Should Obama Extend Obama's Tax Cuts ?

He is flip flopping on raising income and inheritance taxes so the government can spend more and more.

I say he won't. Why do I say that?
Because Obama did not give any tax cuts to anyone.
[[except for his car company, Government Motors) with a $45 BILLION tax credit in coming years. A tax-loss carry-forwards and other provisions

General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion. tax-loss carry-forwards and other provisions
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...149103202.html

What the heck???!?!?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdogslim

He is flip flopping on raising income and inheritance taxes so the government can spend more and more.

I say he won't. Why do I say that?
Because Obama did not give any tax cuts to anyone.
[[except for his car company, Government Motors) with a $45 BILLION tax credit in coming years. A tax-loss carry-forwards and other provisions

General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion. tax-loss carry-forwards and other provisions
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...149103202.html

---

See the benefits of having your Union vote as a block for Obama in 2008?
$$

I am glad for whatever the reasons why GM was not allowed to crash...now they can pay back the debts and create jobs... tax breaks as long as production stays here ..good... I would like see cuts in taxes for middle class. I would like to see taxes for corporations who send jobs over seas... I would like to see less loop holes for the rich..especially those whose wealth is tied to foriegn manufactoring but I support a tax incentive for business to create jobs here.

Obama doesn't have the balls to extend his tax cuts. He'll be in the apologizing mode for the next two years.

Either apologizing or lecturing mode [[his preferred style).... Taxes are going up whatever he says or 'promises'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

Obama doesn't have the balls to extend his tax cuts. He'll be in the apologizing mode for the next two years.

---

Lots of luck on the middle class catching any break! This house of cards is BUILT ON THEIR BACKS!! They are the shrinking tax bearing the weight, especially the 'upper' middle class. You know, the perceived er-umm 'rich' folk....:rolleyes:.... The upper, upper rich elite [[DEMOCRAT and REPUB) will remain primarily unaffected by whatever policy dictated by our grand leaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gibran

I am glad for whatever the reasons why GM was not allowed to crash...now they can pay back the debts and create jobs... tax breaks as long as production stays here ..good... I would like see cuts in taxes for middle class. I would like to see taxes for corporations who send jobs over seas... I would like to see less loop holes for the rich..especially those whose wealth is tied to foriegn manufactoring but I support a tax incentive for business to create jobs here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdogslim

General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion.

---

Just by saving GM and Chrysler, the president took a bold step and saved thousands, perhaps half a million jobs. Now, he should stand up and take credit for stopping the unemployment rate from skyrocketing even further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Just by saving GM and Chrysler, the president took a bold step and saved thousands, perhaps half a million jobs. Now, he should stand up and take credit for stopping the unemployment rate from skyrocketing even further.

---

It is difficult to say exactly what would have happened without bailouts. To prove something that didn't happen would have happened because a bailout is a bit like saying I saved the corn crop because I prayed for rain. If I hadn't prayed for rain, the crops would be ruined. It is difficult to prove otherwise. Consumers might also have purchased more Fords or other interests, such as Fiat, might have stepped up and purchased Chrysler and empty GM factories otherwise. Buying more Fords would have increased employment at Ford. I can't prove that either, but it makes as much sense as assuming troubles at GM would result in American consumers would stop buying cars. To extend you logic, should the US government have bailed out Hudson and American Motors too? I have an Uncle who lost all of his seniority at Hudson Motors, yet the world rolls on.

We do know though that officially unemployment has risen from 5.7% to 9.6% in the two years in which Obama has been President. We also know that the up to $45B in GM tax breaks will be offset with up to $45B in some other form of government spending. We don't know if that money would otherwise have gone to health care, military needs, high speed rail projects, etc. but we do know that something else in the budget will have to take a corresponding hit resulting in, at best, a pyhrric victory for the administration.

Let's see now
- Obama did not lower taxes to anyone. He might raise taxes to everyone, because most ALL taxes to the producers are passed on to consumers.
- Obama not only did NOT save 1 job, OBAMA LOST 4.3 MILLION JOBS since taking office. unemployment rate over doubled since taking office.

- What would have happened if Obama did what Reagan would have done?
The economy would be taking off now, not the FED printing 500 Billion in
inflationary and currency lowering funny money to buy back bonds.

GM and Chrysler SHOULD have gone bankrupt, the resulting entity would be stronger, leaner and more competitive and not have the taxpayers subsidize
the government deciding what kind of car should be built and what kind of transportation should be taken to a meeting.

How about Obama's 3,000 entourage to the far east and billions spent on it
while you in Detroit are struggling to fill your gas tank and refrigerator?

Hmmmn, it can be argued that the government WANTS control over what kind of car you drive... after all the masses should be happy to drive an approved mini car or do mass transit to and from their employment bee-hives [[those so fortunate to have a hive). In the mean time the elite and replete [[repubs AND DEMS) will always 'exempt' themselves from prescribed policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdogslim

GM and Chrysler SHOULD have gone bankrupt, the resulting entity would be stronger, leaner and more competitive and not have the taxpayers subsidize the government deciding what kind of car should be built and what kind of transportation should be taken to a meeting...

---

That's about it, you get the picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

It is difficult to say exactly what would have happened without bailouts. To prove something that didn't happen would have happened because a bailout is a bit like saying I saved the corn crop because I prayed for rain. If I hadn't prayed for rain, the crops would be ruined.

---

Apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

It is difficult to prove otherwise. Consumers might also have purchased more Fords or other interests, such as Fiat, might have stepped up and purchased Chrysler and empty GM factories otherwise. Buying more Fords would have increased employment at Ford.

