Obama Offers a Comprehensive "Yes, We Can!"

posted by John Nichols on 02/24/2009 @ 10:00pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (149)

Subscribe Now

Barack Obama's not-a-State of the Union address sounded precisely like a State of the Union address, as the president offered a sober assessment of a recession that "is real and (is being felt) everywhere," and a dramatic vision of the multi-tiered approach he proposes to renew the American economy.

Obama's Tuesday night speech to Congress and the American people sketched the battlelines for coming weeks and months of wrangling over immediate and longer-term economic policy in the United States -- going out of his way to make the debate over what to do about health care central to the discussion. And the Democratic president's Republican critics bit.

As such, the night was distinguished by two competing themes:

1. Obama's determination to portray the economic crisis as a daunting challenge that can only be met with a comprehensive approach that includes both emergency responses -- as represented by the stimulus bill be signed last week -- and structural shifts involving health care, energy and education reform.

2. The Republican Party leadership's determination -- despite evidence of genuine division among Republican governors and even among congressional Republicans -- to counter the president's every suggestion by just saying "no."

Through much of his speech, Obama sounded a little like an emergency-room surgeon turning away from the operating table to explain what he had done and what he was about to do.

Yes, the patient is very sick, "But," the physician-in-chief counseled, "while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."

Obama outlined the steps he was taking to treat the immediate crisis, beginning with the $800-billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which he painted it as a something-for-everyone measure that will save or create 3.5 million jobs, provide just about everyone with a tax cut and somehow remain fiscally responsible along the way. He reviewed his proposals to ease credit with a Financial Stability Plan that his office says "will guarantee that money is safe, that banks start lending and that if they do receive taxpayer funds, they will not be allowed to use them for perks and bonuses." And he described his housing agenda with a new emphasis on the notion that, while the legislation will help work-hard, play-by-the-rules families stay in their homes, it will also keep interest rates low and enables millions of homeowners who aren't in deep trouble to negotiate lower mortgage rates.

This was not new material, although Obama and his team have wisely recognized that, in order to sell their housing scheme, they will need to reposition it as a populist response to the economic downturn rather than a taxpayer-funded assist to the hardest hit.

What was new was the president's emphasis on the need to make "transformative investments" to:

� Remake the health care system in a manner that reduces costs and increases coverage. (On this issue, where so many presidents have tried and failed, Obama said, "reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.")

� Make the United States energy independent by creating a sustainable and clean energy economy.

� Modernize the country's education system in order to foster economic growth and competitiveness.

The final word on what such reforms are likely to look like will rest with Congress, and Obama only began to detail his agenda during the course of a speech that lasted the better part of an hour.

But the president's Republican critics filled in the blanks by denouncing the Obama's approach as too ambitious, too expensive and too reliant on the power of government -- and its ability to incur massive amounts of debt.

Obama was still preaching bipartisanship, but the Republicans were echoing some of the rhetoric.

But for all the conciliatory language, the Republican response to the president's speech was always going to slap rather than shake the open hand of political friendship.

This was telegraphed by the opposition party's choice of a respondent to the president.

While most Republican governors are grabbing for federal stimulus payments, the party turned the microphone over to the most prominent refuser of federal largesse, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Jindal came across better than his Washington-based counterparts would have. He is not so freakishly emotional as House Minority Leader John Boehner nor is he so crudely uncaring as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Yet, the message from Jindal, who is positioning himself as a 2012 GOP presidential prospect, was every bit as negative as that of his partisan allies.

If Obama said "stimulate," Jindal said "wait."

If Obama said "invest," Jindal said "cut taxes."

If Obama said "Roosevelt," Jindal said "Reagan."

One of the great lies in American politics is the claim that responses to presidential addresses are never of any consequence. In fact, they invariably tell us what how serious a fight the president has on his hands.

The selection of Jindal was telling, indeed.

On Tuesday night, Barack Obama offered a comprehensive "yes, we can" promise.

Bobby Jindal responded with a narrow "no, we can't" threat.

The battlelines could not be any more clearly drawn.

The choice could not be any more dramatic -- or vital to the nation's future.

While Jindal fretted Hoover-like about the new Democratic president's "irresponsible" response to an old Republican crisis, Obama took the nothing-to-fear-but-fear itself position, telling Americans that, "The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach. What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more."

Comments (149)

Good initial analysis. I wonder if Jindal really read Obama's speech before he gave his own.

Also, as my husband pointed out, the Republicans are not good at staging. When will they learn that using 2 monitors to read the speech from is better than staring at one.

I was particularly inspired by the President's statement that dropping out of high school is no longer an option.

mhasegawa.wordpress.com

Posted by mayah at 02/24/2009 @ 10:51pm
I like the words of obama as always. We as the ppl just have to ensure that our elected officials follow through. I was particularly upset watching the after autograph signing by the president, when approached by Denis Kucinich, completely brushed him off. Much of what obama wants to do and has begun is a good start, but has much room for improvement. And Denis Kucinich would be a good ear to listen to. Especially if you're vigorously attempting to appease the GOP, whom are just hoping you fail. Not horribly though, but enough so that they can swindle the perception of the ppl, and make statements like Jindal, it is YOU whom we believe can and must save our country not big government. Well if humility and integrity were characteristics of our politicians, they would understand that YOU ARE American citizens. YOu are all the ppl. YOu simply are the ones chosen to ensure organization and efficiency of our civil liberties and our necessary social services. And that Government is not the enemey, because government should be a reflection of the will of the ppl. Should just be PEOPLE who chose to devote their lives to the efficient organizing of the country and society that has allowed them to grow up free healthy and educated.

Posted by I-Prinze at 02/24/2009 @ 10:59pm
Seriously, Mr. Nichols? Since when did it make sense to conflate "this policy is a bad idea" with "he's just a pessimist who thinks we can't do anything." If the positions were reversed, and Jindal were the President with Obama giving the response, you'd say that Jindal was advocating a dangerous course and Obama was rightly calling for caution.

I tend to have somewhat mixed feelings about the stimulus. Though I know that the economy needs an infusion of money and jobs, I'm also wary about the massive amount of nonexistent money that the government spends in the process. Whether you ultimately agree with Jindal or not, to say that he's just "being negative" and not offering anything meaningful substitutes partisan posturing for real dialogue.

Posted by Thrawn at 02/24/2009 @ 11:03pm
I was particularly inspired by the President's statement that dropping out of high school is no longer an option.

Posted by mayah at 02/24/2009 @ 10:51pm

Typical!

Because Magic said it....it must be so!

Being nuts about charter schools, I had my tiny bit of HOPE AND CHANGE when he gave ?firm? support.....devil is in performance....not Magic's strong suit!

Posted by Happy at 02/24/2009 @ 11:03pm
When does the impeachment trial begin?

President Barack Obama lied to the nation tonight.

"As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't." ....President Barack Obama, Washington, D.C. February 24, 2009.

Everything the President advocates now and has advocated in his past points towards bigger government.

Rahm Emanuel "fessed up" to this a while back

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

This is what the Wall Street Journal said about that remark:

"So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."

It certainly is clear the President does believe in bigger government, and is now on the public record as saying he doesn't... which is a lie.

Is Dennis Kucinich rushing to file the articles of impeachment, and if not, why not?

Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 11:06pm
Obama was great. No surprise. Obama is clearly in charge. Repubs would look too silly to be covertly antiAmerican now.

Jindal was incredibly tone deaf using the government's Katrina aftermath disaster as the call to do nothing about repub's historic ineptitude. Then kept saying 'we can do anything we want' and what about all our corruption here in Louisiana, er, that's over of course-- BUT isn't that still too recent a new con repub stinky rrrawwww scab pealed off as most still remember that's like hearing what the hsuB/cHeney admin kept saying--- "we can do anything we want" about creating a war and tax cuts , "we can do anything we want" about unconstitutional shit, "we can do anything we want" about no bid contracts, "we can do anything we want" about anything that screws the USA--- and which got us into the new con repub bloody tick sucking mess!

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/24/2009 @ 11:09pm
There is a lot of corporate welfare that is very expensive and wasteful. Scraping Star War Missile defense systems would also save a lot of money. I think the profit motive does not belong in government or health care. Besides the government, nonprofit health organizations could provide health care. Go Government is government, and private enterprise is not government!

Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/24/2009 @ 11:09pm
that Government is not the enemey, because government should be a reflection of the will of the ppl. Should just be PEOPLE who chose to devote their lives to the efficient organizing of the country and society that has allowed them to grow up free healthy and educated.

Posted by I-Prinze at 02/24/2009 @ 10:59pm

Well to new con repub's, the government should not actually exist-- for or by the people, but instead rather for corporations. New con repubs believe We the people should be ruled by corporations, not by We the people. They also think our government should help their private corporations rule We the people. And that's why new con repub blood sucking ticks suck.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/24/2009 @ 11:23pm
It seems to me that handing billions of dollars to the same people who got us into this mess to begin with is the definition of insanity. Has everyone forgotten that Mr. Obama and his colleagues were very much aware from the very beginning of the deregulation and irresponsibility that led to our current situation? What we need to do is replace the oversight that was destroyed over the past 8 years, and put even more legislation in place to control the greed and avarice of the financial industry. The bigger question no one is asking is what is wrong with our way of life and our system of doing things that anything like this disaster could ever happen to begin with, but questions like this smack of "extremism" and make us want to change our shorts. I challenge you all to seriously question whether a way of life that requires massive amounts of debt --on a personal and government level-- can ever really be stable and equitable.

Posted by sthrnfrydpinko at 02/24/2009 @ 11:23pm
Is Dennis Kucinich rushing to file the articles of impeachment, and if not, why not?

Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 11:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

.

No, he isn't. Nor is anyone else. The reason being, because he isn't a complete moron...

...like you.

Duh!

