Jump to content

posty

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    32,666

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Posts posted by posty

  1. Posted

    I still don't know why the Democrats are getting all upset over him, he is preaching to the choir and the amount of people that he converts from a Democrat to Republican is probably very minimal...

  2. Posted

    I am no economic genius, not by any means. But to me, Obama's economic policies do not make sense. I may have a flawed view of things, or maybe just don't fully understand economics, which is completely possible. There are economists who are on both sides of the issue, so I guess it's all personal belief in the end.

     

    But from what I'm reading:

    • History has shown that spending will not get us out of a recession and may actually prolong it
    • Tax Cuts have proven to work, most notably under Reagan

    Is this the case? Has there ever been a scenario where we spent our way out of a recession? I would like to add I am in no way being a smartass, I'm just asking as perhaps I'm not receiving both sides of this story as I should.

     

    Exactly...

     

    I still wonder if any Democrat that believes Obama's policy to work can list the number of countries that have taxed and spend themselves to prosperity...

  3. Posted

    Well, that's different that saying the Repubs are always right. Yeah, he's a conservative...so he's definitely not going to agree with guys like McCain and Arlen Specter all the time. That's being consistent.

     

    Hannity says that all the time, that he is a conservative and has those ideals and bashes the Republicans for moving away from this...

  4. Posted

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html

     

    As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

     

    Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

     

    The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.

     

    And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.

     

    Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.

     

    So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

     

    What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

     

    His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.

     

    AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.

     

    The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

     

    Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.

     

    Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.

     

    Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.

  5. Posted

    Everything he said made perfect sense.

     

    This is a very true statement...

     

    BTW, how long until the Democrat backers here come in and start calling him Limblob and other names and bring up his past painkiller addiction and so forth...

  6. Posted

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03...-of-earmarkers/

     

    Drinking water and wastewater projects, mosquito-trapping research and beaver management and control, are just a few of the pet priorities – known as earmarks, that catapulted Senator Thad Cochran, Republican of Mississippi, to the top of the charts for earmarks in the $410 omnibus spending bill, according to a spreadsheet released on Monday by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington advocacy group.

     

    Angry debate is expected throughout this week in Congress over the roughly 9,000 earmarks in the 2009 spending bill that critics complain represent the worst kind of pork barrel spending. And the signal by the White House that President Obama will sign the bill, despite his own campaign promises to end earmarks, has only fueled the fury, particularly among some Republicans, like Senator John McCain of Arizona.

     

    But while Mr. McCain, a former nominee for president, has been among the loudest critics of the earmarks in the bill, the spreadsheet released by Taxpayers for Common Sense shows that six Republican senators are among the top 10 earmarkers, with Mr. Cochran, the senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee in the lead.

     

    According to the spreadsheet, Mr. Cochran had a hand in 204 earmarks worth nearly $471 million in federal spending, with 65 of those earmarks worth nearly $77 million requested specifically by him.

     

    Analyzed a different way, Senator Robert C. Byrd Jr., Democrat of West Virginia, takes the prize for top earmarker, with nearly $123 million in special projects included in the bill specifically at his request, out of a total of nearly $152 million that he requested in conjunction with other officials. Mr. Byrd, the senior member of the Senate, was chairman of the Appropriations Committee until the end of last year.

     

    A number of senators make the top 10 list regardless of which way it is sorted. In no particular order, they included: Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, the new chairman of the Appropriations Committee; Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama; Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California; Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri; and Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa.

     

    The Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, makes the top 10 for the number of projects requested specifically by him, with 36 earmarks worth more than $51 million. But using the broader measure of Mr. McConnell’s overall involvement in more than $75.5 million in earmarks, puts him toward the middle of the pack.

  7. Posted

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/sto...5547&page=1

     

    President Barack Obama's tax proposal which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar.

     

    A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

     

    So far, Obama's tax plan is being looked at skeptically by both Democrats and Republicans and therefore may not pass at all.

     

    "We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

     

    "We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama's tax plan," she added. "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

     

    The attorney says that in order to decrease her income she'll have to let go of clients, some of whom she's been counseling for more than a decade.

     

    "This means I'll have to tell some of my clients we can't help them and being more selective in general about who we help," she said. "I hate to do it."

     

    Obama's budget proposal calls for $989 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years, most of which will be earned from increased taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 and from families who make more than $250,000.