---

Do you really believe that if GM and Chrysler had closed shop that Ford and the foreign auto makers would have provided jobs for all the displaced workers? Not to mention, how many auto suppliers would have gone belly up as a result of less auto companies.

Even the president's worst critics have to give him credit for providing loans to the automakers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Apples and oranges.



Do you really believe that if GM and Chrysler had closed shop that Ford and the foreign auto makers would have provided jobs for all the displaced workers? Not to mention, how many auto suppliers would have gone belly up as a result of less auto companies.

Even the president's worst critics have to give him credit for providing loans to the automakers.

---

LOANS that are turning a PROFIT for the taxpayers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

LOANS that are turning a PROFIT for the taxpayers.

---

Shh, don't tell the cons, they can't handle the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

LOANS that are turning a PROFIT for the taxpayers.

---

My profit sharing check must have got lost in the mail.

How DARE the government tell General Motors what to do!!!

Quote:

---

GM: Best quarter in 11 years

By Chris Isidore, senior writer
November 10, 2010: 9:48 AM ET

NEW YORK [[CNNMoney) -- General Motors reported its best quarter since 1999 Wednesday, setting the stage the automaker to begin selling shares to the public once again.

GM reported it earned $1.96 billion in the quarter, compared to a loss a year earlier when it was still in the process of emerging from bankruptcy. It's the third straight quarter that the automaker has reported a profit.

---

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/10/news...cnn=yes&hpt=T2

Quote:

---

Detroitej72: Apples and oranges.

---

Actually, just different belief systems.

Quote:

---

Do you really believe that if GM and Chrysler had closed shop that Ford and the foreign auto makers would have provided jobs for all the displaced workers? Not to mention, how many auto suppliers would have gone belly up as a result of less auto companies.

Even the president's worst critics have to give him credit for providing loans to the automakers.

---

As you know, Ford is not a foreign company. I don't know if Ford would have provided jobs for laid off GM and Chrysler workers as Ford sales rose. It would depend a lot on what was written in UAW contracts. Obama's largesse did not provide "jobs for all the displaced workers" either. The auto parts suppliers volume of business has more to do with how many cars are produced in this country and at what percentage of domestic content rather than how many corporate headquarters are still located here. I think that Fiat is, in fact, providing some jobs to laid off Chrysler workers as it became a part owner of Chrysler. Like I said, whatever taxpayer aid was provided to GM and Chrysler is now unavailable for health care, building infrastructure, or whatever else the federal government would otherwise spend money on.

Extending your logic, how would our country be a better place if the federal government had stepped in to save Hudson and American Motors?

The tax cut is a dumb idea on a good day. How about quit spending fucking money the gov't doesn't have and slash and burn the rest of the budget [[it has to happen sometime and time is running out)...then realign the priorities the USA electorate needs. it is the only way to save what little there is left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Like I said, whatever taxpayer aid was provided to GM and Chrysler is now unavailable for health care, building infrastructure, or whatever else the federal government would otherwise spend money on.?

---

I guess you haven't heard that GM has been paying back the loans, with interest, earlier than expected. So the government hasn't lost any money there. In fact, both GM and Chrysler plan to start selling stock to the public in the next 12 months.

I guess your hatred of the president runs so deep, that you can't give the president credit where credit is due.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Extending your logic, how would our country be a better place if the federal government had stepped in to save Hudson and American Motors?

---

Seeing as how both of those companies were bought out/merged with another, once again, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Quote:

---

Detroitej72" "I guess you haven't heard that GM has been paying back the loans, with interest, earlier than expected. So the government hasn't lost any money there. In fact, both GM and Chrysler plan to start selling stock to the public in the next 12 months.

I guess your hatred of the president runs so deep, that you can't give the president credit where credit is due."

---

The dealership where I bought my my previous Chevy S-10 was shut down by the government. All the mechanics and everyone else working there had to scramble for other jobs. The fact remains, that every dollar the government sunk into GM and Chrysler is money the government cannot spend on health care, military needs, infrastructure, or anything else. The measure of success is what it did for GM and Chrysler minus subsequent potential sales losses by Ford and the value of what else could have been done with money sunk into GM.

I actually like the President a bit. He is witty and can speak in whole sentences. I don't like the way he has maintained and sometimes accelerated much of what Bush did wrong. He's an ok guy but a poor President.

Quote:

---

Seeing as how both of those companies were bought out/merged with another, once again, you are comparing apples to oranges.

---

I see what you mean. Fiat has taken over 35% of Chrysler and hopes to take over another 20% if the relationship works out. When Hudson and American Motors went out of business it didn't cost taxpayers much [[apples). When Obama pumped huge amounts of taxpayer money into Chrysler, it merged with foreign company. [[oranges)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

I guess you haven't heard that GM has been paying back the loans, with interest, earlier than expected. So the government hasn't lost any money there. In fact, both GM and Chrysler plan to start selling stock to the public in the next 12 months.

---

Yes, GM did repay about $6.5 billion to the Feds for a loan, but where did that money come from? It came from unused TARP funds held in escrow, not from earnings.

The Feds [[i.e., all of us) still have about $60 billion invested in GM. The Feds hope to recover that through the upcoming IPO and later sales of the stock. Indications now, however, are that the IPO price setting would result in a value of about $50 billion for the Feds' stock [[the IPO will reduce the Fed's ownership from 61% to 43%). The real value of GM won't be known until the stock trades for some time.

This guy is just making up crap!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdogslim

Let's see now
- Obama did not lower taxes to anyone. He might raise taxes to everyone, because most ALL taxes to the producers are passed on to consumers.
- Obama not only did NOT save 1 job, OBAMA LOST 4.3 MILLION JOBS since taking office. unemployment rate over doubled since taking office.

