2/26/2009 11:22:28 AM

consolidation of student loans from private lenders to the DOE

[Edited on February 26, 2009 at 11:23 AM. Reason : 

2/26/2009 11:22:30 AM

Quote :

"man if we could get an engine to run on republican tears we wouldn't have to buy gas for the next 8 years"

2/26/2009 7:11:39 PM

Just in case some people don't properly understand this, a federal mandated carbon "cap and trade" scheme is a tax on everyone, not just the $250k and up crowd. The gov't predicts 10s (or 100s) of billions in revenue from that. Where do you think most of it will come from?

enjoy.

2/27/2009 12:52:43 PM

There are bigger fish to fry.

Like the new push for UHC, abandoning Yucca Mtn, or nationalizing student loans.


[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 1:38 PM. Reason : a]

2/27/2009 1:37:09 PM

hope that pic works


but i LOVE to hear obama supporters complain about the bush deficit.

it will be interesting to see this graph play out in the next 4 years

2/27/2009 2:58:32 PM

Teg, I think what you fail to realize is that those who support these programs also don't mind paying for them.

2/27/2009 3:47:46 PM

2/27/2009 4:29:47 PM

a lot of rhetoric from the dems lately has been that we can pay for their spending spree by taxing the rich. The spending is so great that the definition of "rich" is going to have to be very modest. If you are not poor enough to get a handout from those of us who pay taxes, expect your taxes to skyrocket. Of course, that's the whole idea. A dependent populace makes it easier for politicians to hold power. A figure I saw today said that the current spending proposals added up to over 11 thousand dollars per taxpayer. God knows how bad it will be as they pass more pork. I just hope that the people who voted for Obama and crew realize the burden they are going to have to shoulder for the irresponsible spending that's going on. Apparently, your freedom to be successful means nothing to the idiots currently in power. They will make it so that if you do make a little money, they will get the lion's share to waste.

2/27/2009 5:58:14 PM

Quote :

"GLOOM AND DOOM"

2/27/2009 6:02:16 PM

Preaching gloom and doom has been Obama's M.O. to get all this stuff pushed through, just like Bush did with the bailout crap. He's saying it's the worst economic mess since the Depression, but unemployment and interest rates are nowhere close to where they were in the early 80's. It would be interesting to see how much of the economic slowdown is self fulfilling prophecy due to the constant forecasts of falling skies coming from politicians and the media. We are seeing a huge exploitation of the economic situation by politicians to pass measures that will inevitably harm our country. The Clinton hack Rahmbo himself said that they could not let a crisis go to waste.

2/27/2009 6:12:29 PM

Quote :

"SELF FULFILLING PROPHECYLAYOFFS"

2/27/2009 6:16:29 PM

I guess you could call them that. The idiots in Washington and the media are doing a good job of adding fuel to a fire that is hot enough. Sensationalism does sell papers and get ignorant people to vote for you, though.

2/27/2009 6:25:32 PM

Quote :

"If you are not poor enough to get a handout from those of us who pay taxes, expect your taxes to skyrocket."

Would you at least take a shot at being informed before coming in here and ranting about Obama yet again?

From the time he formed his tax plan during his campaign, it always has been taxes going up at 250k and above. Down the road maybe he changes his tune, but he hasn't given even a shred of an inclination that this will be the case.

Quote :

"Of course, that's the whole idea. A dependent populace makes it easier for politicians to hold power."

This doesn't even make sense with what you just stated. Why would they raise taxes on the middle class, the very people they want to be dependent.

Quote :

"I just hope that the people who voted for Obama and crew realize the burden they are going to have to shoulder for the irresponsible spending that's going on."

I hope the fat, lazy, Christian fundies realize they are complicit in any swing back to the left because they couldn't find any real conservative to run.

Quote :

"He's saying it's the worst economic mess since the Depression, but unemployment and interest rates are nowhere close to where they were in the early 80's."

The unemployment rate is for sure. You can leave interest rates out of that discussion.

2/27/2009 6:41:39 PM

http://investment-blog.net/us-double-digits-unemployment-rate-of-1980-1981-vs-2008-2009-single-digit/

Apparently, you have failed to be informed. The link above has unemployment data. Just wait for the inflation. By you referring to fat, lazy Christian fundies am I to assume that you are a hell-bound communist heathen?

2/27/2009 6:45:55 PM

Do you even read what you post?

