Quote :

"obama's looking pretty weak. i'm not impressed."

Obama's looking Clinton-esque.

I'm very impressed.

Now he just needs to drop the hammer on Pelosi and the House Dems, because they are fucking our country with their obstructionism.

12/9/2010 9:17:04 PM

How is it that the Senate Republicans were not obstructing when they refused to pass any tax cuts until those for the rich were included?

12/9/2010 10:12:38 PM

Wat?

Everybody knows that the Senate Republicans were obstructing. People were screaming bloody murder about it.

Now the House Dems are obstructing.

12/9/2010 10:37:52 PM

Sorry. I must have missed this quote:

Quote :

"Now he just needs to drop the hammer on Mitch McConnell and the Senate Repubs, because they are fucking our country with their obstructionism."

12/9/2010 11:32:59 PM

How could you miss it (or a variant thereof)? It's been all over TWW and liberals have been screaming bloody murder about it. Do you need me to pile on and join in the chorus? I mean, I posted as much in my last post. The Senate Republicans were acting like babies, and now the House Dems are the ones that need a pacifier.

The GOP leadership is ready to go with an Obama sponsored compromise proposal that extends tax cuts, cuts the payroll tax, extends unemployment benefits and provides a workable estate tax. As of right now, it's the House Dems who are obstructionists. The reality is that this economic recovery is struggling badly, and we need to prime the pump to get consumer spending back on track. It has been patently obvious that stimulus measures like these are needed, and the tax issue should've been settled a long time ago. But the Dems didn't want to raise taxes and look anti-business before an election, so they put it off and now the GOP has a spot at the table.

I suppose that Obama will throw some ethanol subsidies at them or some other bullshit, and they will be happy. I would much rather he accuse them of being "hostage-takers", the way he did with the Senate Repubs.


[Edited on December 10, 2010 at 12:03 AM. Reason : 1]

12/9/2010 11:51:10 PM

I guess this fits here with the general discontent with the administration.

O'Reilly on Letterman:

Quote :

"52% of Americans say they are worse off today than they were when Bush left office"

12/10/2010 12:30:39 AM

^^
Those appeasements would likely increase the deficit.

However, I am curious as to how a workable estate tax would prime the pump to our economic recovery.

12/10/2010 1:06:44 AM

The best compromise would be to have no tax cut for people > 250k and to not extend the unemployment benefits.


Butt that's a tough pill to swallow and politicians are spineless children.

12/10/2010 2:28:44 AM

^
Unemployment benefits provide more stimulus to the economy than any other form of spending, due to the multiplier effect.

^^
Of course those "appeasements" will increase the deficit. Everything in the agreement increases the deficit. It costs $900 billion over 2 years. But with 9.8% unemployment and the recovery sidetracked, it's probably necessary to do something pretty big. Leading economists have praised the compromise package, by and large. We can argue all day about the benefits of tax cuts, just how progressive the tax code should be, etc, but in politics is compromise. Dems got a lot of what they wanted in that package, with the extension of jobless benefits, small business tax credits, etc. For them to raise such a shit storm because taxes didn't go up on the rich is just stupid.

Dems and Repubs were in agreement that a 55% estate tax on anything over $1 million was just too high. It would've affected over 44.000 estates, forcing some farmers to sell their farms, small businesses to close up shop, etc. The Dems proposed 45% on estates over 3.75 mil, Obama settled on 35% on estates over 5 mil. Again, it's a workable compromise.

[Edited on December 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM. Reason : 2]

12/10/2010 9:26:22 AM

Quote :

"Unemployment benefits provide more stimulus to the economy than any other form of spending, due to the multiplier effect. "

You're just quoting Nancy Pelosi and thats a retarded argument. Using your same logic of the multiplier effect, unemployment costs all businesses more, making new hires more expensive, deterring them from hiring.

There are several studies out there, here is a summary:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html

12/10/2010 10:09:45 AM

^^
I agree with your statement about the multiplier effect of unemployment benefits, and thanks for the concise answer regarding the estate tax.