- What would have happened if Obama did what Reagan would have done?
The economy would be taking off now, not the FED printing 500 Billion in
inflationary and currency lowering funny money to buy back bonds.

GM and Chrysler SHOULD have gone bankrupt, the resulting entity would be stronger, leaner and more competitive and not have the taxpayers subsidize
the government deciding what kind of car should be built and what kind of transportation should be taken to a meeting.

How about Obama's 3,000 entourage to the far east and billions spent on it
while you in Detroit are struggling to fill your gas tank and refrigerator?

---

Bailout loans are turning a profit? Why don't they offer me one? The banks sure as f*#k won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

When Hudson and American Motors went out of business it didn't cost taxpayers much [[apples). When Obama pumped huge amounts of taxpayer money into Chrysler, it merged with foreign company. [[oranges)

---

Quick history lesion, free of charge!

AMC was bought outright, by the Chrysler Corporation, and had never gone out of business. I guess your right wing source's failed to teach you that.

The Hudson Motor Car Company merged with Nash-Kelvinator Corporation to form American Motors Corporation, later bought out by Chrysler.

When Chrysler was given a government loan in the late 70's, it was saved from collapsing, and re-payed the loans back earlier than expected, with interest[[thus giving the government a hefty return on investment).

Now, GM and Chrysler are poised to do the same, while preserving thousands of jobs, and all cons do is whine because the conservative media tells them to!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

Bailout loans are turning a profit? Why don't they offer me one? The banks sure as f*#k won't.

---

You can thank the cons, who control the banks and big business, as well as their tools in congress for that.

Wall Street, and the ruling oligarchy control the world's wealth, and periodically give the peasants some scraps to make them feel as if they are getting something.

That is what gets the sheep to the polls every few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Quick history lesion, free of charge!

AMC was bought outright, by the Chrysler Corporation, and had never gone out of business. I guess your right wing source's failed to teach you that.

The Hudson Motor Car Company merged with Nash-Kelvinator Corporation to form American Motors Corporation, later bought out by Chrysler.

When Chrysler was given a government loan in the late 70's, it was saved from collapsing, and re-payed the loans back earlier than expected, with interest[[thus giving the government a hefty return on investment).

Now, GM and Chrysler are poised to do the same, while preserving thousands of jobs, and all cons do is whine because the conservative media tells them to!

---

You are making my point that things often work out without federal giveaways to foreign countries. The federal government didn't do much to rescue Hudson and American Motors. These failing companies, save AMC's Jeep division, went out of business and their useful parts were taken over by private buyers. The recent Chrysler and GM interventions by the federal government also resulted in Fiat taking a 35% stake in Chrysler and a Chinese government owned company expected to take a 1% stake in GM. The Fiat involvement with Chrysler might be increased to a 55% foreign ownership of Chrysler. The Chrysler deal is on a par with Cash for Clunkers for using US taxpayer money for the benefit of foreign companies.

my 'right wing sources' citing change

Fiat Acquires 35% Stake in Chrysler [[NY Times)

GM sold it's Saginaw based steering division to a Chinese government owned company. Another Chinese company is buying part of Delphi.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...012417524.html Chinese

Company May Buy Stake in GM - truthdig

Quote:

---

You can thank the cons, who control the banks and big business, as well as their tools in congress for that.

Wall Street, and the ruling oligarchy control the world's wealth, and periodically give the peasants some scraps to make them feel as if they are getting something.

---

It would probably be more correct to say that the ruling oligarchy control the leaderships of both parties. Obama and McCain both left the campaign trail to lobby their peers to support Bush's Wall Street bailout. Last Christmas Eve, President Obama , not a con, transferred his banker friends' debt to US taxpayers by executive order; not that Bush wouldn't have done the same.

Well stated... the difference between the dems and repubs in terms of behavior and policy making is often very superficial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

It would probably be more correct to say that the ruling oligarchy control the leaderships of both parties. Obama and McCain both left the campaign trail to lobby their peers to support Bush's Wall Street bailout. Last Christmas Eve, President Obama , not a con, transferred his banker friends' debt to US taxpayers by executive order; not that Bush wouldn't have done the same.

---

Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength

So Obama wants to raise everyone's taxes [[because the RICH will pass on costs)
the RICH [[a business or person that grosses over 250,000) won't hire as many people in this derpression the US is in.

Wall Street bankers are the largest beneficiaries of Obama's handouts and Obama's cronies took over some of the banks with OUR tax money.

The problem is spending is out of control, and Obama is addicted to spending others money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Just by saving GM and Chrysler, the president took a bold step and saved thousands, perhaps half a million jobs. Now, he should stand up and take credit for stopping the unemployment rate from skyrocketing even further.

---

Give me a break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

If blowing a massive hole in the budget to give a handout to rich people doesn't count as out-of-control spending, then I don't know what does.

---

A handout to rich people. How does cutting a companies or an individuals taxes count as a handout? It's their money to begin with, not the governments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdogslim

So Obama wants to raise everyone's taxes [[because the RICH will pass on costs)
the RICH [[a business or person that grosses over 250,000) won't hire as many people in this derpression the US is in..

---

I know you don't care for our president and I get that, but at least get your facts straight otherwise one might think you are trying to re-write history. First he doesn't want to raise everyones taxes. There are plenty of people who make more than 250 k[[trust fund babies for one) who are not capable of passing their costs to the middle class. That is a real reach of an assumption you are making. High marginal tax rates acts as an incentive for companies to re-invest in their businesses rather than take that money out and get taxed on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdogslim

Wall Street bankers are the largest beneficiaries of Obama's handouts and Obama's cronies took over some of the banks with OUR tax money..

