Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
I think consumers were generally frighten of losing their jobs, saw that their own reckless spending needed to be reined in, foreclosures, the irresponsibility of Wall Street and that old standby the federal government…Enough blame to go around to keep consumer confidence down because the market came back and so did other small indicators such as GDP…Like Iraq we will know its success after we leave. We will know the economy is back when the Fed starts to raise the interest rates, job figures come down and GDP goes up on its own. ..I agree, catch 22.
Speaker Pelosi still feels the same way and today she is at odds with the administration…I know conservatives hate Pelosi but she does have a beef….You won’t believe me but she did a extraordinary job of getting a watered-down Cap-and –Trade bill through the house, and passing a health care bill that liberals had to hold their nose before voting for it. She is doing her job of passing legislation over to the senate; only for it to die there. I think she was using the “we” as in democrats. That was the number two issue for democrats. She did slip with the CIA remarks but remember she was the one that kept articles of impeachment against President Bush from ever seeing the light of day and was instrumental in simmering down congressional hearings on Karl Rove and Atty. Gen. Gonzales…She is a partisan liberal democrat but like conservative republicans; they must all come to table….Power plays, ego trips are not uncommon when dealing with a sitting president and the speaker of the house; they are both leaders in the separation of powers battle.
Thanks for the explanation
"If you want to jump start the economy, consumers have to spend," And I agree generally.
Consumers increased savings, to me, shows a lack of faith on their part in the "recovery". Save for a rainy day in other words. A large part of the lack of faith in the recovery is due to increased federal spending leading to larger deficits IMO. Letting the tax cuts expire and more federal spending should make consumers lose more faith, so thus they save even more, that is if they can. A catch 22 for the government.
I mentioned Pelosi s comments because, IMO, she still feels the same way. In the article I sighted Pelosi started one of the quotes "We Campaigned on..." , notice the "We", I thought Obama was the one campaigning. A few months ago concerning the healthcare bill Pelosi said something along the lines of "We will get the bill passed before Christmas, one way or another." It appears to me that Pelosi is the one with a separation of powers problem.
Your last paragraph, BTW, seems accurate to me. No one can gauge a actions effect completely.
I usually like concise but in your case I always need a little more clarification.
You said” So because people save a larger percentage of their money it changed the administrations thought about tax cuts?” No, it goes a little bit deeper than that…In recent financial crisis people continued to spend ,making it easier for forecasters…If you want to jump start the economy, consumers have to spend, the new data showed the forecasters that consumers were going to hoard the tax cuts.
Why did you feel it necessary to reference an article of Nancy Pelosi’s opinion before President Obama was even inaugurated?.... There is that separation of powers and the president’s advisers had not had time to come up with official positions. They were still getting acquainted with the light switches, each other, and proper procedures.
Yes, the president’s adviser knew we needed to increase spending because just sitting there watching the economy head straight for a depression, was not an option.
Again when you are predicting the mood of the people, spending habits, it is a not a science because sometimes those views are based on ideology or a calculated risk based on previous data.
Continuing to put me in "either or" will not make it true. I don't know of any one that likes to pay taxes but some of us see it as a necessary evil to pay for the entitlements, defense, and growth incentives. Based on the people I have talked to, we don't mind paying our fair share but we see the same waste and excessive taxation….. I agree with Winston Churchill's profound statement.
Recently the GOP and Democrats came to an agreement that we needed to start a bipartisan deficit cutting commissions but when the president agreed, seven Republican cosponsors bolted...Years ago, the Republican Party came up with " PAY Go," a deficit neutral policy, whereas for every new program brought forward, a corresponding cut would have to be made…The democrats could not get any GOP vote to re-institute that idea because it would make this president look good. The Democrats have their faults but on these two issues, I think it would have been a good start in solving our problems.
Although important, cutting government waste, spending, and taxing cannot be achieved without serious cuts in entitlements and defense spending. Our trade deficits, energy problems, health care issues, education, and a broken congress need our immediate attention; we cannot afford to keep kicking the can down the road.
I don't mind saying that we need leader like President Reagan (he was not an ideologue) who took the hit when he had his Fed Chairman, raise interest rates & congress raise taxes, but he did a great job of explaining the necessity of those moves. I think it was the last time people had a high level of trust in the federal government…He was such a good communicator that he did all this while convincing his flock that government was not the solution…It took time to acquire that trust.
Which brings us back to Winston Churchill: "I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." The Federal Government cannot spend a cent that it has not first taken from someone.
"If conservatives understand that lowering taxes creates revenue, why can't they comprehend stimulus. Both are about keeping money in circulation and generating tax revenues. Food stamps bring in about $1.34 for every dollar spent."
Gosh, the more money we give away the better off we'll be? Who would have thought? Pass me that Kool Aid I'm having trouble figuring this out.
