Originally posted by Chieftan Yeah last night Obama was like "I inherited this economy". No Mr. Obama, you campaigned for this economy and now its your economy. Now we're trillions in debt and there has been no quick turnaround to show for it. Thanks alot.
Actually, the Dow has been on the up and up and the NASDAQ had the best week since 1992. I would say things are getting better, at least in that area.
I'll bet you 100 bucks that it went up because the vote appears to have been failed.
Originally posted by Slythe Originally posted by Chieftan Yeah last night Obama was like "I inherited this economy". No Mr. Obama, you campaigned for this economy and now its your economy. Now we're trillions in debt and there has been no quick turnaround to show for it. Thanks alot.
Actually, the Dow has been on the up and up and the NASDAQ had the best week since 1992. I would say things are getting better, at least in that area.
New York Thu, 23 Jul 2009-
The Dow Jones Industrial Average topped 9,000 on Thursday for the first time since January in a sign that investors are buoyant about the prospects for an economic recovery. The blue-chip Dow industrials led major US stock indices to strong gains on the day, thanks to better-than-expected quarterly results from a cross-section of companies including Ebay, Ford Motor Company and AT&T.
A rise in home sales for the third straight month pushed construction companies higher.
The Dow surged 188.03 points, or 2.12 per cent, to 9,069.29. The index is now up 3.34 per cent since the start of the year, climbing back from a 12-year low that was reached in early March.
Originally posted by Chieftan Yeah last night Obama was like "I inherited this economy". No Mr. Obama, you campaigned for this economy and now its your economy. Now we're trillions in debt and there has been no quick turnaround to show for it. Thanks alot.
Actually, the Dow has been on the up and up and the NASDAQ had the best week since 1992. I would say things are getting better, at least in that area.
I'll bet you 100 bucks that it went up because the lib vote appears to have been failed.
Fixed because birther votes don't fail. Your welcome.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
I will venture to say you are wrong here and there. You approach the examples I provided from an ideological perspective, and your analysis must fit your ideological bent. I do not have anymore to say on the subjects, though, other than to return to my original and limited point: the public is not aware when they are being fooled.
Didn't Bush' tax cuts introduce a new, even-lower, bottom tax rate? And didn't people in ALL tax brackets get a tax cut?
Cutting taxes on estates is a good thing because the government already taxed those things the first time. Cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains may affect the wealthiest people more than others, but there are a whole lot of "working poor" people out there who also have dividends and capital gains and do benefit from a tax cut on them. And, besides, it's their money anyway, not the government's.
For all the countless times government has shown itself to mismanage and waste taxpayer money, I don't understand why any American would wish higher taxes on anybody, and certainly not higher taxes that affect everyone across the board. *cough* Cap and Trade *cough*.
Regardless of what income bracket a person is in, it's not the government's money. It's their money.
I will venture to say you are wrong here and there. You approach the examples I provided from an ideological perspective, and your analysis must fit your ideological bent. I do not have anymore to say on the subjects, though, other than to return to my original and limited point: the public is not aware when they are being fooled.
Didn't Bush' tax cuts introduce a new, even-lower, bottom tax rate? And didn't people in ALL tax brackets get a tax cut?
Cutting taxes on estates is a good thing because the government already taxed those things the first time. Cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains may affect the wealthiest people more than others, but there are a whole lot of "working poor" people out there who also have dividends and capital gains and do benefit from a tax cut on them. And, besides, it's their money anyway, not the government's.
For all the countless times government has shown itself to mismanage and waste taxpayer money, I don't understand why any American would wish higher taxes on anybody, and certainly not higher taxes that affect everyone across the board. *cough* Cap and Trade *cough*.
Regardless of what income bracket a person is in, it's not the government's money. It's their money.
Welcome to the good fight! Be warned, it's bloody in here lol
Didn't Bush' tax cuts introduce a new, even-lower, bottom tax rate? And didn't people in ALL tax brackets get a tax cut?
Cutting taxes on estates is a good thing because the government already taxed those things the first time. Cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains may affect the wealthiest people more than others, but there are a whole lot of "working poor" people out there who also have dividends and capital gains and do benefit from a tax cut on them. And, besides, it's their money anyway, not the government's.
This is NOT personal. Where are you obtaining your "tax information"? I honestly want names. You think I am being facetious, perhaps fussy or even rude, but I am not. What is the source of this? I do not even hear these claims --""a whole lot of 'working poor' people out there who also have dividends and capital gains"-- on television . . . only the internet. I honestly NEED a source, because I want to have fun ridiculing it. Do me a favor, provide a source. If YOU are the source, can you do anything to convince me that the "working poor" ("a whole lot") are getting benefiting from Bush's tax policies? Please.
"Cutting taxes on estates would be a good thing." It is a bad thing because it concentrates, and hides, wealth. But, YOU tell me, because it is YOUR claim, that it is a "good thing." YOU WON. Yes. You won. Celebrate your "good thing." It is phased-out totally in 2010. But, do not celebrate that much until you explain why. I am sincerely, and I apologize if I seem rude, interested in some sources. Something behind, something substantive, this talk of "good things" and "working poor" benefiting from Bush's tax policies.