---

I think the handouts to the wall street bankers were the Bush handouts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdogslim

The problem is spending is out of control, and Obama is addicted to spending others money.

---

The real problem is our economy is broken thru decades of policies that negatively affect demand

If you want to say Obama is addicted to spending others money, how about saying Bush spent like he had a giant Visa card yet when the bills came due there was no money [[ two wars, NCLB among others)

"Yes", he said, "all of the stimulus was a waste of money and did not work. Look at the unemployment rate!"
"Yes", he said, "We must keep the Bush tax cuts, to improve the economy."
"How does the unemployment rate under the tax cuts differ from that of the rate under the stimulus?", I asked.
He shook his head, and walked away.

Quote:

---

gdog: Obama not only did NOT save 1 job, .

---

Your source?

Quote:

---

firstandten: If you want to say Obama is addicted to spending others money, how about saying Bush spent like he had a giant Visa card yet when the bills came due there was no money [[ two wars, NCLB among others)

---

W was just following Grover Norquist's advice for destroying gov. Norquist - the great anarchist. lol

Quote:

---

oladub: whatever taxpayer aid was provided to GM and Chrysler is now unavailable for health care, building infrastructure, or whatever else the federal government would otherwise spend money on.

---

The same could be said for the billions spent on W's war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthiest top 1%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxx

oladub: whatever taxpayer aid was provided to GM and Chrysler is now unavailable for health care, building infrastructure, or whatever else the federal government would otherwise spend money on.

The same could be said for the billions spent on W's war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthiest top 1%.

---

True. The same could also be said for the ongoing war and bush tax cuts which are still in effect after two years of Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency. The point remains that the same money cannot be spent on two things. Announcing that money spent helping bankers, GM, wars or whatever has improved those entities is a statement that those things were the spending priority since that same taxpayer money, borrowed Chinese money, or the Fed's helpful printing press money could have alternatively been used for something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Announcing that money spent helping bankers, GM, wars or whatever has improved those entities is a statement that those things were the spending priority ....

---

Saving the economy was the priority, something which the Republicans didn't appear to be concerned about. Neocons are the apostles of Grover Norquist who believes in destroying gov.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxx

Saving the economy was the priority, something which the Republicans didn't appear to be concerned about. Neocons are the apostles of Grover Norquist who believes in destroying gov.

---

Saving the economy? Since your Savior in Chief came to power unemployment has risen from 5.5% to 9.6%. That is a 68% increase in official unemployment. Foreclosures continue to climb, retirees and others who depend on savings account interest are out of luck, inflation is increasing, war spending goes on, jobs keep leaving the country, my health insurance costs increased, the dollar has lost 10% of it's spending power internationally since July, and the trillion$ of additional national debt have indebted and dashed our childrens' futures. I'm not saying that your Savior in Chief isn't trying but I'm not enough of a masochist to say,' thank you master, things are better now.' If that is 'saving the economy', I wish He wouldn't try so hard. Harding did much better turning a worse economy around in 1921 by doing almost nothing which succeeded in getting debts liquidated. After two years, unemployment went from 11.1% to 3.8% under Harding compared with going from 5.7% to 9.6% under Obama. Under Obama, the debts are yet to be liquidated. He only shifted them to taxpayers.
http://thetruthorthefight.files.word...pg?w=400&h=301
Obamaworld: Nuns get groped while the Federal Reserve is protected from transparency.

You can't be so naive as to believe that we can just turn off a war we've started without any concern for the outcome. Or that the U.S. economy, which was sliding into depression according to Hank Paulson and which had undergone an enormous structural change with the loss of manufacturing , could just be turned around in a couple years. Here's our unemployment rate history:
http://www.data360.org/graph_group.a...h_Group_Id=402

There are 15 million unemployed and 50 million without health insurance, but the Republicans do't think health care is a big issue. They want to return us to the system during W's admin. when premiums were growing and people who had managed to continue paying the insurance crooks were getting shafted when they got sick. Republican family values: My family is doing fine. Screw everyone else's.

maxx:

Quote:

---

"You can't be so naive as to believe that we can just turn off a war we've started without any concern for the outcome. Or that the U.S. economy, which was sliding into depression according to Hank Paulson and which had undergone an enormous structural change with the loss of manufacturing , could just be turned around in a couple years. Here's our unemployment rate history:
http://www.data360.org/graph_group.a...h_Group_Id=402"

---

I provided one example which you must have missed. I did go through your data. Unemployment went down an average of 46% 24 months after each peak. The recent peak was October 2009 under Obama. Two years are not up from that peak but if unemployment doesn't get down to 5.5% by October, 2011, then the Obama recovery hasn't equaled average recoveries. So far, unemployment has gone from 5.7% when Bush left office to 9.6% last month. Also, the Obama Administration told us that if it didn't get it's porkulus package, unemployment would exceed 8.5%. System failure.

Quote:

---

There are 15 million unemployed and 50 million without health insurance, but the Republicans do't think health care is a big issue. They want to return us to the system during W's admin. when premiums were growing and people who had managed to continue paying the insurance crooks were getting shafted when they got sick. Republican family values: My family is doing fine. Screw everyone else's

---

Premiums continue to grow. You are contradicting your President who said that there were 30M without insurance but maybe he wasn't counting illegal aliens. Have your state institute tort reform and/or offer a single payer plan if you want affordable health care for individuals and society. Democrat family values: "Families" are what ever we choose to define them. 51% can always mug 49%.

President Obama should not extend the Bush entitlement tax cuts to those making over $250,000 period. [[Paris Hiton, Sara Palin, Britney Spears)

We have not seen any investment by these out of touch millionaires. They are part of the ruling oligarchy who have benefited from America's ignorance since the cuts have been enacted.