However, I must ask: how was it not stupid for the Senate Republicans to raise such a shit storm, previously, because taxes would go up on the rich?

12/10/2010 5:30:23 PM

When your own party filibusters against you, you might as well resign.

12/10/2010 8:29:03 PM

are you talking about Bernie Sanders?

12/10/2010 8:47:46 PM

Bernie Sanders is an Independent, democratic socialist. So, while having the same ideals and ideology as the President, he is technically, not in the same Party as the President.

Just the same party.

12/10/2010 9:09:45 PM

so he's sort of like the Tea Party? only the other way?

12/10/2010 9:51:06 PM

Quote :

"However, I must ask: how was it not stupid for the Senate Republicans to raise such a shit storm, previously, because taxes would go up on the rich?"

It wasn't stupid. It was a dick move, sure. But a calculated dick move that resulted in a compromise package that they liked. You keep trying to paint me as a partisan, but I'm not. Maybe a few years ago. I'm an equal-opportunity hater. I'll call a spade a spade, don't worry.

The House Dems are bitching and moaning from a position of weakness. They are gonna be out of power in a few weeks. The head of their party, as well as Bill Clinton, most economists, Democratic strategists, left-leaning think tanks and the majority of the American people are all publicly on board with the tax cut compromise. What the fuck do they think they can accomplish by side-tracking things and derailing the agreement? Maybe they'll hold up unemployment benefits for real, and make the American people hate Pelosi even more.

12/10/2010 11:31:49 PM

Quote :

"How is it that the Senate Republicans were not obstructing when they refused to pass any tax cuts until those for the rich were included? "

I guess you also blame the bank when you dont send in your mortgage on time and get a late fee.

These tax cuts were set to expire, everyone knew that. Remember the glorious super majority the dems had for almost 2 yrs? yeah, it is far easier to blame someone else for your own problems.

It is sad to see how angry dems are over the thought of these people keeping more of what they earn. It is also sad how they frame the arguement that keeping the tax rate the same. Doing NOTHING *costs billions. The only thing that costs anything iin this bill is the increased spending. Unemployment for 3 yrs? come on, that really isnt doing anyone any favors.

12/11/2010 9:32:36 AM

Quote :

"Unemployment for 3 yrs?"

That's the cheapest part of the bill.

12/11/2010 11:27:03 AM

how do you figure? And its for 3 years. Hard to justify that. imo

They say that not changing the tax rate now *costs money. Only in washington

12/11/2010 11:38:42 AM

Guantanamo closed.
No lobbyists in the Admin.
Earmarks reduced to pre-1994 levels.
No tax increases "of any form" for people making less than $250k/year.

Didn't George H. W. Bush get trounced for promising no new taxes?

12/11/2010 1:10:33 PM

Quote :

"Obama's looking Clinton-esque."

Check your eyes. That's not Obama looking Clinton-esque. That's Clinton.

12/11/2010 1:11:28 PM

^^^

Quote :

"That's the cheapest part of the bill."

Wrong. $56 Billion for 13 months (not 3 years) of unemployment benefits is not "cheap" by anyone's measure. On a per-month basis, it is equivalent to the cost of the extension of the tax cuts for those making over $250K.

12/11/2010 2:26:21 PM

Quote :

"It wasn't stupid. It was a dick move, sure. But a calculated dick move that resulted in a compromise package that they liked."

Fair enough. It pisses me off, though, that Obama didn't simply let the cuts expire.

Obama's gay as hell.

Quote :

"I guess you also blame the bank when you dont send in your mortgage on time and get a late fee."

How is this relevant to anything?

12/11/2010 2:29:31 PM

Obama is a realist. He knew that he had to compromise some, and the resulting tax deal is supported by almost all moderates. It's only the hacks on the far left and far right who hate it. That is the sign of a good compromise deal.

