Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 219878 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Christina Romer's True Confessions
American Thinker ^ | Sept 2, 2010 | Ed Lasky





Christina Romer, the departing chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, was at a complete loss of words when it came to explaining the state of the economy when she appeared at her valedictory lunch before her returns to her teaching sinecure at Berkley. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post comments:

She had no idea how bad the economic collapse would be. She still doesn't understand exactly why it was so bad. The response to the collapse was inadequate. And she doesn't have much of an idea about how to fix things.

What she did have was a binder full of scary descriptions and warnings, offered with a perma-smile and singsong delivery: "Terrible recession. . . . Incredibly searing. . . . Dramatically below trend. . . . Suffering terribly. . . . Risk of making high unemployment permanent. . . . Economic nightmare."

Recall, this is the expert chosen by Obama to help oversee the economy. Ms. Romer predicted that the Obama stimulus package would keep the unemployment rate at 8 percent or less; it is now 9.5 percent. We are more in debt than ever before, no matter how that debt is measured -- in absolute terms, as a percent of GDP, or as a percent of the federal budget (assuming the Democrats would be responsible enough to actually pass one before the midterms).

In the spirit of confession, she admitted Obama's team was unprepared.

When she and her colleagues began work, she acknowledged, they did not realize "how quickly and strongly the financial crisis would affect the economy." They "failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be."

Even now, Romer said, mystery persists. "To this day, economists don't fully understand why firms cut production as much as they did or why they cut labor so much more than they normally would." Her defense was that "almost all analysts were surprised by the violent reaction."

That miscalculation, in turn, led to her miscalculation that the stimulus package would be enough to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. Without the policy, she had predicted, unemployment would soar to 9.5 percent. The plan passed, and unemployment went to 10 percent.

Perhaps I, a humble economics major from Northwestern University and a holder of an MBA from the same, might offer some suggestions to why the economy is failing: anti-business rhetoric from Barack Obama and Democratic leaders; pro-union policies , ObamaCare, and rules and regulations that depress hiring; the prospects for cap and tax and anti-trade policies that put a clamp on the animal spirits that are needed to give a pulse to the economy. And let us not forget about the wide range of steep tax increases that are coming on New Year's Day 2011. Those won't help, Ms. Romer, and those are the responsibility of the administration where she held a powerful position.

Perhaps, the ideas behind Keynesian economics, so beloved by liberals because it encourages spending and sanctions big debt, have to be reconsidered.

Are we shocked that the team Obama assembled to run the economy (heralded as the best and the brightest by the courtier media) are so clueless when it comes to the real world? After all, so few of them-including Barack Obama-have any experience in the real world of business and industry.

Maybe Professor Romer will have time when she returns to her cosseted academic life to consider some of these factors that might account for the economy's troubles. Hopefully, she can teach her students better than she helped run the economy.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
120 Days to Go Until the
Largest Tax Hikes in History
From Ryan Ellis on Friday, September 3, 2010 6:00 AM


________________________ ________________________ _________________

     
In just 120 days, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect.  They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:
 

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.  These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise.  The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed).  The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.  All the rates in between will also rise.  Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.  The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%

- The 25% bracket rises to 28%

- The 28% bracket rises to 31%

- The 33% bracket rises to 36%

- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family.  The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.  The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.  The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.  The dependent care tax credit will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax.  This year, there is no death tax.  For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.  A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors.  The top capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.  The top dividends tax rate will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.  These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare.  Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011.  They include:

The Tanning Tax.  This went into effect on July 1st of this year.  It imposes a new, 10% excise tax on getting a tan at a tanning salon.  There is no exemption for tanners making less than $250,000 per year.

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike.  This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Brand Name Drug Tax.  Starting next year, there will be a multi-billion dollar tax assessment imposed on name-brand drug manufacturers.  This tax, like all excise taxes, will raise the price of medicine, hurting everyone.

Economic Substance Doctrine.  The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly-legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks “economic substance.”  This is obviously an arbitrary empowerment of IRS agents.

Employer Reporting of Health Insurance Costs on a W-2.  This will start for W-2s in the 2011 tax year.  While not a tax increase in itself, it makes it very easy for Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits later.

 

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.  The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year.  According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million.  These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level.  The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear.  Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000.  This will be cut all the way down to $25,000.  Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment.  In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses.  There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place.  The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others.  Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced.  The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available.  Tax credits for education will be limited.  Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses.  Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.  Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed.  The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Until this year, a retired person with an IRA could contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA.  This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.”  This ability will no longer be there.




Read more: http://www.atr.org/days-thebr-largest-tax-hikes-history-a5370##ixzz0yTYo4HiG

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Study: Cash For Clunkers Was A Wash
 Source: NPR


The government's "cash for clunkers" program boosted auto sales by 360,000 during the two months it was in place, according to a new study.

But in the seven months that followed, sales were down by 360,000 compared with what they would have been without the program, the study found.

The implication: The program didn't bring new buyers into the market. But it encouraged people who would have bought a car anyway to make their purchase a few months sooner.

Under the program, the government paid people about $4,000 to trade in old cars for newer, more fuel efficient ones.

Read more: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/02/129608251/cas... 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
UPDATE 2-Taxpayers likely to face initial loss on GM IPO-sources

* Treasury to sell first shares below break-even-sources

* 61 pct Treasury sale could take several years-sources

* Taxpayer break-even is around $70 bln GM market value (Adds details on government stake, GM Q2 results, pension shortfall)

By Clare Baldwin, Soyoung Kim and Kevin Krolicki

NEW YORK/DETROIT, Sept 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. government is likely to take a loss on General Motors Co [GM.UL] in the first offering of the automaker's stock, six people familiar with preparations for the landmark IPO said.

Subsequent offerings of the government's holdings may be profitable depending on how investors trade the newly listed stock, the sources said.

But the question of whether taxpayers are ultimately made whole on GM's $50 billion bailout could be left open for years, the people said.

It could take more than three years for the Treasury to sell down its remaining stake in GM after the IPO, one person said. That would push a final accounting into the next presidential term.

A decision to price the initial GM shares below the cost to taxpayers would follow the usual Wall Street practice of giving the first investors in a new stock a discount, but it could also help allay investor concern in the face of the slow recovery of the U.S. economy and flat auto sales.

Preparations for GM's IP0 remain confidential. Both GM and the U.S. Treasury have declined to comment, citing restrictions by U.S. securities regulators.