Continue the fair tax cuts for most folks making less than a quarter million, and the nation will reap the benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

President Obama should not extend the Bush entitlement tax cuts to those making over $250,000 period. [[Paris Hiton, Sara Palin, Britney Spears)

We have not seen any investment by these out of touch millionaires. They are part of the ruling oligarchy who have benefited from America's ignorance since the cuts have been enacted.

Continue the fair tax cuts for most folks making less than a quarter million, and the nation will reap the benefits.

---

President Kennedy reduced income taxes by the same percentage of GDP as Bush. However, Kennedy's tax cuts were focused on the middle class instead of the rich as Bush's are. Would you support the tax cuts if they were refocused on the middle class as Kennedy's were?

caveats:
-Kennedy balanced the budget too; quite a guy! No other President has accomplished that since the great Calvin Coolidge.
-Even if the income tax cuts were refocused on the middle class, we would still have a huge budget shortfall.
-Bush's tax cuts on the rich have also been Obama's tax cuts for the rich for the last two years.

Quote:

---

oladub:... if unemployment doesn't get down to 5.5% by October, 2011, then the Obama recovery hasn't equaled average recoveries.

---

What have just been through was not an average recession.

Quote:

---

Have your state institute tort reform and/or offer a single payer plan if you want affordable health care for individuals and society.

---

Michigan is not in any financial condition to go it alone with single payer. And the bigger the group, the less everyone pays. What do the neocons fear? That the for-profit health insurance companies, which offer nothing to most of their customers today except sky-high premiums and admin. costs, might go out of business? Good. Let's have some nonprofit health insurance companies that actually serve their customers without breaking their wallets. The neocons just worry about their political contributions from for-profit businesses.

Quote:

---

You are contradicting your President who said that there were 30M without insurance but maybe he wasn't counting illegal aliens.

---

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...red17_ST_N.htm

You guys are so worried some illegal alien might get medical help, you're willing to risk an outbreak of childhood diseases or TB. Not surprising since Reagan was willing to let AIDS turn into a pandemic before he acknowledged it. As a "good" christian, he undoubtedly was hoping all the gays would die of AIDS so he wouldn't have to bring it up.

Quote:

---

maxx: "What have just been through was not an average recession."

---

First you say it is unfair to judge President Obama's economic failure because it takes a couple of years for unemployment to decline. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I figured out what the rate of unemployment would have to be to be average as recoveries go and I gave Obama 2 years and 11 months to get to that 5.5% unemployment number. Even though he has until Nov.2011, you are already beginning to make excuses for him.. Maybe his policies will succeed by then. After all, Harding reduced unemployment from over 11% to about 3.8% in two years so it can and has been done.

Quote:

---

Michigan is not in any financial condition to go it alone with single payer. And the bigger the group, the less everyone pays. What do the neocons fear? That the for-profit health insurance companies, which offer nothing to most of their customers today except sky-high premiums and admin. costs, might go out of business? Good. Let's have some nonprofit health insurance companies that actually serve their customers without breaking their wallets. The neocons just worry about their political contributions from for-profit businesses.

---

My advice to Michigan if it wants an affordable health care system; Do tort reform and otherwise duplicate Ontario's single payer plan. For-profit health insurance is something mandated under Obamacare. It isn't societally affordable. If places poorer than Michigan such as New Brunswick and Newfoundland can afford a single payer plan, surely Michigan could.

Quote:

---

You guys are so worried some illegal alien might get medical help, you're willing to risk an outbreak of childhood diseases or TB. Not surprising since Reagan was willing to let AIDS turn into a pandemic before he acknowledged it. As a "good" christian, he undoubtedly was hoping all the gays would die of AIDS so he wouldn't have to bring it up.

---

Where did you come up with 50M uninsured Americans? President Obama claimed that his plan would insure 30M Americans. If you add 20M extra from wherever, His numbers won't work. The President made very clear that under existing immigration law, Obamacare would not be spent on illegal aliens. Why would you even be worried about the outbreak of TB and childhood diseases from illegal aliens anyway if existing immigration law was enforced?

We want JOBS or LAND!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Saving the economy? Since your Savior in Chief came to power unemployment has risen from 5.5% to 9.6%. That is a 68% increase in official unemployment. Foreclosures continue to climb, retirees and others who depend on savings account interest are out of luck, inflation is increasing, war spending goes on, jobs keep leaving the country, my health insurance costs increased, the dollar has lost 10% of it's spending power internationally since July, and the trillion$ of additional national debt have indebted and dashed our childrens' futures. I'm not saying that your Savior in Chief isn't trying but I'm not enough of a masochist to say,' thank you master, things are better now.' If that is 'saving the economy', I wish He wouldn't try so hard. Harding did much better turning a worse economy around in 1921 by doing almost nothing which succeeded in getting debts liquidated. After two years, unemployment went from 11.1% to 3.8% under Harding compared with going from 5.7% to 9.6% under Obama. Under Obama, the debts are yet to be liquidated. He only shifted them to taxpayers.
http://thetruthorthefight.files.word...pg?w=400&h=301
Obamaworld: Nuns get groped while the Federal Reserve is protected from transparency.

---

I like your analogy, though I don't believe anyone should be excused from groping should it remain policy. Not nuns, priests, fully covered muslims, babies, or anyone else. The nutcases who are out to get us will stop at nothing.

