US Election 2012

[Bond77]

[
Both. On the U.S. side of things, growing uncertainty in the markets and the quantitative easing that is driving up inflation are Obama's fault. On the world side of things, countries are going broke because of health care costs and pension funds. Countries keep borrowing from one another via the IMF and treasury bill purchases.

Would you have bailed out the banks?

To put it simply, no, I would not have bailed out the banks.

It's hard not to write paragraph after paragraph explaining my answer to your question.

Simply put, the problem is that the banks that are in trouble, are in trouble because they have too many property investment liabilities. Many of these banks need to property values to stabilize in order to survive, and that is unlikely to happen for several years.

Other notes:

-A lot of the TARP money went to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and they are still billions in the red.

-Also, a WSJ report from six months ago stated that almost 100 bailed out banks are on the verge of collapse.

A good book covering this situation has recently been released by two NYT reporters. It's called Reckless Endangerment, and it gives a timeline and it covers the main people responsible for the collapse. I've read some excerpts of it, and I am looking to purchase a copy very soon.

That's all I've got for the moment. How would you answer your question?

[bjmdds]

Mario Cuomo's son Andrew and Bill Clinton laid the groundwork for the collapse when they mandated banks lower their loan standards for minority ownership of homes in 1998 which they KNEW many would fail down the road and Bush continued this nonsense. To hell with Clinton, Bush and Oh-bama, Rangel, Schumer, Frank, and all of the rest in Congress.

[carl stromberg]

I'm not sure whether I would have saved the banks. On the one hand they needed the money to avoid a big financial crisis but it comes at the expense of ordinary people. Maybe there needs to be some new regulations set up for the future rather than letting the banks and other sectors of the financial system to do what they want in future.

[Dr. No]

The banks is maybe, foreign banks is a no and car companies are a big NO. The car companies say they paid us back but the did it with another loan form us, so they paid us back with our own money and claimed they paid us off, it like using one credit card to pay off another from the same bank. We also help to prop up the bloated unions at GM and Chrysler, like much for the stimulus went to support the bloated bureaucracy instead of help the American people hurting. The amount paid to save one job is crazy. Far better to give the money directly to the poeple than pour it through the government agencies, that kind of trickle down never reaches the working man.

What we should do is once we decide on poverty level we should issue a check to everyone below it so that they reach it or are above it. With that money the people have a chance to get ahead and maybe even make their lives better. Funding all kinds of agencies employees a few bureaucrats but at too great a cost. Too great a cost hen america is hurting and any dollar a working man can get makes a difference.

My 2 cents... Now worth about 1/2 a cent in the Obama economy

[Kristatos]

What we should do is once we decide on poverty level we should issue a check to everyone below it so that they reach it or are above it. With that money the people have a chance to get ahead and maybe even make their lives better.

Sort of like the minimum income scheme they have in Alaska?

[Dr. No]

What we should do is once we decide on poverty level we should issue a check to everyone below it so that they reach it or are above it. With that money the people have a chance to get ahead and maybe even make their lives better.

Sort of like the minimum income scheme they have in Alaska?

Not familiar with it I'll look it up after this.

I think the stimulus failed becuase it was wasted on supporting a government infrastructures of bureaucracy on the federal, state and local levels lets cut out the middle man and give the money directly to the poeple, sure some will wast it but some will start a business, I believe most will be responsible with it.
Joe Biden can go around talking about the summers of recovery he and obama can reduce the jobs available so their jobless rate looks better, I don't see any real improvement they may have save some government jobs but for the cost it was inefficient use of our money.
WHen Bill Clinton is out with how to make new jobs interviews you know the new guy is screwing it up.

[Kristatos]

I think the stimulus failed becuase it was wasted on supporting a government infrastructures of bureaucracy on the federal, state and local levels lets cut out the middle man and give the money directly to the poeple, sure some will wast it but some will start a business, I believe most will be responsible with it.

