Liberal free for all coming to an end

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

These are not good times for Obama. His approval ratings are low, unemployment rates continue to rise, his administration is in the hot seat for pushing to loan stimulus money to Solyndra which apparently was known at the time to be a very risky loan. How many more times has this happened? Even some senate democrats are not supporting Obama's jobs bill. Now Obama tells (pleads to?) a crowd

Sounds pretty desperate.

Oh My! Now Obama is resorting to this God nonsense. Perry just gave a speech to Liberty University (Fallwell's) bragging about his lousy grades and how he flunked out of vet school. Also got loud cheers when the host said Perry got an A+ from the arms lobby.
"Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war"
I guess if Jesus finally returns, he can run for president.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

These are not good times for Obama. His approval ratings are low, unemployment rates continue to rise, his administration is in the hot seat for pushing to loan stimulus money to Solyndra which apparently was known at the time to be a very risky loan. How many more times has this happened? Even some senate democrats are not supporting Obama's jobs bill. Now Obama tells (pleads to?) a crowd

OBAMA: "If you love me, help me pass this bill!"

Sounds pretty desperate.

C'mon, this isn't serious discussion. Every politician has uttered this kind of nonsense in the past. I think Obama's jobs plan sucks, and despise what his administration has done, but I think we can talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of what he's doing and proposing rather than focus on ridiculous statements such as this.

Just sayin' ...

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

C'mon, this isn't serious discussion. Every politician has uttered this kind of nonsense in the past. I think Obama's jobs plan sucks, and despise what his administration has done, but I think we can talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of what he's doing and proposing rather than focus on ridiculous statements such as this.

Just sayin' ...

Tracy is simply commenting on current news, I don't see what is so ridiculous about that. Obama is desperate, his potential to get reelected is declining daily, even in California. The prospect of getting another Republican yahoo as President is looming on the horizon.
The question is whether the United States has become ungovernable.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy is simply commenting on current news, I don't see what is so ridiculous about that. Obama is desperate, his potential to get reelected is declining daily, even in California. The prospect of getting another Republican yahoo as President is looming on the horizon.
The question is whether the United States has become ungovernable.

I used "ridiculous" to characterize Obama's statement, NOT Tracy's post. My point is that if we focused discussion on the ridiculous things such as this that politicians say in campaign mode, rather than the SUBSTANCE of their actions and proposals, we deserve whatever crap we get.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

I used "ridiculous" to characterize Obama's statement, NOT Tracy's post. My point is that if we focused discussion on the ridiculous things such as this that politicians say in campaign mode, rather than the SUBSTANCE of their actions and proposals, we deserve whatever crap we get.

Whether it is "ridiculous" or not, what politicians say is supposed to mean what they mean. What they are saying at any given moment to be lies or bullshit is usually determined in the future. Obama promised a new era of government and it was welcomed by the populace after the malfeasance of the Bush administration. Is he failing because of BS or lying or the inability to control Congress, probably all of the above. As bystanders on the political process we are limited as to understanding the driving forces in Washington. Conservatives believe their analysis is sound, liberals believe their analysis is sound. Is my analysis sound? Damned if I know. I know Paul Krugman is a very smart guy, mush smarter than me, but is he always right, damned if I know.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Whether it is "ridiculous" or not, what politicians say is supposed to mean what they mean. What they are saying at any given moment to be lies or bullshit is usually determined in the future. Obama promised a new era of government and it was welcomed by the populace after the malfeasance of the Bush administration. Is he failing because of BS or lying or the inability to control Congress, probably all of the above. As bystanders on the political process we are limited as to understanding the driving forces in Washington. Conservatives believe their analysis is sound, liberals believe their analysis is sound. Is my analysis sound? Damned if I know. I know Paul Krugman is a very smart guy, mush smarter than me, but is he always right, damned if I know.

