Obama to Sign Earmark-Bloated Spending Bill
No, Obama. You can’t blame Bush for this one.
President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers’ pet projects, administration officials said.
Administration budget chief Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel both downplayed the $410 billion spending bill and signaled Obama would hold his nose and sign it. Orszag said: “We want to just move on. Let’s get this bill done, get it into law and move forward.
Said Emanuel: “That’s last year’s business.”
The House last week passed the measure that would keep the government running through Sept. 30, when the federal budget year ends. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 specially sponsored projects totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion.
Either way, it is far more than Obama promised as a candidate. He refused “earmarks” for the economic stimulus package he championed and a children’s health bill.
He similiarly [sic] pledged to reject tailored budget requests that let lawmakers send money to their home states. Orszag said Obama would move ahead and overlook the time-tested tradition that lets officials divert millions at a time to pet projects.
“We want to make sure that earmarks are reduced and they’re also transparent. We’re going to work with the Congress on a set of reforms to achieve those,” said Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Obama’s top hands assigned responsibility to their predecessors and President George W. Bush.
It doesn’t matter what the previous administration did. Obama had the full authority to veto this earmark-laden bill as he promised he would do when he was campaigning. He could veto it and refuse to sign it until the earmarks are gone. But he won’t. This is 100% Obama’s responsibility no matter how much he tries to point the finger at Bush. Obama is responsible for things to which he affixes his signature.
Looks like “Hope and Change” has become “Fleece and Rape”
Yes we can!
Most ethical and transparent administration in history, haha.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1355 hrs
Are you sure he has not been saying ‘Nope, no change.’? That would have been a bit more honest for every candidate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1419 hrs
Once again we need an amendment that the only spending that can be added must be directly related to the very specific title of the Bill. We know we can’t trust Congress. Now we are learning that we can’t trust the President when it comes to spending. We as Americans need to take matters into our own hands and demand this of our elected officials no matter what party they claim. This way they can take the important spending first and keep a running total of how much they spend. More importantly we will be able to hold each individual law maker accountable for his or her vote. Under the current conditions this is impossible. Just the way they like it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1420 hrs
Yeah, its becoming apparent Obama didn’t mean a WORD of what he said on the campaign trail or in his innaugural speech.
Obama was promising in the debates to cut pork and go thru spending bills and the budget with a “scalpel” eliminate waste… And there’s 7.7 BILLION of pork in this bill and they just want to run it through.
“hold his nose and sign it” was a phrase I heard used this weekend? WTF? Thats not what we were promised.
And then we’ve got Rahm Emanual and Peter Orszag telling us we are going to pay higher energy prices under the presidents plan???
Speaking on CBS’ Face the Nation, Emanuel said energy costs are too low, anyway, “
Energy costs are too low? Really Rahm? People should be paying more for gas and to heat their home? Funny, I didn’t hear you guys talking about that during the campaign???
The administration’s top budget official, Peter Orszag, said on ABC’s This Week that Americans can expect higher energy prices as a result of the administration’s budget and stimulus plans.”
Why isn’t this headline news? Our savior, the President is promising us higher energy prices??? Is that what people wanted when they voted for the guy that was going to “put gas in their tank and pay their mortgage?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
I thought the stimulus was suppose to help people? Now administration officials are TELLING us that we will pay higher energy prices? Slick move guys. Goebbel-esque!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1424 hrs
Here’s an updated Peggy Joseph vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPAIy8rKQus&feature=channel_page
Hope & Change Fullfilled
“side effects of hope & change may include rapid weight gain, misplaced euphoria and devastating disappointment. If you experience disillusioment that lasts longer than 4 hours, remember that the Bush administration is responsible. Results may vary.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1446 hrs
Hmmm… so 9/11 was the fault of George Bush, right? After all, he was President when it happened. The financial collapse was Bush’s too, right? I mean, after all, it happened on his watch….
Color me a hobgoblin.
Posted by Marti Abernathey on March 02, 2009 at 1512 hrs
There’s a difference between inheriting financial situations and agreeing to sign off on pork. Obama did inherit the current financial mess, that is correct. Likening that inheritence to signing something he said he wouldn’t is just plain dishonest.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1516 hrs
There’s a difference between inheriting financial situations and agreeing to sign off on pork. Obama did inherit the current financial mess, that is correct. Likening that (sic) inheritence to signing something he said he wouldn’t is just plain dishonest.