Posted by Lillian at 02/24/2009 @ 11:26pm
Having suffered through 8 years of boy president Alfred E. Newman, who basically couldn't string together a cohesive thought without wearing the 'magic box' on his back to spoon feed him with the words he so obviously couldn't comprehend, it was GREAT to see a President who was strong, intelligent, articulate, charming, and...

...inspired confidence that things will get better with him in charge.

Posted by Lillian at 02/24/2009 @ 11:29pm
John, Obama's education plan ought to frighten you to death.

More testing, merit pay, charter schools.

None of these have been proven effective.

Posted by neaguy at 02/24/2009 @ 11:35pm
"The bigger question no one is asking is what is wrong with our way of life and our system of doing things that anything like this disaster could ever happen to begin with"

Posted by sthrnfrydpinko at 02/24/2009 @ 11:23pm

That one is easy ... Ignorance on the one hand, sleep on the other.

Posted by V at 02/24/2009 @ 11:36pm
"Whether you ultimately agree with Jindal or not, to say that he's just "being negative" and not offering anything meaningful substitutes partisan posturing for real dialogue."

what did jindal say that you believe was thoughtful or original?

Posted by darladoon at 02/24/2009 @ 11:41pm
the Republican's choice of Jindal to deliver the response was absolutely the stupidest move since selecting Caribou Barbie as their VP con-didate.

Seriously, it was like wanting to voice opposition to entitlement programs and selecting as your spokesman...

...a welfare queen!

Despite Jindal's rejection of $98 million that would have gone to the **unemployed** in his state, Louisiana is STILL the biggest recipient of federal tax dollars of any state in the country - literally taking TWICE the amount they contribute to the country.

LMAO!!!

Posted by Lillian at 02/24/2009 @ 11:41pm
Terrific performance by Roky Erickson, psychedelic pioneer, with Billy Gibbons from ZZ Top on Austin City Limits re-run tonight on PBS, Los Angeles.

Posted by WWW at 02/24/2009 @ 11:44pm
What did Obama mean by "individual retirement accounts" when talking about Social Security?

Posted by wgilwood at 02/24/2009 @ 11:47pm
The repubs deafness is deafening...Palin, Steele,Cantor, Jindal...yes, they look differnet than most of the party, and idealogically are farther right...this is fun to watch...

Posted by dekist at 02/24/2009 @ 11:55pm
It looks like they are trying to hold the base...but 15 percent of the electorate doesn't get you anywhere...

Posted by dekist at 02/24/2009 @ 11:57pm
That is what I like about seeing Black Republicans and outstanding statesmen like Gov. Jindal speak against the Undemocratic party and Obamanation, it brings out the racist hatred the left actually harbours against all that do not agree with thier failed socialist state totalitarian dreams!

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/25/2009 @ 12:13am
Jindal cares more about his Presidential ambitions than he does for the people of Louisiana. Look up cynical political sleazeball in the dictionary and it has Jindal's picture.

Posted by koroviev at 02/25/2009 @ 12:31am
That is what I like about seeing Black Republicans and outstanding statesmen like Gov. Jindal speak, it brings out the racist hatred...

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/25/2009 @ 12:13am

And that's because the new con repub party is best known as the party of the 'minority' rich corporate elite... the hsuB/cHeney base.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 12:40am
Read them and weep new con repubs:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Feb. 24, 2009

"What was your overall reaction to President Obama's speech tonight: very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative or very negative?"

VeryPos__SomePos__SomeNeg__VeryNeg

__68______24_______6_______2

"Do you think the policies being proposed by Barack Obama will move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?"

Date__RightDirection__WrongDirection__Unsure

2/24/09_____88__________11________1

2/18-22/09___71__________26 _______ 3

"How confident are you in Barack Obama's abilities to carry out his duties as president: very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not confident at all?"

VeryConf_SomewhatConf_NotTooConf_NotConf __55________32_________10________3

Do you generally support or oppose the economic plan that President Obama outlined tonight?"

___Support______Oppose

_____82_________17

"Do you think that President Obama's plan will or will not succeed in [see below]?"

______Will_____Will Not___Unsure

"Improving the economy"

______80_______18________1

"Reducing the federal budget deficit"

______68_______30 _______2

"Improving the nation's health care system"

______75_______23 _______2

"Creating or saving millions of jobs"

______82_______17_______ 1

"In his speech tonight, did Barack Obama make you feel more optimistic or more pessimistic about the direction the country is headed in over the next few years?"

__MoreOpti__MorePessi__Neither__Unsure

_____85_______11_______3_______1

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 01:09am
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 12:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

Speaking of blinded by hate...Bush is gone so just go with the appropriate "fools" for this short termers reign!

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/25/2009 @ 01:10am
Those 11% MorePessi are here.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 01:12am
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/25/2009 @ 01:10am

It's probably going to take another decade or two to fix what the hsuB/cHeney admin with the help of their new con repub blood sucking tick hoard has wrought upon the world.

So so sad too bad --hsuBfools is here for a bit longer.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 01:21am
It is incredible how so many can be fooled so easily simply by "emptysuited" rhetoric. Obamanation brought nothing but that to the office and that is all he continues to deliver, and all the while he only serves as a yes man to the undemocrat congresse's quest for partison power at the expense of the nation and it future, even its existence.

All the while, such fools in the leftist balconey cheer the removal of Freedoms and Constitutionality that the nation was founded on. Blinded followers think they will be rewarded somehow in the scheme of things, but then the ignorant always do. They learn nothing from the past and bring nothing to the future!

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/25/2009 @ 01:49am
the way obama talks about healthcare and social security not only makes me nervous, but i can tell he doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Posted by darladoon at 02/25/2009 @ 01:59am
"All the while, such fools in the leftist balconey cheer the removal of Freedoms and Constitutionality that the nation was founded on. "

nobody believes this.

Posted by darladoon at 02/25/2009 @ 02:13am
CITIGROUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2009 @ 02:52am
So when is Jindal gonna announce his run for president? It's definitely coming. I guess the Republicans say if you can't beat it, copy it. Well Indian-Americans are typically Republican so no surprise there. Nice demographic to pander to. I wonder who's gonna challenge his citizenship? It'll be interesting to see how Republicans package Jindal. Can't wait!

Posted by k330k at 02/25/2009 @ 06:37am
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/25/2009 @ 01:10am

It's probably going to take another decade or two to fix what the hsuB/cHeney admin with the help of their new con repub blood sucking tick hoard has wrought upon the world.

So so sad too bad --hsuBfools is here for a bit longer.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 01:21am

Not quite...the economy became Obamas once he unleashed the spending spree without anyway to pay it back other than the great grandchildren or the printing press...and he hasn't even started spending yet..we have 4 years of budget increases PLUS endless stimulus...and when that govt spending stops...so will every other thing in the economy, since the govt will have morphed into the economy...at thre expense of private enterprise...

No, Bushefoolishman, ..W is gone,long gone...

..he may have brought us to the dance, but Obama just bought the band, food, drinks, rides to and from....for everyone...and he has no money....wait until the music stops...

and it will...Bush will not even be remembered...

but Obama will...for a long time....it may take a generation to repair after the spending going on...if then...we may have a new currency called the Amero and we will have grown into a second world country...

BUT...we will have free health care...where will the growing economys with free enterprise capitalism unleashed bne found...?

look to Asia.

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/25/2009 @ 06:49am
Posted by neaguy at 02/24/2009 @ 11:35pm

"More testing, merit pay, charter schools.

None of these have been proven effective."

God, I love the NEA. According to them, the only thing that works is more money. And there will never be enough money. Good lord.

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 08:33am
Nichols ranted:

"Obama Offers a Comprehensive "Yes, We Can!" | Jindal responds with a narrow, "no, we can't!"

Yes we can, what? Spend trillions of dollars we don't have on Democratic programs we don't need? Put domestic auto companies on permanent government dole when it is Democratic labor policies that have driven them to bankruptcy in the first place?

Swiss Francs and Gold! This country has a lot of pain coming.

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 08:36am
Curious....

will Ann Coulter call the governor of Louisiana...

PIYUSH Jindal?

and if not...why not?

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 08:43am
comancheamerican is easily the most stupid GOP zealot I've read. And you post so much. You must be an unemployed trailor trash. Because, if you have a job, you are robbing your employer. I'm sorry, but you add nothing to the discourse, so I will ignore you from now on. And YourJomamma is just as bad. Can you guys form a rational thought?

Posted by Cannonball at 02/25/2009 @ 09:09am
No, Bushefoolishman, ..W is gone,long gone...

...Bush will not even be remembered...

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/25/2009 @ 06:49am

BWAHhahahahahah

Ever seen a nervous new con blood sucking tick dance just short of saying-- PLEASE DON'T REMEMBER.

It is sooo revealing.

Might as well be asking everyone to forget 9/11, Katrina, 4300 soldiers dead 100's of thousand maimed for life for a war to nowhere, Millions of Iraqis disappeared, Torture, no-bid contracts, secret energy/pharm/insurance deals, gestapo DoJ, oh God there's much more.

Tragic.

The hsuB/cHeney admin and by extension their new con blood sucking ticks--- created such a large disaster for our nation that anyone wanting us to simply forget about the disaster that's affected sooo many, can only be feeling incredible guilt and is now shamelessly feigning an ignorant forgive and forget myself.

Shameless big lie.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 09:12am
Is Dennis Kucinich rushing to file the articles of impeachment, and if not, why not?

Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 11:06pm

Because you are a fool?

---

look to Asia.

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/25/2009 @ 06:49a

Look to socialist/capitalist countries to get us out of socialism? Should we recognize the govts "right" to seize private land for private uses? Should we jail 760 dissidents a year? Should we block Utube and any mention of Falun Gong? Should we build free housing for the working class?