With all due respect, Randolph, it does no good to conflate Obama's throwaway comment in Tracy's post with "what politicians say" about policy or issues. What he said is no different than what politicians of all stripes, in campaign mode, say as they jump on stage and asking for "love" or any other similar statement.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

With all due respect, Randolph, it does no good to conflate Obama's throwaway comment in Tracy's post with "what politicians say" about policy or issues. What he said is no different than what politicians of all stripes, in campaign mode, say as they jump on stage and asking for "love" or any other similar statement.

Keep in mind that Obama's very animated speech to an audience of young students drew wild cheering and applause. I suspect the whole performance was aimed at a wider audiences, however. When he started going on about "love", that was it, way over the top.
How do we develop a perception of a candidates character and their potential ability to govern. Obama had excellent credentials, Harvard, professor, congressman. Yet, he seems to lack the essential ability to stand up and exert political power. Perhaps in this day and age we need a President who can kick ass.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

These are not good times for Obama. His approval ratings are low, unemployment rates continue to rise, his administration is in the hot seat for pushing to loan stimulus money to Solyndra which apparently was known at the time to be a very risky loan. How many more times has this happened? Even some senate democrats are not supporting Obama's jobs bill. Now Obama tells (pleads to?) a crowd

Sounds pretty desperate.

For the second time since he has taken office Obama has broken an international trade treaty. Again it is the NAFTA agreement with his 'buy American" provision. It's typical that the US feels free to break every agreement that they ever sign and in between breaking agreements the US government and businesses sue other countries and businesses for unfair trade practices. The hypocrisy of it is overwhelming.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

C'mon, this isn't serious discussion. Every politician has uttered this kind of nonsense in the past. I think Obama's jobs plan sucks, and despise what his administration has done, but I think we can talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of what he's doing and proposing rather than focus on ridiculous statements such as this.

Just sayin' ...

I thought it sounded pretty funny when he said it, and sometimes you just gotta laugh at him and NOT take him seriously.

Originally Posted by randolph

Obama is desperate, his potential to get reelected is declining daily, even in California. The prospect of getting another Republican yahoo as President is looming on the horizon.
The question is whether the United States has become ungovernable.

I fear that you're right. The two parties are getting so far apart. But they are also based on a weird pair of mutually exclusive ideologies:

government is the solution/secular
vs
government is the problem/religious

Why are these two pairs of mutually exclusive ideologies paired this way? I don't know. This is guaranteeing that neither party will satisfy a large portion of the population.

Originally Posted by smc

My point is that if we focused discussion on the ridiculous things such as this that politicians say in campaign mode, rather than the SUBSTANCE of their actions and proposals, we deserve whatever crap we get.

The substance of their actions and proposals have certainly been missing in campaigns. There was zero substance of Obama's message last campaign season. But I also think when Obama says "If you love me, help me pass this bill", that's an interesting view into his persona.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by ila

For the second time since he has taken office Obama has broken an international trade treaty. Again it is the NAFTA agreement with his 'buy American" provision. It's typical that the US feels free to break every agreement that they ever sign and in between breaking agreements the US government and businesses sue other countries and businesses for unfair trade practices. The hypocrisy of it is overwhelming.

Quite frankly, America would be a LOT better off if we'd start breaking all of these bullshit "free trade" agreements/treaties.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GRH

Quite frankly, America would be a LOT better off if we'd start breaking all of these bullshit "free trade" agreements/treaties.

Why is that, GRH?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Why is that, GRH?

The answer is easy. These so called "free trade" agreements are designed to take advantage of other countries. I suspect we get other countries to agree to them with bribes (military hardware). These agreements are disastrous for the small farmers and business in these countries. Mexico is a good example, NAFTA destroyed corn farming in Mexico, consequently desperate farmers are migrating here.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by randolph

The answer is easy. These so called "free trade" agreements are designed to take advantage of other countries. I suspect we get other countries to agree to them with bribes (military hardware). These agreements are disastrous for the small farmers and business in these countries. Mexico is a good example, NAFTA destroyed corn farming in Mexico, consequently desperate farmers are migrating here.

Anything else randolph?

