Obama promises future budget restraint

It's not difficult to understand if you just, um, ya know, think.

Obama has an efficiency and performance czar as part of his White House.  If we're going to spend money, doesn't it make sense to do so efficiently and effectively, to trim waste so we get the most bang for the buck?

And of course tax cuts for the middle class have always been part of Obama's package.

Thinking. Tis fun. Try it!

Show me the math, Kim.  You'd be the first.

Mo:

Show me the flipflops. There aren't any.

The philosophy of trying to save a nickle sounds nice on the surface but is part of the problem with our country. You buy a shirt at Walmart that was made in malaysia that costs less than the shirt that was made in Georgia - result is one more family in Georgia depending on welfare. Same thing for the auto industry only on a broader scale. I think people are grossly underestimating how many industries feed the auto industry. I would agree that we need to hold the auto manufacturers feet to the fire to develop alternative fuel cars but to let the industry go under would be a calamity.

I'm not condoning business as usual with the $800 dollar hammer and the like BUT the so called efficiency and performance "experts?" tend to have a myopic short-term perspective that has put alot of people in the unemployment line.

Spend.  Restraint.  There ya go.

Now show me the math.

Mo-

Stimulus spending is needed to get the economy activated again and fix badly ignored infrastructure.  Since Reagan we have let our roads, bridges, power grids and schools go to pieces.  Compared to Europe and Japan, our infrastructure is badly outdated - the result of too much military spending without fixing things for the regular public.  How much did that embassy in Iraq cost????  The air bases we built there???  The missile system we want to plant in Poland???  I could definitely go on and on...

Tax cuts will put a little in folks pockets to help with the tough times, and help even out the uneven favors done for the wealthy.

Budget restraint means we cut waste, make better deals/contracts for government services, reduce costs, stop funding government propaganda advertisements for the military and special programs, government freezes hiring and wages for a short term, we stop spending $10 billion/month in Iraq, things like that. 

Some of the budget restraints will pay for the cuts and stimulus.  Some of the stimulus will keep tax revenues coming in - so will cover part of its cost.  It will also maybe help some companies stay afloat, so less unemployment benefit expense. 

This is a recession - almost a depression if allowed to go there. What Obama is proposing now is like building a house - first the foundation, then the walls, then the roof.  Bush and the greed-mongers in Wall Street destroyed our foundation, so we must rebuild it.  Bush and the Republican Congresses racked up huge deficits due to   the war and tax cuts to wealthy folks.  As we stablize, we can then go about the business of getting back to black ink in the budget. 

A business person and financial pragmatist can get this sorted out.  Not politicians.  Not party partisan politics.  Not pork.  Not those hungry to expand military power.  We need persons who are used to having to balance a budget and be responsible for their spending.  Like you and me. 

We have had too many spoiled wealthy people running this government  who have never had to balance anything except their political favors - like Bush who had every business failure of his covered by his father or the Saudis. 

I think Obama's decision is a wise one - LONG overdue.  Congress has proven itself to be less than responsible about spending too, so this new person Obama has proposd can hopefully help keep Congress in check. 

No flipflops.   Can we drop the election rhetoric and be constructive?   TRY.

I got on an endless phone call (people think I work - the noive!) and Dorfy beat me to it. And did a bang up job.

You're not interested in thinking about this really Mo. You're interested in spitting out names like 'flipflop' like a cat horks up hairballs.

Not productive. Think I'll go back to that work thing.

We need persons who are used to having to balance a budget and be responsible for their spending.  Like you and me.

Can we drop the election rhetoric and be constructive?

Copy that.  Money in, money out.  Haven't seen the math to show how that's going to work.  That'll all I ask.  It's not rhetoric to be concerned. 

Another agency to try to cut waste??? Shouldn't each department do that on their own?

people who don't pay federal tax already get a tax break and are eligible for every gov't program under the sun. The middle class(of which i am part of) can't even get discounted school lunch for there kids. You want to tax the rich go right ahead but put the middle class  first in line when handing out that surpluss lower income people already got there's . Why is it so hard for people like you to grasp?

If Obama can reduce government spending in areas where we are not generating effective return for our $$ then I'm all for spending and amount in the range of what is saved toward job creation and economic stimulus. 

I would rather see import / export laws changed to bring back mfg jobs back to the US, because it was mfg that brought us out of the great depression, not services & credit as our economy is based on now.  If we reverse our trade deficite our country will become wealthier, as we exist now our country gets poorer because we ship in more than we ship out, sending money out of our economy into mainly China's. 

China will rebound the fastest because their economy is a mfg powerhouse...  We should have seen this coming, but we ingored the economist who were saying these things and tagged them as alarmists trying to rain on the parade.

Well it is now time to pay the piper, and we've got much less funding to pay our record debt with because of our trade policy and laws that have eliminated what was once the backbone of our economy. 

Obama hasn't tackled this one yet, nor do I think we'll see him do so.  You would think with all that union campaign money it would be somewhere on his radar. 

Money needs to go into the hands of people who will spend it.  People have lost their purchasing power, due to a "pooling" of resources at the top of the pyramid--tax cuts for the wealthy, mortages that sap the funds of homeowners, job loss.  That identical scenerio took place before the crash of 1929, and it is being repeated now.

Factories produce goods not  because the owners have accounts full of "investment capital" but because they have buyers for the goods they produce.  When the money dries up, the poor, lower, and middle income folks stop buying goods, which makes it foolish for factories to produce more.  They then lay off people, cutting even more available money to the buying class, which starts a cycle that can only be stopped by getting more spending power into the "buying class."  How to do that is the crux of the discussions taking place now.

If people, because of some ideological prejudice,  think the unemployed or cash-strapped people "don't deserve handouts," or other government support, they are bull-headedly contributing to the problem rather than solving it. 

The economy will get rolling again when people of all strata, not just the rich, have buying power.  Call that any name you want, socialism, dogfleaism, anti-starvationism.  Set up programs, give tax breaks, offer interest free loans, anything to, yes "redistribute the wealth" so that buying power is returned to all segments of our society.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Kim, you want to see the FLIP FLOPS...?

Well how about taking saying he was going   Federal campaign funds...then not talking them. FLIP FLOP

How about claims NO ONE from his staff talked to blagovich...then people did... FLIP FLOP

How about "I could no more distance my self from Reverend wright then I could distance my self from the black community"......then he distances himself from Reverend Wright... FLIP FLOP

How about spending two years attacking GW for cutting taxes and increasing spending  then  Obama program is....cutting taxes and increasing spending....FLIP FLOP

How about attacking GW for defecits...then projecting  defecits of his own of over 1 trillion dollar for several years to come...FLIP FLOP

How about claiming he never had any association with AYERS....then the real story comes out....FLIP FLOP....

FLIP FLOP.....

hmmm, let's see, the stimulus package worked so very well when George W. instigated it last year.  Let's put on some blinders so we can see only what we wish to see. 

What a horrible, horrible man he is for that!  Send him to Cheney for punishment!

Wow, what  a news day! These just in:

"Rush vows to never make fun of Hillary"

"Southern Baptists support gay marriage"

"Hollywood vows to make G-rated films only"

What little bit Obama said he would do to before election he has now changed several things he said he would do. Socialism is coming.

simple Mo, cut the budget of all the important stuff and increase welfare, make more jobs by hiring people to hand out the welfare and then collect the money from those of us who work hard.

Spend on welfare so they can go to Wal-Mart

Increase jobs by expanding government

Restraint by collecting tax money from workers.

Aw, c'mon, at least some of that money has to go to Fred Meyer!

Mo:  Thanks for saying it--I was reading an article this morning that started with the headline that Obama is going to curb government spending, but the very end of that first paragraph said that "spending was necessary to get the economy going."  So, really, what was it?  Spend or cut back spending?  I think the man is speaking from both ends of his mouth to appease to all sides, and the bottom line is, you can't please everyone all of the time.

Dorfy, Reagan is not to blame for the liberal states that have stolen the funding from the gas tax to pay for social programs and ignored the highways.  Look at the billions, yes billions, that California under control of a Democrat legislature have taken from the highway funding to give to those who are illegals (resident tuition for illegals while citizens can't even get in) or the Medi-cal programs for illegals while the roads deteorate.  Until we get rid of the liberals and back to basics, we will not have a sound economy.  You can't take oout what is not put in; in the long run there is a collapse-that is exactly what we are seeing now. 

The wages of sin is death, the wages of a non-working society is collapse. As long as we have pay-forplay politics (Dems and Repubs) we can't have restraint or efficiencies- and how much does obama owe for the billion dollars of campaign contributions he received?????

Hey Pelosi "This is not the road crew of my grandfather's day." Mores the pity they actually worked back then. First order of business get rid of the bimbo Speaker of the House from CA. You and your backassward cronies certainly don't speak for my house and home. Weren't you part of the AIG F&F bank bail out with no restrictions?