Originally posted by declaredemer Do me a favor, provide a source. If YOU are the source, can you do anything to convince me that the "working poor" ("a whole lot") are getting benefiting from Bush's tax policies? Please.
The zero-percent capital gains rate will be limited to individuals in the 10% and 15% tax brackets. Those folks now pay 5% on long-term capital gains.
In 2007, a married couple who file jointly must have taxable income of no more than $63,700 to qualify for the bottom two tax brackets; for a single filer, the cutoff is $31,850."
"2005 Internal Revenue Service data indicate that 47 percent of all returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000 [see Figure VIII]. Seventy-nine percent of all returns reporting capital gains were for households with incomes below $100,000 and half had incomes below $50,000.22 Moreover, these tax return data overstate the income status of those with capital gains, since these sales of assets are often irregular or even once-in-a-lifetime events. For example, when someone sells a home or ranch, the income from the sale may be $1 million, but the seller may have never earned more than $50,000 in his working life. He appears “rich” in the income statistics because of the cash from the one-time sale."
The Treasury Department recently provided a concise summary of the 2003 capital gains cut experience:
The lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains lower the cost of equity capital and reduce the tax biases against dividend payment, equity finance and investment in the corporate sector. All of these policies increase incentives to work, save and invest by reducing the distorting effects of taxes. Capital investment and labor productivity will thus be higher, which means higher output and living standards in the long run.31
The Treasury’s analysis is by no means a modern revelation. In 1963 President John F. Kennedy clearly understood the fundamental importance of capital investment’s role in the economy:
The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy."
That page also mentions Clinton reaching an agreement in 1997 to cut capital gains from 28% to 20%. I wonder if that helped anybody.
Maybe you'd like a different source. My source is probably your neighbor. Or maybe even you.
You don't know any low-income people who have company stock at the place they've worked at for 20 years?
I asked if Bush's cuts created a new, bottom bracket. It looks like that did indeed happen; creating a new 10% bracket that didn't exist before. That alone means those people paid less than they did before. If you can provide a source that shows Bush didn't cut taxes for everyone who pays federal income taxes, please do so.
Even just tax cuts for "the rich" help poor people because "rich people" are the ones who spread the money around and create jobs. I don't have a source for it, but I'm pretty sure there aren't a lot of workers employed by homeless people in this country.
Regardless of all of that, taxes are government confiscating your money. It's government thinking it knows how to better spend your money than you do. And, again, when it comes down to it, it's not the government's money. It's yours. Let's say this or that person got a tax break when you didn't. You shouldn't be mad they got a tax break. You should be mad you didn't get yours.
Medicare costs have gone up considerably over the last decade and currently consumes as much of the budget as the military, its predicted to grow even further. Its the first attempt by the government to run a limited healthcare system and its been a dismal failure. The costs of medicare consume 80% more money then the cost of insuring every US citizen after there is reform to the Medical and Insurance fields. You say 97% of medicare goes to paying for care. Yet a huge chunk of people using medicare don't get the money for the care leaving the hospital or medical practitioner to foot the bill. Its being lost somewhere because their is a gigantic pool of money their to cover the limited amount of americans it covers, and could even add in a huge level of luxury. Yet it isn't their, that isn't happening. Their is obvious fraud and corruption in the Medicare program.
Seriously how can you trust the government, especially the president who are heavily financed by the insurance field? Its 1500 pages of earmarks. The budget for his plan is grossly overpriced. The plan itself makes no serious attempts to reform all the things wrong in the medical field. I would rather have a CEO who makes 1.6 billion in profits then a fed who eats a trillion with nothing of consequence happening.
Didn't you hear what they said? It's only 2% of the funds for administration, not 3% ...lol... This argument is OVER. DONE. and I don't hear any mouths left running. Let the record show their defeat.
I don't see any defeat -- I see seven pages of legitimate discussion, Zindahas chiming in late with a completely made-up number, and you spouting off your dittohead bullshit. Nothing new here.
You add absolutely nothing of substance to any discussion, ever. Just another birther right-wing idiot.
Here is more right wing ditto head shit as the previous poster suggests...
CBO deals new blow to health plan
For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.
A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation
But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.
"In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized ... but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.
On his White House blog, Orszag – who served as CBO director in 2007 and 2008 – downplayed the office's small probable savings number in favor of the proposal's more speculative long-term benefits.
"The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. ... Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term," Orszag wrote. "In other words, in the terminology of our belt-and-suspenders approach to a fiscally responsible health reform, the IMAC is a game changer not a scoreable offset."
But scoreable offsets are the immediate savings that fiscally conservative Blue Dogs and other Democratic moderates have been pushing for precisely because they will help offset the bill's cost.
The proposal's meager savings are a blow to Democrats working furiously to bring down costs in order to win support from Blue Dogs, who have threatened to vote against the bill without significant changes. The proposal was heralded as a breakthrough on Tuesday after Blue Dogs and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman emerged from the White House with agreement on giving the independent panel, rather than Congress, the ability to rein in Medicare spending.
Republicans pounced on CBO's analysis as another demonstration that Democratic proposals don't control costs.