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

The answer is easy. These so called "free trade" agreements are designed to take advantage of other countries. I suspect we get other countries to agree to them with bribes (military hardware). These agreements are disastrous for the small farmers and business in these countries. Mexico is a good example, NAFTA destroyed corn farming in Mexico, consequently desperate farmers are migrating here.

This is only half the answer. The agreements are also designed to introduce "tripartism" into labor relations in the United States, a concept based on the false notion that government, employers, and workers share the same interests. The real effect is to use the agreements as another means of tearing down the protections that working people have fought for and won over decades as what the European Union calls "harmonization" is established among the countries involved in the agreement. These agreements seek to abrogate existing labor contracts and even the Conventions of the International Labor Organization.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

Conventions of the International Labor Organization.

Which is what?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

This is only half the answer. The agreements are also designed to introduce "tripartism" into labor relations in the United States, a concept based on the false notion that government, employers, and workers share the same interests. The real effect is to use the agreements as another means of tearing down the protections that working people have fought for and won over decades as what the European Union calls "harmonization" is established among the countries involved in the agreement. These agreements seek to abrogate existing labor contracts and even the Conventions of the International Labor Organization.

Yes, along with the WTO, we are determined to impose our will on the rest of the world and destroy independent self sufficiency in other countries. Its not all that different from slavery. Make everyone subject to the whim of corporate enterprises that can move their factories to the source of the cheapest labor.

[ila]

Originally Posted by GRH

Quite frankly, America would be a LOT better off if we'd start breaking all of these bullshit "free trade" agreements/treaties.

I agree that these agreements are bullshit. The bullshit is on the part of the US which negotiated them thinking that they could take advantage of other countries. That is why the US keeps taking other countries to court, but when times get tough the whining starts and never stops.

Originally Posted by randolph

The answer is easy. These so called "free trade" agreements are designed to take advantage of other countries. I suspect we get other countries to agree to them with bribes (military hardware). These agreements are disastrous for the small farmers and business in these countries. Mexico is a good example, NAFTA destroyed corn farming in Mexico, consequently desperate farmers are migrating here.

You are right, randolph. These agreements were designed to take advantage of other countries, but it didn't work out that way in the long run.

Do you really think that in the case of the FTA and NAFTA that Canada was bribed with military hardware? Canada, the country where the standard of living is higher and the purchasing power of our currency is greater than the US had to be bribed. Get serious.

Originally Posted by smc

This is only half the answer. The agreements are also designed to introduce "tripartism" into labor relations in the United States, a concept based on the false notion that government, employers, and workers share the same interests. The real effect is to use the agreements as another means of tearing down the protections that working people have fought for and won over decades as what the European Union calls "harmonization" is established among the countries involved in the agreement. These agreements seek to abrogate existing labor contracts and even the Conventions of the International Labor Organization.

The US tried to take advantage of other countries thinking that the rest of the world is such a bunch of dumb rubes. The US sought to abrogate labour contracts and not any other country in NAFTA or the FTA.

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes, along with the WTO, we are determined to impose our will on the rest of the world and destroy independent self sufficiency in other countries. Its not all that different from slavery. Make everyone subject to the whim of corporate enterprises that can move their factories to the source of the cheapest labor.

The US keeps running off to WTO, crying its eyes out, whenever another country wins a frivolous lawsuit brought by the US. It's time to grow up and actually play like adults.

[transjen]

The only thing the US exports from these free trade agreements is US jobs
Notice how all our jobs are going to India and China and the US middle class will soon be an endangered species while China's and India's middle class is growing
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Which is what?

Enoch Root, there's this thing called the "Google machine" that I think has recently made its way even to a remote outpost of the world called Puerto Rico. I hear that you can type in words and it directs you to information about what you typed in. Wow, like you don't have to go to the library or anything.

These kids with their newfangled technologies.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes, along with the WTO, we are determined to impose our will on the rest of the world and destroy independent self sufficiency in other countries. Its not all that different from slavery. Make everyone subject to the whim of corporate enterprises that can move their factories to the source of the cheapest labor.

Wow, did I really miss making my point that badly?!