Labeling it pork, is itself dishonest. And before you start picking apart Obama, maybe you should take a look at Bush. He claimed not to be a nation builder. He claimed to be a uniter, not a divider. I could go on for days. Don’t you dare say that Bush had to do those things because of situational politics. Because you sure as heck aren’t giving Obama the same break. He’s said the bill isn’t perfect, but if you think change comes in one big chunk, you need to go back and read your ACOA booklet on tackling big projects. Let me ask this, where were you fellas when Bush was passing BS budgets that kept the government running between 200 and 500 billion dollar budget deficients?
Nevermind me and my silly old call for consistency.
Lots of Democratic love <3 <3 <3,
MarthaPosted by Rabid Yellow Dog on March 02, 2009 at 1535 hrs
Wow, the Obama apologists can rationalize anything. Too bad your flawed thinking is going to cost us all so much money.
“Bush was bad with money, so Obama can be bad with money too!”
Hope and Change folks, why expect anything different?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1541 hrs
Where was I with Bush? 14 years old without much a care in the world with politics when he was voted in the first time. I hated when Bush did this crap too. He spent way too much as well. Don’t put words in my mouth that I think Bush spending tons of money and running a huge deficit = good, Obama doing the same thing = bad. Here’s a question for you: when will Obama be wholly responsible for what he does and not be able to trace it back to Bush? Answer: when the economy rebounds it’ll all be due to Obama, but until then it’s Bush’s fault. Oh and no, I don’t give Bush a pass on the current economic situation or deficit either.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1548 hrs
Rabid,
How about this, I fully agree that fiscally Bush was a bad President. I agree that he probably lied in his campaigns to be elected(I only say ‘probably’ because I do not know, I did not like him or vote for him). Is the consistency you call for that our politicians should lie about fiscal matters? If so, done. Or is the consistency you call for about criticizing the politicians who are doing the lying? If so, done. Just look at any left leaning blog over the last 8 years of Bush’s Presidency and you will see the same (actually significantly harsher) carping, whining and complaining about lying and incompetency in Government. If you are asking for consistency for something else, bless me if I know what you are talking about. Bush is the past, Obama is current.There are many things Obama will have a right to blame Bush for. This is not one of them. I had some small hope that Obama would actually do the things he promised. So far, he is not even trying. No new hope, no change so far.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1548 hrs
He campaigned (and the propaganda machine touted him as) a moderate. Someone that would govern from the center so he could grab the independents.
Ha Ha - fooled you!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1553 hrs
Labeling it pork, is itself dishonest.
Why?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1604 hrs
I had some small hope that Obama would actually do the things he promised. So far, he is not even trying.
He said he was going to close Gitmo. That’s getting done. He said he was going to get us out of Iraq. That’s getting done. He said he was going to lower taxes on 95% of Americans. That’s getting done. He said he was going to invest in alternative energy. That’s getting done, and the list goes on. Now, unless you think that all of these should should already be accomplished after a mere six weeks in office, I’d say he’s trying pretty hard to keep his promises instead of “not even trying.”
Am I happy with all of his decisions? No. Has he kept every single promise? Of course not, and anyone who thinks that’s even remotely possible is living in a fantasy world, especially after only six weeks in office.
I’m not real happy about the earmarks, either, but let’s be real about this. $7.7 billion is barely a rounding error in a $3 trillion budget.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1612 hrs
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
The examples from my comment above were just off the top of my head. Here’s a much better accounting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1621 hrs
Yeah, its becoming apparent Obama didn’t mean a WORD of what he said on the campaign trail or in his innaugural speech.
He’s a politician - why would you EVER believe anything he’s saying? There is one exception, however, when he (or any pol) says “I want to be elected”
Beyond that however, any truth is purely accidental.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1625 hrs
Hope = Tax
Change = SpendPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1645 hrs
Oh fine APC, throw water on my venting. I did mean fiscally. Bush, after all kept many of his promises too. Getting us out of Iraq responsibly will have a fiscal impact, but I do not think of it as a fiscal promise. I knew he was going to increase spending, I do not believe my taxes will be lower in 2009 or 2010 than they were in 2007 and 2008, I am interested in the alternative energy ‘stimulus’ money. It was all labeled research as opposed to deployment that I have seen or read.
And yes, it is too early call anything failed, but I can’t help complaining about the way all Government thinks adding more money is the answer to everything. It sickens me and just like kids doing by seeing, most Americans have debts they cannot pay. Their answer: Get a new credit card! My answer has always been ‘Don’t buy it.’ Now everyone who just ‘got another credit card’ are being helped out, and I reiterate, the Government can’t pay their bills without raising taxes and Democrats are the party that raises taxes as campaign promises. I know my taxes will increase under the Democratic ascendancy and my wife and I combined make under 80k. I get pissed!!!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1702 hrs
T, if it’s any consolation, that wasn’t directed completely at you; more towards the overall tenor of the comments as a whole.
