Friendly Star Trek Discussions Mon Dec 09, 2024 8:01 am  
  SearchSearch   FAQFAQ   Log inLog in   
Obama's First Day
View: previous topic :: next topic

stv-archives.com Forum Index -> World News This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.   This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.
Author Message
Arellia
The Quiet One


Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX

PostThu Jan 22, 2009 2:44 pm    Obama's First Day

Obama was certainly busy on his first day in office...

Quote:
WASHINGTON � In a first-day whirlwind, President Barack Obama showcased efforts to revive the economy on Wednesday, summoned top military officials to the White House to chart a new course in Iraq and eased into the daunting thicket of Middle East diplomacy. "What an opportunity we have to change this country," said the 47-year-old chief executive, who also issued new ethics rules for his administration and hosted a reception at the presidential mansion for 200 inauguration volunteers and guests selected by an Internet lottery.
...
If some of the furnishings remained in place, there was no doubt that the new president meant to fulfill his campaign promise of change.

"As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any ... other administration in history," Obama told reporters as he signed the new rules. The restrictions included a ban on gifts by lobbyists to anyone serving in the administration.

He also imposed a pay freeze for about 100 White House aides who earn $100,000 or more. Its implementation was unclear, since none of them was on the payroll before Tuesday's noontime inauguration.


- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_day_one


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

PostThu Jan 22, 2009 6:15 pm    

And today as well.

A piece I wrote for school on the historic inauguration:

Quote:
To all Americans: With Obama, it�s time to take pride

�I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!� � Martin Luther King, Jr.

I did not vote for Barack Obama. I do not agree with his politics, his philosophy or his accomplishments. And yet, on January 20, 2009, that fateful day on which he took the oath of office to become President of the United States, I felt a sense of pride. I felt a sense of unity. I even felt excitement.

As far as I was concerned, it was a day to rejoice and be proud, for a task thought improbable�dare, even impossible�had been accomplished. Martin Luther King, Jr.�s righteous dream had seemingly been fulfilled.

Watching the invocation given by pastor Rick Warren, I found myself overcome by goosebumps. Two million people took to the Washington Mall that day�the largest crowd standing on that mall in U.S. history. Two million people�black, white, red, blue, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Christian�left work, joined with their kids and skipped school just to get a glimpse of history in the making. Two million people�to see a black man inaugurated as President of the United States. And millions upon millions more, across the globe, on television and the Internet, flooding online streams with such unprecedented demand.

Now, I am the first to admit that I am a young white man, born in the late 20th Century, who comes from a sturdy, middle class home with two loving parents and opportunities that many can only dream of having. I do not pretend to know or to understand the suffering that African-Americans have endured throughout the history of this nation, representing the darkest mark on the founding of this great country.

I do not claim to have experienced hatred on par with that of the likes of Dr. King, and I recognize that, as a white man, I cannot feel the same profound sense of pride and joy and exhilaration and disbelief that those of color feel at this moment in history.

The day after Obama�s historic victory, Sociology professor ****** ****** said something powerful to me. �When I think about and I see a person who is 83-years-old crying because she never thought she would ever see a black person as President of this country, I know how important it is that a black man became President.�

I realize that I can only begin to understand such feelings. And yet, that day I experienced not sadness or anger or fear. I did not feel frustrated or concerned about the future of this country in the hands of a President I feel is ill-equipped to lead it. Rather, I experienced a sense of hope and faith�not in Obama or the Democratic Congress, that �change will come,� but rather hope and faith in America, in its people.

To know that little more than 40 years ago, a black man could only be found in the White House wait staff; that just 7 years ago we were attacked by Islamic terrorists headed by a man whose first name bears a striking resemblance to our new President�s last; that just 5 years ago we entered into a war against a man whose last name is that of our President�s middle�and yet, to see now this man, Barack Hussein Obama, now residing in the White House...it seems almost unbelievable.