I was talking about U.S. workers.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

The US tried to take advantage of other countries thinking that the rest of the world is such a bunch of dumb rubes. The US sought to abrogate labour contracts and not any other country in NAFTA or the FTA.

Make no mistake: these agreements are designed as much to harm U.S. workers as much as anyone else.

Kudos for the correct use of the word "abrogate" -- something I don't see every day, or month, or year for that matter.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

Enoch Root, there's this thing called the "Google machine" that I think has recently made its way even to a remote outpost of the world called Puerto Rico. I hear that you can type in words and it directs you to information about what you typed in. Wow, like you don't have to go to the library or anything.

These kids with their newfangled technologies.

It's a part of my personality. I prefer to learn through discussion with people rather than googling everything. Yes, I am stubborn that way. And maybe just a tad of a luddite.

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

The only thing the US exports from these free trade agreements is US jobs
Notice how all our jobs are going to India and China and the US middle class will soon be an endangered species while China's and India's middle class is growing
Jerseygirl Jen

You are correct, Jen, but it would be wrong to blame Indian and Chinese workers (mostly peasants who are finally ascending out of abject poverty) for unemployment in the United States. It is U.S. capital that is responsible.

For instance, it's fine that China is the main manufacturer of solar panels. The problem in the United States is that absent a national policy and the will to convert to this renewable energy source, the United States doesn't create the tens of thousands of jobs INSTALLING those panels. Our unemployment is a demand issue, not a supply issue.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It's a part of my personality. I prefer to learn through discussion with people rather than googling everything. Yes, I am stubborn that way. And maybe just a tad of a luddite.

Telling you what the ILO Conventions are isn't a "discussion." Looking them up yourself and then asking questions about them, or positing an opinion about what you read, could become a discussion.

(Sorry, I just got home from school and I haven't shifted gears yet. )

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

Telling you what the ILO Conventions are isn't a "discussion." Looking them up yourself and then asking questions about them, or positing an opinion about what you read, could become a discussion.

(Sorry, I just got home from school and I haven't shifted gears yet. )

Sorry doc. Discussion is indeed not the word. Perhaps conversation is the word that will appease you?

[randolph]

Ila

Do you really think that in the case of the FTA and NAFTA that Canada was bribed with military hardware? Canada, the country where the standard of living is higher and the purchasing power of our currency is greater than the US had to be bribed. Get serious.

I wasn't referring to Canada or other "wealthy" countries. I meant Mexico and central American countries where poor farmers lost their livelihood.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Ila

I wasn't referring to Canada or other "wealthy" countries. I meant Mexico and central American countries where poor farmers lost their livelihood.

The FTA was an agreement between Canada and the US. NAFTA was an agreement among Canada, the US, and Mexico. Therefore the only possible countries that could be referred to as being bribed by the US are Canada and Mexico. Canada wasn't bribed and neither was Mexico.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

Wow, did I really miss making my point that badly?!

I was talking about U.S. workers.

Yes

I agreed with your point regarding American labor, I just took off on another aspect of the issue.
After WWII the unions were strong and the working class was able to join the middle class, buy a house, a car and have a family. Big business resented the power of unions and the Taft Hartley bill was passed and then came more "right to work" bills further weakening the unions. Since the 1970s the working class part of the middle class has just been treading water and going deeper into debt. The unions strongly supported the Democratic party and congressmen thereby providing a counter balance to the Repubs. This is gone now and both parties are beholden to corporate America.
I find it mystifying that corporate America is determined to destroy the middle class. These are the people that buy there stuff. A viable middle class is the heart of America. I don't understand it.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

ying that corporate America is determined to destroy the middle class. These are the people that buy there stuff. A viable middle class is the heart of America. I don't understand it.

Why would corporate America (your evil empire) be determined to destroy the middle class? That's the vast majority of their customers.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Why would corporate America (your evil empire) be determined to destroy the middle class? That's the vast majority of their customers.

Corporate America makes its money primarily in the capital markets (paper/fictitious money, but it works for them at least for now), not by selling goods to consumers.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Why would corporate America (your evil empire) be determined to destroy the middle class? That's the vast majority of their customers.