I also think, until Obama actually submits a budget with taxes raised on those of us in the nether regions of the pay scale, that I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt on that.
I’m completely with you on the “don’t buy it” idea, at least at the personal level. While I’m admittedly no economist, though, it seems that the consensus among most real economists, including the conservative ones, is that a gigantic stimulus of some kind is the only thing that will pull us out of this headlong rush off a cliff. I think the best we can all do is sincerely hope that they’re right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1801 hrs
it seems that the consensus among most real economists, including the conservative ones, is that a gigantic stimulus of some kind is the only thing that will pull us out of this headlong rush off a cliff
Here are 200 that don’t:
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf
And here are a few more:
http://internetscofflaw.com/2009/02/10/stimulus-consensus/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1854 hrs
Once again we need an amendment that the only spending that can be added must be directly related to the very specific title of the Bill.
I’m quoting this not as something I necessarily disagree with, but as an example of the misunderstanding that pervades this thread, including Owen’s original post.
Learn this, people, if you learn nothing else today: Earmarks do not add spending to the budget. Earmarks direct funds that are already budgeted to specific projects. And, yes, that direction, by definition, is added outside of the normal committee/ legislative process. But that direction does not add spending.
Every dollar of the (call it bloated if you want) omnibus bill Obama’s planning to sign would be there if it were earmark-free or not.
Posted by folkbum on March 02, 2009 at 1923 hrs
Off topic—To Owen and Jed and them, and all the other expats out there: Happy Texas Independence Day!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 2037 hrs
While I’m admittedly no economist, though, it seems that the consensus among most real economists, including the conservative ones, is that a gigantic stimulus of some kind is the only thing that will pull us out of this headlong rush off a cliff.
I see the Dow ended up at under 7000… I’d say the market has totally agreed with you. Not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 2147 hrs
Bill #17
F’in Hilarious!!!!
is that a gigantic stimulus of some kind
So I guess the key is just WHAT is considered “stimulus” no apc?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 2350 hrs
He said he was going to get us out of Iraq. That’s getting done. False- he is leaving 50,000 combat troops in Iraq.
He said he was going to close Gitmo Right and he still has not explained how he will do it.
He said he was going to invest in alternative energy.
Earmarks do not add spending to the budget. What a bunch of baloney. Are you saying that if the ear marks were not inculded, the same amount of money would be spent? highly doubtful.
Typical liberal spinPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 0207 hrs
He said he was going to invest in alternative energy Sorry
Like the average American can afford such a thing.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 0209 hrs
Are you saying that if the ear marks were not inculded, the same amount of money would be spent?
Yes, Dan, that’s exactly what I’m saying. The difference between “earmarked” spending and regular spending is that the earmarked spending has a specific target. Regular funds get sent to whatever agency they’re intended for and spent at the agency’s discretion. If Congress earmarked nothing, then all funds—the same level of funds—would get sent to those agencies.
An “earmark” is merely a restriction on spending, not additional spending itself.
Posted by folkbum on March 03, 2009 at 0538 hrs
No, folkbum. That would be true only if appropriations were determined with no earmarks in mind. Earmarks can also be funds beyond the requested budget and appropriated for a specific purpose. The direction may not be binding, but the funds would not in fact be appropriated but for the earmark
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 0815 hrs
An “earmark” is merely a restriction on spending, not additional spending itself.
Therefore all such “earmark” spending is not wasteful. That makes all the difference. Thanks - I’m now twice as smart for having read your words.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 0817 hrs
It is amazing to see how the bush bashers have come full circle on irresponsible spending.
The fact that the first response from so many of you is to point back at Bush, rather than just accepting the FACT that spending like this in the depth of a recession is more than irresponsible. The spending spree that GWB went on was sickening, but what Obama is doing now is downright self destructive. Every time he opens his mouth on fiscal policy the DOW drops 150 points. Can anyone here say that he is bringing “hope” to investors?Barack Obama made pledges to create a transparent and ethical administration that would finally do something to eliminate lobbyists from the institutional culture. Instead he has appointed tax cheats, and lobbyists to nearly every cabinet position, and the idea of transparency is to set up a website with little information and so little meaning that the Vice President can’t remember the “web number”. The stimulus bill was foisted on the public with no debate, and no desire for bipartisanship. rather than allowing the Republicans to be involved, they just hoped a bunch would peel away from the party line and allow them some dishonest political cover.