"The President said that rising health care costs are an imminent threat to our economy and that any reform must reduce these long-term costs. But CBO has made clear once again that the Democrats' bills in Congress aren't reducing costs and in fact could just make the problem worse," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
Saturday's CBO analysis caps a tough week of blown deadlines, partisan bickering and fierce intra-party fighting among Democrats. On Friday, the tension between the Blue Dogs and Waxman exploded when Waxman threatened to bypass his committee and bring the reform bill straight to the House floor without a vote. The move infuriated Blue Dogs who have used their crucial committee votes to leverage changes to the bill.
But by late Friday, Waxman said their colleagues had pulled the two groups "back from the brink" and back to the negotiating table.
Still, Hoyer said there was little chance that that the House would pass a health reform legislation before Friday when lawmakers are expected to leave Washington for summer recess.
House Republican Leader John Boehner's office said that it's time to hit the legislation's reset button.
"This letter underscores the enormous challenges that Democrats face trying to pay for their massive and costly government takeover of health care. In their rush to pass a bill, Democrats continue to ignore the stark economic reality facing our nation," said Boehner spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier. "Let's scrap the current proposal and come together in a meaningful way to reform health care in America by reducing cost, expanding access and at a price tag we can afford."
It turns out the president misjudged the nation’s mood.
This is big, what’s happening. President Obama appears to have misstepped on a major initiative and defining issue. He has misjudged the nation’s mood, which itself is news: He rose from nothing to everything with the help of his fine-tuned antennae. Resistance to the Democratic health-care plans is in the air, showing up more now on YouTube than in the polls, but it will be in the polls soon enough. The president, in short, may be facing a real loss. This will be interesting in a number of ways and for a number of reasons, among them that we’ve never seen him publicly defeated before, because he hasn’t been. So we may be entering new territory, with new struggles shaped by new dynamics.
His news conference the other night was bad. He was filibustery and spinny and gave long and largely unfollowable answers that seemed aimed at limiting the number of questions asked and running out the clock. You don’t do that when you’re fully confident. Far more seriously, he didn’t seem to be telling the truth. We need to create a new national health-care program in order to cut down on government spending? Who would believe that? Would anybody?
end snip...read the rest for yourself if you dare...
You should be afraid that you didn't see this coming....next time I might be less polite.
Meh, I just wanted to see if you would actually post one. I frankly don't care if you're polite or not.
However, the beautiful thing about that poll is how meaningless it is. The 2012 election is held in 2012. Polling comparing Obama to Palin three years before said election is utterly meaningless.
That poll also seems to indicate that Palin wouldn't even make it out of a Republican primary. Again, not like it means anything.
A column by Peggy Noonan of the notoriously right-wing Wall Street Journal opinion page has "settled the issue"? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? The issue will be settled when Congress votes on it, Einstein.
Actually, Einstein would have known when to shut his mouth.
I have a gut-feeling that whether or not the American people want Obama's health care plan, he'll find a way to make it happen. People continue to speak out against certain aspects of it. I believe that Obama will continue tweaking it until it gets to the point where the vote will go through. Then after the health care plan is a 'done deal', those revisions he made, will slowly start creeping back in to the plan. Remove one item from the current plan, and I believe that item will return at some point in the future.
IMO, Obama seems hell-bent on FORCING businesses to pay for everything. And there appears to me to be a general idea that they are 'rich and evil' because they make money. Obama will take from the rich and give to the poor. There is a HUGE problem with that idea tho.... and I will never understand why people don't 'get' this.....
If you raise taxes on businesses big or small, OR if you force (yes it will be forced) them to pay for health care for all employees, they will see that as a 'loss of profit'. And just HOW do companies make up for profit losses?
They charge HIGHER PRICES for their products and services AND eliminate job positions!
THAT MEANS , IN EFFECT, WE - ALL AMERICANS- HAVE TO PAY FOR IT IN THE FORM OF HIGHER PRICES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES, AND A HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
I'm sure some businesses will 'restructure' or optimize their operations to compensate for 'profit loss', but since the economy is already up the creek, most have already done restructuring and optimizing!
I know of a handful that are hurting so bad from the current state of the economy, that FORCING them to pay for employee's health care would put them out of business immediately.
I cannot even fathom the number of small businesses that will close their doors if Obama gets his way. Small businesses will suffer greatly.
If Obama pushes a health care plan through now, I suspect there will be an economic decline the likes of which this country has never known.
I have a gut-feeling that whether or not the American people want Obama's health care plan, he'll find a way to make it happen. People continue to speak out against certain aspects of it. I believe that Obama will continue tweaking it until it gets to the point where the vote will go through. Then after the health care plan is a 'done deal', those revisions he made, will slowly start creeping back in to the plan. Remove one item from the current plan, and I believe that item will return at some point in the future.
IMO, Obama seems hell-bent on FORCING businesses to pay for everything. And there appears to me to be a general idea that they are 'rich and evil' because they make money. Obama will take from the rich and give to the poor. There is a HUGE problem with that idea tho.... and I will never understand why people don't 'get' this.....
If you raise taxes on businesses big or small, OR if you force (yes it will be forced) them to pay for health care for all employees, they will see that as a 'loss of profit'. And just HOW do companies make up for profit losses?
They charge HIGHER PRICES for their products and services AND eliminate job positions!