The Obama administration has pledged to exit its investment in GM as quickly as possible while holding out the prospect that taxpayers could ultimately be paid back in full.

Treasury spokesman Mark Paustenbach declined to comment. GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson also declined to comment.

GM plans to begin a roadshow for its IPO immediately after the Nov. 2 U.S. midterm congressional elections, paving the way for a stock debut on Nov. 18, sources have said. [ID:nN01172283]

GM in August filed paperwork for an IPO that could potentially be worth as much as $20 billion, making it one of the biggest IPOs of all time.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is now reviewing the automaker's S-1 filing.

Analysts and potential investors have projected a market value for GM of between $50 billion to around $90 billion, based on projections for the automaker's cash flow, comparisons with rival Ford Motor Co (F.N) and trading in bonds in the old GM which are convertible into shares in the new company.

A market value at the high end of that range would be above the roughly $70 billion in market capitalization that GM needs to achieve for the U.S. government to break even on its $43 billion remaining investment in the automaker.

But IPOs typically price at a discount of 10 percent to 15 percent to theoretical fair value to reward investors for taking a risk on a new issue and pave the way for future stock floats. In tough market conditions, that discount can be even larger.

"You have to sell people on the notion that there is an upside to what they are buying," one of the sources said.

Another of the sources said the discount could be as much as 20 percent on the GM IPO compared with the U.S. Treasury's break-even point.

Preparations for the GM stock offering remain in the early stages. A number of the sources cautioned that the size and value of the deal and the size of the stake to be sold by the U.S. government have not been determined and will not be set for weeks.

GOVERNMENT STAKE IN 'GOVERNMENT MOTORS'

The U.S. government pumped $49.5 billion worth of taxpayer money into the automaker and took nearly 61 percent of its common stock.

GM has paid back $6.7 billion in debt to the Treasury and returned another $700 million in interest and dividends. The U.S. government also holds $2.1 billion in perpetual preferred shares in the automaker.

That leaves the government with a roughly $40 billion investment in the GM common stock that will debut in an IPO along with a new class of preferred shares that will convert into common shares under a mandatory provision.

In the days leading up to GM's August S-1 filing, Republican Senator Charles Grassley asked a special Treasury Department watchdog for an analysis of the GM IPO and how much money would be returned to taxpayers.

In its pitch to potential investors, GM will tout its global reach, recent gains in quality and pricing in its home market, and its sharply lower cost of operations after its 2009 bankruptcy, sources have said.

GM's $1.3 billion second-quarter profit was its biggest since 2004, when industry-wide U.S. sales were near 17 million vehicles compared with the 11.5 million sales rate of August.

But GM will have to address investor concern that growth in industry car sales in the U.S. in the second half of 2010 and into 2011 will likely be slower than analysts had expected just a few months ago.

At the same time, GM will have to confront a pension shortfall that remains a liability from its pre-bankruptcy operations.

GM eliminated about $40 billion in unsecured debt and other obligations in bankruptcy, but the automaker still needs to address a pension shortfall estimated at about $26 billion.

A successful IPO would be a political victory for the Obama administration and would help GM distance itself from critics who dubbed it "Government Motors" after its bailout. (Reporting by Clare Baldwin and Soyoung Kim in New York and Kevin Krolicki in Detroit; editing by Carol Bishopric)


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100906/D9I2DUV01.html



Obama calling for more infrastructure spending
 
 
 Email this Story

Sep 6, 8:33 AM (ET)

By JULIE PACE


________________________ ___________-
 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vowing to find new ways to stimulate the sputtering economy, President Barack Obama will call for long-term investments in the nation's roads, railways and runways that would cost at least $50 billion.

The infrastructure investments are one part of a package of targeted proposals the White House is expected to announce in hopes of jump-starting the economy ahead of the November election. Obama will outline the infrastructure proposal Monday at a Labor Day event in Milwaukee.

While the proposal calls for investments over six years, the White House said spending would be front-loaded with an initial $50 billion to help create jobs in the near future.

The goals of the infrastructure plan include: rebuilding 150,000 miles of roads; constructing and maintaining 4,000 miles of railways, enough to go coast-to-coast; and rehabilitating or reconstructing 150 miles of airport runways, while also installing a new air navigation system designed to reduce travel times and delays.

Obama will also call for the creation of a permanent infrastructure bank that would focus on funding national and regional infrastructure projects.

Administration officials wouldn't say what the total cost of the infrastructure investments would be, but did say the initial $50 billion represents a significant percentage. Officials said the White House would consider closing a number of special tax breaks for oil and gas companies to pay for the proposal.

Obama made infrastructure investments a central part of the $814 billion stimulus Congress passed last year, but with that spending winding down, the economy's growth has slowed. Officials said this infrastructure package differs from the stimulus because it's aimed at long-term growth, while still focusing on creating jobs in the short-term.

In a Labor Day interview on CBS'"Early Show," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said the plan Obama was to unveil Monday would "put construction workers, welders, electricians back to work ... folks that have been unemployed for a long time."

With the unemployment rate ticking up to 9.6 percent, and polls showing the midterm elections could be dismal for Democrats, the president has promised to unveil a series of new measures on the economy.

In addition to Monday's announcement in Milwaukee, Obama will travel to Cleveland Wednesday to pitch a $100 billion proposal to increase and make permanent research and development tax credits for businesses, a White House official said.

While the idea is popular in Congress, coming up with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts has been a stumbling block. Similar to his proposal to pay for the infrastructure investments, Obama will ask lawmakers to close tax breaks for oil and gas companies and multinational corporations to pay for the plan.

Other stimulus measures the administration is considering include extending a law passed in March that exempts companies that hire unemployed workers from paying Social Security taxes on those workers through December. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has proposed extending the exemption an additional six months.

Obama is also continuing to prod the Senate to pass the small business bill that calls for about $12 billion in tax breaks and a $30 billion fund to help unfreeze lending. Republicans have likened the bill to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry. And the president wants to make permanent the portion of George W. Bush's tax cuts affecting the middle class.

Wary of the public's concern over rising deficits, the administration insists a second stimulus plan, similar to last year's $814 billion bill, is not in the works.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
The Looming Obama Depression
Townhall.com ^ | September 5, 2010 | Kevin McCullough


________________________ ________________________ __________________



The longer President Obama refuses to acknowledge the direction of our nation's economy the greater the impact will be when the looming depression that awaits is named in his honor. For a leader who has had the advantages of an Ivy League education, he seems to be an excessively poor student of history. But in 120 days no one will be able to dispute that the economic mess the United States finds herself in belongs to anyone except President Barack Hussein Obama.