�When I heard Reverend Lowrey at the end, he began his prayer with �lift every voice and sing,� [and] I just felt so emotional. You know the thought that that guy, Joe Lowrey (87), oh my God, he is the real deal,� NPR correspondant Juan Williams, a black American, said on Fox News, breaking down as he spoke of Civil Rights leader, the Reverend Joe Lowrey, who provided the benediction.

�There are other people who might say that they were there with Dr. King, and suffered the indignities, but Joe Lowrey really did. And for Joe Lowrey today to see that black boy become President of the United States, I can�t tell you. There are some times in your life where you just think, �What a country. How can it be? I never thought that that would happen.��

Former President George W. Bush once said, �I�m optimistic about America because I believe in the people of America.�

It seems to me, in light of this historic achievement that we have met as a nation, that that optimism was well-placed.

But now that the curtains have folded back, and the history has soaked in, we must recognize that he is not just America�s first black President�he is America�s President. In truth, his skin color is irrelevant; the history he has made, immaterial. It�s time now to look at the person and the policies. We must judge the President not on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character�on the substance of his ideas.

And so, with pride in our nation�s accomplishment, we shall.



-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Puck
The Texan


Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596

PostThu Jan 22, 2009 9:52 pm    

I will judge him on his actions. So all I can say at the moment is...so far, so good.

[Edit]
Never mind.


Last edited by Puck on Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:44 am; edited 1 time in total


View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Kyle Reese
Cadet Gunnery Sergeant


Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Posts: 5672
Location: The United States of America

PostSun Jan 25, 2009 6:43 pm    

Heh, since apparently Obama hasn't ordered a halt to CIA missile strikes on AQ targets in Pakistan's NWFP, I don't have much to complain about thus far.

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Arellia
The Quiet One


Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX

PostSun Jan 25, 2009 10:03 pm    

... I don't know if you remember, but people got really, really mad at Obama because he proposed striking Al Qaeda in Pakistan when Pakistan refuses to do so. It was a big deal.

View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
Kyle Reese
Cadet Gunnery Sergeant


Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Posts: 5672
Location: The United States of America

PostSun Jan 25, 2009 11:02 pm    

Indeed I remember. He talked about using military force to pursue terrorists into Pakistan. This is the CIA, very big difference. Not only are CIA strikes more precise, but they are also less risky and operate independently, leaving the US military blameless for these strikes.

So, to simply say "strike al Qaeda in Pakistan" leaves open the question as to whether or not you're referring to military force or leaving it to the CIA. As long as Obama allows the CIA to continue its operations, you won't hear any protest from me.

Also, I wasn't one of the ones who was angry with Obama over those remarks because after he spends some time in the White House and gains experience as Commander in Chief, he'll understand why those remarks made him look foolish. I've never really believed Obama would authorize an actual military offensive into Waziristan to hunt down terrorists.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade


Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

PostFri Jan 30, 2009 9:10 pm    

Republican_Man wrote:
But now that the curtains have folded back, and the history has soaked in, we must recognize that he is not just America�s first black President�he is America�s President. In truth, his skin color is irrelevant; the history he has made, immaterial. It�s time now to look at the person and the policies. We must judge the President not on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character�on the substance of his ideas.


Thanks, but I always have.

It's why I've watched his career since Harvard. It's why I prayed he'd throw his hat in the ring. It's why I campaigned for him and it's why I voted for him.


View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed


Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York

PostSat Jan 31, 2009 1:04 am    

This whole hiring of lobbyists issue has me kind of annoyed.

Don't make this huge issue over ethics if you're just going to ignore them anyways.




-------signature-------

"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."

-Wuthering Heights

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
Puck
The Texan


Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596

PostSat Feb 07, 2009 12:04 am    

Love how Obama is trying to scare us into passing a nearly $1 trillion "stimulus deal". Such change .

(Whoop! for post number 5500)


View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

PostSat Feb 07, 2009 1:02 am    

Oh, but Puck, you have to understand. By passing this stimulus bill, then we can hope again! If we don't, of course, we're faced with "catastrophe" and hope is flushed down the toilet, but if we implement the near-perfect plan of the One, we'll see such wondrous change in this country that we'll again be able to hope! Just fall in line, Republicans, so we Americans can hope once more!