Dollydad, If I denied something, it was being MEXICAN or of Mexican descent.
Mike, I am not talking for you or anybody. We might be on the social agenda but far from being on the same agenda on international affairs or Dont ask, dont tell.
Mike, I'm not sure what has happened this year but in my first paycheck of the year it was short about $10. I compared it to my previous paystub & the difference was in Federal income tax. As I am salary & my pay is exactly the same every paycheck there is no reason it should have been different. My husband was paid a few days after me & his pay was down about $30, same thing, Federal witholding higher. Between the 2 of us, our pay is down at least $80 a month which is $960 a year....quite a bit of money on top of what we already have withheld & then have to pay come April to boot. Neither of us changed our withholding & we both are single/0 on our W-2s...so we are withholding the maximum. I don't know why our taxes changed so drastically but I would love to find out.
BigJ, 2007 taxes were not raised....maybe you were actually making enough for the government to start withholding taxes from you.
So because people save a larger percentage of their money it changed the administrations thought about tax cuts?
"Our overall focus is going to be on increasing spending," Lawrence H. Summers, Mr. Obama's pick for director of the National Economic Council, said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation." "Just what the timing will be [on the Bush tax cuts] is something that is going to be worked out going forward."
That the administrations economic adviser, increase spending...sigh
I have to agree with you on that one Mike......HUH???
Wingers have common modus operandi, they try their best to denigrate the poster, insert the word kool-aid, as if they do not have an agenda, mention a left wing commentator and leave a halfhearted unsubstantiated comment…. It does take a little more intelligence to engage and make a strong case for your point of view...So much hate.
Tax cuts are not a silver bullet or else we would lower taxes to 1% or 2% and just sit back and watch the economy boom…. It's funny how the right never mentions that Ronald Reagan raised taxes three times and grew the government. There is equilibrium but there are many factors to take in consideration such as the current state of the economy…. After the financial crisis, the administration considered a tax cut payment but thought better of it because the savings rate before the crisis was less than 1%, six months later it was 5% and climbing causing economist to think that the recipients would hold on to the money rather than spend it.
If conservatives understand that lowering taxes creates revenue, why can't they comprehend stimulus. Both are about keeping money in circulation and generating tax revenues. Food stamps bring in about $1.34 for every dollar spent.i.e. The recipients take the card to the store, the store pays the vendors and its employees and in turn they pay taxes. Ideally we would want a balanced budget, smaller government, and good economy so we don't have to rely on a propped up economy.
I heard the speakers at CPAC were mocking President Obama for reading off a Teleprompter, while reading off a Teleprompter…. I saw a cartoon in Time magazine depicting the president cheering “USA,USA,USA”, as he was watching the Winter Olympics; behind him were Republican senators cheering for Denmark, Sweden, Canada and other countries just to be anti- Obama…
This comment was removed by the user.
One of the best comedy post around.Keith Olbermouth or Rachel Madcow could not have said it better.Tax cuts are PROVEN to raise income to the treasury. By a Democrat and Republican administraion.
I'll have the grape Koolaid please.
JR74Grumpy? Here I thought I was mellowing out, by not getting into the day-to-day squabbles.:-)
This is where I agree, the stimulus package shored up jobs in the public sector, allowing states to keep their teachers, fireman, and policemen on the job; it is only a temporary measure. That 2 million job figure is irreverent because we have lost 8 million jobs since the year 2007. The administration is paying dearly for prematurely saying that unemployment would not go above 8%, whatever the number is, it is just too darn high... Democrats were reluctant to put in tax cuts which made up 30% of the package because they wanted to use more for infrastructure and light rail projects, besides that GOP enticement only got 3 GOP senators.. We really don't have a way to measure jobs saved but conservative estimates have that job created number is around 700,000. It is my belief that a stimulus package cannot create a permanent job; only the private sector can do that.
I will admit I cringed a little bit yesterday, when the president was spinning; saying because of the stimulus we grew by 6% but that was a fourth-quarter 5.7% figure, half of that was due to depleted inventories.
My, my, my Mike..you sure have gotten grumpy in your old age! lol When Bush left office there was a 10 trill. dollar debt, after BO signed his stimulus plan and put it into effect, and with the bailouts it went up to 12.4 trillion. Here in the past few days the libs have boasted that with their stim. 2 million jobs were save, which in all reality was a lie. According to the latest Labor Union stats job losses were up to 17% when you figure in the people that have just gave up and dropped out of the work force after not being able to find work.
Now as far as Medina goes...she's a nut job! But concidering the other 2 there's not alot of choice. Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson are the biggest 2 crooks and liars in the State!
