I find this argument sound and wonder at how republicans can be serious about the possible demise of the US Treasury Bond for the sake of taxes for the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans. Economists are flabbergasted right now at how far this has been taken.
What's amazing about the following post is the author. He's David Brooks a conservative columnist who recognises now the level of insanity from the Tea Party republicans. We are flirting with an economic meltdown that's real and preventable.
"The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no. The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it."
David Brooks wrote a great article and he is right on target. I agree that we need to eliminate these tax loopholes, in fact I think they should all go and a better and more fair tax system be put in its place. But thats another debate.
The Repubs have convinced the Dems to make cuts in the budget. It took a firm stand on not approving a debt cieling bill to make it happen, but it has. Now the Repubs have already comprimised a lot, though we do not hear much about it. The comprimises were about not touching many programs near and dear to Dems, and of course the Dems also comprimised by making deeper cuts than they wanted to.
Both sides are there. Now it only will take one thing for this deal to be finalized, Repubs give in to closing the tax loopholes. I believe they will, for not to will be committing political suicide. It will hurt them come election day next year. I just think they are playing chicken with the Dems inorder to get more cuts. They will eliminate some if not all of those loopholes the dems want before this is over. They must, its more than the right thing to do
It's a Cult. This is NOT a normal politcal party right now...it's deranged and FAR off base.
There's a word for it. Psychopath.
I disagree with the Cult statement, though one could see how you came to that conclusion. I think its more of an they need to flex their muscles because they have been a minority for a few years and were helpless to stop certain legislation they did not approve of like Obama care, or the last appointment to the Supreme Court. After several years of enduring things like Pelosi "we have to pass it to know whats in it" types of statements and actions. Its time the repubs and Dems start to act civil
Excuse me, but they were a minority for 2 years...that's it. Since I'm alive, it has mostly been right-wingers in charge.
They are not a poor martyred group...they get everything they want! Then, when someone else gets something THEY want, the right cries bloody murder.
And I'm sorry--the civil phase has long since passed. I say it's time for the Republicans to have some of their treatment served back to them.
The damage they have done is IRREVERSIBLE!
I will never forgive being called a traitor, anti-American for questioning Bush.
I will never forgive them saying Obama is a racist who hates America.
They are not deserving of civility.
That’s not quite true. From the 34th congress in 1855 the Dems have controlled congress a majority of the time. Sometimes they had both branches, sometimes only one branch. Rarely did the Repubs have both branches(Source: Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Web: http://clerkweb.house.gov/histrecs/history.html )
Republicans re-establish control in Congress
For most part between 1995 and 2007, the Republicans controlled both houses. In the wake of the unpopularity of President Clinton's impeachment trial, the 107th Congress (2001–2003) saw the Democrats and Republicans split control of the US Senate 50-50, ending effectively tied. Jim Jeffords, ended his affiliation with the Republican Party, following a dispute with Bush's tax cut proposals, and became an Independent. After departing from the Republican Party, Jeffords also agreed to caucus with the Democrats and control of the Senate switched back to the Democrats once again
The 108th Congress (2003–2005) saw the Senate return to a GOP majority of 51-49, as Republican President George W Bush had gained popularity for his fight against Al Qaeda terrorists and broad tax cuts. In 2006, opposition to Bush's continuation of the Iraq War had grown to new heights. As a result, the 110th Congress saw the Democrats regain majority control of both the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives. This shifted again; in 2010, after two years of a sour economy with high unemployment, Republicans regained control of the House, although Democrats kept control in the Senate; exit polls suggested voters were dissatisfied with President Obama as well as the Congress.
Let me ask....what do you call it when a person gets shot in the face, but they end up apologizing to the person who shot them!! That is crazy and psychopathic. He must have been SOME scared of Cheney....I wonder why?
Or maybe he apologized becuse the incident was his fault? We do not know for we were not there, and noone will ever tell the truth about what happened that day so we will never know.
But you give Cheney the benefit of the doubt, don't you?
I can only imagine the words if it had been Biden who shot his friend.
What are you 10?...
What do you mean mostly Right wing rule?
And it is a moot question... as whichever party was in charge they were not a conservative one.
First, Ilike the new picture, looks cool.
I actually have no opinion on this incident. There is not enough proper info from the parties invloved to determine what happened. I am not giving Cheney the benifit of the doubt, all I am saying is we were not there and noone is talking. Everything we have heard of clip you may watch is just speculation, nothing more
Money is a dark spirit. And it feeds from our stress and greed. This is an oppurtine time for us humans to undertake the spiritual quest to overcome money. Just ditch the whole concept.
Conservative America will be re-claiming this nation in about16 months... enjoy your lil agenda while it is in.
Because it is repeal time.