Freeze the salaries of ALL those in Washington, State, and city government, and any industry personnel that received a bail out. Consider it a stimulus that you still have a job. Put a Moratorium on all bank loan payments so people can keep their homes and catch up. You greedy  Bas+++ds created most of this mess. You can suck it up and deal. 5% interest for the next 5 years and an extended mortgage for another 10 years.

Auto Industry bail out shoud be used primarily for research and development there is already a glut of new 08 & 09 vehicles on the market.

Eliminate ALL illegal benefits. TS you're not Americans, deal with it and go home. Eliminate NAFTA and put a higher  tax on all foreign goods and services. Keep American jobs at home.

Clean up and Clean out the muddled mismanaged health care system of medicare and medic-aide. It's a stinking mess so is the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. You need food stamps it's for FOOD ONLY give back the CHANGE in Food stamps. OK you can buy TP and laundry soap.

Let the sstates and town governments handle more of their own immediate problems big government simply means biger waste and bigger spending.

I have figured out particulars and I have sent and called my representatives. I suggest we all do the same. The hell with rehashing yesterday and who did what and when, we are here NOW. Live in the present and move forward to a more productive honest future.

Darrell: And what would you have Obama do? I've seen you post all over the vine, but you never have anything to say other than essentially "Obama bad." Would you have Obama sit on his hands like the current president is doing and hope that everything will fix itself? Kinda like Hoover did before the Great Depression? Pretty much every economist I've listened to says that the government needs to spend and spend NOW to get us out of this spiral we're in. It's not like Obama could have known while he was running that Bush would ignore the economy as long as he did or that it would get as bad as it is. Give him a little slack, will ya? You'd think this was the first campaign promise that ever had to be broken by the way all the crybaby, sour grape conservatives are carrying on. Or does no one else remember that Bush ran under a platform of being a uniter? Worked out well, hasn't it?!?

Obama is NOT talking about "giveaways to people who don't pay taxes."  Do you UNDERSTAND the immensity of the financial crisis facing the country right now?  Financial experts both liberal AND conservative say it's the most serious since the Great Depression almost 80 years ago and that the economy MUST be stimulated.  The government can't just hide it's head in the sand and act like nothing's happening.  Even the former Republican chairman of the Appropriations committee says that the government HAS to act.

If the goverment really cared about stimulating the economy they would have put themselves on a wage freeze as well as freeze the TAXPAYERS contributions to their retirement plans. It's not Dems OR Repubs-everyone of them sit up their on thier high horses making much more then 6 figures a year playing god with our lives.I so NO COMMITMENT to the taxpayer-no proof that they will even so what they say they will AND I see them going against what the tax payer wants because they think they know better. THIS IS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM-stop pointing the finger they are ALL CROOKS.

Tom,

We get your point but have you stopped to consider that these are the same so-called "experts" that were around before this crisis and never offered any advice to prevent the current situation from happening. Personally, I think it's all opinionated blather. Noone really knows what is best right now.

Will and Tom,

Different experts, a different approach.  Since Reagan, Monetarists have ruled the day.  That model doesn't work so well when the financial markets are in turmoil.  So back we finally go to reason - to Keynsian economics. 

Obama's group will find equilibrium in a year or two.  But this is not video game.  Change in an economy this size takes some time.  It is like turning the Titanic.  Everyone gave Bush eight years to screw it all up.  Can't all of you give Obama a year or two before you start attacking?  No one seemed to mind when Bush spent hundreds of billions on a war that was (and still is)  unjustified.   

Dorfy,

Barring a revolution taking place, your people will get their day in the sun. If they fail, then what? 

First of all, the Titanic didn't turn! It sunk!!! With the intelligence the President and congress had, they just about all vote for the war. Furthermore, if you think this is all Bushes doing you need check you got Freddie and Fanny started.

will - If this admin "fails", I wondered about that.  My guess is that if America goes bankrupt, we will default on our loans to foreign countries not unlike what has been done to us in the past by others.  (Sometimes we "forgive" the loan or a portion of it - but noone will give America a break.)  It's not like we'll say ok China, here is Hawaii, we're even - they'll have to take an I.O.U. until we can pay - and we'll look bad, but life will go on.  "Life" will probably pretty crappy, as in another depression.  Bummer.

Sorry! That should be Bush's doing.

Dave,

Fannie and Freddie are not the cause of our problems - they just played along when they shouldn't have.

The causes:    Investment banks selling credit swaps leaving insufficient capital on their books and bundling Mortgages into securities sold all over the world that had terrible credit hidden away within each bundle,  big developers clearing thousands of acres and planting thousands of homes financed by their inside lending practices that could not be afforded by new buyers, banks and mortgage companies lending at 100% LTV or more,  the entire financial services industry being structured to reward cross-selling volume instead of credit quality, the turn away by financial entities from holding their own loan paper and living with the risk they created, legislation removing the controls in place to separate banks from insurance companies from investment banks, UNREGULATED mortgage companies and investment banks, .......in other words, Reaganomics and  greedy careless people left with no supervision and consequences for their reckless action.

Will - they are not my people, they are now our people.  If they fail, we live in a democracy - we can fire them and vote someone else in.  Something we should have done when Bush ran in 2004.  I am not a member of any party.   Obama is our elected president to be.  He has made more sense since August than Bush did in all eight years.  Let's support him, see how it goes, then vote again in 2012. 

I agree with a lot of what you said. However, it stems from bad loans to people did not deserve them. Furthermore, we do not need more regulation only good regulation.

Dorfy......Chris Dodd,Barney Franks,Chuck Schumer,Charles Rangel,Maxine Waters,all had a chance to vote to oversee and tighten controls on Fannie mae and Freddie  mac,but they let Raines the CEO of Fannie Mae,Contribute to their campain fund and he walks away with 90 million dollars. Fannie and Freddie should never have been Governmentalized and Carter and Clinton would not have had any say as to how qualified a person was to get a loan. The Democrats in congress voted not to regulate them and let people have loans who could not pay them back. YES FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC DID CAUSE OUR PROBLEMS...Whats wrong with Obama,a Trillion Dollar Deficit,How come its ok for him to run up the Deficit.His welfare payments of $500.00 a person will not turn the Economy around,WAKE THE HELL UP.

Michelle, There in lies the true reason behind GWB's approval #'s. As a conservative, I strongly disapprove of his socialist positions trying to make you guys happy. His biggest failure was the realization that letting TK write the educ. bill, trying to ram through amnesty for illegals, the pharm prescription plan for seniors,etc. What did all the giveaways do for him? Nothing, your side was going to despise him regardless. What it did do was cost him the support of conservatives. That is where the low number comes from. Please don't think 80% of the country agrees with you. It is still a 40/20/40 split.

Dorfy...REAGANOMICS..>HAHAHA   Reagan been out of office for  2 decades....Guess who deregulated financial serivices in 1999?  It was called the  Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, was signed by BILL CLINTON after over 90 senators voted for it...

has very little to do with  Reagan....

"I've seen you post all over the vine, but you never have anything to say other than essentially "Obama bad." Would you have Obama sit on his hands like the current president is doing and hope that everything will fix itself?"

Actually, sitting on his hands would be at least 1000% better than his stimulus plan.  Unfortunately, Bush did NOT sit on his hands, his policies are lighter versions of what Obama is proposing, and these lighter versions have caused enough problems.  Bush gave us a world record corporate tax, he gave us record taxation against big business, and then cut it back marginally but relatively insignificantly with the so-called tax breaks that are nothing more than the equivalent of increasing taxes by ten percent and then lowering the increase by five, this STILL being tax inflation no matter what name it's given. 

What I would have Obama do is the exact OPPOSITE of the ridiculous things he's promising.  It is impossible to suggest while using any measure of common sense that to take from the businesses creating the jobs, and using that money to create temporary government and union spots, will actually create three millions jobs.  If he takes enough to create three million of the jobs 97% of the nation doesn't work, then in return this would be taking three million jobs from the businesses he's essentially robbing, three million of the jobs people are looking for.  You don't take from the job creators in an effort to create jobs, this is common sense and Obama's proposal is nothing more than a publicity stunt to garner support from those who can't see past the short term effects, ignoring all of the damaging term results these ideas bring.

Maybe if Bush had done what you accused him of, of simply sitting on his hands, we wouldn't have the level of problems that we currently have.  Unfortunately, he did no such thing, he put together stimulus packages that robbed from businesses to provide short term relief at the expense of long term stability.  He created tax proposals that were intense enough to warrant mass outsourcing practices.  He acted as one of the most business liberal Presidents in decades, screwing every financial class over at every turn with the belief that you can attack at least one financial class and magically not have it affect every class in turn.

