President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[ohsherrie]

My issue is what this Congress has considered priorities. It completely baffles me. Like most Americans, to me it should be all about the economy and jobs first and than tackle those big contentious, ideological issues. If Congress has been working on jobs and the economy I'm betting that THICK WALL OF OBSTRUCTION would have been pretty THIN.

What's Virginia's unemployment rate now? I believe they weren't quite as bad as the rest of the country. Especially since that includes people who work in DC, which is gaining jobs.
WOW!! I can't keep up with all the font changes.

EDIT: Duh!! I just got the connection on McDonnell.

They thought they were helping the economy and jobs with the stimulus, and to a certain extent they did. It could and would have been a lot worse if they hadn't taken the measures they did. The biggest problem with the stimulus is that it wasn't enough but the rethugs wouldn't allow as much help to go to Main Street as went to Wall Street. That's the battle the Democrats were fighting in January.

Here in southern Virginia where all of the furniture and textile jobs were sent to China and Mexico the unemployment rate varies from 10% to 12% and there are no jobs on the horizon. When it looks like it's not as bad in this state as in some others it's exactly what you said; lots of jobs around the DC area.

[RocknRoll]

They thought they were helping the economy and jobs with the stimulus, and to a certain extent they did. It could and would have been a lot worse if they hadn't taken the measures they did. The biggest problem with the stimulus is that it wasn't enough but the rethugs wouldn't allow as much help to go to Main Street as went to Wall Street. That's the battle the Democrats were fighting in January.

Here in southern Virginia where all of the furniture and textile jobs were sent to China and Mexico the unemployment rate varies from 10% to 12% and there are no jobs on the horizon. When it looks like it's not as bad in this state as in some others it's exactly what you said; lots of jobs around the DC area.

I do agree without the stimulus it would probably have been worse. I just don't think the stimulus was used wisely to create the most jobs. Millions for family planning, digital TV conversion, tax rebates for energy conversion,etc. Helpful yes, but stimulus no.

I know there were a lot of pet projects: high speed rail ($8Billion), which I'm sure will provide Reid with his Vegas to Disneyland system. Probably, a good idea but still in the design stage, so no jobs. Pelosi's Wetlands restoration in San Francisco (30M) Not sure where the jobs are on this one either.

Where do the wall street numbers come in? The stimulus bill was totally seperate from TARP, which the big Wall Street firms have pretty much paid back with billions in interest. So the taxpayer makes money from the banks on this one.

Anyway, I was trying to make some sense out of this site on which projects are out there under the stimulus plan. A lot of numbers and companies who received contracts, but doesn't look like we're doing a lot in the short term to CREATE jobs.

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

I just found this extensive list of where the money is going by catagory. Pretty interesting. Too long to post, but here's the link.

http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus

We still have to pay for all this, and untill we start creating jobs and the economy recovers completely it just won't happen. I believe additional stimulus plans can be passed by both sides of the aisle in congress provided they are stimulus only, create jobs now and there is a plan to pay for it without raising the deficit. These guys have to listen to each other and that goes for both sides.

I'm in Chicago and unemployment is pretty much the same, worse than a lot of other areas in the country. We just have a corrupt state government which only knows how to borrow money that can't be paid back rather than control spending. SIGH!!

[hoagiepete]

Look at TNC getting loose and slapping you Cons around like pinballs. I would say that's game set and match. Drive safely and come again.

I was hoping he would point out what is inaccurate. No question he is capable. Looks pretty close to being accurate to me, but don't know for sure. One thing is for certain, it is a pretty large tax increase. Not sure how you can honestly say it isn't. Sure's not a tax cut.

Pretty scary when the point is...it's ok to tax a little more this year...and a little more next year...and a little more the next. Simple math will tell you the accumulation of these years add up (same as the increased government spending). It is a longterm trend that if sustained, will end in disaster.

The argument that we're paying less in taxes than in the 50's doesn't make sense, unless you think we all ought to be paying more taxes each and every year. When is enough, enough?

If I earn $1,000,000 in a year...what is the "fair" amount that I get to keep?

If I earn $1,000,000 in a year, but risk losing everything I just spent the last 30 years accumulating, to employ 200 people...what is the "fair" amount that I get to keep?

Just curious what you think is fair.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Yeah, now watch this and tell me today's democrat party would be in favor of tax cuts TO SPUR THE ECONOMY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU
Tax cuts for the RICH no less!!!! You're the one spewing garbage and expecting people to believe it. Go ahead and tell me this represents the democrat party and Obama so the board can collectively laugh at you.

Different time period. Under JFK, the top marginal tax rate was at 90% from FDR and WW2. If it was still that high, I'm sure some Democrats would argue to lower it. JFK lowered it to 70% - still effectively soaking the rich and well above current levels. Reagan dropped it to 28%. If Kennedy did something drastic like that, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on. As it stands now, the current "radical" administration and Democrat party don't even have the courage to nudge it back up to pre-Reagan levels.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Let me get this straight. You're claiming Lieberman is to the RIGHT of JFK?