Should we look to Japan for hints on health care reform?

----

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 08:36am

Bush spent trillions in Iraq, off budget. Where was your concern? Why are you outraged over projects that will be bid out to those that have the lowest bid, but were silent when cost plus contracts with no oversight were signed?

Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2009 @ 09:12am
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 08:43am |

macakah?

Magic Indian?

nah, that would be wrong.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2009 @ 09:15am
Yes JOHN NICHOLS, JIndel was a bit of a bore, also a provincial thinker when it comes to fixing the country, but bear in mind that it was the Democrats, when told in 1980 almost unanimously to take a hike, who started "The Democratic Response" crap, which was generally regarded as sour grapes and a joke.

So what have we learned, that there's not much difference between dems and repubs?

There's news :)

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2009 @ 09:19am
It is incredible how so many can be fooled so easily simply by "emptysuited" rhetoric.

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/25/2009 @ 01:49am

Raygun! You did mean Raygun right? After all Raygun was a well trained actor and got those lines down pat.

Obama learned how to convey ideas on the streets organizing We the people to help We the people.

Not surprising new con repubs can't tell what the dif is about.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 09:22am
Posted by Thrawn at 02/24/2009 @ 11:03pm

While I agree with your central point that Nichols isn't being charitable to Jindal, I also think Jindal's message makes it easy to not be charitable.

He is basically advocating limited government and describing problems of excessive regulation. However, anyone who has been following the financial crisis knows that lax regulation; financial business consolidation across insurance, investment vehicles and banking; and a focus on short term profits (i.e., greed) is the source of much of the problem. Unfortunately, just as obvious the solution is more government regulation, not less.

It is also not congruent with the facts. Republicans didn't vote for the stimulus package, yet it is the biggest tax cut in history for working families. But, they say things in their rebuttal like, "That is why Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families."

That ship has sailed. I, personally, don't like the stimulus package, and agree it shouldn't have been voted on - but politically, it takes away the tax cut argument. All Obama has to say is Democrats passed and he signed the biggest tax cut in history - and Republicans weren't on board. If you are a Republican harping on tax cuts, you end up looking like an idiot then.

If I were a Republican, I'd keep hitting on the spending argument - but that's a hard road too because if you are going to focus on spending, then you have to look at the DoD. Most Republicans don't want to do that - and even there, Obama is already taking the thunder by talking about outdated "cold war era" weapons and trimming that budget.

This was a masterful piece of politics by Obama - and the Republican response can only be called tepid in comparison.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 09:34am
Republican response can only be called tepid in comparison.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 09:34am |

Talk about charitable...

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 09:42am
Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 09:34am

"However, anyone who has been following the financial crisis knows that lax regulation; financial business consolidation across insurance, investment vehicles and banking; and a focus on short term profits (i.e., greed) is the source of much of the problem."

That's the line peddled by the Democrats and their cheerleaders in the MSM, and it is dead wrong. The Community Reinvestment Act, which FORCED banks and other lenders to relax their underwriting standards, combined with lax oversight of Freddie and FNMA by Democrats such as Frank, Dodd, and Schumer, combined with securitatization of bad mortgages, led to this crisis. It is OVER-regulation of lending for social engineering purposes that caused the housing bubble and subsequent crisis.

And blaming it all on 'greed' is idiotic. You might as well blame pregnancy on lust. Do you have a solution for greed that's going to make it go away tomorrow? If not, what's the point?

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 10:01am
By the way, the stock market is tanking again today, after yet another inspiring exposition of nonsense by Obama. People can fool themselves that meaningless talk can make a difference, but markets and the natural economic forces that drive them are far less easily impressed or duped. The root causes of the crisis remain largely unidentified, and the proposed solutions promise only to make them worse.

Perhaps you lefty folks need a law which stipulates a 'fair' value of the stock market? Isn't that what you're always crying about, how 'free markets' are SO UNFAIR? Such a law would be just about perfect at this point. Perfectly ludicrous, but comedy is what the last few years have been all about, so it fits the theme.

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 10:06am
Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2009 @ 09:15am

I'm sure all the Ann Coulter fans here see nothing wrong in referring to the Governor of Louisiana by his REAL name...

uh, right?

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 10:07am
How come when I clicked onto The Nation website, I was "hit" by an advertisement stating something like "Billions of Federal Dollars in Grants Are Available for Free. And you never have to repay." Don't you all feel a little whorish?

Posted by theo51 at 02/25/2009 @ 10:07am
Jindal is all they got? another guy with negative charisma.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2009 @ 10:13am
Well, one consolation of a cratering stock market is the daily dose of schadenfreude most conservatives get when they look at stock quotes for the lefty propaganda organ known as the New York Times (one share now worth less than the Sunday edition). It confirms that there really is a God.

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 10:17am
Obama: "We are limited only by our imaginations and our capacity for hard working, ethically sound motivations..."

Jindal: "The American people are limited by the GOP's incessant insistent denial of their rightful place in the macro-economic equation... "

ttr: "Amazing... isn't it?"

;^)

Posted by ttr at 02/25/2009 @ 10:30am
This was a masterful piece of politics by Obama - and the Republican response can only be called tepid in comparison.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 09:34am

You've got to be kidding!

Magic is "masterful" only in so far as mouthing rhetoric......great on the campaign trail....unfortunately for him, his current `campaign' will need to last 4 years until Nov. 4th, 2012!

Calling the Pork Bill's tax cuts the largest in history is BS! Much of those `cuts' are nothing but welfare dressed up as "rebates". The average Joe who gets $13 per paycheck dropping to $8....Whoopee Gee Dee! Actually LESS than Bush's ill-conceived $600/$1,200 checks of last spring!

The Repubs' friend is simply time......

Posted by Happy at 02/25/2009 @ 10:32am
Posted by ttr at 02/25/2009 @ 10:30am

"ttr: "Amazing... isn't it?""

What's amazing is how meaningless rhetoric can sell even the most economically unsound policies.

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 10:33am
It is also not congruent with the facts. Republicans didn't vote for the stimulus package, yet it is the biggest tax cut in history for working families. But, they say things in their rebuttal like,

All Obama has to say is Democrats passed and he signed the biggest tax cut in history - and Republicans weren't on board. If you are a Republican harping on tax cuts, you end up looking like an idiot then.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 09:34am

Let's once again set the facts straight. The "Stimulus" plan DOES NOT have the biggest taxcut in history. It is actually one of the smallest. It is smoke and mirrors by the Democrats with complicity by the MSM.

1. 46% of Americans pay ZERO taxes. What kind of cut is less than zero? For half of the so-called taxcut recipients, the weekly increase is a WELFARE GRANT from Uncle Sam.

2. I've stated also that between 35-50 million Americans like myself are self-employed and most of us do not receive a wage or salary reported on a W2. If only half that number are like myself that means at least 17 million more Americans or approx 6% will not receive this "taxcut"

3. The phony inclusion of the AMT patch. Congress already passes every year an AMT patch. By including that yearly patch in the "Stimulus" bill, Obama is able to act like this is an additional 70 billion which it is not.

So, when you examine the facts rather than the spin, you will find that this is one of the smallest "tax cuts" in our history. And it's not even a genuine tax cut as it doesn't change a single tax rate.

Sorry SRJ,it seems you have swallowed the BS as much as anyone else.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/25/2009 @ 10:38am
unfortunately for him, his current `campaign' will need to last 4 years until Nov. 4th, 2012!----Posted by Happy at 02/25/2009 @ 10:32am

So why will Obama stop campaigning TWO DAYS BEFORE Election Day, HAPP????

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 10:41am
Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 10:01am

BTW, PONTI....what percent of CRA mortgates went bad?

(Hint-Ignore the question, dodge the question or say "I don't know and it doesn't matter!)"

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 10:56am
....SRJ,it seems you have swallowed the BS as much as anyone else.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/25/2009 @ 10:38am

He's been a bit `off' recently.....maybe having some problem w/the Indian wife who just may, have a fondness for Jindal......hehehehe!

Posted by Happy at 02/25/2009 @ 11:01am
1. 46% of Americans pay ZERO taxes. What kind of cut is less than zero? For half of the so-called taxcut recipients, the weekly increase is a WELFARE GRANT from Uncle Sam.

Of course antisociali wants to throw all the babies out with the bath water-- THEY DON'T PAY TAXES AND THERE'S CHILD LABOR LAWS--they're simply worthless to new con repub blood sucking ticks.

Who knew!

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 11:07am
Of course antisociali wants to throw all the babies out with the bath water-- THEY DON'T PAY TAXES AND THERE'S CHILD LABOR LAWS--they're simply worthless to new con repub blood sucking ticks.

Who knew!

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 11:07am

You're avoiding the point. Don't call a welfare grant a taxcut. It's not a taxcut when you don't have a tax reduced.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/25/2009 @ 11:09am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2009 @ 09:19am

We do have somethings in common! I totally agree with your post, regardless of who started the "response" bullshit.

Posted by k330k at 02/25/2009 @ 11:29am
You might as well blame pregnancy on lust.Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 10:01am

Well that and going "bare-backed". In most cases anyway.

Posted by k330k at 02/25/2009 @ 11:32am
Did anyone else feel like they were watching Doug Henning when Jindal offered his rebuttal? "Americans can do aaanything! Welcome to the wonderful world of illusion."

Kudos to Obama for delivering an excellent summary of his vision and to the GOP for re-proving their irrelevance.

Posted by HAL9000 at 02/25/2009 @ 11:39am
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 10:56am

"BTW, PONTI....what percent of CRA mortgates went bad?

(Hint-Ignore the question, dodge the question or say "I don't know and it doesn't matter!)""

I discussed this at length with you weeks ago, MASK. I see you have forgotten already. Not wishing to spend the time to go in depth again, given you evident short term memory issues, I'll condense it for you.

