The additional tax cuts will retard our economic recovery

[Supposn]

The additional tax cuts for individuals’ annually earning in excess of ¼ million will retard our economic recovery. The net increase of our federal debt due to that additional tax cut will certainly inhibit passage and enactment of measures that would significantly hasten that recovery.

Obama’s decision is contrary to the best economic interests of our nation and it will be politically detrimental to Democrats in 2011 and 2012 elections. I regret that (as he previously signaled his intentions), Obama again acquiesced and submitted to the Republican Party.

I will not vote for Democrats until they find and retain some courage. It doesn’t appear that I’ll be voting for Obama or any other Democrats in 2012.

Respectfully, Supposn

[BoogyMan]

What additional tax cuts? You mean the lack of class warfare induced tax increase on the wealthy so that the federal government can continue to spend like money grows on trees?

Lets be honest, no-one is talking about cutting taxes, they are talking about not increasing them.



The additional tax cuts for individuals’ annually earning in excess of ¼ million will retard our economic recovery. The net increase of our federal debt due to that additional tax cut will certainly inhibit passage and enactment of measures that would significantly hasten that recovery.

Obama’s decision is contrary to the best economic interests of our nation and it will be politically detrimental to Democrats in 2011 and 2012 elections. I regret that (as he previously signaled his intentions), Obama again acquiesced and submitted to the Republican Party.

I will not vote for Democrats until they find and retain some courage. It doesn’t appear that I’ll be voting for Obama or any other Democrats in 2012.

Respectfully, Supposn

[darin]

Tax cuts COSTING us money? Wha??? It was never 'The Governments' money...and nobody will be BILLING the gov't because the gov't wasnt able to steal it.

What's costing money? People who pay NO TAX, getting f'ing REFUNDS. :(

[SassyLady]

The additional tax cuts for individuals’ annually earning in excess of ¼ million will retard our economic recovery. The net increase of our federal debt due to that additional tax cut will certainly inhibit passage and enactment of measures that would significantly hasten that recovery.

Obama’s decision is contrary to the best economic interests of our nation and it will be politically detrimental to Democrats in 2011 and 2012 elections. I regret that (as he previously signaled his intentions), Obama again acquiesced and submitted to the Republican Party.

I will not vote for Democrats until they find and retain some courage. It doesn’t appear that I’ll be voting for Obama or any other Democrats in 2012.

Respectfully, Supposn

Additional tax cuts???? Are you talking about the 2% reduction in payroll taxes that the employee no longer has taken out of their paychecks.....but the employer is still going to end up paying. I would think there are millions of people who just got a tax cut who make under $250K.

If you want to decrease the national debt, then quit the pork spending programs.

[fj1200]

The additional tax cuts for individuals’ annually earning in excess of ¼ million will retard our economic recovery. The net increase of our federal debt due to that additional tax cut will certainly inhibit passage and enactment of measures that would significantly hasten that recovery.

Obama’s decision is contrary to the best economic interests of our nation and it will be politically detrimental to Democrats in 2011 and 2012 elections. I regret that (as he previously signaled his intentions), Obama again acquiesced and submitted to the Republican Party.

I will not vote for Democrats until they find and retain some courage. It doesn’t appear that I’ll be voting for Obama or any other Democrats in 2012.

Respectfully, Supposn

Well it seems that you've ignored the multiple responses that tax rates are not being cut and that it's not the government's money; researching (watching msnbc) some talking point responses I'm sure.

We're you also concerned about the increase in debt due to the $1TT+ (including financing costs) stimulus program? But I must wonder why you think that new government measures would be more effective than private sector investment/spending? Would you please expand on this.

EDIT:

Also, have you taken note that economic performance and job growth have lagged, i.e. been nonexistent, during this tax increase/higher government spending led "recovery" than compared to tax cut led recoveries?

