effort against the funding of the NEA in recent years in light of NEA promises not to fund “art” that would offend most Americans. But with the earmarked economic stimulus funding, the NEA budget is now back up around $190 million per annum. Stearns was asked by HUMAN EVENTS, “Wasn’t Vice President Biden charged with oversight of stimulus spending when President Obama proclaimed in his State of the Union message, “Nobody messes with Joe”? Stearns said, “Biden’s not doing his job. It’s a joke to think the Vice President could oversee anything. He has no record of good oversight.” "

four men, three women and a gorilla... Now how's that for "stimulus" spending?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32990

8/4/2009 9:33:25 PM

sounds pretty stimulating. but the stimulus money goes to the national endowment of the arts, right? then the NEA decides how it is dispersed. if you're that upset with it, take it up with them. it's pretty disingenuous to post about 50 grand in the obama credibility thread, imo. not like your tax dollars haven't gone to this type of thing since you've been paying taxes or anything.

also, according to the NEA website, funds are allocated primarily for salary support.

Quote :

"Consistent with the language in the Act, eligible projects will generally be limited to salary support and fees for artists or contracted personnel. This will apply to all applicants for support under the Act."

so perhaps the 50 grand was the salary of the horndogs selling tickets, popcorn and queuing up the film. a couple guys kept their jobs, good for them.

[Edited on August 4, 2009 at 9:52 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2009 9:38:53 PM

Quote :

"the NEA decides how it is dispersed. if you're that upset with it, take it up with them."

No.. I'm taking it up with Obama. This isn't regular NEA spending. This is an extra $50 million taken out of the stimulus money. If he hadn't given this money to the NEA, they wouldn't be buying more porn.

I will hold Obama and congress responsible for every penny wasted from this $787 billion "stimulus" bill.

8/4/2009 10:02:47 PM

but the NEA isn't "buying more porn"

infact,

Quote :

"The National Endowment for the Arts received $80 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package. Of that $80 million, CounterPULSE received $25,000 and Frameline received $50,000. The article calls into question whether or not the organizations deserve funding when they produce and promote content of an adult nature. The two items held up for scrutiny? The pervert "revue" put on by CounterPULSE and a film called Thundercrack, billed as "the world's only underground kinky art porno horror film", screened by Frameline as part of its annual film festival."

Quote :

"CounterPULSE is, in fact, home to a production called "Perverts Put Out!" described as a "long-running pansexual performance series" and information about the show is accompanied by a photo of a nude man at a microphone, a frill of pubic hair just peeking into the frame. However, when we talked to CounterPULSE Executive Director Jessica Robinson, she told us that the event is not produced by CounterPULSE. They just rent the space to the people who put it on. And the money that was given to the organization by the NEA pays for employee salaries, it doesn't pay for events to be produced. "Fox didn't ask about that," Robinson said with chagrin."

Quote :

"Out of the paltry $80-million art stimulus, the conservative commentators have focused on a single $50,000 award to San Francisco’s well-respected Frameline, the organization that produces the San Francisco International LGBT Film Festival. "

Quote :

"The film was shown for one night during the most recent LGBT film festival, June 18-28, 2009. The festival screened a total of 226 films, and was attended by over 60,000 people, according to organizers."

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/artnetnews/andrew-j-hall8-4-09.asp

so no, they're not "buying more porn"

furthermore,

Quote :

"Similarly, the director of Frameline, the gay and lesbian film house, told FOXNews.com in an e-mail that their $50,000 grant was not to support any program in particular. "The grant is not intended for a specific program; it's to be used for the preservation of jobs at our media arts nonprofit organization over the next year during the economic downturn," wrote K.C. Price, who listed four other NEA grants his organization has received."

if you're actually upset, you could be intellectually honest and argue that the government shouldn't fund any arts programs or initiatives ever, but then, that's not always as politically convenient as it is for you now.

[Edited on August 4, 2009 at 10:34 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2009 10:07:29 PM

Really consider this, only a tenth of his way through his term people (read Republicans and independents and a handful of democrats) are like WHAT THEEEEE FUCK?

8/5/2009 7:31:31 PM

Quote :

"The National Endowment for the Arts received $80 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package. Of that $80 million,"

this seems like a pretty bad typo to make.

8/5/2009 8:58:26 PM

Seventy-one percent (71%) of U.S. voters say President Obama’s policies have increased the size of the federal deficit.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/august_2009/71_say_obama_s_policies_have_driven_up_deficit


Only five percent (5%) say the president’s policies have cut the deficit, and 10% say they have had no impact.

I wonder which one of you guys they called for the survey? come on, speak up. Im actually surprised that 5% knew how to answer the phone.

8/5/2009 8:59:38 PM

Quote :

"AceInTheSky"

most of us, the ones who voted for the other guy.. we kind of already knew it was coming... it started way before a tenth.

8/5/2009 9:09:59 PM

I was a shithead before the election and I'm a shithead after it.

I am such a clairvoyant shithead!

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 9:37 PM. Reason : Watch me predict the Superbowl!]

8/5/2009 9:18:42 PM

didn't do anything to you but okay.
just gave him his answer.

8/5/2009 11:00:56 PM

gave who what?

you ever consider that someone is responding to something

a vague random notion or idea

just spouting utter nonsense

and not actually responding to you?

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 11:20 PM. Reason : jumpy defensive paranoid freakzoidnation]

8/5/2009 11:14:44 PM

wow fry, youve been here for about 4 years and you dont get marko's MO?

hes about the only saving grace in these threads.

8/6/2009 9:19:20 AM

Quote :

"After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's A rather surprising finding from the newly released CNN poll. Question three on the national survey of 1,136 adults (which includes an oversample of African-Americans) asks, "Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?" Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they believe the Obama administration is a "failure," while 51% consider it a "success" and 11% say it's still "too soon to tell." An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure." "

Here's a pdf of the poll: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/08/05/rel11e.pdf

There's actually a lot of very interesting information in the poll. I wouldn't have pegged public opinion for Hillary Clinton as being as high as it currently is.

8/6/2009 10:55:49 AM

So when exactly are we supposed to get our checks in the mail? It's been over 200 days and still nothing. I'm becoming skeptical. Just where in the hell is the redistributed wealth going?

8/6/2009 6:09:52 PM

^you should've bought a new car and traded in your clunker!

8/6/2009 6:46:18 PM