And what do we have now?  Obama's proposals promising jobs and change.  What are those proposals?  Absolute direct copies of Bush's proposals, simply amplified to demonstrate even bigger numbers.  With a proportional increase in the spending and taking of these new proposals, it's only logical to assume a proportional increase in the damage we see compared to Bush's identical lighter versions.  So, essentially, as you were commenting to the other poster in an attempt to insult him, OBAMA BAD.  That is a fact, Obama is nothing more than a heavier version of Bush.  The people voted in the same policies, simply magnified, in the guise of magical change.  I would MUCH rather he sit on his hands instead of taking even more from those being taken advantage of already and costing us our jobs and affordable costs.  At least if he sits on his hands, he won't be causing even more damage.  I would much rather Bush had sat on his hands as well, but unfortunately, despite your claim, he did no such thing and his policies, which Obama promises to recreate while he contradicts with promises that his policies are not the same even though ten seconds of reading can prove otherwise, are what has helped created much of the problems we see today.  World record taxation, a new President promising to increase them even though they are causing nothing but problems.  A failed incentive policy, the new President promising to copy that policy line for line but with higher numbers being taken.  No, Obama isn't sitting on his hands, but it would be much better to do so than taking every failed policy of Bush's and simply making them even worse.

Beckwolf, well said. Yes we would be better off if Obama sat on his hands. Seems like he's trying to take SS and Medicaid away from people who have spent a life time of working and supporting this. Now, when it comes to getting their money in return, our government again has slapped as hard as it could. I'm hoping someone will come along and SUE OBAMA, CONGRESS AND WHOLE NINE YARDS. They've thought about themselves only. If the elderly can't afford to eat and live with money we PAID, then we might as well have a civil war with Washington an start targeting these people our selves. I don't think Obama understands that Americans themselves can be terrorists when it comes to something they've PAID FOR ALREADY. Its not our faults the government has chosen to spend this money.

Suite Judy

You must live in Massachusetts or Minnesota, maybe New York?

Once they're in, they're in for life, it seems, in one way or another. Getting elected is what it's all about and, once elected, getting the money is what it's all about. Bush did a fine job of getting the money for him and his buddies.

Why is it that everyone in Congress hasn't been jailed - not for their incompetence, that's a given and not really a criminal offense - but for their failure to not only NOT balance their budget, but to claim to NOT know where the money went. 

CLUE: It's in YOUR POCKETS.

I want an accounting.

Do that for me, Mr. Obama.

pj - I'd be happy with the Wall Street crooks being investigated and jailed.  Even for a little bit, anything.  And Paulson, Bernanke & Cox - surely some criminal incompetence can be prosecuted there?  AIG?  Fanny & Freddie? 7 financials?  Nope.  Nothing.  It chafes.

Nope.  Nothing.  It chafes.

It do indeed!

But then, there really are two sets of rules, aren't there?

Suite Judy - I wrote to my Rep (R) and Senators (one of each) regarding the original bailout plan pleading with them not to pass it.  I heard back from all via form letters.  The Repubs supported it, the Democrat voted against; he'll be the only one that gets my vote next time around.

Same thing for the auto bailout, I wrote and pleaded against it's passage - I want them to fail because out of the ashes would rise a better industry, this one is clearly broken.  Seems our Reps and Senators told the auto companies to go packing as well and the President (R) decided to give them the cash.  Too bad I don't get another chance not to vote for him.

This country has been headed to hell in a hand basket for many years, it's time we take our lumps and get on with it.  Currently we're simply "refinancing" our bad decisions/actions and delaying paying the bill for our kids and grandkids.  I can survive a depression, how about the rest of you?  I would rather take this on myself than leaving it to my children, figure most parents would feel the same way.

To all - lose the partisan yakking, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.  I will be hiring at least 4 people in the next 45 days.  I am not a huge business but with 10 employees I am the backbone of this economy, not the Goldman Sachs and Leahman Brothers; who's buying non-voting stock in my company to keep people working?

Things may be bleak but they could be worse -  the way it looks if we don't do something, anything, soon it will be much worse.  There are times the perfect plan does not appear until you try something else, if you sit and wait for a solution everybody can agree on it will be too late.

Suite Judy

There are all Dems representing my state. RI I've written to them encouraging them to NOT support the 'stimulus giveaways'. Have I heard back? NO!! Do I think they care about balancing the budget? NO!  Do they care about cutting the runaway spending? NO!!!

Same here in New York ... Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer. I suspect they are too busy trading pork (and in Clinton's case, campaigning on company time) to be troubled with individual constituents.

And that will get us out of the downward spiral we're in exactly HOW? Should Obama sit on his hands and do nothing to get us out of this mess we're in? It's worked out so well so far for Bush, hasn't it? Of course, that would give you something else to snark about, so I guess for you it's a win-win. Except that it will solve NOTHING and put us right into a depression instead of a recession. Yeah. Good idea, George.

Hey, wait ... Is that you Mr. President?!? Glad you'll gonna be gone in 13 days! Have fun back in Texas!

Repubs spent more than the Dems when they were in power.  Exactly how are any of them fiscally responsible?

Capt Tripps

That's the point...neither dems or pubs are fiscally responsible and they are part of a flawed system.

When one listens to the banter from either partisan camp it seem to me they must be talking about a group of people that have never held power in Washington.  These statesman hate government waste, abhor pork barrell  projects and put the welfare of the country above partisan advantage.  The would never use taxpayers money to enrich their family or friends or political allies.  Would they ignore programs that are financially insolvent and encourage deficit spending that enables them to evade the really tough decisions that competent leaders would address?  Of course not.  Would they cheat to win an election?  Never!  Would they divide the electorate with fear and distortion to create advocacy groups, unlikely.  Would they unveil a second pork barrell project for about a trillion dollars and call it change when 2 months ago it was failed policy, I think not!  I only have one question, where are these great non partisan leaders you guys are talking about?

The two parties and there directions are far different. Republican fiscal conservatives believe that an economy is best served from above and the Democrats believe that increased government spending directed towards the lower 70% or so of the potential labor pool is the best way for an economy to grow. Increasing the percentage of wealth held by the top tier of earners can create jobs for the rest because in an ideal world they have the capital to create or expand industry. This works only if the increased capital is used to create and expand US based industries. If the capital is spent on a factory in China the only US benefit is the handling and sale of the shirt at a much lower economic benefit. When we combine top down growth with unrestricted spending it is a disaster. Bottom up growth may not be as fast or dramatic but it is more sustainable. We have had numerous laissez faire booms over the last 150 yrs or so and they are all followed by the inevitable bust. The largest period of sustained growth since we have been an industrial economy was 1932 to 1981, the years that follow have been a series of booms and busts buying and lending booms each puntuated with market crashes, bubbles and banking and financial failures. This is the history of laissez faire it has been so since the begining of the industrial revolution.

 JKHayes

they're all out ot lunch Carlos, and i hope they have a great last meal.

I find it funny that for all the name calling done on both sides, the Democrats have been the fiscally sound organization that has reduced welfare, is looking to reduce Medicaid and Social Security, and further reduce income taxes. Clinton and welfare reform, pay go policies, and now further tax cuts. Current Democratic Governor in NY is the best fiscal conservative we have seen in years. Making the hard cuts to even his base, refusing to raise taxes on the 'wealthy' before making government cuts, reducing the size of the government, taking on the unions, cutting Medicaid. What bizzarro world have we entered into.

Sure there is some waste, but the bridge to nowhere is not in the budget and IF P.E. Obama can pull off a no pork stimulous package (I really want to see how since the last one had almost 10% added in pork with the same jokers running the show) then kudos.

I just want to see both sides admit the bank bailouts were done very poorly by the White House and then signed in law by the Congress only after pet projects were included. Did Congressmen even read the bailout? Heck, after the Whitehouse fooled them all for the last eight years, you would think they would pay more attention.

Not praising Obama yet, I will hold judgement until he actually does soemthing. But so far, the Democrats are more fiscally conservative than the Neo-Cons.

"Repubs spent more than the Dems when they were in power."

That would be because we had one of the most business liberal Presidents in decades in office over the last eight years.  Calling yourself a Republican and then passing world record taxation policies (such as our corporate tax rates) still makes you a Democrat, no matter what title you pretend to cling to.  Bush was a state Republican, meaning that he was only Republican on social or moral issues such as stem cell research and gay rights (same as Obama who on many of those issues is actually a Republican, such as being against gay marriage).  But on the federal level, he proved himself to be equal to many of the most liberal known.  We didn't have Republicans spending more than the Democrats, we had the majority of Republicans fighting the majority of Bush's excessive incentive and tax policies, but being forced to demonstrate a measure of support out loud to try and maintain an established base, while caving on a variety of policies to get in certain measures attempting to cap the level of excessivesness.  We had a huge Democrat spending excessively, with policies that the new Democrat coming into office is taking, copying word for word, and then simply making the numbers even bigger, which will cause even greater damage than the current Democrat, in the guise of a Republican, has caused.