THAT MEANS , IN EFFECT, WE - ALL AMERICANS- HAVE TO PAY FOR IT IN THE FORM OF HIGHER PRICES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES, AND A HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
I'm sure some businesses will 'restructure' or optimize their operations to compensate for 'profit loss', but since the economy is already up the creek, most have already done restructuring and optimizing!
I know of a handful that are hurting so bad from the current state of the economy, that FORCING them to pay for employee's health care would put them out of business immediately.
I cannot even fathom the number of small businesses that will close their doors if Obama gets his way. Small businesses will suffer greatly.
If Obama pushes a health care plan through now, I suspect there will be an economic decline the likes of which this country has never known.
Disagree.
We were one step away from a Depression when Bush left office right after he signed the stimulus. If Obama hadn't acted THAT would have been a decline the likes of which America hadn't seen.
Healthcare cost reform by having the government enter it will drive down the price of private insurance, thus putting more money into people's pockets and more back into the economy. People spend more when they know they don't have to worry about huge medical bills. When they are sick, they tend to hold onto money for a long time.
I have a gut-feeling that whether or not the American people want Obama's health care plan, he'll find a way to make it happen. People continue to speak out against certain aspects of it. I believe that Obama will continue tweaking it until it gets to the point where the vote will go through. Then after the health care plan is a 'done deal', those revisions he made, will slowly start creeping back in to the plan. Remove one item from the current plan, and I believe that item will return at some point in the future.
IMO, Obama seems hell-bent on FORCING businesses to pay for everything. And there appears to me to be a general idea that they are 'rich and evil' because they make money. Obama will take from the rich and give to the poor. There is a HUGE problem with that idea tho.... and I will never understand why people don't 'get' this.....
If you raise taxes on businesses big or small, OR if you force (yes it will be forced) them to pay for health care for all employees, they will see that as a 'loss of profit'. And just HOW do companies make up for profit losses?
They charge HIGHER PRICES for their products and services AND eliminate job positions!
THAT MEANS , IN EFFECT, WE - ALL AMERICANS- HAVE TO PAY FOR IT IN THE FORM OF HIGHER PRICES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES, AND A HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
I'm sure some businesses will 'restructure' or optimize their operations to compensate for 'profit loss', but since the economy is already up the creek, most have already done restructuring and optimizing!
I know of a handful that are hurting so bad from the current state of the economy, that FORCING them to pay for employee's health care would put them out of business immediately.
I cannot even fathom the number of small businesses that will close their doors if Obama gets his way. Small businesses will suffer greatly.
If Obama pushes a health care plan through now, I suspect there will be an economic decline the likes of which this country has never known.
Disagree.
We were one step away from a Depression when Bush left office right after he signed the stimulus. If Obama hadn't acted THAT would have been a decline the likes of which America hadn't seen.
Healthcare cost reform by having the government enter it will drive down the price of private insurance, thus putting more money into people's pockets and more back into the economy. People spend more when they know they don't have to worry about huge medical bills. When they are sick, they tend to hold onto money for a long time.
Obamacare will not do anything to drive costs down. It will drive costs up. Government programs do not lower costs -- they raise them. People spend money when the economy is growing and they feel confident about the future. Obamacare will hurt that in every way.
I have a gut-feeling that whether or not the American people want Obama's health care plan, he'll find a way to make it happen. People continue to speak out against certain aspects of it. I believe that Obama will continue tweaking it until it gets to the point where the vote will go through. Then after the health care plan is a 'done deal', those revisions he made, will slowly start creeping back in to the plan. Remove one item from the current plan, and I believe that item will return at some point in the future.
IMO, Obama seems hell-bent on FORCING businesses to pay for everything. And there appears to me to be a general idea that they are 'rich and evil' because they make money. Obama will take from the rich and give to the poor. There is a HUGE problem with that idea tho.... and I will never understand why people don't 'get' this.....
If you raise taxes on businesses big or small, OR if you force (yes it will be forced) them to pay for health care for all employees, they will see that as a 'loss of profit'. And just HOW do companies make up for profit losses?
They charge HIGHER PRICES for their products and services AND eliminate job positions!
THAT MEANS , IN EFFECT, WE - ALL AMERICANS- HAVE TO PAY FOR IT IN THE FORM OF HIGHER PRICES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES, AND A HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
I'm sure some businesses will 'restructure' or optimize their operations to compensate for 'profit loss', but since the economy is already up the creek, most have already done restructuring and optimizing!
I know of a handful that are hurting so bad from the current state of the economy, that FORCING them to pay for employee's health care would put them out of business immediately.
I cannot even fathom the number of small businesses that will close their doors if Obama gets his way. Small businesses will suffer greatly.
If Obama pushes a health care plan through now, I suspect there will be an economic decline the likes of which this country has never known.
Disagree.
We were one step away from a Depression when Bush left office right after he signed the stimulus. If Obama hadn't acted THAT would have been a decline the likes of which America hadn't seen.
Healthcare cost reform by having the government enter it will drive down the price of private insurance, thus putting more money into people's pockets and more back into the economy. People spend more when they know they don't have to worry about huge medical bills. When they are sick, they tend to hold onto money for a long time.