What you mean like the previous stimulus, when the Bush administration gave averyone a $600 check with which to go out and buy a Chinese-made TV? Economists seem to be pretty unanimous that the reason the stimulus failed is that it was only about a third as big as it needed to be. As with healthcare reform, the HooverObama administration pushes through some timid, ineffectual measure so that they can say they've achieved something, but lacks the balls to really fight for anything meaningful. Now they blame the Republican-controlled House, but it was true even when they had the White House and supermajorities in both houses of Congress.

[bjmdds]

Romney or Perry at the top of the ticket and Bachman or Rubio as the VP of the ticket.......that's it...........make your choice.............either will beat the fraudulent in chief.

[Kristatos]

Romney or Perry at the top of the ticket and Bachman or Rubio as the VP of the ticket.......that's it...........make your choice.............either will beat the fraudulent in chief.

Ron Paul will be the Republican nominee in 2012. The Internet said so

[bjmdds]

Paul looks like he sucks on lemons all the time and is shriveled up.

[Kristatos]

Paul looks like he sucks on lemons all the time and is shriveled up.

Why do you hate the Constitution, BJ?

Edited to explain for the benefit of people outside the US or who don't follow US politics: Ron Paul is a Republican presidential candidate in both this election and the last one, who had previously stood as a Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. He has a slightly creepy cult on the Internet, whose devotees are wont to spam every discussion on every forum on the Internet to explain with glassy-eyed stares how Ron Paul is the Only Pure Candidate, who has a direct hotline to the Founding Fathers, and how to disagree with him is to violate the sacred US Constitution. I actually agree with some of the stuff Paul says, but his supporters piss me off big-time, and I know I'm not the only person who feels that way. He'd probably get twice as much support if his Moonies would just STFU.

[Dr. No]

Paul looks like he sucks on lemons all the time and is shriveled up.

Why do you hate the Constitution, BJ?

Edited to explain for the benefit of people outside the US or who don't follow US politics: Ron Paul is a Republican presidential candidate in both this election and the last one, who had previously stood as a Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. He has a slightly creepy cult on the Internet, whose devotees are wont to spam every discussion on every forum on the Internet to explain with glassy-eyed stares how Ron Paul is the Only Pure Candidate, who has a direct hotline to the Founding Fathers, and how to disagree with him is to violate the sacred US Constitution. I actually agree with some of the stuff Paul says, but his supporters piss me off big-time, and I know I'm not the only person who feels that way. He'd probably get twice as much support if his Moonies would just STFU.

Paul has a lot of good things to say, to bad he follows them up with something bats*** crazy.

Speaking of Crazy Obamas speech today was crazy. He is off his nut, he thinks he can blaim the republicans for the bad economy and then raise taxes on us he has got to be crazy. He then thretens us that he will cut out food inspection and other vital things so he can keep paying the lazy fatcats! He complains about Congress taking break, I rather they didn't show up at all but as obama complains is planning his next vacation. for crying out loud how many vacations have we paid him and his family to travel first class to boost the economy of franchise, spain or wherever!
The man has to go, not only is his incompetent, tone deaf to what we are actually saying to him, he is dangerously delusional if he thinks the people are dumb enough to fall for this

[Kristatos]

he thinks he can blaim the republicans for the bad economy and then raise taxes on us

Your definition of "us" clearly differs from mine. Here's what he actually said:

So the bottom line is this: Any agreement to reduce our deficit is going to require tough decisions and balanced solutions. And before we ask our seniors to pay more for health care, before we cut our children’s education, before we sacrifice our commitment to the research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up a tax break that no other business enjoys. I don’t think that’s real radical. I think the majority of Americans agree with that.

[Dr. Joseph]

The missing facts in President Obama’s news conference
By Glenn Kessler


(Carolyn Kaster/AP) “The tax cuts I'm proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners.”

— President Obama, June 29, 2011

A feisty President Obama met with reporters Wednesday — a sure sign that the dispute over the debt limit has reached a critical stage.

The president, clearly intending to increase pressure on the GOP, lambasted Republicans for, in his words, refusing to get rid of “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires” before cutting aid to the less well-off. He also addressed questions on Libya.

