The Tax Cut Has Begun, President Says in Weekly Address

I remember when Michelle Obama made fun of Bush’s $600 tax check. She said something about how $600 would only buy a pair of earrings. (Just who is the elitist?) Just google the words: Michelle Obama+$600 earrings.
Now workers are going to get $13 extra a week. That money will be money that won’t be taken out of their paycheck for federal taxes.
I didn’t approve the Bush stimulus check, but if the government is insistent on giving one, I’d rather have a $600 check than $13/week.
And just what does this “stimulus” do for seniors who aren’t working? Apparently they aren’t going to get anything whatsoever.

A typical family will begin taking home at least $65 more every month. Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hardworking Americans, Obama said.
***********
Memo to Obama:
Your numbers don’t add up.
#1. $65/month for a couple working is $507/year.
Last year Bush gave working couples $1,200 for the year.
#2. This isn’t a tax cut under the typical rules of accounting. It’s a spending/stimulus check.
And it’s a one time deal. Next year, as far as I know, the Orwellian named tax cut goes down to $8.00/week and the year after that to zero.
#3. 42% of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes. Well, they do but they get a check back from the government at the end of the year when they file their IRS forms. In the real world, this is called welfare. In DC it’s called earned income credit.
So what Obama is doing is giving even more welfare to the 42% of Americans who don’t pay federal taxes.
This puts an even bigger burden on the 58% of Americans who actual pay taxes.
Maybe someone can explain to me how that’s fair. Or wise.

“how we can cut the trillion-dollar deficit that we’ve inherited.”
what? he just added another 1 trillion and now he wants to cut the deficit..
does this guy know how to govern??
and then he says: “The road ahead will be long and full of hazards”
enough enough enough..we got it you want to damp the expectation. Obama is all about him and how he will look at the end!!!!

What the Feds give ,the state will take.
My morning newspaper Headline ,gas tax to increase by .20 a gallon.

Wow, ribeyes instead of meatloaf. Oh goody!

What a slap in the face to all homeowners and workers that have self-imposed responsibility. In this day of consumerism and debt, I have managed to not go into debt buying junk that I can’t afford. While others have spent foolishly. Now, according to BHO, it is my responsibility to ease their burden.
BHO’s first “shovel ready” project is to have responsible people dig irresponsible out of debt.
Liberals are telling people “go into debt, buy things you can’t afford,” your neighbors will bail you out.
Mr President, my “shovel” is covered, not by mud, and boy does it stink.

It looks like our future has been upgraded from “catastrophe” to “full of hazards”.
That’s good news!

To Peach and others,please do the math:
Under Bush:
A false War costing billions and so many lives
A domestic debacle in Katrina
A financial meltdown
= An inept clown who got us in this mess.
Yeah, I will take an educated and prepared president with a plan over that clown any day!

Yeah, here is Obama’s plan, spend, spend, spend and then in April figure out how you’re going to pay for it. It’s backwards. When the stock market hears this on Monday it is going to tank even more because they know the tax man cometh, on top of big brother. There is no money for private investment or spending. Digging holes in the ground does not create wealth.

$13 will not buy a six pack and smokes.

Even if I get only $10 a week, it’s still 10 times more than I ever got form Bush. Another house is foreclosing down the street. Thanks, George for all your efforts!

To the poster who mentioned a shovel ready project –
Let’s hope most posters know that those constructions jobs are supposed to go to inexperienced minorities and women.
Robert Reisch, Obama’s economic advisor, said in early January and then posted on his blog that we (that’s the royal we) need to guarantee that experienced white construction workers don’t get job. He wants to ensure that women and minorities get those construction jobs.
Yes. We all want our bridges built by inexperienced construction workers. /sarcasm
And isn’t this reverse racism on Reisch’s and Obama’s part? Why yes. Yes it is.
And we hear nary a peep from the mainstream media.

Thank God For Barack Obama!
If there was one man who could lead us out of this mess, it is Obama and his team of financial advisers and policy makers. One more minute under Bush was like undergoing torture for a 1000 days.
I only wish he had come on the scene earlier instead of 2009. If he had come into the White house in 2004, none of this would have happened. I am confident that this will be truly the beginning of the end of this nightmare.

“Even if I get only $10 a week, it’s still 10 times more than I ever got form Bush. Another house is foreclosing down the street. Thanks, George for all your efforts!”
What, Mike? You didn’t get your $600 check last year from Bush? Why not? Everyone got it — well, everyone that paid taxes.

In 2004 Obama didn’t even have a decent car or a credit card, isn’t it funny how one man can rise to such fame and power out of nowhere. Why don’t you try it and see how far you get without being a handpicked puppet by the likes of Soros.

Mr. Sternberg,
Actually, last Nov. 4th the majority of America did the math. Under Bush’s watch he flushed the country down the tubes in name of security and stupidity. He called lobbyists his base! Where have you been for the last 8 years…

“And on Thursday, “I’ll release a budget that’s sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need” All this we can expect who is drunk with power, dishonest in his facts and accountability to We the People, and has not shared “details” with us about anything else?!?! Obama is the biggest mistake ever to get elected.

Sue: “I too would like to see our MSM do its job.”
A number of them are . . . they are going to work (officially) for the Obama administration. Hey, might has well get paid for what they have been doing for free all these years!

teacher,
And Obama, being a senator and running for president, had the press at his beck and call. And what did he do when TARP was being discussed? Not much. Except vote for it. Why is Obama not held to that vote? He supported TARP.

Mike said “Even if I get only $10 a week, it’s still 10 times more than I ever got form Bush.” Did you miss the Bush tax cuts? They were so deep that they allowed us to become a single income family when I got laid off back in 2001. I got a new full-time job about a year & 1/2 ago, because I was sure a democrat was going to get into the White House & we were going to need every penny….and I was right.

indithinker,
I am not saying Obama gave us a $500 tax cut. He didn’t.

“Had enough yet?”
I’d had enough when Democratic saboteur Kerry brought this fake to the Convention in 2004.
Now it’s up to the press — who protected the “Obama” organization because of His birthday suit — to so expose Him that the bailouts come BACK to the Treasury, taxes are rolled back to pre-Reagan levels, and measures are taken — National Health, chiefly — to protect the MASS of the people.
Under Obama, it seems the very rich have some new “entitlements”, such as the right to drain the Treasury. It sucks.

Why don’t you try it and see how far you get without being a handpicked puppet by the likes of Soros.
Posted by: NoMoreMr.NiceGuy | Feb 21, 2009 11:19:59 AM
=======================================
Don’t forget to give ACORN their credit.

I can appreciate the problems we all face and exspecially those that the President is facing which is being compounded by his rather grim view of the situation – but reality sucks sometimes. I do think that a Government which really has no money and is hell bent on printing some up, will eventually lead all of us to pay for this massive spending bill through a less valuable dollar and insures our kids will become “donkeys in the salt mines” of government.
If you bought a house 10 years ago and it more than doubled in value, did you really think that was so great that you went and drew $$$$dollars out for some nonsense that you could have done without and now find you owe more than the house is worth ? Pity. But your fellow taxpayers who didn’t behave like this will be forced to bail you out which is more of a pity.
Obama said he would usher in an era of personal responsibilty but it looks like he is more intent on making the government more “nannyfied” than ever before.
Mr. Obama, you are following the footsteps of those before you so instead of being Lincoln like, consider a more recent leader, say Kennedy. He had the right idea.

indithinker,
A tax cut it ain’t. It is the same thing Bush gave us last year, only less and not in one check. Did you call that a Bush tax cut?

Big WOOPEE – my heatlh insurance increased $40.00 a month….. plus all the new taxes the state has imposed… actually I’m have less money Mr. BO… so much for your insignificant tax break….

hope everyone realizes that this is just temporary. Obama is ready to let the Bush tax cuts expire and when they do, your taxes withheld will skyrocket.
***************************************
Not mine!
It is funny how you all can complain about the tax cut then complian because he will let Bush’s Expire.
Can we make up our minds. Are Tax cuts good or bad? Or does it matter depending on who gave them?
For my part I disagree with both of the cuts.

To Peach and others,please do the math:
Under Bush:
A false War costing billions and so many lives
A domestic debacle in Katrina
A financial meltdown
= An inept clown who got us in this mess.
Yeah, I will take an educated and prepared president with a plan over that clown any day!
Posted by: teacher | Feb 21, 2009 11:01:53 A
===================================
Teacher, guess you were out of class all the days they talked about Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac….wasn’t it Barney F and other democra[s that kept saying they were ok? Hummm, it has been documented that George Bush tried 11 times to get them to listen to him about FM & FM. Maybe you got a new house and these facts don’t apply to you

Coherent,
It wasn’t Bush that said $4 a gallon gasoline was about the right price, we just got there too quickly. I hope you are prepared for higher energy prices under Obama. Those are his words, in case you missed the interview where he uttered them.

LOL. For all of your that thought good ‘ole Barry was gonna pay your fuel bills and car payments: surprise, surprise, surprise!!!!

another day, another socialist lie from the “leader”
25 democrat scandals and counting:
SEX PERVERTS, TAX CHEATS, LIARS..Yep thats the democrat party of today
USSA (united socialist states of america)
Arrest Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine waters and you solve some of the scandals of freddy mac and fannie mae

Tomorrow, the attack on Social Security will begin anew. I don’t know what Obama was thinking when he decided to include far-right wackos like Peter Peterson in his ‘fiscal responsibility’ summit, but I do know that no good can possibly come of it.
Social Security is not in any danger, except from those who say they seek to ‘reform’ it.

Cathy,
Your tax rate remains unchanged. I think the constitution still requires that Congress set the tax rate. At least for the time being.

Tom Wrote: “Thank God For Barack Obama!
If there was one man who could lead us out of this mess, it is Obama and his team of financial advisers and policy makers. One more minute under Bush was like undergoing torture for a 1000 days.
I only wish he had come on the scene earlier instead of 2009. If he had come into the White house in 2004, none of this would have happened. I am confident that this will be truly the beginning of the end of this nightmare.”
—————————————-
Wow! I had to catch may breath from the laughing fit after reading the above post before I was able to type. Now, back to laughing…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
Posted by: | Feb 21, 2009 11

Will all you liberals who voted for Obama stop WHINING and COMPLAINING? YOU know by now, he is a SOCIALIST and is going to SPEND, TAX, & TAKE AWAY your rights so, enjoy him! A liberal: “President Obama, please take my money and SHARE THE WEALTH with the poor. I want to be patriotic!”

I am so sick of Obama meaningless speeches. The money that we are supposed to save in taxes is worthless. He can keep mine. This guy is a ” catastrophee” for America.

Rasmussen:
One month in office and Barry has tanked from an 80% approval rating to this:
Overall, 57% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance so far while 41% disapprove. This marks the President’s lowest overall rating to date and only the third time his ratings have dipped below 60% since taking office. It remains to be seen whether this modest decline represents lasting change or is merely statistical noise.