I'm not going to go over their individual voting records with a fine tooth comb. Lieberman has had a much longer career than JFK. On some fronts, I'm sure Joe is well to the right. Kennedy fought for Medicare, Civil Rights, the Peace Corps - what is Lieberman's signature issue again? You are talking about the same Joe Lieberman that was almost the 2008 GOP Vice-Presidential nominee, right? The same Joe Lieberman who was against the public option and could barely muster tepid support for healthcare reform at all? For the most part, Joe's a good corporate Democrat.

[Rockindeano]

Let me get this straight. You're claiming Lieberman is to the RIGHT of JFK?

I'm not going to go over their individual voting records with a fine tooth comb. Lieberman has had a much longer career than JFK. On some fronts, I'm sure Joe is well to the right. Kennedy fought for Medicare, Civil Rights, the Peace Corps - what is Lieberman's signature issue again? You are talking about the same Joe Lieberman that was almost the 2008 GOP Vice-Presidential nominee, right? The same Joe Lieberman who was against the public option and could barely muster tepid support for healthcare reform at all? For the most part, Joe's a good corporate Democrat.

Oh come on now. Lieberman is far right of JFK. JFK was a liberal Democrat in the sincerest term. Read up JFK and look at his positions. He and Bobby were liberals to the end.

If you haven't done so, go watch the movie, "13 Days." Spectacular movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kevin Costner is in it. Awesome movie and if accurate, and I believe it to be, you can really see how cerebral Jack was. The Joint Chiefs wanted that war and tried to corner JFK, but he out foxed them. Go watch it.

[Rockindeano]

If I earn $1,000,000 in a year...what is the "fair" amount that I get to keep?

If I earn $1,000,000 in a year, but risk losing everything I just spent the last 30 years accumulating, to employ 200 people...what is the "fair" amount that I get to keep?

Just curious what you think is fair.

I don't know what is fair Pete.

I am conflicted on the tax issue regarding the rich and how much they pay. I hear Dems say it's time for the rich to pay their fair share, but like you said, how much is fair? Again, I am conflicted.

[slucero]

My issue is what this Congress has considered priorities. It completely baffles me. Like most Americans, to me it should be all about the economy and jobs first and than tackle those big contentious, ideological issues. If Congress has been working on jobs and the economy I'm betting that THICK WALL OF OBSTRUCTION would have been pretty THIN.

What's Virginia's unemployment rate now? I believe they weren't quite as bad as the rest of the country. Especially since that includes people who work in DC, which is gaining jobs.
WOW!! I can't keep up with all the font changes.

EDIT: Duh!! I just got the connection on McDonnell.

They thought they were helping the economy and jobs with the stimulus, and to a certain extent they did. It could and would have been a lot worse if they hadn't taken the measures they did. The biggest problem with the stimulus is that it wasn't enough but the rethugs wouldn't allow as much help to go to Main Street as went to Wall Street. That's the battle the Democrats were fighting in January.

Here in southern Virginia where all of the furniture and textile jobs were sent to China and Mexico the unemployment rate varies from 10% to 12% and there are no jobs on the horizon. When it looks like it's not as bad in this state as in some others it's exactly what you said; lots of jobs around the DC area.

If one really want to understand just how little government stimulus creates jobs.. and just how long it will be before those who lost their jobs return back to work read below:

US Economy Will Return To December 2007 Employment Levels... In 2021!
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-eco ... evels-2021

Even as Bernanke is receiving his last minute briefing on what to say (everything, EVERYTHING, is good) and what to play dumb on (explaining the price of gold for example), a new report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research concludes that digging ourselves out of the current unemployment hole, which is 7.5 million less people having jobs than did in December 2007, will take at least 4 years, and not occur prior to March 2014. However, this assumes a flat working-age population, something the Fed would love to be the case. Alas, the country is growing: and if one incorporates the effects of labor force growth into the above analysis, as the CEPR authors have done using CBO projections, then we may have a much larger problem on our hands: the study concludes that taking into account the approximately 14 million new job seekers in the future, then the December 2007 unemployment rate will not be met until April 2021! Welcome to the new normal. Of course, both of these analyses assume that the economy will immediately commence growing and generating jobs at the recovery rate seen in the 2000s, when about 166,000 jobs per month were being added. With every month that this does not happen the 2021 date will continue being pushed out further into the future. Perhaps one of the Senators today can ask a question of Bernanke just how he plans on reconciling this glaringly simple explanation for why the US economy will be underwater for a period of over a decade.