Well, it looks like tax rates will stay the same for the meantime.
The Democrats who control both houses, just can't muster the votes to take more money from succcessful businesses. This should help Obama because people may invest more now

Just wondering, why is there now a mantra from Pelosi et al, to give only the middle class a tax cut. For seven years, the libs and the media shouted only tax cuts for the rich. I thought Bush never lowered tax rates for the middle class, only the RICH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdogslim

Well, it looks like tax rates will stay the same for the meantime.
The Democrats who control both houses, just can't muster the votes to take more money from succcessful businesses. This should help Obama because people may invest more now. .........Great punch line for the Comedy Castle, gdog.

Just wondering, why is there now a mantra from Pelosi et al, to give only the middle class a tax cut. For seven years, the libs and the media shouted only tax cuts for the rich. I thought Bush never lowered tax rates for the middle class, only the RICH.

---

What planet did you say you were on for the last 7 years?

What does groping a nun have to do with Obama not raising taxes.
What planet do you live on?
I guess you missed the democrats and media's rant on tax breaks for the rich for seven years.

Well stated... it's hard to critique President Obama's policy without having it said that you a. hate him, b. are a racist, c. are a right-winger, d. are a tea-bagger e. are a racist ...[[repeat). Even if you're black and offer a critique you have to defend that you're not operating from the a.b.c.d. turnstile though the 'you're a racist' is less applicable...

As more dems and blacks speak out the a.b.c.d. factor is dissipating and we can stick with the facts and outcomes more objectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

The dealership where I bought my my previous Chevy S-10 was shut down by the government. All the mechanics and everyone else working there had to scramble for other jobs. The fact remains, that every dollar the government sunk into GM and Chrysler is money the government cannot spend on health care, military needs, infrastructure, or anything else. The measure of success is what it did for GM and Chrysler minus subsequent potential sales losses by Ford and the value of what else could have been done with money sunk into GM.

I actually like the President a bit. He is witty and can speak in whole sentences. I don't like the way he has maintained and sometimes accelerated much of what Bush did wrong. He's an ok guy but a poor President.

I see what you mean. Fiat has taken over 35% of Chrysler and hopes to take over another 20% if the relationship works out. When Hudson and American Motors went out of business it didn't cost taxpayers much [[apples). When Obama pumped huge amounts of taxpayer money into Chrysler, it merged with foreign company. [[oranges)

---

Quote:

---

Oladub: Harding did much better turning a worse economy around in 1921 by doing almost nothing which succeeded in getting debts liquidated. After two years, unemployment went from 11.1% to 3.8% under Harding compared with going from 5.7% to 9.6% under Obama. Under Obama, the debts are yet to be liquidated. He only shifted them to taxpayers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxx

You can't be so naive as to believe that we can just turn off a war we've started without any concern for the outcome. Or that the U.S. economy, which was sliding into depression according to Hank Paulson and which had undergone an enormous structural change with the loss of manufacturing , could just be turned around in a couple years. Here's our unemployment rate history:
http://www.data360.org/graph_group.a...h_Group_Id=402

---

Thank you very much. My thoughts exactly. Oladub certainly has an abstract way of painting the picture, accompanied by some "friendly" statistics. I wonder where the economy was exactly when Harding reduced unemployment >7% in two years. Was it just heading into the $hitter, or on it's way out? Kind of pertinent IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States
Wow! A little light research turns up that Warren Harding was sworn into office at the beginning of the Roaring Twenties. What a miracle! Probably the greatest time to be an American if you died in 1929. Bravo Oladub! Your spin cycle is on overdrive.

Here's another soundbyte from Harding's wiki page:

Quote:

---

President Harding rewarded friends and political contributors with powerful monetary positions; scandals and corruption eventually pervaded his administration.

---

What a hero! What is most interesting during Harding's administration is that the top earners in the U.S. <$1,000,000+> "enjoyed" a measley 73% tax rate. My cat could run an effective Gov't with that much $$$ coming in from America's elite.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

I could make the Detroit Lions look like Superbowl favorites with "friendly" statistics. It's definitely possible, but certainly deceitful. Also, the comment on why are we still at war in Iraq & Afghan if Obama evidently had his way with congress for the first two years is simply silly. Like Maxx said, you don't just pull up and leave. It's a little more complicated than that.

No offense to the ultra rich........ but you guys are the ones who will have to bail our country out of the funk you orchestrated in the first place during the "Great American Heist". The tax rates enjoyed today by the super-duper out-of-sight rich are simply unheard of. All it does is foster greed and hate. And by holding the country hostage with fear mongering, lobbying and corporatism - you effectively create "tenure" for this way of life. Obama could be a little bit more aggresive, but the Repubs are so F'ing stingy in their ways, and hung up on what's not important. Sad to say, I have soul searched for reasons and ways to identify with the Republican party like much of my family already does. In the end there is just that much less to hate about the Liberal ways of governing.

BTW - If keeping taxes low is what is best for creating jobs, where the fock are all the god damn jobs.......... because <epihany> taxes are and have been low for a long time. Seems to me that since Reagan's tax structure "took office" we have seen more jobs than ever sail off to far away regions.

This concludes my rougue Non-Detroit rant. Shields up.

Disclaimer: I am in no way insinuating that Obama has done a tremendous job while in office. Nor do I declare myself a staunch liberal. Just another person very confused on how we live our lives here in the U.S.A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxx

You can't be so naive as to believe that we can just turn off a war we've started without any concern for the outcome.

---

That's exactly what the neo-cons were saying when the Democrats acted like they wanted to end the wars a few years ago. Remember "Cut & Run?"

I don't buy the neo-con line you're spouting. We started the wars without any concern for the outcome [[no exit strategy), price [[they'll pay for themselves!), lives [[how many 1000's is it now? Not to mention the Iraqi and Afghani lives), or even the truth [[what's the new and revised official reason we're at war now?). We can certainly end them just as quickly, and we should.

