And the Redistribution begins...

[NickF1011]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/24...-economic-team/

 

"We've got to restore some balance to our tax code and the Bush tax cuts were disproportionately targeted to the very wealthiest Americans -- those who were making more than a quarter million dollars a year can afford to pay a little more," the president-elect said.

 

Balance?? Don't make me piss my pants, Barack.

[White99GT]

Someone should first define the word balance for him, then introduce him to the concept of flat tax.

[sprinter]

The "bailout" has now exceeded $7.7 TRILLION and the worse is yet to come. Folks, that is more than half of 2007's GDP. And if we do a little math, it comes out to $25,500 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The worse part of the bailout is we don't know for sure where this money is going. But I guarantee a lot of “some bodies” out here will have to pay tax on this. Just think what you could have done with an extra 25 grand that would actually turn the economy around. But instead the FED is digging the “debt” hole deeper for the taxpayer knowing they will come out ahead in the end leaving the taxpayer to smother under the load. How does it feel being sold out by our government?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

 

The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

 

The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.

[BlackHorse]

The "bailout" has now exceeded $7.7 TRILLION and the worse is yet to come. Folks, that is more than half of 2007's GDP. And if we do a little math, it comes out to $25,500 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The worse part of the bailout is we don't know for sure where this money is going.

 

 

I wonder if the libs are going to be as upset about the trillions of deficit that Barack is about to hand us as they were about the billions of deficit that Bush did.

 

 

You have no one to blame but yourselves.

[methos]

I wonder if the libs are going to be as upset about the trillions of deficit that Barack is about to hand us as they were about the billions of deficit that Bush did.

 

 

You have no one to blame but yourselves.

 

I agree. For the most part, anyone voting Republican = Moron. The politicians only reflect the apathy and ignorance of the electorate.

[retro-man]

I wonder if the libs are going to be as upset about the trillions of deficit that Barack is about to hand us as they were about the billions of deficit that Bush did.

 

 

You have no one to blame but yourselves.

I hate to bother you with the chronology here, but Barack does not assume office until Jan. 20th, next year.

 

Re. these bailouts, "the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s"; at least with the New Deal we got dams, rural electrification, libraries, National Park lodges, low income housing, and an economic safety net. Anyone care to guess what kind of rat-hole the money's going down this time? I have my doubts it'll produce anything of such lasting value.

[BlackHorse]

I hate to bother you with the chronology here, but Barack does not assume office until Jan. 20th, next year.

 

Re. these bailouts, "the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s"; at least with the New Deal we got dams, rural electrification, libraries, National Park lodges, low income housing, and an economic safety net. Anyone care to guess what kind of rat-hole the money's going down this time? I have my doubts it'll produce anything of such lasting value.

 

I hate to bother you with reality, but Bush has already said that at least 350 billion of the original 700 billion bailout will be left for Barack to spend as he sees fit. In addition it is Nancy Pelosi, not Bush who wants to tripple the big 3 bailout package. Finally it is Barack himself who has talked about an additional 700 billion bailout package, not Bush. So regardless of the fact that he's not in office yet, these are things we know he is going to do.

[methos]

I hate to bother you with reality, but Bush has already said that at least 350 billion of the original 700 billion bailout will be left for Barack to spend as he sees fit. In addition it is Nancy Pelosi, not Bush who wants to tripple the big 3 bailout package. Finally it is Barack himself who has talked about an additional 700 billion bailout package, not Bush. So regardless of the fact that he's not in office yet, these are things we know he is going to do.

 

 

The reality is that Bush is the president. He took us here. The seven hundred billion is chump change compared to what the Fed has spent. It's a good thing we’ve gone digital, for we don't have enough printing presses to cover what they've spent.

 

I agree with Retro, it's not just about bailing out the banks, but creating jobs. You could spent trillions more on saving the financial markets, but it's useless unless they somehow get America back to work, decent work, so as they can pay their mortgages and other commitments.

 

Obama has said as much. He is working on it. Will it work? Who knows, but at least someone is going to try, and that is all that I am asking, for someone to get on the podium and speak in complete sentences as they explain the dilemma, and then some sort of cohesive plan to get out of it.

[BlackHorse]

The reality is that Bush is the president. He took us here. The seven hundred billion is chump change compared to what the Fed has spent. It's a good thing we’ve gone digital, for we don't have enough printing presses to cover what they've spent.

 

I agree with Retro, it's not just about bailing out the banks, but creating jobs. You could spent trillions more on saving the financial markets, but it's useless unless they somehow get America back to work, decent work, so as they can pay their mortgages and other commitments.

 

Obama has said as much. He is working on it. Will it work? Who knows, but at least someone is going to try, and that is all that I am asking, for someone to get on the podium and speak in complete sentences as they explain the dilemma, and then some sort of cohesive plan to get out of it.