The CEPR report first describes the hole we are in:

Figure 1 shows the monthly change in total employment in the U.S. economy, using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly establishment survey, from the peak of the 2000s business cycle (December 2007) through the most recent month available (June 2010). Job losses peaked at about 700,000 per month between November 2008 and March 2009. From spring 2009 through the end of that year, the economy continued to shed jobs at a slower and slower pace. In 2010, the economy started to create jobs (on net) for the first time since 2007. Job growth was particularly fast in May 2010, but about 411,000 of the 431,000 net jobs created that month were temporary jobs with the decennial census. The economy shed 100,000 jobs in June 2010, in part reflecting the loss of temporary census jobs.



The monthly job loss figures, however, don’t give a clear picture of the depth of the problems facing the labor market. Figure 2 reproduces the net monthly job loss data from Figure 1, but also displays the cumulative change in employment, relative to the total employment level in December 2007. The main difficulty facing the labor market is not the employment losses in any given month, but rather the cumulative effect of two years of almost continual job losses. For seven months beginning in September 2009, the economy was over eight million jobs below its December 2007 level. Even with the jobs created so far in 2010, the economy remains almost 7.5 million jobs short of its prerecession level.

Looking at projection scenarios, here is the baseline scenario, which alone provides no Joy in mudville: using an assumed expansion case seen in the 2004-2007 economic recovery in which 166,000 jobs per month were created, the current 7.5 million hole would take about 4 years to fill.

Figure 3 shows the results of projecting future job creation assuming that, from July 2010 forward, the economy creates jobs at the same pace as the fastest four calendar years in the most recent economic expansion. (The period covers January 2004 through December 2007; job creation rates were about 0.12 percent per month, or about 166,000 jobs per month given the size of the current workforce.) The point where the projected cumulative job loss line crosses zero marks the year and month when overall employment will have returned to its December 2007 level. So, if job creation from here on proceeds at the same rate as it did in the 2000s expansion, the economy will not restore December 2007 employment levels until March 2014.

Yet what many completely have ignored up until the authors of this paper put it to paper, is that the US population is a-growing, and that factoring in the organic expansion of the US population will add millions to the labor force over the next decade: according to CBO estimates, the natural labor force growth rate is 90,000 a month. Adding this to the running future gap makes things far worse for any administration that will run on the promise of returning unemployment rate to recent levels. From the paper:

Meanwhile, the working-age population of the United States will be growing, as a steady stream of potential new workers enters the labor force each month. Returning to the December 2007 level of employment many years after that level was first achieved will still leave the economy in a jobs deficit relative to this expanded labor force.

Figure 4 incorporates the effects of this labor force growth into the analysis. The top line in the figure shows the cumulative change in the labor force, assuming that labor force growth follows CBO projections. (Based on CBO (2010), Table 2-2. This is analogous to the cumulative change in employment in the bottom half of Figures 2, 3, and 4. The CBO does not publish monthly projected increases in the labor supply, but these rates are implicit in their labor-market projections. Based on CBO projections, we assume a monthly growth in the labor force of just over 90,000 workers per month from January 2008 forward. Our projections assume that five percent of this increase will be unemployed at any given time, consistent with long-term CBO projections that the labor market will eventually return to a five percent unemployment rate.) In this figure, the point where the line for the cumulative job change crosses the line tracing the cumulative growth in the labor force marks the year and month where the economy will have made up for both the jobs lost during the recession and the intervening growth in the labor force. If we assume job creation from July 2010 forward occurs at the pace set in the 2000s expansion, the economy will not catch up with the expanded labor force until April 2021.

Another way of looking at Figure 4 is to note that the line for cumulative job change crosses the cumulative change in the labor force at the point where the employment-to-population rate returns to what it was in December 2007. The figure assumes that the economy only needs to create jobs for 95 percent of the increase in the labor force, because CBO assumes that the economy will eventually reach and maintain a five percent unemployment rate. In 2007, the employment-to-population rate for the population 16 and over was 63.0 percent, almost 1.5 percentage points below the employment-to-population rate in 2000. Our projections, therefore, set a low bar for total employment relative to a standard that would require returning to the 2000 employment rate.

And keep in mind that the above scenario assumes that the economy adds 166,000 jobs a month each month, for just under 11 years straight! With the current economic prospects for the economy, in which companies continue to lay people off, and in which monthly NFP data is skewed drastically due to the ongoing side effects of the census, and where fiscal stimuli in fact encourage people to be unemployed and collect jobless insurance rather than work, this baseline assumption is ludicrous. The reality is that the economy will likely NEVER return to a December 2007 jobless rate, as proposed by El-Erian and his New Normal concept, just like the Fed will most likely NEVER raise rates in this latest iteration of pre-reset capitalism. And as the Fed's dual mandate of jobs and inflation is now tarnished beyond repair, what other valid justification is there to retain the Federal Reserve which does nothing but skew the market, and necessitate the need for constant regulation? The only way to return to efficient markets is to do away with regulation completely, however that would also mean an elimination of the Fed, and its most artificial concept of free lending to banks via the Discount Window, i.e., endless moral hazard for Wall Street's casinos. As long as the Fed persists, regulation is needed, which by definition creates perfect assymetries in the market, and sows the seeds for the next market crash. One can only dream that instead of lying to the population and to the Senate that all is well in the economy, that at today's Humphrey Hawkins meeting Bernanke will instead anounce the end of the Fed. Alas, that will require a revolution (non-violent or otherwise), as the moneyed interests will never allow a change in the status quo of such massive proportions. Of course, if more and more people realize the true sad state of the economy driven to its current predicament precisely by the Fed's constant one sided actions which favor a few millionaires at the expense of those that will be jobless for decades to come, perhaps this revolution is not that far off...