[cadet]

Anybody ever noticed that if you don't spend money, you have more of it? No, seriously. *hint hint, wink wink, nudge nudge* Obama.
I think the best thing Uncle Sam could do for us is to get ride of the tax's that we don't need anymore.
Lets see, lower property tax's, (my land, not yours) and people would have more to spend. In other words, if you don't take the peoples money, they have money to spend, and the economy gets better.
besides, most of those programs the govt has, is just screwing over our country.
Take money from hard working individuals, they get pissed. Give said money to low life losers who don't think they have to work, and they start relying on those tax's they don't pay.
Get ride of their free money, and they might get out there and look for a job. "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for life."
Besides, with all the benefits of not working, it sounds pretty darn good if you ask me. no work, free food, no tax's, etc. I'll just sign up for unemployment right here. it'll be easier, wont have to work my butt off every day.

Oh, wait, if I do that, everyone else will get that same idea, then who'll pay for my free stuff?

This is how Obama making many Americans think, get ride of the tax's that fund these programs, and it might make people want to get a job, FYI, it'd start the economy running and people working.

[Missileman]

The additional tax cuts for individuals’ annually earning in excess of ¼ million will retard our economic recovery. The net increase of our federal debt due to that additional tax cut will certainly inhibit passage and enactment of measures that would significantly hasten that recovery.

Obama’s decision is contrary to the best economic interests of our nation and it will be politically detrimental to Democrats in 2011 and 2012 elections. I regret that (as he previously signaled his intentions), Obama again acquiesced and submitted to the Republican Party.

I will not vote for Democrats until they find and retain some courage. It doesn’t appear that I’ll be voting for Obama or any other Democrats in 2012.

Respectfully, Supposn

The only thing retarded around here is the idea that higher taxes leads to economic recovery. :slap:

[fj1200]

^ding, ding, ding, ding...

Winner, winner...

[red states rule]

This is not a tax cut. It is more deficit spending.

There are no tax cuts - the rates for the so called rich are staying right where they are like ALL the tax rates

Dems got everything they wanted in this deal. 13 more months of unemployment and more "stimulus" spending and all Republicans got was 2 more years of keeping tax rates where they are

If you are a liberal you should love this deal. This is Stimulus II and it is bigger then the first stimulus package. It also adds about another $1 trillion to the deficit

I hope the deal falls apart so when the new majority takes over we can get the tax cuts made permanent and stop the handouts and givaways

[Supposn]

RedStatesRule, any legislator that did not vote for or against both the Bush and the Obama administrations’ economic stimulus acts was being disingenuous. The two policies are one and the same policy.

There was a concurrence of opinions from those the Bush and Obama administrations considered to be their most creditable console from financial industries and academies leading "experts". They agreed that federal loans to non government enterprises or federal purchasing toxic securities were an economic necessity.

I’m among the many others along the entire political spectrum sharing discomfort with the concept of commercial enterprises that are “too large to be permitted to fail” but we are hesitant to risk that our less than certain objections are more valid than both those Presidents’ Consoles of Economic Advisors.

Respectfully, Supposn

[red states rule]

RedStatesRule, any legislator that did not vote for or against both the Bush and the Obama administrations’ economic stimulus acts was being disingenuous. The two policies are one and the same policy.

There was a concurrence of opinions from those the Bush and Obama administrations considered to be their most creditable console from financial industries and academies leading "experts". They agreed that federal loans to non government enterprises or federal purchasing toxic securities were an economic necessity.

I’m among the many others along the entire political spectrum sharing discomfort with the concept of commercial enterprises that are “too large to be permitted to fail” but we are hesitant to risk that our less than certain objections are more valid than both those Presidents’ Consoles of Economic Advisors.

Respectfully, Supposn

I am supposn' you are unaware of the following facts:

The Bush tax cuts INVREASED revenue to the Federal government. The so called rich are currently paying a higher percentage of all Federal Income Taxes collected AFTER the Bush tax cuts were passed in to law, and after the tax cuts there were about 50 months of positive private sector job creation

So now, would you explain how increasing taxes will create private sector jobs, how leaving the current tax rates will "cost" the government revenue, and given the failure of the first stimulus how will this new and bigger stimulus succeed?

[fj1200]

RedStatesRule, any legislator that did not vote for or against both the Bush and the Obama administrations’ economic stimulus acts was being disingenuous. The two policies are one and the same policy.