Internet ideologues are gay as hell. They would rather see the world burn than not get their way. Raise taxes on everyone because you can't just raise them on the rich? What the fuck good will that do, besides derail the economic recovery and send us back into a recession?


[Edited on December 11, 2010 at 2:58 PM. Reason : 2]

12/11/2010 2:56:26 PM

I don't see how allowing tax rates to return to their previous levels would have caused the world to burn, derailed our economic recovery or sent us back into a recession any more than maintaining the current tax rates would "prime the pump" to an economic recovery.

Allowing unemployment to expire would have caused some problems, however.

[Edited on December 11, 2010 at 3:24 PM. Reason : ]

12/11/2010 3:23:57 PM

i know. it would have made people actually search for jobs!

12/11/2010 3:27:07 PM

That would be intriguing to see, with there being only six job openings available for every ten unemployed workers.

Maybe the remaining forty percent of unemployed workers could use their tax breaks to create new jobs.

[Edited on December 11, 2010 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ]

12/11/2010 3:31:36 PM

Denmark begs to differ. When their unemployment benefits lasted for 5 years, it took people 5 years to find a job. Then when they shortened it to 4 years, it took people 4 years to find a job. And guess what will happen when they shorten it to 3 years?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/why-denmark-is-shrinking-its-social-safety-net/

12/11/2010 4:30:15 PM

Quote :

"How is this relevant to anything? "

I was trying to point out that everyone knew when the due date was, the dems waited until the last minute and are now trying to blame everyone else for not handling it earlier. Kinda like "its not MY fault I didnt pay it earlier."

^great post.

People spend more when they feel secure and stable, same with businesses. Its the same reason why a stimulus or short term giveaway doesnt have lasting effects. Its just a short term sugar rush with a crash to follow. ie cash for clunkers.

[Edited on December 11, 2010 at 6:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/11/2010 6:09:18 PM

Quote :

"$56 Billion for 13 months (not 3 years) of unemployment benefits is not "cheap" by anyone's measure. On a per-month basis, it is equivalent to the cost of the extension of the tax cuts for those making over $250K."

But I keep hearing that part quoted as being cheap.

12/11/2010 7:13:49 PM

LOL, by who? Surely not the Dems, who keep pulling some $800 Billion number out of their asses even though we all knew the extension would only be temporary.

Listening to the mainstream media, you would think that the "Bush tax cuts on the wealthy" were the single biggest reason we have a deficit, even though they are dwarfed by the cost of the cuts to the middle-class.

[Edited on December 11, 2010 at 7:24 PM. Reason : 2]

12/11/2010 7:23:11 PM

But I thought the mainstream media wasn't biased and it was only that Assange guy who "editorialized" stuff?

12/11/2010 7:37:43 PM

Dude, you're a goddamn troll. Please point me to where I said that the mainstream media isn't biased. I said that established media sources can be more trusted to practice journalistic ethics and standards to safeguard against the release of material that could put lives in danger or set back diplomatic efforts. Learn to comprehend what you are reading.

[Edited on December 11, 2010 at 7:44 PM. Reason : 2]

12/11/2010 7:42:40 PM

You were pretty clearly condemning the "main stream media" in this thread while in the other thread you were praising their "journalistic ethics". Those are some strange ethics if they are as biased as you claim. Even you must see the hypocrisy.

12/11/2010 8:01:42 PM

This is the wrong thread for that debate, but I'm sorry that you cannot distinguish between run-of-the-mill journalistic bias and the importance of journalistic standards when deciding whether to release classified information that could put lives at risk. Again, I don't trust Assange, and I don't believe that he should be in position to make those calls. My highlighting his obvious anti-US bias is simply evidence that he is not the guy you want in charge of determining what cables should be released.

