Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
It's corporate welfare and anyone who believes in the free market or conservative principles should be aghast at this proposal. Besides the fact that it will do nothing to stimulate the economy.
WUA,
Don't be pleasantly suprised.
Don't be surprised at all.
We can't believe ANYTHING this man says.
We don't even know what this man's real name is!
So let's just wait and see.
Hang on folks!
MATH anyone???
300 mill tax cuts???
1 Trill " stimulus"???
and if can believe Harry Reid... we do not have to pay Income taxes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R...h?
v=R7mRSI8yWwg
Has Obama forgotten the Retired Persons whose savings,401K, and retirement plans, thanks to Barney.. Chris Dud.. and Maxine Waters have gone up in Smoke??? (Freddie and Fannie)
$300 billion in tax cuts that will help the economy, vs three times as much on a bailout package that will quite simply be the single largest pork-laden bill that has ever darkened the halls of Congress (and that's saying something.)
Obama is sly if nothing else. The $300 billion gives pork-loving Republicans an excuse to hop on board. Bet it works in spades. (PTP)
POrk loving Republicans ???.. Are you really of this Planet or have you beamed down so as to make Dumb Posts???
Look at the Possible PORK in the TRillion Dollars Bail out from the Democrats.. Pools.. Bike TRails.. painting of Public buildings.. Tennis Courts.. PUHLEESE sray off the KOol Aid..
the 300 in tax cuts are doing Diddly.. Cut Corporate taxes and the economy will turn around quicker via jobs creation.. Tell the UAW to move to china nad that will also help...keep the W tax cuts and eliminate the death tax.. Capital gains.. the last " bail out" BOMBED!!!
Hard to comment on the economic usefulness of the move, but it sounds like good politics.
Now the question is, will good politics be good for the economy? Compromise can give people the warm fuzzy (and votes) but often leads to nothing useful getting done and lots of bad stuff getting passed because it gets someone on board.
I am remembering the quote:
%
When my grandchildren, if any, ask me why certain things turned out in
somewhat ugly ways, I will tell them that it is for the same reason that
slaves count as 3/5 of a person in the U.S. Constitution -- that is the
price you pay for keeping the South on board (or the North, depending).
%
-- Scott E. Fahlman
I do not believe that we have actually seen " Good Politics" for more than a Century in the Cesspool aka DC!!!
For too long our self promoting Royalists of politics have done nothing but work to make money for re-elections at our expanses!!!
@redhawk
Heh. Never said who it was good for. ^_~
Though last hundred years? Try adding a few zeros to that. Politics has always been about factions with in the ruling class bickering among each other.
Monarchy, Theocracy, Dictatorship, Republic, Democracy,.. while they can have different effects down at the bottom, the behavior at the top usually ends up being about the same.
Tax cuts are great! (woo-hoo) But, where will the money come from to pay for the Trillions of spending that is sure to come?
I am sorry, but you cannot have it both ways. Someone has to pay!
Make the cuts, and let US stimulate the economy. (Capitalism) Works! 
Reaganomics
Stimulate the economy and get the money from taxes. Government runs the economy. (Socialism) Doesn't work.
Clintonomics
That is math, and my humble opinion.
The New Conservative Party in 2010**
added note: There is 1 bailout I would approve of. All of those scammed by Madoff. Some can afford it, but there are several charity oganizations involved. I would not mind paying for that one. And you have to do it across the board.
Didn't Reagonomics and Clintonmics have the same net effect? Short term gain, increase in divide between rich and poor, culminating in a banking scandal and economic collapse?
In both cases recession occurred partly due to lack of regulation and oversight of the banking industry. Neither one guarded the henhouse very well. Reagan crippled small business owners with the AMT and high interest rates, Clinton made it too easy to shift low paid jobs out of the country (i.e. free trade). Both of them mostly benefited the ultra-wealthy with the main difference being Reagan mostly hurt the middle class and Clinton mostly hurt the lower class.
Though if you want to talk math...
When adjusted for inflation, tax recipes between 1981 and 1990 went up 0.2% annually while 1990 - 2001 saw a real tax revenue (again, adjusted for inflation) of 3.1% per year.
This something that tends to bother old-school conservatives. While Clinton was more socially liberal then Reagan, he was fiscally more conservative. Reagan ended up over doubling the national debt (from 900B to 2.1T) while Clinton had a budget surplus. When it came to economic policies Clinton made a better Republican then Reagan did.
Unfortunately Obama does not look likely to follow in these footsteps.
Where in the heck did you get your statistics? The Democrats started the banking scandal. Almost forcing Fannie and Freddie to give loans to insolvents.
And calling Clinton a Conservative is like calling...Clinton a Conservative!
Capitalism works!
The New Conservative Party in 2010**
"During his Presidency, Ronald Reagan successfully lowered the tax structure and championed business growth allowing the United States to enjoy the largest peacetime economic prosperity in its history. President Reagan rebuilt America's military forces, and his policy of "peace through strength" brought the Soviets to the negotiating table, culminating in the historic INF Treaty. It was Ronald Reagan who convinced Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down" the Berlin Wall. Since then, the world has changed dramatically, and free and democratic societies have emerged around the globe."