     

    The expiration of the Bush administration's tax cuts at the end of 2010 would garner an estimated $338 billion, $179 billion would come from the elimination of some itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers and $118 billion would be brought in from a hike in the capital gains tax. The remaining $353 billion would come from taxes on businesses.

     

    Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder, Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out of paying the taxes proposed in Obama's plan.

     

    "I've put thought into how to get under $250,000," said Poczatek. "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off."

     

    "Generally it means being less productive," she said.

     

    "The motivation for a lot of people like me dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers is that the more you work the more money you make," said Poczatek. "But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing."

     

    Can Obama's Tax Plan Be Gamed?

     

    Gary Schatsky, a financial adviser and the president of N.Y.-based Objectiveadvice.com, said that it is possible to successfully remove yourself from the bracket Obama plans to target in his new plan.

     

    "It's very possible that there are plenty of things you can do with general tax planning techniques attempting to recognizes loses, pushing gains to years when your income is lower and increasing retirement plan contributions to come below $250,000," said Schatsky.

     

    "But Obama's proposal has yet to be hammered out and the devil is in the details," he added.

     

    Because we have a marginal tax system, said Schatsky, what Obama's plan means is that the amount of tax you pay on each incremental dollar is higher only when your income is pushed into a higher tax bracket.

     

    "But to focus keeping your income below a quarter million dollars is not going to have any spectacular magic for individual tax payers," said Schatsky. "The difference between $249,999 and $251,000 will probably have zero tax impact."

     

    Schatsky said that the incentive to get under $250,000 may be more so if the tax plan outlines that an individual who goes over a prescribed limit would face a reduced value of their itemized deductions.

     

    "If the value of all your itemized deductions goes from a 33 percent level to a 28 percent level than there would be a reason for people to do dramatic things to reduce their incomes," said Schatsky.

     

    Peter Morici, a professor of business at The Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, agrees that while it may be possible to sneak around the taxes, it won't be as simple as some may think.

     

    "You have to be pretty close to $250,000 in terms of your income to get underneath it," said Morici.

     

    Does Obama Tax Plan Promote Class Warfare?

     

    Morici says that he believes Obama's tax proposal could spark a kind of class war.

     

    "What Obama is doing is pitting the poor against the upper middle class," said Morici. "He'll tax the rich for the health benefits everyone else wants."

     

    Obama has said the new taxes on those making over $250,000 would go toward a fund that would support a gradual move to universal health care coverage.

     

    Supporters of Obama's budget plans say that those who are at the top and complaining need to look at the bigger picture.

     

    "Those who are going to be taxed more are obviously going to complain but I think they may miss the point," said Lisa Rotenstein, the chair of the Harvard Healthcare Policy Group at the Institute of Politics.

     

    "This could have broader implications for the American economy as a whole improved health care means a healthier workforce that is more productive," said Rotenstein.

     

    But Colorado dentist Poczatek says those who support the increase in taxes misunderstand what it means for those who will end up paying more.

     

    "I'd like these people to know that we pay a lot of taxes, and have been paying a lot of taxes through the past administration," said Pcozatek.

     

    "We make a lot of money, it's true, but we also already pay a lot of taxes," she said.

     

    "So maybe we got a little bit successful but we worked very hard," she said. "It's taken us over 30 years and it didn't happen overnight. Every day is a lot of work.

     

    "We're working for it and we're still overtaxed."

  15. Posted

    I understand the DH is an American League thing but during certain Interleague play the NL can use it too.

    BUT during Spring Training when NL teams play other NL teams, I've noticed the DH is used and Pitchers don't bat.

    My question is WTF?

    Why does the NL not use the DH all the F time?

     

    Why make the NL go to the DH? Can the DH and make the pitchers hit in the AL...

  21. Posted

    I think he said by his last budget, he'll have it balanced.

     

    Pulling out of iraq in 19 months. :overhead:

     

    Yet leaving 50,000 there until the end of 2011...

     

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/62930.html

     

    WASHINGTON — Amid complaints from has own party that he's moving too slowly to end the war in Iraq, President Barack Obama will announce Friday that U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn by Aug. 31, 2010, but that as many as 50,000 Marines and soldiers would remain until the end of 2011.

     

    Obama will announce his plans during a visit with troops at Camp Lejeune, N.C., where he'll also visit with Marines who are being deployed to Afghanistan, senior administration officials said.

     

    As he moves to draw down the war in Iraq after six years and more than 4,200 U.S. dead, he's also moving to escalate the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

     

    The 18-month timetable for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq is two months longer than he promised during his campaign. Aides who spoke on condition of anonymity to speak frankly said that military commanders wanted the extra time. "The president found that compelling," said one senior administration official.