For all those saying that the stimulus bill is a spending bill, I’ll have to ask you this: where was the outrage when Bush was spending billions, mounting up huge deficits with his fraudulent war in Iraq? Tell me: where was the outrage!!!? You were all petrified with fear that the bushman put on you with his bogus war on terror. That was a control mechanism to keep you imberciles eternally pacified while Bush and his henchmen were systematically “robbing” the treaury.

“ACORN GETS AN “URBAN POLICY” OFFICE AT THE WHITE HOUSE”
—————————————
And gets billions in tax payer dollars at part of the spendulouos bill, while us indentured servants get $13 a week in a tax break that last for less than a year. I guess this Barry’s payback to ACORN for all those deceased people that ACORN managed to get registered to vote for Barry. Change you can believe in :)

what667 wrote: “For all those saying that the stimulus bill is a spending bill, I’ll have to ask you this: where was the outrage when Bush was spending billions, mounting up huge deficits with his fraudulent war in Iraq? Tell me: where was the outrage!!!? You were all petrified with fear that the bushman put on you with his bogus war on terror. That was a control mechanism to keep you imberciles eternally pacified while Bush and his henchmen were systematically “robbing” the treaury.”
————————————–
Bogus war on terror? Wow, those were awesome special effects of the twin towers going down, people jumping to the deaths to avoid being burned alive, and the pentagon burning. No, what’s bogus is Barry’s so called tax breaks, while he is paying back ACORN with taxpayer money :)

Better save that $65.00 tax cut to pay your income taxes next year when the Democrats let the Bush tax cuts expire and your taxes will soar almost as high as Obama’s rhetoric.

Obama is going to destroy the economy in order to save it.

people that are complaining about the small amount they’ll get per week should understand that this is about stimulating the economy. $15 per taxpayer per week equals about 1.8 billion dollars per week going into the economy.

What’s the deal with ACORN? Did Mickey Mouse show up to vote? Surely the idiots shouldn’t have forged fake registration forms in order to be paid. They should be dealt with, accordingly. But the point is, none of those “people” could vote without an ID. Therefore, the vote count was not skewed in any way. What you’re really angry about, is that the Obama campaign rallied the youth. Something the GOP is trying to do, after the fact. Trust me my fellow Americans, if some of those people were ineligible to vote, given the history of voter suppression in America, they would have been stopped dead in their tracks. So give the ACORN deal a rest.

You know, that has merit. I think that BHO should reward ALL of his loyal supporters and believers. They believe so much in his plan, let’s start w/ all of his supporters getting their tax hikes first! OH, AND NO CHEATING DEMS–YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR TAXES! Oh, and to those w/ offshore accounts…can’t wait for that list to come out Sen. Kennedy and all of you tax hikers & cheats!

And Obama, being a senator and running for president, had the press at his beck and call. And what did he do when TARP was being discussed? Not much. Except vote for it. Why is Obama not held to that vote? He supported TARP=======. I apologize, there must have been another Sue.

I admire President Obama so far. He might make some mistakes as he is human but at least he is trying and this time for the people to correct a huge mess. May the Lord be with him everyday! You know 13.00 is better than nothing what ever that means. I personally appreciate what he is doing whether I get a dime.
Posted by: Steve | Feb 21, 2009 12:38:45 PM
————————————–
Wow, I’ll bet Steve voted for obaba.
With thinking like this it answers my question…just how could so many folks vote for this j–k. Now I know their thinking. Guess Steve hasn’t seen his life savings fly right out the window and it isn’t going to stop until we are all equal…POOR and HUNGRY – the good old Russian way since it worked so well the USofAA should get a taste of everyone being equal. You voted for it now you are going to have to get accustomed to it…your democra[tic president obaba is so great and wonderful..bs

Suffering Succatash! LOL, may you continue in your suffering. I understand though, I felt almost the same way in 2000. Difference is, the 2000 election was actually stolen.

“Tomorrow, the attack on Social Security will begin anew. I don’t know what Obama was thinking when he decided to include far-right wackos like Peter Peterson in his ‘fiscal responsibility’ summit, but I do know that no good can possibly come of it.”
Obama’s an elite-right wacko. Could THAT be it?
The part of FDR’s Social Security that DIDN’T happen is where EVERYBODY paid into it, but only those with no other retirement income — those who “didn’t need it”, as the phrase was at the time, wouldn’t draw Social Security any more than they’d rob the poor box — would draw FROM it. (Somehow, we doubt that’s the kind of “responsibility” the corporatist “Obama” organization has in mind.)
The “responsible” thing to do would be to clean up the administration of Social Security … especially the years-long wait for disability applications which kills God knows how many every year. (Somehow, we doubt THAT’s the kind of “responsibility” the corporatist “Obama” organization has in mind.)
Get over this guy’s birthday suit, kids, and His organization’s propaganda machine. Stop Him.

Suffering Suckatash,
So I suppose you, with your superior judgment, are going to refuse the Obama tax cut because you don’t believe in it, it’s a truly bad thing to do, and you are a person of principle. Please do, turn it back in, or donate it to charity. Show us how bright and principled you are.

WestCoastMessenger wrote: “Suffering Suckatash, So I suppose you, with your superior judgment, are going to refuse the Obama tax cut because you don’t believe in it, it’s a truly bad thing to do, and you are a person of principle. Please do, turn it back in, or donate it to charity. Show us how bright and principled you are.”
————————————–
Actually messenger, I’m going to set those pennies aside and set up an account for my young son, so that when he is older and has to help pay back the BILLIONS that Barry is using to pay back ACORN, the unions, and others, he will have a little something to help, with may apologies about the mess HE inherited.
Posted by:

Cali said: let’s be honest, he rallied the naïve, and the ignorant w/ lots of lies, false promises, and bullying. ========= Okay, I’m not here to convince you to vote for Obama or even like him, that’s not my job. The deal is done. But let’s just say, your guy lost. The naive and ignorant said H-ell No to your guy because of the the last guy who lead the sheep to the slaughtering. Or did you forget? Did you consider them naive and ignorant? Probably not, hence the circumstances which are vividly evident today. But I’ll just declare them plain old stupid for you, Cali. Three Cheers for Cali’s stupid Bush voters. Hip Hip Hooray!X3

i see a depression coming..do you?

“Why does 0bama keep claiming he inherited a $1T deficit?………..”
National debt for Clinton’s 8 years rose $1.7 Trillion. Bush’s 8 years rose 3.8 Trillion, Obama 2-3 trillion first few months. GDP at end of Clinton 8 years was 9.8 trillion. End of Bush 14.5 trillion………….Obama is a blamer like Clinton. Not a very good example of a leader. Bush never blamed Clinton for anything.

Please if you
ever voted for Bush NEVER VOTE AGAIN.
Posted by: Anita Yova | Feb 21, 2009 12:52:56 PM
—————————————
Guess this one will get deleted too..
You had better hope there are some smart folks that didn’t vote in this last election that show up to vote for a republican next time before our country is totally destroyed. Yeah, I know how you feel about Bush out there so there is no reason to reply with all your reasons, we have heard them before.

I hope everyone realizes that this is just temporary. Obama is ready to let the Bush tax cuts expire and when they do, your taxes withheld will skyrocket.
His economic adviser promised this on the meet the press. So hold onto your wallets folks the devil is coming to collect.
You get 13 bucks a week and loose thousands by letting Bush tax cuts elapse. ROFL Change you can feel in your pocket book that used to be twenty dollar bills. I wonder what Obama will do to wreck the economy even more next week? Maybe he can burn another trillion.. Oh wait we just did that.
ROFL Obamas grade measured by the CONSUMER CONFIDENCE 56.2% thats an F in school folks.

Sigmonde,
Get your facts straight. I’ll help.
1) Bill Clinton left with a SURPLUS!
2) Obama inherited a 10 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, not a 1 trillion $ deficit.
3) Rush Limbaugh is NOT A GOD, he is more like the loud mouthed WIZARD of OZ.

WestCoastMessenger wrote: “Suffering Suckatash, You better first reach into your own pocket to pay back your son who will be busy paying your social security due to George Bush’s 10 trillion $ debt which has completely broken social security beyond repair.
—————————————-
LOL. You can’t really be that clueless can you messenger? SS was broke long before Bush ever came on the scene…

Where is all the hope that Obama promised? Every day the market tanks and more people lose their jobs.
==========================================
How long did it take for Bush’s tax cuts to take any effect? There were two main Bush tax cuts — EGTRRA, enacted in mid-2001, and JGTRRA, enacted mid-2003.
FYI. Employment only started to recover an the end of 2003 and early 2004. And we now know that that recovery was mainly because of the housing bubble and the private spending based on that housing bubble.

“1) Bill Clinton left with a SURPLUS!
2) Obama inherited a 10 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, not a 1 trillion $ deficit.”
The national debt increased 1.7 Trillion during Clinton’s 8 years, 3.8 trillion under Bush. Check the actual numbers at Traesury or CBO.

For them to acknowledge or implement that these cuts increase productivity and “jobs” would cost them their socialist base.
Posted by: Sigmonde
==========================================
You mean jobs and productivity fueled by bubbles? Bubbles which ALWAYS will pop?
And fueled by increasing the National Debt?
Give me a Credit Card worth billions of dollars and I too can give you the false impression that I’m incredibly rich and prosperous.

Mildred said: “Yeah, I know how you feel about Bush out there so there is no reason to reply with all your reasons, we have heard them before.”==== What’s wrong, the truth bit you in it, huh? You don’t care to assess the damage? That’s the typical GOP hypocrisy. GOP rap of the day: I-I-I-I-I-I can screw up the economy, but you sure can’t, annnnd, you better not call me out, or I’ll vote NO! on that very important bill—that we need to pass”. LOL! Rap on Republicans, rap on!

The next big hit our economy will suffer is the collapse of confidence in foreign investors. This will happen because of the huge deficits that Obama is running up. The Chinese are not stupid, they will not contine to buy bonds that pay 3% when they loose 20, 50, or 100% in inflation. When Asian investors pull their money our government will have no option but to either default or print even more money, making our currency worthless. This is Obama’s call. It is his decisions that will either cause or prevent this from happening. I for one have no confidence that Obama will put country above his ideology.

Another point about how “42% of Americans pay no income tax”. This is wrong information. All must pay 15% for SS and more for medicaid. After the first $100,000 that goes to 2.9%. So who pays the majority of SS income taxes, the little guys who make a lot less than the so called “income tax payers” who once they get past $100,000 just about get a free ride. Also, the figure about those who pay no federal income tax as it pertains to the IRS is far less than 42%, more like 32%, so google that Peach!

@willianvanoranje “And fueled by increasing the National Debt?
Give me a Credit Card worth billions of dollars and I too can give you the false impression that I’m incredibly rich and prosperous.”
Welcome to Obama’s America!!! You have nailed the Obama economic plan- Congratulations to you.

It is true that, between 2002 and 2009, the budgets largely shaped by President George Bush will have run cumulative budget deficits of $3.35 trillion. This calculation credits the entire 2009 budget deficit and TARP costs to Bush , even though Obama will have signed most of the discretionary spending bills and overseen much of the TARP spending.But Obama does not have much high ground.
The “stimulus” bill alone will create more debt (approximately $1 trillion including interest costs), than Bush’s first three years of budget deficits combined ($948 billion). And adding the “stimulus” bill to a realistic budget baseline yields a projected 2010-2017 cumulative budget deficit of $8.4 trillion. – 2.5 times the size of President Bush’s deficits over the same 8-year time period.