There was a concurrence of opinions from those the Bush and Obama administrations considered to be their most creditable console from financial industries and academies leading "experts". They agreed that federal loans to non government enterprises or federal purchasing toxic securities were an economic necessity.

I’m among the many others along the entire political spectrum sharing discomfort with the concept of commercial enterprises that are “too large to be permitted to fail” but we are hesitant to risk that our less than certain objections are more valid than both those Presidents’ Consoles of Economic Advisors.

Respectfully, Supposn

You know, using an excess amount of words doesn't exactly make you seem smarter. Nevertheless, refresh my memory, what was the Bush stimulus act?

[Supposn]

You know, using an excess amount of words doesn't exactly make you seem smarter. Nevertheless, refresh my memory, what was the Bush stimulus act?


FJ1200, does any of this nudge your memory? Respectfully, Supposn


The Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP was a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street.
34 Senate Republicans voted for the bill.
91 House Republicans voted for the bill.


Even some Republicans that were not in congress supported money for Wall Street: "Now, as for the economic bailout provisions and the measures that have already been taken, it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in playing an appropriate role to shore up the housing market to make sure that we're thawing out some of the potentially frozen credit lines and credit markets, government did have to step in there." ~ Sarah Palin


Refer to:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213

[fj1200]

FJ1200, does any of this nudge your memory? Respectfully, Supposn

The Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP was a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street.
34 Senate Republicans voted for the bill.
91 House Republicans voted for the bill.

You don't have to nudge my memory re: TARP, you just need to be clear about what you're referring too. Considering TARP is substantially different from BO's "stimulus" your point has little merit.

[Supposn]

You don't have to nudge my memory re: TARP, you just need to be clear about what you're referring too. Considering TARP is substantially different from BO's "stimulus" your point has little merit.


What do you consider to be a "substantial" difference between them? Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

What do you consider to be a "substantial" difference between them? Respectfully, Supposn


TARP... to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector...


ARRA... is an economic stimulus package...

... intended to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending during the recession.

Both snipped from wiki. Are you sure you don't see the difference there?

[KarlMarx]

The only thing retarded around here is the idea that higher taxes leads to economic recovery. :slap:
I just HATE it when someone uses one of my lines!!!! :)

And it's true, there are no additional tax cuts, the only thing this legislation does is extend the already existing tax break that millions of Americans are now depending on to pay their bills and make ends meet.

Next year, we should hope to see an additional tax cut... when the most of the retards that are retarding the economic recovery will be gone.

[Supposn]

FJ1200, I recall the TARP Act under the Bush administration purchased and/or accepted as collateral great amounts of “toxic securities” from politically well connected financial institutions that were deemed to be “too large to be permitted to fail”. Those securities were for all practical purposes unmarketable because no one then and even now “knows” what those securities are worth.

The federal government also risked additional public credit by loaning financial institutions money at extremely low rates of interest. The purpose of those loans were to create credit pools to keep our economy going but the Treasury Department and the Congress failed to explicitly specify that.

Those financial institutions that were favored by the U.S. Congress availed themselves of the opportunity to buy out less favored financial entities within what was then very much a buyer favored market. While all of this was being transacted, little of the federal money was actually circulated as business loans. Remedy of the “credit crunch” was U.S. Congress’s purpose and justification for the federal act.

Obama’s economic stimulus bill did not deal with Tarp. Congress benefitted from their unfortunate experiences with the Bush stimulus bill. The 2009 bill demanded more collateral and greater accountability. Under Obama the cash for clunkers was enacted and additionally federal loans to and purchases of preferred stock of two of the big three USA auto companies were transacted. These loans and additional injection of working capital were widely considered to have prevented those companies eminent bankruptcies, vast loss of jobs and increasing (more than our already very high) numbers of individuals unemployed.

The purpose of both the Bush and Obama stimulus acts were to remedy the same economic crises.

Respectfully, Supposn

[Supposn]

fj1200, congressional Democrats granted significant support to the Bush stimulus acts and Republicans to a significant extent denied similar support for the Obama stimulus acts.