12/11/2010 8:16:19 PM

You really didn't read that thread. Again totally not on topic but since you broached the subject Assange approached the US government on multiple instances (using mainstream media as an intermediary) to allow them to redact the documents to protect national security. They categorically refused and demanded that the documents be turned over to them. You can't really ask for more if your only concern was the protection of national security (which should be our governments primary concern shouldn't it?).
But that is neither here nor there. I just think lauding "media ethics" in one thread then condemning it as "liberally biased media" in another is at the very least disingenuous and quite self serving given your viewpoint.

12/11/2010 9:20:20 PM

So do we have President Clinton back in office then? Is Obama going to be like the Queen is to England now?

12/11/2010 11:21:52 PM

http://mobile.politico.com/iphone/story/1210/46256.html

Quote :

"Nobody owns the presidential podium like Bill Clinton, even in the Obama White House. The former president, who stopped by the White House on Friday to meet with the current president and endorse his tax cuts deal with Republicans, held court for a half hour in the briefing room after President Barack Obama left to attend a holiday party in the residence. Obama had barely left the room when Clinton rested his elbows on the podium and settled in. And once he was there he couldn’t get enough. He fielded nearly a dozen questions, twice as many as Obama took during his briefing room press conference on Tuesday. He knew the reporters by name – calling out Ann Compton of ABC and George Condon of the National Journal with ease. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, repeatedly tried in vain to rein him in. (“Gibbs will call ‘last question,’” Obama informed reporters as he left for the party.) “Mr. President, I get the feeling that you're happier to be here commenting and giving advice than governing,” CBS’s Mark Knoller said to Clinton. “Oh, I had quite a good time governing,” Clinton replied. “I am happy to be here.” Obama seemed to convey just the opposite feeling. He had met privately with Clinton in the Oval Office for over an hour before the two decided at the last minute to make an appearance in front of the cameras, but he stayed in the briefing room only about 90 seconds. “I thought, given the fact that he presided over as good an economy as we've seen in our lifetimes, that it might useful for him to share some of his thoughts,” Obama said before turning the podium over to Clinton. “I'm going to let him speak very briefly, and then I've actually got to go over and do some – just one more Christmas party. So he may decide he wants to take some questions, but I wanted to make sure that you guys heard from him directly.” When the first question came from a reporter he responded by saying: “I've been keeping the first lady waiting for about half an hour, so I'm going to take off.” “Well, I don't want to make her mad,” Clinton joked. “Please go.” For a press corps obsessed this week with comparing Clinton and Obama, the contrast was right in front of them. “First of all, I feel awkward being here, and now you're going to leave me all by myself?” Clinton joked, getting a smile out of his successor. But even before Obama left Clinton alone, the former president was the center of attention. One of the cable television shots had completely blocked Obama out, even as he stood by Clinton’s side, his arms crossed, nodding occasionally while his predecessor delved into his thinking on the tax cuts compromise. As he tries to figure out how to navigate the new political landscape in Washington, Obama reached out to Clinton, who successfully restructured his presidency after suffering a similar blow in the 1994 midterm elections by tacking to the center, a move that angered his liberal base but helped him win a second term. Obama requested the meeting with Clinton several weeks ago. It was the first time since his party’s defeat last month that he has met with Clinton, who was a dominant fixture on the 2010 campaign trail. Clinton said he recommended to Obama that he read a lecture Franklin Roosevelt gave in 1926 on the dilemma of the progressive movement in American politics. “After the '94 election, I said the American people, in their infinite wisdom, they put us both in the same boat, so we're going to either row or sink,” Clinton recalled. “And I want us to row.” One reporter pointed out that Clinton’s endorsement might not persuade Democrats who are angry over Obama’s compromise on the Bush tax cuts, which some of them view as Clintonesque. “There is no way you can have a compromise without having something in the bill that you don't like,” Clinton said. “So, I don't know if I can influence anybody. Heck, I couldn't – you know, I'd go some places and the people I campaigned for won, in some places the people I campaigned for lost. I don't know. All I can tell you is what I think.” Clinton said what he thought about politics, the deficit, Haiti and other topics, including throwing his support behind Senate ratification of the new START treaty, which Republicans have threatened to block. He said he had not been asked to lobby Democrats on the Hill to support the tax cuts plan, as Obama called on him to do during the debate over health care reform. But, explaining that he spends about an hour a day studying the economy, he made a strong pitch for Democrats in Congress to support the deal. “So for whatever it’s worth, that's what I think,” he said. “That’s worth a lot,” Obama replied. Clinton said he had not been asked to lobby Democrats on the Hill to support the tax cuts plan, as Obama called on him to do during the debate over health care reform. He also said TK. The relationship between Clinton and Obama has not always been smooth. Tensions were high during the2008 Democratic primary fight between Obama and Hillary Clinton. President Clinton later campaigned for Obama after he won the nomination in 2008, and the two have met several times since Obama took office. Gibbs described their relationship now as “very warm.” “There’s a unique bond between those that have done this job and those that have sat in that office during good times and bad, during domestic and foreign crises,” he told reporters Friday. Neither president would say on Friday what advice was exchanged. “I have a general rule, which is that it -- whatever he asks me about my advice and whatever I say should become public only if he decides to make it public,” Clinton said, as Obama stood silent. “He can say whatever he wants.” At which point, Obama headed to the holiday party. "