65$ a month. This has to be the most idiotic tax cut in the history of the United States. I thought Bush was stupid. Keep your 65 a month and pay a few bills off. Maybe start a payment plan with China or something.

ROFL The Bush tax cuts save me money every year and I aint rich. My deduction for my kids was increased by the Bush tax cuts. SO NO no misinformation here.

Just a little math how bad the Bush years actualle were:
Let’s focus on jobs.
The US needs to add 120,000 jobs EACH month to break even with population growth. That’s 1.4 Million each year, and 11,5 Million over 8 years.
Bush only managed to add 3 million over his entire Administration. That’s 8,5 million too little.
Clinton added 25 Million during his administration.

Coherent1, I understand, BHO took all your manly parts and you’re just bending over. The argument usually turns to whatever in such a vulnerable position. Enjoy the ride.

For those so focused on our deficit – thank Bush for accounting gimmicks used to make deficit projections appear far smaller than they actually are. Obama is dropping the gimmicks and we’re actually about 2.7 trillion deeper in the red than first appeared.
And we wonder why so many on Wall Street thought that it was okay to cook the books?

In Texas I pay no income tax and my government has a surplus. Maybe the rest of the country should be taking notes on how its done.

Alicia – you’re 100% correct .. punish the wealthy business owners who provide jobs for people – quite a plan isn’t it? If the resolution to any depression was to just throw money at it we’d never worry about a depression! Got it? It doesn’t work ..

Morons, its AT LEAST $65 for the “typical family” meaning 1 working parent NOT 2. If you have 2 working parents it roughly equals the 1000 tax credit. Democrats are not stupid. They will not give you the lump sum in one shot, you *GASP* have to earn it lol. NO rifle collection for u :).

Mildred said: “Yeah, I know how you feel about Bush………………
Posted by: Coherent1 | Feb 21, 2009 1:28:14 PM
—————————————
My point is, we can argue until the cows come home about Bush and we will never agree, so don’t waste anyones time, enough said. The same is true about obaba, you will be yelling and screaming “HELP” in a few months about your obaba..so get a life.

I really hope the economy obama Introduction
Bush was better than

Didn’t Spirow Agnew have tax problems.I am itching to see all that happen again–BIG TIME!

Alicia – you’re 100% correct .. punish the wealthy business owners who provide jobs for people – quite a plan isn’t it?
Posted by: Marcus
========================================
Remind me. Where are these jobs from the wealthy business owners?
Bush and his tax cuts for wealthy business owners have a negative jobs result. 8.5 Million jobs to be precise.

Willem >> During the 60′s the top tax bracket was 65% or so.. GUESS what the rich didnt pay it. They hid their money because it was cheaper to hire tax lawyers and accountants than pay your taxes. Raising taxes to high levels will only bring back the SAME old stuff. Lots of back room payoffs so people can avoid paying taxes. Least now most people DO pay taxes. What little we remember

Even worse situation in Israel
But not like the U.S..
If Obama would not do what it takes to do the most good, then the situation in Israel will be worse than the U.S.

Mildred said: The same is true about obaba, you will be yelling and screaming “HELP” in a few months about your obaba..so get a life.===== You’re having trouble respecting the new president, huh? obaba? You must be on the Rush Limbaugh Quest for Failure Team. My life is neither dependent upon Obama or Bush. It’s mine and I’m reliant upon no one except my Lord and me. I don’t fear the same thing you fear. Fear is for the weak and those who rely on man. Good luck while you quiver at the knees, afraid of every decision the leadership makes. Take Care.

Reaping benefits?
We get $65 per month, the banks get billions. Seems like middle America will pay again. barry obama needs to choose his words more carefully.

Peach, and uncle sam – here’s a list of some of the taxes in Texas:
911 Emergency Service Fee
911 Wireless Emergency Service Fee
911 Equalization Surcharge
Automobile Burglary and Theft Prevention Authority (ABTPA) Assessment
Automotive Oil Sales Fee
Bank Franchise
Battery Sales Fee
Boat & Boat Motor
Cement Production
Cigarette
Cigar, Tobacco Products
Cigarette/Tobacco Advertising Fee
Coastal Protection
Coin Operated Amusement Machine Tax
Controlled Substances
Crude Oil
Diesel Fuels
Fireworks
Franchise
Gasoline
Hotel
Inheritance
Insurance Maintenance Tax – Workers’ Compensation Research
Insurance Maintenance Taxes – Texas Department of Insurance
Insurance Maintenance Tax – Division of Workers Compensation/Office of Injured Employees Counsel
Insurance Premium Tax – Independently Procured
Insurance Premium Tax – Licensed Insurers
Insurance Premium Tax – Surplus Lines/Purchasing Groups
Insurance Premium Tax – Unauthorized Insurance
International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA)
Liquefied Gas
Loan Administration Fee
Local Property
Local Sales & Use
Manufactured Housing
Miscellaneous Gross Receipts
Mixed Beverage Tax
Motor Fuels Transporters
Motor Vehicle – Gross Rental Receipts
Motor Vehicle – Local Sports and Community Venue Sales and Use
Motor Vehicle – Sales and Use
Motor Vehicle – Seller-Financed Sales
Motor Vehicle – Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) Registration Surcharge
Motor Vehicle – Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) Surcharge
Natural Gas
Office of Public Insurance Counsel (OPIC) Assessment
Oil & Gas Well Servicing
Oyster Sales Fee
Pari-Mutuel
Petroleum Products Delivery Fee
Property Tax
Public Utility Gross Receipts Assessment
Retail Charge Account Delinquency Fee
Retaliatory Tax
Sales & Use
School Fund Benefit
Sexually Oriented Business Fee
Sulphur
Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) – Off Road Heavy Duty Diesel Equipment Surcharge
Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (Repealed)
Volunteer Fire Department Assistance Fund Assessment
an income tax would be far less regressive than most of these

Flash….I was specific in saying NO INCOME TAX. Those taxes you listed are in every state even the ones with income tax. Whats your point?

Bush’s tax cuts were all about helping out his rich and powerful friends. They weren’t about helping out the middle class or stimulating the economy. And they didn’t work, either.
————————————–
Every time I see this I statement I have to chuckle (and I have seen it a lot). People who say this make it sound like only friends of Bush or Republicans receive a tax cut. Remember, Nancy “I have to fly a private plan everywhere at tax payers expense” Pelosi is extreme wealthy (worth over $50 million), as are many other Dems. Are you saying that all wealthy Democrats turned down the Bush tax cuts because they are not Bushes friends?

the new name for our president. Oblablabla. I like it.

Sigmonde: “How does your math square with 4-5% unemployment rates for most of Bush’s 8 years? Why is 5% unemployment considered full employment?”
=======================================
Simple. Because the official unemployment nrs doesn’t count discouraged workers, doesn’t count people who work part-time but need and want to work full-time, and doesn’t count people who are marginally attached.
Google unemployment U3 and U6.
U6 includes all these people and you will see that when you use that measure, unemployment currently stands at 15,4. It has been hoovering between 10% and 15% this entire decade.

OBama said we “will convene a fiscal summit of independent experts and unions, advocacy groups and members of Congress to discuss how we can cut the trillion-dollar deficit that we’ve inherited.”
That we’ve INHERITED?? From Who??? Bush?? I don’t think so. What a weenie. Everything is Bush’s fault and will be for the next 4 years except IT’S NOT!!!! He, Reid and Pelosi are to blame for this monstrosity – no one else and certainly not BUSH!!

Simple. Because the official unemployment nrs doesn’t count discouraged workers,>>>>> That stuff has been around forever. In fact during Carter people thought it was more like 15% unemployment or more. Since all numbers lie you can depend on one thing, they all lie the same way. So Bushes numbers stand. Clintons do as well. etc….

Everything has to change, especially those things that are falling apart- business and government. Those cities and states which are doing well financially only function that way because those governments reside in area of much natural resources that are taxed or preside over an area where much tax revenue can be collected. How can anyone expect a president of any government or business expect much change after one month?

Sam, the point that seems to have escaped you is that the taxes in Texas are less fair than having an income tax. The education funding mechanism there has been declared unconstitutional, and relies too heavily on property taxes. “Conservatives” I have noticed focus very heavily on the income tax as if it were the only one that mattered. This results in some funny results when they try to say that social security is unfunded, and yet don’t account for the fact that the payroll tax has been subsidizing our regular budget. In fact, Reagan’s SS tax increase is the ‘biggest tax hike in history’. The question is who is paying for what. “Conservatives’ love to cite numbers ‘proving’ the rich pay most of the costs of government, when in fact it is not the case. And, most lower income Americans are paying over 40% of their income in taxes, a much higher rate than the rich.

What is it with some of you knuckleheads? Didn’t you get enough of the Bush/Republican screwing that you would want more. Man, even the Monks in Tibet couldn’t wait to see Bush and company leave any faster. The guy is in office 1 month, and you’re complaining. Where the hell were you for the last eight years when you bent over time and time again everytime they asked you? This country is in the mess we are in because of them, not Obama. Give the man time, if he doesn’t get us back on the right track, then complain. Right now, you got nothing and are just a bunch of whinners still not over the other knucklehead McCain losing who wanted to give his wife Cindy a 170K tax break, in addition to all his rich friends. Stop whinning, you sound like spoiled brats. Losers.

teacher said,”Yeah, I will take an educated and prepared president with a plan over that clown any day!” Oh – so then I guess you didn’t vote for Obama or McCain.

HAHAHAHA! 13$/week is a stimulus for the masses? I suppose there wasn’t much left after paying for Harry Reid’s “Train to Nowhere” and frisbee parks.

The question is who is paying for what. “Conservatives’ love to cite numbers ‘proving’ the rich pay most of the costs of government, when in fact it is not the case. And, most lower income Americans are paying over 40% of their income in taxes, a much higher rate than the rich.
HOW LOW IS LOW and how distributed is that number? When you get to the RICH you have far fewer people in group.
So are you looking at percentage per person? Or you looking at the lump sum.
I think you need to recalc to percentage per person.

Willem,
Why aren’t you concerned that Obama isn’t following the Clinton model for creating jobs? Myself, I would feel less angst if he were.

Oblablabla >>> I like it, but I still refer to him as President Chamberlain (an homage to a former idiot British PM).

POJ said “Bush’s tax cuts were all about helping out his rich and powerful friends. They weren’t about helping out the middle class or stimulating the economy. And they didn’t work, either.” They certainly worked for me & my family. We aren’t rich & powerful – we are definitely middle class. Because of the Bush tax cuts, when I got laid off at the end of 2001, we were able to become a one income household. While the Bush cuts didn’t completely eliminate the marriage penalty, it did mitigate it so that it is doesn’t hit married couples so bad. As soon as Obama lets the cuts expire, EVERYONE’s taxes will go up & the marriage penalty goes back into effect. I already went back to work full-time, but my husband & I will both have to get part-time jobs just to pay for the increase in taxes.