This administration is playing politics with the future of our country, and I for one don’t like it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 0830 hrs
Every time he opens his mouth on fiscal policy the DOW drops 150 points. Can anyone here say that he is bringing “hope” to investors?
Read this:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090303/1amarkets03_cv.art.htm
“It’s a bloodbath, pure and simple,” says Scott Black, president and portfolio manager at Delphi Management. “This is a vote of no confidence in the Obama administration. It doesn’t matter what you own, everything is going down. It is a total capitulation. People are just terrorized and are throwing in the towel.”
Wealth is being destroyed on Wall Street at a rate not seen since the 1930s. The gains from the 2002-07 bull market are gone. A big chunk of the huge profits from the 1990s dot-com stock boom have been wiped out. In all, after Monday’s 300-point drop to 6763, more than 7,400 Dow points, or 52.3%, have disappeared since the October 2007 peak, the biggest-ever point drop.
........................................................................
“The market has lost confidence in Obama awfully fast,” Adams says. The Dow is down 30% since Election Day and 15% since Obama took office.
..........................................................................
Now, Adams says, Wall Street generally believes the president’s budget relies too much on government spending and too little on tax cuts and other incentives for businesses. Big investors also are complaining that Obama’s policies are more anti-business than they believed initially. “The market thought it was getting a Bill Clinton-type Democrat that would move toward the political center,” he says. “But we got a guy way off to the left.”Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 0849 hrs
I see the Dow ended up at under 7000… I’d say the market has totally agreed with you. Not.
So the people who drove the economy off the cliff are unhappy with restrictions being placed on them. Ain’t that a shame.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 0920 hrs
That’s the spirit, apc. Screw the country if I can get a shot in at those of I don’t like. Obama’s counting on that sentiment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 0923 hrs
Y’all don’t seem to understand that the days of catering to the every whim of the richest people in the country are over. The Dow is an important thing, but it’s not the be-all and end-all of the American economy. The days when vast amounts of wealth are redistributed from the lower and middle classes to the wealthiest five percent of the population are done. Trickle down economics is finished as a viable theory. Get used to it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1001 hrs
Trickle down economics is just beginning. It’s what Obama is proposing on a massive scale. He merely wants to be the trickler.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1010 hrs
Fine apc, but did it have to ruin the little guy’s savings as well? I should have been living it up and be 50,000+ in debt rather than an 89,000.00 401k that is now worth 46,000.00. I would say (for me) vast sums of wealth are being taken from the middle class as well. In fact, every fiscally responsible person in the US got reamed, and if that is happy entertainment to ‘y’all’ (liberal Government supporters), then fuck ‘y’all’ too. The only way you can come out ahead in these next few years is if you were in deep debt. Now we will help all the irresponsible assholes (who are are mindlessly screaming screw the rich) so they can continue being irresponsible. I am sure there is nothing like having the Government save your fiscal skin to teach you to not do it again.
The people who got screwed were not the ‘rich’. There are many ‘rich’ people who spend their income as they get it and will be able to take advantage of any bail outs they qualify for. Indeed they will be the majority of the bail out receivers because part of the money they spend every year is on CPAs whose job it is to find and use this info. The people who fell hard in the last year were all the people who were/are fiscally responsible, not trusting Social Security and food stamps for their retirement. Fiscally resposible and rich are by no means synonymous. Laugh away liberal, but realize who you are laughing at. It may not matter to you, but at least those famous liberal elite minds of yours should be able to comprehend who got screwed and why we despise your glib uncaring souls. apc, at least I expect you to get it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1027 hrs
Y’all don’t seem to understand that the days of catering to the every whim of the richest people in the country are over.
You know APC, I can’t help but feel that in your warped perception “catering to the rich” probably means embracing a marketplace that allows people to innovate, acheive and invest for their advancement.
Instead you want a marketplace that caters to those who don’t produce, don’t strive for more and don’t innovate.
We’ll check back in 4 years and see how that worked for you.
The government cannot make everyone rich. But it sure can bring a lot more people down to the level of the poor.
And ironically in a market where it is more difficult to ‘strike it rich’ the only peole who will be “richer” will be those who already have capital. Those who already “got theirs” Those who were striving for a bigger piece of the pie will have less opportunity to do so.
The richest people in the country will benefit the most from an administration that places encumberances on anyone else who seeks to elevate themselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1113 hrs
No, in my “warped” perception, catering to the rich means that the so-called answer to every single problem that arises is yet another tax cut for the wealthiest people in the country while at the same time wages for the working and middle classes stagnate while their productivity soars. That means that none of the benefits of an improving economy go to the people who actually did the most to cause the improvement. It means removing all the impediments to devices that create nothing but paper wealth without actually producing anything of actual value (derivatives, anyone?).