Let’s parse some of his answers and explain what he means — and how factual he was.

“The tax cuts I'm proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owner. . . . Before we ask our seniors to pay more for health care, before we cut our children's education, before we sacrifice our commitment to the research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, I think it's only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys.”

The White House and Congress have been looking for ways to cut the deficit over 10 years by $2 trillion to $4 trillion. Republicans want to cut spending, while Democrats have sought ways to increase revenues — a nonstarter for most Republicans.

While there have been reports the administration is seeking $400 billion in additional revenue, that’s apparently not a real number. At this point, the White House might accept just about anything that demonstrates what the president calls a “balanced solution.”

In a bit of class jujutsu, the president six times mentioned eliminating a tax loophole for corporate jets, frequently pitting it against student loans or food safety. It’s a potent image, but in the context of a $4-trillion goal, it is essentially meaningless. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years.

Meanwhile, student financial assistance, just for 2011, is about $42 billion. So the corporate jet loophole — which involves the fact that such assets can be depreciated over five years, rather than the seven for commercial jets — just is not going to raise a lot of money. It certainly wouldn’t save many student loans.

Going after hedge fund managers might raise about $15 billion over 10 years, but in a different life The Fact Checker covered Wall Street and is pretty certain those financial wizards would figure out a way to avoid this tax shift. John Carney of CNBC actually outlined how that would work.

Eliminating oil and gas preferences would raise $44 billion over 10 years, according to administration figures (table S-8), so that begins to look like real money. But the real dollars are in what the president calls “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires” — eliminating the ability of people making more than $250,000 to itemize their deductions. That proposal would raise $290 billion over 10 years.

Wait a minute, the president said he would target “millionaires and billionaires” and yet the fine print of his proposal would affect couples making more than $250,000 (and individuals making more than $200,000)? That’s right.



“If you are a wealthy CEO or a hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they have ever been. They're lower than they've been since the 1950s.”

This statistic comes from the 2010 Economic Report of the President (page 154), and it’s basically right. The top tax rates have declined significantly over the past half-century. However, the Congressional Budget Office has also looked at the data and concluded that while average tax rates now are relatively low, they were somewhat lower in 1986.



“Moammar Gaddafi, who prior to Osama bin Laden was responsible for more American deaths than just about anybody on the planet, was threatening to massacre his people. . . . As a consequence, a guy who was a state sponsor of terrorist operations against the United States of America is pinned down, and the noose is tightening around him.”

Yes, Gaddafi is a bad guy, but Obama conveniently ignores the fact that until the uprising, the administration was rushing to do business with him. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with one of Gadhafi’s sons, Mutassim Gadhafi, in 2009, declaring, “I’m very much looking forward to building on this relationship.”

It is especially strange for Obama to rhetorically place Libya back on the list of the state sponsors of terrorism when, in fact, it was removed four years ago — after Gaddafi gave up his illicit weapons programs, renounced terrorism and paid billions of dollars to settle claims with terror victims.



“What I have done — and this is unprecedented, by the way; no administration has done this before — is I've said to each agency, Don't just look at current regulations or don't just look at future regulations, regulations that we're proposing. Let's go backwards and look at regulations that are already on the books and, if they don't make sense, let's get rid of them.”

Watch out when someone says “unprecedented.” It’s almost never true.

That’s the case here. Obama clearly has forgotten Al Gore’s “reinventing initiative,” which supposedly resulted in the elimination of 16,000 pages of federal regulations. (Frankly, we were always suspicious of that claim.) Other presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, also pledged to cut down on red tape. It’s a hardy perennial.

The president should be careful about veering into Michele Bachmann-like hyperbole.

“So are we really going to start paying interest to Chinese who hold Treasurys and we're not going to pay folks their Social Security checks?”

There’s an interesting theoretical question here. Because Social Security holds $2.7 trillion in Treasury securities, does it have a claim on getting paid even though the nation has hit the debt limit? Administration officials say the answer is complex, but as a practical matter, the answer is no. That’s because the nation would have no cash with which to pay its bills — Social Security or otherwise.