Interesting that foreclosures primarily affect only five states – California, Nevada, Florida, Michigan and Arizona. The majority of foreclosures are due to refinancing not primary purchase and most are due to people overpaying during the run-up. This is what the rest of us must now subsidize. Obama makes foreclosure seem like a national crisis. It is not. It’s as if Congress and the administration are using alarmist rhetoric to sink the stock market, increase uncertainty and then ride to the rescue with huge government spending programs increasing their power in key areas of the economy. Government Munchausen syndrome.

Why aren’t you concerned that Obama isn’t following the Clinton model for creating jobs? Myself, I would feel less angst if he were.
Posted by: Sue
============================================
Because, as every economist will tell you: this is NOT your Father’s recession. This is your Grandfather’s depression.
When Clinton took office, the FED still had monetary measures to it’s disposal. It could use interest rates to increase and decrease them to steer the money supply.
Currently, interest rates are ZERO. The FED has lost it’s most important weapon.

Thinking said in response to one of my comments, “It is funny how you all can complain about the tax cut then complian because he will let Bush’s Expire.” Where did you see me complain about tax cuts? (Although, this isn’t technically a tax cut, it appears to be a change in withholding… which may or may not have to be paid back at the end of the year). Federal income taxes were supposed to be a temporary measure to pay for the Civil War. The federal government should have been stopped then and there from making it permanent.

FOR ALL YOU FOOLS WHO BLAME BUSH YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NEVER HAD A POLITICS CLASS OR ECON CLASS BECAUSE YOU WOULD KNOW THE POLICIES OF BILLY CLINTON LED TO THIS MESS!!!!!

Sigmonde:”Fighting two wars (three counting Homeland Security) is the “good times”?”
The Bush tax cuts were based on a projection of a $5.6 trillion budget surplus over 10 years. Don’t you remember the Bush party line in 2001: “There is certainly the chance that the surplus number could be off. As I point out, it could just as easily be larger than we now think. But we don’t know for sure.”
The Afghanistan war was not an expensive one and we had many wars. The Iraq war was one of choice where we had few allies (sorry, remember Poland!). Homeland Security simply highlights how quick the Republicans are to waste money on security theater (thank goodness we no longer have dangerous water going into the gate areas!).

Well, I see he took Clinton’s advice and said something positive at the end of his doom and gloom speech. Can’t he figue this stuff out for himself?

Jake, the posted video is one of the president-elect on Jan 10 rather than today’s address.

jaj….here’s the article…………..
From the NYTimes, 9/11/03: …………….
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. . .

“NYT had an article sept 11, 2003 talked about how Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie.”
Well why didn’t they then? They had control of all the related commitees and had a majority in the House.

“President Bush tried to put the brakes on Fannie & Freddie, but Barney Frank & Co. put roadblock after roadblock up until the bill died.”
What ‘roadblocks’? A filibuster? There was no way to stop the Republicans from passing legislation if they wanted to. This is just baloney.

Sigmonde It dont matter how much taxes you pay if there is no economy, no jobs, no money to spend. Fix the economy first, get people like me who have to spend all our money to buy your products, then your business stays in business, then your stocks go up, then worry about taxes. You all are fools to think taxes is the biggest problem you face ahead. Unemployment, crashing stock market, rising crime, rising fanaticism, global chaos and war, keeping the US and the free world together should be a bigger concern. The housing crises levy has broke, the shining city is flooding. You gotta fix the levy or say goodbye to that shining city.

I’m missing something here. How is this going to help people like me? I’m retired on social security and have a paid for home!!!!! I’m confused!

“There was no way to stop the Republicans from passing legislation if they wanted to.”……………It got a lot harder once Democrats gained Congress 2007 on.

“It was blocked by both Repubs and Dems…”
Right. Lets stop trying to re-write history.

You rich folks blow my mind. You make your money in a booming society and live a privlidged life of extordinary luxury, then when something in the economy breaks, you dont want to spend a little extra to have someone fix it for you. No instead you want a tax break so that you can take even more money with as you run away. Something seems pretty immoral and unamerican when people go around saying, “let half our neighbors go homeless”. That fits up there with Bush’s doctrine of spying on us and torturing POW and giving rich people a tax cut while ordering up a fools war for mostly poor people to die in. There’s something wrong with the world today and it’s not far from where you live.

earl” How is this going to help people like me?”…….Retirees get sent a check for 400 0r 800. Depending if you are Repub or Dem.

Sigmonde Nothing encourages business like people who want to spend money. I don’t like taxes either. But I’m willing to pay to play, pay to be safe, pay to stamp out corruption. I’m grateful for MOST of what the government does. Border patrol, fighten Al Queda, going after people who poison our food, building a freeway, making sure that airplanes dont hit each other. Maybe you should take a stance that attracting business through a capital gains cut is not America’s problem, don’t think it has much to do with the housing crises at all. Economy was doing fine under Clinton and Newt as it was under Bush. Being a moral nation that sets a high standard and inspires CONFIDENCE and security is truly our current crises.

“There was no way to stop the Republicans from passing legislation if they wanted to.”……………It got a lot harder once Democrats gained Congress 2007 on.”
The Democrats DID pass regulations on Freddie and Frannie within six months of taking control in 2006.

Something the Bush haters might wish to consider, not that most of them will let facts get in the way:
Now, this is not to say that Bush hasn’t also been responsible for legislation having a decided impact on the country’s regulatory climate. On July 31, 2002, declaring that free markets must not be “a financial free-for-all guided only by greed,” he signed the Sarbanes-Oxley law, a sweeping overhaul of corporate fraud, securities, and accounting laws. Among its many tough provisions, the law created a new regulatory agency to oversee public accounting firms and auditors, and imposed an array of new requirements for financial reporting and corporate audits.
Whatever else might be said about Sarbanes-Oxley, it was no invitation to an uninhibited capitalist bacchanal.
The administration has broken every previous record for regulatory agency spending. According to researchers at Washington University and George Mason University, appropriations for federal regulatory functions have soared during the Bush years. Adjusting for inflation, the regulatory budget has grown from $25 billion in fiscal year 2000 to an estimated $43 billion in FY 2009 — a 70 percent increase. “In constant dollars,” writes James Freeman in the Wall Street Journal, “the Bush regulatory budget increases vastly exceed those of predecessors Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and, yes, Lyndon Johnson.” Staffing has skyrocketed, too. Regulatory agencies employed 175,000 people in 2000. They employ nearly 264,000 today. (Some of that reflects the Transportation Security Administration’s takeover of airport security screening in 2003.)

from WSJ-
In reality, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the principal culprits of the housing crisis, and Mr. Bush wanted to rein them in before things got out of hand…
When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut successfully threatened a filibuster. Later, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed, Mr. Dodd asked, “Why weren’t we doing more?” He then voted for the Bush reforms that he once called “ill-advised.”
But Mr. Dodd wasn’t the only Democrat to heap abuse on the Bush reforms. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts defended Fannie and Freddie as “fundamentally sound” and labeled the president’s proposals as “inane.” He later voted for the reforms. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York dismissed Mr. Bush’s “safety and soundness concerns” as “a straw man.” “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” was the helpful advice of both Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware and Rep. Maxine Waters of California. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York berated a Bush official at a hearing, saying, “I am just pissed off” at the administration for raising the issue.
Democrats had ready allies among lenders accustomed to GSEs buying their risky mortgages. For example, Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial, complained that “an overly cumbersome regulatory process” would “reduce, or even eliminate, the incentives for the GSEs and their primary market partners.”
It took Fannie and Freddie over three decades to acquire $2 trillion in mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Together, they held $2.1 trillion in 2000. By 2005, the two GSEs held $4 trillion, up 92% in just five years. By 2008, they’d grown another 24%, to nearly $5 trillion. They held almost half of all American mortgages.
The more the president pushed for reform, the more they bought. Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute and Charles Calomiris of the Columbia Business School suggest $1 trillion of this debt was subprime and “liar loans,” almost all bought between 2005 and 2007. This bulk-up in risky paper made it possible for banks to lend imprudently on a massive scale.
Some critics blame Mr. Bush because he supported broadening homeownership. But Mr. Bush’s goal was for people to own homes they could afford, not ones made accessible by reckless lenders who off-loaded their risk to GSEs.
The housing meltdown is largely a story of greed and irresponsibility made possible by government privilege. If Democrats had granted the Bush administration the regulatory powers it sought, the housing crisis wouldn’t be nearly as severe and the economy as a whole would be better off.

Did you read about the gentleman who was worth $700 million; now he is working for $10.00 an hour! That $10.00 an hour could be any of us – whether you’re an engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc. So $13.00 a week or $52.00 a month is a big deal to the homeless veteran, mother or father under the bridge with children, or homeless individual who is sick and can’t get health care. Many of these homeless and less fortunate didn’t become that way because they made bad decisions, it happened because someone else made bad decisions that significantly impacted them. When a company decides to layoff workers – vs reducing salaries for the benefit of all, someone gets hurts; when a major business closes it’s door in a small town, the entire economy of the town is impacted; so I say — $13.00 may not mean much to some or to you, but if you lived under that bridge, I don’t think you would be quick to complain.

You know, you negatories on here who want Obama to fail are not helping your selves at all. All you doing is scaring people. Which is gonna make things worse. You lost the election, but we been there, we know how it feels. So you dont have to tell us, we already know. But the fact is is Obama is your President too unless you’re living in Russia. IF you really want the economy to go down and bailouts to quit, you might try being a little more positive about the bailout and the stimulus to WORK, not to FAIL. Consumer confidence is the crises. You’ll get another election to try to put your candidate back in, but that’s a long ways off and the crises is now. Get out there and help, dont sit around crying and scaring, quit being mamma’s boys. It’s gonna take sacrifice, as it always does, to pull our nation through.

Sigmonde -
Apparently you’re unaware of just how much more money conservatives donate to charity than liberals.
It’s been documented every year for as many years as I can remember.
google “Conservatives donate more to charity than liberals”

Skip -
Bush warned Congress 21 times, once in a State of the Union Address, about the problems posed by Freddie Mac. Congressional democrats are on record opposing him and some went as far as calling Bush a racist because it’s well known that Freddie/Fannie purchased mortgages made in largely minority areas.
Right on peach! You should also add that a new senator from Illinois opposed them at the time! His name is Obama! He got a lot of money from them and now he is giving them money right back! Our tax dollars; correction; our children and grandchildren’s tax dollars!

Sigmonde… Interesting you call me the whiner, when clearly you are the whiner. I was merely pointing out hypocracy is when a rich man dont want to help stop a declining economy, even as his stocks go down and his house goes down and he’s scared to walk down the street, he thinks some little capital gains tax cut is his savior. That rich man is the pink fluffy, not me. I work hard, probably doing hard work you wouldn’t do in a million years, and I am ok with paying taxes, but then I don’t know you so I’m just guessing you are not OK with paying taxes, even in times of great peril which you don’t seem to understand is where this is.