Defenders of the CRA say that only a small percentage of CRA loans (low income loans to disadvantaged people) were defaulted. This may be true, but the relaxed underwriting standards put in place pursuant to the CRA cut across ALL LOANS AT ALL INCOME LEVELS. In other words, after the CRA FORCED banks to lower underwriting standards for lower income people, these same standards were then applied to ALL borrowers. This was a primary cause of the housing bubble and crash.

By the way, based on my direct experience with foreclosures and foreclosure sales, I have seen that most people who are foreclosed on are either speculators or people who would never have been qualified for a loan under traditional (pre-CRA) standards. So I'd like to take a look at the statistics which show that only a small portion of CRA loans are in default.

It's obviously counter-intuitive to believe that lowering underwriting standards as a matter of national policy would not lead to massive defaults. Many people believe that is precisely what happened. Many other people, with an agenda to push, want desperately for people to think otherwise.

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 11:44am
Gotta go with Chip and K330k......

I watched 2 "response" speeches... The 1st one delivered and the last one delivered...and I know why no one watches them.....and I never will again.

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/25/2009 @ 12:00pm
Don't call a welfare grant a taxcut. It's not a taxcut when you don't have a tax reduced.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/25/2009 @ 11:09am

Kinda like tax cuts... for the rich benefiting from their corporations benefiting from cheaper labor outside of the USA?

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 12:07pm
Posted by Happy at 02/25/2009 @ 10:32am

Rather interesting. You are in favor of tax cuts, and when tax cuts are passed into law by the party you don't like, you claim it is "welfare", not big enough for your tastes, and so forth. I'll remember the "welfare" line, next time you put forth the idea.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/25/2009 @ 10:38am

You make some interesting points.

1. As someone that works in the tax business, can you tell us how low your income has to be to pay zero in federal taxes?

Also, even people that pay zero in federal taxes, still pay sales and other taxes, Can you provide an estimate of who actually pays a net negative in taxes? I bet it's near zero.

2. You're upset because you don't get a piece of the "welfare"? Do you need it, LVL? Or are you implicitly arguing that we need a form of socialism where everyone gets treated equally?

3. Further, you want to argue that part of the bill would have passed anyway, so it really shouldn't count - even though it was part of the bill and wouldn't have been operative unless it passed somewhere else? Interesting line of thought, but I think it is a bit of a stretch.

I don't like the stimulus package, partly because I think it takes the wrong approach to addressing the financial crisis. The government should create solid banks, and let investors decide where to put their money - Citi or with a national bank. Market forces would bankrupt the large financial institutions, and a more decentralized banking system would emerge to compete against the government. In some ways, the Feds directly loaning to people is a form of nationalization anyway.

I'm also not a fan of tax cuts. I do think that taxes cut for the lowest incomes will stimulate the economy - so that is something.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 12:23pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/25/2009 @ 10:38am

"So, when you examine the facts rather than the spin, you will find that this is one of the smallest "tax cuts" in our history."

Source? I'm willing to look at anything you have - but based on your commentary, I don't see it.

"And it's not even a genuine tax cut as it doesn't change a single tax rate."

If you change how categories are defined so that more people fall from 28% to 25% or 33% to 28%, is this not a tax cut for those people - even if the rates themselves did not change? It's comments like this that make your argument fail the sniff test - in addition to the fact that you don't provide any useful sources to back you up.

Posted by Happy at 02/25/2009 @ 11:01am

See, Happy. You know you would never make a comment like that to someone in person - even to someone like me who is philosophically a pacifist - because you never know when emotion might get the better of the other person and you'd be on the recieving end of a beating. You would also likely be shunned or have people start to engage in more passive aggressive tactics like spray painting your buildings with phrases like "Jerk" or what have you.

To quote from the film Harvey, "Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

Wise words that I too am trying to make a better effort to live by.

Hope you're having a great day.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 12:35pm
Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 11:44am

So, it was a "small percentage, but was still the main problem", right?

And how many of the bad mortgages occured to "low income people"...and what do you define as "low income" ...specifically?

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 12:47pm
Yeah, new con blood sucking ticks suffer mentally from their engorgement.

For most guys it's something one learns to control in junior high.

But for them it's perpetual and worse-- self induced.

And that's how their greed is different from just being horny.

As we've experienced -- one is truly buggy; the other human.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 1:00pm
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 12:47pm

"So, it was a "small percentage, but was still the main problem", right? "

The CRA forced banks, upon pain of legislative persecution and legal prosecution, to make loans to people who would not qualify otherwise, i.e, make 'subprime' or 'predatory' loans (whatever you wish to call them). FNMA and Freddie MAC, at the behest of Barney Frank and others, guaranteed these and other subprime loans, allowing them to be securitized with other, sound loans.

As you recall, subprime loan defaults were the first cause of this mess. It should be noted that lenders like Countrywide, at the behest and with the collusion of people like Chris Dodd, actually advertised their ability to lend to people who would not meet pre-CRA underwriting standards.

The CRA and the mismanagement of loan guarantors like Fannie and Freddie for social policy purposes lies at the heart of the current credit crisis. The CRA needs to be repealed and banks need to go back to traditional underwriting standards, and the mess will not begin to resolve itself until then.

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 1:04pm
Yes we can speech? Maybe it should be.."wait a minute"...

from AP...

a few "Errors" in the speech.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090225/D96IFSC80.html

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/25/2009 @ 1:11pm
Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 1:04pm

Is that rather DERIVATIVE... of a %?

NOT.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 1:11pm
"The CRA forced banks, upon pain of legislative persecution and legal prosecution, to make loans to people who would not qualify otherwise...The CRA needs to be repealed and banks need to go back to traditional underwriting standards, and the mess will not begin to resolve itself until then."---Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 1:04pm

But those folks who "did not qualify otherwise"....

were MAKING GOOD on almost all those loans? You admitted that-

"Defenders of the CRA say that only a small percentage of CRA loans (low income loans to disadvantaged people) were defaulted. This may be true..."-------Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 11:44am

So how is making loans to people....who by and large were PAYING THEM BACK...the cause of the housing crises??!?!?!?

And again, define "low income" and how many of the bad mortgages were "low income" mortgages?

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 1:16pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 1:11pm

Subprime loans, whether they were made to low-income groups or not, would never have been sellable prior to the CRA and the guarantees provided by Fannie and Freddie. So, the diluted underwriting standards, although they were only intended to apply to a small segment of borrowers, actually resulted in applying to EVERYONE. Everything worked fine as long as house prices kept going up.

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 1:18pm
May I suggest checking out the video, The Credit Crisis Visualized for those of you that believe that CRA is the problem.

http://vimeo.com/3261363

You might also want to check out this site, and see if you can find holes in his reasoning.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html

He states that the crisis is more or less caused by the Fed holding interest rates at 1% for a year, same as the video.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 1:35pm
Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 1:18pm

DerIVatIVes.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 1:55pm
"The CRA forced banks, upon pain of legislative persecution and legal prosecution, to make loans to people who would not qualify otherwise, i.e, make 'subprime' or 'predatory' loans (whatever you wish to call them). FNMA and Freddie MAC, at the behest of Barney Frank and others, guaranteed these and other subprime loans, allowing them to be securitized with other, sound loans."

The CRA and the mismanagement of loan guarantors like Fannie and Freddie for social policy purposes lies at the heart of the current credit crisis. The CRA needs to be repealed and banks need to go back to traditional underwriting standards, and the mess will not begin to resolve itself until then.Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 1:04pm

Oh cry me a fucking river, ponti! I have absolutely no sympathies for the banking industry. They knew it was bad business and continued on like everything was a-ok. It was all a scam and the banks were no only in on it but they perpertrated the scams themselves. Oh now I see. The banks were so scared of the law, they decided con eager first-time homebuyers to the detriment of communities across the country. So the banks, who were complicit in this invisible money scheme deserve no bailout. I think taxpayers should take all their money from these criminally negligent banks and patronize banks that practiced good business.

Posted by k330k at 02/25/2009 @ 1:58pm
Yes we can! take over every aspect of your life. Yes we can! take your money Yes we can! speak and watch the stock market crumble.

Posted by abell12ct at 02/25/2009 @ 2:01pm
1. Obama's determination to portray the economic crisis as a daunting challenge that can only be met with a comprehensive approach that includes both emergency responses -- as represented by the stimulus bill be signed last week -- and structural shifts involving health care, energy and education reform. ******************************************************

How will the structural shifts help the economy? The economy's problems include negative equity in many homes, historically high risk premiums for uncertainty, a large current account deficit with our trading partners, a world-wide slow down in economic activity, etc. None of these things has anything to do with energy (at almost decade lows) health care or education.

If Bush had delivered this speech saying the way out of the crisis is emergency loans to banks and "structural shifts" that include outlawing abortion...

How would you respond?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/25/2009 @ 2:03pm
Answers to SRJ (Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 12:23pm)

"1. As someone that works in the tax business, can you tell us how low your income has to be to pay zero in federal taxes?"

It varies by category of course like single, head of household, married and of course how many children

Using some client data

1. Single mother, w/2 children AGI of 33k pays Zero plus receives approx $500 in EIC/Child Tax Credit (previous year at 29k she got back $4400 and no taxes paid)

2. Married w/3 children AGI of 44k pays Zero, plus receives approx $1500 in Child Tax Credits

3. Male Head of Household, fiancee attending school on student loan, 1 child, earned 17k. Tax refund with EIC and Child Tax Credit---$5500 (net plus of $3800 after witholding)

"Also, even people that pay zero in federal taxes, still pay sales and other taxes, Can you provide an estimate of who actually pays a net negative in taxes? I bet it's near zero."

That has nothing to do with the context

"2. You're upset because you don't get a piece of the "welfare"? Do you need it, LVL? Or are you implicitly arguing that we need a form of socialism where everyone gets treated equally?"