I'd like to ask you in all sincerity.. Do you know of ONE SINGLE thing that government involvement has actually made something cost less?
gasoline? cable? internet?
I'm reminded of a proverb... He that can be trusted with the little things will be put in charge of the great things. I'm pretty sure the contrary is equally as true... Unless you count politicians. In their case, greater failure is rewarded with more power.
I'd like to ask you in all sincerity.. Do you know of ONE SINGLE thing that government involvement has actually made something cost less? gasoline? cable? internet?
The 2004 release of transcripts of taped conversations among Enron electricity traders in the summer of 2001 revealed that company insiders not only knew they were stealing from California and other states, but gloated about it. The release of thousands of hours of tapes was a powerful indictment of the energy companies that looted California and Washington of close to $11 billion.
At a time when streets in Northern California were lit only by head lights, factories shut down and families were trapped in elevators, Enron Energy traders laughed:
"Just cut 'em off. They're so f----d. They should just bring back f-----g horses and carriages, f-----g lamps, f-----g kerosene lamps."
In another tape a trader laughed when describing his reaction when a business owner complained about high energy prices:
I just looked at him. I said, Move. (laughter) The guy was like horrified. I go, Look, dont take it the wrong way. Move. It isnt getting fixed anytime soon.
When a forest fire shut down a major power line into California, cutting down power supplies and raising prices, Enron energy traders were heard laughing and celebrating, singing burn, baby, burn.
During the winter of 2000, electricity loads were drastically lower than summer due to, among other things, the lack of need for air conditioning. The capacity for energy production in California was nearly four times what was actually used. Still, the rolling blackouts continued. Traders became very creative in finding ways to cut the supply of electricity (generally during peak usage hours or when assistance of maintenance was unavailable), such as in the following conversation at Enron (between traders Rich and Bill):
Bill: "This is gonna be a word of mouth kinda thing, tonight, when you finish your normal queue, when you get ready for tomorrow, I want you guys to get a little creative and come up with a reason to go down [referring to shutting down the turbines]. Rich: "Ok" Bill: "Is there anything you want to do over there?" Rich: "Um yeah, there is some stuff we could be doing tonight" Bill: "Thats good" Rich: "Um, we need to come down and inspect this switch on the steam turbine, um this one switch on the induction steam valve has been failing us, we need to be down to pull the switch and adjust it" Bill: "No s--t" Rich: "yeah, and our electrician has to be on shift today so that works out real good"
Regularly, phone calls were made directly to the power plants asking the supervisors to shut down during peak use hours, as in the following conversation:
Trader: If you took down the steamer [from a generating unit], how long would it take to get it back up? Supervisor: Oh, its not something you want to just be turning on and off every hour. Lets put it that way, another says. Trader: Well, why dont you just go ahead and shut her down.
Soon afterward, the following conversation took place by another two Enron traders. It appears to acknowledge that Enron executives were involved in the trading, were aware of the illegality of it, and were involved in covering it up.
Trader 3: "This guy from the Wall Street Journal calls me up a little bit ago " Trader 4: "I wouldn't do it, because first of all you'd have to tell 'em a lot of lies because if you told the truth " Trader 3: "I'd get in trouble." Trader 4: "You'd get in trouble."
Another conversation went as such:
Trader 1: Theyre f-----g taking all the money back from you guys? All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California? Trader 2: "Yeah, Grandma Millie man. But shes the one who couldnt figure out how to f-----g vote on the butterfly ballot." [Laughing from both sides] Trader 1: "Yeah, now she wants her f-----g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a-- for f-----g $250 a megawatt hour." [Harder Laughing]
In an Aug. 4, 2000, conversation, Enron trading executives John Lavorato and Tim Belden discussed a dispute involving traders who worked for Lavorato. The two Enron executives appeared to acknowledge the illegality of the trading.
Lavorato: Im just, ah f--k, Im just trying to be an honest camper, so I only go to jail once. Belden: Well, there you go. At least in only one country. (Laughs.) Lavorato: Yeah, [unknown] this isnt a joke."
Between 2000 and 2001, the combined California utilities laid off 1,300 workers, from 56,000 to 54,700, in an effort to remain solvent. San Diego had worked through the stranded asset provision and was in a position to increase prices to reflect the spot market. Small businesses were badly affected.
According to a 2007 study of Department of Energy data by Power in the Public Interest, retail electricity prices rose much more from 1999 to 2007 in states that adopted deregulation than in those that did not.[16]
Oh, my mistake. That's an example of government deregulations on private corporations making things "cheaper" for American citizens by "lowering the prices" and keeping small businesses making profits to the tune of over 11 billion in profits in about a year's time.
I like government controls on the corporate because if we didn't have them, all those things you mentioned; gasoline, cable, internet, electicity, etc would be insane.
They'd rape every man, woman and child in the U.S. blind while laughing the whole way like those traders were while they were without a conscience.
Comments
Actually, the Dow has been on the up and up and the NASDAQ had the best week since 1992. I would say things are getting better, at least in that area.
I'll bet you 100 bucks that it went up because the vote appears to have been failed.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Actually, the Dow has been on the up and up and the NASDAQ had the best week since 1992. I would say things are getting better, at least in that area.
I'll bet you 100 bucks that it went up because the lib vote appears to have been failed.
