Reactions to Obama's Speech

[quote]100meters wrote:
He was cutting spending and letting tax cuts expire, you seem to have left out half of his equation. Also he just cut taxes. 95% tax cut / 5% tax raise.[/quote]

Perhaps you can reverse the impression you’ve previously given by intelligently explaining this:

Since 40% of income earners pay no income taxes at all, how is it that you say, and indeed Obama promised, 95% will get an income tax “cut”?

How do you cut zero?

Oh wait a sec, will it NOT be an income tax cut but rather an income-redistribution “spread the wealth” check? Money taken from others? The IRS redefined as the Income Redistribution Service?

So why do you say Obama will cut taxes for 95%?

Uh oh, wait again: While posting this one, I see you wrote another. And it was up to exactly the same speed as all your posts. So I guess there was no chance of your reversing what you’ve already demonstrated. Hope doesn’t quite spring eternal, I guess.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, taxes are going up. And, not just for those making over 250K. Oh, for a while that might be. But, we aren’t paying off this deficit, keeping entitlements solvent, implementing whatever new government programs Obama comes up with, and ‘winning’ in Afghanistan by just allowing some cuts to expire, only focusing on a tiny percentage of the population for increased revenues.

The thing is, the Republicans would’ve raised taxes, too. Because they sure as hell aren’t going to actually cut spending. The American people want big government, and it has to be paid for.

He was cutting spending and letting tax cuts expire, you seem to have left out half of his equation. Also he just cut taxes. 95% tax cut / 5% tax raise.[/quote]

Obama cut spending? Where? I thought I just saw a huge spending bill go through.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, taxes are going up. And, not just for those making over 250K. Oh, for a while that might be. But, we aren’t paying off this deficit, keeping entitlements solvent, implementing whatever new government programs Obama comes up with, and ‘winning’ in Afghanistan by just allowing some cuts to expire, only focusing on a tiny percentage of the population for increased revenues.

The thing is, the Republicans would’ve raised taxes, too. Because they sure as hell aren’t going to actually cut spending. The American people want big government, and it has to be paid for.

He was cutting spending and letting tax cuts expire, you seem to have left out half of his equation. Also he just cut taxes. 95% tax cut / 5% tax raise.[/quote]

You mean the 5% that already pay 60% of total income tax?

[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, taxes are going up. And, not just for those making over 250K. Oh, for a while that might be. But, we aren’t paying off this deficit, keeping entitlements solvent, implementing whatever new government programs Obama comes up with, and ‘winning’ in Afghanistan by just allowing some cuts to expire, only focusing on a tiny percentage of the population for increased revenues.

The thing is, the Republicans would’ve raised taxes, too. Because they sure as hell aren’t going to actually cut spending. The American people want big government, and it has to be paid for.

He was cutting spending and letting tax cuts expire, you seem to have left out half of his equation. Also he just cut taxes. 95% tax cut / 5% tax raise.

You mean the 5% that already pay 60% of total income tax?
[/quote]

C’mon, guys! “We gotta take that wealth and spread it around (Obama).” “Time to get in the game! Time to pull your weight! (Biden).”

It was all right there. They came out and said exactly what they were going to do. So…society’s losers elected these clowns. Those who want the hand-out gave him their vote.

There is an exact quote I’m looking for here. It was spoken by a member of German government to Hindenburg upon his naming Hitler chancellor of Germany. I’ll quote as best I can from memory: “Future generations will damn you in your grave for what you have done here today. You have started us on a path toward the abyss from which I fear we shall never return.” That sounds about right to me.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, taxes are going up. And, not just for those making over 250K. Oh, for a while that might be. But, we aren’t paying off this deficit, keeping entitlements solvent, implementing whatever new government programs Obama comes up with, and ‘winning’ in Afghanistan by just allowing some cuts to expire, only focusing on a tiny percentage of the population for increased revenues.

The thing is, the Republicans would’ve raised taxes, too. Because they sure as hell aren’t going to actually cut spending. The American people want big government, and it has to be paid for.

He was cutting spending and letting tax cuts expire, you seem to have left out half of his equation. Also he just cut taxes. 95% tax cut / 5% tax raise.[/quote]

From a friend, mentor, and Economics Professor. This came out of a discussion about the ‘death tax’ expiration in 2010 and the fight (by guess who) to keep it in effect-- but his answer fits well in response to tax rises, stimulus, Carter, etc.:

[i]We witnessing an ongoing supply-side disaster, of which the return of the death tax is just one of many injuries to the economy of the United States.