VBB and Writein
You both say that your current tax rates are increasing but the Federal Income Tax brackets have not been changed since 2003. Your statement is a little bit vague because a large raise, cashing in your tax-deferred compensation (401K), selling inherited property, might have put you in a different bracket but the tax rates have not changed. Now, the Social Security wage cap did change from $95,500 in 2007, in 2008, it was $102,000 and this year it is up to $106,800 but that increase only amounted to little bit over $300 in amount of taxes you had to pay in each of those years. Too many variables but a decrease in your itemized deductions might have left you with the lower standard deduction to offset your taxable income….I am not doubting your statement;just saying I don’t know your personal situation.
BTW I said the wealthy benefited most from the Bush tax cuts:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/was...
you said:” And for the record, Mike, Zorro and myself have bumped heads on different issues and we shall continue. Some of us refuse to vote for a party line; some of us vote for what consider important, whatever that might be, which might be totally irrelevant to you but important to me.”
That was a statement directed to me but I do not have any idea of what you are referring to.
I have no knowledge of your relationship with Zorro and I do not try to influence a vote for party line…I state my opinions(however flawed they might me)but I am not that pretentious to think that I speak for Democrats, progressives or liberals or any one else that is left of center. I did mention one time that I surprised that you were a Democrat because of some of your views… Believe me after the health care fiasco I'm quite aware of the differences of opinion within the Democratic Party…. For instance, I'm glad Evan Bayh left; I wish he would've taken Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, and Max Baucus with him.
President Obama appointed Republican governor Jon Huntsman to be ambassador of China, Republican, Ray LaHood to be Transportation, Republican John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army and Robert Gates. ..That’s four…Remember Judd Gregg backed out as Commerce Sec.
Texas is a conservative Republican state, choosing a Texan or a Southerner to be his running mate would not have made a dent… Look at the results of Oklahoma, Mississippi ,Alabama, Georgia, Utah, Idaho, and Tennessee, no signs of them going purple much less blue…Besides he garnered 69 million votes and more importantly 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173…That’s looking backward the people are only interested in what have you done for me lately..Get the jobs numbers down, the rest will take care of itself…IMO
You make some very good points but I still believe President Obama thought he could change the partisan ways of Washington. We have lost over 8 million jobs since the year 2007, more than all the recent recessions combined, so it didn't really matter who the president was, the voters were going to explode because the last administration bailed out Wall Street not Main Street and they saw an over aggressive agenda by the current administration that did not address their immediate needs…Jobs.
I have stated many times that growth will lower the deficit but I will say one more time, we don't have a taxation problem ;we have a demand problem. I am a partisan Democrat but I am fully invested in the stock market, so it's in my best interest to see the economy grow, no matter what the means.
Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have said we are not in a depression, nor we headed toward one. The market is over 10,000 and GDP is not in the minus but we could enter another recession if the policies in place do not take hold or other unforeseen events happen. I think the bailout policies of the Bush administration, the actions of the FED/ FDIC and the stimulus package were all contributing factors in averting a depression.
Texas was already being laughed at because the governor Governor Rick Perry was being coy by suggesting “ Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that" in his attempt to satisfy his base. Right wing activist Larry Kilgore received 225,897 votes (18.51 percent) when he ran against Senator John Cornyn. If Texas continues to quack like a duck.
"Most economists believe unless we have a sudden splurge of growth, we only have three options.
1.Cuts in entitlements and defense spending2.Raise taxes3.Continue borrowing
Number 1 & 2 will probably win out."
Mike failed to mention, or he forgot, there is a number four - PRINTING MONEY. Printing is so much easier to do - it postpones having to make unpopular decisions. And secondly massive borrowing isn't even an option anymore - people are beginning to see where we are headed.
Dollysdad.I have to disagree with your first sentence. The president appointed three Republicans to his cabinet, only one (sans Defense Sec Gates) accepted. Second, if the GOP senators and congressman were talking more to Neo-nazi Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck than the President. Then, I do not blame the President for ignoring the GOP. Third, the president isn’t the main problem here, it is the Speaker of the House and the Senate Leader.
VBB.My taxes had been up since 2007. Lets stop the blame game.
The problem lies with liberalism and conservatism. If then Senator Obama had picked a different running mate who is a Southern and more "conservative" he wouldn't be this unpopular in Texas.
Mike, my taxes have gone up & I am not in the so called "wealthy" pay range.....
Exresident, just look at the results from the last elections. And I dont speak for Latinos, we spoke to the Pew, take a little visit there and see where we stand and what we think. See how statistically, we can make a difference and we done it already. All am saying is, do not take our vote for granted, Democrats did in CA with Pro 8 and see what happened. Knowledge is a dangerous thing, specially when is used to shine the light of ignorance. And for the record, Mike, Zorro and myself have bumped heads on different issues and we shall continue. Some of us refuse to vote for a party line; some of us vote for what consider important, whatever that might be, which might be totally irrelevant to you but important to me.