TKshreve, You have managed to come out as a supporter of both tax cuts for the rich and the extension of unconstitutional mission drifting wars. Thank you for pointing out that even Harding taxed the rich while Obama is headed in the opposite direction. You must practice saying 'yes we can' when referring to getting the troops our. As Ron Paul has pointed out, there is enough money in the pipeline to safely get our troops out over a half year of a year if the money already appropriated was used of getting them out instead of more bombs and nation building.

In answer to your questions. The 11% unemployment which popped up during the Harding administration was a response to a Federal Reserve's easy liquidity policy resulting in a burst economic bubble. Harding, did not follow up with more easy liquidity to make the problem worse as did Roosevelt and Obama. Our jobs went away to other countries because of the policies of recent Republicans and Democrats. I haven't notices a reversal under Obama either.

As a supporter of Obama, how does it feel to now be a supporter of the 'ultra-rich'? I have, for my part, opposed these wars, the police state, the mega-banks, and suggested import taxes to offset income taxes. Import taxes would tax the importers of foreign products [[the rich) instead of middle class Americans. My hero, by the way, is Calvin Coolidge rather than Harding.

Obama, 'Read my lips, I will raise taxes on the RICH' NOT
He said one of the first things you would do is tax the rich and repeal Bush's tax decreases.
He said he would close Club Gitmo.
He said unemployment wouldn't go above 8% if he stimulated Wall Street and the unions.
Now he is exempting HUNDREDS of companies from Obama don't care, they can opt out!

So if you are a small business with 15 employees and make 250,000 your are rich???
The top 10% tax earners pay 70% of Federal taxes, not including state, local etc.
Poor people don't pay anything at all. The class warfare / envy the left employs is dispicable
The democrats have total control, they couldn't get the votes from their own?
If they love the middle class, why don't they lower taxes for the middle class?????

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$380,354
38.02
Top 5%
$159,619
58.72
Top 10%
$113,799
69.94
Top 25%
$67,280
86.34
Top 50%
$33,048
97.30

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

TKshreve, You have managed to come out as a supporter of both tax cuts for the rich and the extension of unconstitutional mission drifting wars. Thank you for pointing out that even Harding taxed the rich while Obama is headed in the opposite direction. You must practice saying 'yes we can' when referring to getting the troops our. As Ron Paul has pointed out, there is enough money in the pipeline to safely get our troops out over a half year of a year if the money already appropriated was used of getting them out instead of more bombs and nation building.

In answer to your questions. The 11% unemployment which popped up during the Harding administration was a response to a Federal Reserve's easy liquidity policy resulting in a burst economic bubble. Harding, did not follow up with more easy liquidity to make the problem worse as did Roosevelt and Obama. Our jobs went away to other countries because of the policies of recent Republicans and Democrats. I haven't notices a reversal under Obama either.

As a supporter of Obama, how does it feel to now be a supporter of the 'ultra-rich'? I have, for my part, opposed these wars, the police state, the mega-banks, and suggested import taxes to offset income taxes. Import taxes would tax the importers of foreign products [[the rich) instead of middle class Americans. My hero, by the way, is Calvin Coolidge rather than Harding.

---

Don't know where I said I am proponent of tax cuts for the rich. I am sitting here in awe that you would suggest that. And also the war...... and also Obama. I just had dinner, so I don't need your words stuffed into my mouth, thank you. In fact I thought I put a disclaimer at the end of my OP. Yikes!

It has been shown time and again that the Republicans are unwilling to compromise on anything unless they get one item their way up front. In this case it is the tax cuts for the rich. Do the republicans/utltra rich not suggest that lower taxes will create jobs????!!!! That has been their platform for some time regarding this topic. Where are the jobs????!!!! They've had their slithery tax levels at an all-world low for a long, long time. Yet they continue to pocket majority of the wealth in this country, while shipping jobs as far away as possible in order to generate more "rainy day" funds for their lobbyists and personal bank accounts.

It's sad to think that if we did repeal the tax cuts, Corporate goons would use it as an excuse to shove the country [[read: jobs and wages) even further towards the brink of collapse. But when they do get their way, they do nothing to move the needle. They sit on their fat-cat hands and soak up more wealth which will never trickle down. It's a one way street towards the end. It's like this country has become one big casino, rigged by the few to take from the masses.

nObama is the best thing to happen to the republicrat party since.....well, since the demican party. nObama is what you call the 'loyal acquiescence.

Quote:

---

TKshreve;205044: "Don't know where I said I am proponent of tax cuts for the rich. I am sitting here in awe that you would suggest that. And also the war...... and also Obama. I just had dinner, so I don't need your words stuffed into my mouth, thank you. In fact I thought I put a disclaimer at the end of my OP. Yikes

---

I must have misunderstood and assumed you support Obama who this week signed off on extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich which together with extending unemployment benefits will cost US taxpayers another $700-800B. Obama is now letting liberals in Congress that if they don't support tax cuts for the rich, the economy will implode. This is, of course, in addition to extending Bush's wars.

Quote:

---

It has been shown time and again that the Republicans are unwilling to compromise on anything unless they get one item their way up front. In this case it is the tax cuts for the rich. Do the republicans/utltra rich not suggest that lower taxes will create jobs????!!!! That has been their platform for some time regarding this topic. Where are the jobs????!!!! They've had their slithery tax levels at an all-world low for a long, long time. Yet they continue to pocket majority of the wealth in this country, while shipping jobs as far away as possible in order to generate more "rainy day" funds for their lobbyists and personal bank accounts.