Spare me. I miss Reagan's rhetoric from his first inaugural address. Faith in the people is what we need, not faith that the government can fix all of our problems.



-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus


Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America

PostSun Feb 08, 2009 8:23 pm    

Republican_Man wrote:
Oh, but Puck, you have to understand. By passing this stimulus bill, then we can hope again! If we don't, of course, we're faced with "catastrophe" and hope is flushed down the toilet, but if we implement the near-perfect plan of the One, we'll see such wondrous change in this country that we'll again be able to hope! Just fall in line, Republicans, so we Americans can hope once more!

Spare me. I miss Reagan's rhetoric from his first inaugural address. Faith in the people is what we need, not faith that the government can fix all of our problems




AMEN



-------signature-------

Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade


Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

PostTue Feb 10, 2009 10:24 pm    

Republican_Man wrote:
Oh, but Puck, you have to understand. By passing this stimulus bill, then we can hope again! If we don't, of course, we're faced with "catastrophe" and hope is flushed down the toilet, but if we implement the near-perfect plan of the One, we'll see such wondrous change in this country that we'll again be able to hope! Just fall in line, Republicans, so we Americans can hope once more!


Talk about bloated rhetoric. Obama hasn't said that. He *has* explained the stimulus package (some of which I agree with, some I don't) in detail to the American people. He has faith in our intelligence. And he has faith that people will put aside partisan squabbles and listen.

Given your rhetoric, maybe he's got too much faith in that.

Quote:
Faith in the people is what we need, not faith that the government can fix all of our problems.


But faith in people is what we had for the last 30 years.

Greenspan had faith in people, too. That was the whole basis for trickle-down economics.

But, as he admitted, they forgot to take into account... greed.

And that's the problem with unregulated markets. People are greedy. They will find a way to scam.

And so they did.

I shudder to think where we'd be had the Republicans had their way with Social Security, privatizing it, having us put our future in the stock market.


View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Puck
The Texan


Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596

PostTue Feb 10, 2009 10:45 pm    

Well, since this topic was brought up again, it's pretty clear this presidency is not going to be any drastic change from the past. I mean, how many people have had to resign from their cabinet positions before they even took them? And now we have Obama talking out of his ass about how this stimulus bill is not loaded with pork. Are you serious? The House version is a disaster. Furthermore, I shudder to think what Daschle would have done with healthcare. Has anyone read what he thinks about health care? I have read some of it and all I can say is: Yikes! And finally, what is all this talk of creating 4 million "jobs"? I really want to see this happen. Then I want to see if these are really jobs, or if this is just people having low paying work on the short term. We can only hope that the Republicans will regain the Legislative branch soon. Leave Pelosi and her gang in charge for another 2 years, and I'm sure we will have Republicans back before you know it.

View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

PostTue Feb 10, 2009 11:54 pm    

A piece I wrote for my school paper on the fiscal stimulus package. Apologies for the phony, old, tired, and worn-out arguments and advocation for the "failed policies of yesterday." Never mind the fact that Obama himself is supporting the failed policies of yesterday.

--------------------------------------------------

America is at a crossroads. Congress, pressed by President Obama to act quickly to prevent �catastrophe,� is on the verge of spending more than $800 billion on a �fiscal stimulus package� intended to jumpstart the economy, with roughly $300 billion in tax rebate checks and $500 billion in infrastructure spending.

Hundreds of economists, however, have expressed their deep concerns about the government�s plan for dealing with the recession, and a review of the effectiveness of such policies as those proposed reveals the folly of tax rebates and government spending as fiscal stimulus.

1. Tax rebates do not boost consumer spending. According to economist Martin Feldstein, CEO of the National Bureau of Economic Research, when tax rebates went out as economic stimulus last spring, only around 16% of the checks were actually spent, with nearly five times that amount going into savings. Most of the rebates were used to pay off loans, not to buy new products and services, and the stimulus package utterly failed to preclude the recession.