Economists, academians and business executives do and will continue in the future to argue the effectiveness of the Bush and the Obama stimulus acts. Generally, centrists agree that the acts were justified. The left of course believe that more should have been done and done immediately; the right believe that nothing should have been done. Similar to USA’s economic policies after the 1929 economic collapse, many will attempt rewriting the history of our enacted remedies and their effective dealing with this crisis.

Even (as it seems) that much of the risked public funds will not be lost, and if the government does not suffer long term unjustified federal deficits due to these stimulus acts, I’m among those that are very uncomfortable with such economic policies. Our nation apparently did not lose by our first loans to save the Chrysler Corporation; these Bush and Obama acts may in the long term prove to have been effective.

The question is how many more times can we enact such acts that require immense expenditures and additional risks of public credit?

It’s reasonable to assume that if we repeat enacting such policies often enough, eventually we’re going to encounter an instance of failure. When we’re dealing with non-government enterprises that are “too big to be permitted to fail”, even the partial failure of such government acts would be economically and financially disastrous.

Existing need for federal government’s financially responsibility for or to immense non-government enterprises is financially, economically and politically undesirable. We must have some specifically drafted and effectively enforced regulations of financial practices. Non-government enterprise should not be “too large to be permitted to fail”.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

... the TARP Act... purchased and/or accepted as collateral...

Obama’s economic stimulus bill did not deal with Tarp. Congress benefitted from their unfortunate experiences with the Bush stimulus bill. The 2009 bill demanded more collateral and greater accountability. Under Obama the cash for clunkers was enacted and additionally federal loans to and purchases of preferred stock of two of the big three USA auto companies were transacted. These loans and additional injection of working capital were widely considered to have prevented those companies eminent bankruptcies, vast loss of jobs and increasing (more than our already very high) numbers of individuals unemployed.

The purpose of both the Bush and Obama stimulus acts were to remedy the same economic crises.

That's a whole lotta words explaining how you were wrong.


... both the Bush and the Obama administrations’ economic stimulus acts was being disingenuous. The two policies are one and the same policy.

You called them the "same policy," you might think they had the same end purpose but as you pointed out they are nowhere near the "same policy."

But now you're trying to bring up something other than the stimulus policy, it would be helpful for you to remain consistent. The auto companies DID go bankrupt and IIRC was not up for a vote in Congress so it would be hard for Reps to vote for one and not the other.

But it is kind of hard to have a conversation when you keep changing what you're referring too or are talking in such vague generalities that almost anything would fit the phrasing you use. You should also try and think a bit more critically with what the BO administration is feeding you; it seems you like to copy/paste and then add some extra words.

[fj1200]

Blah, blah, blah.

Respectfully, Supposn

That's a whole lot of words to use to try and sounds like an informed centrist when in reality you are an uninformed liberal.

[PostmodernProphet]

The net increase of our federal debt due to that additional tax cut will certainly inhibit passage and enactment of measures that would significantly hasten that recovery.

for example?.....

[avatar4321]

RedStatesRule, any legislator that did not vote for or against both the Bush and the Obama administrations’ economic stimulus acts was being disingenuous. The two policies are one and the same policy.

How on earth are they the same policies? Simply saying it doesnt make them so.




There was a concurrence of opinions from those the Bush and Obama administrations considered to be their most creditable console from financial industries and academies leading "experts". They agreed that federal loans to non government enterprises or federal purchasing toxic securities were an economic necessity.

And who are these so called credible experts? Funny how they don't have names isn't it?

And the Obama administration didn't pass TARP. Not to mention the fact that TARP has supposedly been paid back.

How does giving money we don't have to special interests who financed the President help us?


I’m among the many others along the entire political spectrum sharing discomfort with the concept of commercial enterprises that are “too large to be permitted to fail” but we are hesitant to risk that our less than certain objections are more valid than both those Presidents’ Consoles of Economic Advisors.

It would be very wise to feel discomfort with the concept that comercial enterprises are too big to fail. It's totally malarky. It's false. An outright lie. Nothing is too big to fail. And it's those that think they are that fail fastest and hardest.

I don't know who these advisors are, but the unemployment is nearly 10%. In my book, that would put them on the unemployment line with everyone else.