The funny thing about the economy is that it tends to take care of itself, regardless of what the President and the Congress do.  There are millions of smart business types out there who will figure out how to make their business survive.  The ones that aren't very good at it go away; the talented ones flourish.

Need to stop throwing rocks in the economic pool. 

The line item veto was determined to be unconstitutional in Clinton v. New York City, 1998.

The stimulus package has zero earmarks attached.

The stimulus package has zero earmarks attached.

...right now...

Benramz2: History shows that because the measures that Hoover took were too little, WAY too late. The New Deal did not get us out of the Depression, but it meant the difference between holding on and slow starvation to a LOT of people until WWII started. I agree that we're throwing money away had over fist. The money we gave to Wall Street should be taken back, and all of them fired for incompetence, and looked at to see if jail time is appropriate. We need to regulate the crap out of the banks and keep them under our collective thumb and keep them honest. But DO give refunds or stimulus packages to people who actually need it and deserve it, especially middle class America. We have to do something to stop the bleeding. Most economists, including conservative ones, believe that the government needs to spend, spend big, and spend NOW. We just have to be a LOT more careful about where we're spending our money.

Everyone debates the value of the New Deal. The conservatives like to say it prolonged the problems, even made them worse. But I can tell you several stories of my elderly and now deceased relatives who were not putting food on the table untilthe CCC's and the TVA were invented by the government to give them jobs. When they got those jobs, they were able to survive and they were forever grateful. Grateful enough to be Dems for the rest of their lives.

Michelle, have you read the latest study out of UCLA? This study shows that the actions by our Government actually kept us in the depression longer than the rest of the world. Why because they kept fiddling with the economy. They did not allow business to solve the issues, everytime one plan was created another was created that reversed the first plan. Kind of like one step forward two steps back, this is what I fear will happen with the incoming Administration.

The bank bailouts may have helped the banks, but they saved us here in NY too. Our state budget REQUIRES those wall street banks to stay in business. We generate a good portion of our income from them. Imagine is Hollywood suddenly went bankrupt, how would California survive? While I did not like them, I appreciate the Fed stepping in and doing it, otherwise NY was getting ready to bail them all out.

Now, the acountability is something that Congress and the White House should be ashamed of.

Benram,

Latest Study? UCLA 2004. The right wing media culling the archives for concurring opinions and validation for Obama attacks found this obsure report written by two little known economists which used an extremely narrowly focused set of indicators is hardly new and hardly ground breaking. It starts by ignoring the 20% of failing banks which was threatening to become a tidal wave until the Treasury and Fed stepped in, it also fails to mention that employment increased in every year except 1937 and 1938 with most economists agreeing that it was a tightening of spending which resulted in the 18 month recession , not excess spending.

This is just another Fox distortion of history along with their flat out lie that historians pretty much agree that the New Deal lengthened the Great Depression. Nothing could be further from the truth the vast majority of historians when polled something in the area of 92% believe the New Deal helped, Economists were somewhat closer with 60% positive 20% neutral 20% negative. The reference always used is a poorly researched screed by Monica Crowley which has been poorly received by virtually all historians of note and is endorsed by literally no one who is not associated with a Conservative think tank.

JKHayes

Benramz2........The line Item veto did pass once,But some Democrats took it to court and it was over turned,and has not come up again. I don't think his stimulus package is any good,How is giving $500.00 to people who don't pay taxes going to stimulate the Economy??I LIKE HIS IDEA OF LINE BY LINE BUDGET CUTTING,AND IF IT WORKS THAT WILL HELP.A TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT,WHATS UP WITH THAT HE WAS SUPPOSE TO BALANCE THE BUDGET. The Government is not in the business of creating jobs,that for sure will not help the Economy.

Schwannomin,

In fact very few people argue about the value of The New Deal. It is only very recent very well funded revisionist historians usually as a fellow of a Right Wing think tank who question it  more than 90% of academic historians vie the New Deal as necessary and successful. It is only muckrakers like Monica Crowley who has phd. in foreign relations but no background in US history and has been a republican apologist since she wotked for Nixon who argue against the New Deal.

JKHayes

I agree, history has shown that jobs are the only thing that helps, not government hand outs.  If the government gives tax breaks for companies that hire American we will have a stronger nation.  Plus a huge amount of knowledge and common sense won't hurt.

"The stimulus package has zero earmarks attached."

The stimulus package is NOTHING BUT one large pork spending project, it's a giant earmark unto itself, with the job creators forking over the largest amount of the bill, which of course can have absolutely no positive outcome.

And your plan to get us out of this mess is?

What are you talking about,  Bush has borrowed every red cent he could from china for Iraq, He never once vetoed a spending bill, you think we havent sat here for 8 years watching this idiot ruin our country. We are broke, dont blame anyone but the conservatives that spent it all, blame the conseratives for deregulating the banks and private corporations, made it much easier to steal this countrys wealth. The break up you talk about was on GWB watch, I hate to say this but you either dont read much, or listen to the news, or you just dont tell the truth, either way, whatever, you are wrong.

Michelle Iwant t know what is different about this tax rebate or cut and the one last year?  If you divert money from one segment of the economy by either taxation or borrowing to finance short term projects I don't see the potential for long term economic growth, we cant pave the entire country.  My biggest problem with the government spending billions of dollars on jobs is the fact that our political leaders have a rather dismal record of enriching their friends, families and allies with government funds when ever possible.  To me the real question how do we know the money will be spent where it will do the most good for the most people, not the people who will in turn help the local congress person.  This will be a tough thing for the congress to do, based on their past performance.

Ok ForTheBreakUp,

What should BO do (since you're such an expert at criticizing)? And please explain what Bush would do so much better than BO if this was his second term re-election? How about McCain? He would get us out of this mess without resorting to what BO plans on doing, right?

I have seen your posts before. The only thing you take pride in is laughing at BO but as usual you offer nothing else of any substance. No help, no solutions, no insight. Another sour grapes repub that just cannot accept the fact that your party of choice lost the election.

Michelle: The answer is the same one that average folks use when we spend beyond our means:

Slash spending

Boost income (in the case of government that would be taxes)

Don't need to be a genius, an Ivy League grad or a Nobel Laureate to figure this one out.

Marty, there was no further deregulation, just a severe lack of enforcement. And the Democrats are the ones making funding now and have been for two years. This is not new, nor does one excuse the other, but we all need to recognize that one party is not better than the other and just becasue one does it, its OK fo rhte other to do it just a little bit less.

As for P.E. Obama's plans, they do not sound plausible. So we question them. If there are answers forth coming to prove us wrong an him right, then great. We conservatives have not sat back for the last 8 years and not learned a thing or two ourselves. We learned the same lessons, and now we will act on them. We will question everything, just like you did and hopefully will continue to do.

Now, since i just said no to a plan, here is one that i think woudl work. Eliminate the taxes on the first 21k per person. That is 42k per household tax free. Then apply a 25% tax on the remaining. No writeoffs, no breaks, no above or below lines. Get this all entered in a central database so we can track it better and predict revenue.

Get rid of business tax loopholes and apply a flat tax of 25% for everything after the first 100k of PROFIT. R&D, donations, retooling, etc are tax free as they would be considered infrastructure investments. Any money claimed for use for those purposes not used in the following year will be taxed at 35%.

Tighten Medicaid to live saving drugs and treatments only (blood pressure, cholestoral, etc. No viagra, alergy medication, mild pain killers, etc.) and require mandatory drug testing, annual physicals, and psych evals. My dime, my rules.

A tarriff put in place on all goods made in foriegn companies that would be used to subsidize American goods. 2% value added to imports, and 2% taken from domestic products of the same category. Ex. A Chinese TV costs $100. We add 2% on that as a tax, getting $2. We then hand over a $2 rebate for companies stocking American TV's.

There, simple solutions that coupled with reduced spending woudl have a great impact on peoples daily wallets, help boost spending and small business growth, and alieviate the tax burden on the working poor. It is fair, it is simple, and it is a basic plan. Take it and make it better.

The only problem there, Bill, is it's to simple, to easy, to straightforward. Gov't will never go for that. But to my HS and life educated eye, that looks fair.

Besides the fact that big Gov't simply won't do anything that straightforward. That would only give politicians more time to make tomfoolery

Simple CitizenPain,  we should be doing what every one of us has to do when we overextend our credit.  We stop spending and pay down our debt no matter how painful it is to do.   Are companies going to fold...yes, Are people going to lose jobs and homes...yes.  Are services going to be cut...yes.  That's the way it goes.  Spending more only exacerbates the problem. Maybe after a little pain the voters will wake up, learn their lesson,  throw these pandering fools out of the senate and congress, and elect real fiscally responsible leadership.

