^ And your "whack" would be wrong.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 5:13 PM. Reason : Why should taxpayer money fund religious sites? ]

8/26/2010 5:11:59 PM

Quote :

" Why should taxpayer money fund religious sites? "

Because the purpose of gov. is to support society, and religion is a part of society.

The hard part in a society like ours is making policy not being senselessly discriminatory against certain religions.

England for example allows gov. funds going to religious schools, but this works, because they don't care what religion the school is at long as it meets certain standards and operates within the broader laws (for example, a religious school has to accept a person not of that religion-- which rarely happens-- if they aren't at capacity). There's nothing wrong with this.

And in the context this question came up, it seems to be obvious that the gov. should "fund" religious sites. What you're arguing is like saying the gov. shouldn't help preserve Stone Henge because it is a druid worship site.

8/26/2010 7:38:44 PM

I think until we get our economy out of the dump-heap, we should not be paying to rebuild churches in other countries.

8/26/2010 10:19:44 PM

Quote :

"Because the purpose of gov. is to support society, and religion is a part of society."

8/26/2010 10:24:22 PM

Quote :

"I think until we get our ________ out of the dump-heap, we should not be paying to _____________. "

False dilemmas, bro.

8/27/2010 1:13:49 AM

^
I don't see the current economic melt-down as a "False Dilemma". It's a pretty real problem for a lot of Americans right now. And if I'm one of those people suffering, I'd rather see our country spend it's money on helping me before it rebuilds a mosque in some other country.

8/27/2010 9:57:45 AM

Quote :

"MONEY ON HELPING ME"

I know you have this new-found mainstream conservativism thing, but what happened to the whole personal responsibility line?

8/27/2010 11:16:20 AM

I'd rather the money be spent on me than a religious building in another country, too. I still don't think the money should be spent at all, but at least if I get the money it'll go back into the economy. Funding religion is like flushing the money down the toilet.

8/27/2010 11:28:59 AM

Quote :

"When wolves of Murdoch’s ingenuity and the Kochs’ stealth have been at the door of our democracy in the past, Democrats have fought back fiercely. Franklin Roosevelt’s triumphant 1936 re-election campaign pummeled the Liberty League as a Republican ally eager to “squeeze the worker dry in his old age and cast him like an orange rind into the refuse pail.” When John Kennedy’s patriotism was assailed by Birchers calling for impeachment, he gave a major speech denouncing their “crusades of suspicion.” And Obama? So far, sadly, this question answers itself."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

8/29/2010 10:33:15 AM

He should just turn the teleprompter around so the press can copy their talking points right off that. Then he could get back on the links.

8/31/2010 12:35:40 PM

^dude, Obama saved like 100,000 jobs by using that big screen tele. Whats that? Proof?

8/31/2010 4:05:43 PM

Jobs "saved" is inherently something that is going to be nearly impossible to "prove." But its not exactly some huge leap to assume that a lot of people out there, who otherwise would have lost their jobs, were retained due to the stimulus.

8/31/2010 4:43:38 PM

yes, bajillions of saved jobs. What was the latest cost per job? it was in the 6 figures.

Its a BS fudge factor and they should have been called on it.

8/31/2010 4:52:57 PM

Voters will look at Pres. Obama's argument that things would've been worse off without the stimulus spending. They will then see that most of that stimulus money was given to state and local gov'ts for pork projects.

They will see that the Small Business sector, which hires the most people, got practically no help from the democrat's stimulus bill.

They will see a democrat congress that wants to raise taxes in January on the very people who would be providing new jobs

And they will see an economy that is no better for them on Nov 2.

I don't see that argument as a winner for the Dems.

8/31/2010 6:33:43 PM

FTR, I think the attacks by some concerning Obama redecorating the Oval Office are absurd. It's not taxpayer money and the money that is being spent, even though it's a relatively small amount, is a help to the economy. And I don't think it's ugly, as some have suggested.

9/3/2010 4:35:55 AM

I agree about the redecorating, but I think he missed one important quote that should have been on the carpet.