Get the CEPR report here: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/CEPR.pdf

[RocknRoll]

slucero - Thanks for this. The CEPR report was interesting reading and since I've been accused of being an eternal optimist, I'll take the 2012-2013 timeframe. What I didn't see addressed is the fact that since people will be working longer (due to lost savings and potential SS eligibility changes), the attrition rate will be reduced. So this may be too optimistic.

I do agree with this statement from zerohedge "Of course, both of these analyses assume that the economy will immediately commence growing and generating jobs at the recovery rate seen in the 2000s, when about 166,000 jobs per month were being added. With every month that this does not happen the 2021 date will continue being pushed out further into the future." Just one more analysis of why JOBS should have been the #1 priority from January 2008 for this administration. Instead we got ObamaCare and FinReg. YIPPEE!! Both job inhibitors.

I watched Bernecke in both hearings and I believe he said 7.1% by 2012. Optimistic?? Probably. I do not agree with zerohedge's opinion that the Fed should be eliminated. I might have to go back and reread their stuff.

[Rockindeano]

Just one more analysis of why JOBS should have been the #1 priority from January 2008 for this administration. Instead we got ObamaCare and FinReg. YIPPEE!!

I agree with you 100%. Jobs should have been worked on beginning January 21st, 2009, the very first day of a president Obama Administration. The reason Healthcare was up first IMHO, was Kennedy's death. Obama got Teddy's endorsement during the campaign with the promise that he would make healthcare priority number one. The legislation was begun once Kennedy became gravely ill.

[RocknRoll]

Just one more analysis of why JOBS should have been the #1 priority from January 2008 for this administration. Instead we got ObamaCare and FinReg. YIPPEE!!

I agree with you 100%. Jobs should have been worked on beginning January 21st, 2009, the very first day of a president Obama Administration. The reason Healthcare was up first IMHO, was Kennedy's death. Obama got Teddy's endorsement during the campaign with the promise that he would make healthcare priority number one. The legislation was begun once Kennedy became gravely ill.

I'm saving this. ...although it's pretty hard to disagree.

While I'm sure Kennedy's endorsement was important. This country's current problems should have come first!!! Again Priorities!! I think Teddy would have forgiven him. Unfortunately, I think it was an Obama agenda from the get-go.

...and I think it needs mentioning that Bernecke said extending the Bush taxcuts for all Americans should be looked at. Pretty strong stuff for a guy who says he refuses to get involved in congressional policy making. I wonder how much longer he will last???

...and Slucero. Have we really had a JOBS stimulus bill? NO! All we had was a huge political misguided bill which was supposed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. It ended up as a big FAIL for something like $797 Billion unpaid for. I think additional guaranteed job creation stimulus is worth the shot.

[slucero]

There is no such thing as "jobs stimulus"... because the federal government should not be in the business of creating jobs... because they are HORRIBLY inefficient at it. They should be in the business of creating the environment... through fiscal policy that "free's up" the private sector.. which is a much more efficient mechanism for job creation.. But that would require reducing taxes and writing regulation that actually WORKS...

If FINREG was put in place to prevent the banks from engaging in the practices that caused the 2008 meltdown.. the very SAME practices that caused the 1929 meltdown, which the 1933 Congress then answered with the Glass-Steagal Act... and kept Wall Street bankers in check until 1999, 66 YEARS, then why isn't FINREG simply the re-instatement of Glass-Steagal?

Why? Because WallStreet (read: the banking lobby) made sure that FINREG would not come CLOSE... Glass-Steagal kept their greed in check..


Yet today's Congress hails FINREG as the "most comprehensive banking reform in since the Depression".


BULLSHIT.


Instead we get Finreg which even further stiffens lending standards, choking banks ability to lend to small business (where new industry and 99% of all job creation comes from) , more than this slowly die-ing economy has already forced banks to. FIREG also puts consumer protection under the watchful eye of the Federal Reserve... The very same Federal REserve and Chairman Bernanke who THE VERY week before Lehman crashed said "There is nothing wrong"...

It is ironic that the new FINREG as passed, would not have prevented the Lehman collapse .. so just what the hell did pass??


This is not a Dem/Rep thing... this is about power and influence... and the net is bad, sad government that is doing things it never was intended to do... like feebly and inefficiently trying to create jobs, using taxpayer money.