The fake seal that he uses is also a prop used to "confuse" the average American into believing he is actually in control of anything.  If he truly believed that there is only one POTUS at a time, then he wouldn't conduct press conferences regarding issues that he has no real control over at this time.

Did anyone notice that he's using yet another Clintonista to help him oversee the stimulus package.  Did we elect him or Clinton? I'm really confused.

Not to fret, your confusion will be cleared up on Jan. 20th when Billary, Bill & Obama take the Oath for President of the United States of a Cluster F&^%^%^!!!!

Folks we ain't seen nothing yet!

Get the Vasoline out and hang onto your wallet!

Note to Barry Obama,

Try as you may, nobody is going to spend money on anything in this economy.

me and my new 42" hd care to differ.

If our future President doesnt pay attention to that fiscal crap, you may see a lot of hungry people even in your well off neighborhood, WOW, I forgot you people kill yourselves, you have no idea how to do without , Although it would do you a world of good to go hungry for awhile. About Isreal and Palestine, no one has to be in a big hurry to talk about a situation that has been ongoing for decades, PE Obama cant do a thing and he may not want to disagree with Condi or GWB right now, it would not be appropriate.

Capt tripps,

That is the reason some people can't make their payments. They think they need the cell phones, HD T.V.s, even internet conection at home. Middle class is killing itself with all the "must haves" they are buying. Every time I hear of someone buying one of those (and it doesn't matter what kind of financial situation they are in) I shake my head and laugh quitely to myself. (fools)

TO: Capt Twitt

I have a great Idea, your Boy Obama would be proud of you.

Take back your 42" HD and get two 21" HD's, look for a dope smoking, lottery buying, colt 45 drinking liberal and give him one. If you are an Obama believer, you need to live his Redistribution Dream.

What that's not fair, welcome to the Republican Party!

martvol. I just bought new luxury items as well. I saved money, went without a few items, and had no issue taking advantage of a soft market. I even got to barter the price for it with the store manager. People are so eager to clear inventory that they will do it at cost or even lose money to get big ticket items off their shelves and off their debt. For example, the bike parts i just bought were listed at one price, i offered him another, he finally broke down and sold them to me at cost to clear them off his inventory. No one else had asked for them in months and he was losing money on intrest. Best Buy does not pay $1000 for a TV, they pay $500, and you can too if you ask :).

This is a great time to buy, and there are some of us who lived well within our means and continue to do so that are not being touched by this economic downturn. Well we are being touched, but have prepped for it for some time. Anyone who has had a job for the last few years should not be in trouble yet, unless they failed to save, lived too high, and did not prepare to loose thier jobs for longer than unemployment lasts.

I do agree though, the percieved 'need' for all these items and homes has landed people in trouble.

If you pay "CASH" & buy what you can afford.

Unfortunately, that's not the American way.

Hence the current crisis we are facing.

I wish I had come back earlier, these replies are hilarious.  Everything I own, except my house, I OWN, I paid cash for the TV, and it's only a 37", I got what I could afford, ironically with my stimulus rebate check last year.  Just saying, that not everyone is living above their means, nor is everyone suffering and reduced to eating beans every night.  My family enjoys  the same lifestyle we did a year ago, because we never overextended ourselves in the first place.  It's amazing the things you can do when your smart with your money.

If that is your work, I commend you.

Regardless, that should be plastered to every single liberals forehead.

Maybe after staring at it every day for a few years, they won't be quite as shocked when they realize where their principals are taking us.

Alas, me thinks they'll never allow themselves to understand.

You make $260k a year? Doggone it! How can we help you out! I'm starting to get misty over here worrying about your income.

TO: ClintHorace

As an Ex-cop/Investigator and now a Business Owner, I learned a long time ago, the Liberals aren't to bright, the common sense wires above their shoulders just aren't connected.

Have a Good One!

Typical schwannominian response.

Come to think of it...............typical whining liberal response.

Is "Distinguished" on your deploma?

it's not his work.  It's the most over-distributed email out there, kind of lame to copypasta it here.

Here's the part they leave out - the richest guy eats steak and lobster while the bottom five get breadsticks and water.

in other words you get what you pay for.

Clint,

  I am having a difficult time understanding what you are saying.  I thought all of you that were whining were fundamentalists.  Are you saying that you are liberals?  Look at the posts and see who is whining about everything.  Actually it doesn't matter if you are liberals or fundamentalists you are both on the outside of the majority of America looking in. 

  rbmscuba,

  The only people that have the common sense problem are those that want to sit back and pretend we do not have a serious problem. 

  The example you posted about the ten men that Clint didn't read the authors name at the bottom and wondered if it was yours is one way at looking at the situation.  But if you put some titles to those people it would make it look a little different.  Let's say the tenth man who is the richest is CEO of AIG and the bottom man on that list is a college student working at McDonald's to pay for his schooling.  The others could be CEOs of GM, Ford, Chrysler, some Politicians, and appointed Government employees.  The fifth man was a Teacher.  That would look differently wouldn't it? 

  If you wanted it to be fair each man would pay 15% of what they make with no write offs or deductions.  Just think the CEOs can deduct their Lear Jets as business expenses but the poor student cannot deduct his bicycle.

  By the way rbmscuba I pay more in taxes a year than you make.

rmbscuba:

Just a heads up. aren't too bright. The extra o matters when you denigrate others' intelligence.

Here is a fine example of why we are in this financial mess, supposed professors regurgitating a flawed line of logic to their students.

Try this on for size professor.

The group received a 20% discount.

Men 1-4 still pay nothing no change

Man 5 pays $0.80 instead of $1 (20% savings)

Man 6 pays $2.40 instead of $3 (20% savings)

Man7 pays $5.60 instead of $7.00 (20%savings)

Man8 pays $9.60 instead of $12.00 (20%savings)

Man 9 $14.40 instead of $18.00(20%savings)

Man 10 $47.20 instead of $59.00(20%savings)

Does this mean I get half your inflated salary?

TO: Capt Tripps

So everyone should be eating Steak & lobster regardless of wether they worked for it or not?

Help me understand why drug smoking, lottery buying lazy AZZHOLES should be entitled to things I have worked my ass off for me and my family, while you and your liberal friends are looking for a piece of my pie?

I now know you are as dumb as they say you are based on your comments.

Congrats on your GED!

When you take your money out of this country,  drag you ignorant rich ass with it.  I also work from 60 to 70 hours a week, I dont make your kind of money but I work just as hard probley harder, I dont ask a thing of this country, except the freedoms it offers. No i dont have to pay a lot of tax, but 4000 is a lot to me every year.  I You are a real sick piece of work.

Darrel-537274
At least your numbers come out right. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D  Distinguished Professor of Economics  University of Georgia was a dollar short after the price cut. Now I know why the financial markets are the way they are. Just because you learned from a book ,does not mean you have any common sense.

Roger

I get the feeling you're living in your own little world.

It doesn't surprise me that you're having trouble understanding.

What the hell difference does it make what level of success each of the "dinner-goers" attained in their lives?

Just like: What difference does it make that you pay more in taxes than rmscuba nets in a year? I get the feeling you may have some guilt issues as to how you "earned" your little nest-egg.

I make a hell of a lot less than both of you and you don't hear me asking for a handout.

I was told that in America, the sky's the limit if your willing to put in the effort.

What they didn't tell me was that I would have to work to pay for all the lazy @!$%#s too. That's socialism!

Taxes are one thing, but funding programs that do nothing but weaken our society is an entirely different cup-o-pizza.

Feel free to help the homeless or join a monestary and give all your money and possessions to  Obama, I'll continue with my rights as a citizen of the United States to question the manner in which, and how much of, my tax dollars are required to run this so called "government of/by/for the people".

Roger,

Thanks for the Input. I'm glad you pay more in taxes than I make. It makes my point. While it is a good living, I certainly pay my dues and then some to earn it, as I'm sure you do.

The example, which is written by the Professor at the bottom, not me, is only an example of our current situation. To date, more and more wealthy individuals are moving their assets offshore. WHY? Because the Current system is not fair and is killing this Country.

Your analogy of the 10th man, while it is right, it is also way wrong. There are alot of self-made people who own their own Businesses and are not CEO's with some major Company. And are down right angry about what is and has been going on, thus the reason they are seeking lower taxation for their assets.

You can't blame them!

I have been a long proponent of a flat tax, 15% as you suggest. Perfect! Now let's try to get it passed.

Good Luck to You!

Way to get hung on on the particulars. This is a good example of how percentages vs. totals tends to cloud everyones thoughts. If you charge one person 20% income tax and another 15%, then there is an imbalance. The gracious thing is that the higher taxed individual does not complain and pays the tax. It is like reading that P.E. Obama wants to give another $1000 tax break on income. Is that $1000 in your pocket? Nope, it means that instead of filling off the 35000-35999 bracket you now file off the 34000-34999 tax line. A savings of about $70.