Quote :

"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

9/3/2010 5:55:21 AM

9/3/2010 5:58:12 AM

from OReilly the other night....

federal domestic spending increased 16% to $3.2 trillion in 2009 (highest ratio since WWII)

projected to increase to $3.5 trillion in 2010

US deficit for fiscal year 2010 is expected to be $1.3 trillion, compared to a 2007 deficit of $160.7 billion


what are we going to tell these clowns in Washington that this ridiculousness IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

9/3/2010 2:28:33 PM

^

Quote :

"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee , calls for radical policy changes that [...] would not put the federal budget on a sustainable course for decades. The federal debt would soar to about 175 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050. ... TPC finds that the Ryan plan would result in very large revenue losses relative to current policies. TPC estimates that even with its middle-class tax increases, the plan would reduce federal revenues to 16 percent of GDP in 2014. Because the tax cuts for the wealthy would dwarf the tax increases for the middle class, the Ryan plan would allow the federal debt to continue growing for a number of decades to come, despite its steep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. "

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3114

9/3/2010 6:52:59 PM

so your response to a criticism of Obama is to dig up a Republican plan and criticize it?

LOL

9/4/2010 9:33:19 AM

if you were trying to be honest about it then why did you compare them to 2007? (before bush's record spending in 2008 and shared responsibility for more in 2009)

9/4/2010 10:02:13 AM

I just posted the statistic I saw and I gave the reference.

nothing dishonest there. regardless, Bush was in office since 2000.

do you want to address the numbers?

9/4/2010 10:04:59 AM

I really do hope the republicans retake the houses and pass some flavor of austerity measures and we get to watch the March 09 lows get smoked on the stock market like a bad memory. The GOP does a superb job of railing on the deficits and spending being done on the left right now but you are completely failing to educate your constituents and the populace on what happens when all the spending candy gets taken away. What is more likely to happen is the Repubs are going to talk big on deficits, get the Dems ejected (and they'll probably drag this shit out for two more years so they get the POTUS back) and when it comes time to actually do something about the state of the economy, they'll cave like the pussies they have been for 2 decades now.

So sure, go ahead and cry about the spending done by this administration, I'm not happy with it either (mostly the way it has been targeted, the lack of jail time for perps in New York, and interest rates favoring banks not Americans) but don't fucking pretend for one second that the Republicans as a group really give a shit about the little guy or the economy for that matter either.

9/4/2010 10:46:24 AM

^

9/4/2010 10:53:57 AM

Quote :

"don't fucking pretend for one second that the Republicans as a group really give a shit about the little guy or the economy for that matter either. "

im not. this is an Obama credibility watch thread. Obama is spending like a drunken sailor. have conservatives been fiscally conservative in the past 10 years? no. but Obama's administration, so far, makes them look really attractive. thats why the dems are going to lose so epically in November.

i hope the right takes notice and switches our direction.

9/4/2010 12:37:20 PM

instead of adjusting SS for inflation simply adjust it for revenue. If SS revenue is down 10% then everyone gets 10% less. Doesnt that seem to make sense?

9/4/2010 4:27:48 PM

Federal spending rises a record 16%
September 1, 2010

Quote :

"Federal domestic spending increased a record 16 percent, to $3.2 trillion, in 2009, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, largely because of a boost in aid to the unemployed and the huge economic stimulus package enacted to rescue the sinking economy. The rise in spending was the largest since the Census Bureau began compiling the data in 1983. The Washington region was among the biggest beneficiaries of the government's spending. With congressional elections looming this fall, the spike in federal spending has emerged as one of the nation's most contentious political issues."

Quote :

"The $3.2 trillion figure reported by the Census Bureau did not include interest paid on foreign debt. Nor does it include foreign aid, which traditionally accounts for about 1 percent of the federal budget. The bureau also released a companion report, Federal Aid to States: 2009, detailing the federal grants to state and local governments."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/31/AR2010083106197.html

And the Krugman Kool-Aid drinkers are saying it wasn't enough? Just wow.

