Obama General Discussion, vol. 3 - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-02-2011, 03:57 PM   #201
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:21 AM
Quote:
Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.

Barack Motherfuckin' Obama


Confidence. Confidence??!?!? Are you kidding me? He could stop scoring rhetorical own goals, that guy's such a radical liberal I'm having trouble telling him apart from John Boehner.
__________________

mobvok is offline  
Old 07-03-2011, 05:59 AM   #202
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:21 AM
First GE, now Boeing:

This is totally insane:
Quote:
Who would you guess pays more in federal taxes: me or Boeing?

I don't mean in rates but in actual dollars. Has the federal Treasury gotten more money of late from the huge aerospace company, which booked $4.5 billion in pretax profits last year? Or from me?

"It's not even close," says Bob McIntyre. "In the past three years, you have paid way more into the system than Boeing."

McIntyre is a tax wonk, the director of a couple Washington, D.C., think tanks that focus on who actually pays the government's bills.

Last month, his group, Citizens for Tax Justice, released a study showing that 12 major U.S. businesses, with $171 billion in profits, combined to pay negative $2.5 billion in federal taxes the past three years. Meaning that even with all that profit, they paid no taxes.

Boeing was in this group. The company made $9.7 billion in profits in 2008, 2009 and 2010. It paid nothing in federal taxes, booking $178 million back from the government in various credits, for a total federal tax rate of -1.8 percent.

These figures are from the company's financial reports. Still, I was expecting when Boeing executives went to Congress recently to ask for even lower taxes that they would deny this report. But they didn't.

"Over the last three years, we have not paid," confirmed James Zrust, Boeing's vice president for tax.

One congressman was incredulous.

"I think in testimony I heard earlier that Boeing would like lower taxes," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. "How much lower could you possibly need?"

Zrust explained the zero tax bill isn't likely to last. It's due to temporary factors, he said. Such as pension payments, and the costs of the development — but not yet any deliveries — of the 787 Dreamliner.

"Those same things that gave rise to low tax payments in the last three years will reverse in the next few years and result in considerable tax payments," Zrust predicted.

I asked McIntyre about that. Is he casting Boeing as a tax freeloader by looking at only a three-year window?

"Well, let's look at 10 years," he suggested. He tapped away at a database he keeps of financial statements.

"In the 10 years ending in 2010, Boeing had $29 billion in profits, and paid minus-$948 million in federal taxes."

McIntyre said if you include the past 11 years, Boeing's effective tax rate was positive, but only barely.
Well, it does eventually come out of the workers' paychecks. Let's not impede the confidence of big business by increasing their negative tax rate.
__________________

mobvok is offline  
Old 07-03-2011, 06:43 AM   #203
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
First GE, now Boeing:

This is totally insane:


Well, it does eventually come out of the workers' paychecks. Let's not impede the confidence of big business by increasing their negative tax rate.
That phrase does give me pause, "The confidence of business."
I understand the need for a good playing field, but it smells a bit of a race to the bottom.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 07-06-2011, 09:42 AM   #204
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Very good decision


The White House says that families of service members who commit suicide while deployed abroad are now getting condolence letters from the president just like families of troops who die in other ways.

The White House has been reviewing the policy since 2009, lobbied by some military families. A White House official said Tuesday that the change was made this week. The official spoke anonymously to discuss policy deliberations.

“The president feels strongly that we need to destigmatize the mental health costs of war to prevent these tragic deaths, and changing this policy is part of that process,” a senior White House official said in a statement.

Previously, the White House would send presidential condolences to the families of those who died either in combat or as a result of noncombat incidents in a war zone. Condolence letters were not sent to the families of those who commit suicide.

CNN reports that a coalition of senators recently joined the push for a change in policy.

The move comes nearly six weeks after a group of senators -- 10 Democrats and one Republican -- asked President Barack Obama to change what they called an "insensitive" policy that dates back several administrations and has been the subject of protest by some military families.

According to CBS News, the change went into effect Tuesday for soldiers who commit suicide while serving abroad, but will not be enacted retroactively, meaning that soldiers such as Chance Keesling, who killed himself on his second tour in Iraq, will not be eligible for the presidential recognition.