Instead you want a marketplace that caters to those who don’t produce, don’t strive for more and don’t innovate.
To the contrary, I want the benefits to go to those that actually produce, i.e., the wage earners of the middle and working classes, not those who simply sign their ever-shrinking paychecks. I’d say they have in fact been striving for more, as the monumental gains in productivity over the 10-15 years would indicate. And it’s not just the rich that innovate, you know, but it has been the rich that have quite literally made out like bandits on the backs of the working class.
I know this sounds like class warfare to those on the right. All I can say is that class warfare has been going on for 30 years, and the middle and working classes have been badly losing that war. It’s high time the tide turned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1223 hrs
APC,
The wage earners, in most cases, are not the ones who took out second mortgages on their homes (putting the roof over their kids heads in jeapardy)in order to build or expand their businesses. The animosity you hold towardsthose that sign your paycheck is telling. Unfortunately, your ideology is already on the scrapheap of history. It’s alled arxism, and it nver rsults in success.
Nobody here has to maginlize what you are trying to say, you do that well enough yourself.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1234 hrs
It is people like you, APC, who are makng business owners like me consider closing up shop and adding more to the unemployment roles.
I really hope the oner of the company you work for never finds ot your aparent proletariate mindset, for your sake that is.I don’t understand where you get off making hard working business owners sound like jackasses skating through life like you do.
Open a business of your ow, the report back how much you like paying wothless emploees a “living wage”.at theexpense of the good ones who deerve to make a good living.
The reason I know this will never happen is because 95% of liberals live by the philosophy “do as I say, not as I do.”Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1242 hrs
Not that apc needs(deserves) any defending, but are you mistaking all businees owners as ‘rich people’? I do not think that is what he said or meant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1245 hrs
Not all “rich” peple started out that way. Most of th worked very hard to get where they are. If you create a disinsentive for people who aspire to wealth, you make it less likely that in te future you will be able to maintain the current tax structure. As the numer of “rich” decreases you will put downwad pressure on the top marginal tax rates, placing hem onto the backs of the middle class. It is a self defeating philosophy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1256 hrs
I hardly think returning to the tax rates of the !990s (when rich people did quite well, thank you very much) constitutes a “disinsentive” (sic) for people who aspire to wealth. And TUERQAS is right, all business owners aren’t rich. For that matter, the best small business owners plow much of their profits back into their businesses and don’t pay themselves the type of salaries that are going to put themselves in the upper tax brackets, anyway.
By the way, proletariat isn’t a pejorative term. It simply means the working class, and I’m proud to be a part of it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1334 hrs
Not a perjorative, but a word with connotations.
I am a member of the group you describe, I draw litlle salary, and I write the checks. So make up your mind, do you empathise with me or seek to diminish through policy what it is I aspire to be.
The point is not whether we should return to tax policies of the 90’s, the point is that the administration is implying that through various other regulations and hidden taxes he seeks to go much further.
You can continue to parse words in order to make your points, but myself and many others can read the writing on the wall.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1345 hrs
If you’re going to fantasize and carry on about “hidden taxes,” there’s nothing I can say that’s going to change your mind.
So make up your mind, do you empathise with me or seek to diminish through policy what it is I aspire to be.
For crying out loud, you make it sound like these policies were designed specifically to destroy your way of life. They’re simply different policies than the ones that have driven our entire economy into a very deep ditch. Empathizing with you and supporting new policies aren’t mutually exclusive, you know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1428 hrs
We are where we are, not because of tax policies, but because of government interference in lending practices, outlandish government spending, and lack of regulation of investment banks.
Barack Obama is doing nothing to change any of those things. In fact, he s spending more, and encouraging furher lending to tose who cannot afford it. The difference is, that this president is using this economic crisis to effect change in the way our government transacts it’s day to day business with the citizens.
The creation of unaccountable positions that coopt the constitutional powers of congress s just the beginning.
Hopefully this president will not affect my livelihood, ecause by the time I am at those income levels there will have been another conservative revolution and the white house may be occpied by a sane person again.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1448 hrs
I think the market (Note: 100 Million people are vested in the market in some way) is saying that we have an idiot for a president.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/03/obamas_change_is_capital_on_st.html
Investors have walked away from investing, while businesses shut down factories and offices and slash jobs.
This is both highly significant and dangerous. Capital, bluntly put, has gone on strike. Those who own wealth are pushing it to the sidelines, as a young and inexperienced president tries to jam through the most sweeping economic changes in over 70 years.