In 2001, tax rates were reduced and tax rebates went out to make up the difference. While the economy improved after the tax changes, evidence suggests that the rate reductions, not the rebates, did the trick. A late-2001 study conducted by economists Matthew Shapiro and Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan and NBER found that only 22% of those households receiving stimulus checks spent the money.

Furthermore, by the time the checks would be in the mail, the economy may be improving, as happened, according to Steven Weisman and Edmund Andrews of The New York Times, in the 1970s. If implemented now, the benefits of a tax rebate stimulus�a small burst in increased consumer demand�are minimal at best and will not outweigh the substantial costs.

2. Faulty policy is not worth the debt risk.
While the value of the dollar has lately gained in strength, it still has the potential to continue its recent decline. As its value goes down and creditors like China see their own GDPs shrink, creditor concerns over their holdings of U.S. bonds will rise, resulting in the likely increase in interest as they rethink their holdings. By spending $800 billion on a stimulus package that will likely have minimal effect, the U.S. government is essentially assuming even more debt, which is already at $10.7 trillion, at greater national risk.

3. Infrastructure projects will not work. Obama intends to spend around $500 billion on infrastructure projects and public works programs, including transportation projects, intended to create jobs and boost consumer confidence. Yet when Herbert Hoover and FDR tried such programs in the 1930s to tackle the Great Depression, unemployment remained in the double digits up to World War Two, averaging at 17.2%.

According to the Heritage Foundation, federal spending rose from �3.4% of GDP in 1930 to 6.9% in 1932 and reached 9.8% by 1940. That same year�10 years into the Great Depression�America�s unemployment rate stood at 14.6%.� In sum, massive increases in government spending did not result in noticeable economic improvements.

Even if infrastructure spending were to have positive effects, an early analysis of the Congressional Budget Office found that just 7% would be spent by next fall, with only 64% reaching the economy by 2011�likely after the country has entered into recovery.

4. Japan�s �lost decade.� Japan�s �lost decade� of economic growth of the 1990�s presents an excellent case study for the suggested package. Over a period of seven years, the government implemented eight different, large stimulus packages much like Obama has proposed.

According to The Wall Street Journal, during the 1990�s, the Japanese government, faced with many of the problems we are confronted with today, tried giving out loans to businesses, boosting infrastructure spending, buying bad assets off of banks and distributing tax rebates, among other Obama-esque policies.

These policies resulted in an increase in Japan�s debt-to-GDP ratio from 68.6% in 1992 to 128.3% in 1999. In essence, government spending in Japan skyrocketed in ways very similar to Obama�s proposals, yet the economy did not experience noticeable improvements until the current decade.

5. An alternative proposal. The government must instead institute wide-ranging, permanent, pro-growth tax rate cuts, starting with making the Bush tax cuts permanent and expanding them. Beginning in 2010, the Bush rate reductions on income, capital gains (investments) and the estate tax will start to dissipate. With the dire need for capital injections into the market, allowing the 15% capital gains rate to return to the 20% rate would discourage investment in the economy. Instead, the capital gains tax should at least be cut in half to 7.5%, if not temporarily expunged for all investments begun this year and kept for no less than two years, so as to incentivize greater investment.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has proposed that the 25% income tax rate be reduced to 15%, thereby �establish[ing] a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of workers.� Such targeted tax cuts would give the economy the boost it needs to create jobs and increase consumer demand and investment. We must then slice the corporate tax rate from 35%, the second-highest in the world, to 25%, the average in Europe. This would expand incentives for businesses to create jobs in America and lessen the enticement to outsource.

If the Bush tax cuts expire, taxpayers will reduce spending in anticipation of the expirations, stunting the benefits of the rebates further. Alternatively, the knowledge that tax rates will be cut and individuals will be permitted to keep more of their income will give a sense of comfort to the beneficiaries.

By cutting marginal tax rates now, the short-term effect will be a rise in consumer confidence, resulting in a boost in consumer spending. The long-term relief that came in the form of broad-based tax cuts in 2003 resulted in the largest single-quarter GDP growth in 20 years, 7.2%, and the creation of 8 million new jobs through 2007.