No, what I was pointing out was the lie of Obama and the MSM. Their facts are just false. The percentage getting this refundable credit is much smaller than they are stating and for many it is a welfare grant not a taxcut. I used myself as an example showing the lie.

On the last one-the AMT. Congress has passed this patch every year during the past 8 years. As I said, it was tacked on but is not a new addition.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/25/2009 @ 2:05pm
Pontificus...

the recession is a liberal media lie (according to you) , how can the CRA be responsible for something that does not exist?

Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2009 @ 2:05pm
How would you respond?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/25/2009 @ 2:03pm

Irrational Obama Hatred?

Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2009 @ 2:07pm
Activist Supremes take away religious freedoms:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions /08slipopinion.html

(click on docket # 7-665)

Turns out Alito must be a lib xtian hater after all.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2009 @ 2:33pm
Aww Man! A member of the GOP told me some of HAPPYS hard earned cigarette money was going to be used to build me a Disc Golf Park. Turns out he was misinformed. Imagine that!

Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2009 @ 2:49pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/25/2009 @ 2:05pm

Let's assume that your figures are both true and typical.

What are you suggesting when you are describing refunds over and above federal tax paid in as "welfare"? Are you suggesting that:

1. People should only be able to recieve taxes that they have paid to the government?

2. There should not be tax credits for children; earning income; interest expense of student loans, homes, or what not?

3. Something else?

There are also quite a few issues to consider as well. For example, I can imagine being a single mother raising two children in Waco, Texas might have an easier time raising them in that location on 37k than say if she lived in New York City. But, I don't think the tax code differentiates between the two. The additional "welfare", as you put it, might be the difference between making rent, or not for one of them.

It also raises the question about incentives. Does this also apply to corporations - who take advantage of tax incentives to invest in everything from more energy efficient equipment to nascent technologies (such as alternative energy)?

I brought in other taxes because you could make the argument that federal refunds over federal contributions - if less than state and local taxes - is a form of federal "welfare" for those smaller governments. It also shows that the picture is a bit more complicated.

"The percentage getting this refundable credit is much smaller than they are stating and for many it is a welfare grant not a taxcut."

Any source, anything other than your opinion and those that share your political philosophy? Like I've said, I'd like to be convinced - but you aren't providing any facts to support the % claim.

I understand about ABT. It just strikes me as weak.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 3:03pm
Yes we can! take over every aspect of your life. Yes we can! take your money Yes we can! speak and watch the stock market crumble. Posted by abell12ct at 02/25/2009 @ 2:01pm

Funny coming from a Republican. The people who won't let gays get married, want to tell people what they are allowed to do with their bodies and want to monitor of every aspect of a persons life.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/25/2009 @ 3:20pm
an exorcism performed by piyush jindel and sarah palin along with her african witch hunter just might do the trick and bring ever lasting prosperity to America and the world. BBBBBW WWWWW WWWAAAA AHAHAHA HAHAH AHAH AHAH AHAHHAH AHAHAH AHAHA HHAHAHAH AHAHA!!!!

REPUBLICANS the party of the damned

Posted by reality check at 02/25/2009 @ 3:29pm
Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 3:03pm

I am against the EIC and the child tax credit just as I think the entire income tax system is wrong. Even though the EIC came about during Reagan, I don't believe in using the tax system for redistribution of wealth

here is data on the people paying no taxes. There is an update but I don't have it handy.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

Posted by antisocialist at 02/25/2009 @ 3:42pm
the recession is a liberal media lie (according to you) , how can the CRA be responsible for something that does not exist?----Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2009 @ 2:05pm

Oh, yeah, I forgot that line from back in the late summer/early fall...

bet PONTI forgot it too (after no doubt quoting it often back then...heheh)!

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 3:44pm
"Even though the EIC came about during Reagan...."---Posted by antisocialist at 02/25/2009 @ 3:42pm

That's a liberal lie against the great Ronald Reagan, lvlib....

next you'll be telling us he raised taxes or something!

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 3:46pm
Conservatives finally embrace Obamas hopeful outlook for the future!

YES WE CAN!

(Forget about the fact that conservatives had eight l-o-o-o-ng years to run amok concerning foreign policy and bad economic decisions).

YES WE CAN!

( Pretend that a five week old administration is 'running this country into the ground'. Leave George alone... he has... issues).

YES WE CAN!

( Buy Obama a helicopter that was ordered on the watch of George Bush. Are they supposed to dismantle it or take it back? Did he order it? Is John McCain having ANOTHER senior moment?)

YES WE CAN!

(Convince the world that our idiotic mindset concerning almost every aspect of American life was driven by the need to control the country (Mark Levins favorite rant about the Democrats "They just want to control everything". Pot... meet the kettle), even though the conservatives led by Karl Rove were looking for a 'permanent' Republican majority).

What us poor delusional folks who do not blindly ascribe to conservatism are learning is that we should beware of people who assure us that they have all the answers... they never do. Bankers, lawyers, politicians, and, of course, conservative bloggers here at the Nation - a great wellspring of delusion and snarky behavior.

Posted by ficheye at 02/25/2009 @ 4:11pm
Posted by ficheye at 02/25/2009 @ 4:11pm

One correction...I think it was TOM DELAY who spoke of a "permanent GOP majority", but I could be wrong and Rove said it first.

Either way, interesting no problem from our "Dems want to impose a one-party rule" folks back then, huh?

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 4:34pm
Wow. Did you see President Obama's speech? Last night he laid out a bold and ambitious agenda to totally transform our economy. As he said, "it begins with energy." Think about what Obama's vision would mean for our country: solar panels on our roofs. Wind power in our heartland. Thriving communities. Millions of people put back to work building our future. If we want it, we need to build a grassroots movement to make it happen. Even with Obama making clean energy a priority, it's going to be tough. Big oil and coal companies are already preparing to block real reform and conservatives want Obama to fail. We've got to show an overwhelming public mandate for this change. So we've launched a huge new campaign to make it happen. We'll triple our organizing capacity and send top-notch organizers to key states and congressional districts, run hard-hitting new ads on television and radio, and mobilize hundreds of thousands of new MoveOn members. But we need to raise another $250,000 this week to get started. Can you chip in $15 a month to make it happen? Our system makes it easy and you can cancel at any time: https://pol.moveon.org/donate/green_go.html?id=15676-5480793-IQwT_nx&t=3

Posted by FDR43 at 02/25/2009 @ 4:41pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/25/2009 @ 3:42pm

The Tax Foundation is a good source. I did not know that 41% of the population is outside the Federal tax system. That's a problem.

But, redistributing wealth is exactly what every tax system does. Whether you have a progressive, regressive, proportional or fixed tax, somebody is having an easier time of it due to disparities in income generally leaving the wealthy paying relatively less. A progressive tax system at least has the advantage of placing more of the tax burden on those best able to bear it - and redistributing wealth isn't a necessary component of it.

The EIC is an interesting issue too. If you don't have tax incentives to help the working poor, how do they live, and how does business find the workers it needs for low skill jobs?

I understand the philosophy of limited government - particularly federal government. I have a great deal of sympathy for it. But if government doesn't doesn't do it, who does? How long does it take to create a new movement of settlement, Catholic Worker or some other combination to pick up the pieces? Or do you envision a world where the law of the jungle reigns and we find the rebirth of conditions like those outlined in, "How the Other Half Lives" or spaces that get named "Hell's Kitchen"?

It's all well and good to have a general philosophy - but it has to work too. You also cannot have a strong "defense" industry driving the economy and limited government, anymore than you can serve two masters.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 6:17pm
Socialism - the new the mushroom cloud! So does that make Obama the WMD?

See how the diminishing new con repub blood sucking tick hoard screech SOCIALISM!!!!

Everyone recalls how the hsuB/cHeney admin operated to frame the lies they spewed. Listening to any of that is what got us into this mess.

Same twisted fear mongering BS.

Poor twisted decrepit new con repub blood sucking ticks, Obama th' bomb--- doesn't mean what you think.

But then again remember for ticks, it's not enough that they succeed-- We the people must fail.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 7:32pm
Posted by k330k at 02/25/2009 @ 1:58pm

"Oh cry me a fucking river, ponti! I have absolutely no sympathies for the banking industry. They knew it was bad business and continued on like everything was a-ok. It was all a scam and the banks were no only in on it but they perpertrated the scams themselves. Oh now I see. The banks were so scared of the law, they decided con eager first-time homebuyers to the detriment of communities across the country. "

Actually if we ignore the irrelevancy of your emotions, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. Why don't you, for example, tell me what the difference between a 'predatory' loan and a CRA loan is, because I don't think there IS any.

"So the banks, who were complicit in this invisible money scheme deserve no bailout. "

I didn't say that at all. Just as the government bankrupted the domestic US auto manufacturers by confusing social policy with economic policy and therefore has a duty to bail THEM out (after reversing the causitive process), so does the government have the duty to bail out the financial mess it created with the CRA, FNMA, and Freddie.

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 8:21pm
Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 1:35pm

"He states that the crisis is more or less caused by the Fed holding interest rates at 1% for a year, same as the video."

I would agree that low interest rates contributed to the housing bubble. I just don't think it would have created the current problem significantly without the concomitant misguided social engineering (CRA, mismanagement of FNMA and Freddie). Having viewed your videos, I would encourage you to watch the youtube video of Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer in 2005 proclaiming that FNMA and Freddie were doing just fine, and that evil Republicans (Bush and McCain) who said otherwise were scheming to take away homeownership from minorities and those with 'non-traditional credit standings', i.e., those who you folks are now saying are innocent victims of 'predatory' lending. And I would ask you as well, what's the difference between a CRA loan and a 'predatory' loan? The fact is, there isn't any, it's just another example of prostituting the language to support a spurious political agenda.