     

    The pace of the drawdown will be left to commanders and determined by events on the ground as well as politics in Washington. Although U.S. and Iraqi casualties have dropped sharply, and recent provincial elections were held without major incidents, it's not clear whether Iraq's rival factions and their militias have abandoned violence or are merely biding their time.

     

    A key factor in the pace of the U.S. drawdown will be making sure that there are sufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to assure that national elections scheduled for December are peaceful, officials said. Another will be the speed with which Iraqi military and security forces gain the ability to maintain order without American help.

     

    Under Obama's plan, a force of between 35,000 and 50,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after Aug. 31, 2010, to train, equip and advise Iraqi forces, help protect withdrawing forces and work on counterterrorism. They'd remain until Dec. 31, 2011, the date on which the Bush administration agreed to withdraw all troops under a pact with Iraq.

     

    That number, too, could depend on conditions in Iraq and on the need for additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban have made significant gains, and where national elections also are scheduled.

     

    The plan to leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq after August 2010 upset several top Democrats in Congress, who want far fewer troops left after the August date.

     

    "I'm happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., before meeting with Obama at the White House.

     

    Obama started reviewing options in mid-December, aides said, then "really began in earnest" after taking office. He met on Jan. 21 with top commanders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of the U.S. Central Command; and Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq.

  25. Posted

    Sad, just sad...

     

    http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUS...0090226?sp=true

     

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bill Clinton declared more than a decade ago "the era of big government is over." With his new budget, President Barack Obama has brought it back.

     

    Obama's $3.55 trillion budget proposal represents a gamble that Americans are ready for the sort of change they embraced by electing him in November, including a tax increase on Americans making more than $250,000 a year.

     

    He proposes expansion of spending on the U.S. healthcare system, on greater energy independence and on education, hoping Americans weary of paying for a raft of expensive bailouts for banks and the car industry will go along.

     

    "What I won't do is sacrifice investments that will make America stronger, more competitive and more prosperous in the 21st century -- investments that have been neglected for too long," Obama said in rolling out his plan on Thursday.

     

    The tax increase on Americans making more than $250,000 will help pay for a healthcare overhaul that has yet to be formulated.

     

    Some experts worry this provision will have the unintended consequence of adding to the tax burden of small businesses, causing them to lay off workers or stop hiring.

     

    "The taxing aspect of this is worse than Robin Hood," said economist Peter Morici, a University of Maryland professor. "He's resurrecting class warfare for political gain."

     

    "POLITICAL JUDGMENT"

     

    Obama's first budget was emblematic of a politician who, when he announced his run for the presidency two years ago, had rejected the conventional wisdom that, having little experience in national politics, he was moving too fast and should wait his turn.

     

    "This is a matter of political judgment, not political science," said William Galston, a Brookings Institution economist who worked in the Clinton White House. "My judgment is that his reach will exceed his grasp. But I could easily be wrong about that."

     

    His budget is an exercise in the use of political capital earned by his impressive election victory in November and an approval rating this week of more than 60 percent.

     

    AMID BIG PROBLEMS, BIG PLANS

     

    Some experts have been taken aback by the scope of his plans and the speed with which he is moving on fulfilling campaign promises at a time when the country is deep in recession and expecting a $1.75 trillion budget deficit for fiscal 2009.

     

    "Given the economic catastrophe that we face, to go right into the teeth of that hurricane and plan for some ambitious expansion of government that goes beyond the triage element is bold to say the least," said Norman Ornstein, a political expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

     

    Former Republican Senator Trent Lott said on MSNBC that presidents "tend to overplay their hand" in their first two years.

     

    "I'm assuming this is going to find rough sailing in the Congress and I think rightly so," Lott said.

     

    On Capitol Hill, Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress were generally pleased and eager to turn U.S. budget policy away from the years of Republican President George W. Bush. They had accused Bush of neglecting their spending priorities while cutting taxes.

     

    "This is nothing short of a sober, honest assessment of where our country stands and a tough, realistic plan to get our budget in line with our priorities," said Senator John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 candidate for president.

     

    Morici said he feared Obama's policies could make matters worse.

     

    "We have learned from hard experience that big government only begets big government and high unemployment," he said. "We have 1970s' solutions for new-age problems, and it's just not going to work. People are going to be happy to get some free healthcare for a while, then it's all going to end in tears."

×