From your own link

Quote :

"Are we headed for a double-digit jobless rate in 2009? Not unless this recession is deeper than even the most pessimistic forecasts for economic growth. Using a complex linkage between growth and unemployment developed by economist Arthur Okun in the early 1960s, economists at UBS (UBS) show that real gross domestic product would have to fall roughly 6% from peak to trough to yield a 10% unemployment rate by the end of 2009. That would imply a recession twice as deep as the 3% decline in GDP recorded in the 1981-82 downturn. So why would a recession as steep as the one in 1981-82 result in a lower peak jobless rate in 2009? First of all, unemployment went into that recession at 7.5%, compared with 4.7% just before the current downturn. Productivity growth plays a key role in the relationship between growth and unemployment because it can influence the starting point for joblessness. An increase in productivity growth over the past decade has enabled the economy to grow faster without igniting inflation. That allowed Federal Reserve policy to be more accommodative to growth, letting the jobless rate move lower without triggering inflation worries and tighter policy. Reflecting that lower starting point, the UBS economists note that a recession today as deep as the one in 1981-82 would imply a peak jobless rate of about 8.25%."

Quote :

"am I to assume that you are a hell-bound communist heathen"

Might as well assume what you want, that seems to be your preferred thought process rather than fact and reason.

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 6:52 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2009 6:51:03 PM

Quote :

"Obama announced Friday his plan to end combat operations in Iraq by the end of August 2010, saying the goal of a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq is achievable. Senior officials said the war, effectively, will end before Labor Day next year. "

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Again.

Now will the Prez have enough balls to blow up Iran's Nuclear factory before it destroys Israel?

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 7:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2009 7:47:24 PM

lets get the economy going...$989 billion in new taxes

Quote :

"1) On households making more than $250,000: * $338 billion from turning back the Bush tax cuts. * $179 billlion by reducing the limits on itemized deductions * $118 billion by increasing capital gains taxes Total: $636 billion/10 years 2) On evil businesses: * $17 billion comes from bringing back the Superfund taxes * $24 billion fromtreating tax carried-interest as income * $5 billion by codifying "economic substance doctrine" * $61 billion from repeal of the LIFO accounting practice * $210 billion from international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform * $4 billion - information reporting for rental payments * $5.3 billion from excise tax increases on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas * $3.4 billion from repealing the expensing of tangible drilling costs * $62 million from repealing the deductions for tertiary injectants * $49 million from repealing passive loss exceptions for working interests in oil and natural gas properties * 13 billion by repealing manufacturing tax deductions for oil and natural gas companies * $1 billion by increasing to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers * $882 million through eliminating advanced earned income tax credit Total: $353 billion/10 years"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html

great idea. lets tax the SHIT out of the people who supply most of the jobs and do most of the investing in our country. that out to REALLY get the economy firing!!

evil rich people, beware.

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 8:15 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 8:16 PM. Reason : ..]

2/27/2009 8:13:31 PM

Quote :

"Total: $353 billion/10 years"

Hmm, so, 35.3 billion a year spread across all business. When you consider that is about how much GM pissed away by themselves, it kinda puts that number in perspective.

When you consider the reason that taxes have to go up is because of the massive growth in the balance sheet due to the propping up of all these banks

and you consider that AIG alone lost almost 2 years worth of that increase IN THE LAST QUARTER (or 8 years annualized), well, it kinda puts these numbers in perspective.

Look, we can debate all day long about the strategy of raising taxes to support a balloned balance sheet, thats fine...but for fucks sake, leave the anti-populist propaganda and bullshit out of it. Given that the budget gap will happen, what do you propose - in addition to cuts, because lets be honest, you'd have to eliminate government for cuts alone to work - we do on the tax front to pay for this shit? Lower taxes to stimulate growth, which to this day is still being debated on just how well that works? Is that your only solution?

2/28/2009 12:25:15 AM

so logically, as a small business owner (who employs 65%+ of our nation's workforce), are you going to hire more people and grow while also paying more taxes out of pocket? or are you going to try and cut your workforce to attempt maintain current profit amounts?

2/28/2009 12:29:28 AM

as a small business owner i'm probably going to make more money when more people have jobs

2/28/2009 3:40:17 AM

Quote :

"what do you propose - in addition to cuts, because lets be honest, you'd have to eliminate government for cuts alone to work - we do on the tax front to pay for this shit? Lower taxes to stimulate growth, which to this day is still being debated on just how well that works? Is that your only solution?"