I don't think there is a conspiracy to destroy the middle class, it's that we don't have the protection in Congress that we used to have. Consequently, the upper classes have the power to bleed us of wealth we used to have.
Also, the middle class was sold on the idea that buying a house was an excellent way to invest for the future. Extremely easy credit was used to lure people into buying overpriced properties with the assurance that prices would continue to go up. What a con job! Most homeowners with these big mortgages are now underwater and will stay that way for years to come. What a horrible feelling that you paid $500,000 for a house that is now worth $250,000 and you owe $400,000. Are people in that situation going out and spending lots of money? Without consumer demand, the companies are not going to hire more workers.
The greedy banks and financial houses in cahoots with the federal government (Greenspan) have thoroughly fucked up our middle class economy, while the rich are sitting pretty.

[TracyCoxx]

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit includes $1.5 trillion in new taxes. He had his chance to lead before. The democrats and republicans left deficit reduction strategies up to the deficit super committee, which from what I've heard were not going to depend on new taxes. Did he forget about that?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit includes $1.5 trillion in new taxes. He had his chance to lead before. The democrats and republicans left deficit reduction strategies up to the deficit super committee, which from what I've heard were not going to depend on new taxes. Did he forget about that?

There is no way on earth this massive deficit is going to get paid off without severe cuts to government spending and a reestablishment of an equable tax system that treats everybody fairly. We can start with the capital gains tax, make it progressive based on income. Yes, that would mean I would have to pay more taxes.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

There is no way on earth this massive deficit is going to get paid off without severe cuts to government spending and a reestablishment of an equable tax system that treats everybody fairly. We can start with the capital gains tax, make it progressive based on income.

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

Personally, I am very adverse to debt, I have seen how destructive it can be. I see no justification for social spending based on debt. Social spending should be based on productivity of the economy.
As governor of California, Earl Warren used to say, we pay as we go. that's the only way an economy can be sustainable. California was thriving in those days.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Personally, I am very adverse to debt, I have seen how destructive it can be. I see no justification for social spending based on debt. Social spending should be based on productivity of the economy.
As governor of California, Earl Warren used to say, we pay as we go. that's the only way an economy can be sustainable. California was thriving in those days.

I don't have time at this moment to respond fully, but I will make a couple of quick points.

1. It is a fallacy to analogize personal/consumer debt to government deficit spending. I am not saying you have done this, Randolph, but rather am making a general point.

2. If you truly believe that "social spending should be based on productivity of the economy" and you truly see "no justification for social spending based on debt," than you must be completely opposed to any type of government stimulus of the economy whatsoever. That would include the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression. Is that the case?

Off to hang out with Kaiti and Tiffany ... "skipping" classes, and back on line sporadically over the next couple of days.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

I don't have time at this moment to respond fully, but I will make a couple of quick points.

1. It is a fallacy to analogize personal/consumer debt to government deficit spending. I am not saying you have done this, Randolph, but rather am making a general point.

2. If you truly believe that "social spending should be based on productivity of the economy" and you truly see "no justification for social spending based on debt," than you must be completely opposed to any type of government stimulus of the economy whatsoever. That would include the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression. Is that the case?

Off to hang out with Kaiti and Tiffany ... "skipping" classes, and back on line sporadically over the next couple of days.

Hey you lucky SOB why are you concerned about my comments when you are off with a couple of hotties. Damn!!!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

well our credit rating was downgraded, so there is that.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

I don't have time at this moment to respond fully, but I will make a couple of quick points.

1. It is a fallacy to analogize personal/consumer debt to government deficit spending. I am not saying you have done this, Randolph, but rather am making a general point.

2. If you truly believe that "social spending should be based on productivity of the economy" and you truly see "no justification for social spending based on debt," than you must be completely opposed to any type of government stimulus of the economy whatsoever. That would include the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression. Is that the case?

Off to hang out with Kaiti and Tiffany ... "skipping" classes, and back on line sporadically over the next couple of days.