"He was a good soldier and that's the part that I want to know -- that the country appreciates that he fought he did everything that he was asked to do. It didn't turn out well for him, but at least this country could write a simple letter and that president represents our country and just say thank you for our son's service," Keesling's father, Gregg, told CBS News.

While the elder Keesling won't be getting an official presidential condolence letter, he's been told that his son will receive some kind of recognition from the White House to commemorate his service.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-06-2011, 06:04 PM   #205
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Very good decision


The White House says that families of service members who commit suicide while deployed abroad are now getting condolence letters from the president just like families of troops who die in other ways.

The White House has been reviewing the policy since 2009, lobbied by some military families. A White House official said Tuesday that the change was made this week. The official spoke anonymously to discuss policy deliberations.

“The president feels strongly that we need to destigmatize the mental health costs of war to prevent these tragic deaths, and changing this policy is part of that process,” a senior White House official said in a statement.

Previously, the White House would send presidential condolences to the families of those who died either in combat or as a result of noncombat incidents in a war zone. Condolence letters were not sent to the families of those who commit suicide.

CNN reports that a coalition of senators recently joined the push for a change in policy.

The move comes nearly six weeks after a group of senators -- 10 Democrats and one Republican -- asked President Barack Obama to change what they called an "insensitive" policy that dates back several administrations and has been the subject of protest by some military families.

According to CBS News, the change went into effect Tuesday for soldiers who commit suicide while serving abroad, but will not be enacted retroactively, meaning that soldiers such as Chance Keesling, who killed himself on his second tour in Iraq, will not be eligible for the presidential recognition.

"He was a good soldier and that's the part that I want to know -- that the country appreciates that he fought he did everything that he was asked to do. It didn't turn out well for him, but at least this country could write a simple letter and that president represents our country and just say thank you for our son's service," Keesling's father, Gregg, told CBS News.

While the elder Keesling won't be getting an official presidential condolence letter, he's been told that his son will receive some kind of recognition from the White House to commemorate his service.
Oh my.

__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 07-08-2011, 01:12 PM   #206
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:21 AM
Private sector job growth/losses, newly updated with today's report.


The plateauing/fading appears to coincide with a newly fashionable austerity. If only someone could carry the mantle of Democrats circa early 2009.
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-08-2011, 01:25 PM   #207
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 11:21 AM
clearly, we needed more stimulus in light of today's job's report.

much more.

jobs > deficits.

but, of course, unemployment hurts Obama, and the only thing that matters is harming him so the GOP has a shot at the presidency in 2012.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-08-2011, 05:48 PM   #208
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:21 AM
I hadn't thought of this:

Quote:
Samuel Beckett’s famous phrase “You must go on, I can’t go on, I’ll go on” is a pretty good summation of what will face Treasury come August 3 if there’s no deal on the debt limit. Reuters has a fantastic story this evening on the impossible quandary facing Treasury officials should the unthinkable come to pass; purely as a practical matter, it’s far from clear that it’s even possible to stop making the 3 million payments that Treasury makes automatically every day. Doing so involves a massive computer-reprogramming effort which I’m sure could not be implemented overnight — and for political reasons nobody is going to get started on such an effort until after all hope is lost for a deal in Congress.

Realistically, then, the government is likely to breach the current debt ceiling no matter what Congress agrees. A failure to lift it would be a bit like an edict to a steaming supertanker that it had to stop dead: no matter how much force of law that edict has, sheer momentum is going force many basic operations of the public fisc to continue for some period of days or weeks.
and this is worth stated explictly
Quote:
Something that I think has gone missing in most discussions of the “constitutional option” of simply ignoring the debt ceiling is that if you think that’s illegal, it’s not clear what the legal alternative is. Bondholders have a legal right to be paid. But so do Social Security beneficiaries. Contractors have, well, contracts. All the federal government’s spending obligations are spelled out in appropriations bills or laws providing for mandatory spending. If you look at any particular option, it seems legally questionable. But obviously something has to be done.
There seems like an awful lot leading to the idea that a literal debt ceiling is inherently poor policy strictly on its operational merits, is furthermore constitutionally flawed, and finally has become an obnoxious tool to extract concessions.