Now, 125k is not a lot of money depending on where you live. Where I am, that is a very good salary, but four hours south and you are living in a one bedroom apartment with no place to park your car. It is all about location.

I love that story, been spreading it around for the past few months now.  It's sad to see that the story pretty much sums up the ridiculous thinking of millions in this country, that's exactly the way people seem to think, and apparently vote.

mbscuba - Trust me, I don't want any of your pie.  Probably don't even shave down there....

My point, which I would have thought was obvious considering I stated it plainly at the bottom of my post, was that the people who pay more get more.  I don't recall saying anyone should get something they haven't earned, I'm telling you that being poor sucks, and they pay less in taxes for a reason - they don't get alot of the benefits of society the rest of us take for granted.

Good Man!

Neither did I but unfortunately we are all going to pay dearly for his ignorant, inexperienced choices over the next 4 years. I am not sure this country will survive this president. God help us all !

HAHA! His middle name is Hussein too!

"If I were president, I'd still stay fat. And leave it up to me I'll paint the white house black. There ain't no future in your frontin."

"If I were President- I'd paint the White Hous pink and never have to pay the rent- if only I were President"

Thank goodness you're not

over react much there ur1bella?  Get a grip....

we survived el Busho, I think we'll be fine with Barrack.  He's got a much harder situation to deal with coming in than any president in 30 years, so try to keep things in perspective.

Joe, thank god you didn't vote for him.  heaven help us all we should have a pres-elect who is actually diving into the fray.  Whether you agree or not, what does having a pres who isn't afraid to try count for in your book?  Oh, that's right I forgot, you probably voted for the other guy who didn't even know we had an economic problem until a month prior to the election's end.  As the kids say today,when it comes to Obama, "he ain't scared"

Capt. is a Tripp..I believe the reason for this vine is to allow people to have their say. Maybe you need to get a grip and take off your rose colored glasses!

Ignorant/inexperienced?

I haven't heard those terms used since November 4. And I didn't hear ignorant then. Obama is VERY well informed. He may have a different ideology from you, but the level of information he's receiving is staggering compared to yours, mine, or anyone else's on this board.

Schwannomin.........you know Obama could not qualify to an FBI agent due his past affiliations with known Terrorists.Its the way he talks about a Trillion Dollar Deficit that makes people think he is Ignorant.Especially when it comes to Economics,and giving people money who don't pay Taxes. The level of information he is recieving is everything from Clinton cronies and I am not sure that means it is a good staggering or just mind boggling crap.

Terrorists! HA! This will never get old. He's also a muslim....with a racist christian minister. His middle name is Hussein, GOD FORBID! He's from Illinois, which makes him crooked by default. Everyone in Illinois is crooked. Did you know he's <whisper> african american?!

Do you people ever wonder why you're not taken seriously?

schwannomin

the comic strip I read (written by a black person) calls Barak a halfrican american. That's just one reason why Jesse and Al don't appreciate him, he'as not as black as they are.

"what does having a pres who isn't afraid to try count for in your book?"

Well, if what he's trying is WORSE than doing nothing, I'd say it's better to not try.  Obama's trying all right, trying to take all of Bush's liberal business policies, copy them nearly word for word as his own, and then simply make the numbers even greater, which can only have the obvious result of causing even more damage than Bush's lighter, near identical versions.  Isn't afraid to try?  Do you honestly think that not being afraid to try magically means that what he's trying is a good thing?  A lot of people aren't afraid to try, it doesn't mean that when what they want to try is a horrible idea that can only have negative consequences you let them, simply because they weren't afraid to give it a shot. 

Not afraid to try.  Wow, I can't believe that's the sort of compliments we have to come up with to excuse the actions of the PE.

they would give everyone $500,000 to pay off their debts and home

It's not the Gov't's job to buy you a house or to pay your debts.  That's your job. 

Your absolutely right but do you really think that giving money to banks and other institutes is going to help...  It hasn't yet and never will.  Where would you begin?  give money to institutes or money to the people that support the institutes.  Some were our government has forgotten about the people and now congress wants to pass a bill giving $3000 to the people...Why.  This didn't help with Bush and because of the size people will only spend it foolishly.

Again with the wacky math!

With two billion, you could give 4000 people a half a million.

That might cover one small city.

You might want to check your zeroes.....................Einstein.

Your right but the idea is not the numbers of zero's its the idea that it is still cheaper than the earlier $750 billion plus the now proposed stimulus package.  I sure don't see anyone coming up with a better idea and this is not to say this is.....  It is just to say that we put people in power to manage the country in good faith and as of right now the government has failed to do this for along time (this is not a party issue as no party has ever in the time of history provided for the good of the country.  What our government fails to understand is they are there to provide for the people, the people do not exist to provide them.

Where would you begin?

I'd just sit tight a little bit and see how this unfolds.  It's way too dynamic at this point and the target is obscured.

I'd just sit tight a little bit and see how this unfolds.  It's way too dynamic at this point and the target is obscured.

Are you practicing to be a politician?

If not, can Obama borrow that statement?

Or is that where you got it?

No, it's a life lesson gained from running a large organization.   

What's remarkable is lemmings like you that will follow along with the same plan that Bush started this year and say it's change?? 750 Billion here, 1 Trillion there, where is this money coming from?

as the english would say, press on.

Get off that horse, pull your blinders off, and look at the issue.  This has nothing to do with Bush.  

This is about my concern for fiscal common sense.  

easystreet 47,

re; #14

The guy is two weeks away from being President, and you Bush loving automatons have already condemned everything he is willing to try.

No free passes for anyone. Obama stands to be criticized when warranted. That's the way it is. I personally wish him well, but I will criticize what I believe are his errors. He is my president too. Not just the Democrats'.

And, you should get a reality check. The guy who was gonna' be his Commerce Secretary will be indicted for 'pay-to-play'. Great.  Leon Panetta is a good and smart manager who should have a spot in Obama's Administration. Just not in CIA. We need a warrior to run the CIA and help protect us from terrorism!

Obama's 'give-away' tax cut will have no effect on the economy. He should have learned that when Bush tried it. Is he trying to buy votes now for the next election?? I dunno'! But it's like torching $350 Billions!

The Dems have problems and Obama's yet to be sworn in. Not a good start.

I am not a Bush follower, nor am I ready to give Obama a pass.  Obama promised a balanced budget, Obama promised change and all we have seen so far is Clintonville. Obama fooled a lot of people with his teleprompter songs and dance and now the music has stopped.  I agree he is not President as of yet, but he continues to remind all of us about that only when he doesn't want to make a decision or be involved. 

I for one would like to see his plan for economic recovery that we hear in drips in writing and how he plans along with his team of Clinton's to make it happen.  This has nothing to do with Bush, this has to do with the promises Obama made to people who did not know any different.  We can not hand out money we do not have, we can not tax the wealthy anymore than they already are because unlike common Joe they will not stand by and let this happen they will move their money offshore.  They have the resources to make it happen.

Please tell me why I must support more than I already do those who choose to sit on the porch produce children they can't feed or educate?  Why is it my fault they signed mortgage papers and bought homes they knew they couldn't afford? I am not in support of the bailouts for the banks or automakers, let the chips fall where they may.

If you can't find a job that will pay you what you think you are worth then maybe you just aren't worth that number.  Better still work two, we have help wanted signs up in my area all over the place.  It is the give away programs that have created this monster not Bush.  I can find plenty of blame to place on Bush but for the Obama followers to constantly claim those of us who want real answers are Bush lovers is not true.  Obama promised a transparent government and all we see from his camp is UM UM UM and flip flop.  Tell me what is it you want from Obama?

As for the country being seperated, you bet it is and it will be if this continues.  Some of us are angry that Government wants to take our money and give it away, we have worked hard, educated ourselves and our children, bought homes we could afford and put evtra money in savings. 

This country has been split since the Florida election in 2000.  It happened, a lot of people didn't like the way it turned out, but it's in the past...they just can't seem to get over it.

I even saw yesterday (8th anniversary of the final decision) that some people were commemorating "the anniversary of the stealing of democracy".

Look forward, folks.

Lynn 300649 Well said!!

Most of your outrage about government spending I find ironic.            

1. No one stood up and complained when we started this expensive and unwarranted war that will cost $1 trillion or more before it's done. 
2. No one said that Wall Street and its scams were too risky while their returns were unrealistically high - until it all fell on our heads.
3. No one worried about spending all of our money on weapons and war instead of infrastructure until a bridge collapsed in Minnesota.
4. No one worried about safe, clean, efficient transportation until gas prices went to $4/gallon, and they are forgetting it quickly now that the prices have fallen.
5. In 2004 - No one thought about how stupid it was to return a rebate to the taxpayers to buy their votes when we were running a budget deficit and should have covered that instead.   The average guy commented about how great it was to make an extra trip to Walmart instead of fix the deficit then.