Forgot to add this..
The New Conservative Party in 2010**
"During his Presidency, Ronald Reagan successfully lowered the tax structure and championed business growth allowing the United States to enjoy the largest peacetime economic prosperity in its history. President Reagan rebuilt America's military forces, and his policy of "peace through strength" brought the Soviets to the negotiating table, culminating in the historic INF Treaty. It was Ronald Reagan who convinced Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down" the Berlin Wall. Since then, the world has changed dramatically, and free and democratic societies have emerged around the globe."
I forgot to add this....
The New Conservative Party in 2010**
oops.
Oh, there is plenty of blame to go around on the banking scandal. The democrats pushed Fannie/Freddie to give out high risk loans, republicans pushed to reduce the oversight of wall street which turned bad loans into an unstable credit market. Neither alone would have done the trick.
The numbers I got were from here:
http://www.cbpp.org/3-3-03tax.htm
Reagan reduced the taxes on the wealthiest from ~70% to ~30%. He increased the number of households caught up with the AMT from ~200 to around 10 Million households which really hurt any small business with revenue in the 250k-1M range. After 1M the effect of the AMT became less of a problem.
For Clinton and economic conservatism... lowered taxes, kept interest rates low, balanced budget spending, encouraged private investment, invested in education/training/research/etc. All good solid economic policy.
On the social front true he tended to be pretty liberal, though he DID pass RLUIPA which was a dramatic extention of religious power in America and of course the Defense of Marriage act.
None of this detracts from Reagan strengthening the military or his success at dealing with communist Russia. I have no intention or desire to attack that (since I think it was wonderful) but that is a separate issue from economic policy, which I see as a continuation of Carter's policy of deregulation combined with the still rather new and untested policy of supply side economics. So a mix of what a Democrat had already started and an experimental progressive economic system proposed by a pair of college professors (i.e., Ivory Tower Theorists).
Well $775B Stimulas package is better than the $700B given before to the US Treasury for Financial institutions, who are still out of bounds. I think ordinary American thinks better than corporations and can handle the money better than corporations.If the borrower' because of whom the real estate market busted, gets the bail out rather than bailing out the financial institutions, it WILL work better. I am excpecting just 20% from Obama, whatever he is saying, and that will be good enough to bring US back to the business. US is a king country and will be......
I do not trust any of it. I think it is smoke and mirrors as usual. Lets wait and see. I am with ya Delle on this. I agree too with Skeezix,clinton and the dems put us into the crisis.
*shrug* while I feel the government (democrat or republican) had little to do with the current crisis. mortgages were the 'what', but they were the 'what' in the same way a bullet is the 'what' in a robbery. If there had not been an abundance of mortgages then the collapse would have found something else to use.
Bad mortgages alone are very easy to do risk analysis on. The opaque securies that obscured them added the risk, but ultimately it was the massive amounts of investment capital (doubled between 2000 and 2006) and fewer solid investments to put it in that really caused the problem.
Investors took unreasonable risk with massive piles of money because all the good investments had already, well, been invested in.
The only thing the government could have done would have been to either (a) outlaw opaque securities or (b) issue more bonds to provide a safe outlet for investment pressure.
I know it is fun to blame whoever you don't already like for a problem, but in this case neither party had much of a hand in it and to blame any one group is over simplifying a complex series of events that occurred to have this happen.
Still, I guess blaming democrats still makes more sense then the nutjobs going around saying Bush personally destroyed the economy or it's god's revenge for not treating gays poorly enough.
How about the new Slick Benny proposal;s.. Tax Cute for theose Not Paying Taxes..( I call it welfare to be spent on DVD.. Booze.. and Broads as it took place last Stimulus)...
Creating new jobs by adding 600,000 government jobs as that will solve all the problems caused by the currently bloated and inept Governmant BUT it will raise the need for higher taxes for salaries and retirement and Health benefits for Us and future Generation...
Heil Barry we are not that Dumb yet to buy your CRAP!!!
http://www.netrightnation.com/in...n-blog&
Itemid=7
and now Hilalry is involved in Pay for Play....Imagine that!!
Reid Defiant on 2010
January 6, 2009, 5:01 P.M.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), perhaps the top Republican target in the 2010 cycle, conceded in an interview Tuesday that he can be beat but said he isn�t afraid to lose and is confident his record will earn him a fifth term. Full Story
From Roll Call ... The Weasel is cooked!!!
Reid losing an election, or however he's dislodged from the Senate Majority leaders spot, would be the best thing that could happen for the Dems.
P.S. Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
That can only happen if the Loons discover that their missing spines are locked up in someone's closet... Reid is a walking DISASTER...He even managed to Fluck up a simple thing as a Senate appointment along with his Lap Dog Daffy Durbin...
BTW Private Section LOans were forced on them By Freddie and Fannie's DESIRE to have ALL Capable and Uncapable Americans have a home wether they could afford one or not... FACT!
Commenting by HaloScan