Case in point.. The government recently issued a grant to South Korea's LG Chem Ltd., for $151 million to make electric-vehicle batteries, in Wisconsin... THe completed factory plant will employ employ more than 300 people.

Now while I applaud the fact that Americans will be put back to work... do the math...

$151,000,000 divided by 300 = $503,000 per worker...


The government needs to get the hell out of the way... and let small business do what it does best.. invent, innovate and grow... JOBS.

[RedWingFan]

Yeah, now watch this and tell me today's democrat party would be in favor of tax cuts TO SPUR THE ECONOMY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU
Tax cuts for the RICH no less!!!! You're the one spewing garbage and expecting people to believe it. Go ahead and tell me this represents the democrat party and Obama so the board can collectively laugh at you.

As it stands now, the current "radical" administration and Democrat party don't even have the courage to nudge it back up to pre-Reagan levels.

Today's democrats opposed Bush's across the board tax cuts and lied to Americans, trying to paint them as only tax cuts for the rich.(like the beloved Kennedy)
Any modern democrats use the term "a rising tide lifts all boats" lately?
No. Just the standard class warfare.

[RedWingFan]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

In signing the bill restoring unemployment benefits to 2 ? million Americans jobless for more than 26 weeks, President Obama is also adding $34 billion to the deficit and the National Debt.
That's the reason nearly all Republicans voted against the measure. They wanted the cost of the benefits paid for with unspent government funds or by other budget cuts.
The White House dismissed GOP concerns as partisan game-playing.
In two speeches over the last week, Mr. Obama argued that in the past, presidents and Congresses of both parties have treated unemployment insurance for what it is: an emergency expenditure.
"Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that," he said.
He portrayed Republicans as hypocrites for demanding that jobless benefits be paid for but not applying the same standard to their call for an extension of Bush Administration tax cuts that will expire this year.
"So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they've finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed," the president said last Saturday in his radio/internet address.But Republicans were quick to remind Mr. Obama what he said after signing a previous extension of unemployment benefits on November 6th of last year.
"Now, it's important to note that the bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible," he said.So eight months ago, he said paying for the benefits was the right thing to do, but now he sees no need to do so.

Asked about the contradiction, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he needed to examine what Mr. Obama said last November and would get back to this reporter. He didn't.

But the issue will come up again just after the midterm elections.

[RedWingFan]

If I earn $1,000,000 in a year...what is the "fair" amount that I get to keep?

If I earn $1,000,000 in a year, but risk losing everything I just spent the last 30 years accumulating, to employ 200 people...what is the "fair" amount that I get to keep?

Just curious what you think is fair.

I don't know what is fair Pete.

I am conflicted on the tax issue regarding the rich and how much they pay. I hear Dems say it's time for the rich to pay their fair share, but like you said, how much is fair? Again, I am conflicted.

What this dem says and does are two completely different things. Hypercrit!!!
What do you think Dean?
http://bostonherald.com/track/inside_tr ... id=1269698

Sen. John Kerry skips town on sails tax
By Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa
Friday, July 23, 2010 - Updated 2 hours ago


Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

Isabel - Kerry’s luxe, 76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage - was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine.

But instead of berthing the vessel in Nantucket, where the senator summers with the missus, Teresa Heinz, Isabel’s hailing port is listed as “Newport” on her stern.

Could the reason be that the Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state to the south a haven - like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Nassau - for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners?

Cash-strapped Massachusetts still collects a 6.25 percent sales tax and an annual excise tax on yachts. Sources say Isabel sold for something in the neighborhood of $7 million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.

The senior senator’s chief of staff David Wade denied the old salt was berthing his boat out of state to avoid ponying up to the commonwealth.

“The boat was designed by and purchased from a company in Rhode Island, and it’s based in Newport at the Newport Shipyard for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes, not tax reasons,” Wade told the Track.

And state Department of Revenue spokesguy Bob Bliss confirmed the senator “is under no obligation to pay the commonwealth sales tax.”

But back in 2006, then-gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos took some flack for avoiding some $23,000 in Bay State sales tax and $1,320 in local excise taxes by berthing his motor yacht in Rhode Island. But Mihos paid just $475,000 for his 36-foot vessel Ashley and readily admitted that he used the boat at his West Yarmouth summer home.

However, according to Bliss, if Kerry berths the Isabel in Massachusetts waters within six months of purchasing the boat, there’s a “presumption of use” and the Heinz-Kerrys would have to walk the plank and pony up to the Bay State. After six months, should the boat change its berth to, say, Nantucket, then it’s up to the state to go after them for the taxes, Bliss added.

Yesterday, the Isabel, which lists Great Point LLC of Pittsburgh, Penn., as its owner, was getting a spruce-up at the Hinckley shipyard in Portsmouth, R.I. Sources say the senior senator is demanding that some warranty work be done.