The president has disappointingly labeled such contentions against his plan �old,� �phony,� �worn out� and �tired.� Yet history has shown that the net benefit of such stimulus packages is minimal, and he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

A fiscal stimulus of tax rate cuts, not tax rebates or infrastructure spending, would stimulate an economic recovery by putting more money in people�s pockets long-term and increasing demand in the short-term. That is the kind of economic policy that would do America the most good.



-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Arellia
The Quiet One


Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX

PostWed Feb 11, 2009 11:27 am    

Three weeks into his administration and everyone's already decided what kind of president he is? Eh. I'm giving it at least a year before I start deciding. He came in during a crazy time in history. I want to see what actually happens.

Also, I don't have much faith in people. People aren't just going to give other people subsidized housing or unemployment when they're laid off. A person in need can't rely on other people if they go through hard times and need food stamps. They can't rely on organizations to pay college tuition when they can technically barely afford to buy food. There are charities out there, sure, but I don't know if anyone knows this; the majority of the poor do not benefit from charities. The number of the poor and enemployed is growing at this time. So yes, I believe that we do need some help from the government.

There's always the argument, "If we just give them stuff they will never want to work again!" Those are fairly poor specimens of human beings. Almost no one wants to live in subsidized housing eating on foodstamps for the rest of their lives. Those are transition measures. I have faith in people's wish to do better, and have better lives. Many of them don't even believe it's possible, because medical care is too expensive, getting into school is too expensive, and finding a good job is hard. They need to realize that help is out there.

... as for tax cuts? Wonderful. How does that help all the poor and unemployed who only get rebates at the end of the year? So big businesses can employ more people? Business growth is good, and important--it should be included, no doubt. I would not go so far as to say we could fix things on tax cuts alone. Better schools, better public safety nets, and more construction jobs will help. I think Obama's biggest angle with the infrastructure spending is to give jobs to all the home-builders (of which there are MANY) who are out of jobs right now, and perfectly suited to construction. Not to mention a lot of people who lost their jobs who probably aren't above doing construction work at this point. Infrascturcture work makes people feel like things are improving, as well, and in a lot of rural areas this kind of work wouldn't just be *nice*, it's necessary.


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade


Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

PostWed Feb 11, 2009 11:43 am    

Republican_Man wrote:
Tax rebates do not boost consumer spending.


Yet it was the president you miss who gave them to us... Did they work then and not now? No....

Quote:
3. Infrastructure projects will not work.


How do you suggest we tackle infrastructure problems? The private sector? How safe are the roads and bridges you cross every day? Whose responsibility is it to maintain them? Whose responsibility is it to build the networks to bring new technology? Private enterprise?

If so, why haven't they done anything during the boom cycle, when they were so flush with cash?

Could it be that they were too busy lining their own pockets with multi-million dollar bonuses to invest in the future?

As for your plan, a question...

Will healthcare benefits be taxable, as in McCain's plan?

Under McCain's proposed plan, my taxes would increase. Yes, increase. $1K a year. I make less than $100K. As a single person with no dependents, I'm paying a higher percentage of my income in taxes than most.

The money has to come from somewhere. You want to cut taxes on the rich. So where does the money come from? The middle class?


View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

PostWed Feb 11, 2009 8:31 pm    

beansidhe wrote:
Republican_Man wrote:
Tax rebates do not boost consumer spending.


Yet it was the president you miss who gave them to us... Did they work then and not now? No....

That was one of Bush's many fiscal socialist mistakes. No, they didn't work, just as I said in my article. Bush, like Obama now, tried a scheme that was intended to redistribute wealth to boost the economy. Nope, failed. Just because I miss Bush the man doesn't mean I miss his fiscal socialist policies.

Quote:
3. Infrastructure projects will not work.


How do you suggest we tackle infrastructure problems? The private sector? How safe are the roads and bridges you cross every day? Whose responsibility is it to maintain them? Whose responsibility is it to build the networks to bring new technology? Private enterprise?

If so, why haven't they done anything during the boom cycle, when they were so flush with cash?

Could it be that they were too busy lining their own pockets with multi-million dollar bonuses to invest in the future?