 

Bush took us where? Bush forced the democrats to block every effort to try do somethng about Fannie and Freddie? Bush put on a Bernake mask and sat in the hearings on Fannie and Freddie and told the republicans that there was no problem, go away? Bush was really Carter when he they signed into law legislation that forced banks to extend credit to risky creditors in the name of being "fair"? Bush was really Clinton when they expanded that legislation in 1994? Bush forced all of Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq which was nothing short of a declaration of war?

 

Look I know that you libs love to lay everything at Bush's feet because it makes you feel better. But bad news, your liberal politicians were and still are right there with him in it. Equally at fault for what has happened.

 

Now with respect to Barack creating jobs. This again is the mindset of a liberal. The mindset of person who sees the government as all knowing, all encompassing. Someone who is ready to be a slave because they are so ready to have the government do everything for them.

 

Government does not create jobs. Let me say that once again so you understand. Government does not create jobs. Even those jobs that you get working directly for the government are only made possible by tax dollars. This is a a capitialist country and so the market creates jobs. Poliiticians that promise to create jobs are either blowing smoke or looking to expand the scope of government, something we need neither of. Barack can promise 2.5 million jobs all he wants. He can't force private industry to hire those people. It is an empty promise. It sounds good on TV and the easily fooled believe that he can somehow deliver.

[goinbroke2]

"Government does not create jobs. Let me say that once again so you understand. Government does not create jobs. Even those jobs that you get working directly for the government are only made possible by tax dollars. This is a a capitialist country and so the market creates jobs. Poliiticians that promise to create jobs are either blowing smoke or looking to expand the scope of government, something we need neither of. Barack can promise 2.5 million jobs all he wants. He can't force private industry to hire those people. It is an empty promise. It sounds good on TV and the easily fooled believe that he can somehow deliver"

 

It's so simple, why can't people understand it?? Oh yes, because they want to believe something is bigger than them and will protect them. Let's all get government jobs and that will end poverty....like it did in russia...oh wait...

 

Around here there is always gov grants etc to give people "incentives" to start business and so on. Problem is, people are so used to the incentives and no real punishment for failing (not your fault, the economy went bad/the fishing ind left/the logging ind/the..) that what happens now is people start a business and live high on the hog while running it into the ground. when the gov money is gone, shortly thereafter the company goes away too.

[kpc655]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/24...-economic-team/

 

 

 

Balance?? Don't make me piss my pants, Barack.

 

They're bribing us with our own money! disgusting...how much debt has the government taken on in the last 6 weeks..about 21k per citizen? That's on top of the 147k they owe on each of our behalf's.

 

No more bailouts or loans

No more deficit spending

I wish Washington would go home for thanksgiving and not come back.

 

There's an inflation explosion coming our way.

[napfirst]

The reality is that Bush is the president. He took us here. The seven hundred billion is chump change compared to what the Fed has spent. It's a good thing we’ve gone digital, for we don't have enough printing presses to cover what they've spent.

 

I agree with Retro, it's not just about bailing out the banks, but creating jobs. You could spent trillions more on saving the financial markets, but it's useless unless they somehow get America back to work, decent work, so as they can pay their mortgages and other commitments.

 

Obama has said as much. He is working on it. Will it work? Who knows, but at least someone is going to try, and that is all that I am asking, for someone to get on the podium and speak in complete sentences as they explain the dilemma, and then some sort of cohesive plan to get out of it.

Please don't leave out the dem controlled Congress......their hands are dirty also.....

[suv_guy_19]

Government does not create jobs.

 

 

Crown corporations (or their US equivalent)?

Edited November 25, 2008 by suv_guy_19

[napfirst]

I hate to bother you with the chronology here, but Barack does not assume office until Jan. 20th, next year.

 

Re. these bailouts, "the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s"; at least with the New Deal we got dams, rural electrification, libraries, National Park lodges, low income housing, and an economic safety net. Anyone care to guess what kind of rat-hole the money's going down this time? I have my doubts it'll produce anything of such lasting value.

Obama gets head start on using the bully pulpit

Tuesday November 25, 12:38 pm ET

By Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer

Obama assumes presidential-level involvement in tackling economy well before inauguration

 

 

CHICAGO (AP) -- Pushing the calendar, and maybe his luck, President-elect Barack Obama is urging rapid approval of a massive economic stimulus package meant to calm turbulent financial markets.

He won't be president for another eight weeks, and the politically safer route might have been to lie low as President George W. Bush finishes his rocky term. But in announcing his economic team Monday at a White House-style news conference, Obama has chosen to use the bully pulpit even before he assumes the office, gambling that he can soften the economy's fall while he continues to fill out the rest of his cabinet.