Fixed because birther votes don't fail. Your welcome.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Terrible news for Obama.
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse for democrats...LOL
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-healthcare-talks-break-down-in-anger-2009-07-24.html
House healthcare talks break down in anger
Democrats lying to democrats. Enough said.
This is not the change you're looking for, move along.
Didn't Bush' tax cuts introduce a new, even-lower, bottom tax rate? And didn't people in ALL tax brackets get a tax cut?
Cutting taxes on estates is a good thing because the government already taxed those things the first time. Cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains may affect the wealthiest people more than others, but there are a whole lot of "working poor" people out there who also have dividends and capital gains and do benefit from a tax cut on them. And, besides, it's their money anyway, not the government's.
For all the countless times government has shown itself to mismanage and waste taxpayer money, I don't understand why any American would wish higher taxes on anybody, and certainly not higher taxes that affect everyone across the board. *cough* Cap and Trade *cough*.
Regardless of what income bracket a person is in, it's not the government's money. It's their money.
Didn't Bush' tax cuts introduce a new, even-lower, bottom tax rate? And didn't people in ALL tax brackets get a tax cut?
Cutting taxes on estates is a good thing because the government already taxed those things the first time. Cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains may affect the wealthiest people more than others, but there are a whole lot of "working poor" people out there who also have dividends and capital gains and do benefit from a tax cut on them. And, besides, it's their money anyway, not the government's.
For all the countless times government has shown itself to mismanage and waste taxpayer money, I don't understand why any American would wish higher taxes on anybody, and certainly not higher taxes that affect everyone across the board. *cough* Cap and Trade *cough*.
Regardless of what income bracket a person is in, it's not the government's money. It's their money.
Welcome to the good fight! Be warned, it's bloody in here lol
This is NOT personal. Where are you obtaining your "tax information"? I honestly want names. You think I am being facetious, perhaps fussy or even rude, but I am not. What is the source of this? I do not even hear these claims --""a whole lot of 'working poor' people out there who also have dividends and capital gains"-- on television . . . only the internet. I honestly NEED a source, because I want to have fun ridiculing it. Do me a favor, provide a source. If YOU are the source, can you do anything to convince me that the "working poor" ("a whole lot") are getting benefiting from Bush's tax policies? Please.
"Cutting taxes on estates would be a good thing." It is a bad thing because it concentrates, and hides, wealth. But, YOU tell me, because it is YOUR claim, that it is a "good thing." YOU WON. Yes. You won. Celebrate your "good thing." It is phased-out totally in 2010. But, do not celebrate that much until you explain why. I am sincerely, and I apologize if I seem rude, interested in some sources. Something behind, something substantive, this talk of "good things" and "working poor" benefiting from Bush's tax policies.
Show me . . . the money.
What, you mean something like this:
www.forbes.com/2008/01/29/bush-tax-children-biz-wash-cz_ae_0130beltway.html
Beginning Jan. 1, 2008, taxpayers whose income is low enough to keep them in the 10% or 15% ordinary income tax bracket, will pay a 0% tax rate on gains from the sale of stocks, funds and some other assets (such as a vacation home) they've held a year or more.
So who can get this freebie? Couples with taxable income--that's income after all exemptions and deductions--of up to $65,100 for 2008 and singles with up to $32,550 in taxable income will get the full benefit of the 0% rate.
Or maybe more like this:
www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2007-06-15-mym-capital-gains_N.htm
The zero-percent capital gains rate will be limited to individuals in the 10% and 15% tax brackets. Those folks now pay 5% on long-term capital gains.
In 2007, a married couple who file jointly must have taxable income of no more than $63,700 to qualify for the bottom two tax brackets; for a single filer, the cutoff is $31,850."
Or maybe more like this:
www.ncpa.org/pub/st307
"2005 Internal Revenue Service data indicate that 47 percent of all returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000 [see Figure VIII]. Seventy-nine percent of all returns reporting capital gains were for households with incomes below $100,000 and half had incomes below $50,000.22 Moreover, these tax return data overstate the income status of those with capital gains, since these sales of assets are often irregular or even once-in-a-lifetime events. For example, when someone sells a home or ranch, the income from the sale may be $1 million, but the seller may have never earned more than $50,000 in his working life. He appears “rich” in the income statistics because of the cash from the one-time sale."
The Treasury Department recently provided a concise summary of the 2003 capital gains cut experience:
The lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains lower the cost of equity capital and reduce the tax biases against dividend payment, equity finance and investment in the corporate sector. All of these policies increase incentives to work, save and invest by reducing the distorting effects of taxes. Capital investment and labor productivity will thus be higher, which means higher output and living standards in the long run.31
The Treasury’s analysis is by no means a modern revelation. In 1963 President John F. Kennedy clearly understood the fundamental importance of capital investment’s role in the economy:
The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy."
That page also mentions Clinton reaching an agreement in 1997 to cut capital gains from 28% to 20%. I wonder if that helped anybody.
Maybe you'd like a different source. My source is probably your neighbor. Or maybe even you.
You don't know any low-income people who have company stock at the place they've worked at for 20 years?