Here’s the Housing Plan: (This is taken directly from Geithner’s scenarios outlined in the plan)
Say Borrowers have a $214,016 mortgage on a home worth $189K today. The “help” Obama proposes is to renegotiate the same loan amount for lower percentage. This is the equivalent of an already-in-practice method for borrowers by buying down in the interest rates via points.
Per the Executive Summary, Obama’s admin is asking the investment bank to cover to cover the costs of those points to bring the monthly payment down to no more than 38% of the borrowers’ income. He’s advocating the government then absorb the costs of the rest of the points charge to bring it down further to 31% of the borrowers’ income.
Just for your reference, to buy down one permanent (over the life of the loan) point is the cost equivalent of 1% of the mortgage amount. In the case above, that would be (rounded off) $2140 per point.
Buying one point lowers one’s interest rate by about 0.125%. Or to make it simple for you, for the cost of two points, you can lower your interest rate a quarter of a point, or .25%. And the cost of that would be $4280.
In other words, in the real world, paying $4280 to buy down the interest rate in the case above would take that 6.5% interest rate down to 6.25%.
Well dang… we’re a far cry shy of 4.42%, aren’t we?
Needless to say, there’s a lotta money in “points” between the 7.5% interest rate on the current loan, and the 4.42% suggested in the example above. Even based on a current rate of say 5.8%, we’re still miles apart in the cost of points.
Reality dictates, *someone* has to eat these costs…. and this is this only part one of the devil in the details.
This is nothing more than “affirmative action”, but instead of based on race and nationality, this is “economic affirmative action”. If you are a solvent qualified buyer, you pay the full rate for a buy down. If you are not a solvent, qualified buyer you get a discount rate.
I have to ask… why bother to be qualified or solvent? And why bother to have a prime rate at all?

“Congressional democrats are on record opposing him and some went as far as calling Bush a racist because it’s well known that Freddie/Fannie purchased mortgages made in largely minority areas.”
So the Democrats didn’t like it and some called him names and that stopped them dead. It didn’t have to do with a lot of Republicans riding the wave of the housing bubble and making tons of cash even though they knew it would crash did it?

in Bill Clintons own words to Chris Cuomo-
“Going very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans’ fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”

Geithner’s Treasury Department provided several scenarios. Get a load of this one:
Family Case C is indicative of most that are distressed properties… people that are upside down in their mortage to current value. That includes not only people who purchased during the boom, but for those that refi’d their homes, took out equity and (perhaps) spent it on anything *but* home improvements.
*********
To think we were told Geithner was the best and brightest.
Obama says that in order for Family C to meet their lender base of 38%, they need to come down from 7.5% to 6.38%. In the real world, this would cost a borrower over $19,000. And that’s still not low enough.
So you and I dig deep into our pockets because Obama’s plan requires that we kick in the additional cost for the matching points.
What are they offering the lenders as incentive? $1000….
Pay for Success” Incentives to Servicers: Servicers will receive an up-front fee of $1,000 for each eligible modification meeting guidelines established under this initiative. They will also receive “pay for success” fees — awarded monthly as long as the borrower stays current on the loan — of up to $1,000 each year for three years.
Uh… am I crazy and misunderstanding this? But what happens to the other $18K bank loss for the first year of this loan modification, while they wait to see if the borrowers stay current for a couple more years?? Multiply this initial loss times 3-4 million loans – despite that “pay for Success” pittance – and we’re STILL talking future bank bailouts.
I was an investment analyst before I retired at age 42 and I can tell you sincerely – this plan is INSANE.

Also, as a lifelong renter, I am getting very tired of hearing people wail about getting “thrown out on the street” after foreclosure. So you couldn’t handle the payments…boo hoo! Rent for the time being until things turn around…

man, no wonder obama never release his college transcripts.. he flunked econ 101

Peach…thanks for that excellent post! You really hit the nail on the head. Here again, homewoners need to read and make sure that they are really getting a deal. It just might make more since to keep the rate that you already have. Please people, do the math? Everything that sounds “GOOD” may not be GOOD. However, for those that do the math and it comes-out that you are really saving, then go with it. But, please, please be very caution.

I issue a challenge to everyone/anyone who thinks he/she has a better solution to help stimulate the economy QUICKLY and fairly. Instead of complaining for the sake of reading your personal blog in print to blog a sensible, bi-partisan, unbiased suggestion. President Obama has at least proven to be a man who is willing to listen to ideas of others. He has extended his hand, the problem is – to many of us – have a clinched fist and folded arms.

Reality……are you sure that Pres. Obama “FLUNKED” econ l0l. Where did you get that information? If you have a link, please provide it, I would like to check it out.

You’re more than welcome, Correct247.
I used to do this for a living only on the commercial side for what was at the time the country’s largest commercial lender.
This bill is much, much worse than even I anticipated (and I knew it was horrible). Once you get into the internals of the thing, it’s a nightmare.

Bush’s tax cuts are not the cause of this crisis, are they? (think sub prime mortgage).
Posted by: Sigmonde
============================================
They created the housing bubble which led to a dramatic increase in sub-prime mortgages (remember, 60% of the sub-prime mortgages were due to refinancing, not first-time homebuyers).
60% of the people with sub-prime mortgages actually qualified for prime mortgages.
Posted by: Willem van Oranje | Feb 21, 2009 4:27:30 PM
*********
You think tax cuts created this situation? OMG
With all due respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I issue a challenge to everyone/anyone who thinks he/she has a better solution to help stimulate the economy QUICKLY and fairly. Instead of complaining for the sake of reading your personal blog in print to blog a sensible, bi-partisan, unbiased suggestion. President Obama has at least proven to be a man who is willing to listen to ideas of others. He has extended his hand, the problem is – to many of us – have a clinched fist and folded arms.
Posted by: michea2345 | Feb 21, 2009 4:21:00 PM
=============================
Well, michea2345 the majority of American gave there input for a solution but, it went unnoticed, letter, emails and phone calls were not taken seriously, because the senate had their own agenda. In addition, you should know by now its too late! It’s a done deal.

obama is a whiner, bush did it bush left us in a mess, well hello, every president had dramas to deal with from the former presidents, and they dealt with it without the temper tantrums finger pointing, you are not in 1st grade anymore deal with it if you can, so far you are sucking, and the tax cut is a credit not a cut, taxes go up next year, and giving the credit on april fools day takes the bloody cake

Why can’t the government reward the homeowners that didn’t wind up in a mess? Lets say 3% percent interest on our current mortgages. It would be nice we have already paid to much interest.Why work two jobs to keep a credit score up? Reward us .I do understand there are exceptions loss of a job or medical expenses , we need to create more jobs. Lets us lower our interest rate and we will pump that money into the economy quicker than the stimulus hoarding the money to the little people

Look up the Bush mandate of the “Ownership Society”, the concessions made to accommodate that goal. Bush campaigned on it, boasted about it’s success and now welcome to 2009 !….

Why can’t the government reward the homeowners that didn’t wind up in a mess? Lets say 3% percent interest on our current mortgages. It would be nice we have already paid to much interest.Why work two jobs to keep a credit score up? Reward us .I do understand there are exceptions loss of a job or medical expenses , we need to create more jobs. Lets us lower our interest rate and we will pump that money into the economy quicker than the stimulus hoarding the money to the little people
Posted by: lisa | Feb 21, 2009 4:36:29 PM
***********
I agree, Lisa.
Jake Tapper reported last night that ABC Evening News researched the housing bill and concluded that irresponsible people were going to be rewarded.
Which means that the responsible people are going to be punished.
There’s really nothing to even say after that.
For every dollar the government spends, they take it from one of us.
And since 42% of American workers don’t pay federal income tax, that means this huge burden falls on the rest of us. The responsible people.

“those who were betting on the come (resale for profit) or who don’t actually have sufficient income to make the payments, should be denied any help from the government.”
Darn right: save those trillions of PUBLIC dollars for the very rich and the upper levels of state government: shareholders and executives in the financial corporations, over-compensated state bureaucrats to keep running their citizen-fleecing scams, courtesy of The CHANGEling.

it is impossible to implement a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, when over 40 percent of Americans have no income tax liability to begin with. Shouldn’t a journalist question such a ludicrous claim, or at the very least, offer some context?
According to the Tax Foundation, under current tax laws, IRS statistics for 2006 show that 45.6 million tax filers have no tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. How can the federal government give them a tax “cut”?
One part of this so-called cut, transfers money from taxpayers and gives it to non-payers. That, conceivably, could be called tax relief for those who do not pay income taxes, but it is no imaginable way a cut. And, as tax relief, is less than a third of the overall $787 billion “economic recovery plan,” the rest is spending. Every penny of spending is in effect a tax hike.

Respone to Sigmonde | Feb 21, 2009 4:25:19 PM:
Please unfold your arms and extend your hand! You might feel better.

And to those who blame Bush, please cite one Bill that the democratic congress and senate brought to Bush over the last 2 years that would have a.) regulated the mortgage lenders, or b.) reduced the deficit. The democrats have proved they are incompetent in both houses, now they will prove total incompetence as POTUS. Burn baby Burn!!!

Reducing your payroll tax gives you a little more spending money but is that really a tax cut? When you do your taxes at the end of the year, will you owe the same as you would normally – just have to come up with more out of pocket cash for your taxes? In other words, is Obama giving a better cash flow but not a cut in tax?

This is a desperate political move. The problem is it will cause serious political fallout that could and most like will effect mid-term election. The bill appears to be a funding bill for mid-term elections in reality. Will it help no most of the package will go into effect in or around the date of the mid-term elections. We can really see President Obama and his inexperience in public affairs.

All I know is my husband & I are in the highest tax bracket we pay plenty of taxes with those vouchers quarterly. We are supporting his mom & sister, and my brother and his family who just lost their jobs . We like to catch a break and receive something for our kindess.Everyone Obama put in the cabinet didn’t pay their taxes , if I am a day late .I receive a certified letter.

PA – since the deficit is so important to you then I’m certain you’ll be mad as heck to learn Bush used accounting gimmicks to make deficit projections appear far smaller than they actually are.
Obama is dropping the gimmicks and we’re actually about 2.7 trillion deeper in the red than first appeared. Welcome to reality and a President who has tough decisions to make.

The tax saving of 65 dollars per month for a middle American family does not mean much when comparing this amount with their loss in saving in their hard earned 401k. The big drop in stock market seems to be a strong indication that wall street did not have much confidence in the new financial move of the Obama government. All together, the stock market dropped nearly 700 points during the two days when pres. Obama signed the stimulus bill and when his treasury secretary released his primary plan about bailout of toxic fund in banks one week earlier. The middle America are losing their saving in their investment many times faster than what they can get , i.e. 15 dollars per weeks from the tax reduction in the stimulus bill.

Peach, come back when you’ve learned the difference between income taxes and payroll taxes.
It’s not that difficult, you should be back in no time.