As for your plan, a question...

Will healthcare benefits be taxable, as in McCain's plan?

Under McCain's proposed plan, my taxes would increase. Yes, increase. $1K a year. I make less than $100K. As a single person with no dependents, I'm paying a higher percentage of my income in taxes than most.

The money has to come from somewhere. You want to cut taxes on the rich. So where does the money come from? The middle class?


Put my statement about infrastructure into context, man. I was talking about it as economic stimulus, not as ways to boost infrastructure generally. That's a separate debate from this.

As to healthcare, you need to do a little research into McCain's plan. It's a fallacy that his plan (which I was not fully behind, btw) would have raised taxes. What McCain's plan would have done was adjust the tax exemption for businesses and instead give it to every American in the form of a tax credit. But I don't want to hash out McCain policies. I never liked the guy anyway.

As to your statement that I want to "cut taxes on the rich," that's true that I do, but would you read my entire article where I proposed a huge middle class tax cut? I'll quote for you:

Quote:
The government must instead institute wide-ranging, permanent, pro-growth tax rate cuts, starting with making the Bush tax cuts permanent and expanding them. Beginning in 2010, the Bush rate reductions on income, capital gains (investments) and the estate tax will start to dissipate. With the dire need for capital injections into the market, allowing the 15% capital gains rate to return to the 20% rate would discourage investment in the economy. Instead, the capital gains tax should at least be cut in half to 7.5%, if not temporarily expunged for all investments begun this year and kept for no less than two years, so as to incentivize greater investment.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has proposed that the 25% income tax rate be reduced to 15%, thereby �establish[ing] a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of workers.� Such targeted tax cuts would give the economy the boost it needs to create jobs and increase consumer demand and investment. We must then slice the corporate tax rate from 35%, the second-highest in the world, to 25%, the average in Europe. This would expand incentives for businesses to create jobs in America and lessen the enticement to outsource.

If the Bush tax cuts expire, taxpayers will reduce spending in anticipation of the expirations, stunting the benefits of the rebates further. Alternatively, the knowledge that tax rates will be cut and individuals will be permitted to keep more of their income will give a sense of comfort to the beneficiaries.

By cutting marginal tax rates now, the short-term effect will be a rise in consumer confidence, resulting in a boost in consumer spending. The long-term relief that came in the form of broad-based tax cuts in 2003 resulted in the largest single-quarter GDP growth in 20 years, 7.2%, and the creation of 8 million new jobs through 2007.


Clearly you did not read my article, sir, and just skimmed the headlines.

- I addressed Bush's failed stimulus attempt
- I talked about infrastructure in the context of economic stimulus (using the Great Depression and Japan's Lost Decade as points of reference)
- I proposed middle class tax cuts so that 90% of Americans - the bottom 90% - have to pay no more than 15% in taxes.

Next time please read before you criticize.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade


Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

PostWed Feb 11, 2009 10:09 pm    

Republican_Man wrote:
That was one of Bush's many fiscal socialist mistakes. No, they didn't work, just as I said in my article. Bush, like Obama now, tried a scheme that was intended to redistribute wealth to boost the economy. Nope, failed. Just because I miss Bush the man doesn't mean I miss his fiscal socialist policies.


Well, since the final product that Congress agreed on this afternoon is giving the cut to us in our paychecks, I call that a tax cut, not a rebate.


Quote:
Put my statement about infrastructure into context, man.


I'm a woman.

Quote:
As to healthcare, you need to do a little research into McCain's plan. It's a fallacy that his plan (which I was not fully behind, btw) would have raised taxes. What McCain's plan would have done was adjust the tax exemption for businesses and instead give it to every American in the form of a tax credit. But I don't want to hash out McCain policies. I never liked the guy anyway.


As a healthcare analyst for one of the country's top teaching hospitals, I'm very well aware of what the candidates' health care plans were. You apparently missed the part about insurance as an employment benefit being taxable.



Quote:
As to your statement that I want to "cut taxes on the rich," that's true that I do, but would you read my entire article where I proposed a huge middle class tax cut?