"No Compromise", just like nancy and her group with health-care and the financial bills and all the other BS bills shot through by that lame duck BS congress.
You all didn't want any compromise when the shoe was on the other foot... so do not expect any compromise in our fight to dismantle your collectivist machine, my lil Leant friends.
What a joke statement, if ever there was one uttered.
That is exactly what you all said before the mid-terms...
Actually, you shouldn't lump me with others you've talked to. I didn't say anything about the elections at mid-term. And, if you can find anything I said about it, which supports what you are saying, then by all means, post it.
Otherwise, go fly a kite.
Tactic 3: Projection/Flipping the argument.
Beckian Logic: blame the other guy of what you yourself do.
I remember clearly the excitement when Obama first took office.
The gvr's, the mayors ALL : meeting...ALL vowing to work together for a new start.
Didn't last long before the propagandizers took over.....which was -what?-right about when the Supreme Tea-Party of the United States, (formerly known as the Supreme Court), made the Citizens United decision!!!
and for an interesting "CONspiracy", go research WHO was the guy involved in that decision.....he's no baby to the game!
Or it could have been when they wanted to do something about the thieving insurance co's, and their deadly ways.
Or hell, it could have been just cause we elected someone not white, old boy and Republican.
But whatever the reason for the psychopath Cult....pssssst: a little birdie told me...you will not take over again.....EVAH.
a'Murrica is wise to your lise. We opened our ise. Take off your disgise. We See you!!!
What does any of that rant have to do you with attributing something I said, to yourself... in order suppport that I snipped your sentence out of context?
Produce the sentence and the thread I supposedly did it in... which you cannot, because I did not. Link the thread and I will look at the replies...
I will wait here..
"Shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected" Obama
It sure felt like a gun was against our heads when the President wanted to pass his stimulus package only to find out years later he had no idea what he was doing.
Tm you're saying that the republicans are deliberately sabotaging the US dollar for the sake of "dismantling the collectivist machine?" Do you realize the repercussions of that mindset? Do you want to have your dollar be as worthless as a peso?
Nice try though.
And the scare tactic of we won't pay our bills, is just that, a tactic. We have the money to pay our bills, just not the money to spend on another stimulus. That is what this is all about, Obama and the Dems and Progressives, having another 2.1 trillion to blow in another stimulus.
And we do not want it.
There will be no great death of anything other than the artificially inflated bubbles that have been created and sustained through the bailout programs throughout our market, becasue Obama and his crooks won't have the money to inflate the markets through bailouts and subsidies.
It is the best thing if this market as it is now, crashes out and corrects itself.
It is what our markets are suppposed to do.
Hi Tom. Fancy meeting you here.
Please don’t pretend all of the artificial bubbles in our markets are the result of bailout programs and subsidies created and sustained under President “Obama and his crooks”.
I think you know the economy of the USA collapsed 6 to 8 months before President Obama was elected. The first stimulus package was designed by the Bush administration with the blessings of the Democrats in Congress. Do you remember TARP and the $700 billion released by Congress prior to President Obama’s inauguration on Jan. 20th, 2009? Don’t you remember President Bush, on December 19, 2008, used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds would be spent ONLY on programs he personally approved. And don’t forget February 5, 2009, when Elizabeth Warren, chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel, told the Senate Banking Committee that during 2008, the federal government paid $254 billion for assets that were worth only $176 billion. She reported billions of dollars had fallen into a black hole at the Bush controlled US Treasury Department. The stock market adjusted by going into a free fall. Businesses, real estate, and jobs all took a major hit.
Following George W., President Obama pursued his own efforts to bolster the economy with a second stimulus package, an extension of the “Bush Tax Cuts”, and other initiatives. As a result, most market sectors have recovered and corporations are currently enjoying huge profits, hoarding trillions of dollars in cash reserves, and pushing stock market indicators back up to pre-2008 levels. The housing market remains down about 25% in many NorthEast population centers which should be a good deal for qualified buyers if only banks would lend their reserves instead of looking to invest them.
Of course the job market is the worst we’ve seen in a long, long time. As you already know, a recent Bloomberg survey indicated 78% of the Americans sampled attribute the major cause for the high unemployment rate to U.S. companies having sent jobs overseas. That’s a national trend that pre-dates President Clinton and NAFTA. High unemployment will likely remain with us until the comparative costs for producing in the U.S. entices businesses to bring the jobs back from offshore.
Sorry, Tom. Your perception of crooks and heroes doesn’t match up with my reality. Have a good one, my friend.
No where do you see me blame only Obama and his crooks... I have constantly said all of the above... something you all do not seem to get.
They have all done this to us... ALL!
Clear enough, Quill. So please don't act like you don't know my position.