When you raise taxes on business, where do you think they get the money to pay those additional taxes? They have to EARN it somehow, just like you and me. They can’t go outand get a second job, though.
So they have two choices… they can cut their costs (which is mostly labor) or they can raise the prices on the services and products that they provide.
Either way, “we the people” will ultimately provide ALL of the money that they’ll need to pay those additional taxes.
So you go, Obama… raise those taxes on businesses!!!! It makes for GREAT sound bites. But you’re going to learn a valuable lesson in economics that they obviously didn’t teach you in law school.
Who’s willing to volunteer next to receive a pink slip in order to allow their employer to pay those hefty business taxes?
It’s really not rocket science or brain surgery.

lisa, I know we that pay our bills and do the right thing are very frustrated, millions have sent emails letters and the like to their senators, governors, white house, on a number of things now, our voice is lost in the wind, protests revolutions, I still don;t think will help, the government is so big now, and obama is adding more people everyday, getting a civil police force going and putting gun laws in affect and is going to silence the conservative media voice, we are pretty much buggered at this point

Just wondering if all the lefties that slammed Bush’s tax cuts think it’s a good thing now that Obama is doing it?

I really wish someone had an answer. Do you guys think that Allan Greenspan had a clue to what was going to happen, I didn’t read his book, but he has been quiet lately?

It’ll soon be time for us to take a page out of the Thai’s recent playbook… we’ll be storming the airports and demanding that our professional misrepresentatives all step down, and return all of their amassed power and influence back to the people…
This may very well be the Administration that REALLY makes history!! But not nearly the kind of history they envisioned…

austin: “the stock market dropped nearly 700 points”
========================================
stock market dropped 1300 points after Bush signed EGTRRA in June 2001.
In case you didn’t notice, these points dropped over widespread concern over BoA and Citigroup. And absolutely dismall nrs in the global economy

Just wondering if all the lefties that slammed Bush’s tax cuts think it’s a good thing now that Obama is doing it?
Posted by: LongT
==========================================
You mean tax cuts for lower and middle class as opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy?
You don’t see a difference?

Peach, come back when you’ve learned the difference between income taxes and payroll taxes.
It’s not that difficult, you should be back in no time.
Posted by: Willem van Oranje | Feb 21, 2009 4:55:53 PM
********
Yes, William. I look forward to your vastly superior knowledge.
Why don’t you delve into the details of the housing bill as I did down thread and tell us how those numbers work out for you.
Couldn’t do it? Didn’t think so.

Other MAIN stream News Papers are reporting it as $40 a month….. I sure Mr. BO has NO idea how much it will actually be be for MOST taxpayers….

I don’t need a bunch of numbers to figure out that when you give huge tax cuts to the richest Americans and then run up a huge debt who’s going to end up paying it back.

This man is a fraud.

“I feel fine, but thanks for your concern. Posted by: Sigmonde | Feb 21, 2009 4:50:22 PM…
That’s exactly what I meant, people who think like you have no conscious for humanity outside of their own personal circle or personal gain.

Willem van Oranje said (see response to LongT’s post):
“Just wondering if all the lefties that slammed Bush’s tax cuts think it’s a good thing now that Obama is doing it?
Posted by: LongT
==========================================
You mean tax cuts for lower and middle class as opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy?
You don’t see a difference?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am a LONG WAY from rich (i.e. approx $50k per year income as a school teacher) and I REMEMBER GETTING BOTH ADDITIONAL MONEY BACK IN TAX REFUNDS THE YEAR THE TAX CUTS WENT IN EFFECT, AND SAW A LOWER AMOUNT OF WITHHOLDING IN MY MONTHLY PAYCHECK.
You all really need to get off of this “tax cuts only for the rich” BS; you are presenting a falsehood.

Peach: you have spouted so much tripe on this board, it’s hard to keep up. But you mean this?
“Family C can get a government sponsored modification that will reduce their mortgage payments by $406/month for 5 years. After those 5 years the payment will adjusted upward at a phased-in level.
AND THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM AN ARM HOW?????”
You can’t answer this one for your self?
You don’t know that getting a “bridgeloan” over a 5 year period to keep you and your family afloat and in your house during the hard years will enable you to pay it back when the good years have finally arrived again?
Are you really such a simpleton?

agree something positive is due . At least BO should lead us to believe that the confidence is long gone. What about yes we can .
*****************************************************
I agree, Lisa. Instead of doom and gloom, let’s keep our perspective expanded ever upward. Let us not lose sight of those tasty birds in the sky. Let us be inspired by birdsong and its promise of an appetite fulfilled! Let us be happy, instead of hissing at one another and imagining the worst, like being sport for a Doberman. And even though some of us possess nine lives, let us not forget the joys of Carpe Diem, or seizing the mouse! Yes, we can!

“Just wondering if all the lefties that slammed Bush’s tax cuts think it’s a good thing now that Obama is doing it?”
Lefties and OTHERS don’t think it’s a good idea. Returning to pre-Reagan taxes on the rich — the ones who now have ALL the money, including a few trillion from Obama that the people in general are liable for repaying to China — will be a good thing to do when the Democrats re-take the Democratic Party hijacked by the elite-right “Obama” organization.

You all really need to get off of this “tax cuts only for the rich” BS; you are presenting a falsehood.
Posted by: MikeO
==========================================
MikeO: the actual income of the lower 95% of the population has not increased in the last 8 years. Throw in the cost for healthcare and your net income has decreased.
Only the top 5% saw an actual increase in their income when adjusted for inflation.

Willem van Oranje – My income is CERTAINLY in the lower 95% of the population, and my income has almost DOUBLED in the last 8 years, and I still have the same employer I’ve had for 26 years.
Oops!

Skip 5:17….tax revenues and GDP both went up after the Bush tax cuts. Check the stats on the CBO Web site. Two problems, though. 1) the government did not cut back on (or even level off) spending; and 2) the private sector, in general, spent the additional money in their pockets on easy monthly payments for debt incurred to buy anything they lusted after (big screen TVs and such) and get-rich-quick schemes (like flipping houses for a massive profit or investing in some of those high-risk financial instruments) instead of something solid and affordable. The only way you can claim the government “lost” money is if you ASSUME that the GDP would have grown at an identical rate (an unfounded assumption, and contrary to the claims of economists that say tax cuts stimulate the GDP and result in higher overall tax revenues, which has been observed every time tax cuts have been enacted in recent history).

Good luck to everyone on the board who actually cares about our economy , its leaving me sleepless. Have a great weekend.We are going to go out for pizza and spend a couple bucks . Thanks everyone!!!

Peach,
you are aptly named. because you are a peach of a liberal trying to spend their way to oblivion in the name of feel good policies. your snake oil salesman is ruining you and yet you praise your hero Obama. this is hysterial and, sorry, peachy
are you a communist-marxist-socialist, too, like BO? try cuba…
Posted by: Loser Watch | Feb 21, 2009 5:33:02 PM
**********
Loser Watch –
I am a conservative and a Republican. I voted for McCain (although I had to hold my nose) and detest what Obama represents.
What did I write that makes you think I’m a lib?

Did Obama actually stay in Washington today or did he fly around somewhere to give this important announcement.
All hail Lord King God Obama
Peach is a neo-Marxist
Posted by: sam adams | Feb 21, 2009 5:34:56 PM
*********
What are you drinking? I’m a conservative and detest the Marxist Obama.

William – a bridge loan? Oh my sides. You wouldn’t know a bridge loan if it bit you.
There is no one describing the housing bailout bill for homeowners as a bridge loan. Well, until now that is.

Peach,
Good.
Everyone who does not publically denounce Obama and his Marxist Socialist policies is a Communist.
SOMEONE is responsible for this emperor with no clothes

I second that
It’s time for America to wake up to the Obama Comedy Show
How many trillions will he spend next week?
Tune in and find out…

“You don’t know that getting a “bridgeloan” over a 5 year period to keep you and your family afloat and in your house during the hard years will enable you to pay it back when the good years have finally arrived again?”………If you can’t pay the mortgage payment you originally signed up for, why should you get a lower payment? Either you have sufficient income or, you don’t have sufficient income and have a no doc loan. It doesn’t matter what the current value of your home is. If you happen to be unemployed, you will be foreclosed and have to move. No government in the world is going to release you from paying your obligation.

we didn’t believe in massive welfare garbage either
obama is a FRAUD and LIAR

peach I find your posts informative, and on the right side, don’t let some trolls dictate, they are the ones waiting beside the mail box with there becks and marlbro because the gov paid for it

when does America get tired of Obama’s act
liberals, how do you like your messiah now?

trolls would not exist if Obama would just do the right thing and RESIGN
someone has to counteract ACORN

Sam Adams,
A professor did a map of the US and pinpointed where Obama got the majority of his votes.
A quick look at the map looks like the Bush/Kerry map in 2004 and it seems inconceivable that election was so close.
Obama got his votes from inner-cities and large population areas. Those folks are either a) dumb and/or b) young and since the universities today are liberal, that’s how these folks think.
Until they get married and actually own something we used to quaintly call property. Then they want to protect their assets they’ve worked hard for and they start voting Republican.

pink stocks are a scam: “alex you nut, mean that in a good way, why hire chinese, yanks can do it, but obama has already opened the boarder, by shutting down the fence that was being built by bush, something ironically he voted for building in the senate probably the only thing he voted for LOL seriously now he needs the immigrant vote, to stay in office, how crazy does that sound, they shouldn;t even be able to vote, hang on acorn will take care of that *slap hand on forhead* MORE POPCORN PLEASE”
————————————–
Pink Stocks, we would have to hire foreign nationals for this because too many liberal judges just love throwing U.S. citizens in jail for stopping illegals from crossing the border.

“They never mentioned it back when Bush lowered their taxes…”………..yeah, sure. Bush only lowered Republican’s taxes. Sure. So, when you fill out your 1040 tax form, be sure to check the box labeled Republican instead of Democrat.

suffering, got ya,

Liked it as well sandcrab. I saw it on the other boards. Freaking hiliarious (but true) :)

“A professor did a map of the US and pinpointed where Obama got the majority of his votes.”
ROFLMAO….now passing around debunked chain emails!

“Until they get married and actually own something we used to quaintly call property. Then they want to protect their assets they’ve worked hard for and they start voting Republican.”
McCain did not win a single education bracket and lost double digits with those who are college educated and post-college degreed.
The only age group McCain carried was 65 and older.
Obama also took the income bracket of 200 K plus in earnings (I bet they have “assets”)
So it seems to me your post is more a statement of fantasy than fact.

kit kat wrote: “Right wingers remind me of poodles with their over reactivity and shrill yappity yapping. And they’re so driven by the impulse of their distorted instincts. I have nightmares of being trapped in small pens with them. Perhaps this is one of them.”
————————————-
Kind of like the “change, change, change, change” yapping of the left loonies.
Posted by: | Feb 21,

***Obama also took the income bracket of 200 K plus in earnings (I bet they have “assets”)***
——————————–
Then Republicans are not the party of the rich.

“when does America get tired of Obama’s act”
Next Tuesday.

“Then Republicans are not the party of the rich.”
No, the rich just thought the Republican party was far too incompetent to run the country.

unless you get a pay raise to 330 from 160 because your hubby got elected to the illionios senate, ear marked a bunch of money to the hospital you are working at”
Michelle got her raise a year before Obama submitted and earmark that never made it into the budget.
In short the hospital did not get any money.
But as everyone knows the right wing has trouble with the facts.
What’s next the made up room service story?