The basis of this reality is rooted in two truths that became quite pronounced this week. The first is that President Obama is ignoring the very real direction the nation is headed. The second is that he is purposefully ignoring the impact his looming historic tax increases will have. Both are contributing to the pessimism that overarches the morale and tone of the entrepreneurial framework of the future.

This week President Obama took to the White House press corps and by extension to the nation to claim that the nation saw job growth of 67,000 jobs in August. Even if this number was real it would be a pitifully tiny percent of the 14,885,000 who are both on unemployment (1 in 10 Americans) as well as those 23,768,000 who are underemployed (working but not earning enough for basic needs - 1 in 5 families).

The bigger problem for the president however is that the number isn't real. The fact is the nation saw 114,000 people added to the unemployment lines in August and the net jobs lost for the month sat at 54,000. In all the "summer of recovery"--as both President Obama and Vice President Biden pronounced it--saw 238,000 more jobs disappear. Telling the nation that his plans have taken the economy in the right direction, and implying that the nation is seeing a recovery in the area of employment is either willfully dishonest, or painfully, even treacherously naive. At the rate of this "recovery" another 317,333 workers could be sitting on the sidelines before the end of the year.

Additionally we are now on track to see the single largest collection of tax increases ever proposed take the Obama economy even further into the tank. In less than 120 days President Obama's plan to add a collective 18.6% to the federal tax burden will continue the economic downward spiral into record breaking depression-era territory. And remember he repeatedly said--on the campaign trail--that he should be elected expressly to prevent the nation's economy from complete deterioration.

Instead unemployment that was growing in the transition from Bush to Obama has exploded to double what it was under Bush. Even worse this means that while 14,885,000 Americans are claiming unemployment assistance, some 23,768,000 families are presently struggling through work that they have but are unable to meet their basic needs.

And about the time we are belting out Auld Lang Syne this holiday season, President Obama will raise all five income levels of tax categories between 3-5%.

Ironically the President will be raising the rate on the category that is home to seventy-five percent of all small businesses in America by the largest increase.

I call it ironic because it is the small business community in America that hires 2 out of every 3 new workers in America.

Eventually it all adds up.

The president is not pushed on this issue by the press. The president's team pretends that these realities do not exist. The president himself is willing to perpetuate the false notion that the stimulus package set up a "recovery summer" that in truth ended up in greater pain than it began with.

None of this takes into effect the additional costs that will be incurred by taxpayers when the full implementation of President Obama's control of one-sixth of the economy through the manipulation of how we receive health care benefits kicks in. And not that it has great likelihood of passing this year, but if by some miracle it did, the Obama tax penalties that would be incurred by every citizen in the nation under the proposed "Cap & Trade" legislation would add even greater misery to the growing pile.

All of these pending tax increases will be put into effect against well more than 95% of American tax-payers. Speaking of which that certainly contradicts his most famous campaign line.

In 1929 Irving Fisher observed that a number of trends led to the worst depression of our nation's history.

How many of these fit in today's scenario:

Debt liquidation and distress selling

Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off

A fall in the level of asset prices

A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies

A fall in profits

A reduction in output, in trade and in employment.

Pessimism and loss of confidence

Hoarding of money

A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates.

President Obama is ignoring and misrepresenting the rate of growth (or lack thereof) in the job numbers, and his economic team has laid the groundwork for the harshest attack on small businesses and every family in America that pays taxes effective January 1, 2011.

By every indicator this pundit can see, we are poised for tragedy... and I didn't get an Ivy League education!



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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Small businesses feel squeezed by Obama policies

By V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 6, 2010; 12


________________________ ________________________ _____

Last year, even as he struggled through the worst of the recession, Chris Upham said revenue at his District-based real estate and construction businesses doubled -- allowing him to hire two agents.

But Upham said he hasn't increased his staff thus far in 2010 and he doesn't expect to for the remainder of the year.

That's because his taxes rose sevenfold. And he said he anticipates they'll increase again if the Bush tax cuts for people earning $250,000 and above expire at the end of the year.

As small businesses try to plot their recovery, attention is turning to what many owners consider burdensome policies -- higher taxes, new accounting procedures and health-care mandates. Even as the government tries to help with an array of small-business initiatives, many owners say the intervention is as much a hindrance to hiring as the faltering economy.

Their perceptions are important because the Obama administration is counting on small-business owners like Upham, whose ranks represent more than half the U.S. workforce, to jump-start the economy, much like they did after downturns in the early 1990s and 2001.

"We did well last year, hired two people, but the taxes ate through the income we had," Upham said.

Upham said business picked up substantially with the Obama tax credit for first-time home buyers before dropping off when it ended. With the administration efforts, he said, he feels like he's taking one step forward and two backward.

"It seemed like we were moving up, [and now] consumer confidence is down," he added. "What I want government to do is not raise taxes -- decrease them to allow us extra money for hiring."

The White House appears poised to respond to a growing backlash from businesspeople about the crush of higher taxes. Among the ideas being explored were a temporary payroll-tax holiday and permanent extension of the expired research-and-development tax credit, ways to offset the impending elapse of tax cuts for the top 2 percent of households.

"I will be addressing a broader package of new ideas next week," President Obama said Friday at a news conference held to comment on the Labor Department's August unemployment data. The report showed weak economic growth -- 67,000 private sector jobs added in August, down from 107,000 in July -- and that the jobless rate ticked up to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent.

The conventional wisdom is that small businesses would be willing to expand their payroll if capital were more readily available to them. Small businesses suffered more in the credit crunch than their larger counterparts because they rely almost solely on banks for their financing.

Last year, the Obama administration allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to increase loan guarantees and to reduce borrower fees for small businesses, classified by the government as firms with 500 employees or fewer. The program proved to be wildly popular: Before the money ran out last spring, the number of loans approved soared 90 percent.

"There's a direct correlation between access to capital and job growth," said Molly Brogan, spokeswoman for the National Small Business Association. "If people are able to get loans and financing, they're able to grow their business and that includes creating new jobs."

Obama, who wants to revive the program, last week urged Senate Republicans to support a Democratic proposal to cut taxes for small businesses and establish a $30 billion loan fund providing them easier access to credit.

"There's one thing we know we should do -- something that should be Congress's first order of business when it gets back -- and that is making it easier for our small businesses to grow and hire," Obama said in a Rose Garden speech. "We know that in the final few months of last year, small businesses accounted for more than 60 percent of the job losses in America."