There is a difference between a government shutdown and hitting the debt ceiling. In a government shutdown, Congress has not appropriated funds for many services, except that Social Security has permanent appropriation, so even during a shutdown, payments would be made. In the case of the debt ceiling, however, Congress has appropriated the funds but Treasury has lost the ability to borrow the money to pay for services that have been contracted.
The Pinocchio Test

We realize the symbolic value of things like corporate jets, particularly when Republicans appear to be refusing to accept even a single dollar of additional revenue, but Obama is misleading when he suggests that closing this loophole would make much of a dent in the federal budget. He also should made clear that he would like to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000, rather than just “millionaires and billionaires.”

The president’s claim of an “unprecedented” effort to trim federal regulations is laughable. And it would be nice to hear Obama acknowledge for once that, until a few months ago, his administration was eager to do business with Gaddafi.
Two Pinocchios

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ml?hpid=z2

[Kristatos]

A new report shows that corporate profits account for a whopping 88% of the so-called recovery with wages and salaries making up just 1%.

[bjmdds]

http://news1.ghananation.com/vivvo_gene ... ional.html

[Dr. Joseph]

Surprising the republicans didn't fold like they always do. Is the the start of Obama spiral out of grace? Nobody sees him as the euphoric figure he was sold as, killing Bin Laden is going shaping up to be his gulf war one. All the Republican party needs to do is find their Bill Clinton Candidate.
SPIN METER: Obama, Dems skirt issue on tax hikes

Proposals under consideration include raising taxes on small business owners and potentially low- and middle-income families. You won't hear about that from Obama. Instead the president focuses on the very rich, and speaks euphemistically

[Kristatos]

I think it's Obama sgning away Social Security and Medicare that's going to turn him into a one-term President. I suspect he's about to discover the meaning of the old saw that "given a choice between a fake Republican and a real one, people will vote for the real Republican every time".

[Dr. No]

He is one termer no question. I am so angry with this guy it is unbelievable he could be as stupid as he looks.
First he talks to us like I wouldn't talk to my kids, band aids and peas! it is time to take their medicine and it means cutting back the federal government while keeping SS and Medicare programs solvent, and don't even threaten not paying teh veterans while the fat cats at teh white house will keep cashing their check, Obama will cash his I bet. No sir. he must go

The republicans are not perfect but at least they get that we are concerned about the size of government obama and the dems want to freeze teh size partly why they need the new taxes, we need a new tax system to make everybody pay a fair share not just this joke where GE, Ford and other companies get huge rebates. Welfare has to end, it is not the welfare program for the individuals that are the problem it is the federal governments welfare system for the states, foreign governments, and corporations that we can no longer afford. our fellow man is worth teh investment the oil companies and NBC and Car companies can survive on their own for a little bit. Lord knows we have been stumbling on our own struggling to keep our houses and feed our children as the cost of living goes through the roof, the working man need a break and the govement is about giving a break to it self instead of the man on teh street.

The biggest thing that bugs me about Obama is he is late to every crisis, he is 8 months late to the debt crisis he caused, he was late to libya, late to teh gulf coast, late to teh floods, never showed for the texas fires, he only cares about a state if it is important to his reelection or is on the news making him look bad, in general he doesn't care because it is inconvenient to him.

[bjmdds]

He truly believes we Americans believe the BS he shovels out. He has no managerial experience in running anything, let alone the country! The Bush era sucked for 8 years. He was dread awful and no one did anything on illegal immigration. I want a 10 year moratorium on ALL LEGAL immigration as we simultaneously crack down on the illegals as well. We cannot afford the people here now so NO more should enter for 10 years. I want welfare mothers restricted from having future babies on the payroll as well. NO mother on welfare, with no husband to boot, should be rewarded for churning out children that the working taxpayers have to pay for. A lot of things can be corrected and you need someone to come out and get tough already. The Republicans lost their way with Bush. That mistake won't be repeated, hopefully. Enough is enough.