I asked if Bush's cuts created a new, bottom bracket. It looks like that did indeed happen; creating a new 10% bracket that didn't exist before. That alone means those people paid less than they did before. If you can provide a source that shows Bush didn't cut taxes for everyone who pays federal income taxes, please do so.
Even just tax cuts for "the rich" help poor people because "rich people" are the ones who spread the money around and create jobs. I don't have a source for it, but I'm pretty sure there aren't a lot of workers employed by homeless people in this country.
Regardless of all of that, taxes are government confiscating your money. It's government thinking it knows how to better spend your money than you do. And, again, when it comes down to it, it's not the government's money. It's yours. Let's say this or that person got a tax break when you didn't. You shouldn't be mad they got a tax break. You should be mad you didn't get yours.
Wow D, he provided several sources, how you gonna refute them all?
I mean really, you did say you were looking forward to the ridicule. lol
Medicare costs have gone up considerably over the last decade and currently consumes as much of the budget as the military, its predicted to grow even further. Its the first attempt by the government to run a limited healthcare system and its been a dismal failure. The costs of medicare consume 80% more money then the cost of insuring every US citizen after there is reform to the Medical and Insurance fields. You say 97% of medicare goes to paying for care. Yet a huge chunk of people using medicare don't get the money for the care leaving the hospital or medical practitioner to foot the bill. Its being lost somewhere because their is a gigantic pool of money their to cover the limited amount of americans it covers, and could even add in a huge level of luxury. Yet it isn't their, that isn't happening. Their is obvious fraud and corruption in the Medicare program.
Seriously how can you trust the government, especially the president who are heavily financed by the insurance field? Its 1500 pages of earmarks. The budget for his plan is grossly overpriced. The plan itself makes no serious attempts to reform all the things wrong in the medical field. I would rather have a CEO who makes 1.6 billion in profits then a fed who eats a trillion with nothing of consequence happening.
Didn't you hear what they said?
It's only 2% of the funds for administration, not 3% ...lol...
This argument is OVER. DONE. and I don't hear any mouths left running.
Let the record show their defeat.
I don't see any defeat -- I see seven pages of legitimate discussion, Zindahas chiming in late with a completely made-up number, and you spouting off your dittohead bullshit. Nothing new here.
You add absolutely nothing of substance to any discussion, ever. Just another birther right-wing idiot.
I rest my case.
I rest my case.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/2012_match_ups_obama_romney_tied_at_45_obama_48_palin_42
You should be afraid that you didn't see this coming....next time I might be less polite.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25415.html
Here is more right wing ditto head shit as the previous poster suggests...
CBO deals new blow to health plan
For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.
A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation
But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.
"In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized ... but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.
On his White House blog, Orszag – who served as CBO director in 2007 and 2008 – downplayed the office's small probable savings number in favor of the proposal's more speculative long-term benefits.
"The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. ... Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term," Orszag wrote. "In other words, in the terminology of our belt-and-suspenders approach to a fiscally responsible health reform, the IMAC is a game changer not a scoreable offset."
But scoreable offsets are the immediate savings that fiscally conservative Blue Dogs and other Democratic moderates have been pushing for precisely because they will help offset the bill's cost.
The proposal's meager savings are a blow to Democrats working furiously to bring down costs in order to win support from Blue Dogs, who have threatened to vote against the bill without significant changes. The proposal was heralded as a breakthrough on Tuesday after Blue Dogs and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman emerged from the White House with agreement on giving the independent panel, rather than Congress, the ability to rein in Medicare spending.
Republicans pounced on CBO's analysis as another demonstration that Democratic proposals don't control costs.
"The President said that rising health care costs are an imminent threat to our economy and that any reform must reduce these long-term costs. But CBO has made clear once again that the Democrats' bills in Congress aren't reducing costs and in fact could just make the problem worse," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
Saturday's CBO analysis caps a tough week of blown deadlines, partisan bickering and fierce intra-party fighting among Democrats. On Friday, the tension between the Blue Dogs and Waxman exploded when Waxman threatened to bypass his committee and bring the reform bill straight to the House floor without a vote. The move infuriated Blue Dogs who have used their crucial committee votes to leverage changes to the bill.
But by late Friday, Waxman said their colleagues had pulled the two groups "back from the brink" and back to the negotiating table.
Still, Hoyer said there was little chance that that the House would pass a health reform legislation before Friday when lawmakers are expected to leave Washington for summer recess.
House Republican Leader John Boehner's office said that it's time to hit the legislation's reset button.
"This letter underscores the enormous challenges that Democrats face trying to pay for their massive and costly government takeover of health care. In their rush to pass a bill, Democrats continue to ignore the stark economic reality facing our nation," said Boehner spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier. "Let's scrap the current proposal and come together in a meaningful way to reform health care in America by reducing cost, expanding access and at a price tag we can afford."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306533556532364.html
LMAO!!!!
This is shameful
Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare
It turns out the president misjudged the nation’s mood.
This is big, what’s happening. President Obama appears to have misstepped on a major initiative and defining issue. He has misjudged the nation’s mood, which itself is news: He rose from nothing to everything with the help of his fine-tuned antennae. Resistance to the Democratic health-care plans is in the air, showing up more now on YouTube than in the polls, but it will be in the polls soon enough. The president, in short, may be facing a real loss. This will be interesting in a number of ways and for a number of reasons, among them that we’ve never seen him publicly defeated before, because he hasn’t been. So we may be entering new territory, with new struggles shaped by new dynamics.