Yet to date, existing loan programs haven't yet spurred much hiring. Surveys conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Small Business Association show owners much less optimistic in recent months about their prospects of hiring and growing than they were late last year and earlier this year.

Even supporters of loans say the government investment likely won't pay off until consumers start spending and business owners start feeling more confident. "If everyone is saving and not spending and their clients are hurting economically, small businesses have to be a bit more cautious" about hiring, Brogan said.

In the Washington region, hiring is picking up at small businesses experiencing an increase in demand for their goods and services. For Luc Brami, principal of Gelberg Signs in Northwest Washington, and Craig Savarick, director of executive recruiting firm Capital Search Group in Vienna, an incentive came in the form of an Obama initiative: a temporary exemption from payroll taxes on every unemployed person they hired.

"For four people we hired, it will be a $9,000 savings," Brami said.

"We got a [tax] break and put it back into the company," he added. "We can buy equipment and get a credit, too."

In all, the administration has implemented about a dozen small-business programs, including a health-care tax credit; more opportunities for women business owners to receive government contracts; and cuts in capital gains taxes.

"Our view is that the financial crisis put multiple barriers in the way of small businesses and the appropriate policy response has to be aggressive and multifaceted instead of looking for one silver bullet," said Gene Sperling, counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner on small-business issues.

But Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight, asserts that the initiatives coupled with numerous other new regulations are making owners feel overburdened, overregulated and less secure about the economy.

"They may see it as more interference," Bethune said, "they see it as bureaucratic intrusion."

Some business owners and advocates complain that some of the programs contradict one another. Stephanie Cathcart, spokeswoman for the National Federation of Independent Business, said benefits from the payroll tax exemption business owners use when they hire unemployed people are mitigated by provisions in the health-care overhaul law that reduce a tax credit when businesses hire.

"It's counterintuitive," she said. "Frankly, a lot of these initiatives fall short."

Brogan of the National Small Business Administration said a new accounting regulation dramatically increases the requirements associated with providing documentation to the government on businesses' vendors, a rule that on average will multiply the average number of 1099 tax forms an owner files every year to 86 from 10.

"This will take the money they'd spend to hire a part- or full-time employee and give it to accountants," she said.

Dinesh Sharma, president of government contracting firm Washington Business Group in Chantilly, said he ruled out using the payroll tax exemption, believing the savings couldn't justify the tens of thousands of dollars he'd spend in salary and health insurance for a new employee.

"We're not large enough to hire someone just to take the benefit of a small tax break," he added. "The burden is more than the benefit."

GigantorX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6370
  • GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
This is reminding of the style of warfare during World War I. We just keep sending wave upon wave of "soliders" into the teeth of the enemy and they are slaughtered for literally a few hundred yards, maybe less. Each successive battle is then fought the same exact way with the ending of each engagement the exact same as the last. This worked in past recessions as taxes were cut, debt (both public and private) was loaded up on, money was kept cheap, interest rates of all kinds were dropped, wars were started and the U.S. consumer was kept afloat by bubble after bubble covering up the economic deterioration underneath. Victory is declared no matter what for propaganda purposes to keep the conscripts in line and the peasants in good spirits and distracted. But eventually, the reality surfaces and one side has to simply quit out of sheer exhaustion and lack of men and material.

They keep coming the same old way and they keep getting beat the same old way.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Yup.  God forbid we do anything to attract foreign investment, build factories and production, build more of what we consume, and stop fleeicng taxpayers.  no, we can't try that for once.   ::)  ::)

GigantorX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6370
  • GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Yup.  God forbid we do anything to attract foreign investment, build factories and production, build more of what we consume, and stop fleeicng taxpayers.  no, we can't try that for once.   ::)  ::)

Victory is always one more thrust away!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Victory is always one more thrust away!

Hhhhmmm, sound like what I tell me GF. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
11 Signs That "Recovery Summer" Will Be Obama's "Mission Accomplished"
Gus Lubin and Joe Weisenthal | Sep. 7, 2010, 11:51 AM | 15,676 |  28

________________________ ________________________ ____________


This was supposed to be a summer of recovery.

In fact, The White House even branded it "Recovery Summer."

But with the summer officially over, we now know that there wasn't much of a recovery at all, and the whole branding of it may go down as Obama's "Mission Accomplished" moment.

Domestic vehicle sales -- STALLED
June: 11.1 million sold
August: 11.4 million sold

Details: Total sales are stalled. Domestic sales are dropping, posting the worst August in 27 years. Cash For Clunkers is looking more and more like a miss.


Factory orders -- STALLED
May: $412 billion total orders
July: $410 billion total orders

Details: Not counting aircrafts, July data would mark a 1.5% drop, the worst in 16 months. After leading the recovery for months, anufacturing is stalling and starting to contract.
Retail Sales -- STALLED
May: $362 billion

July: $363 billion

Details: A 0.4% rebound in July makes up ground from a 0.3% loss in June, but no one's forgetting the big 0.5% drop in May.
Housing starts -- STALLEDMay: 588,000

July: 546,000

Details: 1.7% gains in July marked a modest recovery. But single family housing starts fell 4.3% -- a negative indicator for home prices.
New home sales -- GETTING WORSEMay: 281,000

July: 276,000

Details: Demand hit an all-time low in July. Average months of supply also climbed for the month. These numbers suggest residential investment will be a drag on GDP for Q3.
Consumer sentiment -- STALLEDConsumer Sentiment Index June: 76

Consumer Sentiment Index August: 70

Consumer Board Index June: 54

Consumer Board Index August: 53

Details: Consumer sentiment dropped in June and July on bad economic news. Negative sentiment slowed or reversed in August.

Job creation -- STALLED
June: -125,000 non-farm payroll

August: -54,000 non-farm payroll

Details: The August jobs report actually helped the market, as the private sector created 67,000 jobs. Job loss was less than expected following the census surge. Overall it's a mixed picture.


Unemployment -- STALLEDJune: 9.5%

August: 9.6%

Details: With the census surge come and gone, unemployment is stuck at 9.6%. It's hard to say what how encouraged and discouraged workers are affecting the number.


Manufacturing index -- IMPROVINGMay PMI: 59.7

August PMI: 56.3

Details: August showed a stellar improvement in the ISM manufacturing index, up to 56.3 from 55.5, when analysts expected a fall to 53.0.
ISM Non-manufacturing index -- ROLLING OVERJune: 53.8%

August: 51.5%

Details: This measure of the service industry hit its lowest level since January.
Stock market -- IMPROVINGJune 1: 10,024

Sept. 7 (open): 10,320

Details: The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up nearly 3% since Memorial Day. Big gains in July melted away in August, before closing the summer with a surge.

Now as for how we're doing right now...Check out 10 details from the August jobs report >
Tags: Economy, Features | Get Alerts for these topics »

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/grading-recovery-summer-2010-9#ixzz0yrpNCcRK

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama's Apology Tour
by Gordon G. Chang Info
www.thedailybest.com


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-05/economic-advisor-larry-summers-shouldnt-go-to-china/


________________________ ________________


Gordon G. Chang is a Forbes.com columnist and the author of The Coming Collapse of China and Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World, focusing on nuclear proliferation and the North Korean crisis. He has lived and worked in China and Hong Kong for almost two decades.
 
The president sent economic adviser Larry Summers to China, repeating a similar trip last March that made the U.S. look weak. Gordon G. Chang on how Obama's making the same mistake twice.

National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers and Deputy National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon arrived in Beijing yesterday to put relations with China back on track. Their visit is scheduled to end Wednesday.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
At the top of Washington’s agenda are two items.  First, there is Beijing’s predatory fixing of the value of the renminbi. China had raised hopes on June 19 when it announced it would increase exchange rate “flexibility.” Up until then, the Chinese central bank had pegged the value of the renminbi to the dollar.  Since the widely welcomed change, the currency has appreciated less than 0.3% against the greenback, however. Many analysts believe the yuan, as the renminbi is informally known, is undervalued by as much as 40%. Beijing has, throughout the years, manipulated the value of its currency to boost exports.

Second, the American delegation is expected to raise the issue of China’s increasingly close economic relations with Iran. The concern is that Chinese enterprises and financial institutions will be “backfilling,” rushing in to take up commercial opportunities abandoned by companies and banks complying with international sanctions. Beijing voted for Security Council measures in June but has criticized Washington’s additional sanctions, which have been followed by the European Union, Canada, Australia, and Japan.

There are, of course, a host of other agenda items, from troubled military ties to Beijing’s claims to the South China Sea to China’s relations with North Korea. Chinese diplomats will undoubtedly raise the “T” issues, Taiwan, Tibet, and trade.

On Wednesday, we are sure to hear expressions of progress as the two sides wrap up discussions, but real forward movement seems unlikely. First, Beijing and Washington have irreconcilable goals. Chinese leaders recognize this and talk about the nature of their differences with us. American officials, on the other hand, still cannot bring themselves to have honest conversations, even in private.

The Chinese will see this as the Apology Tour, the Sequel.

Second, Washington seems intent on pursuing counterproductive tactics. In early November, for instance, Jeffrey Bader, the top Asia official on the National Security Council, publicly said no important issue in the world could be solved without China’s cooperation. In effect, Bader, now in Beijing as part of the Summers-Donilon delegation, gave the Chinese a veto over American foreign policy. So it should come as no surprise that they were especially uncooperative during President Obama’s November summit in Beijing.

Just weeks after that, the Chinese went on a bender, adopting obstructionist tactics at the Copenhagen climate change conference in December. China’s officials then made hostile comments—and specific threats—on matters ranging from minor arms sales to Taiwan to a literally back-door visit by the Dalai Lama to the White House.

So what did President Obama do? He sent two senior officials, Bader and Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, to Beijing in March. The Chinese saw the visit as a sign of weakness and said the pair had come to apologize to China, a theme echoed in official media. Of course, neither of the Americans made apologies to China, but Beijing was in no mood to talk to them in earnest.

In fact, Beijing during the Bader-Steinberg visit staked out even more aggressive positions. For instance, the Chinese for the first time labeled their ludicrous claims to the entire South China Sea as a “core interest” of their nation.

Obama’s good-hearted initiative had backfired, apparently encouraging the very behavior he sought to prevent. Yet what is the president doing now? He is sending even more officials to Beijing. The Chinese will see this as the Apology Tour, the Sequel. The White House is just not learning from its mistakes.

Now would be a good time for the Obama administration to change course. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander Levin will begin hearings on China’s exchange rate on September 15. The early betting is that he will report out the Tim Ryan bill, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it clear she wants legislation soon. In the Senate, Chuck Schumer’s legislative proposals have attracted bipartisan support with as perhaps as many as 70 of his colleagues on his side.

Beijing needs to be concerned that a weakened Obama will be in no position to veto legislation targeting the renminbi. China is increasing its dependence on the American market—last year 115.7% of its overall trade surplus related to sales to us, up from 90.1% in 2008. Currency legislation, in short, could add to the woes of the weakening Chinese economy.

And on Iran, it seems much of the international community is lining up behind U.S. sanctions.  Reports that the “atomic ayatollahs” are close to weaponizing their uranium is, naturally, drawing the world against the Islamic Republic. Iran and its allies—Beijing is now Tehran’s primary backer—look like they might get run over by the global momentum.

So, at this moment the Chinese have many more reasons to come talk to us than we have to go see them.


Gordon G. Chang is a Forbes.com columnist and the author of The Coming Collapse of China and Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World, focusing on nuclear proliferation and the North Korean crisis. He has lived and worked in China and Hong Kong for almost two decades.


Get a head start with the Morning  Scoop email. It's your Cheat Sheet with must reads from across the  Web. Get it.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily  Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Obama's Argument For Ending Bush Tax Cuts Is Completely Disingenuous
Joe Weisenthal | Sep. 8, 2010, 10:28 AM | 525 |  16

________________________ ________________________ _

Sorry: Obama Flatly Rejects Bush Tax Cut Extension For The RichObama's New Business Tax Break Is A Gigantic Version Of Cash-For-ClunkersDeparted Obama Aide Now Says Ending Bush Tax Cuts Will Make Unemployment WORSE
Why won't Obama support an extension of the Bush tax cuts?

Smartly, he takes a conservative line. He says we can't afford the $700 billion deficit hit that would come about if we kept the tax cuts in play.

Granted, this line won't convince anyone, even deficit hawks, but still it sounds plausible.

But seriously, what evidence is there of this? On what basis does he conclude that $700 billion is unaffordable?

The truth is that there is no evidence that this would be a budgetary dealbreaker. We owe trillions upon trillions already, and everyone knows this, and we have problem borrowing money.

So that can't really be the reason. There's got to be another reason for this stance. Class politics? Maybe, but we're not sure the eat the rich strategy even flies right now, so honestly we're stumped.

Anyway, Obama is speaking today on his latest burst of mini-stimulus ideas. We'll learn more.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-argument-for-ending-bush-tax-cuts-is-completely-disingenuous-2010-9#ixzz0yx1csnRn


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Homebuyer tax credit: 950,000 must repay
By Les Christie, staff writerSeptember 9, 2010: 2:40 PM ET
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/09/real_estate/who_repays_tax_credit/index.htm



________________________ ________________________ ______________


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Nearly half of all Americans who claimed the first-time homebuyer tax credit on their 2009 tax returns will have to repay the government.

According to a report from the Inspector General for Tax Administration, released to the public Thursday, about 950,000 of the nearly 1.8 million Americans who claimed the tax credit on their 2009 tax returns will have to return the money.

The confusion comes because homebuyers were eligible for two different credits, depending on when their homes were purchased.

Those who bought properties during 2008 were to deduct, dollar for dollar, up to 10% of the home's purchase price or $7,500, whichever was less. The catch: The money was a no-interest loan that had to be repaid within 15 years.

Had they waited to buy until 2009, they could have gotten a much sweeter deal. Congress extended the credit and made it a refund rather than a loan.

Now, the IRS is developing a strategy for separating the 2009 taxpayers who are required to repay the credit from those who are not.

A review by the Inspector General earlier this year found that the IRS could not easily distinguish between home purchases made in 2008 and 2009. That heightened concerns that some claims could be erroneous or even fraudulent, that buyers could, for example, claim their purchase came later than it actually occurred.

Thursday's release reported that 73,000 claims, more than 4% of the 1.8 million homebuyers who received the credit, had incorrect purchase dates recorded by the IRS.

Some of the inaccuracies counted against the taxpayers, Nearly 60,000 were listed as purchasing in 2008 (meaning they had to repay the credit) or had no purchase dates at all, rather than their correct 2009 purchase dates, which would free them of the obligation to pay it back.

It is also taking a look at all those deceased taxpayers who received credits.

The inspector general reported that 1,326 single people listed as dead by the Social Security Administration claimed more than $10 million in credits. The IRS threw out 528 of those 1,326 claims, saving $4 million.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
The Corner
No Place for Entrepreneurship in Obama’s Economy
September 9, 2010 3:20 P.M. By Samuel R. Staley

________________________ ________________________ _________


President Obama did a great service to the public on Wednesday when he outlined his vision for economic policy before a friendly audience in Parma, Ohio (near Cleveland). He mixed populist rhetoric stoking the middle class with empty overtures to entrepreneurs and, in the process, demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about how market economies operate.

He started out with the inclusive rhetoric that sucked many moderates and Blue Dogs into his presidential campaign in 2008:

You know, in the fall of 2008, one of the last rallies of my presidential campaign was right here in the Cleveland area.  (Applause.)  It was a hopeful time, just two days before the election.  And we knew that if we pulled it off, we’d finally have the chance to tackle some big and difficult challenges that had been facing this country for a very long time.

We also hoped for a chance to get beyond some of the old political divides — between Democrats and Republicans, red states and blue states — that had prevented us from making progress.  Because although we are proud to be Democrats, we are prouder to be Americans — (applause) — and we believed then and we believe now that no single party has a monopoly on wisdom.

We have now learned, two years into his presidency, that the inclusiveness was really about evangelical conversion to progressive views on politics and the economy. Private businesses and entrepreneurs are fine as long as their investments, time, commitment and resources are directed toward social ends (as defined by progressive politicos). This becomes clear when Obama says:

But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, I also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves.  (Applause.)  And that means making the long-term investments in this country’s future that individuals and corporations can’t make on their own:  investments in education and clean energy, in basic research and technology and infrastructure.  (Applause.)

So, government is responsible for directing the economy. John Kenneth Galbraith would be pleased, as a key implication of this view is that government must be elevated to a senior position in a rough partnership between the private sector and organized labor. It’s not much of a step, then, for the president to take this to the next level, making quite clear that private business should not be focused on creating value (through the pursuit of profits) but on pursuing non-economic objectives and redistributing wealth. He continues:

That means making sure corporations live up to their responsibilities to treat consumers fairly and play by the same rules as everyone else.  (Applause.)  Their responsibility is to look out for their workers, as well as their shareholders, and create jobs here at home.

And that means providing a hand-up for middle-class families — so that if they work hard and meet their responsibilities, they can afford to raise their children, and send them to college, see a doctor when they get sick, retire with dignity and respect.  (Applause.)

Indeed, Obama believes fundamentally that the middle class owes its existence to the government, not to wealth-creating entrepreneurs or businesses. Without skipping a beat, the president fails to recognize (let alone acknowledge) the difference between a truly free market, where individuals decide how to invest their resources, and a government-directed one that sets collective priorities which require individuals to tow the line for specific policy objectives implicitly defined by the political class:   

That’s what we Democrats believe in — a vibrant free market, but one that works for everybody.  (Applause.)  That’s our vision.  That’s our vision for a stronger economy and a growing middle class.  And that’s the difference between what we and Republicans in Congress are offering the American people right now.

Missing in most of the popular analysis of Obama’s economic policy perspective is the way his personal experience has fundamentally framed the way he looks at the world. He provided a convenient glimpse into this in Parma:

You see, Michelle and I are where we are today because even though our families didn’t have much, they worked tirelessly — without complaint — so that we might have a better life.  My grandfather marched off to Europe in World War II, while my grandmother worked in factories on the home front.  I had a single mom who put herself through school, and would wake before dawn to make sure I got a decent education.  Michelle can still remember her father heading out to his job as a city worker long after multiple sclerosis had made it impossible for him to walk without crutches.  He always got to work; he just had to get up a little earlier.

Yes, our families believed in the American values of self-reliance and individual responsibility, and they instilled those values in their children.  But they also believed in a country that rewards responsibility; a country that rewards hard work; a country built on the promise of opportunity and upward mobility. 

 They believed in an America that gave my grandfather the chance to go to college because of the GI Bill; an America that gave my grandparents the chance to buy a home because of the Federal Housing Authority; an America that gave their children and grandchildren the chance to fulfill our dreams thanks to college loans and college scholarships.

It’s hard to ignore that all the “rewards” explicitly identified by Obama are directly tied to government programs, not entrepreneurial investment that creates new wealth. For Obama, economic policy — and the economy more generally — is about redistribution . . . and spending.

What’s also startling is the degree to which this president’s economic literacy reaches little further than the superficial (and incorrect) numbers the mandarins in the White House spit out uncritically from their econometric models. (For a more thorough critique of this process, see my article “Naive Statistics” in National Review, November 2, 2009.)

Entrepreneurship really doesn’t exist in the economic lingo (or policy) of this presidency. In Obama’s world, businesses and entrepreneurs are merely variables to be manipulated by the political class.

— Samuel R. Staley is Robert W. Galvin Fellow and director of Urban & Land Use Policy at the Reason Foundation.
 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Americans have good reason not to believe in Obamanomics

By George F. Will
Sunday, September 12, 2010; A25




Looking back with pride, the British are commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, when Churchill said of the pilots fighting the Luftwaffe: Never "was so much owed by so many to so few." Looking ahead with trepidation, Americans are thinking: Never have so many of us owed so much.

Actually, they owed slightly more when the recession began, when household consumer debt was $2.6 trillion. The painful but necessary process of deleveraging is proceeding slowly: Such debt has been reduced only to $2.4 trillion. Add to that the facts that the recession has reduced household wealth by $10 trillion and that only 25 percent of Americans expect their incomes to improve next year. So they are not spending, and companies, having given the economy a temporary boost last year by rebuilding inventories, are worried. Hence, rather than hiring, companies are sitting on cash reserves much larger than the size of last year's $862 billion stimulus.

Democrats who say that another stimulus is necessary for job creation but who dare not utter the word "stimulus" are sending three depressing messages: The $862 billion stimulus did not work; the public so loathes the word that another stimulus will not happen; therefore prosperity is not "just around the corner," as Herbert Hoover supposedly said (but did not). Consumers and businesses are responding to those messages by heeding Polonius's advice in "Hamlet": "Neither a borrower nor a lender be." Hoover -- against whom Democrats, those fountains of fresh ideas, have been campaigning for 78 years -- is again being invoked as a terrible warning about the wages of sin. Sin is understood by liberals as government austerity, which is understood as existing levels of government spending, whatever they are, whenever. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner recently said that Germans favoring reduced rather than increased state spending sounded "a little bit like Hoover." Well.

Real per capita federal expenditures almost doubled between 1929, Hoover's first year as president, and 1932, his last. David Kennedy, in "Freedom from Fear," the volume in the Oxford history of the American people that deals with the Depression, writes of Hoover:

"He nearly doubled federal public works expenditures in three years. Thanks to his prodding, the net stimulating effect of federal, state and local fiscal policy was larger in 1931 than in any subsequent year of the decade." Barack Obama has self-nullifying plans for stimulating the small-business sector that creates most new jobs. He has just endorsed tax relief for such businesses but opposes extension of the Bush tax cuts for high-income filers, who include small businesses with 48 percent of that sector's earnings. The stance of other Democrats seems to be that the Bush cuts were wicked in conception, reckless in execution -- and should be largely, and perhaps entirely, extended.

Does this increase anyone's confidence? About as much as noting the one-year anniversary of the end of another of the administration's brainstorms.

The used-car market is an important mechanism for redistributing wealth to low-income persons: The price of a car drops when it is driven out of the dealership, but much of its transportation value remains when it enters the used-car market. Unfortunately for low-income people, the average price of a three-year-old automobile has increased more than 10 percent since last summer. This is largely because the Car Allowance Rebate System, aka "Cash for Clunkers," which ended in August 2009, cut the supply of used cars.

Cash for Clunkers provided up to $4,500 to persons who traded in a car in order to purchase a new car with better gas mileage, but it stipulated that the used car had to be scrapped. The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby reports that a study by Edmunds.com shows that all but 125,000 of the 700,000 cars sold during the clunkers program would have been bought even if no subsidy had been available. If this is so, each incremental sale cost taxpayers $24,000.

Even on environmental grounds the program was, Jacoby argues, "an exorbitant dud": The reduction in carbon dioxide from removing older cars from the road cost, according to research at the University of California at Davis, $237 a ton (the international market prices carbon emissions credits at about $20 a ton) and the new higher-mileage cars mean a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions of less than what Americans emit every hour.

Obama is desperately urging consumers and investors to have confidence in his understanding of economics. They may, however, remember his characteristic certitude that "cash for clunkers" was "successful beyond anybody's imagination."

georgewill@washpost.com


Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
That article you posted where it explained how Volcker went ignored while scumbags like Geithner were listened to says it all.

GigantorX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6370
  • GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
That article you posted where it explained how Volcker went ignored while scumbags like Geithner were listened to says it all.

Volcker was added to Obama's "Economics Council" because of his connection to Reagan, plain and simple. He was never listened to nor was he brought in to be listened to.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Volcker was added to Obama's "Economics Council" because of his connection to Reagan, plain and simple. He was never listened to nor was he brought in to be listened to.

Same with Buffet. 

I posted a video with Buffet disagreeing with Cap & Trade, ObamaCare, Card Check, etc, and the kneepadders went silent. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Linda Chavez: Obama hasn't yet learned his economic lesson
By: Linda Chavez
Examiner Columnist

________________________ ________________--



September 10, 2010 President Obama was in full campaign mode this week as he delivered a stump speech on the economy in Cleveland. But the magic is gone.

He's no longer the silver-tongued orator who could make us feel good about ourselves and the prospects for our country -- which was key to his victory in 2008. Now he's just another partisan hack blaming the other party for his own failure of leadership.

Instead of changing his tone and rhetoric, the president should be focused on changing his policies. But he seems incapable of any new thinking on what to do about the ailing economy.

His only solution is to spend more. He's now touting a new economic stimulus: $50 billion in supposed infrastructure spending, which he's coupled to some targeted tax breaks for businesses. But few people -- including those vulnerable members of Congress in his own party -- are buying his plan, for good reason.

If nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus spending couldn't create enough jobs to drop the unemployment rate to under 9 percent, how could adding $50 billion more for infrastructure improvements make a difference? The problem with the president's new plan is the same as it was with the old one.

Government doesn't "create" jobs. Government only grows at the expense of taxpayers, siphoning off money that could be put to better use in the private sector.

Nor is the president's plan to give a few targeted tax breaks to business any more likely to create permanent jobs. The president's plan is just another attempt to micromanage the economy. Instead of enacting an across-the-board tax cut -- or simply keeping in place the Bush tax cuts that are due to expire -- he is proposing specific tax breaks that he hopes will motivate certain kinds of business behavior.