The Tea Party movement has an identity crisis and we are seeing that they have less in common with the Republican Party than they do with libertarians and militia groups. Right here in Victoria we see that a struggle has erupted over whether the Republican Party apparatus will co-opt these coalitions or vice versa. They look more like an angry mob with each passing day. The guns and religion crowd make me nervous. I've seen that movie before.
And I should care because......????
No it was an obsession to tax cuts being the only solution...Did I mention the GOP never mentioned "middle class" in their debates..I watch every one of them...That 89% "going in the wrong direction did not help and John McCain being lost in an economic fog during the crisis.."The fundamentals of our economy is strong."
I saw an exit poll where people (those not being conservative)got tired of hearing tax cuts as the only solution.
Number one, we are not in the 1960s,secondly Ronald Reagan was a supply sider (trickle down) but never the less we just averted a depression where the tax revenues coming in are not enough to pay the current bills….We currently have a demand problem, not a taxation problem. Closed minded conservatives will never be able to compromise because they are stuck on lies generated by one-sided economists, i.e. the Lafer curve…Cutting taxes is not an exact science because you are predicting outcome, so it is based on ideology.
In the 2008 election the GOP ran on a tax cutting, conservative platform only to be rejected..They had eight years to prove their point. We can’t keep making the same old mistakes and expect different results.
Most economists believe unless we have a sudden splurge of growth, we only have three options.1.Cuts in entitlements and defense spending2.Raise taxes3.Continue borrowingNumber 1 & 2 will probably win out.
It's time to put down the Twinkies and Kool Aid. The federal debt increased 1.9 trillion dollars in 2009 and is projected to be the same in 2010. After that it is about 1.2 trillion dollars every year until 2020.
When the Bush tax cuts expire they will raise about 100 billion dollars a year, more or less - that is if the GDP doesn't tank. Currently income taxes bring in about a trillion dollars. To make up for the deficits we are now seeing the income tax rate would have to triple.
A crisis is being prepared and it will be declared shortly. The administration is going to break the news to us that there is no way on earth we can reduce federal spending. Anyone who proposes that will be damned for eternity.
Therefore shucks, the only thing left is a gigantic Value Added Tax - tears will be running down their cheeks as they break the news. And oh yeah, if you don't like that they will continue to destroy the currency and wipe out everyone's savings.
Obama is about change even if he is or is not a citizen - according to Hiliary and Bill during the 2007 Democratic primaries.
Even more sad and telling is the comment that lowering taxes will increase the deficit. Starting with JFK ["A rising tide lifts all boats"] through Ronald Reagan, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that lowering tax rates always results in an increase in tax REVENUES. Any supposed "economist" who would argue otherwise is being deliberately ignorant. The verification of this FACT, not opinion, is readily available from numerous sources for anyone inclined to look, i.e. those whose mind is not already made up and who refuses to be confused by the facts.
reyrey• In this case I did use Medina as an example of a scheme without a track record but during the 2008 presidential campaign I said the same thing about McCain and Hillary Clinton's gasoline tax holiday. I also called the Obama’s 2011 cuts in the budget on everything but entitlements and defense spending, a scheme, not based in reality.
• In this off-season, I seriously doubt the young and minorities will vote…It will be the angry and the old…Democrats will lose a lot of seats because it will be an anti vote, then the GOP will the target, after they take office …A political merry-go-round.
• When the immigration bill comes up again, hate radio will be in full force, again being the reason Latinos and other minorities flee the GOP.
Mike, Mike, why dont you call a loca a loca. You know that you are talking about Medina. I am a Reagan and Clinton Democrat and let me tell you something, if the Republicans ignores us by going with the Tea Party, they will have a rude awakening come Nov 2012 just like Democrats will have this Nov. Just remember what happened in California, Democrats swept the Republicans in 2008 but Prop 8 was passed. Democrats were stunt that everything went their way except for Pro 8. They took our vote for granted and it came back to bite them. My point, independent does not mean Tea party member by default. We are keeping an eye on Obama and the extreme right. Just because Medina is a Latino last name, doesnt mean we are going to vote for her. Good old Marshall said it best when he was talking on the impending nomination of Thomas and stated, "there's no difference between a white snake and a black snake. They'll both bite....". I do admit that I admire both of these justices although they have different views on their decisions. Medina does not represent the Latinos and we might be a minority, but we are the one that gave FL,NV and some other states to the Democrats, just like we voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Sometimes, all you need is those extra two points to win an election. So, if I see Medina or my good friend Tacrado name somewhere, I am voting against them. Tea anybody? naa, I sticking with cafe con leche.