Maybe you need to define what "middle class" means to you.

Quote:
If the Bush tax cuts expire, taxpayers will reduce spending in anticipation of the expirations, stunting the benefits of the rebates further.


People have already reduced spending.

Quote:
Alternatively, the knowledge that tax rates will be cut and individuals will be permitted to keep more of their income will give a sense of comfort to the beneficiaries.


Frankly, I'd just like to have my 401K back. I'd love to know that I can retire and start my business and put Americans to work.

But I can't. Because those guys that you say shouldn't be regulated, ran the economy into a ditch.

Quote:
Clearly you did not read my article, sir, and just skimmed the headlines.


I read it. I disagree with much of it.

That does not deserve the condescension in this statement.

And, again, I am a woman. Beansidhe = woman + fairy folk.

"Bean" is woman in Irish.

You have a lovely day.


View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Ntypical
Lieutenant


Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina

PostSun Mar 15, 2009 6:57 pm    

Thus far it has gone pretty much as I have expected.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/

Quote:
Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.


Yup, sure does look like he supports our military.

52 days in office, and 52 mistakes.


1. A do-over on the oath of office.

2. Tim Geithner.

3. Bill Richardson.

4. Tom Daschle.

5. Eric �Nation of Cowards� Holder.

6. Leon Panetta.

7. Arne �Cappuccino� Duncan.

8. Hilda Solis (OK, her husband has the tax liens).

9. Nancy Killefer.

10. Charles Freeman Jr.

11. Ron Kirk.

12. Adolfo Carrion.

13. Banning offshore oil again.

14. Letting Nancy Pelosi write the $787 billion �stimulus� plan.

15. Relying on Tim Geithner to explain it.

16. It is a $13-a-week stimulus, or as his wife said of Bush�s plan: �You�re getting $600. What can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn�t pay down every bill every month.�

17. Going to a press conference without a TelePrompTer. I� Uhh� Umm� Could you repeat the question?

18. Using a TelePrompTer at a press conference. Big boys don�t need training wheels.

19. �Good evening, everybody. Please be seated. Before I take your questions tonight, I�d like to speak briefly.� 1,228 words later he took his first question.

20. Going after Rush Limbaugh.

21. Going after Rick Santelli.

22. Going after Jim Cramer.

23. �Never waste a good crisis.�

24. Obama supporter Warren Buffett: �I don�t think anybody on December 7th would have said a �war is a terrible thing to waste, and therefore we�re going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things and � but we expect to � expect the other party to unite behind us on the � on the big problem.� It�s just a mistake, I think.�

25. Writing a love letter to Vlad and Dmitry.

26. Putting Poland under the bus.

27. Putting Tibet under the bus.

28. Putting Israel under the bus.

29. Taking Cuba out from under the bus.

30. Having his tax cheat go after the tax cheats in Switzerland. Cognitive dissonance.

31. �Karzai has a bunker mentality.�

32. Iran has plans to Marine One helicopters.

33. �I won.�

34. BlackBerry singing in the middle of the night/ Take these golden secrets and learn to fly�

35. Obama: �If Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off.� CEO: No. There will be more layoffs.

36. DVDs to Gordon Brown.

37. �You can�t take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers� dime.� Vegas convention bookings nosedive.

38. Wagyu.

39. Reset/overcharge button given to Russia.

40. Taking a 4-day holiday weekend before signing �emergency� legislation.

41. �I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn�t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn�t on my watch. And it wasn�t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement � the prescription drug plan � without a source of funding. And so I think it�s important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we�ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word �socialist� around can�t say the same.�

42. Stiffing Chicago for nearly $2 million for that Election Night par-tay.

43. Caroline Kennedy.

44. Bombing Pakistan.

45. Sending the bust of Sir Winston Churchill back to the British.

46. Saying: �President Obama has accomplished more in 30 days than any president in modern history.�

47. A window is not a door.

48. Doctors must perform abortions.

49. Signing earmarks while denouncing them.

50. Adding signing statements while denouncing them.

51. Quadrupling the deficits, while denouncing them.

52. Missing the Gridiron Club dinner.


He has had the worst market welcome since we started keeping electronic files.