---

Republicans lied. They ran on a policy of balancing the budget and then wimped out by collaborating with Obama to run the country another $700-800B into debt. The threat to defeat the START treaty is equally insane. I don't think the leadership of the Republican Party stands for much of anything either.

Quote:

---

It's sad to think that if we did repeal the tax cuts, Corporate goons would use it as an excuse to shove the country [[read: jobs and wages) even further towards the brink of collapse. But when they do get their way, they do nothing to move the needle. They sit on their fat-cat hands and soak up more wealth which will never trickle down. It's a one way street towards the end. It's like this country has become one big casino, rigged by the few to take from the masses.

---

agreed...and they control both parties.

Sen. Sanders starts a filibuster on the tax cut proposal.

http://www.cspan.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx

He just stood down. What a great American! The rest of those useless dirtbags should all kill themselves.

Bernie Sanders is fucking awesome. We need 99 more of him.

I hope to god it doesn't pass, In Stimulus II, there is $900 BILLION of FAT PORK in the monstrosoty. These socialists are out of control.

fromhttp://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-so-who-s-holding-the-unemployed-hostage-now/19756212
With Democrats threatening to block the Obama/Republican compromise on Bush-era tax cuts, does that mean they're the ones now holding the unemployed hostage until they get their way?
That was, after all, the charge Democrats and others had often lodged against Republicans.
Examples:
Earlier this month, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said: "We could take a major step toward fixing our economy today if Republicans stopped holding the Senate hostage to more tax giveaways for millionaires."

• Last month, the liberal Daily Kos complained that the GOP was "holding 2 million unemployed hostage on behalf of richest 2%."

• Back in July, President Barack Obama accused Republicans of "using their power to hold this relief hostage -- a move that only ends up holding back our recovery. It doesn't make sense."
• But now it's Democrats who are threatening to hold up the tax deal -- and with it the extension in unemployment benefits [[which have already started to run out for millions of long-term unemployed) -- until they get what they want on taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Augustiner

Bernie Sanders is fucking awesome. We need 99 more of him.

---

agreed , an old fashion filibuster what a sight !

Yes, the big socialist, thinks the money you make is the governments to take. Sanders should move to England. "Sanders asks how can anyone be proud to call themselves a "multimillionaire?" I say , how can a politician be proud to call himself a democrat.
Keep up the class warfare Bernie, keep people angry at others for being successful

Why do so many think that the governments job is to take money you make.
How jealeous and angry so many people are because they have more money than others.
Get over it, some people are smarter work harder and sometimes are luckier than others.

The democrats and the state sponsored media sure have millions brainwashed that successful entrepreneurs who employ millions are evil and should be punished.

gdogslim- How much is enough ?

Most people don't mind folks making some money , even making a lot of money.

but " How much is enough ?" Its about billionaires paying their fair share not about taking their money. You throw out that word socialism. A real socialist government would take your business and nationalize it for the greater good.

There's a point to be made and Thom Hartmann makes it well. The rich should pay more in taxes since they use more of the "commons" [[water, roads, air, and the pollution of such).

Remember the only reason businesses hire people is because there is a demand for the product or service that they cannot fulfill by themselves, not because of some tax break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

Remember the only reason businesses hire people is because there is a demand for the product or service that they cannot fulfill by themselves, not because of some tax break.

---

You hit the nail on the head here. I tire quickly about Republicans saying that if we just cut taxes jobs will appear out of everywhere. There's no freakin' demand...that's our problem....all our demand has been shifted towards products made in China, combined with the fact the unemployment and underemployment rates are so high. Yet, if we just cut taxes for businesses, the magical jobs fairy will wave her wand and all of these jobs will appear. It's just comedy.

Say what you will about unions, I agree they have done some questionable actions and have had some questionable procedures, but they were created so that people weren't making $1 a day all the while risking their lives to do their job. They created the middle class, the reason why a lot of America was on a level playing field for awhile.

Now we're going back to the late 19th/early 20th century. Class warfare is back again. Not saying all rich people are bad [[I like Warren Buffet), but the Republicans should just change their motto to "Let's bring back the 19th century." Back when they were social classes, back when the rich ruled the day and the poor were given the scraps. They are for the rich and that is what they want...more for them and less for everybody else. The Democrats have rich members too, but their actions, to me anyway, seem like they want to at least want to give the middle class a chance to survive, and don't cater to the rich all of the time.

Sorry for the rant, but I get so pissed off about the rants from the "I got mine screw the rest of you" crowd. Fuckin' hypocrites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

gdogslim- How much is enough ?

Most people don't mind folks making some money , even making a lot of money.

but " How much is enough ?" Its about billionaires paying their fair share not about taking their money. You throw out that word socialism. A real socialist government would take your business and nationalize it for the greater good.

There's a point to be made and Thom Hartmann makes it well. The rich should pay more in taxes since they use more of the "commons" [[water, roads, air, and the pollution of such).

Remember the only reason businesses hire people is because there is a demand for the product or service that they cannot fulfill by themselves, not because of some tax break.

---

Maybe we could reset the tax brackets to pre-Reagan era levels and see again how prosperity and wealth was built and protected for all people. Our country has turned into one big money grab [[rigged none-the-less) with the majority suffering.

I also couldn't agree with you more about the demand for jobs bit. The rich will have you believe anything to protect .05% of their wealth. They will be the last to sacrifice for the greater good and the first in line for a handout.

Quote:

---

gdog: Keep up the class warfare Bernie, keep people angry at others for being successful

---

Most of the ultra-rich have been successful at buying politicians to change the tax laws and business regs for them. Remember the justification for Reaganomics? Trickle down economics? Read the verdict on Reaganomics at alternet yet? I didn't think so.