The solution to our economic problems are threefold:

1)Dramatically cut taxes at all levels
2)Dramatically cut spending at all levels.
3)Teach the people correct principles about finance and being honest.

[avatar4321]

Since it seems some people don't seem to know the difference between TARP and the Obama Stimulus. Let me point out just a few details. (Keep in mind, i didnt really like either of them and think we would have been better off without both).

TARP was targeted specifically at the financial industry. And we have been told that it was paid back (though to be honest, I am not convinced the government has ever been honest about that).

The Stimulus didn't target anything. In fact, most of the money went to Special interest groups who got the President elected. In fact, if I remember correctly, ACORN even recieved stimulus money.

Taking money from one group to another doesn't create jobs. Especially when they are partisan special interest groups.

Ultimately, we are trying to treat the symptoms with both of these problems rather than the causes both policy wise and spiritual.

[avatar4321]

Oh and the 2% tax holiday we are recieving to the payroll tax likely wont do jack squat to help us.

No income taxes are being cut

And spending is increasing.

The inflation alone from the digitizing of our debt is going to put us deeper in the hole.

Seriously we are already looking at:

Higher food prices
Higher Clothing prices (supposed to go up 30% within the next few months)
Higher gas prices.

You honestly think that 2% is going to do anything?

Personally I think we are getting screwed in this tax deal. Rates stay the same, they dont get better. and more spending to boot. Brilliant move people.

[Supposn]

That's a whole lotta words explaining how you were wrong.
You called them the "same policy," you might think they had the same end purpose but as you pointed out they are nowhere near the "same policy.".\

Both the Bush and Obama stimulus programs basically granted huge higher volume and higher risk loans to huge private entities and their common purpose was to prevent our great recession from progressing further than otherwise.


But now you're trying to bring up something other than the stimulus policy, it would be helpful for you to remain consistent. The auto companies DID go bankrupt and IIRC was not up for a vote in Congress so it would be hard for Reps to vote for one and not the other..

I sit corrected. GM did go into bankruptcy. I had forgotten that because it was not the procedural Bankruptcy that would have been expected with regard to a corporate umbrella of so many huge and inter-related subsidiary corporations.

For the most part GM factories and those of GM suppliers kept operating. Some plants regained (at very least temporarily) a portion of their lost rates of production. Their factories for the most part were not dismantled, the production machinery was not sold for scrap and vastly greater numbers of unemployment was adverted. That seems to be the best that could have been done within the existing poor circumstances.

What's IIRC?

Respectfuly, Supposn

[fj1200]

Both the Bush and Obama stimulus programs basically granted huge higher volume and higher risk loans to huge private entities and their common purpose was to prevent our great recession from progressing further than otherwise.

It seems you're playing fast and loose with the record of your comments. You tried to note that Republicans should have supported BO after they supported Bush and TARP. What you are now calling BO's stimulus, the auto bailouts, was not up for a vote and what was actually called BO's stimulus was unanimously opposed by Republicans. Now that that is cleared up we can move on, no?


I sit corrected. GM did go into bankruptcy. I had forgotten that because it was not the procedural Bankruptcy that would have been expected with regard to a corporate umbrella of so many huge and inter-related subsidiary corporations.

So you are now acknowledging that the rule of man was trumped by the rule of law? Careful about reading the following, you point of view might be challenged.

Crony Car Capitalism (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/12/10/crony_car_capitalism_108212.html)

By Gary Jason

Several recent revelations bring home just what a cesspool of crony capitalism the American auto industry has become. The Obama administration and the UAW (Obama's major financial and political supporter) are running the show.

First is the news that the "new" GM walked away from the crony bankruptcy proceedings with a huge tax break -- one worth up to $45 billion. It was revealed in the paperwork filed for its IPO that the Obama administration gave the new GM a sweetheart deal: it will be allowed to carry forward huge losses incurred by the "old" GM prior to its bankruptcy. Of course, the IRS doesn't allow the new companies that emerge from bankruptcy to write off their old losses. But the feds decided to waive that rule for companies bailed out by TARP.