1- Debt is debt, regardless of who owns it. Government is different in being able to print money and inflate it's way out of debt, which is devastating to people on fixed incomes.
2- Social spending, ie. social security, medicare, etc, must be based on long term sustainable government income(taxes). Otherwise it contributes to inflation.
WPA and CCC were temporary measures to relieve human suffering during a severe depression. They did little to get us out of the depression, however.
The massive Keynesian spending during WWII (for manufacturing war materials) got us out of the depression. That created a huge amount of debt but it was resolved by economic expansion after the war.

I may sound Teapartyish here, but I am not. I am a progressive in that government must play a role in human services. That role must be based on sound economic policy, however.

[TracyCoxx]

Buffett Says He Stands By 'Buffett Rule'
"Warren Buffett says he's absolutely "fine" with President Obama calling the new plan to establish a minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year the "Buffett Rule."

Buffett has long argued that the wealthiest Americans tend to pay a smaller portion of their income in federal taxes than middle-income earners because some millionaires and billionaires often get much of their income from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than basic wages.

Buffett has argued that the "billionaire-friendly Congress" has coddled the wealthy and that that practice should end."

In other news:
Warren Buffett Arrested For Tax Evasion
"In a surprising development, Warren Buffett was reportedly arrested this morning at his Berkshire Hathaway offices in Omaha. Allegedly, he has not only paid less than his secretary in taxes, he hasn?t paid ANY taxes in last ten years. Or maybe it was just an IRS error. It?s not clear.

The IRS has supposedly been going over Bufftett?s tax returns with extra care because President Obama is about to present the the nation with ?the Buffett tax?, which raises taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

What they reportedly found was that Buffett?s company has been paying taxes but it?s Chariman, Warren B., has not filed taxes in ten years and before that he was only paying taxes on a rate of 7%, thanks to some very creative accounting and some help from the IRS."

At least these democrats are entertaining

[randolph]

Some fun with Warren

The Oracle of Omaha told WWN that he must have ?forgot? to pay his taxes over the last ten years and blamed the lack of tax payments on his new accountant ? Scott Dude. When Buffett was told that ?Scott Dude? sounds like a fictitious name, Buffett said, ?do you have any oatmeal??
Buffett was reportedly playing Angry Birds at the time of his arrest. The IRS agents sat down and played for an hour themselves. They all had a grand time.
Buffett can only be blamed for bringing this on himself. Over the last few months he has been publicly making the case for the government to raise taxes on billionaires like himself. Unfortunately, he didn?t think that the IRS would actually audit him ? ?audit, me?!? But, the Obama Administration wanted to tell the public exactly what Buffett paid over the last few years and had him audited and? they discovered he has not filed taxes. But, again, it could have been an IRS error because as the IRS said, ?we?re buried in paperwork over here!?
Sources say Buffett was held in a Federal jail in Washington DC for seventeen minutes. President Obama pardoned Buffett so he could hold a press conference about The Buffett Tax.
?President Obama can now make the case that billionaires are dodging their taxes and that the government should confiscate most of their earnings. After all, most fortunes are made because of a crime,? said Jay Carney, The White House Press Secretary.
Warren Buffet sure was happy to be free:

[TracyCoxx]

This is insane and the administration is an embarrassment to this country. Buffett and Obama are pushing for higher taxes for the rich while Buffet pays little, if any tax. Not because of the tax rate for his tax bracket, but because he chooses to take advantage of loopholes at best, and at worst, perhaps just doesn't even pay the taxes (while saying the government should raise taxes). When Buffett is arrested for tax evasion Obama, who complains that the rich pay too little in taxes - PARDONS HIM?

What kind of example does this set? How are we to view Obama's proposal as anything other than politics and pandering to his base. His proposal is deal on arrival.

And about the evil rich, barring people like Warren Buffet who simply don't pay their taxes...
From the AP:

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

...

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

So let's cut the crap. To tell the segment of the population that not only drives the country's economy, but funds 70% of the government's income that they need to pay more is an insult. If Obama had any interest in really attacking the problem, he'd have the IRS go after tax dodgers like Warren Buffett and collect.