9/4/2010 6:50:13 PM

'This Week' Transcript - ABC News
Sept. 5, 2010

Quote :

"[New York Times columnist Tom Friedman] I've worked here since 1989. I personally -- just as a reporter, a columnist in Washington -- have never seen a worse communicating administration [than the Obama administration], just at the basic, technical level of, 'Hey, we've got a good plan. You know, maybe someone out there would be interested in writing about it,' not since I've been to Washington."

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-tony-blair/story?id=11562817&page=4

FYI: Friedman is not a conservative.

9/6/2010 2:00:11 AM

^ what do you think the context of that statement is?

9/6/2010 2:20:04 AM

^ Um. . .I included the link--it's actually pretty clear. Friedman, among others, has been saying that Obama and his administration can't get the narrative together. They've been fighting each issue in a somewhat disconnected way, rather than placing them as poles under the tent of a singular narrative clearly explaining what they mean to accomplish and how the issues relate.

Furthermore, Friedman flat out states that the Obama administration is the "worst" he's encountered in over 20 years in communicating its message at the basic levels. You really should just read the transcript or watch online.

And while I agree with Friedman about much of this, I would add that the Obama administration simply talks too much but says too little. This condition often afflicts academics.

9/6/2010 2:35:54 AM

Obama wants to blow...errr "invest" another 50B in stimulus. I doubt he will get enough Dems this close to election to go for it, thankfully.

9/6/2010 12:49:18 PM

It’s actually 150 Billion if you want to include the business tax credits in there, right?

9/6/2010 12:58:24 PM

come 2010 are we gonna stop buying things from the chinese?

9/7/2010 12:42:19 AM

I guess one good thing about Obama is at least the Supremes will not be totally tilted to the GOP, even at 5-4 Kennedy is not a die hard conservative or liberal. Ruth I am guessing will be the next one to retire.

9/7/2010 3:48:23 PM

initiating rant ...

I've lost all hope that the Obama administration can do anything but campaign. Obama has clearly spent more time figuring out how he will throw mud at the Republicans than he has developing his newest economic fix, which is a full tax deduction on business capital investment through 2011, and a tax increase (or eliminating the decrease - six in one/half dozen in another) for the above 200K/250K crowd. These are both useless, if not outright damaging.

I have many friends and family members who own and/or run small businesses. I've heard them all say the same thing - any investment at this time is a very risky proposition. They are beginning to feel like the economy is slowly rebounding, or at least that is has stopped getting worse. They don't really fear a huge drop in business like they did a year or two ago. The problem is they can't pull the trigger on serious expansion because they view Washington as too erratic to trust. In this way, the Obama administration's total lack of definition of clear short and long term goals has stymied growth.

Take this proposed write off for investment. If enacted, I predict that effect will be similar to Cash for Clunkers. Those businesses that would already have invested will invest now, not later. The big problem for most businesses is not the need for a new piece of equipment, they need more customers, which means they need the unemployment rate to drop. Why would any business make the decision to take on new employees right now for anything but maybe very temporary work? The increased medical costs from Obamacare coupled with the proposed decreased cost for capital investment proposed makes the decision easy.

Obama's magical figure for "the rich" is an issue as well. A recession is not the time for new taxes, and Obama's arbitrary campaign figure of 200K for individuals and 250K for families is just too low. Too many business owners fall under that level. The Obama refrain is that tax cuts favor the rich the most. Fine, but the sword cuts both way. Setting the cutoff for tax increases at more like $1M per year would likely net near the exact same tax income, and with less political issues and less fear from small business owners.

9/9/2010 11:45:17 AM

^
Excellent points!

Quote :

"'I Do Think at Some Point You've Made Enough Money'"

That about sums up the problem with Obama and the business sector.

9/10/2010 12:31:25 AM

Letter from the President on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks
September 10, 2010

Quote :

"Dear Madam Speaker: (Dear Mr. President) Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. Consistent with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared with respect to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year. The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2010, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat. Sincerely, BARACK OBAMA"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/10/letter-president-continuation-national-emergency-with-respect-certain-te

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 8:12 AM. Reason : SCAREMONGER!!!1]

9/14/2010 8:11:45 AM

^indeed. boo on that.