My reference to Obama and his crooks not having the money, is because he is the one in charge, along with the Socialist Democrats and Progressives, -(regardlaess of the blame you all push to the Conservative Right, they are not in control, and have not been for a long time.)-, and it is they who are screeching about another stimulus... which is simply keeping those bubbles artificially inflated.
And that is a fact. Our Markets need to be allowed to crash and correct themselves.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act created the Troubled Assets Relief Program to administer up to $700 billion. Several oversight mechanisms are established by the bill, including the Congressional Oversight Panel, the Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP), the Financial Stability Oversight Board, and additional requirements for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).( Source-Wikipedia)
There should be no doubt that the economic downturn did indeed begin during the end of the Bush Presidency. But it would be unfair to claim the he alone is responsible. In fact, the foundation for this began before Bush was President, continued to build during Bush, Started to surface under Bush, was made worse under Obama. Now I am also not blaming Obama for creating the economic conditions just that his policies made it worse.
You said” Don’t you remember President Bush, on December 19, 2008, used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds would be spent ONLY on programs HE personally approved”
As per Wikipedia and numerous articles on this, they all say the following:
“On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program that Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson, deems necessary to avert the financial crisis.”
I know many want to believe Bush was spending the money, but he was not. It was overseen and approved by a committee. It was their job to oversee all the funds including voicing their opinion and where funds were spent. The members were
The members of the board are:
• Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve (Currently Ben Bernanke)
• Secretary of the Treasury (Currently Timothy F. Geithner)
• Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (Currently Edward J. DeMarco, Acting Director )
• Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (Currently Mary Shapiro)
• Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Currently Shaun Donovan)
The panel consists of five outside experts appointed as follows:
• One member chosen by the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi selected Richard H. Neiman on November 14) 
• One member chosen by the minority leader of the House (John Boehner appointed Jeb Hensarling on November 19) 
• One member chosen by the majority leader of the Senate (Harry Reid appointed Elizabeth Warren on November 14)
• One member chosen by the minority leader of the Senate (Mitch McConnell appointed John E. Sununu on December 17 after his original choice Judd Gregg had "stepped aside" December 1 ).
• One member chosen by the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate, following consultation with the minority leaders of Congress (Damon Silvers  was appointed on November 14)
Now it’s true that Treasury in 2008 paid $254 billion and received assets worth about $176 billion. But that was the mandate of the bill, copy to follow. They were to buy troubled assets. But besides the $176 billion in assets it held it also collected $271 billion in dividends. So total spent was $294 billion and we have $ 447 billion in cash and assets. So trying to say the Government wasted money is not true
Watchdog: Treasury overpaid for bank stocks
By Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated PressFebruary 5, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) - A government watchdog group says the federal government overpaid for stocks and other assets from financial institutions under its $700 billion rescue program.
The chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the bailout funds told the Senate Banking committee Thursday that Treasury in 2008 paid $254 billion and received assets worth about $176 billion.
The figures were reached by extrapolating the results of a study of 10 government transactions.
The Treasury by Jan. 23 had spent about $294 billion on more than 300 companies under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. In one bright spot, the inspector general in charge of reviewing the funds said THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS RECEIVED MORE THAN $271 MILLION IN DIVIDENDS from preferred shares obtained through the program.
TARP allows the United States Department of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled assets", defined as "(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."
In short, this allows the Treasury to purchase illiquid, difficult-to-value assets from banks and other financial institutions. The targeted assets can be collateralized debt obligations, which were sold in a booming market until 2007, when they were hit by widespread foreclosures on the underlying loans. TARP is intended to improve the liquidity of these assets by purchasing them using secondary market mechanisms, thus allowing participating institutions to stabilize their balance sheets and avoid further losses
You said-“She reported billions of dollars had fallen into a black hole at the Bush controlled US Treasury Department. The stock market adjusted by going into a free fall. Businesses, real estate, and jobs all took a major hit.” That is not quite correct.
While it is true the market saw more fluctuations under Bush than any other President, the freefall you refer to started more than a year before the Elizabeth Warren report. In fact the TARP bill came about because of the free fall in the market place. Here is a breakdown (source-DJI)
Was 11215.10 in late 2000
Remained steady till 911 then dropped to8847.65
Had a modest rebound to 8896.09 then fell again
Then a slow 1 year rebound
Now the market fluctuated then started a slow upturn over several years
The market fluctuated till April 2008 when it began a dive
December 19, 2008- President Bush signs TARP bill
February 5, 2009, when Elizabeth Warren reports to Congress-1 month after Dow hits its low.
After Jan 2009 the market has risen and dropped till we are at on June 2011.
As for the Bush tax cuts, Obama wanted to eliminate them at first, but due to Repubs and the public’s outrage, he changed his position and signed an extension till after elections. It is his hope to get reelected and eliminate them at that time. As to the rest of his measures, I do not think not one of his policies he made has worked. I believe that’s a part of why his entire economic team is bailing on him. I know we could debate that.
I do agree a part of our employment problems is jobs that were shipped out. I think one way to stop it would be to make those people working for US companies pay payroll taxes like we all do. Also, if a company does business in the US, I do not care where you are based, they should pay corporate tax on the business they do here. That would help keep jobs here as well as bring in more revenues. As for the rest, if construction and housing could turn around, there would be a big jump I new jobs. Those industries took the biggest hit in unemployment.
Quill good to hear from you as always and hope to hear from you soon.
" it is the best thing as it is now if the market CRASHES out and corrects itself" so you do admit that you would like the entire country to CRASH in order for your AGEnDA to take hold. And WAIT for it to correct itself which is simply not happening anyway. That 2. Something trillion dollars is in the private sector sitting and stewing and cooking itself to death. Selfish selfish selfish, tisk, tisk,tisk. You have not given me any reason to feel safer in your hands or in your leaders. you have absolutist no real idea of what fiscally RESPONSIBLE means. It means making good on your promises to pay your debts. TM get your head out of BECKS Tush and start seeing the real situation.
Would the world stop spinning if Wall St.crashed? We bailed them out,one of them got paid twice.Considering that a large part of where our economy is right now is Wall St's doing. We know what's killing us but refuse our medicine.
How high do you want unemployment to go?
Interested in seeing tent cities & soup kitchens?
Fair tax on the fat cats is how to redistribute wealth- not equal poverty. Because its never equal. The fat cats may loose 3 of their dozen homes, but you and I loose only one -the only we have and are in the street.
All I know is: for 30 years or more...beginning with Reagan, the rich have prospered and the rest have not.
We have been governed by this snobby attitude of "well, I have mine, what is wrong with you?"
We slam drug users and single moms and people who are sick and can't care for themselves. Meanwhile, Robber Barons committ highway robbery with nary a slap on the pinky.
And it is all done by gvt policy.
This is how I sum up my feelings:
If I was starving and homeless, and knocked on a Republican's door, it would get slammed in my face.
If I knocked on a Dems door, they would invite me in.
Simple as that.
That is how I see it.
I would hate to think that anyone would turn their back to someone in need, but we know it happens. After I read what you wrote I remembered a study on who was more charitable, the Dems or the Repubs. The answer was the Repubs. Maybe you should knock on their door first. Here is from the report:
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
Here is the beginning of that book
All of us are aware of the public discussion of personal generosity and
charity that was generated when the public learned that Vice
President Al Gore’s charitable giving in 1997 was only $353. Because
of politics, we also know that Senator John Kerry, presidential candidate
in 2004, gave nothing to charity in more than one year when he was a
U.S. Senator. Before his marriage to Teresa Heinz (whose reported fortune
was half a billion dollars), Kerry’s 1991–1995 charitable contributions
were ($0, $820, $175, $2039, $0), less than one-half of one percent of his
income for the period. In contrast, private citizen George W. Bush gave
($28,236, $31,914, $31,292) in 1991–1993. His highest giving was 15.7
percent of income and his average 9.1 percent. As Texas governor he gave
$27,000 (6.5 percent of income) and $9,178 (2.3 percent) in the next two
years, after which his giving returned to higher levels.
What makes this information fascinating, other than the prominence of
the individuals involved, is that most of us would say that Vice President
Gore and Senator Kerry were more associated with American liberalism
and the position of political verbal advocacy of providing help to the needy.
Therefore, according to this thinking, they should have given more than
the American average of 3.5 percent of income and more than political
conservative George Bush. The obvious question that the surprising tax
return information prompts us to wonder is whether there is anything
systematically different about the way American liberals and conservatives
support their words with personal giving.
It is all run by big corporations. I think just raising the taxes on the top 1% would almost pull us out of debt. Corporate government wants to own the world... in energy, food, water and power. It is scary because they have been succeeding. So much information is out about all of this, unfortunately since most of the media is also owned by big corporations, we don't hear about it. It is all in the citizen media, buried in the internet where most will never see it.
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?Overall, has he been good or bad for America?Please use...
by Beyond-Politics 13 years ago
With so much vocal an organizational opposition to President Obama and his policies (such as they are) after only 9 months in office, is such criticism warranted? Does the opposition reflect minority intolerance, or a fear of growing minority influence?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that America has become worse under President Obama? The main crux of Obama's...
by LucidDreams 9 years ago
I am not saying ALL Republicans are, I am just wondering why anyone would actually stay with a party that is clearly not on the same page as most of America? Most (not all) but most who are die hard right Republicans watch Fox news. Not sure if you have noticed, they can't even get along with each...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...
by JON EWALL 10 years ago
When will President Obama tell the people his plan to change the economy around?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|