The prospect of these changes becoming law has already radically altered our nation’s economy. Entrepreneurs and CEOs who once created new products, new services, jobs and trillions in wealth for America’s workers and retirees now find themselves vilified and punished for their success.
ABC News reported this week that many upper-income taxpayers already are planning to cut back on work and investments to stay under $250,000 in income — the point where Obama’s punitive taxes kick in. No one wins from this, yet Obama seems oblivious.
Just curious - if no one is making any significant amount of money, where will the floor be for the top 5% of income earners? I predict $150,000. The top marginal tax rate will have to come down to that level. One thing for sure, the Obama deficits will make anything under Bush seem like chump change.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1452 hrs
another tax cut for the wealthiest people in the country while at the same time wages for the working and middle classes stagnate while their productivity soars.
Productivity soars??????
Really?
That empty conjecture needs no further response….
I know this sounds like class warfare to those on the right. All I can say is that class warfare has been going on for 30 years, and the middle and working classes have been badly losing that war. It’s high time the tide turned.
Pure and utter bs
Provide some proof that the middle class is losing “the war”
The last time this topic came up on here a while ago no one could prove that the middle class was ‘declining’ and to the contrary, i found data that no one could refute that the middle class was doing QUITE well.
True, fewer people today live in households with incomes between $30,000 and $100,000 (a reasonable definition of “middle class”) than in 1979. But the number of people in households that bring in more than $100,000 also rose from 12 percent to 24 percent. There was no increase in the percentage of people in households making less than $30,000. So the entire “decline” of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder. For married couples, median incomes have grown in inflation-adjusted dollars by 25 percent since 1979.
And it’s not just the rich that innovate, you know, but it has been the rich that have quite literally made out like bandits on the backs of the working class.
And we should encourage the working class to better themselves not through government, but through leveraging their skills in the competitive market place WITHOUT government intervention.
If you boss is getting rich on your back START YOUR OWN COMPANY.
You know when I use to flip burgers at McDonalds in high school EVERY KID THERE thought the owner was “getting rich” on their backs.
And as far as a tax cut for the wealthiest of the wealthy. The muliti-millionaires and billionaires. Indeed!
I’d rather have them spending and investing than have their money go to GOVERNMENT who will give it to someone for NO productivity at all.
You want to see an economy stagnate, pay people for doing NOTHING (aka every government entitlement out there)
The payoff for innovation comes from the working class gaining knowledge and skills in their industry and moving on to bigger and better things, the rewards of which will come when they start their own company to do it BETTER than their previous employer did.
The payoff for the working class coming from a government handout does NOTHING… The rich who own companies who set their prices will just pass on their tax burden. There is no magic wand apc… as much as we might wish there was.
There is just NO way to really improve your position in life than doing BETTER and trying HARDER than your fellow man.
I’m sorry that the working class has to turn on the TV and see people flying in jets and dining on private yachts… Increased taxes on the rich will not change that one bit. The rich will just raise their prices. Trust me…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1501 hrs
That empty conjecture needs no further response….
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-o5.html
The money quote: “One surprise was in the latter half of the 1990s, when productivity growth surged to average an annual rate of over 3%, more than twice as fast as the rate in the previous two decades. A bigger surprise has been the further ratcheting up of productivity growth since the most recent recession. Even with a slowing to below a 1-3/4% annual pace in the second half of last year, productivity growth averaged around 3.8% for the 2001 through 2004 period. That is an extraordinarily high number by historical standards.”
Provide some proof that the middle class is losing “the war”
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/23/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm
The money quote: Adjusted for inflation, median household income dropped by $1,175 between 2001-2007
If you boss is getting rich on your back START YOUR OWN COMPANY
I’m sure all those autoworkers can just go out and start a car company or , for that matter, that all those laid-off investment bankers can just go out and start their own bank.
You know when I use to flip burgers at McDonalds in high school EVERY KID THERE thought the owner was “getting rich” on their backs.
Ray Kroc died a billionaire.
The payoff for innovation comes from the working class gaining knowledge and skills in their industry and moving on to bigger and better things, the rewards of which will come when they start their own company to do it BETTER than their previous employer did.
Can’t really argue with that. Surely you can agree, though, that not everyone can start their own company. See the autoworker example above.
Look, I hold no hope of trying to change your opinion on any of this. But it’s not nearly as clear-cut and simplistic as you’re trying to make it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1616 hrs
oops, sorry, that should be
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-05.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1620 hrs
I’m sure all those autoworkers can just go out and start a car company or , for that matter, that all those laid-off investment bankers can just go out and start their own bank.
The fact that you would make this statement… That you can’t see the message behind my comment indicates that you either don’t want to acknowledge the concept or are to stupid to grasp it.
If a carpenter doesn’t thinke he’s well paid he can just go start his own company… If a burger flipper things he is worth way more than his pay he can start a hot dog stand…
If an autoworker thinks the repetitive task of bolting a wheel on a vehicle as it rolls by is worth 50,000+fantatic benefits per year he can go find someone else who wants to pay him 50,000 to do something ANYONE could do.
forget it… I won’t waste my time.
I’ve come across guys like you before. For every suggestion, you’ll find an excuse… For every silver lining, you’ll look for the cloud. People who listen to guys like you grow up to be dependent serfs who complain about life and how unfair it is. People who listen to guys like me go on to forge their own destiny.
Carry on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1700 hrs
I saw the message behind your statement. It’s every man for himself and fuck everybody else. Isn’t that it? That burger-flipper has to have at least some kind of beginning capital to open his freaking hot dog cart, and being barely able to pay his rent and bills doesn’t allow for that.
I’ve come across guys like you before. For everyone who dares to disagree with your “pull yourself up by your own goddam bootstraps” philosophy, your only response is that they either “don’t want to acknowledge the concept or is too stupid to grasp it.”
I grasp it all too well. The only problem is that not everybody has the same capabilities, something that your one-size-fits-all philosophy doesn’t take into account. Some people don’t even have the boots with the straps to pull themselves up by, and it’s not always because they’re lazy and stupid, either.
You dismissively gave me a “carry on.” Let me return the favor—Get used to it, this is the way things are now.l
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1734 hrs
xx -
The autoworker makes WAAAYYYYY more than $50k to bolt on that wheel. Why do you think they can’t make money on cars and were building all those trucks? I mean, besides the fact that everybody wanted them until gas went to $4/gallon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1829 hrs
and apc -
plant me firmly in that “middle class” category that will take a tax hit when the evil Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire. But hey, we don’t need that money for clothes or food or tuition or anything anyway <sarc>
As far as the “hidden” taxes. Do you honestly believe that “cap and trade” won’t significantly increase your monthly gas/electric/oil bills? If not, you may want to listen to the Savior Obama himself when he admitted that very thing during a radio interview during the campaign:
Personally - I’d rather not thanks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1837 hrs
No, in my “warped” perception, catering to the rich means that the so-called answer to every single problem that arises is yet another tax cut for the wealthiest people in the country while at the same time wages for the working and middle classes stagnate while their productivity soars.
Who do you think pays the majority of taxes in this country? Two-thirds of the entire tax burden is paid for by the top 10 percent in this country.You whine about fair? Okay, how about a flat tax. Then the tax burden will be more evenly distributed across income groups.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 2110 hrs
It is obvious that apc has never had to miss his own paycheck so that he could pay his employees.
When you do that - then you can comment on the “wealthy” business owners.
Cap and trade will cripple this country’s business - while the rest of the world laughs and profits from it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 2228 hrs
Bill the only other ones not laughing are the Europeans, who are already forced to endure this tax. Europe has become the poster child of where not to manufacture goods, given the repressive social programs and lunacy of cap and trade.
Under Obamanomics, the acceleration of jobs to China and India will expand.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 2236 hrs
Okay, how about a flat tax. Then the tax burden will be more evenly distributed across income groups.
Amen… And the best reason for that is that ONLY when people have to ACTUALLY contribute to the tax levy will they be mindful of how its spent.
When so many people don’t pay any income taxes at all, they could care less how its spent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 2342 hrs
Wow, not even six months and not Obama is showing the real face. What a disappointing time for those who believed in him.
Posted by Home Accents on March 04, 2009 at 1115 hrs
Flat tax - nope…. We need to start taxing consumption instead of production/income.
Fair Tax baby!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2009 at 1133 hrs
I saw the message behind your statement. It’s every man for himself and fuck everybody else. Isn’t that it?
Thats all you’ve got APC? You and guys like you always have to resort to the most juevenille of responses to paint my position in a pejorative light. Total strawman arguement.
There are dozens of opportunities to help people. We’ve been over this before. Conservatives are proven to be the most generous and charitable. This is documented. We believe in helping people. We know it will work because we DO it. You think government is the only one who can help people. You care about people SO much
that you want to help them… so long as its done with “the rich guys” money. Pathetic. Lastly:
The only problem is that not everybody has the same capabilities, something that your one-size-fits-all philosophy doesn’t take into account.