Thus, the new GM will save about $45.4 billion in taxes on future earnings, which may allow it to escape taxes for the next twenty years. This "tax-loss carry-forward" is a huge plum, an asset most of GM's rivals don't have, and one that no doubt led to its artificially high IPO stock price.

This brings up the second revelation: namely, the machinations by the Obama administration during the IPO that consciously helped the UAW make out like bandits.

The UAW was given a big chunk of new GM in the crooked bankruptcy settlement. To be precise, the very monster that drove GM off the cliff -- the UAW -- received 35% of the stock in the new company. With the sale of the stock in the new GM, the UAW earned an immediate $3.4 billion in selling about one third of its shares.

Moreover, if the UAW can get $36 per share for the other two-thirds of its shares, it will walk away breaking even -- meaning it will walk away with its outrageously bloated pension and health care fund fully intact. The taxpayer, on the other hand, hasn't fared well at all.

In fact, the Obama administration screwed the taxpayer just as thoroughly as it pampered the UAW. The taxpayer put $49.5 billion into GM in the bankruptcy, not to mention all the funds shoveled at the company prior to that. The Treasury recouped only a wretched $13.7 billion in the IPO, mainly because the Obama administration -- in yet another unprecedented gift to the union -- announced publicly that it would not sell any more stock for the next six months. This enables the UAW to dump its shares whenever it wants at a much higher price than it could get if the Treasury were also selling. The taxpayers will almost certainly get a lower payout, and they will never recoup their forced investment in these dinosaurs -- all to enable the UAW to walk away made whole.

Screwed even worse were the old secured creditors -- you know, the ones near the front of the line in bankruptcy filings way back when America was governed by the rule of law. The bondholders in the old GM have bonds as useful as scratch paper. (I won't mention the stockholders in the old GM, because stockholders -- who are only the legal owners of a company! -- typically got nothing in bankruptcy.)

The Obama administration car czar, who engineered the crony bankruptcy -- the aptly named Steve Rattner -- claims that the secured creditors would have received nothing in a standard bankruptcy anyway. But his claim is ludicrous on its face: in a regular bankruptcy, the union contracts that caused GM's and Chrysler's failure would have been nullified, and the substantial assets of the companies (plants, inventory, receivables, land, patents, etc.) would have been worth a substantial amount to other automakers and investment companies. The proceeds would have gone to satisfy the bondholders at least to a fair degree.

The third recent revelation about the U.S. automakers was the news that the Obama administration changed the purchasing of vehicles for the federal fleet dramatically; again, apparently to benefit its supporters.

It turns out that the administration itself has purchased a huge, unprecedented chunk of American-made hybrid cars assembled since it took over two of the loser companies. This has propped up the sales of hybrid cars in the face of widespread consumer indifference.

The U.S. General Services Administration (which handles the federal fleet of cars) bought nearly 15,000 hybrid cars over the last two years, or about 10% of the government cars purchased. This compares to only 1% of the fleet being hybrids just two years ago. Even more striking, more than 20% of the hybrids the GSA purchased were bought using "stimulus money" (yes, the GSA got "stimulus money" -- $300 million in total!).

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that of the 15,000 hybrids that the GSA bought, only 22 were from Toyota and Honda. All the rest were purchased from GM and Ford. (Chrysler stopped making hybrids back in 2008 after a brief attempt.) The GSA in total bought nearly 25% of all the American-produced hybrids made over the last two years.

Why is that? We can dismiss the idea that it was because the Obama administration judges the Japanese hybrids inferior; the Japanese are widely viewed as having the lead in that technology, and they produced hybrids before Detroit did. No, it is doubtless because the UAW controls Ford and GM, and the UAW was (and is) a huge contributor to the Democratic Party, and the Obama campaign in particular. After all, consumers are not sold on hybrids -- globally, hybrids account for only about 2% of all auto sales. But the Obama administration -- to pay off its union and environmentalist big money donors -- is buying thousands of hybrids from the American auto makers.

