Obama on Fiscal Responsibility

[explodo]

Trickle down economics is actually golden shower for the middle class economics.

Because I agree with this, I have taken it upon myself to erect a Reagan fountain that depicts him urinating all over a wild pack of grubby peasants.

[futureage1]

Investments from 401Ks are not the entirety of our market.

 

No but in these jackasses mind it is the expendable money they can leverage out and test the bounds of the market with. It should be obvious when that is what takes the first hit when the market takes a dive. It is a big enough part of the market to cause big problems like when they invested everyone in oil and we were paying $4 a gallon. That was almost all speculation with major firms like Morgan Stanley investing people's 401k's in future commodities. A risky investment to say the least. And that bubble burst and started the entire downward slide in stocks this time.

[futureage1]

Because I agree with this, I have taken it upon myself to erect a Reagan fountain that depicts him urinating all over a wild pack of grubby peasants.

 

HAHA. Sad to say such a monument would not be so far fetched for a man who once said that ketchup was a vegetable to get out of Govt. paying for school lunches for poor kids, or in his way of thinking,"peasants". That's an example of why the Republicans worship the Father Of Homelessness.

[dondoboy]

You were more kind than me. I said he sounded like he was speaking to a roomful of kindergartners. I keep looking for a great new conservative leader, but no one's on the horizon.

I didn't respond last night because I knew there would be a lot going on here. But the best description of Jindal came from that girl who spends an awful lot of time at my house. She didn't know the speech was going on and walked in sat on the couch, opened a couple of beers and said, "What the hell are you watching? Is this the new Mr. Rogers? Why is he on at ten thirty at night?"

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Aw, hell no. How many guns are in private ownership in this country?

 

And how many of those guns are owned by Republicans?

[JUDE]

I have a few firearms but I have no registered political affiliations.

[MattZ]

As a dem who voted for Obama, I'd like to say that the folks in the top 2%, that are apparently going to fund Obama's spending plans, are the people who probably lost the most when the market turned over, and the people who started and own and run the companies that employ people like me. If those folks bail, people like me (and many others) will lose their jobs, and this recovery that we are all desperate for will be much further off than we think.

 

Whether the income disparity between the top and the bottom is widening or not, we NEED the folks at the top to keep doing a lot of what they've been doing. It doesnt matter what I think, or you think about income disparity. If they take their ball and go home, there will be fewer jobs.

[JUDE]

And how many people do you or your companies employ?

[calvino]

I didn't respond last night because I knew there would be a lot going on here. But the best description of Jindal came from that girl who spends an awful lot of time at my house. She didn't know the speech was going on and walked in sat on the couch, opened a couple of beers and said, "What the hell are you watching? Is this the new Mr. Rogers? Why is he on at ten thirty at night?"

 

To me Jindal reminded me of Kenneth from 30 Rock, in the way he talked and his mannerism.

 

He did not have much to say.

[futureage1]

As a dem who voted for Obama, I'd like to say that the folks in the top 2%, that are apparently going to fund Obama's spending plans, are the people who probably lost the most when the market turned over, and the people who started and own and run the companies that employ people like me. If those folks bail, people like me (and many others) will lose their jobs, and this recovery that we are all desperate for will be much further off than we think.

 

Whether the income disparity between the top and the bottom is widening or not, we NEED the folks at the top to keep doing a lot of what they've been doing. It doesnt matter what I think, or you think about income disparity. If they take their ball and go home, there will be fewer jobs.

 

Here is an article on the subject. I would have to disagree with most of your statement. See if you still think the same way about it after reading this-

 

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/128745/o..._the_very_rich/

 

And here is an article about Fox's review of Jindel's speech. They even know he bombed.

 

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/mediaculture/#128795

[bobbob1313]

That seems like a good, unbiased source.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

That seems like a good, unbiased source.

The Christian Science Monitor?

[Moss]

That seems like a good, unbiased source.

 

- Ah the tangy scent of sarcasm.