For starters, the current “stimulus” bill includes a rise in marginal income tax rates, as “rebates” are phased out as income rises.

In 2010, not only will estate tax rates rise, tax rates on dividends, capital gains, and personal income will return to pre-2003 levels as the Bush tax cuts sunset.

What is little understood about these higher rates is that they will raise effective rates far above earlier levels. In current dollars, U. S. GDP has risen roughly 35% between 2002 and 2008.

Given the progressive rate structure of all these taxes, the proportion of GDP ( Gross Domestic Product | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) ) appropriated by government will be far higher after the sunset of the Bush tax cuts than prior to their enactment. The CBO’s static analysis of changes in effective rates is here: ( http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5746&type=0&sequence=1#pt4 )

However, this analysis underestimates effective rates after sunset. The CBO "does not reflect any change in revenues that would result from changes in taxpayers’ behavior.

For example, the analysis would not capture any change in tax payments that could result if a lower tax rate on capital gains induced taxpayers to realize more capital gains." Translation: “We don’t know how bad it’s going to be, but it’s going to be bad.”

As the expiration of these tax cuts approaches, we can expect to see a flight of capital from entrepreneurial risk into safer havens. (I suspect that this is a partial explanation for the recent preference shift from private investments toward U. S. government debt.) Equities aren’t going to recover beyond previous highs until marginal tax rates are lowered.

The imminent prospect of inflation - since unwinding the monetary expansion of the stimulus will not be politically palatable for our current regime in Washington - will accelerate the proportionate rise of effective tax rates. Bracket creep redux.

The 'seventies. Stagflation. Misery index. Maybe even disco.[/i]

I’m laughing at you America. You voted for this guy, BOHICA.

I hope Obama does every God-damned thing he’s promised. I really do. Perhaps Holder was right; we truly are becoming a nation of cowards when we’ll sell our liberties, our dignity, and our children away to help keep us in a make work job.

As for me, I’ll take care of me and mine and I’ll bring the republic back when after your pathetic shitbirds kill yourselves off.

Favorite part of the speech: When Obama said that we need to make sure we are preserving what the military fights for.

mike

You are all very funny

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
You are all very funny[/quote]

Too bad it isn’t a joke, it is reality. to some of us, actually all of us given that the rest of the world revolves around what the US does.

Remember his cap and trade comment. Just what we need a final solution for a made up problem.

The potential costs to America from cap-and-trade are enormous. The Department of Energy estimates that S. 2191, the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade proposal, will increase the cost of coal for power generation by between 161% and 413%. DOE estimates GDP losses (see chart) over the 21-year period they forecast, at between $444 billion and $1.308 trillion, with particular damage to the manufacturing sector. (This gives some hope that organized labor will, in a rare occurrence, oppose Democratic leaders on this issue.) Winegarden estimates that this bill could increase unemployment by 2.7% or about 4 million jobs. In fact, companies are already preparing to avoid increased level and volatility of American energy prices by setting up factories and partnerships in countries which won?t be subject to cap-and-trade restrictions?proving with real-world behavior of producers that no carbon-limiting regulation can succeed if it is not universal.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-introduces-cap-trade-costing.html

Does anyone think that such consequences are seen as a problem (relative to what their goals are) by the politicians in question?

Obama said plainly he intended to bankrupt the coal industry. He’s made completely clear he sees making coal uneconomic via government action is, rather than undesirable, in fact to be desired.

The public perception of government-caused crisis is easily manipulated to persuade a given large segment of voters that yet more government control is the solution: control which the politicians in question are more than happy to provide in response to the self-created crisis.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Does anyone think that such consequences are seen as a problem (relative to what their goals are) by the politicians in question?

Obama said plainly he intended to bankrupt the coal industry. He’s made completely clear he sees making coal uneconomic via government action is, rather than undesirable, in fact to be desired.

The public perception of government-caused crisis is easily manipulated to persuade a given large segment of voters that yet more government control is the solution: control which the politicians in question are more than happy to provide in response to the self-created crisis.[/quote]

Yep, a vicious circle…and the growth of “government” is akin to a ratchet.

Bureaucracies (and governmental bodies like Congress) are not incentivized to solve the problems for which they are created. Indeed, the worse the “problem” seems or actually gets, the more money and power they are able to justify/demand and sometimes receive.

And conversely, if they were to improve or even solve the “problem” for which they were created in the first place, they would be less able to justify their current levels of power/funding - and perhaps even make themselves obsolete.