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 8:31pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 7:32pm

Boy, calling you folks 'socialist' sure seems to get your dander up. Yet a few months ago when Nichols posted his 'What's Wrong with Socialism?' here at The Nation, I sure didn't see you folks have any qualms about that. In fact, as I recall, and if I cared enough, I'm sure I could dig up quite a few quotes from you lefty ladies who doth protest too much, supporting the viability of socialism, and why it's so 'misunderstood', and why it has always gotten such a boo hoo bad rap.

And I should add, that people like MASK and yourself never seem to be able to draw any distinction between yourselves and your seemingly endlessly variable definitions of what 'socialist' means, at least so long as it's inconvenient to do so.

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 8:42pm
Boy, calling you folks 'socialist' sure seems to get your dander up.

Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 8:42pm

Ok, you fascist, I haven't heard anyone called me a socialist. So right off you're obviously lying out your bloody tick ass.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 9:23pm
er, heard anyone 'call' me a ...

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 9:25pm
BTW-- DERIVATIVES.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/25/2009 @ 9:28pm
Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 8:31pm

But the real meat was in the blog post. It points out that nothing in the CRA required: no income verification, no banking oversight, no money down mortgages, the shift in loan to value, use of corrupt appraisers, automated underwriting geared toward volume rather than accuracy, piggy back loans, employees to cheat the system to get iffy loans approved, required that banks not check credit scores, develop poor investment vehicles that got rated AAA by ratings companies, interest only loans, etc.

I particularly liked this point:

"The four biggest problem areas for housing (by price decreases) are: Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida, and San Diego, California. Explain exactly how these affluent, non-minority regions were impacted by the Community Reinvestment Act?"

I think the CRA is a bit of a red herring Ponti.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 10:55pm
"The four biggest problem areas for housing (by price decreases) are: Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida, and San Diego, California. Explain exactly how these affluent, non-minority regions were impacted by the Community Reinvestment Act?"

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 10:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Ponti is pointing a main sourse of the problem, you are talking of the greedy looking to flip homes and the foolish believing that "your home is your best investment". A large number of americans today buy homes out of arrogance, pride, and ego rather than to assure themselves a permanant residence and "home" in which to raise children!

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/25/2009 @ 11:26pm
Boy, calling you folks 'socialist' sure seems to get your dander up. Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 8:42pm

I LOVE being called a socialist! Just don't call me a republican. Now, THAT could irritate my eczema again.

..and there's this -

...your seemingly endlessly variable definitions of what 'socialist' means....

That's about as nonsensical as what Hugo has to say about the definition of fascism. Who cares?

Boy, ponti, you use the most words to say absolutely nothing, and you're not even funny. BUT, if you have all the answers, like you seem to insist (just seems that way, but of course if someone thinks they know what you are talking about you go into plausible deniability mode), I would vote for you tomorrow... you could straighten this country right up instead of just opening your pie hole and spewing dark invective.

You either need a drink, or you need to stop drinking.

Either way, take CHERMAK with you. He needs a friend. Now take your gold, or francs or whatever it is this week, and move to somewhere you like. It certainly isn't the United States. Get along little doggie.

Posted by ficheye at 02/26/2009 @ 12:25am
One correction...I think it was TOM DELAY who spoke of a "permanent GOP majority", but I could be wrong and Rove said it first. Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 4:34pm

Washington Post, August 9, 2007: Article, 'Left Turn Ahead'

"Karl Rove dreamed of creating a "permanent Republican majority."

Seems to be Rove.

But I don't like to spew misinformation, so whenever you see me screwing up just jump in, please.

It's certainly weird to hear Mark Levin rant on about how the dems just want to control everything after the conservatives wanted a permanent majority. What a country. Whenever I hear Levin referred to as 'The Great One' by Shaun Hannity, I think of what the neighbors dog just left on my lawn.

Watch out! Here comes Ponti with a roll of tape and a yardstick! Great one, indeed!

Posted by ficheye at 02/26/2009 @ 01:17am
And I should add, that people like MASK and yourself never seem to be able to draw any distinction between yourselves and your seemingly endlessly variable definitions of what 'socialist' means, at least so long as it's inconvenient to do so.-----Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 8:42pm

I have CONSISTANTLY pointed out the difference...i.e. socialism involves the nationalization of all means of industrial production.

YOU on the other hand have NEVER been able to point out where "New Deal liberalism" is different from socialism (which it is) because you are merely using "socialism" as your new talking point from the right-wing talking heads you get all your stuff from. So apparently it's either "laissez-faire capitalism" OR "socialism"...no in-between.

or can you?

Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 09:32am
Questions for PONTI-FECES, the "anti-State" Khmer Rouge apologist, that he may address when he finishes the modest chores his parents task him with, in an effort at making an "exchange" out of gifting their 40-something lost soul son with the room above the garage:

1. Describe the apocolyptic state of the American economy--the crashed stocks, boarded up houses, bailout brigades, wiped out employment--that George W Loser inheritted after Bill Clinton hammered and sickled the US economy for 8 years.

2. Describe the massive emergency measures that were necisitated by Clinton's ruinous interegnum that George W Loser couragesouly pursued upon assuming command in '01.

3. Recall and characterize the scenes of 3,000 people slaughtered on US soil by the most vicious terrosist attack in the history of humanity; and all this while the occupant of the Oval Office madejokey paper airplanes out of the "OBL poised to strike in US" memo...a month before OBL struck in the US...& then got absorbed in a text on goats while his law enforcement chief, the Attorney Gen, was piously putting clothes on statues to conceal their bosoms and thus far too busy to call a security principles meeting for 8 months. All these heinous acts during--it had to be, as the dogma dictates--the Clinton era, yes?

4. Discuss, in grim detail, the hideous series of open-ended invasions & occupations that Clinton and surrogates hystericized about on camera (imminent mushroom cloud)--and then ordered men and women in uniform to make flesh and blood scrifices over, while he reclined in metrosexual comfort, handed out the no-bid contracts, stuck the public with the $3,000,000,000,000 bill, created a millions-strong refugee crisis...and then whined and boo-hooed and whimpered when criticized about it.

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/26/2009 @ 1:22pm
Looks like Phil got out again and is running lose....

I thought the police shot him after he tore the face off that woman in CT last week...

Have them bring a net this time..we can put him on display and charge people to see him..

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/26/2009 @ 2:10pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/26/2009 @ 2:10pm

Right beside the display of RIO/RED/comanche comparing Obama to Hitler?

Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 2:23pm
From CNN

...individuals in a hate group may sometimes transplant their own personal rage onto a particular group that has no real connection to the cause of that rage, he said.

"Their thinking is very distorted," Poussaint said.

........................... Whooops!

Not to mention that 'socialism' issue. It seems that, on one hand socialism is vilified by conservatives who think that it's the next degenerative stage in a liberal government, but on the other hand there are socialist groups that are Neo-nazi hate groups (NSM).

So, clue me in, you out there, yearning for the KKK to revive.... is socialism a liberal threat, or is it a useful device for those disenfranchised conservatives who no longer have a clue? Most importantly, how would Sarah Palin look with a riding crop?

Posted by ficheye at 02/26/2009 @ 2:56pm
how would Sarah Palin look with a riding crop?

Posted by ficheye at 02/26/2009 @ 2:56pm

Hot!

Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 3:11pm
People in Washington state are taking exception to Jindals criticism of volcano monitoring funds.

We'd like to know when we'll get blowed up, thanks.

........................

Jindal and Steele the new face of republican ideology?

NO, WE CAN'T seems to be the operative statement, but if they really had their eye on the ball you'd think that sometime in the last eight years they would have voiced some kind of doubts about where things were going.

I guess their philosophy was to go into 'lockstep' mode' and then say "I knew it all along" at a later date. Forward thinkers, those guys.

Posted by ficheye at 02/26/2009 @ 4:04pm
Hot!-----Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 3:11pm

Job 31:11�12 (NLT)

11 For lust is a shameful sin, a crime that should be punished.

12 It is a fire that burns all the way to hell.

Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 4:29pm
Hot!----Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 3:11pm

Job 31:11�12 (NLT)

11 For lust is a shameful sin, a crime that should be punished.

12 It is a fire that burns all the way to hell.*

Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 4:37pm
Sorry for the double....but needed to try to stop lvlib from engaging in shameful sin!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 4:42pm
Obama rocked...period

Posted by freenation at 02/26/2009 @ 5:02pm
Hot!-----Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 3:11pm

Job 31:11�12 (NLT)

11 For lust is a shameful sin, a crime that should be punished.

12 It is a fire that burns all the way to hell.

Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 4:29pm

Ah, but my response never moved to thought and consideration....I'm safe (for the moment).

As Paul said (Romans ch 7), I want to do good, but my mind wars against my spirit and the good that I will to do, I do not do; who will save me from myself? The answer he gave of course is Christ-through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 6:49pm
Ah, but my response never moved to thought and consideration....I'm safe (for the moment).

Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 6:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Wait Liv.....which comes first....thought or response....very Clintonian, but the allmighty likely ain't going to be buying it......see what you have done below....

'The Definition of Emotional Infidelity

Emotional infidelity is defined as any infidelity that occurs through feeling or thought. During the late 1970s, in an interview with Playboy magazine, former President Jimmy Carter stated that occasionally he "lusted in (his) heart" for women other than his wife. His thoughts were equated with infidelity, and he was considered to be unfaithful to his marriage, even though his statement described emotional infidelity, not physical infidelity.'

Posted by OneVote at 02/26/2009 @ 7:32pm
Barack Obama ran for President on a "spread the wealth around" platform, and we're now seeing that this was no empty campaign promise. The Obama administration proposes to expand the wealth and power of the federal government beyond anything heretofore imagined. When he asked how he will finance his grandiose plans, Obama's only non-magical answer is that he will increase taxes on "the rich."