[MattZ]

Here is an article on the subject. I would have to disagree with most of your statement. See if you still think the same way about it after reading this-

 

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/128745/o..._the_very_rich/

 

Does that article even address my point? I am not debating whether the haves should kick in more. I am suggesting that my employer is in the top 2%. And if his business is hanging on by a thread, and he doesn't know whether he should reinvest and stick it out, he may close up shop in the face of higher taxes or more regulation/overhead/etc. This has nothing to do with whether he is or isn't paying his fair share. If he decides to go home, so do 25 other people. Do you want me to tell him he has to keep running his business because he made enough money in the past? I dont think that's gonna sway him.

[futureage1]

Does that article even address my point? I am not debating whether the haves should kick in more. I am suggesting that my employer is in the top 2%. And if his business is hanging on by a thread, and he doesn't know whether he should reinvest and stick it out, he may close up shop in the face of higher taxes or more regulation/overhead/etc. This has nothing to do with whether he is or isn't paying his fair share. If he decides to go home, so do 25 other people. Do you want me to tell him he has to keep running his business because he made enough money in the past? I dont think that's gonna sway him.

 

What is your point? Do you even know what is in the stimulus? Small business is not facing a tax increase, but yes your boss would as an individual. In fact he would even get a 3k tax credit for any employees he hires this year. I'm not saying he is in the position to but there it is nonetheless. So if your boss is that stretched that a increase of about $45 in taxes per paycheck is the make it or break it point for him, then he wasn't in a position to keep going anyways most likely. I think most arguments that you seem to be accepting are not very genuine to begin with. Either way I hope you personally keep your job, but I am still for this tax increase as it only affects individuals. And in fact they cut payroll taxes in that Bill as well so in that sense it should be easier to retain employees.

 

**I also wanted to add that I don't know what NY has proposed for any state tax increases but that would not be Obama's fault on the Federal level.

 

That seems like a good, unbiased source.

 

Yes the Christian Science Monitor what a horribly liberal publication. It seems like when you are presented with facts you prefer to attack the source rather than making any counter argument. Perhaps because you have none?

[MattZ]

What is your point? Do you even know what is in the stimulus? Small business is not facing a tax increase, but yes your boss would as an individual. In fact he would even get a 3k tax credit for any employees he hires this year. I'm not saying he is in the position to but there it is nonetheless. So if your boss is that stretched that a increase of about $45 in taxes per paycheck is the make it or break it point for him, then he wasn't in a position to keep going anyways most likely. I think most arguments that you seem to be accepting are not very genuine to begin with. Either way I hope you personally keep your job, but I am still for this tax increase as it only affects individuals. And in fact they cut payroll taxes in that Bill as well so in that sense it should be easier to retain employees.

 

To be clear, this all started with me saying that I am a Dem. I happen to think that the top 2% should kick in more. Again, my point is that it doesn't matter what I think (or you think). What matters is what they think. And the top 2% lost quite a bit in the market over the last year, lost quite a bit in their homes, and are facing tax increases of more than $45. It's easy for me to say they should kick in more. If they do not agree, and they go home, it doesn't matter what I think. That is my point.

[Artifice]

As a dem who voted for Obama, I'd like to say that the folks in the top 2%, that are apparently going to fund Obama's spending plans, are the people who probably lost the most when the market turned over, and the people who started and own and run the companies that employ people like me. If those folks bail, people like me (and many others) will lose their jobs, and this recovery that we are all desperate for will be much further off than we think.

 

Whether the income disparity between the top and the bottom is widening or not, we NEED the folks at the top to keep doing a lot of what they've been doing. It doesnt matter what I think, or you think about income disparity. If they take their ball and go home, there will be fewer jobs.

 

(Disclaimer - I have no political affiliations, and prefer a pragmatic approach)

 

This argument is so wretched in its age and entrenchment. This is one arm of the capitilast ideology contradicting the other. Look man, if my widget maker takes his marbles and goes home casue he is being pissy (about the 1% rate increase that he can easily sidestep via 14,000 pages of legislated loopholes), and there's a need for widgets, then someone else, either a competitor or a startup, will step in. We human beings are NOT beholden to any current crop of capital holders for our well being. The parallels between that line of thinking and the enitlement/welfare attack points that the same group of ideologues love to trumpet are enormously ironic.