“Just another right wing lie”……..Can’t you come up with more original platitudes?”
The simple truth works best.
Poor right wingers don’t like being called out for the liars they are.

It’s incredible to think that when you elect someone like George W Bush for 8 years the economy get run into the ditch. He was so articulate and obviously intelligent.

thanks ryan I am cracking my self up with my posts to you, thanks needed the laugh reel bad. again thanks for that cheers

Eric wrote: “It’s incredible to think that when you elect someone like George W Bush for 8 years the economy get run into the ditch. He was so articulate and obviously intelligent.”
=======================================
“This um ah stimulus er ah bill ah ah does um um um not have um er ah one er grr ah single earmark ah hmm um a in it.”
Yea, but not near as articulate as the current POTUS though…lol.
Posted by: | Feb 21, 2009 6:28:25

“thanks ryan I am cracking my self up with my posts to you”
Don’t be so modest.
I am sure many people here are laughing at your posts to me.

ryan you are cracking me up again, michelle said what she said, is she proud of her country yet? you are digging a deeper hole sticking up for her

TheLight315 -
Although some of us have mentioned that government spending didn’t work during the depression, a lot of us are also listening to economists on CNBS, Kiplingers, Forbes, etc. And they don’t think it will work and are adamantly opposed to the plan. And, as you can see, Wall Street in general isn’t confident about the plan.
How do you think businesses will react to having to pay higher taxes will Obama raised their tax? They will lay off even more people and the Dow will sink even lower.

Ryan C -
Oh, heavens to Betsy. Some posters got the $600 earrings story mixed up with regard to Michelle and you’re calling people liars? ROFL
She made fun of the $600 Bush stimulus check. It was $1,200 for married couples.
And only an elitist witch like Michelle could think people who were hurting, as she claimed they were, would go out and purchase $600 earrings.
But keep defending her. You’re about the only person in the nation who is.

Ryan, dear –
It wasn’t a paper by a right winger. It was in Treasury Secretary Henry Morganthau wrote in his OWN diary that they spent gobs of money during the Depression and it didn’t work.
Morganthau said in fact that all that government spending made things WORSE and LENGTHENED the depression.
And unemployment numbers went down after 4 years and you are saying that was wonderful? ROFL
Apparently you are unaware that in 1920 unemployment and all economic indicators were worse than the 1929 depression and yet in one year, after doing virtually nothing, unemployment numbers were vastly improved and the country was out of the depression.
But carry on spouting your garbage. You’re providing much needed comedy relief.

Apparently you are unaware that in 1920 unemployment and all economic indicators were worse than the 1929 depression and yet in one year, after doing virtually nothing, unemployment numbers were vastly improved and the country was out of the depression.”
ROFLMAO….so your contention is the depression was over in 1930?
Keep quoting things you don’t understand, its quite funny.

Ryan -
Now I know that reading comprehension isn’t your thing so I’ll type slowly and you do the same and read slowly.
The country suffered a severe depression in 1920. The leading economic indicators were worse than they were in the 1929 depression.
The administration in 1920 decided to do nothing. Well, they did do a little something. They gave folks tax breaks.
Within one year we were out of the depression.
Fast forward to 1929. The leading indicators were bad but not as bad as 1920. FDS threw money at the problem.
8 years later his treasury secretary wrote in his diary that throwing money at the depression made it last longer and didn’t work.
You have fun tonight Ryan spewing your anger all over the forum.

“Fast forward to 1929. The leading indicators were bad but not as bad as 1920. FDS threw money at the problem.”
FDR?
You do realize he did not take office until 1933.
So your contention that FDR prolonged a Depression that started in 1929 and would solve itself when he did not take office until 1933 is absurd.

peach forget it, it doesn’t matter how many facts you show the liberals, all they can do is call you names and not come back with any facts or arguements to make what they are spouting valid, its a lost cause, while they are waiting for the check, the rest of us are getting ready, seems like I am preparing for a hurricane but it will be worse, we are in trouble and it’s just the begining

If this man doesnt take care of the banking system that $65 each family will receive wont make a difference because when your financial system fails money means nothing! I believe he is lost and doesnt know how to handle the current situation. Im not trying to knock him just stating a fact as I see it! Why in the world isnt Geithner talking about what their plans are? Any clue?

Obama’s tax cuts are a joke. Gasoline tax has gone up. Food prices are going up. Everything else is going up. Like Michelle Obama said. What can we do with that?

Harding’s election meant big bucks for big business. The anti-trust gains made by Wilsonian progressives went out the door as a new age dawned for fat-cat tycoons and good old boys in the Republican Party. Ironically, though, many of Harding’s pro-business policies hurt the American economy in the long run. First, the sudden free-for-all in the market led to speculation and corruption. Speculators began using future earnings on the stocks they owned—money they did not even have yet—to buy new stocks, a process known as “buying on margin.” This overspeculation, along with widespread corruption and faulty international finances, eventually led to the stock market crash of 1929. I know you republicans think you don’t need to do any research-but please there are children in the audience you are misinforming…

“Why in the world isnt Geithner talking about what their plans are? Any clue?”
Most likely because the “Obama” organization knows that if the shifty-eyed little tax-dodger ever shows his face on teevee AGAIN, to present a hahaha “plan”, the stock market will crash and NEVER recover …

The programs usually create adverse incentives. This is especially true in so-called “anti-poverty” programs. The beneficiaries find government subsidies a replacement for, rather than a supplement to, gainful employment and eventually become incapable of supporting themselves. This in turn creates a dependent culture with its attendant toxic behaviors which demand still more government “remedies.”
The programs create their own industry, complete with scads of “think tanks” and “experts” who survive on government research grants. These are the aptly named “Beltway Bandits.”
They create their own bureaucracies, whose managers conspire with interested members of Congress to continually increase program funding, regardless of merit.
Members of Congress secure votes and campaign donations by extorting them from beneficiaries of such programs, either through veiled threats — “vote for me or those mean Republicans will wipe out your benefits” — or promises of still more bennies.

I haven’t read all of these comments, but has anyone yet pointed out that this is not a tax cut at all?
It is a decrease in witholding. Your refund check next year will be smaller, because the tax rate wasn’t cut.
He is giving you nothing. He is easing the tax burden for NO ONE.
He is a liar.

“that this is not a tax cut at all? ”
It’s not clear. It appears to be a reduction to give the taxpayer more cash by reducing withholding. He doesn’t say tax liability will be reduced, only that the amount withheld will be reduced. If that is true, your tax liability will remain the same at year end. Those who don’t “earn enough” to pay taxes will get a $400 check. If you are a Democrat, I think you get $800.

wholey crap, obama thinks he doesn’t have enough money for porkulas now, NEW headline, obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, bush bashers any of you in the house, problem is he thinks that anyone whos makes 50 grand is rich, sheeesh cant stop laughing, he is also scaling back on military, who cares about the econmey if we are bombed into oblivion, msnbc go read it wholey crap. what is the dow going to be on this news wholly cripps how much more can we take of this

Quote from AP article recently posted on several other news sites (not posted yet on ABC News that I’ve seen) concerning increasing taxes on the wealthiest in the US, reducing money spent on the Iraq war, and streamlining government:
“Obama’s budget director, Peter Orszag, told lawmakers recently that even after the economy recovers, annual deficits could reach $750 billion or so and steadily exceed $1 trillion by the end of the next decade. And, Obama himself has said, without decisive action, ‘trillion-dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come.’”
Am I reading this right? Annual deficits of $750 billion and steadily exceeding $1 trillion ANNUALLY by the end of the next decade? President Obama only plans to have the annual deficit down to $533 billion by the end of 2013.
Thoughts anyone?

cheese n rice didnt I say dont take your eye off the ball, HOW MUCH MORE OF THIS BULL ARE WE GOING TO PUT UP WITH

This is the SECRET part of the Stimulus Plan….BO reduces taxes and the States raise taxes….. its a zero sum game they are playing….

Just trying to make sense of the AP article….
Annual deficit reduced to $533 billion by 2013.
Then growing from an annual rate of about $750 billion to approximately $1 trillion by 2019.
??????
Can someone please enlighten me on how this is a good plan? These are projections (according to the article) based on the economy recovering by then (2012 – 2013 time frame, near as I can figure), so we won’t be able to blame this on “bailouts necessary to save or create 3.5 million jobs”.

Wow…it suddenly got very quiet. Eerie. Well, I think I’ll call it a night. I hope I don’t have any nightmares over these planned deficits. Sleep tight, all! God bless.

$65/month will be eaten up by all the new taxes states are passing. Check out WI’s tax increases – on everything from iTunes purchases to hospital services. NY is going to get hit hard with tax increases, and CA as well………and while I’m at it, Obama has not had ONE POSITIVE thing to say about the American people in the last two weeks. Mr. Doom and Gloom might be trying to be frank, but jeez louise could he bother to point out that Americans are strong, hardworking, and that we’ve been through worse and prospered? Or will he continue to govern by fear?

This entire “change” thing is totally out of hand. There is no doubt that Obama is clueless about any of this. He has to be stopped before he does more long term damage. It is 20 months until the elections and control of congress must pass to the Republicans in order to control the damage.

to Peach re:”Although some of us have mentioned that government spending didn’t work during the depression, a lot of us are also listening to economists on CNBS, Kiplingers, Forbes, etc. And they don’t think it will work and are adamantly opposed to the plan.” Sorry about the slow response…unexpected company. I seem to recall a point in time when Obama was chided as being presumptuous for meeting with the world’s foremost experts on the economy before he was even elected. He assembled a “who’s who” team of economists to discuss this crisis. Even most Republican experts agree that the stimulus was necessary. They might have disagreed on the ratio of tax cuts to spending, but that is exactly my point. I can quote just as many experts that say this is the right course of action. How can anyone be certain when we are in uncharted waters? It would be easier to swallow if these experts that you quote were able to provide an alternative plan. It’s the same old dogma. As usual, they are long on criticism and short on solutions. Are you willing to take the chance that we should do nothing and the market will “self correct”? I saw during the campaign that Obama is, if nothing else, a pragmatist. You would either have to believe that Obama is out to destroy the nation, or he talked to the people that would give him the insight to proceed appropriately. There might have been adjustments to the plan to appease the right, but given the speed at which this legislation was enacted, this was something that drew a consensus long before any actual votes were cast.

Interested08: “Obama has not had ONE POSITIVE thing to say about the American people in the last two weeks.”
=========================================
Don’t be ridiculous. Has he called anybody a bunch of “losers” like that spoiled brat Santelli did?
But let me turn it around: have you said something nice about Obama in the last two years?

Oh Goody! I can’t wait!! My family is planning a night out at McDonalds when my ship comes in!! Keep your damn money is what I say. Just like all of the other promised money from this administration, there are too many strings attached!