This country is all about ME ME ME and taking action after a mess comes up.  Sounds like you don't want to help anyone out who isn't as fortunate as you or as capable.  Let the poor sleep under a bridge!  Let the sick die without healthcare!  Let anyone walk if they can't afford a car!  Don't fix anything if I have to pay for it!  This society is more and more a group of spoiled selfish folks who have no respect for others. 

But how many of you have jobs that are for a government, paid for by government contracts, or provide services required by the government?  Millions, I know for sure.  If you don't want to pay taxes - OK.  Then give up your job that is subsidized by tax dollars.  Taxes are how your income is paid.        Hypocrisy!

Those of you who sit by and call everyone who is unemployed lazy - wait until your company has layoffs and you are unemployed.  You will be grateful for whatever assistance you can find.   

Pride cometh before a fall.  This country is full of folks who think too highly of themselves, and not kindly enough about others.  If you consider yourself Christian - add this to your list of personal hypocricies. 

Give all the heated critques a rest and let Obama actually become President before you start the attacks.  Time for partisan bickering later.

Lynn, I don't know what some think you have said so well.  From what I see and read.  Obama is making every effort to make his promises happen.  If there was not any  effort to make government more accessible to us, how the hell do you think you know enough to comment in this vine?  In other words, the man has already raised the consciousness of the people and improved our ability to know what is happening in the government.  For the first time in my life, I am able to go online and see this man's plans for the country.  What other administration made that possible?  You act like the man is super man or something.  He is visible and in our mix.  Thast alone says he representls a different type government.  Just because people were a part of the clinton thing does not mean they aren't the best ones for the job.  Get off this expecting so much so soon kick.  I get tired of all this "people who don't want to work, getting my money"  Well quess what, some of those people who didn't pay mortgages are human beings who made mistakes like everybody else.  Until we realize that part of our economic problems stems from people thinking they are better than those who are down, we'll continue this downward spiral.  It will take sacrifice and dropping of old ideas about handouts to help.  It matters little how people got into their predictaments, the point is we are all in a pickle now and have to change this "I got mine, now you get yours" attitude!!

Mo .... The framers began a Republic not a democracy.Why are you crying Look at Minnesota a flordia repeat,and the Democrats Elected a Clown for senator. To bad the third graders could punch the right holes the first time in Flordia.wHAT WE NEED IS A TEST TO SEE IF PEOPLE REALLY KNOW WHO THEY ARE VOTING FOR,OR WHAT PARTY IS IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS.

Crying?  No crying here.  I think the people still complaining about Florida are useless. 

I find Minnesota amusing and not surprising...they elected Jesse V also.

Mo, got to commend Minnesota though. If they do not like the incumbant, they toss them out by the ear, even if his replacement is a horses rear. There is no lesser of two evils there, they go for they evil they have not tried before.

It's presidential pork. 

Anyway you slice it (up-front apologies to my Vegan friends) but ............

'If it waddles llike a porker and oinks like a porker ...it's Pork!!'

I could never understand why Popeye wanted the girl, she wasn't that cute and too skinny!

She was the only one who would talk to a guy with 1" diameter thighs and 15" diameters calves. 

You obviously are not a student of economics.  It is the 70-90% tax bracket that invests in the U.S., not your liberal, victimhood idiots that spend every cent they have.  If no money invested, no new companies, no companies hiring, no job expansion, nothing but layoffs and less federal revenue.  But you are too stupid to even look at the facts.  You are a worthless whiner who isn't motivated and smart enough to figure out how to earn yours so you want to take from others.  You are a waste of human flesh, CommonSenseOR.

Have CommonSenseOR drop the common sense part because there is none.

Many prominent economists are already suggesting that Obama raise taxes on the wealthy. Also, check this out from economists worldwide:

Apparently I cannot put links in here. Go to the Fiscal Policy Institue's website and you will find one of my sources from prominent economists. Watch CNBC also. Listen to Peter Schiff. Also, recall that ever since Reagan was president, the national debt rose in proportion to tax cuts for the wealthy and lowering capital gains taxes. Reagan later admitted that he did the wrong thing. Also recall Bartlett & Steele's books out in the 1990-3 timeframe "America, Who Really Pays the Taxes?", etc.

Economists have been warning since Reagan we would hit this point in time where things get unsustainable. There was even a book called "Bankruptcy 1995".

So we Conservatives have had concerns for nearly 30 years about unsustainable debt. We also don't want to pass it onto our children and grandchildren to pay for.

Warren Buffett also agrees that taxes should be raised on the wealthy. The list is long and distinguished!

It is not up to the so called wealthy to shoulder the burden of responsibility here.  It is everybody's mess and everybody should pay.   The ones with the higher incomes are the ones keeping this economy afloat.  It does not work or ever has worked to just depend on taxing the rich to death.

They are not being taxed to death now. They were not being taxed to death in the 50's when the top tax bracket was much, much larger. There are two major problems that have to be dealt with ASAP. The first is the median income has fallen the last 10 years while productivity has rapidly gone up due to technology. Who benefits from that gap? The business owner. This is the same guy who replaced managed retirement plans (pensions) with employee contribution plans (401k) where you go from a paid professional deciding how your money is risked to you deciding. He is also the guy who has year by year removed health benefits to the point that over 40 million Americans do not have health insurance, which brings me to major problem 2. Health care is consuming a larger and larger chunk of GDP while we are not any healthier, and we are asked to pay for the lion's share of the cost. There are few ways to deal with both problems, but taxing the business owner who does not provide health insurance is a good start while we make healthcare a universal benefit to all.

Well said, Schwannomin! A lot of posters here are drinking the proverbial kool aid when they believe everything Big Business says, including all of their threats if they don't get their tax cuts. With the upper-income tax rates restored and capital gains taxed as regular income, this is an incentive for businesses to put their money back into their companies like they used to. This means defined pension plans, affordable health insurance (because individuals don't have the bargaining power of businesses to keep rates down), and living wages for their employees.

If there were no business owners...who would give you a job? Would anyone own a business if they did not make money? Just curious... And as for healthcare...Part of the reason why healthcare is so expensive is that we are sharing the risk for people who are sicker AND those who do not have healthcare.  Insurance Company's base their p costs to the employers on 1) Average sex and age  2) Amount of Claims 3) Deductibles 4) turnover.  Take a look at yourself in the mirror-part of the reason our healthcare costs are so high is because very few take care of themselves. If you think Universal healthcare is the answer why dont you cross the border into Canada and talk to the guy who has been waiting for 1 year for his bypass surgery. 

By every (100%) objective measure, Canada has a healthier population. Life expectancy, infant mortality, all of them.

YEA THATS WHY THE CANADIANS COME TO THE USA  FOR MEDICAL CARE.When have you seen any cities in Canada giving free Tution to Illegals like California? If its so great in Canada why don't you move there? The big Question is when was the last time a poor person gave you a job?All you socialist just want to punish the people who work hard for their money,so you can sit on your ass and get Government assistance.

Canada also has a lower drug abuse rate, lower crime rate, lower teen pregnancy rate, lower premature birth rate, lower immigration rate........

Apples to apples my friend. I had this arguement years ago, and the basic numbers place us rather high when comparing economic brackets. you remove the items listed below and we smoke Canada and most of Europe.

We are still the leading provider of major surgical procedures to the world. That means that when push comes to shove, people come to the US to get their lives saved.

Now, raising taxes on the wealthy. NY had that proposed to help out our budget. It was rejected by a DEMOCRAT govenor because he saw the truth of the matter, it woudl not work. Last time NY tried it, the wealthy moved to New Jersy. So he is now cutting spending and raising taxes. Go figure, a balanced budget working? Insanity.

It's too cold for me. Not to mention the long winter nights bother me in the midwest. I don't think I can do longer.

I love Canada. It would be nice to live with all those improved conditions here in the states. I guess we are too scared to try something better. Well, other than the lower immigration rate. I actually like people from other cultures. I think diversity of thought adds to my experience.

And I'm not rich, but I work hard. Find the person that works 20x as hard as I do, and I can see paying her 20x what I get. I don't think such a person exists.

Do you have anything of substance to say? Or is this just a good outlet for your anger and sour grapes? I have yet to see one post from you that doesn't degenerate quickly into grade school level name calling and insults. In other words: GROW UP!

Ozark is just jealous because he didn't get any further in school than the 6th grade.

I have to agree with Ozark,anyone who can talk about a trillion dollar deficit as if its something we should just accept,has no common sense.Giving $500.00 to people who don't pay Taxes is Stupid,all you do is create a welfare handout,and most will spend it on cigarettes,or drink,or buy Fast food so they can get Fatter and more lazy.

StormerF: I understand the frustration, but my problem is with lumping people together and making sweeping statements about them. This helps us how? It doesn't. I appreciate your comments, even if I don't necessary agree with them, because you DIDN'T degenerate into the very name-calling crap that has become so prevailant in our society. I can actually take you seriously. How does calling liberals stupid and immoral as Ozark did help any situation? I could come right back and say the same thing about Republicans or the Bush Administration (the two are not necessarily the same thing), but would that do any good or fix anything? We quickly get to the "No I'm not, you are" back and forth. Just because we're nominally "anonomous" here doesn't mean we can be petty and ill mannered.

Alot of americans are color blind and can't hear what is really being said.To many are ashamed of being white so they turn a deaf ear,why do you think they elected someone who promises Free Bubble Up and Rainbow Stew,with a price tag.Even the Blacks are color blind and vote just for color with out knowing any thing about a canidate.

Thank you. It is hard to imagine how we all expect to be able to spend more when a good portion of people have already spent what they will earn for the next ten years. It really is simple math. If you make 100k a year, have 35% taken in taxes, you are left with 65k. Then you have 8 in car payments, 24 in housing payments, 4 in electric and gas payments, 1.2 in cell phones, 1.5 in television and internet access, 11.2 in food bills, 5.6 in childcare, 2.4 in home repair, 1.2 in gas to and from work, you are left with $5.9k. That is all that is left. If you spend even 100 per week on entertainment or clothing you will have nothing left. If you buy a TV / Washer / Christmas Presents, etc, that is all money you do not have. If you have spent 1.5% more than this every year for the last 5 years, you will need to reduce your spending by 3% to break even in 5 years.

We all really need to think about what we spend and how. This economy of debt is not sustainable.

He just said YESTERDAY to be ready for years of $Trillion deficits. THAT'S the problem. One day one thing and after he hears that it wasn't received very well, all of a sudden it's the opposite. If you really think a Dem Pres. and Dem Congress will show ANY budget restraint, you are sadly mistaken.

The trillion dollar deficit is already there.  He didn't create it and is just giving folks a dose of reality.  It is going to take a long time to fix the mess we are in.  Makes sense to me.

It makes sense to double or perhaps triple the yearly deficit to you?

The other guy(s) did it so it must be ok??

I do agree it will take a long time to fix but digging a deeper and deeper hole is not the answer.

Most economists are saying that short term deficit spending on public works projects are an integral part to repairing our economy.  Our deficit right now is just under a trillion, so the increase really isn't that dramatic.

It is an oxy-MORON to use the words "budget restraint" in the same sentence as "tax cut, oops I meant welfare for the people who are hungry and if I don't feed them, they will riot and find their way to my door".

Obama's plan is to finally get to the point (I think we are already there) where 51% are voting themselves that free lunch. If "95%" of the people are getting "tax cuts", the majority that is needed to storm the White House and Capitol Hill will never assemble.

If these deceiving, lying "nadless pieces of worthless horse dung" would just tell the truth, we all would probably "get along". It's called "tough love", and the longer it takes to begin, the higher the mountain gets.

Truth=solution--"We've been spending too much money in the past, we are all going to go watch the movie "Dave", and "The Distinguished Gentleman", and we are going to "CUT" (not reduce the planned increase) spending by 10% across the board. Federal employees will be put on 35 hour weeks, soon to be 32, and the 10-year Federal Hiring Freeze begins immediately. The FEDERAL workforce will be reduced by attrition, the pension system for ELECTED officials will be abolished, and Hillary "fat ankles" will be ordered to reduce State Dept. Budget by 20% each year for 4 years. We will re-access after 3 years to see if this administration deems itself worthy of another term".

Willy, how true. They aren't diving into their pockets. They're diving into the pockets of people who have paid, paid, and paid by means of cutting SS & Medicaid.

First Obama get $25.000 a year which is more than I make. 2) The whole group and take a 50% wage cut and cut their medical expense to nothing. Which is exactly what the $10.00 wage earner is going to have. NOTHING.

Then, lets hire the same bimbo, Hillary and the Clinton's and thier group to land us in the same position.

It is my opinion that if left alone, it will recover

I tend to agree.

It is my opinion that if left alone, it will recover

The truth is if the market and economy corrects itself their would be no political gain for anyone a nightmare for the big government crowd.  Since both party's embrace government spending they would risk irrelevance.  If they do something no matter how ineffective when the economy improves they can stand on the top rail and crow like a rooster at sunrise and like the rooster assure all who will listen they made it happen.  A perfect example is the New Deal, to this day there are many partisans who would say FDR fixed the depression with the New Deal.  The lesson of the 30's was make a group beholding to the government and you create voters for your party, give others money so you can take power.  Both party's learned the lesson and the country suffers due to the policy.  The government has taken more and more of the wealth of the country and used it for their own purposes now the producers in the country are competing with the government and they cant win the battle. We are committing suicide.

Are either of you economists? No? Enough said!

Most economists say that to stimulate this economy, the government needs to spend, spend big, and spend NOW. Otherwise, we may well be looking at a depression instead of just a recession. But, no, according to you armchair quarterbacks, we need to leave everything alone like Hoover did at the beginning of the Great Depression. Yeah, that'll help!

Ever consider the idea that economists got us here?

Michelle, what you describe is called Keynesian economics. It doesn't work. That has been shown time and again.

Michelle,

If you have the chance, go read a book by Milton Freidman called "Money Mischief", and find the part that describes what happens when a helicopter flies over a town dropping money. It is very basic economics, and if these sleazeballs in DC would stop trying to complicate things to make sure most of us might not understand it, all will work it's way out. Federal spending, especially the kind that uses ink, is nothing but throwing gas on the fire. Pretty soon, it will be you and me in the bucket.

Michelle - I think that spending ship already sailed in the last admin.  Our federal deficit in is the $10 trillion range, give or take a trillion, what the h3ll.  All that spending, yet, the economy is in the crapper.

Good luck Obama, you're gonna need it.

Michelle, you might want to review you history.  The conventional wisdom among the partisan crowd is Hoover did nothing and led us into the great depression, you might want to look at what he actually did followed by what FDR did and how those policies actually led to the great depression.  According to one of the great thinkers here we had growth from 1932 until 1961, we did have growth from 1939 until 1961 but we also had 2 wars so the argument government policy led to bottom up growth is a bit flawed and skewed to fit a political agenda.  The performance of the government and its programs from 1932 until the onset of WWll was dismal at best and some say the policies actually made the depression longer and you might look at  how long other economies recovered compared to ours.  If you want to worship government so be it, but the government has a rather sketchy record of success no matter who is in charge. I am not an economist I am a poor fool who works for himself in private practice and pays a load of taxes (more taxes that I thought I needed as income when I got out of college) who is tired of biased partisans who havent made an objective analysis since they were infected with party loyalty. 

Carlos: I actually do watch a lot of history stuff on the History channel. According to most of the stuff I've watched and read over the years (I have a history minor, but have to admit we did not study that period all that closely in the classes I took) says that Hoover did nothing until it was too late, then tried rather half-azzed measures that did way too little. FDR may not have done a lot to pull us out of the depression, it took WWII to do that, but his policies meant the difference between survival and slow starvation for a lot of people. Even if Obama's plan doesn't work, at least we'll be getting something for our spent dollars like an improved road system, newer, better energy infrastructure, etc. That would be TONS better than the 700+ billion dollar give-away to the banks and Wall Street.

Michelle, I also carried a history minor in my undergrad days and I have a brother that has written a few pieces for various historical publications.  I would rather see policies that encourage education and private sector development  supplementing incomes with government benefits rather than allowing congress to use public funds to mete out contracts to connected supporters.  Like it or not most of the time that is the way the government works.  Maybe I am a bit cynical since I live in Illinois but I truly believe the government is corrupt at almost every level.  I believe this because we rarely see turnover in the officials at the local state and federal level and I believe these people have a base of dependant minions that keep reelecting them.  I am put off by partisans who tout change when the usual suspects are reelected to control the purse strings.  To me it doesn't matter which party we are talking about both sides have too many tired old hacks that perpetuate the system that abuses their power.  I believe the stimulus package will be more about propaganda than results.  History teaches perception is sometimes more important than reality, as demonstrated in the 1930's.

Suggest we also ask who was in charge of the congress that approved the bailout and we should remember the names who voted for this at the next election. Next vote = power, we should use it!

And do a little study how the banking buddies played with money during the 1800's, which led to the FRB.

These guys know how psychology works when it comes to the people spending money, and in order to fifix this, we all have to learn to do the opposite.

Sorry to tell you but things didn't get that bad out of thin Air. Your initial statement is the core of the issue "Americans get off your couches...".

That is it.... Don't blame the government, after all it We the people who elect those in power and sit on our couches ignoring what goes on.

This country WAS built on great values, the Apathy of the people is what ruined it.

You think most Americans know what the FRB is all about? Heck they can't even understand the difference between a United State citizens vs. an American National.

Let's not start this kind of discussion as it makes me sick to talk about it.