Excellent piece on his speech.


The Two Faces of Barack Obama

A president contradicts himself all night long

Matt Welch | February 25, 2009

“But I also know,” President Barack Obama said last night, in his typically self-referential fashion, "that in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment.

My job?our job?is to solve the problem. Our job is to govern with a sense of responsibility."

It was a pleasingly presidential sentiment for a subdued, not-quite-a-State-of-the-Union speech. Unfortunately for Obama?and us?it was also contradicted, and blatantly so, not four paragraphs prior, by a guy named Barack Obama.

“This time,” the president warned us the minute before, while giving that stern schoolmaster look of his, “CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over!” Democrats leaped to their feet.

Obama aims to be the president of all Americans, a position that appears to be sincere. But I wonder whether in the process he might also want to consider appointing himself chief executive of his own head. All night long, with equally sonorous vigor, he served up confident assertions, only to state moments later, with equal conviction, their near opposite.

“We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before,” Obama crowd-pleased near the beginning, in the slot normally reserved for lines like “the state of our union is strong.” Not long after, though, Americans learned that our very “survival depends on finding new sources of energy.”

Also, “there will be no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis…our recovery will be choked off before it even begins,” and if we don’t do whatever Obama wants us to do about the banking system, “it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade.” Better! Stronger! Crippled for a decade!

After detailing some clean-energy advancements in China, Germany, Japan, and Korea, the president averred, “Well, I do not accept”?there’s that self-referencing again?“a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders.”

A few paragraphs later, however, zero-sum gave way to kumbaya: “The world depends on us to have a strong economy, just as our economy depends on the strength of the world’s.” Just don’t you get strong by producing clean energy, Koreans!

It was like this all night. The president’s stimulus package “will save or create 3.5 million jobs.” One of those, anyway! His administration has “created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent,” unless they try to use it to find out how and where their money is being spent.

Importantly, Obama vowed to “act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times,” a pledge he took so seriously that later on he stressed, twice, that “it’s not about helping banks?it’s about helping people.”

The contradictions came flying even in his read-my-lips moment: “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year,” he said, “you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”

But as recently as the previous paragraph the president vowed to “restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.” And a few paragraphs before that, he called for a “market-based cap on carbon pollution.”

So: You will not see your federal taxes increased a single dime…unless you own a company that emits carbon or hires some of those dastardly Koreans.

The two faces of Obama reveal more than just a man hard-wired to work both sides of a room. There is an essential contradiction at the heart of his populist economics. He wants to jump-start the “flow of credit”?it’s “the lifeblood of our economy,” after all?but somehow surgically remove the “speculators” from the process.

“I will not spend a single penny,” he promised, undeliverably, last night, “for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it takes to help the small business that can’t pay its workers or the family that has saved and still can’t get a mortgage.”

His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, declared last week that, “I think we left [behind] a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader, that it’s good for Main Street. I think the verdict is in on that.”

Here is one of the many problems with that line of thinking: Wall Street isn’t just some abstract pit of snakes that can be drowned in poison oil or otherwise given a wide berth?it’s the heart (if tattered) of the country’s financial industry. Which, among other things, does more to unleash the lifebloody “flow of credit” than any other power center in America.

Not only does Obama get it wrong when he thinks you can best “help the small business” without involving the best single source of small-business funding, he also wildly misses the political and financial ethos of the abstraction he can’t stop campaigning against.

“I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions,” he said with a smirk. “But such an approach won’t solve the problem.” Nor will erecting a giant straw man in Lower Manhattan.

But there’s more: Not only is Wall Street going to be key to any recovery, the reviled “derivatives trader” is right at the clenched heart of the financial blockage. As Washington Post economics columnist Robert J. Samuelson pointed out earlier this month, "Contrary to popular wisdom, banks?institutions that take deposits?aren’t the main problem.

In December, total U.S. bank credit stood at $9.95 trillion, up 8 percent from a year earlier, reports the Federal Reserve. Business, consumer and real estate loans all increased…The real collapse has occurred in securities markets."

Securitized lending instruments, and the various insurance and pricing bets placed on them, sloshed hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy, but have now locked up. The point is not that the derivatives trader needs a bailout?he most certainly does not?it’s that inaccurately demonizing him is not the shortest route to economic wisdom.

There were some promising notes in Obama’s speech last night, particularly his vow to “end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them,” and discontinue the dishonest and irresponsible way that Congress has funded wars for the past seven years.