Not everyone has the same capabilities. Sure. But its not as aggregious as you try to portray. MOST people have far more capabilities than guys like you give them credit for, AND far more capabilities than a system that is more and more fostering DEPENDENCE not encouraging self-sufficiency would establish.
More-so, you should say that not everyone has the same MOTIVATION. That is the real truth. As a result, there will be those with more and those with less. Those who will try harder and those that won’t. Those who lead and those who follow in the smoother waters of the wake.
But EVERYONE has the ability to live JUST FINE.
No you can’t drive a new escalade and take trips to disney every year if you only make 30 grand a year, but MONEY ISN’T EVERYTHING. Living with you your MEANS is everything.
We don’t have a poverty problem in this country, we have a LIVING WITHIN YOUR MEANSN problem. So guys like you can perpetuate the MYTH of the “struggling middle class” but thats a load of crap. 100% bullshit. Demagoguery to the maximum.
ANYONE who is able bodied will NOT live in poverty in this country unless they CHOOSE to.
Happiness isn’t a 6 figure income my friend. Happiness is learning to live within your means.
Greed isn’t owning a private jet. GREED is not being happy with what you have and being envious and jealous of what others have.
The people who can’t live WELL off of 30 grand a year likely won’t find it easy to live off of 90 grand a year.
So take your mind-numbing pitty party and class warfare elsewhere. There is NO justification for your socialist rantings. In fact, its beliefs like yours that have led masses of people into tougher financial circumstances by the thousands.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2009 at 1152 hrs
Guys like you? That’s all you’ve got, xx? Repeating “class warfare” and “guys like you” over and over still doesn’t make you right. One thing you’re right about is that this is that we’ve been over this before, and it always comes down to you calling me stupid and bleating about class warfare.
In fact, its beliefs like yours that have led masses of people into tougher financial circumstances by the thousands.
lo-f***ing-l. Completely unrestrained, unregulated, and every-man-for-himself-and-to-hell-with-everybody-else economic policies are what have have led masses of people into tougher financial circumstances. Thank God that’s over and the grownups have taken control.
I’m outta here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2009 at 1248 hrs
I’m outta here.
Promises promises… You still haven’t commented on what justification there is for subsidizing the “middle class” when the middle class is doing just fine??
I mean the middle class has no problem affording nice transportation, a nice roof over their head and food on the table. Sure they might not enjoy the luxuries, but when did luxuries become necessities?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2009 at 1323 hrs
Conservatives are proven to be the most generous and charitable. This is documented. We believe in helping people. We know it will work because we DO it. You think government is the only one who can help people.
Actually, I think Obama is giving them “the finger” on that too.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/the_week_of_revelation.html
This ideological shift is also evident in Obama’s treatment of charitable giving. The new budget seeks to raise billions for health reform by limiting the charitable deduction for the wealthy. This is a direct claim that the good done by government spending will be more important than the good done by the wealthy. But it is often wealthy people who make the large donations that sustain colleges, universities and teaching hospitals. If government is inherently superior at making such charitable choices in the public good, why not make our entire education and medical systems public? Which seems to be the goal.
Something I heard today: “Obama fumbled, the economy crumbled”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2009 at 1329 hrs
Something I heard today: “Obama fumbled, the economy crumbled”
Indeed.
At least when Bush waged war on a country it was overseas.
Obama is launching an all out assault on the homeland.
I hope he keeps it up. He’s gonna be 1 and done in a hurry.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2009 at 1358 hrs
He’s gonna be 1 and done in a hurry.
Maybe. I fear that too many really don’t know what we are dealing with. I’m sure someone will tell me that I need to line my hat with tinfoil because of this comment, but there is a real possibility that The Almighty One will “suspend” elections when the economy fails to improve (and in fact deteriorates even further), arguing that the “extraordinary” circumstances call for such measures. We are dealing here with one of the most ruthless, power hungry, amoral people we have ever dealt with. And there are too many in positions of influence that share his meglomania that will happily abet whatever he chooses to do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2009 at 1842 hrs
. . . there is a real possibility that The Almighty One will “suspend” elections when the economy fails to improve (and in fact deteriorates even further), arguing that the “extraordinary” circumstances call for such measures. We are dealing here with one of the most ruthless, power hungry, amoral people we have ever dealt with . . .
I remember reading this comment, in 2002 I think it was, on Democratic Underground. Names and crises changed, of course ...
Posted by folkbum on March 04, 2009 at 1953 hrs
Apc is a moron.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2009 at 2153 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 122
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 11:57 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).