This is going to be a rough 4 years.


View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger  
Reply with quote Back to top
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus


Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America

PostMon Mar 16, 2009 9:54 am    

Ntypical wrote:
Thus far it has gone pretty much as I have expected.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/

Quote:
Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.


Yup, sure does look like he supports our military.





That would just about, if not totally, do in my grandparents. Both in their 80's with no way to supplement their income, and their private insurance already maxed trying to take care of my grandmother, and now my grandfather would be required to take care of himself... This pisses me off on a very personal level.



-------signature-------

Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Ntypical
Lieutenant


Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina

PostMon Mar 16, 2009 10:32 am    

Theresa wrote:
Ntypical wrote:
Thus far it has gone pretty much as I have expected.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/

Quote:
Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.


Yup, sure does look like he supports our military.





That would just about, if not totally, do in my grandparents. Both in their 80's with no way to supplement their income, and their private insurance already maxed trying to take care of my grandmother, and now my grandfather would be required to take care of himself... This pisses me off on a very personal level.


I would be ok so long as this new job holds out. But with the way the dems are attacking the oil and gas industry I would probably be boned.

I really hope he does good things for the Country, but if you are able to read through the rhetoric from the campaign trail, and look at what he is actually doing now that he is in the White House, then you would be able to see that it is not good for the America I fought to defend.

Near a trillion dollar "StimuLESS" package where 80 some cents out of every dollar go to pet projects that can not and will not help the economy, negotiating with terrorists, wanting to screw over vets, Cutting funding to school programs that help inner city kids in DC, taxes, etc ad nauseum. Yeah, I have a pretty good idea of what kind of presidency it is going to be.

But hopefully it energizes the conservative base, and pushes forward a real leader.


View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger  
Reply with quote Back to top
beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade


Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

PostMon Mar 16, 2009 1:13 pm    

Theresa wrote:
Ntypical wrote:
Thus far it has gone pretty much as I have expected.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/

Quote:
Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.


Yup, sure does look like he supports our military.





That would just about, if not totally, do in my grandparents. Both in their 80's with no way to supplement their income, and their private insurance already maxed trying to take care of my grandmother, and now my grandfather would be required to take care of himself... This pisses me off on a very personal level.


Just like Bush's plan to privatize social security pissed me off on a very personal level... and you said it was a terrific!!!!! thing.

Do you still feel we'd be better off if *every* American had their retirement in the stock market as Pres. Bush wanted to do? Where would be be--and that includes your grandparents--today?

This idea re: veteran's medical care isn't going to happen. It's a non-starter out of the gate.


View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Ntypical
Lieutenant


Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina

PostMon Mar 16, 2009 2:21 pm    

Why do supporters always come back this way instead of attempting to solidify why they believe the same old failed policies will work this time?

View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger  
Reply with quote Back to top
Kathryn_Janeway218
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 252
Location: Battlestar Arc Angel (CO)

PostMon Mar 16, 2009 3:11 pm    

I could hear obama's inaguration ceremony from my house XD

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade


Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

PostMon Mar 16, 2009 3:18 pm    

Ntypical wrote:
Why do supporters always come back this way instead of attempting to solidify why they believe the same old failed policies will work this time?


Because...

Having service-related injuries and sequelae covered by private insurance *isn't* the "same old failed policy." It's a new idea, and as I said...

It's a non-starter out the gate.

What it does, though, is encourage Americans to seriously think about how we fund healthcare, and what the consequences are of the way we choose to ration it.

Further, it's just always fascinating to me how the same people who were promoting things that were also non-starters during the Bush years (e.g. privatizing Social Security) never go back and look at those ideas and say, "yeah, good thing that didn't go through--we'd be in even worse straights now."

I mean, here I am an Obama supporter, and I think this idea is a bad one.

Have any of the conservatives here ever come out against a conservative idea? Could be as I'm not here all the time, but I haven't seen it.


View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Goto Page 1, 2  Next
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.   This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.



Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com