[suv_guy_19]

Obama gets head start on using the bully pulpit

Tuesday November 25, 12:38 pm ET

By Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer

Obama assumes presidential-level involvement in tackling economy well before inauguration

 

 

I'm sure a great many people are doing urging. Doesn't mean he's trying to play President when hes not.

[methos]

Bush took us where? Bush forced the democrats to block every effort to try do somethng about Fannie and Freddie? Bush put on a Bernake mask and sat in the hearings on Fannie and Freddie and told the republicans that there was no problem, go away? Bush was really Carter when he they signed into law legislation that forced banks to extend credit to risky creditors in the name of being "fair"? Bush was really Clinton when they expanded that legislation in 1994? Bush forced all of Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq which was nothing short of a declaration of war?

 

Look I know that you libs love to lay everything at Bush's feet because it makes you feel better. But bad news, your liberal politicians were and still are right there with him in it. Equally at fault for what has happened.

 

Now with respect to Barack creating jobs. This again is the mindset of a liberal. The mindset of person who sees the government as all knowing, all encompassing. Someone who is ready to be a slave because they are so ready to have the government do everything for them.

 

Government does not create jobs. Let me say that once again so you understand. Government does not create jobs. Even those jobs that you get working directly for the government are only made possible by tax dollars. This is a a capitialist country and so the market creates jobs. Poliiticians that promise to create jobs are either blowing smoke or looking to expand the scope of government, something we need neither of. Barack can promise 2.5 million jobs all he wants. He can't force private industry to hire those people. It is an empty promise. It sounds good on TV and the easily fooled believe that he can somehow deliver.

 

 

Again, you're making assumptions and gross overgeneralizations, most patently false. The intent does not offend, only the ignorance behind it.

 

There is plenty of blame to go around. But most of it lies with the deregulation movement championed via the Republicans. As far Democrats, after 9/11 and the subsequent Nationalist sentiment stirred by Bush & Co. they were reduced to near oblivion. Sure they took the House towards the end, but they only held a 49 seat majority in the Senate and the Republican's blocked the vast majority of bills.

 

The Republican’s wanted to change Fannie and Freddie, cut off the low income, that would have helped, not stopped the crisis, for by then it was too far along. The Democrats wanted a more top down approach. What we needed was some kind of compromise. That’s where the President comes in, sits both parties down and hammers out an agreement. Like so many presidents before have done. It didn’t happen then, as it never happened after 9/11.

 

As far as government not creating jobs, are you kidding? They are by FAR the largest employer. They employ something like twenty percent of the workforce. In the Midwest, some 17% of jobs are Federal government jobs. In the East, it's something like 30%. You can thank Bush for the largest increase in modern times.

 

Leave it up to the business sector? Are you kidding? Do you really still believe that? The business sector is always going to go where it's the cheapest to do business, or make that widget. No environmental regulations, no Sarbanes-Oxley whatever, there are a multitude of reasons why they might want to do business abroad. So, we have three options, 1) like Bush, we can continue to watch the flight of business overseas all the while encouraging it, or; 2) we can lower or remove the regulations, disband unions, create a cheap workforce, and live in a polluted shit hole like China, or; 3) create some common sense legislation rewarding those that stay and taxing the hell out of those that leave. Nothing draconian, just some common sense fair trade agreements including environmental and labor standards; in addition, some countermeasures to those countries manipulating their currencies.

 

Since we are by far the world’s biggest consumers, business will do whatever they can to remain a player in this market. The funny thing is, we’ve held all the cards. To use a simple analogy, Bush had a Royal Flush, but instead of collecting the pot at the end; he opted to fold. The country loses its wealth as do its people. The only victors are the wealthy and multinationals. They can still thrive in a world driven market place.

 

 

Opinions are only as good as what they're based on; evidence-based research. I just wish our elected officials and people in general would stop the partisan rankor and start working towards solutions.

[methos]

"Government does not create jobs. Let me say that once again so you understand. Government does not create jobs. Even those jobs that you get working directly for the government are only made possible by tax dollars. This is a a capitialist country and so the market creates jobs. Poliiticians that promise to create jobs are either blowing smoke or looking to expand the scope of government, something we need neither of. Barack can promise 2.5 million jobs all he wants. He can't force private industry to hire those people. It is an empty promise. It sounds good on TV and the easily fooled believe that he can somehow deliver"

 

It's so simple, why can't people understand it?? Oh yes, because they want to believe something is bigger than them and will protect them. Let's all get government jobs and that will end poverty....like it did in russia...oh wait...

 

Around here there is always gov grants etc to give people "incentives" to start business and so on. Problem is, people are so used to the incentives and no real punishment for failing (not your fault, the economy went bad/the fishing ind left/the logging ind/the..) that what happens now is people start a business and live high on the hog while running it into the ground. when the gov money is gone, shortly thereafter the company goes away too.