Fontaine, a protege of legendary sailboat designer Ted Hood, was tight-lipped about the owners of Isabel but he did confirm the boat was built in New Zealand. According to Internet reports, Kerry was seen in Whangarei last December inspecting his new high-seas plaything.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Today's democrats opposed Bush's across the board tax cuts and lied to Americans, trying to paint them as only tax cuts for the rich.(like the beloved Kennedy)

As they should have. Marginal tax rates and capital gains are at their lowest in history.

Any modern democrats use the term "a rising tide lifts all boats" lately?

That phrase was not intended to defend trickle-down voodoo bullshit. Democrats talk about tax relief for the middle class all the time. All politicians do.

No. Just the standard class warfare.

I think we just witnessed that with the GOP blocking unemployment benefits.

[hoagiepete]

If I earn $1,000,000 in a year...what is the "fair" amount that I get to keep?

If I earn $1,000,000 in a year, but risk losing everything I just spent the last 30 years accumulating, to employ 200 people...what is the "fair" amount that I get to keep?

Just curious what you think is fair.

I don't know what is fair Pete.

I am conflicted on the tax issue regarding the rich and how much they pay. I hear Dems say it's time for the rich to pay their fair share, but like you said, how much is fair? Again, I am conflicted.

Thanks for pondering this with me, Deano.

Another question for TNC, any idea what the net taxes being paid by the various tax brackets are compared to historical net numbers? Tax credits, deductions and other ways to avoid paying taxes have fluctuated greatly over time as well. We really need this info to create a true picture of what people are paying today when compared to the past. It seems a lot of the loopholes were eliminated when the marginal tax rates were lowered.

Another point...it is rarely discussed that "income tax" is just one tax and the other taxes have risen dramatically over time as well to fund various government entities. Our state sales tax just went up another penny...an almost 20% increase. Local taxes (property, sales and utilities) have climbed as well. Add it all up and we are paying more than ever, government is growing bigger than ever, and if trend continues, who will be left to fund the government?

[The_Noble_Cause]

While I'm sure Kennedy's endorsement was important. This country's current problems should have come first!!! Again Priorities!! I think Teddy would have forgiven him. Unfortunately, I think it was an Obama agenda from the get-go.

It was reported that Rahm tried to talk Obama out of doing healthcare first, but Obama wouldn't listen. Understandable, given how many administrations had waited and ultimately failed to get it done. That said, he wasted alot of time and political capital in the process.

[The_Noble_Cause]

It seems a lot of the loopholes were eliminated when the marginal tax rates were lowered.

This is true. That is partially how Reagan created "Reagan Democrats" and got them to go along with his plans. It wasn't just a tax cut, it was tax reform. I will see what I can find.

[ohsherrie]

Tax cuts for the RICH no less!!!! You're the one spewing garbage and expecting people to believe it. Go ahead and tell me this represents the democrat party and Obama so the board can collectively laugh at you.

President Obama is all about tax cuts for the working people to reestablish a middle class in this country. Back in 1960 a millionaire was a rarity and a person making $100,000 a year was considered rich. The middle class was the largest segment of the population and there wasn't any where near the steep chasm between the top and the bottom of the economic curve as there is now that the middle class has for the most part been destroyed by greed at the top and tax cuts FOR THE CORPORATIONS THAT MOVED MIDDLE CLASS JOBS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. You can't compare the economic landscape Kennedy was working with then to the circumstances now because the only period of this country that even came close to the economic disparities we're facing now was the depression in the 30's.

[Lula]

well said ohsherrie!

[hoagiepete]

Tax cuts for the RICH no less!!!! You're the one spewing garbage and expecting people to believe it. Go ahead and tell me this represents the democrat party and Obama so the board can collectively laugh at you.

President Obama is all about tax cuts for the working people to reestablish a middle class in this country. Back in 1960 a millionaire was a rarity and a person making $100,000 a year was considered rich. The middle class was the largest segment of the population and there wasn't any where near the steep chasm between the top and the bottom of the economic curve as there is now that the middle class has for the most part been destroyed by greed at the top and tax cuts FOR THE CORPORATIONS THAT MOVED MIDDLE CLASS JOBS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. You can't compare the economic landscape Kennedy was working with then to the circumstances now because the only period of this country that even came close to the economic disparities we're facing now was the depression in the 30's.

$100,000 in 1960 would equate to about $1.2 million in 2010 with an average inflation rate of 5%. I'm missing your point.

While these "corporations" have moved jobs out of the country, their stocks are also included in most middle class pensions. I sit on a union pension trust and it cracks me up to hear union trustees bash companies for their policies geared to making more profits and then later bitch when the fund value is down due to poor performance by the same corporations.

Some corporations make bad decisions, but "corporations" employ and provide investments for most Americans, regardless of class. Quite a conundrum.

[ohsherrie]

$100,000 in 1960 would equate to about $1.2 million in 2010 with an average inflation rate of 5%. I'm missing your point.