This is a common Democratic Party mantra, of course. In truth, however, there are very few people who are actually rich, and those who are prosperous (what the Democrats mean by "rich") are already overtaxed. In today's Wall Street Journal, the editors do the math: even if Obama were to steal every penny, the people he calls "rich" don't make enough money to finance the federal government:

Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.

Posted by pontificus at 02/26/2009 @ 7:42pm
A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010.

It's also not enough to make up for the $1.75 trillion deficit Obama expects to run this year. So the Democrats' fantasy that they can pay the bills on the backs of the "rich" is just one more stop on Obama's magical mystery tour.

Posted by pontificus at 02/26/2009 @ 7:43pm
This is great...Pontificus kicks ass over all you lib SHEEP...

I can hear HSU now "You blood sucking Ticks...You blood sucking Ticks...Did I call you blood sucking ticks yet?"

Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't the insult in being called a tick be in the fact that a tick sucks the blood from it's host leaving the host weaker and debilitated?...Kind of like you Dems with your doctrine of "Yes it may be bad for the country, but it just seems fair"

Tax cuts for those who don't pay taxes, while draining the viability of those that can offer jobs and stimulate the economy seems rather tick like HSU you buffoon.

Posted by jzimm at 02/26/2009 @ 7:55pm
Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2009 @ 10:55pm

"But the real meat was in the blog post. It points out that nothing in the CRA required: no income verification, no banking oversight, no money down mortgages, the shift in loan to value, use of corrupt appraisers, automated underwriting geared toward volume rather than accuracy, piggy back loans, employees to cheat the system to get iffy loans approved, required that banks not check credit scores, develop poor investment vehicles that got rated AAA by ratings companies, interest only loans, etc."

Sorry, SRJ, but that's dead wrong. The whole point of the CRA was to grant loans to people who would not meet traditional underwriting criteria, and this included most particularly income verification, length of employment, and money down. In fact, as of quite recently ACORN was STILL advertising the ability of homeowners to obtain loans with none of these things through the use of the CRA.

Posted by pontificus at 02/26/2009 @ 7:58pm
It's laughable the way you Lib sheep keep eating up Obaminations BS Rhetoric..Words? just words? I'm going to create (or save)3.5 million jobs. YES JUST WORDS. "I'm going to slash the deficit in half by 2010" While he proposes the largest budget in the history of budgets. JUST WORDS you idiots!

By the way..Halving the Budget Deficit would mean still running some of the largest deficits in history. When and how is this going to be paid for? By the non tax payers on welfare?

Dumbo ears is an eloquent speaker, but so was Jim Jones (read Jonestown Massacre sheep)...The only problem is that the people not under Obaminations spell are being forced to drink the cool aid along with all of you idiotic sheep.

Posted by jzimm at 02/26/2009 @ 8:05pm
Ah, but my response never moved to thought and consideration....I'm safe (for the moment).----Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 6:49pm

How do you write "Hot!" about Sarah Palin...and not "think or consider" it???

Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 8:05pm
BTW, PONTI....

you got a "Democrats did it" explanation for what caused the Great Depression?

Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 8:07pm
I have to stop saying Sheep...Im sounding like hsu and his ticks

Posted by jzimm at 02/26/2009 @ 8:10pm
Therefore I apologize to you lemmings =)

Posted by jzimm at 02/26/2009 @ 8:12pm
Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

Posted by pontificus at 02/26/2009 @ 7:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

You've got a point here Ponti - but raising taxes is an incremental start in the search for money. I heard that Obama's revenue projections were premised on a GDP growth rate of 3% next year, and 4% following. Pretty optimistic in my view.

Ultimate default and/or currency devaluation is looking ever more likely unless there is some kind of miraculous turnaround.

Posted by OneVote at 02/26/2009 @ 8:36pm
Holy cow, this is one snarky, snappin' tick filled thread, fraught with dubious data. Ponti has now got the 'attack dog' status.

Watch out, we're gonna get a schoolin'...

Lib sheep - Dumbo ears - you idiotic sheep -you lemmings - This is great...Pontificus kicks ass over all you lib SHEEP...Posted by jzimm at 02/26/2009 @ 8:10pm

You are so mean! And angry. Breakfast - the most important meal of the day.

Pontificus has some problems with his data. I don't know who's behind is being kicked, but as a sheeple, I don't let just anyone pull the wool over my eyes.

All of the stated data can be challenged with other data that seems just as correct and verifiable, but just like anything in our political battle of wills, the answer lies somewhere in between all the bogus assertions and outright falsehoods.

Let's start with the data ponti 'quotes' for now. If all of this stuff was verifiable, why don't you hear conservatives ranting on about it ad nauseum? Besides Shaun Hannity, I mean That's because ponti knows more than they do. And if someone knows that much why aren't they in a public office helping to make things better instead of just taking all of us poor lib'ruls to task? That would be a lot more constructive. There'll be no response to that, of course.

Save us ponti!! Here comes 2012! Oh, I forgot. You're moving to Venezuela, or France, or somewhere like that. Oh well. Stay in touch.

Posted by ficheye at 02/26/2009 @ 8:49pm
Might I point out that income distribution is somewhat misleading. Wealth distribution is actually a more telling statistic. As of 2001, the top 1% of the population in the United States controlled 38% of the wealth; the top 10% owned 71%; the bottom 40% controlled less than 1%. Wasn't the whole point of supply side economics to spread the wealth downward via pure free market principles? If in fact the wealthy are facing such a horrendous tax burden, wouldn't those expenses on their income significantly change this equation? While a payment of 39% of taxes on "reported income" sounds impressive (and we all know how IRS loopholes can impact that), how impressive is it as a relative impact on the wealth actually controlled?

Not much, it seems.

Posted by Dwight Wall at 02/26/2009 @ 8:58pm
I'm sure many of the supply siders here would prefer a flat tax rate - ie top earners pay the same percentage of their income as lower earners. Again, wealth distribution plays a role. A flat rate on the lowest 40% (who, as noted, own 1% of the wealth), would have a considerably greater impact on their livlihoods than would a similar rate on the wealthiest 10%. It would, in fact, skew wealth even further, and increase poverty. In addition, such a rate would essentially absolve the wealthiest of any responsibility for the national commons. Such a solution strains democracy. And, of course, if we solely focus on IRS income data to outline dangerous socialist tendancies, how exactly did that wealthiest 10% earn that absurd percentage of wealth, since it would appear such accumulation would be impossible given the "facts" presented?

Maybe it was that "unreported income".

Posted by Dwight Wall at 02/26/2009 @ 9:15pm
The use of "totalitarian" earlier in this thread is amusing, particularly when posited by one who I believe truly is one. The mark of a totalirian mindset is fervent belief in a lie, usually based on some notion of "invisible" or "scientific" purity. I don't think I have ever seen a progressive here state a desire for a pure government run economy, in spite of repeated shouts of "communist!" "socialist!" "marxist!" Hate to say this, righties, but I think most of the leftists here swear more fealty to Keynes (yawn) than to Lenin. I have, however, seen frequent statements posited on a pure market social order. I wonder how many of these folks realize that communism's ultimate goal was the elimination of government? Yet, like most totalitarian approaches, communist ideology resulted in the exact opposite.

Let's see - Bush was the president of "limited government" and presided over the greatest expansion in the size of the federal government in American history. Hmmmm...

Free the wealthy! You have nothing to lose but your obligations - er - chains!

Posted by Dwight Wall at 02/26/2009 @ 9:30pm
Free the wealthy! You have nothing to lose but your obligations - er - chains! Posted by Dwight Wall at 02/26/2009 @ 9:30pm

Thank you Dwight! Good posts.

Posted by ficheye at 02/26/2009 @ 9:55pm
Of course, the final indigity is the need to explain away the gross imbalance in wealth distribution by redefining the lowest 40% as slothful, irresponsible, subject to the evil whims of ACORN and the CRA - what Sarah Palin identified through implication as the opposite of the "real America". We can, of course, ignore the degree wealth was created for the upper 10% through the continued redefinition of financial instruments to generate enormous fees and bonuses freed of any real concern as to the actual value of such creations - that was completely responsible! Please ignore the fact that the irresponsible action of those ACORN addled people just so happened to make that very upper 10% even more enormously rich.

In a pure market system, such errors simply do not occur. "We were forced to do it!!! We were forced to become incredibly wealthy!!! Now bail us out, not them!!!"

Wealth, apparantly, is retroactive.

Posted by Dwight Wall at 02/26/2009 @ 9:57pm
You're welcome, ficheye!

Just one other comment, then I'll shut up. Any self employed individual who is complaining about their income tax load vs. the load on the average wage earner - as was noted earlier in this thread - needs to get a better tax accountant!

Posted by Dwight Wall at 02/26/2009 @ 10:15pm
Here's a fun question for them....they stumble over themselves saying everybody was "clairvoyent"....

Why not go back to the top marginal rates under....REAGAN?

When the "Reagan Reovery" was underway in 1983-1984? Heck, it won the Gipper the biggest landslide in decades.

Oh, that's right...the top marginal rate on incomes over $175,500 in 1984 was...

50% (FIFTY PERCENT)

Yet oddly the economy GREW, didn't collapse?!!!????!?

"Because it HAD been 70%!!!!!". So? If the rich can somehow create jobs with their personal income tax at 50%....why is Obama's 39.4% going to be a "jobs killer"?!!?!??

Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 10:39pm
I heard that Obama's revenue projections were premised on a GDP growth rate of 3% next year, and 4% following. Pretty optimistic in my view.

Posted by OneVote at 02/26/2009 @ 8:36pm

Economists just upped this year's estimated GDP contraction from (1.2%) to (2.0%)....still way too optimistic....layoffs are accelerating.....just days ago, my wife's company, in a `safe' (relatively speaking) industry, shuttered a Northeast facility.