9/14/2010 8:50:17 AM

I'm willing to bet that the reason it is being extended is because there are certain laws and policies on the books that depend on said state of emergency being declared...

9/14/2010 7:16:52 PM

Noam Chomsky: 'President Obama Is Involved In War Crimes Right Now'
Sept. 13, 2010

Quote :

"Need more evidence that, with midterm elections looming, the traditional base of support for President Obama is eroding? Consider the recent comments made by Noam Chomsky that sound remarkably similar to anti-Bush rhetoric of roughly three years ago. All that's missing is a comparison to Hitler. Oh wait…seems like he did that too."

http://www.mediaite.com/online/noam-chomsky-president-obama-is-involved-in-war-crimes-right-now/

Add one far-left intellectual to the list of those jumping Obama's ship.

9/16/2010 7:27:37 AM

Quote :

""We will go through our federal budget — page by page, line by line — eliminating those programs we don't need."– President Elect Barack Obama, November 2008 With All Due Respect Mr. President, We're Still Waiting. It's been nearly two years since you made that pledge, Mr. President. Since then, you've signed into law an $800 billion "stimulus" package and a massive new health care entitlement — adding trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to our grandchildren's tab. Our looming debt crisis threatens to destroy the American dream for future generations. Yet your administration continues piling up deficits of over a trillion dollars a year. By 2012 our national debt will be larger than the entire U.S. economy. Isn't it past time you identified the programs you'd cut? In all fairness, both parties got us into this mess. "Deficits don't matter," Vice President Dick Cheney scoffed as the Bush administration and a Republican Congress led one of the biggest spending sprees in American history, nearly doubling federal outlays over eight years. Our bipartisan flight from responsibility is a national disgrace — and it's fast becoming a national disaster. Vague promises to eliminate "waste, fraud, and abuse" won't cut it any more. Both parties need to step up with specific and substantial cuts. As a start, they can consult downsizinggovernment.org,where the Cato Institute has begun posting the results of our page by page, line by line review of the federal budget. With the Constitution as our guide, we've identified scores of agencies to eliminate and programs to zero out, putting America on the path toward fiscal sanity: Education Subsidies Education is a state, local, and private matter — and that's where the Constitution left it. Federal K-12 education programs have cost American taxpayers $1.85 trillion since 1965 without noticeably improving outcomes. Eliminating them will save $40 billion annually. Farm Subsidies Far from "saving the family farm," federal agricultural subsidies are environmentally destructive corporate welfare, with more than 70 percent of aid going to the largest 10 percent of agribusinesses. Zeroing out farm welfare will save $25 billion annually. Military Overreach The Constitution envisions a U.S. military that "provide[s] for the common defence" of the United States, not one that serves as the world's policeman and nation-builder. By withdrawing our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, we could save at least $125 billion next year. Eliminating other unnecessary overseas missions would allow for a leaner force structure and defense budget, saving at least $100 billion a year without undermining U.S. security. Transportation Programs The federal government has no business funding the state and local projects that make up the bulk of federal transportation spending. Federal involvement results in pork-barrel spending, excess bureaucracy, and costly one-size-fits-all regulations. Moving funding for activities such as highways to the states and air traffic control to the private sector would spur greater innovation while also saving $85 billion a year. Housing Subsidies Federal interference in housing markets has done enormous damage to our cities and the economy at large. HUD subsidies have concentrated poverty and fed urban blight, while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stoked the financial crisis by putting millions of people into homes they couldn't afford. Getting the government out of the housing business will save $45 billion annually. Federal Worker Pay Federal workers enjoy far greater job security than their private sector counterparts — and far better total compensation: an average of $120,000 a year in wages and benefits. Cut federal compensation by 10 percent to save $20 billion annually. Energy Subsidies The 30-year legacy of federal energy subsidies is replete with corporate cronyism and failed "investments." Entrepreneurs with their own capital have incentives to develop viable alternative energy sources. Ending federal energy subsidies would save $20 billion a year. Government-run Health Care Medicare and Medicaid are driving the explosion in federal debt. The 2010 health care law should never have been passed. The same level of Medicare cost savings could have been realized by moving to a consumer-driven health plan through vouchers, which would protect the elderly from government rationing. Medicaid should be converted to a fixed block grant to save money and encourage state innovation. Total savings would be more than $1 trillion over the next decade. Drug War Since the start of the federal War on Drugs in 1970, we've spent hundreds of billions on a futile crusade that's done little to curb drug use and much to impair our civil liberties. In fact, a Cato study showed that Portugal's decriminalization of drugs actually lowered drug-related problems. Returning drug policy to the states — where it belongs — would save at least $15 billion annually. Social Security As the Baby Boom generation retires, our largest entitlement program lurches toward crisis. Social Security should be phased out as a mandatory program and an alternative voluntary system of private accounts, providing for ownership and inheritability, should be offered. Current obligations can be reduced by tying annual benefit growth to price inflation rather than wage growth, saving $50 billion annually by 2020."

-from CATO 9/2010

9/17/2010 10:52:41 AM

Obama takes questions from disappointed supporters at jobs forum. Transcript
September 21, 2010

Quote :

"Q I am a chief financial officer for a veterans service organization, AmVets here in Washington. I'm also a mother, I'm a wife, I'm an American veteran, and I'm one of your middle-class Americans. And quite frankly, I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for -- THE PRESIDENT: Right. Q -- and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I have been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I'm one of those people, and I'm waiting, sir. I'm waiting. I don't feel it yet. And I thought, while it wouldn't be in great measure, I would feel it in some small measure."

Quote :

"Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'm 30 years old. I recently graduated from law school. And I went back to law school in order to pursue a life of public service, like you have. And what I found was that I simply -- there aren't jobs out there right now. I took advantage of the loans that you were just speaking about, but I can't make the interest payments on those loans today, let alone think about getting a mortgage, having a family, having even a marriage -- it's awfully expensive."

Quote :

"Q Like a lot of people in my generation, I was really inspired by you and by your campaign and message that you brought, and that inspiration is dying away. It feels like the American Dream is not attainable to a lot of us. And what I'm really hoping to hear from you is several concrete steps that you're going to take moving forward that will be able to re-ignite my generation, re-ignite the youth who are beset by student loans. And I really want to know, is the American Dream dead for me?"

Quote :

"Q And yet your critics continue to paint you as a dramatically anti-business President. I believe you are investing in this country, as small businesses invest. And yet for some reason the public just doesn't get it. I need you to help us understand how you can regain the political center, because you're losing the war of sound bites, you're losing the media cycles."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/09/obama_takes_questions_from_dis.html

Wow. From what I gather, this was a hand-picked audience (I'm not sure about this) of Obama supporters.

9/21/2010 8:35:44 PM

wow,

he's lost Jon Stewart

When a liberal loses the daily show, he may as well mail it in.

9/21/2010 11:21:10 PM

is this the clip you're talking about?
http://tv.gawker.com/5644504/jon-stewart-we-have-found-obamas-kryptonite

Anyway he has lost plenty of credibility IMO for continuing many of the Orwellian practices of Bush, and if he doesn't stand his ground on DADT by refusing to sign the Defense authorization unless repeal is written in, the only basis on which I will be able to support him is "his opponent will lead us down the road to perdition"

9/21/2010 11:50:49 PM

Quote :

"Add one far-left intellectual to the list of those jumping Obama's ship."

few of the truly far-left ride Obama's ship. (the dude isn't the crazy radical so many dumbasses imagine him to be, sadly)

they would prefer to see the other ship sink first, though.



[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ...]

9/22/2010 12:17:54 AM

^^ i hadn't watched the daily show in a long time. that one had me rolling.

got to agree with what has been posted. if obama isn't a one term president it will only be because the republicans can't find a decent candidate. the economy is one thing - inherited, previous administration, blah blah, i get it. but not doing shit otherwise, not closing guantanamo, not repealing dadt, etc. leaves him with no endearing qualities and no accomplishments.

obama is also coming off more and more like a smug, out-of-touch, never accomplished anything in the real world douchebag. essentially telling people that yeah things sucks but i'm still right, it could have been worse, my job is hard - which is absolutely how he is coming across - is self-defeating.

9/22/2010 12:22:53 PM

Why CEOs can't stand Obama
Corporate leaders are slamming the president over taxes and the uncertain effects of his policies, and the executives' siege mentality is holding back the economy.
Sept. 21, 2010

Quote :

"Is fear of President Barack Obama one reason we're stuck with sluggish economic growth? That's the message the CEOs of several major companies are sending out."

Quote :

"'Obama uses political rhetoric to demean me and my motives, but the fact is, I am completely happy with my motives and the morality of my decisions,' [Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J.] Rodgers said. 'My moral responsibility is to protect and grow the investment of shareholders.'"

Quote :

"CEOs on the offensive Consider the following attacks on Obama and the Democrats in recent months: Intel CEO Paul Otellini, referring to Obama and the Democrats, said in an August speech to the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum, 'I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs.' Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, in a June speech at the Economic Club of Washington, accused Obama of creating an 'increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.' Cypress Semiconductor's Rodgers told me last week that he had 'started out happy with Obama because we had broken through the white male barrier' and made 'a step forward for equality.' But Rodgers added: 'I have become deeply disappointed with him. It is amateur hour in Washington. The guy hasn't got a clue about the economy, how jobs are created, how wealth is created. It reminds me of the Jimmy Carter years, only worse.' Blackstone Group CEO Steven Schwarzman seemed to compare the Obama administration to Hitler by saying in a recent private meeting that Washington's push to increase taxes on private-equity firms is war, 'like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939,' according to Newsweek. Observers say such overt attacks are rare. 'I don't remember corporate leaders speaking out this vehemently in the past,' said Gary Shilling of A. Gary Shilling & Co., which offers investment advice. 'People in these positions don't get there unless they know how to keep their mouths shut when they need to.'"

http://tinyurl.com/2a2fbou

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 3:12 PM. Reason : GODWIN'S!!!1]

9/22/2010 3:12:31 PM

Quote :

"He said that because of Obama, CEOs are focusing on their core businesses and hiring less, to control costs and risks"

sounds pretty good to me

Quote :

"The irony is that, by many measures, public companies are doing quite well in the Obama economy. The S&P 500 Index ($INX) is up about 35% since Inauguration Day. Profits are expected to rise 36% in 2010, Bloomberg reports. And companies are sitting on a near-record $2 trillion in cash, money they could use to invest and create jobs. "

and comparing obama to hitler? come on...

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/17/blackstone-s-schwarzman-sorry-for-comparing-obama-to-hitler.html

Quote :

"Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman is backing down from comments comparing President Obama’s tax proposals to Hitler's invasion of Poland. “I apologize for what I said,” he told the New York Post. But he is not retreating from his position that Obama has been antagonistic toward the business community. “The fundamental issue of the administration's need to work productively with business for the benefit of the overall economy is still of very serious concern," he said. The billionaire’s rage was sparked by administration proposals to make private-equity funds, like Blackstone, pay 35 percent tax on the profits from buying and selling companies. The firms currently pay 15 percent on "carried interest." The comparison between Hitler’s invasion and a higher tax on flush buyout firms reportedly surprised board members. “War? Hitler? Poland? A little over the top for a proposal to make hedge-fund managers pay their fair share in taxes,” one attendee told NEWSWEEK about the remarks. "

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 3:18 PM. Reason : billionairs schmillionaires]

9/22/2010 3:16:10 PM

I've always wondered if we could raise the same revenue by getting rid of all corporate income tax and then taxing individual capital gains the same as ordinary income. Seems fair to me.

But that would never happen because corporations are faceless entities so it's harder to score political points off cutting their taxes.

9/22/2010 4:39:13 PM

Quote :

"Profits are expected to rise 36% in 2010, Bloomberg reports"

Of course this has nothing to do with decreased expenses(work force). Businesses are going to have to be profitable and feeling secure/stable about their growth/outlook before they start hiring again. Eventually they will start hiring again, at least the industries that cant go overseas.

9/22/2010 4:48:37 PM