Shocker, it's like you are going to call plays from an open playbook and pretend that no one has seen it already

Quote :

"so logically, as a small business owner (who employs 65%+ of our nation's workforce), are you going to hire more people and grow while also paying more taxes out of pocket? or are you going to try and cut your workforce to attempt maintain current profit amounts?"

If scenarios were only as stupidly simplistic as you just presented, we might not be in the predicament we're in.

2/28/2009 7:37:15 AM

how do you grow when you have less money to re-invest in your business? that is not a complicated scenario. most small businesses are not turning huge profits and a 5% tax difference can be the difference in growing and remaining the same size.

have you ever had a small business?

2/28/2009 12:21:14 PM

lol

i've never had chlamydia but i know the symptoms and how you treat it

2/28/2009 1:20:38 PM

I was just asking to see if his or your perspectives are rooted in experience or if you are just guessing. I have never run a small business myself, although my family does, I work for a small business owner and I have a few friends who do. the ones I have talked to about the tax hikes are (obviously) pretty worried about what it will do to their margins and their ability to grow.


anyway, how exactly do you equate a disease with running a business? one is predictable, one is not. pretty terrible analogy.

2/28/2009 7:00:00 PM

Quote :

"the ones I have talked to about the tax hikes are (obviously) pretty worried about what it will do to their margins and their ability to grow"

Weird, so you are just now pointing this out? Why not mention you're cute little anecdote earlier? Do you care to elaborate on this, or was it more, they aren't small business owners whining about higher taxes but your garden variety citizen whining about higher taxes, as if there is some segment out there that actually wants higher taxes.

Quote :

"how do you grow when you have less money to re-invest in your business?"

Grow every so slightly slower?

Quote :

"most small businesses are not turning huge profits and a 5% tax difference can be the difference in growing and remaining the same size."

No, if they aren't turning huge profits, then the 5% tax difference won't matter to them at all.

But don't take my word for any of this

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gO_C27cSSRMiAC9m_IGtfv6aYLoQD96JI4M81

you obviously know more than anyone else since you know a couple small business owners.

2/28/2009 8:20:27 PM

Quote :

"From the time he formed his tax plan during his campaign, it always has been taxes going up at 250k and above."

That's bullshit. It started at a 1mil.

Quote :

"The New Deal. And I've read the arguments on why the New Deal totally failed, and they're unconvincing. "

Give me a fucking break. All the New Deal did was usher in the very big government that is failing us now. The only thing that got us out of the Depression was the complete and total obliteration of every other economy in the world via WWII. Give it up. The New Deal was a Raw Deal.

2/28/2009 9:33:10 PM

Quote :

"That's bullshit. It started at a 1mil."

No, it didn't. Post a link you little bitch.

2/28/2009 10:08:10 PM

Quote :

"Give me a fucking break. All the New Deal did was usher in the very big government that is failing us now. The only thing that got us out of the Depression was the complete and total obliteration of every other economy in the world via WWII. Give it up. The New Deal was a Raw Deal."

Your argument is so persuasive...

The fact that nearly all arguments against the New Deal refuse to factor in make-work programs when calculating unemployment indicates to me that they're being slightly dishonest.

And the New Deal gave us nothing worthwhile? Really? Really? FDIC? SEC? Infrastructure? The end of the gold standard? Unemployment insurance? The TVA?

3/1/2009 8:59:40 AM

The Bell Tower?

3/1/2009 9:25:41 AM

The Bell Tower? Is a WWI memorial, not WWII

3/1/2009 10:12:10 AM

Construction stopped during the Great Depression. The WPA finished it.

3/1/2009 10:23:37 AM

Quote :

"And the New Deal gave us nothing worthwhile? Really? Really? FDIC? SEC? Infrastructure? The end of the gold standard? Unemployment insurance? The TVA?"

what you don't understand is that some of these knuckleheads see these as bad things

3/1/2009 1:47:54 PM

I hesitated to mention the gold standard, since that particular form of retardation has been en vogue these days.

3/1/2009 3:36:11 PM

Quote :

"The Bell Tower? Is a WWI memorial, not WWII"

Quote :

"Construction stopped during the Great Depression. The WPA finished it."

WPA also had a hand in building the Free Expression Tunnel aka then-called "access tunnel."

3/1/2009 4:31:48 PM

Quote :

"35.3 billion a year spread across all business."

so what's that as a % of GDP from the private sector? (note that gov spending is included in the total GDP calculation)

3/1/2009 6:02:32 PM

on the whole, the New Deal screwed us, even if some of the things were almost ok. Fucking future generations with Social Security and big gov't doesn't exactly get dwarfed by the FDIC, you know. But hey, let's all be enamored with a system that kept us in the depression for 12 years. Really. let's do that.

3/1/2009 7:59:56 PM

Quote :

"that kept us in the depression for 12 years."

You speak as if you've cited any evidence.

3/1/2009 8:12:18 PM

well, maybe the simple facts aren't good enough for you.

3/1/2009 8:13:12 PM

Which facts are you referring to?

3/1/2009 8:14:57 PM

you know, the accepted fact that the depression lasted until, at best, the middle of WWII.

3/1/2009 8:15:55 PM

"Kept us in the depression" is very different from "didn't get us out of the depression."

"the New Deal screwed us" is another nugget that might be aided by some sort of citation.

3/1/2009 8:24:52 PM

[Edited on March 1, 2009 at 8:50 PM. Reason : autostart off]

3/1/2009 8:49:52 PM

Quote :

""Kept us in the depression" is very different from "didn't get us out of the depression." "

are they not the same? If the New Deal was so good, then why did it take our economy longer to respond than it did other economies? Why did it take a fucking world war to get us out of the Depression?

and, if you think SS is really helping us out today, then there is no hope for you. Considering that the entitlement programs almost perfectly equal the deficit. kind of convenient, dont you think?

3/1/2009 9:23:59 PM

Quote :

"are they not the same? If the New Deal was so good, then why did it take our economy longer to respond than it did other economies? Why did it take a fucking world war to get us out of the Depression?"

What kind of question is that? Each country had different responses to the crisis. What would we compare our economy to? Germany? Any comparisons to more-successful countries would only hurt your argument.

And which country didn't need a world war to get them out of the Depression?

3/1/2009 9:42:04 PM

who put up all the money to fund ww2?

was it war bonds + promises made to industry?

[Edited on March 1, 2009 at 9:56 PM. Reason : trying to remember who put cash up front]

3/1/2009 9:44:46 PM

Im not a fan of Nobama's proposed carbon cap and trade tax. Which would casue gas taxes and power bills on normal Americans to sky rocket.

3/2/2009 9:19:53 AM

Quote :

"sky rocket"

1) Has he done any more than say he's in favor of a cap and trade system? Have any details been released that I'm not aware of? Do you really think any plan will make costs "sky rocket?" He's not that dumb.

2) Sure, it'll increase the cost of dirty energy (slightly). That's the whole idea. We'll be glad for it when we're leading the world in energy.

3/2/2009 10:29:11 AM

What I read last night said by 2019 we'd (the consumers) would end up paying 4-5% in GDP in tax. That's a massive tax on the consumer.

3/2/2009 11:12:55 AM

If our country was wise enough to reject the cap and trade program of the Kyoto Protocol, why would we want to impose the same thing on ourselves with Pres. Obama's preference?

Nearly every European country participating in Kyoto has higher emissions today than when the treaty was signed in 1997.

Quote :

"The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is supposed to be the EU’s main policy tool for reducing emissions. But so far, it has been an embarrassing failure. In its first phase of operation, more permits to pollute have been printed than there is pollution. The price of carbon has collapsed to almost zero, creating no incentive to reduce pollution. Across the EU, emissions from installations covered by the ETS actually rose by 0.8%. The Commission insists that it has learned its lesson, and has reassured us that in the second phase of the scheme, which runs from 2008 to 2012 will work better because it has clamped down on the over allocation of permits by member states. Open Europe argues however that in fact things have gone backwards for the ETS. In the second phase of the ETS member states will be able to “import” external Kyoto “credits” from developing countries in order to meet their targets for reductions. This might be unobjectionable if these ‘imports’ reflected real emissions cuts. But these credits have already been exposed as highly flawed, and often fraudulent. They don’t always reflect absolute reductions in emissions, whilst many of these credits are generated from projects in developing countries that would have happened anyway. Such credits actually mean increased pollution."

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/etsp2.pdf

Now of course you can argue that Obama's plan (whatever it is) has enough "hope and change" in it to be successful. But I'm not predicting our wise Messiah will be able to pull this off. Especially since the economic system he is trying to switch our country to (European socialism) hasn't had much luck yet with Kyoto.

3/2/2009 11:30:15 AM