The top corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39 percent, one of the highest in the industrialized world. Instead of lowering the top rate to that of, say, Germany's or the United Kingdom's, both of which are below 30 percent, the president is proposing to allow businesses to write off certain expenses.

He'd like to make permanent a tax credit for research and development, and he'd allow businesses to write off 100 percent of their capital investments in 2011 instead of writing them down over several years.

But businesses don't make decisions about expanding their workforce on the basis of one-year write-offs. If the president had even an iota of business experience, maybe he'd understand that.

One-year tax breaks may improve the short-term bottom line for corporations, but successful businesses operate on a longer time horizon. Do the president and his advisers really believe that a company that receives a one-year $5 million write-off will go out and hire 100 new employees as a result? Not likely, especially since the cost of employing those workers will continue to rise long after the tax benefits have disappeared.

A tax rate cut, however, can motivate hiring.

If a company knows that its tax bill is going down permanently, it may well be motivated to spend that money in hiring more people or in making capital improvements (which creates jobs for workers employed by other companies). But no responsible CEO would make such a decision on the basis of a one-time credit or write-off.

But cutting taxes is only half the solution. Tax cuts that produce real economic growth lead to higher revenues. But cutting government spending is by far the most important thing we can do to improve the economy. And those cuts need to come at the state and local as well as the federal level.

Cadillac pensions and benefits for public employees are bankrupting states like California. And entitlement spending at the federal level must be brought under control -- as painful as it will be to do so. But few politicians in either party want to tackle Social Security or Medicare reform -- Reps. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Mike Pence, R-Ind., and a handful of others in the GOP are the exceptions.

We cannot tax and spend our way out of the current economic mess. American voters understand that. Now it's time for the politicians, especially the president, to get the message.

Examiner Columnist Linda Chavez is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
New economic chairman: Unemployment rate 'going to stay high' in near term
The Hill ^ | 9-12-10 | Sam Youngman and Bridget Johnson



________________________ ___________-




President Obama's new chairman of the Council of Economic Affairs (CEA) said Sunday that the national unemployment rate will not decrease significantly anytime soon.

Austan Goolsbee, who Obama announced on Friday will replace Christina Romer as head of the CEA, told "Fox News Sunday" that the president is doing all he can to help the economy, but the recession was so deep, it will take some time for employment numbers to recover.

"I don't think the unemployment rate will be coming down significantly at any time in the near future," Goolsbee said.

Unemployment for the nation reached 9.6 percent in August, and Goolsbee and other White House officials regularly concede they expect it to get worse before it gets better.

Goolsbee echoed that forecast on ABC's "This Week" Sunday. "It's going to stay high," he said of the unemployment rate. "This recession is the deepest in our lifetimes, the deepest since 1929. If you take the people thrown out of work in the 1982 recession, the 1991 recession, the 2001 recession, not only is this bigger, this is bigger than all of those combined. So more than 8 million people lost their jobs.

"It's going to take a significant push on our part and time before that comes down," he said. "I don't anticipate it coming down rapidly."

Goolsbee, in his first interview since Obama named his as chairman of the CEA, defended Obama's handling of the economy, specifically the president's call for ending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.


(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Who's being 'reckless'?
By Ralph R. Reiland
Monday, September 13, 2010
www.realclearpolitics.co m


Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur. He can be reached via via e-mail.

________________________ _______________________

With 15 million workers unemployed and another 11 million underemployed, President Obama decided last week that the answer was to increase the amount of anti-rich red meat that he's throwing around.

At a Labor Day rally in Milwaukee, Mr. Obama declared that the United States "didn't become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness."

He didn't say whether we became the most prosperous country via income redistribution and mandatory wealth spreading.

He also didn't say whether the "greed" accusation applied to guys like Jay-Z and Big Ben or just to the regular capitalists and entrepreneurs who run America's car-repair shops and jewelry stores on Main Street.

He also didn't say whether his definition of "recklessness" includes the nonstop and decentralized risk-taking that's inherent in a free-enterprise economy, a system rooted in what Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction."

Schumpeter was being positive. The endless string of winners and losers, the bankruptcies and newly formed companies, are essential components of an efficient and growing economy based on private property, limited government and individual freedom.

For various types of central planners, this process of decentralization and freedom looks way too messy and uncontrolled -- much too prone to "recklessness."

Mr. Obama also declared that "anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it'll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up -- they just haven't studied our history."

In fact, the history of the 1960s and 1980s shows that the benefits of cuts in top marginal income tax rates clearly trickled down to help "working folks" in the form of more jobs, less unemployment, less poverty, less inflation and higher wage growth.

The John F. Kennedy income tax cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964, cutting the top marginal federal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, were followed by several years of 5 percent real gross domestic product growth per year, dropping the unemployment rate from 5.2 percent in 1964 to 3.5 percent in 1969, a lower jobless rate than the 4.0 percent unemployment rate that's generally defined as "full employment."

Similarly, the Reagan income tax cuts produced real average annual GDP growth of 3.2 percent from 1981 to 1989, a higher growth rate than what existed before and after the Reagan years, i.e., 2.8 percent average real annual growth in the pre-Reagan years from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent growth in the post-Reagan years from 1989 to 1995.

Following the Reagan cut in the top marginal federal income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent, unemployment was cut in half, from 9.7 percent in 1982 to 5.3 percent in 1989.

And the poor? The real income, adjusted for inflation, of the poorest fifth of U.S. households increased by 12 percent in the Reagan era, reversing a 17 percent decline in their average real income from 1979 to 1983 before Reagan's pro-growth tax cuts kicked in.

The poverty population in the U.S., after growing by 7 million in the late 1970s, dropped by 4 million in the 1980s. The real median income, adjusted for inflation, of black households increased by 17 percent from 1982 to 1989, reversing a 10 percent decline from 1978 to 1982.

Obama's strategy? Raise taxes on "the rich" during a recession for "fairness." That's a clear policy of economic and political "recklessness."

MM2K

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1401
Quote
Mr. Obama also declared that "anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it'll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up -- they just haven't studied our history."

What????!!! That's the way the world works deufus!!!!
Jan. Jobs: 36,000!!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
What????!!! That's the way the world works deufus!!!!

In Obama's mind, you give the whinos, deadbeats, drug addicts, and dope dealers all the money and prosperity follows.