12/12/2010 12:45:35 AM

Quote :

"Listening to the mainstream media, you would think that the "Bush tax cuts on the wealthy" were the single biggest reason we have a deficit, even though they are dwarfed by the cost of the cuts to the middle-class."

How presumptuous of you, additionally, you are really avoiding the point that I made.

12/12/2010 3:25:02 AM

I have never heard the Bush tax cuts for over 250K described on here as "cheap". Ever. But please point out where people are saying that.

12/12/2010 9:59:01 PM

^they havent. The general tone is that those who favor keeping the tax rate the same for everyone, including 250k and up are greedy. BC the people earning far less have determined that those over 250K dont "need" the money they worked for. Yet they arent greedy for demanding that they get the money that those over 250k earned. classic.

12/13/2010 10:30:09 AM

^ exactly. since the wealthy refuse to invest in middle america we need to redistribute the wealth through the use of taxes. or thats how i view it nowadays.

WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION

12/13/2010 10:56:30 AM

and how do the wealthy REFUSE to invest in america?

And in contrast should I be able to force you to spend your money on ways I think best benefit you? Shit you would just tell me to mind my own business.

[Edited on December 13, 2010 at 11:02 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2010 11:01:48 AM

Quote :

"since the wealthy refuse to invest in middle america we need to redistribute the wealth through the use of taxes."

At which point the wealthy will move their taxable assets overseas.


The problem is, this is a typically statist means of looking at the problem. "What do you mean they won't spend money? Well, what tools do we have to force them to?" Never, at the federal level, will you hear someone ask the question, "why are they not investing money and what can we do to attract it?"

12/13/2010 11:24:50 AM

^which is what succesful businesses do. good point

12/13/2010 11:27:37 AM

^^ I assume that thats what tax incentives were for:

Still you have pointed out that I am viewing the situation as a power struggle above all else.

12/13/2010 11:44:52 AM

Quote :

"Still, the public now trusts Obama marginally more than congressional Republicans to deal with the country's main problems in the coming years, 43 to 38 percent. The poll suggest that the election results may have been a vote against the status quo, but it was not a broad mandate for Republicans and their agenda. The survey also underscores the degree to which Americans are conflicted about who"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121405575.html?hpid=topnews

This is good news for Obama, hopefully he can use this to his full advantage.

12/14/2010 7:16:58 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/20/crime.statistics/
Violent crime drops 6.2% in first half of 2010

I blame Obama.

12/20/2010 12:59:07 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCuoLd0K4lY

12/21/2010 3:37:29 PM

He campaigned on this, and said it would happen this year. Here he is signing DADT repeal:



(On the other hand McCain and the family research council are still trying to find ways to undo this. The Family Research Council said they're going to sue)

12/22/2010 10:46:05 AM