[MattZ]

(Disclaimer - I have no political affiliations, and prefer a pragmatic approach)

 

This argument is so wretched in its age and entrenchment. This is one arm of the capitilast ideology contradicting the other. Look man, if my widget maker takes his marbles and goes home casue he is being pissy (about the 1% rate increase that he can easily sidestep via 14,000 pages of legislated loopholes), and there's a need for widgets, then someone else, either a competitor or a startup, will step in. We human beings are NOT beholden to any current crop of capital holders for our well being. The parallels between that line of thinking and the enitlement/welfare attack points that the same group of ideologues love to trumpet are enormously ironic.

 

I don't disagree with you. My point is that if the widget maker goes home, there's going to be a lot more people that get laid off. I never said we couldn't recover from this scenario. But if more people are laid off, and you aren't taxing the widget maker any more, you aren't recovering as quickly either. And I thought that was the goal here.

 

I am not advocating either side. I am just pointing out that "tax the top 2%" sounds really great but it's not so cut and dry. I don't have any answers. Just pointing out the problem.

[Analogman]

I didn't see the speech last night. Does anyone know if he mentioned this sort of thing? I have this crazy idea that no one should have to pay for lunch in school - regardless of their parent's income.

 

No more lunch bills: Schools go after deadbeats

 

By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN, Associated Press Writer Susan Montoya Bryan, Associated Press Writer

[futureage1]

(Disclaimer - I have no political affiliations, and prefer a pragmatic approach)

 

This argument is so wretched in its age and entrenchment. This is one arm of the capitilast ideology contradicting the other. Look man, if my widget maker takes his marbles and goes home casue he is being pissy (about the 1% rate increase that he can easily sidestep via 14,000 pages of legislated loopholes), and there's a need for widgets, then someone else, either a competitor or a startup, will step in. We human beings are NOT beholden to any current crop of capital holders for our well being. The parallels between that line of thinking and the enitlement/welfare attack points that the same group of ideologues love to trumpet are enormously ironic.

 

Great post and I agree 100%.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Just saw this headline;

 

Breaking News: Obamas select First Dog. Markets down

 

Good to know we've got our priorities straight.

[futureage1]

I didn't see the speech last night. Does anyone know if he mentioned this sort of thing? I have this crazy idea that no one should have to pay for lunch in school - regardless of their parent's income.

 

It must be nice to never know the feeling of going hungry. Kids don't get a choice about who their parent's are and I thoroughly disagree that we should penalize them for a less than ideal home life. The country wasn't founded on those kind of principles but I do find it disgusting how people can go around preaching moral values and compassion, while declaring war on the very least in our society: the poor. It would be great if they gave kid's free school lunches, but the Republicans would cry socialism. And all the religious extremists would fight it never realizing the irony of churches fighting charity.

[tugmoose]

Seems this story's more about looking a gift horse in the mouth rather than about kids going hungry. I mean, it sucks that the kids feel stigmatized, but, frankly, they're getting more than their parents paid for. Anyone who wants to start a charity drive for free school lunch upgrades, go at it.

[John Smith]

Does that article even address my point? I am not debating whether the haves should kick in more. I am suggesting that my employer is in the top 2%. And if his business is hanging on by a thread, and he doesn't know whether he should reinvest and stick it out, he may close up shop in the face of higher taxes or more regulation/overhead/etc. This has nothing to do with whether he is or isn't paying his fair share. If he decides to go home, so do 25 other people. Do you want me to tell him he has to keep running his business because he made enough money in the past? I dont think that's gonna sway him.

 

Without reading the rest of the discussion on this point I do have a major problem with this statement. If the business is hanging on by a thread it is a business issue. I fail to see how if you earn $100 and pay $28 tax on it that by increasing the tax to$30 will make the owner close up shop. His net profit goes from $72 to $70 go ahead and add all the zero

[John Smith]

Seems this story's more about looking a gift horse in the mouth rather than about kids going hungry. I mean, it sucks that the kids feel stigmatized, but, frankly, they're getting more than their parents paid for. Anyone who wants to start a charity drive for free school lunch upgrades, go at it.

 

Economic Darwinism at it's finest.