As for next year, the same Economists REDUCED the estimate from 3% growth to 1.2%......still way too optimistic.....be HAPPY if it breaks even...

Then, in 2011, taxes go up, by a lot.....inflation in full force.....HOPE AND CHANGE!

Posted by Happy at 02/26/2009 @ 10:42pm
You're welcome, ficheye!

Just one other comment, then I'll shut up. Any self employed individual who is complaining about their income tax load vs. the load on the average wage earner - as was noted earlier in this thread - needs to get a better tax accountant!

Posted by Dwight Wall at 02/26/2009 @ 10:15pm

I did not complain about the income tax load (and I am a good tax preparer-my return clients being the best proof). I have said that it is a lie that 95% of American families are getting a taxcut.

There is no "tax cut"..it is a "refundable tax credit" that is only available to W2 workers. That is why it's called "refundable". It is applied to W2 workers on their paychecks beginning the week of April 1st. I encourage you to read the new law for yourself.

Very few Self Employed and 1099 Independent Contractors have payroll withholding.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 11:03pm
FNMA now thinks "home values will drop 12 to 18%"....hmmmmmm....and next year, Magic says we'll have 3% growth....Believe It or Not!

Fannie taps lifeline after $59B in losses

By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney.com senior writer

Last Updated: February 26, 2009: 6:52 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Hammered by the ailing housing market, mortgage finance giant Fannie Mae said Thursday it would tap its lifeline from the Treasury Department after reporting $58.7 billion in losses for 2008.....

And it gave a dour view of the housing market -- saying it expects peak-to-trough price declines to be in the 33% to 46% range, up from the 27% to 32% range it gave in the previous quarter. For 2009, it predicts home values will drop 12 to 18%.....

Posted by Happy at 02/26/2009 @ 11:20pm
I came across this little nugget about bad comments that I thought was worth sharing:

"There are two main kinds of badness in comments: meanness and stupidity. There is a lot of overlap between the two--mean comments are disproportionately likely also to be dumb--but the strategies for dealing with them are different. Meanness is easier to control. You can have rules saying one shouldn't be mean, and if you enforce them it seems possible to keep a lid on meanness.

Keeping a lid on stupidity is harder, perhaps because stupidity is not so easily distinguishable. Mean people are more likely to know they're being mean than stupid people are to know they're being stupid.

The most dangerous form of stupid comment is not the long but mistaken argument, but the dumb joke. Long but mistaken arguments are actually quite rare. There is a strong correlation between comment quality and length; if you wanted to compare the quality of comments on community sites, average length would be a good predictor. Probably the cause is human nature rather than anything specific to comment threads. Probably it's simply that stupidity more often takes the form of having few ideas than wrong ones.

Whatever the cause, stupid comments tend to be short. And since it's hard to write a short comment that's distinguished for the amount of information it conveys, people try to distinguish them instead by being funny. The most tempting format for stupid comments is the supposedly witty put-down, probably because put-downs are the easiest form of humor. [5] So one advantage of forbidding meanness is that it also cuts down on these.

Bad comments are like kudzu: they take over rapidly. Comments have much more effect on new comments than submissions have on new submissions. If someone submits a lame article, the other submissions don't all become lame. But if someone posts a stupid comment on a thread, that sets the tone for the region around it. People reply to dumb jokes with dumb jokes.

Maybe the solution is to add a delay before people can respond to a comment, and make the length of the delay inversely proportional to some prediction of its quality. Then dumb threads would grow slower. [6]"

http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html

Posted by srjenkins at 02/27/2009 @ 01:17am
the big lie:

by giving more to the rich, we are helping the poor.

think about it. counterintuitive you say?

anyone disagrees, it's class envy and class warfare.

the rich piggies are squealing.

the top rate is still under %40.

it used to be double that and more.

bring back 94% top tax bracket.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2009 @ 08:34am
who woulda thunk it, the repug party in black face. can the Kingfish be far behind.

this has got the be the biggest farce. not a single black repug in congress. not one.

this reminds me of when they did these all black shows on broadway, like Guys and Dolls. you never heard "sit down, you're rockin' the boat" like that.

I don't think people of color will be fooled.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2009 @ 08:39am
There is no "tax cut"..it is a "refundable tax credit" that is only available to W2 workers.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 11:03pm

And for all those w/out a job and unable to travel to India or China or Honduras or ..., to be the cheap labor the rich and their corporations made huge profits on-- it's 'coming' around, what 'went' around...

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/27/2009 @ 09:53am
Economists just upped this year's estimated GDP contraction from (1.2%) to (2.0%)....still way too optimistic....layoffs are accelerating.....just days ago, my wife's company, in a `safe' (relatively speaking) industry, shuttered a Northeast facility.

As for next year, the same Economists REDUCED the estimate from 3% growth to 1.2%......still way too optimistic.....be HAPPY if it breaks even...

Then, in 2011, taxes go up, by a lot.....inflation in full force.....HOPE AND CHANGE!

Posted by Happy at 02/26/2009 @ 10:42pm

'Economy shrinks at fastest pace in 26 years Economy shrinks at faster-than-expected 6.2 percent pace in fourth quarter, worst in 26 years Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer Friday February 27, 2009, 9:20 am EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The economy contracted at a staggering 6.2 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century, as consumers and businesses ratcheted back spending, plunging the country deeper into recession.

The Commerce Department report released Friday showed the economy sinking much faster than the 3.8 percent annualized drop for the October-December quarter first estimated last month. It also was considerably weaker than the 5.4 percent annualized decline economists expected.'

Way too optimistic.........we've got one economic forecast to sell the budget and deficit reduction, and another that is reality based used to justify the critical need for government stimulus. I would be happy to break even as well, but I don't think that that is going to happen. BO is presuming that his stimulus plan is going to work miracles right away, and that is just not going to happen.

Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 10:25am
Very few Self Employed and 1099 Independent Contractors have payroll withholding.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 11:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

The ability to expense on Schedule C. That is why the Repub arguments about raising taxes on small business and self employed is absolute baloney. Those who are subject to withholding pay far more taxes proportionately than small business and self employed.

Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 10:31am
one BIG difference. the self employed are not eligible for unemployment insurance.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2009 @ 1:39pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 6:49pm

Wouldn't worry too much about Mask and his ambivalent sexuality. The lovely Sarah is hot, riding crop or not and that's the truth (which seems to be a rare commodity on this forum).

Gratifying to know that there is at least one American red blooded heterosexual male around these here parts. And with impeccable taste to boot.

Posted by lrjones4 at 02/28/2009 @ 8:34pm
Firstly, the word "comprehensive" should be retired. It is an insert word the equivalent of psychobabble. Those who believe in Obama western European style governance will not prevail in thi war for America and what has made this country great. Those who believe that their inalienable rights flow from above and believe in individual self-determination will never succumb. Your desire for the destruction of individual prosperity will be defeated. Your desire for the destruction of the capitalistic system will be defeated. Obama will be crushed under the weight of his own arrogance and ego. He will be destroyed by the hatred he harbors in his heart for people of accomplishment. Liberals, being in conflict with themselves, will destroy themselves, picking the flesh from each others bones. Americans of conscience and principle, core Americans, will never bow down, never be defeated, will never sign on to this defeatist, never annex their rights, co-sign their rights to government oppression or dominance. It will be resisted and defeated.

Posted by uPay2Play1 at 02/28/2009 @ 9:08pm
As an Aussie who likes to think of himself as an all round conservative I tend to feel a little less than the real thing amongst my American conservative friends here. I guess because been spoiled by a country with a long history of government welfare, that Americans, if I'm not having my leg pulled by the Lefties here, can only dream of (or some probably consider to be socialism).

Forty or so years ago Australia was about where most of the Lefties here seem to want to take America. There were many government owned enterprises that included banks, manufacturing and various agencies (such as employment services). All power generation was government owned and about 50% of private enterprise workers were in unions.

Virtually all those have been privatised or disbanded in favour of private enterprise.

Unionisation of the private sector work force was at about 55% in the 50s but by 2007 it about 19%. Public sector unionisation is still over 40%.

All power generation and distribution has been privatised with the exception of NSW. This state which has had a Labor government, that has been desperate to sell off its electricity generation for years but been frustrated by the votes of Party members, who are former unionists, in trying to get the legislation up. It is a basket case financially and needs the money to reduce a very high, chronic deficit and to fund its welfare budget.

No government wants to buy back the power generation or distribution enterprises from the private sector. One reason is our history indicates governments cannot run any enterprise as efficiently as the competitive private sector. A lot has to do with the higher percentage unionisation of the Public sector. At the tradesman and technician level that is more likely to be closer t0 100%.

Posted by lrjones4 at 03/01/2009 @ 01:01am
As a boy I remember the many power blackouts, due to unionists calling wildcat strikes, regularly closing down the state's power supply. That no longer happens. And in relative terms power is cheaper than when supplied by government enterprises.

The true and ultimate driver of all the developed economies, as they are presently structured, is not really determined by governments but rather by a highly motivated, entrepreneurial free enterprise sector.

That reality means that Obama and other national government leaders do not have all that much positive impact on the health of their particular national economy. Governments can hinder or they can facilitate the productive or free enterprise sector. Thus, though Obama's speech may have been persuasive for many, it is very unlikely to get the US economy out of the doldrums unless he provides encouragement and motivation for the private sector to do what it does better than governments can, viz get the economy back on track.

Posted by lrjones4 at 03/01/2009 @ 01:03am

John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Obama Offers a Comprehensive "Yes, We Can!"

posted by John Nichols on 02/24/2009 @ 10:00pm

John Nichols

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

Obama Offers a Comprehensive "Yes, We Can!"

posted by John Nichols on 02/24/2009 @ 10:00pm

Share this article

John Nichols

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation