View Full Version : for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !
Melonie
07-21-2010, 03:08 AM
I thought Fannie and Freddie were independent corporations
In the 'best of times' FNM and FRE were 'gov't sponsored entities', with implied US taxpayer backing giving them a huge competitive advantage and with the US congress enjoying a 'quid pro quo' relationship with FNM and FRE execs ( look up campaign contributions by FNM and FRE, Maxine Waters, Franklin Raines etc. ) Today the implied US taxpayer guarantee is no longer implied it is 100% literal - and is likely to cost US taxpayers trillions of dollars before all is said and done.
The auto industry is in the middle of paying back its loans,
Technically speaking, GM 'paid back' one TARP loan with money it received from a different gov't subsidy program ! See the separate thread on this very topic.
You have shown a lot of disdain over the years for workers, unionized or independent, even moreso for those who are unemployed. Where do you get that feeling? Why?
If I am showing disdain for certain workers, it is because those particular subgroups of workers are 'exploiting' US taxpayers ... most of whom work far harder but earn far less. Check older threads and you'll find my disdain was focused towards union auto workers ( who benefit from taxpayer bailout money ), union tire workers ( who benefit from a new imported tire tariff ), union gov't workers, union oil spill cleanup ships' workers ( who benefit from the Jones Act ) etc. And it just so happens that Bloomberg has posted a new example of how outrageously UN-level the gov't workers' playing field has become ...
(snip)"It was the first council meeting since the Los Angeles Times reported July 15 that Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 -- with annual 12 percent raises -- and that Bell pays its police chief $457,000, more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck makes in a city of 3.8 million people. Bell council members earn almost $100,000 for part-time work. "(snip)
(snip)"“It seems obscene to me,” De La Torre said in a telephone interview. “People making $30,000 a year are paying taxes so that their council members can make $80,000.”
Adams, Bell’s police chief, said in an interview after the council meeting that he had retired as chief of police in the much larger city of Glendale, California, when Bell officials approached him.
“I told them they would have to pay me what I was making in retirement and the $165,000 I would make as chief of police,” Adams said."(snip)
Melonie
07-21-2010, 03:23 AM
anyhow ... it is now a 'moot' point given that 'Sheets' Byrd's replacement has arrived in the US senate ...
from
(snip)"Today the Senate moved forward on a renewal of extended unemployment benefits through November 30 [ which restores unemployment checks to 2.7 million Americans who had exhausted their unemployment check eligibility - sic ]. The good news is that this will avoid further income disruption for those who had expected to receive benefits, thereby reducing any additional drag on growth from fiscal policy in 2H2010. The bad news is that this latest extension of fiscal stimulus may be the last. Congress looks increasingly unlikely to extend ay more fiscal aid to state governments, despite ongoing shortfalls in state revenues, and they have already let several other items lapse.
We are therefore removing from our estimates an assumption of further fiscal stimulus beyond the policies in law (including this week’s unemployment extension), though we continue to expect extension of most of the expiring 2001/2003 tax cuts. This adds almost a full percentage point to the drag on growth from Q4 2010 to Q4 2011 to what we had already estimated. "(snip)
(snip)"However, this latest renewal, which omitted some related policies (see below) and did not extend any of the other expired or soon-to-expire provisions enacted in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), signals that the likelihood for extension of these other items has declined. We have noted this possibility in the past (see most recently, “Stimulus Extension Becoming More Difficult,” US Daily, June 29), but with another congressional recess approaching and little legislative discussion of additional extensions, the likelihood has declined enough that we are formally revising our assumptions. Most recently, this consisted of four sets of items:
1. Unemployment insurance. Our estimates have assumed renewal through 2011 of the extended eligibility period (up to 99 weeks) for unemployment benefits, based mainly on our view that the unemployment rate would remain elevated. When Congress finally let extended benefits expire in previous cycles, the unemployment rate had peaked an average of 23 months prior, and had dropped by an average of 1.7 points. After this latest round expires November 30, extended benefits will have been in place for 28 months, or roughly the average period in previous recessions, though the unemployment rate will undoubtedly be higher than at any previous point at which extended benefits expired in the past (the highest rate previously was 7.4%). It should also be noted that although Congress renewed the extended benefit period, it did not renew the tax deductibility of benefits or the extra $25/week payment, both of which were enacted in ARRA. So even with its renewal, the policy is becoming somewhat less generous.
2. State fiscal aid. State governments have received just under two-thirds of the $145 billion Congress allocated for fiscal aid to state governments in ARRA. There are two proposals on the table to provide additional fiscal aid to states: (1) renewing enhanced Medicaid payments to states for two additional quarters, through Q2 2011, at a cost of $25bn; and (2) adding another $10bn in spending to the “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.” We had assumed the former but not the latter would be enacted, but we are now removing this from our estimates. More than half of the states have assumed in their own budgets that Congress will provide these additional funds; they will need to further cut spending or raise taxes unless Congress acts in the next month or two.
3. Other spending. We had assumed a few other smaller items in our fiscal assumptions, mainly to reflect pending congressional proposals: the extension of subsidies for COBRA health premiums for the recently unemployed and roughly $10bn in additional infrastructure spending. We are removing these from our estimates as well.
4. The “Making Work Pay” credit and other tax measures. We are not changing our assumptions in this area. We continue to expect Congress to extend the $60bn/year “Making Work Pay” credit meant to offset the payroll tax on the first $8,000 of earnings that was enacted as part of ARRA. We also continue to expect Congress to extend most of the 2001/2003 tax cuts, which under current law are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. Specifically, we believe Congress will extend tax rates and credits for households with incomes under $250,000, as the administration has proposed and as permitted under the pay-as-you-go rules Congress enacted earlier this year. However, we continue to believe that Congress will be hesitant to incur any cost in dealing with the expiring capital gains and dividend rates (these go from 15% to 20% and the ordinary income tax rate, respectively). This could play out a number of different ways but the effect on growth should be similar"(snip)
Undoubtedly the 'talking heads' will point out that the Senate's choice of extending emergency federal unemployment through the end of NOVEMBER has one and only one logical explanation ! By my back of the envelope calculations, congress authorizing spending of an additional ~$27 billion to benefit ~2.7 million = about $10,000 in ( future ) US taxpayer's money per vote !!!
~
threlayer
07-21-2010, 09:59 AM
Let me put it this way..... I don't believe I've seen heard you complain about some action on the part of big business in which they have gouged the consumer (or even dancers and clubs when they gouge the customer). But let a group of workers try to stand up for their rights or try to get better conditions or wages -- doing basically the same thing that big corporations do with worker wages gr government taxes etc, and you go right over the wall about what a gouge they are perpetrating on the taxpayer which can never amount to a hill of beans against what government-protected corporations do on a daily basis. It is by no means even-handed. You seem to be the big corporation lobbyist of SW. That's why I asked about your motivations, since it seems I always am given the runaround when I try to figure it out by asking questions.
Eric Stoner
07-21-2010, 11:11 AM
Let me put it this way..... I don't believe I've seen heard you complain about some action on the part of big business in which they have gouged the consumer (or even dancers and clubs when they gouge the customer). But let a group of workers try to stand up for their rights or try to get better conditions or wages -- doing basically the same thing that big corporations do with worker wages gr government taxes etc, and you go right over the wall about what a gouge they are perpetrating on the taxpayer which can never amount to a hill of beans against what government-protected corporations do on a daily basis. It is by no means even-handed. You seem to be the big corporation lobbyist of SW. That's why I asked about your motivations, since it seems I always am given the runaround when I try to figure it out by asking questions.
Oh No You Don't ! One set of facts for everybody and no selective reading. Melonie's posts ( and mine btw ) are replete with example after example of "corporate welfare " decrying same. She and I have repeatedly argued for a level playing field for EVERYBODY !
Define "gouge". Is it "gouging" when oil companies charge market prices for gasoline or are they supposed to sell it at a loss and screw their own shareholders ? State after state and city after city in this country is BROKE ! How do you think they got that way ? Mel and I have pointed out, over and over again, that it's not only the salaries paid to state workers ( which over the last 20 years, or so, have far outstripped what private sector workers are getting ) but the pensions and health benefits not to mention work rules that are out of control.
Your paradigm for unions is at least 30 years out of date. Twer it only true. Maybe you can explain why, with its members crying for work, Local 3 of the IBEW opened its books and gave out applications for new apprentice positions ? Or why the leadership of the Carpenters whooped it up at the Fontainbleu in Miami at membership expense while a third of their members were unemployed ? Or why unions whould rather take lay-offs than see pay and benefits cut ?
Have you read the new FinReg bill ? The one Obama and his fellow Dems have touted as banning future bailouts ? Unless it's Fannie and Freddie which are both explicitly EXEMPT. It wasn't the Republicans, or me, or Mel that insisted on THAT provision. It was Barney Fwank and Chris Dodd. Btw, have you totaled up the
"Friends of Angelo" by party affiliation ? They are almost all Democrats.
In short, I don't think ANYONE on this board is more pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer and pro-shareholder ( you do know there are about 100 million of them in the U.S. ? ) than Mel and I.
Melonie
07-21-2010, 03:32 PM
Eric, based on comments by Relayer and many others, I am really beginning to believe that US mainstream media and the US educational system has done such a good job of hyping Keynesian programs and their proponents, and also such a good job of demonizing Aust(e)rian programs and their proponents, that they genuinely believe that the Keynesians are on the right track with 'hearts of gold' and that the Aust(e)rians like us are borderline wackos with 'hearts of stone'. This appears to be the case even when after the fact 'I told you so' situations arise ... where US mainstream media will also go to great lengths to AVOID drawing attention to actual cause and effect.
As to which politicians' hands are in whose cookie jar, this morning Bloomberg TV reported that ... after contributing 64% of their total political contribution money to Democrats ... the big Wall St. banks are now so pissed off over the Democrat passed FinReg law that they plan to cut off future contributions ! Thus while mainstream media attempts to paint a picture that the Republicans are for the 'rich', they neglect to report that the Democrats are for the 'uber-rich' ... or have been up to the point of passing FinReg !!!
With FinReg signed, now we'll get to find out first hand how bad the NYC unemployment rate gets as the big financial houses relocate their derivative / commodity / proprietary trading activities out of Manhattan and into London / Hong Kong / Geneva etc. in order to escape US FinReg jurisdiction. We'll also find out how much worse small business employment levels get as the interest costs on FinReg compliant small business loans rocket upward. We'll also get to find out how much consumer spending is decreased as FinReg fallout denies consumer credit to more and more average Americans.
~
threlayer
07-21-2010, 08:16 PM
avoiding the basic question again and diverting the essential meaning; guess its just too embarassing for a straightforward answer
reminder : big corporations or the people <-- preferences
You want examples of big corporation bad acting? I could give you plenty of those (they are in the news every day) but you apologists would just turn it overand each one wold just become a different argument. I have a life and plenty of worthwhile things to do other than educate you about real corporate exploitation.
TinkerBall
07-21-2010, 08:28 PM
Funny take on austerianism below. I think in terms of a tax cut for non producing rich people I'm an austerian.
http://snarkypenguin.blogspot.com/2010/07/austerians-love-austerity-for-other.html
Melonie
07-22-2010, 02:52 AM
reminder : big corporations or the people <-- preferences
alternate reminders ...
Big corporations don't create a lot of new jobs - statistics overwhelmingly show that small businesses are the new jobs creators
With few exceptions, gov't grant money / bailout money has been channeled to big corporations with small businesses receiving only new taxes / costs ( of which TinkerBall's link points out a recent example).
Arguably, every recent gov't policy ... including FinReg and national Health Care ... has had or will have a greater negative impact on smaller businesses than on large corporations.
so tell me again who is 'for the people' ?
The larger point is also indirectly raised at TinkerBall's link. Some would advocate increasing taxes and regulations that in turn allow gov't to 'give every unemployed person a fish' every day. Others would advocate cutting taxes and regulations so that most of those unemployed people could have the opportunity to find a newly created job 'fishing for themselves' every day ... catching not only enough for their day's meal but a surplus that can in turn be traded or sold ( and saved / invested ).
Again the basic question of this thread is whether it is preferable for the gov't to extend unemployment checks ad infinitum, at the expense of reduced future job creation / destroyed existing jobs as an aftermath of the additional taxes necessary to fund those infinite unemployment checks.
~
Eric Stoner
07-22-2010, 08:11 AM
alternate reminders ...
Big corporations don't create a lot of new jobs - statistics overwhelmingly show that small businesses are the new jobs creators
With few exceptions, gov't grant money / bailout money has been channeled to big corporations with small businesses receiving only new taxes / costs ( of which TinkerBall's link points out a recent example).
Arguably, every recent gov't policy ... including FinReg and national Health Care ... has had or will have a greater negative impact on smaller businesses than on large corporations.
so tell me again who is 'for the people' ?
The larger point is also indirectly raised at TinkerBall's link. Some would advocate increasing taxes and regulations that in turn allow gov't to 'give every unemployed person a fish' every day. Others would advocate cutting taxes and regulations so that most of those unemployed people could have the opportunity to find a newly created job 'fishing for themselves' every day ... catching not only enough for their day's meal but a surplus that can in turn be traded or sold ( and saved / invested ).
Again the basic question of this thread is whether it is preferable for the gov't to extend unemployment checks ad infinitum, at the expense of reduced future job creation / destroyed existing jobs as an aftermath of the additional taxes necessary to fund those infinite unemployment checks.
~
Mel - You and I will have to content ourselves with the knowledge that history has proven to be on our side.
Survey after survey shows that self-described "Conservatives" describe themselves as "happy" and "content' far more than "Liberals".
Conservatives donate far more to charity than Liberals. Did anyone bother to check out the pittance that Biden donated last year ? A few hiundred bucks. I donated more to charity than he did on a LOWER income ! Or the Obamas ?
Academia and the media are both dominated by Liberals and Keynesians. Wall Street overwhelmingly supported Obama. They also heavily donate to Chuck U Schumer although God only knows why.
One reason Obama and the Dems are desperately trying to paint the Tea Party folks as racists is because they are scared to death of what might happen in November.
I read the interview of Cornell West in Playboy yesterday. This guy was tenured at Harvard and is now at Princeton. His "scholarship" sic. is a joke. He says that Obama should pursue a "black agenda" and that Norway and Sweden have "eliminated poverty". Number 1- I have previously pointed out that both countries he idolizes do have poor and homeless people. Norway has a small population and billions in oil wealth. Sweden taxes the hell out of everybody. Neither has much in the way of illegal immigration. Or a defense budget remotely close to ours as a % of GDP. Yet West is lionized as some sort of perceptive social critic and legitimate academic.
No system has eliminated more poverty and created more wealth than capitalism. Here's the clincher : Name one prominent capitalist ; any well known free market advocate who saw the light and converted to socialism ? I can name a dozen former Libs and Socialists who became advocates for free markets and capitalism. Including the current president of Brazil. Compare the Brazilian economy to that of Venezuela or Cuba. Why is there so much poverty in countries headed by lefties ?
Taking the long way back to the original subject : History shows that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. When I was on Unemployment, I turned down a job because I didn't think it paid enough. When my Unemployment ran out I was very grateful indeed to get a second chance and grab the very same job a few months later. Unemployment has become nothing more than a new welfare program.
Melonie
07-22-2010, 10:50 AM
Wall Street overwhelmingly supported Obama. They also heavily donate to Chuck U Schumer although God only knows why.