His news conference the other night was bad. He was filibustery and spinny and gave long and largely unfollowable answers that seemed aimed at limiting the number of questions asked and running out the clock. You don’t do that when you’re fully confident. Far more seriously, he didn’t seem to be telling the truth. We need to create a new national health-care program in order to cut down on government spending? Who would believe that? Would anybody?
end snip...read the rest for yourself if you dare...
LIKE I SAID.....this argument has been settled.
I rest my case.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/2012_match_ups_obama_romney_tied_at_45_obama_48_palin_42
You should be afraid that you didn't see this coming....next time I might be less polite.
Meh, I just wanted to see if you would actually post one. I frankly don't care if you're polite or not.
However, the beautiful thing about that poll is how meaningless it is. The 2012 election is held in 2012. Polling comparing Obama to Palin three years before said election is utterly meaningless.
That poll also seems to indicate that Palin wouldn't even make it out of a Republican primary. Again, not like it means anything.
A column by Peggy Noonan of the notoriously right-wing Wall Street Journal opinion page has "settled the issue"? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
The issue will be settled when Congress votes on it, Einstein.
Actually, Einstein would have known when to shut his mouth.
I have a gut-feeling that whether or not the American people want Obama's health care plan, he'll find a way to make it happen. People continue to speak out against certain aspects of it. I believe that Obama will continue tweaking it until it gets to the point where the vote will go through. Then after the health care plan is a 'done deal', those revisions he made, will slowly start creeping back in to the plan. Remove one item from the current plan, and I believe that item will return at some point in the future.
IMO, Obama seems hell-bent on FORCING businesses to pay for everything. And there appears to me to be a general idea that they are 'rich and evil' because they make money. Obama will take from the rich and give to the poor. There is a HUGE problem with that idea tho.... and I will never understand why people don't 'get' this.....
If you raise taxes on businesses big or small, OR if you force (yes it will be forced) them to pay for health care for all employees, they will see that as a 'loss of profit'. And just HOW do companies make up for profit losses?
They charge HIGHER PRICES for their products and services AND eliminate job positions!
THAT MEANS , IN EFFECT, WE - ALL AMERICANS- HAVE TO PAY FOR IT IN THE FORM OF HIGHER PRICES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES, AND A HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
I'm sure some businesses will 'restructure' or optimize their operations to compensate for 'profit loss', but since the economy is already up the creek, most have already done restructuring and optimizing!
I know of a handful that are hurting so bad from the current state of the economy, that FORCING them to pay for employee's health care would put them out of business immediately.
I cannot even fathom the number of small businesses that will close their doors if Obama gets his way. Small businesses will suffer greatly.
If Obama pushes a health care plan through now, I suspect there will be an economic decline the likes of which this country has never known.
Disagree.
We were one step away from a Depression when Bush left office right after he signed the stimulus. If Obama hadn't acted THAT would have been a decline the likes of which America hadn't seen.
Healthcare cost reform by having the government enter it will drive down the price of private insurance, thus putting more money into people's pockets and more back into the economy. People spend more when they know they don't have to worry about huge medical bills. When they are sick, they tend to hold onto money for a long time.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Disagree.
We were one step away from a Depression when Bush left office right after he signed the stimulus. If Obama hadn't acted THAT would have been a decline the likes of which America hadn't seen.
Healthcare cost reform by having the government enter it will drive down the price of private insurance, thus putting more money into people's pockets and more back into the economy. People spend more when they know they don't have to worry about huge medical bills. When they are sick, they tend to hold onto money for a long time.
Obamacare will not do anything to drive costs down. It will drive costs up. Government programs do not lower costs -- they raise them. People spend money when the economy is growing and they feel confident about the future. Obamacare will hurt that in every way.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Disagree.
We were one step away from a Depression when Bush left office right after he signed the stimulus. If Obama hadn't acted THAT would have been a decline the likes of which America hadn't seen.
Healthcare cost reform by having the government enter it will drive down the price of private insurance, thus putting more money into people's pockets and more back into the economy. People spend more when they know they don't have to worry about huge medical bills. When they are sick, they tend to hold onto money for a long time.
I'd like to ask you in all sincerity.. Do you know of ONE SINGLE thing that government involvement has actually made something cost less?
gasoline? cable? internet?
I'm reminded of a proverb... He that can be trusted with the little things will be put in charge of the great things. I'm pretty sure the contrary is equally as true... Unless you count politicians. In their case, greater failure is rewarded with more power.
Glad you asked that. Yes, yes I do.
California electricity crisis
Oh, my mistake. That's an example of government deregulations on private corporations making things "cheaper" for American citizens by "lowering the prices" and keeping small businesses making profits to the tune of over 11 billion in profits in about a year's time.
I like government controls on the corporate because if we didn't have them, all those things you mentioned; gasoline, cable, internet, electicity, etc would be insane.
They'd rape every man, woman and child in the U.S. blind while laughing the whole way like those traders were while they were without a conscience.
"TO MICHAEL!"