The NYT reports that Obama will not only raise taxes on businesses (who will pass the increase along to the consumer – watch Wall Street tank even further), but he’s going to impose greenhouse taxes.
Obama famously said in 2008 he would make American citizens’ electricity rates skyrocket under his plan:
“What I’ve said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more — that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else’s out there, so if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
“When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
Got that America? Obama TOLD you that he would make your electricity rates skyrocket, and you still voted for him.
We’ve officially become a nation of idiots.

Sheer brilliance on the Obama administration’s part. Putting the money in our pockets w/o having to file ridiculous paperwork gets the money to WORKING PEOPLE and circulating in the economy much, much faster.

For all the Obama haters that want to blame this week’s stock losses on Obama. You’re wrong. Every time the stock market begins to rebound, some Republican politician gets on tv to tell us that the banks will be nationalized. The Republicans are doing their damnedest to make sure that investors won’t make money — the Limbaugh strategy to force failure. You people are sick!

Senator DeMint (R) says it’s time to take to the streets.

CommonSense said: “For all the Obama haters that want to blame this week’s stock losses on Obama. You’re wrong. Every time the stock market begins to rebound, some Republican politician gets on tv to tell us that the banks will be nationalized. The Republicans are doing their damnedest to make sure that investors won’t make money — the Limbaugh strategy to force failure. You people are sick!”
————–
I believe the lastest Senator to advocate for nationalizing the banks was Sen Dodd. Now let me see…what party does he belong to again?
It seems like every time the stock market goes up these days, Democrats try to take credit for it, but when the stock market goes down, they try to blame someone/something else. Nice double standard.
Perhaps you should change your screen name; common sense seems to be lacking.

CommonSense…investors aren’t investing because they are seeing President Obama saying he is going to increase capital gains and increase taxes on business (at a minimum by letting the Bush tax cuts expire). Why invest when the gains you make on the investment will be taxed away by someone saying “You can afford it”?

Peach: Apparently you’re unaware that you didn’t have to file paperwork when you got the Bush tax cuts.
Paperwork/taxes — same thing.

I’ll note that Maxine Waters (D) wondered aloud why we didn’t nationalize the oil industry.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) is a first class idiot. But he’s in good company with the rest of the Senate.

CommonSense…what investor is going to invest in a business (like providing money for a potential expansion) if he/she is convinced that the economy is going to continue shrinking, and the business in which he/she invests may go out of business before the investor ever sees a profit? Also, if that business does survive, who would want to invest if they see much of that realized gain get taxed away by the government?
By the way, there ARE more ways of investing than simply in the stock/bond/commodities market. Your view is very narrow.

Peach: Apparently you’re unaware that you didn’t have to file paperwork when you got the Bush tax cuts.
Paperwork/taxes — same thing.
Posted by: Common Sense | Feb 22, 2009 8:13:10 AM
**********
I hereby nominate that post as the most non-sensible of the day.

Common Sense -
Please tell us how CNBC is profiting from this talk about nationalizing banks.
Quite the oppose is true, but make your case. I’ll be waiting with baited breath.

Correction: My post about gains in the market should have read “more than 12 years”, not 12 years.

MikeO:
/———-
CommonSense…what investor is going to invest in a business (like providing money for a potential expansion) if he/she is convinced that the economy is going to continue shrinking, and the business in which he/she invests may go out of business before the investor ever sees a profit? Also, if that business does survive, who would want to invest if they see much of that realized gain get taxed away by the government?
By the way, there ARE more ways of investing than simply in the stock/bond/commodities market. Your view is very narrow.
———-/
If a business is subject to failure because they don’t devise an economy-proof plan, why would anyone invest any way? People are not investing because the SEC under Chris Cox did not protect investors. Paulson failed Lehman and gave Goldman Sachs taxpayer money, etc., etc. The lack of confidence has NOTHING to do with taxes and EVERYTHING to do with the confidence lost under the crooked Bush administration.
You are right that there are other ways to invest — directly investing in the businesses in your own neighborhood. With respect to narrow-mindedness, the only one who said that investing ONLY includes stocks/bonds/blah blah was you. Get a grip, learn to read, whatever.

“Paulson failed Lehman and gave Goldman Sachs taxpayer money, etc., ”
Again – your wrong. Lehman failed because of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Paulson then stopped other banks from doing the same, hence TARP1. And Goldmans didnt want any govt money, then good old Mr Buffett put 5bn into goldman sachs because he knows what a viable company they are.
You gotta start thinking outside the box and not your huffington post rhetoric!!!!!

Great post, Louisa.

I’m waiting for reaction on this thread to the NYT article that Obama plans to tax greenhouse emissions and of course the businesses taxed will pass along the tax to the consumers.
Well, Obama admitted last year he knew his plans would cause consumer electricity rates to skyrocket.
And the idiots still elected him. No wonder democrats want to keep failing schools.

Peach:
/—-
You do realize the set-backs are, at most, back to 1997 levels don’t you? So anyone who has been in the market for 12 years will have gains and yes, if they sell out they will pay capital gains on that money.
—-/
Lemme get this straight. You didn’t need to file your taxes to get Bush’s stimulus and you didn’t sell your stocks and other investments held for 30 years at the height of the bubble because you were AFRAID that it would be taxed? Instead, you waited for your stocks be reduced in value by 50-100% to avoid a 15% tax. Oh, I see.

Common Sense -
I type too quickly and apparently you read too quickly to comprehend.
I said I have been invested in the market for over 30 years. I didn’t say when I got out; you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Common sense -
I didn’t say anything about paperwork with regard to Bush’s check to taxpayers last year. Every year we all have to file tax returns, regardless of whether Bush sent out that check or not.
Your post makes zero sense.
What I did was compare how much more money we got with the Bush check (which I didn’t approve of) vs. Obama’s plan.

Gosh, even the liberal San Francisco Chronicle is today complaining that Obama’s website Recovery.gov, has only skeletal information regarding the (anti) stimulus plan. Just more non-transparency by this administration, despite their promises it would be the most transparent admin. in history.
The media isn’t quite laughing at him yet, but close.

Sheer brilliance on the Obama administration’s part. Putting the money in our pockets w/o having to file ridiculous paperwork gets the money to WORKING PEOPLE and CIRCULATING in our economy much, much faster.

The proposed raising of the capital gains tax gets right to the heart of the problem. Apparently, Bush’s large hedge-fund friends at Goldman Sachs are the biggest recipients of that reduced tax on capital gains. Google the list of the largest hedge fund managers. Goldman Sachs (Bush appointed Hank Paulson’s former employer) is number 5 on the list.
Those people’s incomes are not taxed like ordinary citizens incomes are. Why? Because Bush and Paulson allowed them to claim their ordinary income as capital gains.
Also of note, hedge fund managers are exempt from the short-selling rules. That is the reason they create rumors to crash stocks. They are exempted from what Bush-appointed former SEC chairman Chris Cox was supposedly protecting investors from — short selling! Short-selling goes hand in hand with rumor-mongering and spreading fear.
The republican administration’s tax-breaks for the billionaires that stole our money is over! We’re taking back those windfall profits Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Bush cronies stole from us! That is what this hooplah over capital gains is all about.
Fairness is returning under the Obama administration and I applaud it!

People who don’t even PAY taxes are getting what I call (more appropriately) a welfare check. And of course, those of us who own small businesses and provide jobs get nothing, just the tax bill to pay these welfare checks to those that don’t even deserve it.
$13/week? Yeah, that will stimulate the economy. How stupid is that.
But that’s the socialist agenda. Keep them dependent on someone’s else’s money.

” if obama thinks $65 take home will make a difference, he is smokin’ something.”
==========================================
So. How much do you thing it should be to alleviate the problems millions of people are living with right now? Should Obama double or triple it?
I’d like to hear something constructive ideas from your side please.

“I’d like to hear something constructive ideas from your side please.’……How about telling the truth about the “tax cut” you think you are getting. It appears you are getting less withholding (more spendable monthly), but will you owe the same amount of tax for the year when you file?

Giving people an extra $13 a week and expecting them to spend it is the problem.
  
How many people today spend their paycheck without saving anything. Or rent a one bedroom apartment while driving a new car. God bless them, in this great country you are free to do what you want. Yet it’s their lack of financial discipline that caused their problem in the first place.

Where do I get in line for my handout? My dh and myself are self employed. Our occupation already has prices controlled by government and its a horrible mess right now (I won’t mention our occupation or that would open a whole new subject)Lets just say drink more milk! We live from check to check from our cooperative. Living extremely frugal. Help to the people who bought extravagant homes, now renters want there fair share too. Bailout for automakers. When will this end? The stimulus package still sounds like a big free for all for the select. The ones who can push and shove their way to the front of the lines will get the windfall. Who is going to pay the most for this? Certainly not the big office executives, it will be the next generation of blue collar workers. $13 a week extra for each paycheck? Like that is really going to help when the average price of many food items have went up and up in the stores. When is this huge debt going to be paid off? By lowering taxes? I don’t think so. The whole things seems to be lacking in common sense or just plain old math.

L,
The tax cuts for the rich and for small businesses under the Bush administration didn’t work. See massive unemployment rates and reduced salaries for middle-class earners. Trickle-down died once the evidence was analysed, so please give it up already!

I hope President Obama reads this blog: Where are the stimulus checks that was talked about when the first $700 billion was given out. How come that is being put on the back burner. If we are going to keep paying taxes, then why not give the American people a $20,000 or $30,000 check to stimulate the economy. You keep saying it needs to be done from the bottom up, but keep giving our tax paying money to these banks and car companies, who will not lend to people w/bad credit or who keeps making cars w/high price tags. Giving to them is not stimulating the economy. Unless the American people get a slice of the billion dollar pie, I will keep going exempt on my federal taxes and pay in pieces here and there until your new govt. decides to give back to the American people. I am sorry but $13 a weeks does not even cover gas for a week. As a matter of fact it is a slap in the face and an embarrassment for you to even think that the American people would be happy with that. We want a stimulus check or the economy will not bounce back, more stores will close, no cars bought, no vacations, no nothing until we get our share of the pie, and not no funky $600 or $1000 check which could barely pay 1 or 2 bills. Send us something besides throwing the American people a bone, while the big companies get away with just spending our money and having the nerve to come back and ask for more. Well I am asking for more, let see if I and other American tax payers will get it.

I remember the tax cut Bush put through, it was for the ones making $250,000 or more.
How did this affect you???? I got a whopping TWO CENTS A MONTH. WOW!!!! How does that help anyone?
I can use $13.00 a week – $52.00/month (10 months time (if you add it up Is $520.00). I can get gas for my car (economy car), more fruits and vegetables at the grocery store, buy extra essentials- paper towels, toilet paper, etc. All you have to do is think a little bit.
It’s amazing when someone is trying to help and all you can do is put them down. We are in a bad situation and he is trying to help. The stimulus check that Bush gave us, what to be spent to bring the economy up, and many saved it or paid bills and that was not the idea of the check.
Also – “Peach” – the seniors are getting a check for $250 or $300.00.

$65 a month x 12 months is 780/yearly, thats more than alot of us got in our stimulus checks last year. It comes out evenly if you want a stimulus check save your 65 a month and use it at the end of 12 months! shelbel