While these "corporations" have moved jobs out of the country, their stocks are also included in most middle class pensions. I sit on a union pension trust and it cracks me up to hear union trustees bash companies for their policies geared to making more profits and then later bitch when the fund value is down due to poor performance by the same corporations.

Some corporations make bad decisions, but "corporations" employ and provide investments for most Americans, regardless of class. Quite a conundrum.

Do you really not realize how absurd that statement is to people who have lost everything they've worked their whole lives for?

RWF was saying that the Democrats don't give tax cuts to the rich to help the economy now like Kennedy did then. Then, there was a middle class that was the largest sector of the economy and was in fact the foundation of the economy of this country. Giving across the board tax cuts then that included the rich wasn't comparable to doing the same now because then you didn't have Corporate Robber Barons who put American workers out of work to get tax breaks, play games on Wall Street and make themselves richer at whatever cost to the economy of the country. Don't you realize that it was corporate greed that destroyed the economy that was built by the very people who they were putting out of work and out of their homes? Don't you realize that Wall Street is NOT and has NEVER been the economy of this country. It was simply a gauge by which the performance of the economy was evaluated. Now that there is no performance to measure it means absolutely nothing to anybody who isn't "in the game" on Wall Street.

There is no working middle class now performing an economic function and giving tax cuts to the rich does nothing for the economy of the country. All they do with their money is play Wall Street games and hide their money in off shore tax shelters. Corporations don't "employ and provide investments for most Americans" anymore. 14.6 million Americans not only lost their jobs, they also lost their 401Ks, health care benefits and their homes. Tens of millions more are now under-employed because their middle management $60 to $75 thousand/year jobs have been replaced with jobs stocking shelves at Walmart, or flipping burgers. Some of them have started some of those small businesses we've heard so much about for years, but I can guarantee you those car detailing and church flier printing business aren't providing investment money for their owner or 401ks to anybody they've managed to earn enough to employ. I don't know where you live or what your standard of living is but you seem to be very out of touch with the realities of what this recession has done to this country; to the very people who built the economy that Wall Street is playing games with now.

[conversationpc]

President Obama is all about tax cuts for the working people to reestablish a middle class in this country. Back in 1960 a millionaire was a rarity and a person making $100,000 a year was considered rich. The middle class was the largest segment of the population and there wasn't any where near the steep chasm between the top and the bottom of the economic curve as there is now that the middle class has for the most part been destroyed by greed at the top and tax cuts FOR THE CORPORATIONS THAT MOVED MIDDLE CLASS JOBS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. You can't compare the economic landscape Kennedy was working with then to the circumstances now because the only period of this country that even came close to the economic disparities we're facing now was the depression in the 30's.

I say screw tax cuts altogether and either institute the Fair Tax or a flat tax. Either one would be a far better and more lucrative system than the current one.

[Rockindeano]

President Obama is all about tax cuts for the working people to reestablish a middle class in this country. Back in 1960 a millionaire was a rarity and a person making $100,000 a year was considered rich. The middle class was the largest segment of the population and there wasn't any where near the steep chasm between the top and the bottom of the economic curve as there is now that the middle class has for the most part been destroyed by greed at the top and tax cuts FOR THE CORPORATIONS THAT MOVED MIDDLE CLASS JOBS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. You can't compare the economic landscape Kennedy was working with then to the circumstances now because the only period of this country that even came close to the economic disparities we're facing now was the depression in the 30's.

I say screw tax cuts altogether and either institute the Fair Tax or a flat tax. Either one would be a far better and more lucrative system than the current one.

You institute a flat tax, the poor in this country will be on the streets and on welfare. The middle class will then become the poor. The rich will be unfazed.

[conversationpc]

Don't you realize that it was corporate greed that destroyed the economy that was built by the very people who they were putting out of work and out of their homes?

The corporate greed wouldn't have been as big a deal if millions of us wouldn't have purchased homes that we couldn't afford. Sorry, but there's plenty of greed to go around. It isn't just a problem amongst the rich and corporations. Lots of middle-class folks bought not just homes they couldn't afford, but tons of stuff on credit cards that put them so deeply in debt that they couldn't afford to pay those off, either.

[ohsherrie]

Don't you realize that it was corporate greed that destroyed the economy that was built by the very people who they were putting out of work and out of their homes?

The corporate greed wouldn't have been as big a deal if millions of us wouldn't have purchased homes that we couldn't afford. Sorry, but there's plenty of greed to go around. It isn't just a problem amongst the rich and corporations. Lots of middle-class folks bought not just homes they couldn't afford, but tons of stuff on credit cards that put them so deeply in debt that they couldn't afford to pay those off, either.