Then there's the Solyndra thing. BO props up this train-wreck of a company with a half billion $, everyone who knew the company knew it wasn't viable. Naturally it goes bankrupt and the half billion $ is gone. The company will be investigated... by Obama's goon Eric Holder. Solyndra has been advised to plead the 5th. The injustice department will ensure that congress never sees that data. I think Solyndra is just the tip of the iceberg. How many other non-viable companies have been propped up by Obama's stimulus packages?

This coming presidential race is the republican's to loose. Not that that's encouraging to me...

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

well our credit rating was downgraded, so there is that.

The United States carried the top credit rating throughout the entire period of running deficits, regardless of whether it was under a Republican or Democratic administration. The rating was downgraded because, as Standard & Poor's made clear, there is no ability in Washington to get anything done.

The statement read that the downgrade was based on the "current level of debt, the trajectory of debt as a share of the economy, and the lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook."

Had the shenanigans been otherwise, the rating would have stayed the same. S&P expected adult behavior, not necessarily a total solution.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

The United States carried the top credit rating throughout the entire period of running deficits, regardless of whether it was under a Republican or Democratic administration.

My statement was in response to you wondering why a "massive deficit" is an earth-shattering problem. It was not in response to you merely stating that we have just any deficit or that a certain party is in power.

Originally Posted by smc

The rating was downgraded because, as Standard & Poor's made clear, there is no ability in Washington to get anything done.

The statement read that the downgrade was based on the "current level of debt, the trajectory of debt as a share of the economy, and the lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook."

Agreed

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

My statement was in response to you wondering why a "massive deficit" is an earth-shattering problem. It was not in response to you merely stating that we have just any deficit or that a certain party is in power.

Yes, I realize that. But the original context of my statement about the massive deficit, which was a bit longer, still holds.

And I'm glad we can agree on something.

[GRH]

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm

Tracy, given the data at this link is a little bit dated, but more contemporary studies suggest that in recent decades, wealth has become even more concentrated in the hands of the elite few. The "poor" rich folks in the top ten percent of earners pay 70% of income taxes in the US. Well guess what, that same top ten percent owns over 70% of the income and wealth in America. So from where I stand, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect the people who own most of America to in turn pay the bulk of the taxes. To suggest the rich are "overtaxed" is to ignore just how much of America the top few percent of earners actually own.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by GRH

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm

Tracy, given the data at this link is a little bit dated, but more contemporary studies suggest that in recent decades, wealth has become even more concentrated in the hands of the elite few. The "poor" rich folks in the top ten percent of earners pay 70% of income taxes in the US. Well guess what, that same top ten percent owns over 70% of the income and wealth in America. So from where I stand, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect the people who own most of America to in turn pay the bulk of the taxes. To suggest the rich are "overtaxed" is to ignore just how much of America the top few percent of earners actually own.

During the 1950s and 1960s taxes on the wealthy were up around 70%. The economy was thriving and so was the middle class. In the early days, Henry Ford understood economics, he paid his workers well so they could afford to buy his cars. Corporation business men now days don't seem to understand that principle. Turn the workers into slaves and they aren't going to buy anything.

[randolph]

Bush vs Obama on new spending.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Bush vs Obama on new spending.

I think your chart is missing a few items for Obama. Here's a bailout tracker with a total of $11 trillion in bailouts. $700 billion is Bush's. Wouldn't the rest be Obama's?
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysuppl...ailouttracker/

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think your chart is missing a few items for Obama. Here's a bailout tracker with a total of $11 trillion in bailouts. $700 billion is Bush's. Wouldn't the rest be Obama's?
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysuppl...ailouttracker/

Yes that chart does look suspicious. Here is some explanation.

From NY Times

A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.
In future decades, when rising health costs with an aging population hit the budget in full force, deficits are projected to be far deeper than they are now. Effective health care reform, and a willingness to pay more taxes, will be the biggest factors in controlling those deficits.

Gulp!