But the biggest promise was the one that his contradictions?or maybe just his ideology?did not let him fulfill. “It is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment,” he said near the beginning, “that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.”

Too true. Moments later, however, despite piles of evidence to the contrary, he said: “Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.”

If understanding root causes is the key to good economic policy, we may have longer to go than even the pessimistic half of Obama thinks.

Matt Welch is the Editor in Chief of Reason magazine.

http://www.reason.com/news/printer/131863.html

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Barak H. Obama spoke:

“This time CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over!”

Cough

You mean like congressman? The congressmen and women who automatically raise their pay every year? The congressmen and women who buy fancy drapes for their offices? The congressmen and women who hurriedly passed the spendulus bill so they could jet off to Italy at taxpayer’s expense?

Barakie, Barakie, Barakie, ye must first remove the log from your own eye before attempting to remove the splinter from the eye of your brother, the CEO.
[/quote]

Yep.

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
You are all very funny

Too bad it isn’t a joke, it is reality. to some of us, actually all of us given that the rest of the world revolves around what the US does.[/quote]

I think you’ll find the world doesn’t revolve around the U.S, although you do owe the rest of the world a ~lot~ of money.

Don’t be fooled into thinking people are not making a lot of money off the misfortunes of you.

Well it is not really “funny” but people don’t seem to get the single basic idea that it is not your government, or size of government, or who is in gov., but the fact that somehow you’ve got yourself in this culture of consumption without production, set yourself up like a big fat spoiled kid who wants to sit around on his ass and have others bake him cakes and serve them up and not pay for them. And then say, “well if it weren’t for me you all would not have jobs baking cakes.” which doesn’t matter since you aren’t paying for them anyway.

nothing will change unless you change that situation, and the only way to do so is to be competitive with people who work 100 hour weeks for 5 bucks a month. I can’t see that happening.

cutting government size, spending won’t do it
borrowing more won’t do it
consuming more FFS won’t do it, will only make it worse
“positive attitude” and “consumer confidence” won’t do it, but it might make you feel good for a bit and ignore the reality

You can do it, but the first step is let every single inefficient business collapse and DIE. Let banks fall apart they are shite. And don’t put laws in place that stop people setting up alternative to banks (which is already beginning) to get the capital flowing more efficiently. Massive change is needed, not more of the same.

It was optimistic and I supported alot of what he said. However, it is easy to just spew alot of bs without any real substance.

I agreed with commitment to education and it seems realistic, it think it not only possible but foreseeable.

I guess part of thing was, he basically said he is going to take from the rich and give to the poor, middle class, and kinda rich.

Punish the wealthy and large businesses that are socially irresponsible and are not as committed to a socialist America as they should be.

The up and down of the audience members, reminded me of church and was nothing less than frightening.

While, I want the executive branch to achieve all of these goals it has put forward and promised; the blind reverence, celebration in reaction to the over-optimism and monolithic gov’t planning for our economic future frighten me.

It was too much like a USSR Communist Party rally for me to remain optimistic, I don’t anticipate any such grand change and undertaking to be effective with so many angles it has undertaken.

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Well it is not really “funny” but people don’t seem to get the single basic idea that it is not your government, or size of government, or who is in gov., but the fact that somehow you’ve got yourself in this culture of consumption without production, set yourself up like a big fat spoiled kid who wants to sit around on his ass and have others bake him cakes and serve them up and not pay for them. And then say, “well if it weren’t for me you all would not have jobs baking cakes.” which doesn’t matter since you aren’t paying for them anyway.
[/quote]

Are you really meaning to say that the size of government, or what actions it takes, is irrelevant?

Can we put to rest this idea that Americans don’t produce stuff anymore and are purely an information/service economy. It’s a strangely stubborn myth.

You have a massive trade imbalance. MASSIVE. I don’t care what your production level is, if there is a massive imbalance, it is not enough production.

Size of government is irrelevant compared to the size of the problem. Although it sure don’t help throwing trillions more at it.

That chart you put up is a classic bullshit chart. 32.7 to 39.4 is a 20% difference but on the chart is a 400% increase in bar size. what have they included in “goods” ? Has GDP fallen during this time, hence goods production actually fallen? The chart is bullshit.

You can argue whatever you want and believe whatever you want and rally behind whoever you want but the cold hard fact is you owe a tonne of money, your country is in a lot of trouble and needs to be restructured.

Don’t preach free economy then complain when it does things you don’t like.