Prior to FinReg at least, Wall St and Washington were seemingly locked at the hip ... with the gov't providing 'free money' to the Wall St institutions via fed primary dealer status / FED interest paid to Wall St institutions on reserve deposits, with the gov't de-facto legislating that private retirement money be channeled through stock and bond IRA / 401k programs heavily involving profits for Wall St institutions etc. And the Wall St institutions also make a fortune repackaging mortgage bonds for sale to gov't backed Freddie and Fannie. Plus the Wall St institutions making a fortune on zero interest TARP money. In exchange, the Wall St financial institutions contributed heavily to Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and a whole bunch of financially influential Washington democrats.
However, with the passage of FinReg, those very same financially influential Washington democrats have 'driven a stake' through many of the most profitable aspects of Wall St operations ! A story was circulating on Bloomberg that Wall St plans to pull their future political contributions in protest. Undoubtedly they'll get around FinReg rules that will reduce their profits by one means or another ... for example by relocating prop trading / derivatives / commodity trading offshore to physically escape US jurisdiction.
As to Chuck Schumer, he has Andrew Cuomo's and Michael Bloomberg's private phone numbers. One phone call could result in a multi-billion dollar state investigation of Wall St firms being launched a la the pre-escort days of Eliot Spitzer. In a word ... extortion !
As to the frustration factor, this got started for me as a result of the 'Economic Cargo Cult' story. Increasingly, I'm beginning to believe that a whole bunch of Americans ... from working class voters to certain DD posters to certain Washington politicians to certain Nobel Prize Winning economists ... don't actually have a grasp on the deep dark realities of how the US economy truly works. I'm no expert by any means, but some basic tenets seem obvious. Among these, that gov't cannot 'create value' - it can only extract value created by the private sector via taxation, and transfer that extracted value. Among these, that gov't cannot create self-sustaining jobs. Another, that big ( international ) corporations and the American 'uber-rich' essentially are ( and always will be ) 'above the law' where US law / jurisdiction is concerned. Yes there are a few exceptions but these tenets are true for the most part.
It also frustrates me that this entire 'Economic Cargo Cult' issue isn't really new ... in fact it goes all the way back to Bastiat's 'seen versus unseen' criticisms of 150+ years ago .....
(snip)With government intervention you must look beyond the immediate "seen" effects to the secondary "unseen" consequences.
To illustrate the seen and unseen, Bastiat used the broken window fallacy. He tells the story of a boy who breaks a window.
An onlooker points out a silver lining in the boy's mischief- the glazier who will repair the window will earn six francs for his work. He will in turn spend the six francs and generate more business for others. The broken window could ultimately create a business boom. Bastiat protests, "That will never do! The theory stops at what is seen. It does not take into account what is not seen." What is not seen is that had the window not been broken, the window owner would not have been out six francs and could have spent it on something else he must now do without. The window owner is poorer and there is no silver lining.
In the case of extended unemployment benefits, what is not seen is the future economic drag placed on the US economy by the gov't burdening US taxpayers with another $27 billion of principal repayments, plus unknown billions in interest payments, on the US Treasury bonds issued to fund these extended benefits - and the ripple effect of a rising percentage of US tax revenues needing to be allocated toward bond interest versus spent on something 'constructive' instead. What is not seen is the devaluation of the US dollar due to fed money printing to fund these extended benefits, rising US dollar denominated prices of all world market commodities as a direct result, and the ripple effect of those rising prices on other segments of the US economy.
However, what is seen, or will be shortly, is President Obama signing the emergency unemployment benefits extension bill ... followed by an additional 2+ million recipients of extended unemployment benefits checks casting a 'thank you' vote in November !
~
Eric Stoner
07-22-2010, 12:10 PM
Mel- I used to share your frustrations until I learned to just accept the basic economic ignorance of Americans in general. Imho it goes hand in glove with their historical ignorance. Jay Leno only hits the highlights with "Jaywalking". Just look at Obama Speak when he equates tax cuts with government spending ; when he didn't know that after Clinton cut Capital Gains taxes that Federal revenues went UP etc. etc. Ignorant blowhards like Rachel Madcow, Keith Olberman, Joy Behar and Glenn Beck get T.V. shows and fact checking gives way to creative editing. Too many people from both the right and the left get too much air time despite being factually challenged. I witnessed it for myself over a decade ago when more than one T.V. producer told me that they equated ratings with volume, rudeness and sexy soundbites as opposed to accuracy.
A lot of this goes back to Academia where politics was permitted to trump intellectual rigor. Likewise in the media, accuracy and truth were put in the backseat when "advocacy journalism" became acceptable at more outlets than just the Village Voice and National Review. Dan Rather being Exhibit "A". Although I do have to giggle when the humps at Newsweek just can't figure out why their circulation has collapsed.
Afaic you did what you had to do to protect what you worked for and earned. If I didn't have a business to run and people dependent on me, I'd probably be in the villa next to yours. Since I can't leave the country, YET , I've taken steps to protect what I've sweated for and I've invested anticipating several more years of economic stagnation, irresponsible spending and eventual inflation. A few years ago, more than one person told me I was nuts for buying so much gold. I wish I'd bought even more. Likewise, my broker wanted to have me committed when I started selling off stocks in early 2008. I wish I'd sold more and started sooner. And when I started doing the same thing last year, he stopped speaking to me altogether. lol. In microcosm, I'm like corporate America right now. My capital is on strike. Just like it was in 1937 and 1938. The sad part is that Obama is no more astute as to WHY than FDR was. One glimmer of hope is that Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson Evan Bayh and a few other Senate Dems DO get it and want to extend Bush's tax cuts. But don't hold your breath.
Time was, in the face of much higher taxes, I and others would put our money into tax-free Muni - Bonds. Not so fast. Not when more than one issuing authority is likely to go broke or just default. Not when most of them are uninsured and even uninsurable. I just have small holdings in a few revenue bonds. No GOB's at all. And for the most part, I've bought gold instead. Multiply me by at least 20 million or so and that creates a LOT of unemployment. Except in gold mining and processing of course.
threlayer
07-22-2010, 02:19 PM
REMINDER :
avoiding the basic question again and diverting the essential meaning; guess its just too embarassing for a straightforward answer
.
(ahem, tap, tap, tap ::))
threlayer
07-22-2010, 02:27 PM
The Financial Regulations were necessary to prevent (to a large extent) poor behavior of several large and some medium sized financial institutions that forgot about what risk meant. This is necessary to prevent (also to a large extent) another global financial meltdown. Yes, it means more regulations. Everytime thr govt moves to stop oor, illegal operations by businesses,t means more regulations. Sorry, but the devil made them do it. What, do want them to just ignore it? If they did, they'd be voted out of office (if there were any office left to hold, that is).
Melonie
07-22-2010, 03:17 PM
You seem to be the big corporation lobbyist of SW. That's why I asked about your motivations, since it seems I always am given the runaround when I try to figure it out by asking questions.
(ahem, tap, tap, tap )
Actually, I consider most big ( international ) corporations to be as exploitive as you do. Especially so for big ( international ) corporations that are taking advantage of US federal / state taxpayers. This runs the gamut from Oil companies to Health Care ( products ) companies to 'green energy' companies to auto companies ( both Detroit and also the Japanese / Germans operating heavily subsidized US assembly plants ). And don't get me started about Wall St institutions !
But I also acknowledge the real world economics involved for these big ( international ) corporations' US operations. If the subsidies stop, the US jobs will leave. If costs of doing business in the US increase ( due to tighter regulations, new mandated benefits etc. ) the US jobs will leave. As I posted earlier, in the real world there is no way to effectively regulate these big ( international ) corporations because they have readily available international options. So from that real world viewpoint, as most recently evidenced by Obama's drilling moratorium = deep water Gulf rigs relocating to the African coast, there is a huge risk of 'unintended consequences'. In this particular case the 'unintended consequences' will be deeper trade deficits as Americans produce less domestic oil, loss of US jobs related to the ex-Gulf deep water rig operations, loss of associated tax revenues and federal / state oil royalty income, higher US gasoline / diesel / heating oil prices etc.
The Financial Regulations were necessary to prevent (to a large extent) poor behavior of several large and some medium sized financial institutions that forgot about what risk meant
Arguably, they KNEW that their buddy TurboTax Tim would have their back with US taxpayer money !!! Thus their real world risk was actually fairly low !!!
What FinReg is likely to do is force the Wall St institutions to close their prop trading / derivatives / commodity trading ops in New York and instead open prop trading / derivatives / commodity trading ops in Hong Kong, Geneva etc. As such, the US loses associated tax revenues ( both on ex-NY employee incomes but also on tax deferred 'foreign' earnings), associated New York jobs, etc. while on a global basis the Wall St institutions transplant the very same prop trading / derivatives / commodity trading risks to the books of their Hong Kong or Geneva divisions. In real world terms, these institutions aren't really any better 'insulated' from black swan stock market / derivatives / commodity losses trashing their global balance sheet ... but US politicians, US media, and apparently yourself 'think' they are.
And the very same 'unintended consequences' will result in higher costs of doing business for US farmers, US corporations that export, even US fed / state / local gov'ts, US airlines etc. who must now all pay higher 'prices' to hedge their future cost risk on fuels / ag commodities / currency exchange rates etc. This will also eventually result in higher prices for everything from bread to airline tickets to property taxes.
threlayer
07-28-2010, 10:55 PM
It is not that other countries are not up on these tactics that almost put the world thru a global depression. I have a bit of faith that most other countries will no longer put up with these risky shenanigans. Still I have to wonder how long it will take before these scheisters find some even more risky loopholes and start this idiocy all over again. They are so highhanded and oblivious to what they have done to all of us. Some jail time needs to be divvied out; that's the only thing that will stop these 'near-criminal' activities.
We have passed retroactive tax laws; why not pass some retroactive swindling laws too?
Melonie
07-29-2010, 08:49 AM
^^^ because, ultimately, it's impossible to extradite rich financial 'criminals' from their havens in Monaco, Hong Kong, Lichtenstein, the Cayman Islands etc. !!!
threlayer
07-31-2010, 09:20 PM
^^ Oh, I wouldn't exactly say that.....
eagle2
08-01-2010, 12:29 PM
Mel - You and I will have to content ourselves with the knowledge that history has proven to be on our side.
No it hasn't. The massive tax cuts advocated by conservatives has burdened us with over $10 trillion in debt and an infrastructure falling apart. If you're going to try to blame the deficits on government spending, we also had significant government spending in the 1960's, but we didn't run up trillions of dollars of debt.
Survey after survey shows that self-described "Conservatives" describe themselves as "happy" and "content' far more than "Liberals".
Survey after survey shows liberal countries are happier than the US.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html
Conservatives donate far more to charity than Liberals. Did anyone bother to check out the pittance that Biden donated last year ? A few hiundred bucks. I donated more to charity than he did on a LOWER income ! Or the Obamas ?
How about Bill Gates and Warren Buffett?
Academia and the media are both dominated by Liberals and Keynesians. Wall Street overwhelmingly supported Obama. They also heavily donate to Chuck U Schumer although God only knows why.
One reason Obama and the Dems are desperately trying to paint the Tea Party folks as racists is because they are scared to death of what might happen in November.
I haven't heard Obama try to paint the Tea Party folks as racists, although many of them are. Less than half of all whites who strongly approve of the Tea Party Movement think blacks are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/new-data-on-tea-party-sympathizers.html
No system has eliminated more poverty and created more wealth than capitalism. Here's the clincher : Name one prominent capitalist ; any well known free market advocate who saw the light and converted to socialism ? I can name a dozen former Libs and Socialists who became advocates for free markets and capitalism. Including the current president of Brazil. Compare the Brazilian economy to that of Venezuela or Cuba. Why is there so much poverty in countries headed by lefties ?
Government regulated capitalism with safety-nets for the poor and government intervention to prevent extreme busts and booms has proven far more successful than the unfettered capitalism that many on the right advocate.
Taking the long way back to the original subject : History shows that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. When I was on Unemployment, I turned down a job because I didn't think it paid enough. When my Unemployment ran out I was very grateful indeed to get a second chance and grab the very same job a few months later. Unemployment has become nothing more than a new welfare program.
We had unemployment benefits in the 1990's, but that didn't stop the unemployment rate from dramatically falling.
Eric Stoner
08-01-2010, 03:35 PM
No it hasn't. The massive tax cuts advocated by conservatives has burdened us with over $10 trillion in debt and an infrastructure falling apart. If you're going to try to blame the deficits on government spending, we also had significant government spending in the 1960's, but we didn't run up trillions of dollars of debt.
Survey after survey shows liberal countries are happier than the US.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html
How about Bill Gates and Warren Buffett?
I haven't heard Obama try to paint the Tea Party folks as racists, although many of them are. Less than half of all whites who strongly approve of the Tea Party Movement think blacks are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/new-data-on-tea-party-sympathizers.html
Government regulated capitalism with safety-nets for the poor and government intervention to prevent extreme busts and booms has proven far more successful than the unfettered capitalism that many on the right advocate.
We had unemployment benefits in the 1990's, but that didn't stop the unemployment rate from dramatically falling.
Your "tax cuts cause deficits" theory has been thoroughly debunked. Over and over again.
I'm not talking about OTHER countries. That's the problem with radical Libs. They look at some aspects of SOME European social democracies ( Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands et. al.) ignore their problems and advocate importing and imposing their system here. In the U.S. Conservatives report being much happier than Liberals in survey after survey. Please point to a U.S. survey that says different.
What about em ? Neither is all that "liberal"and I wasn't talking about them anyway. I was talking about hypocritical creeps like Biden, John Kerry, Charlie Rangel, Barney Fwank ( who threw a hissy fit when he didn't get his Senior Discount on the Fire Island Ferry lol ) who are rich but do NOT donate very much to charity.
I do NOT advocate unfettered, unregulated capitalism. Why not answer MY question : Name one prominent Free Market conservative who has gone Lib ? Why is the Brazilian economy so much more successful than Venezuela's or Cuba's ? Why have India and China been so successful after being poverty stricken for so many decades in the 20th Century ? It wasn't socialism. It was CAPITALISM.
Maybe you need to read and listen more. Obama ( through Gibbs and his other proxies ) and the lamestream media have done nothing but try to paint the Tea Party as a bunch of racists. Just today, Chris "Macaca " Matthews did a hatchet job on the Republican Class of '94 highlighting a few loopy statements from a few Republicans who got elected that year. When has he EVER done likewise to the Dems ? Why not a word about Charlie Rangel's troubles or those of my personal favorite , the lovely and talented Maxine Waters ? Both dominated the news all week but not a peep on his Sunday show ?
We did NOT have anything more than the standard Unemployment Benfits through most of the '90's. We did not have extended Unemployment then as we do now.
eagle2
08-02-2010, 12:07 PM
Your "tax cuts cause deficits" theory has been thoroughly debunked. Over and over again.
No it hasn't. Just because you say it was doesn't make it so. Pretty much every mainstream economist I've seen comment on this, says it is. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, concluded they do. Even Alan Greenspan has concluded that the tax cuts caused deficits and has called for allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire.
I'm not talking about OTHER countries. That's the problem with radical Libs. They look at some aspects of SOME European social democracies ( Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands et. al.) ignore their problems and advocate importing and imposing their system here. In the U.S. Conservatives report being much happier than Liberals in survey after survey. Please point to U.S. survey that says different.
I don't what this has to do with whose policies are better.
What about em ? Neither is all that "liberal"and I wasn't talking about them anyway. I was talking about hypocritical creeps like Biden, John Kerry, Charlie Rangel, Barney Fwank ( who threw a hissy fit when he didn't get his Senior Discount on the Fire Island Ferry lol ) who are rich but do NOT donate very much to charity.
Warren Buffet was one of Obama's advisers during the campaign.
I do NOT advocate unfettered, unregulated capitalism. Why not answer MY question : Name one prominent Free Market conservative who has gone Lib ? Why is the Brazilian economy so much more successful than Venezuela's or Cuba's ? Why have India and china been so successful after being poverty stricken for so many decades in the 20th Century ? It wasn't socialism. It was CAPITALISM.
Many conservatives do advocate unfettered, unregulated capitalism.
I do not advocate socialism. I'm in favor of private ownership of businesses.
We did NOT have anything more than the standard Unemployment Benfits through most of the '90's. We did not have extended Unemployment then as we do now.
George H. W. Bush extended unemployment benefits, after first vetoing them, but it did not prevent the unemployment rate from going down.
Eric Stoner
08-03-2010, 11:50 AM
No it hasn't. Just because you say it was doesn't make it so. Pretty much every mainstream economist I've seen comment on this, says it is. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, concluded they do. Even Alan Greenspan has concluded that the tax cuts caused deficits and has called for allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire.
I don't what this has to do with whose policies are better.
Warren Buffet was one of Obama's advisers during the campaign.
Many conservatives do advocate unfettered, unregulated capitalism.
I do not advocate socialism. I'm in favor of private ownership of businesses.
George H. W. Bush extended unemployment benefits, after first vetoing them, but it did not prevent the unemployment rate from going down.
That is because Obama and the Dems have put us in a terrible quandary. He inherited about a $400 billion dollar deficit from Bush and has run it up to $1.3 trillion. You're partially right about Stockman and Greenspan. Both favor tax cuts but oppose paying for them with borrowed money.
If the tax increases go through, and they almost certainly will, we will see some reduction in the deficiit coupled with a reduction in economic growth. I have repeatedly argued for a three pronged approach for getting us out of the deficit mess. We can't just tax our way out of it; we can't just cut our way out of it and we can't just grow out of it. Thus we have to do all three. We need to increase revenue COLLECTION, especially revenue collection from the highest earners AND those with the most wealth ( they are NOT always the same people ). The BEST way to do that is with a flat tax of about 25% after a reasonable exemption and NO DEDUCTIONS and NO CREDITS coupled with elimination of perpetual trusts that shelter trillions in wealth from ever being taxed.( Btw, a LOT of big name Dems and Dem supporters benefit directly from such trusts. Ted Kennedy did; Theresa Kerry does. So does Leona Helmsley's dog.) Such a tax system would generate tremendous growth. Add in spending restraint including Entitlement Reform and we would see radically reduced deficits and debt.
It always amazes me that progressives are not the strongest advocates of a flat tax. The super rich are NOT paying 25% now. Not even close. John Kerry pays about 12% in taxes on a multi-million dollar income. So does Buffet. And he's not such a fan of Obama any more.
Who are these conservatives you claim advocate unfettered, unregulated capitalism ? Sarah Palin ? Afaic she is an ignorant ditz ? Ann Coulter ? A vicious and ignorant bitch. Beck ? Hannity ? Two twerps. Larry Kudlow ? NOT AT ALL. You'd do well to watch his show, read his blog and listen to his radio show. Like me, he favors sensible regulation.
You may favor private ownership but that can be and is meaningless if government is making all the decisions about what to buy, what to make and how to do it. Which is what they have a lot of in Europe and what Obamanomics is all about. Socialism also has a lot to do with the size of and role of government. Since 2008, tax revenues were declining at the Federal, state and local level. Yet government hiring was increasing. It still is. And that's just one small piece of the puzzle.
Eric Stoner
09-22-2010, 12:14 PM
In the 'best of times' FNM and FRE were 'gov't sponsored entities', with implied US taxpayer backing giving them a huge competitive advantage and with the US congress enjoying a 'quid pro quo' relationship with FNM and FRE execs ( look up campaign contributions by FNM and FRE, Maxine Waters, Franklin Raines etc. ) Today the implied US taxpayer guarantee is no longer implied it is 100% literal - and is likely to cost US taxpayers trillions of dollars before all is said and done.
Technically speaking, GM 'paid back' one TARP loan with money it received from a different gov't subsidy program ! See the separate thread on this very topic.
If I am showing disdain for certain workers, it is because those particular subgroups of workers are 'exploiting' US taxpayers ... most of whom work far harder but earn far less. Check older threads and you'll find my disdain was focused towards union auto workers ( who benefit from taxpayer bailout money ), union tire workers ( who benefit from a new imported tire tariff ), union gov't workers, union oil spill cleanup ships' workers ( who benefit from the Jones Act ) etc. And it just so happens that Bloomberg has posted a new example of how outrageously UN-level the gov't workers' playing field has become ...
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIUufpQqazW4
(snip)"It was the first council meeting since the Los Angeles Times reported July 15 that Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 -- with annual 12 percent raises -- and that Bell pays its police chief $457,000, more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck makes in a city of 3.8 million people. Bell council members earn almost $100,000 for part-time work. "(snip)
(snip)"“It seems obscene to me,” De La Torre said in a telephone interview. “People making $30,000 a year are paying taxes so that their council members can make $80,000.”
Adams, Bell’s police chief, said in an interview after the council meeting that he had retired as chief of police in the much larger city of Glendale, California, when Bell officials approached him.
“I told them they would have to pay me what I was making in retirement and the $165,000 I would make as chief of police,” Adams said."(snip)
The Mayor, former City Manager and several Council members of Bell were just arrested on corruption charges. The Police Chief was not.
Deogol
09-22-2010, 12:25 PM
The Mayor, former City Manager and several Council members of Bell were just arrested on corruption charges. The Police Chief was not.
They used a battery ram to get into the mayor's house LOL!
There is plenty of waste and corruption in government to focus on.
Melonie
09-22-2010, 01:55 PM
^^^ unfortunately, in the real world, for every blatantly corrupt politician that is illegally helping themselves to 'other people's money' and getting caught in the act, there are probably 1000 more that are also illegally helping themselves to 'other people's money' and NOT getting caught. And for better or worse, in the absence of a focused media hue and cry, the gov'ts idea of dealing with this problem is to increase tax collections of 'other people's money' so that the illegal diversions of funds don't make budget deficits any deeper !
flickad
10-11-2010, 09:24 AM
No desire to look for work? In case they hadn't noticed, there's a recession out there in the USA. There's very little work to be had. And from what I've read, many if not most of these people hunt for work every day.
Kellydancer
10-11-2010, 11:55 AM
No desire to look for work? In case they hadn't noticed, there's a recession out there in the USA. There's very little work to be had. And from what I've read, many if not most of these people hunt for work every day.
Yes but try telling these hard right conservatives this. I've actually had people tell me I must be lazy and to "take anything" or "hey McDonalds is hiring". First off I apply to EVERYTHING and this includes jobs I am qualified for, overqualified and slightly underqualified for. I never get calls for jobs I am vastly overqualified for, but do jobs I am slightly underqualified for. As for the take anything idea, many people don't realize that these companies don't want professionals because they now they'll leave as soon as something better comes along. Also, many of these companies aren't hiring as much as before. Even McDonalds has a sign stating "we are not hiring". In my case eventually I'll be fine because I do have many skills. I shudder to think of those who are getting too old or are only skilled in a field that's being outsourced.
This is why I don't get these people who think there are jobs out there, there are not. Of course these are the same people who have no problem with outsourcing because "employees are paid too much" and no problem giving rich people tax breaks for no reason. If these tax breaks were for companies to create more jobs, I'd be for that. Giving rich people tax breaks just to give breaks, what's the purpose in that? I know someone will say because they spend more, but exactly how does that help anyone except companies selling what they buy? Then by that logic we should give all people tax breaks so they will spend more on items needed like clothing and food. Not all rich people create jobs, so why should we be rewarding them, especially those who are rich because of their ancestors. We certainly shouldn't be rewarding companies that sent jobs overseas but that's exactly what we are doing.
Congress could have fixed the outsourcing problem but they voted against it, including 5 Democratic senators (and buttboy Lieberman who's worse than a Republican). This would have given companies tax breaks to keep jobs here yet these traitorous senators voted against the American people. I think every single one of these senators should be convicted of treason because that's what they are.
Melonie
10-12-2010, 08:20 AM
^^^ well, there is also a flip side to this. Just because a particular city or state has very bad opportunities for employment, this does NOT mean that other cities and other states may not have far better employment opportunities available. In the 1930's this difference between state economies motivated millions of people to move to where work WAS available ! Of course they had the additional motivation that if they did NOT relocate, and if they simply continued to search in vain for local jobs that didn't exist, there was a very real risk that they would be facing soup kitchens and foreclosure / eviction. However, today, extended unemployment benefits plus generous social welfare benefits plus foreclosure moratoriums make it much easier for a long term unemployed person to 'comfortably' remain in an economically devastated area while continuing a futile search for 'acceptable' employment.
Kellydancer
10-12-2010, 11:56 AM
^^^ well, there is also a flip side to this. Just because a particular city or state has very bad opportunities for employment, this does NOT mean that other cities and other states may not have far better employment opportunities available. In the 1930's this difference between state economies motivated millions of people to move to where work WAS available ! Of course they had the additional motivation that if they did NOT relocate, and if they simply continued to search in vain for local jobs that didn't exist, there was a very real risk that they would be facing soup kitchens and foreclosure / eviction. However, today, extended unemployment benefits plus generous social welfare benefits plus foreclosure moratoriums make it much easier for a long term unemployed person to 'comfortably' remain in an economically devastated area while continuing a futile search for 'acceptable' employment.
The percentage of people who decide to remain on unemployment is very low. Everyone I know getting unemployment wants to work again. I'm not getting unemployment anymore, I'm living off my savings. Sure I could move (and have checked into it) but I haven't seen jobs in other states that are what I'm looking for. Even if I did I'd have to pay to go there and that I can't afford. Since I do live very close to another state (Indiana) I apply there too.
Zinaida
10-12-2010, 12:34 PM
^^^Maybe you need to get into something else then.
Deogol
10-12-2010, 05:22 PM
^^^Maybe you need to get into something else then.
Have any suggestions?
Zinaida
10-12-2010, 06:41 PM
For her? Hooking.