Yep, there were a lot of people who did those things but if you think that could have brought this economy down you've been worshiping at the altar of four headed propaganda monster HannityBeckLimbaughPalin too much. It was Wall Street Corporate gambling that killed this economy, and in fact, set the country up for all of those credit fiascoes by sending credit cards to every name and address they could get, even to kids before they even have jobs and playing fast and dirty with with mortgages like carnival barkers seeing how many they could rook in. They didn't then and still don't care what they do to this economy because it doesn't affect them. They have their Wall Street games and their off shore accounts so the rest of the country can eat cake while the Wall Street Casino gives odds on who's going to choke and die first.


Edited to add:

It doesn't matter what kind of "tax system" you have as long as the wealthy can buy the government.

[RedWingFan]

Tax cuts for the RICH no less!!!! You're the one spewing garbage and expecting people to believe it. Go ahead and tell me this represents the democrat party and Obama so the board can collectively laugh at you.

President Obama is all about tax cuts for the working people to reestablish a middle class in this country.

All about them huh? Which tax rate has he cut? None. Which tax rate is he going to allow to increase....all of them. Except for his constituency, those who don't pay taxes. Yeah, he's all about tax cuts.

The middle class was the largest segment of the population and there wasn't any where near the steep chasm between the top and the bottom of the economic curve as there is now that the middle class has for the most part been destroyed by greed at the top and tax cuts FOR THE CORPORATIONS THAT MOVED MIDDLE CLASS JOBS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY

Back then we didn't have as much of a global economy as we have now did we. No booming India. No booming Chinese production. When you have unions here striking (especially here in Michigan) driving up costs, what do you expect EVIL corporations to do? They're in business to make money, not employ people. My dad worked 42 years as a UAW member for GM. The UAW had the biggest hand in destroying that company. If a company has to move overseas to survive, I don't blame them.

You can't compare the economic landscape Kennedy was working with then to the circumstances now because the only period of this country that even came close to the economic disparities we're facing now was the depression in the 30's.

No. The last time we had something like this was the Carter malaise. Reagan showed how to straighten out that mess. Obama's done exactly the opposite. As much as you'd like to blame what's happened the past 18 months on Bush...you can't do it. This Keynesian mess is all your guys' doing.

[Rockindeano]

The last time we had something like this was the Carter malaise. Reagan showed how to straighten out that mess. Obama's done exactly the opposite. As much as you'd like to blame what's happened the past 18 months on Bush...you can't do it. This Keynesian mess is all your guys' doing.

So it's ok to say Reagan cleaned up Carter's mess(and I somewhat agree), but it's not ok to say Clinton cleaned up Bush's mess?

By the way, you're wrong. While Obama may be seen as spinning his wheels, lest you forget that he was left a shit sandwich to eat. It will take nothing short of a miracle to fix the Bush economy, yet you want to go back to the exact same 'economy' that put us into this ditch. Are you fucking drunk dude?

[slucero]

Don't you realize that it was corporate greed that destroyed the economy that was built by the very people who they were putting out of work and out of their homes?

The corporate greed wouldn't have been as big a deal if millions of us wouldn't have purchased homes that we couldn't afford. Sorry, but there's plenty of greed to go around. It isn't just a problem amongst the rich and corporations. Lots of middle-class folks bought not just homes they couldn't afford, but tons of stuff on credit cards that put them so deeply in debt that they couldn't afford to pay those off, either.

Yep, there were a lot of people who did those things but if you think that could have brought this economy down you've been worshiping at the altar of four headed propaganda monster HannityBeckLimbaughPalin too much. It was Wall Street Corporate gambling that killed this economy, and in fact, set the country up for all of those credit fiascoes by sending credit cards to every name and address they could get, even to kids before they even have jobs and playing fast and dirty with with mortgages like carnival barkers seeing how many they could rook in. They didn't then and still don't care what they do to this economy because it doesn't affect them. They have their Wall Street games and their off shore accounts so the rest of the country can eat cake while the Wall Street Casino gives odds on who's going to choke and die first.


Edited to add:

It doesn't matter what kind of "tax system" you have as long as the wealthy can buy the government.

Blaming Wall Street for this is like blaming a fox for killing chickens... after you've taken down the fence that keeps the fox out..


Greed is a necessary function of capitalism, and Wall Street..

Regulation is necessary to keep that greed from getting out of control...


I'm gonna have to give the idiot prize and lay primary blame with a 1999 Congress for deregulating the industry (banking), which set the table for banks to create these loan vehicles and collude with credit rating agencies to lower credit requirements. It was then simple to market easy credit and the "the American Dream", preying upon a largely naive, and financially illiterate American populace...

From 1933 to 1999 the banks were regulated... and there was very little risk of what happened in 2008.... Post 1999 no regulation .... and voila!.... in 10 years banking EXPLODES from a minor sector in the DOW to a large component of it... Why?

Deregulation..

Then, as sure as the sun shines.. in 2008 Lehman crashes... and that the banks are so leveraged (because the fence was removed by Congress).. that the World is at the precipice...

Isn't it so obvious WHY Congress and the White House want us to blame the baaad bankers and Wall Street?


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

~ George Santayana (1863-1952)