So there you have it. The Obama administration rigged the bankruptcy to favor the union, rigged the IPO to favor the union, and has purchased much of the inventory unsalable in the free market, again to benefit the union (and the environmentalists). But of course, the unions (and the environmentalists) pumped many millions of dollars into Obama's campaign. They also and pumped many millions into trying to keep Democratic candidates in office in the last election.

This is corrupt, crony car capitalism, all paid for by coerced taxation, from an administration that promised a new era of transparency and honesty in government. But at the end of the day, the cabal at the top behaves just like the dirty Chicago machine that spawned it.


For the most part GM factories and those of GM suppliers kept operating. Some plants regained (at very least temporarily) a portion of their lost rates of production. Their factories for the most part were not dismantled, the production machinery was not sold for scrap and vastly greater numbers of unemployment was adverted. That seems to be the best that could have been done within the existing poor circumstances.

Well I see you need to buy into the false premise that GM would certainly have been dismantled rather than the reorganization that happened. But I guess that's what you have to do when the immediate assumption is that government needs to intervene in the private sector.


What's IIRC?

"If I Remember Correctly" It's something people use to type LESS words rather than more; common interwebs protocol, great time saver you might give it a go. I can already see you using TBTBPTF. ;)

[Supposn]

How on earth are they the same policies? Simply saying it doesnt make them so.

And who are these so called credible experts? Funny how they don't have names isn't it?

And the Obama administration didn't pass TARP. Not to mention the fact that TARP has supposedly been paid back.

How does giving money we don't have to special interests who financed the President help us?

It would be very wise to feel discomfort with the concept that comercial enterprises are too big to fail. It's totally malarky. It's false. An outright lie. Nothing is too big to fail. And it's those that think they are that fail fastest and hardest.

I don't know who these advisors are, but the unemployment is nearly 10%. In my book, that would put them on the unemployment line with everyone else.

The solution to our economic problems are threefold:

1)Dramatically cut taxes at all levels
2)Dramatically cut spending at all levels.
3)Teach the people correct principles about finance and being honest.

Avatar4321, both the Bush and Obama stimulus programs basically granted huge higher volume and higher risk loans to huge private entities and their common purpose was to prevent our great recession from progressing further than otherwise.

For “creditable experts” let’s start with the President’s Console of Economic Advisors, the Federal Reserve Board and the Secretary of the Treasury. Their presidential appointments were confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Excerpted from my message of 16Dec10, 6:15AM: “Obama’s economic stimulus bill did not deal with Tarp. Congress benefitted from their unfortunate experiences with the Bush stimulus bill. The 2009 bill demanded more collateral and greater accountability”.

I share your discomfort and doubt but not your certainty that (within our environment that lacks sufficient explicitly drafted, enacted and diligently enforced regulations of financial entities), the mavens general concurrence of opinions were not valid; they generally agreed the private financial entities in question were “too big to be permitted to fail”.

All voters, members of Congress and our presidential administrations openly advocate:
(1) Cutting government expenditures and taxes.
(2) People should become more knowledgeable’
(3) People should conform to higher standards of integrity.
The devils are within the details.

Respectfully, Supposn

[Little-Acorn]

The additional tax cuts for individuals’ annually earning in excess of ¼ million will retard our economic recovery. The net increase of our federal debt due to that additional tax cut will certainly inhibit passage and enactment of measures that would significantly hasten that recovery.

There are no tax cuts in the package approved by Congress last night, except the miniscule Social Security tax holiday that lasts only a year. The package merely keeps income tax rates where they have been for the last half generation. Thus, it prevents the Democrats' tax INCREASE that would have further slowed the economy, keeping that obstacle out of the way of a future recovery.


I will not vote for Democrats until they find and retain some courage. It doesn’t appear that I’ll be voting for Obama or any other Democrats in 2012.

See, even this cloud has a silver lining! :clap:

[Kathianne]

and the omnibus spending is over, for now:
http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=6368

Can't embed.

[fj1200]

and the omnibus spending is over, for now:
http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=6368

They sounded so disappointed. Bummer dude.

[red states rule]

I think VP Biden owes this business owner an apology.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fzo1gCIty7A?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fzo1gCIty7A?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[fj1200]

They'd never be able to stop apologizing then.