 

Wow? Read above, but again I ask, do you really believe that? Why does everything have to be on the margins with you? Government can create jobs, as Obama can, as FDR did in the last comparable crisis. They do it because they have no other choice. The business sector is broke and if they don't intervene, instead of a decade of peril, we linger for several.

 

Ideally, a government won't have to use tax dollars, but instead shapes the direction of the economy via fairer trade agreements, and tax policies designed to create jobs, but we're past that point now, for it's all about putting out the fire now.

 

It doesn't have to be extreme; FDR declined socialism, but instead favored government investment. It does not have to be all or nothing, have you heard of middle ground? It doesn't happen often, but it exists. A government can invest in the infrastructure and in business and thrive, all the while maintaining the liberties and independence of the populace e.g. Europe. The only reason they're suffering now, for the most part is due to this countries negligence. It's no wonder no one would shake Bush's hand in the G-20 meeting.

[BlackHorse]

Doesn't mean he's trying to play President when hes not.

 

Then maybe he should quit holding press conferences everyday with this in front of him.

 

 

 

 

 

It's so obvious that he's trying be President already.

[methos]

Then maybe he should quit holding press conferences everyday with this in front of him.

 

 

It's so obvious that he's trying be President already.

 

Does he have a choice? This happened once before, when the transition was longer Hoover --> FDR. After that fiasco, Congress shortened the transition period.

 

Bush is leaving, but what happens now will determine whether the country lingers in a recession or falls into a depression. He is taking a chance, unlike FDR who sat on the sidelines; Obama is risking engagement when he has little control. Again it's risky, but I think prudent.

[BlackHorse]

Does he have a choice? This happened once before, when the transition was longer Hoover

 

 

Maybe he doesn't have a choice but I think you libs need to figure out which paging of griping you're on. On the one hand you got Edstock (big lib) complaining because conservatives are calling his ideas and decisions into question when he hasn't even taken office yet and on the other hand we've got you (big lib) complaining that he doesn't have a choice but to be acting all Presidential and making policy decisions and what not already. Ok, so which is it? Either he can shut up until after the Jan 20th and we'll be glad to quit harping about his decisions or he can continue to hold press conferences as you say he should and we'll be glad to point out his bad decisions when he makes them. Please pick one or the other liberals but I'm sorry you cannot have both.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Then maybe he should quit holding press conferences everyday with this in front of him.

 

 

 

 

 

It's so obvious that he's trying be President already.

 

 

I think most Americans would be happy if Bush & Cheney would pack their stuff and leave RIGHT NOW! I know I would feel much more secure.

[methos]

Maybe he doesn't have a choice but I think you libs need to figure out which paging of griping you're on. On the one hand you got Edstock (big lib) complaining because conservatives are calling his ideas and decisions into question when he hasn't even taken office yet and on the other hand we've got you (big lib) complaining that he doesn't have a choice but to be acting all Presidential and making policy decisions and what not already. Ok, so which is it? Either he can shut up until after the Jan 20th and we'll be glad to quit harping about his decisions or he can continue to hold press conferences as you say he should and we'll be glad to point out his bad decisions when he makes them. Please pick one or the other liberals but I'm sorry you cannot have both.

 

 

The journal Science published a paper 2-3 months back. Regarding the inability of some to think in the abstract and how those folks naturally became "conservative". Since their thinking was impaired, or at least not as enlightening, the outcome is understandable.

 

The point I am trying to make; albeit insultingly, is that there is more to life than black or white, but an infinite number of shades of gray. Liberals don't have a hotline to call, unlike the conservatives, so we can all march in lockstep. To the contrary, we prefer to think critically and come to our own well thought out conclusions. Sometimes liberals come to different conclusions, again, unlike the conservatives, but we not only accept diversity, but appreciate it.

 

On another note, you seem to toss out liberal as some sort of slander. Unfortunately, after Vietnam, for many it was. After eight years of Bush and failed conservative policies that have taken this country close to abyss, if not outright failure; The only region left that thinks highly of that term, conservative, is the Deep South. No accounting for taste

[suv_guy_19]

Then maybe he should quit holding press conferences everyday with this in front of him.

 

 

 

 

You mean a podium that clearly shows he's NOT the President?

[NickF1011]

After eight years of Bush and failed conservative policies that have taken this country close to abyss, if not outright failure; The only region left that thinks highly of that term, conservative, is the Deep South. No accounting for taste

 

Please tell us which of Bush's policies have been "conservative". The ones where he created completely unnecessary cabinet positions and departments of government? Or maybe it was the part where he shoved billions into corporations to keep them afloat? No, maybe it was when he extended unemployment benefits?

 

I'm sorry, but Bush is not a conservative.

[sprinter]

The "bailout" has now exceeded $7.7 TRILLION

 

 

That's old news. Now it's $8.5 TRILLION

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../MNVN14C8QR.DTL