If you want to cut spending, great, pass an awesome budget.
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-09-2011, 12:11 PM   #209
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,362
Local Time: 07:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
clearly, we needed more stimulus in light of today's job's report.

much more.

jobs > deficits.

but, of course, unemployment hurts Obama, and the only thing that matters is harming him so the GOP has a shot at the presidency in 2012.


Republicans spent 8 years doing whatever they could to get Clinton out of office. If it wasn't his investments (Whitewater) it was Lewinsky and his "lying under oath". They ignore the fact that during this whole scandal, Clinton had over 80% approval and most Americans did NOT want this pursued.

Aren't our Congressmen supposed to represent US not their own selfish goals?

During Obama's 2.5 years, Republicans have gone on a tirade about whether he truly is an American (even though that was resolved before he became President). And as he's a tad more "clean" than Clinton, they are doing what they can legislatively to move forward.

But when Bush - the worst President in my lifetime and one of the worst ever - was in office, Democrats did not spend 8 years trying to impeach him over affairs (even though he had them). Bush did deserve impeachment because he openly lied, yet it was pushed aside for the better of the country.

I'm not saying Democrats are all so pure and holy - but they can certainly push bipartisanship aside to get the country going if needed. Apparently, that concept is foreign to Republicans.

If Obama is one term, so be it. But I can't wait to see the next person flop even more. Suddenly, people will wish Obama was back. Because it's Republican policies that got us into this mess. Funny how 2.5 years later everyone forgets this.
__________________
https://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 07-09-2011, 12:21 PM   #210
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 11:21 AM
I just want to know where all the Republican concern was about spending and the deficit when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor in a green Snuggie (well it was snug in his man parts) in front of a Mission Accomplished banner. I know there wasn't a recession then, but HELLLLLOOOOO.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-09-2011, 02:05 PM   #211
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
clearly, we needed more stimulus in light of today's job's report.

much more.

jobs > deficits.

but, of course, unemployment hurts Obama, and the only thing that matters is harming him so the GOP has a shot at the presidency in 2012.
We need more private sector jobs that expand the tax base and increase tax revenues not more public sector or make-work jobs that cost $250,000 per job and evaporate as soon as the out-of-control-spending "stimulus" dries up.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-09-2011, 03:20 PM   #212
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Agreed with you on the need for more revenue.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-09-2011, 03:59 PM   #213
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:21 AM


Fun fact: public sector jobs don't pay money, nor contribute any in taxes
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 09:59 PM   #214
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:21 AM
????
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-12-2011, 07:23 PM   #215
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:21 AM
well that's a picture of government employment over the last few years. Obama's overseen a sizable shrink in the public sector. Socialism!

(the spike, btw, is temporary census hiring)

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
We need more private sector jobs that expand the tax base and increase tax revenues not more public sector or make-work jobs that cost $250,000 per job and evaporate as soon as the out-of-control-spending "stimulus" dries up.
Now it appears to me that public sector jobs would also employ people that would in turn expand the tax base and revenues throughout the economy as they buy things and help create demand for business products, but its possible this statement is a general qualitative preference for private over public jobs in which case that is certainly your right to say. But as seen above it's been solely private sector job growth that's been propping up the topline job numbers as the public sector's been shrinking so you're aspiring to a shfit that's already happening under Obama.

Also, if you're dividing the stimulus price tag by a jobs created estimate to get that $250,000 just keep in mind that one of the single largest expenses was simply helping state budgets and the social safety net through programs like Medicaid or Unemployment Insurance so people have food on their tables for the next year or so. Beneficial! But not a direct "jobs program".

Finally, wouldn't the stimulus "drying up" by definition contradict your snarky "out of control spending" quip? Why did it dry up? Medicare cost growth for example is certainly out of control as there's no projected restraint in the long term future, but this is just throwing epithets against the wall to see what sticks.
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-12-2011, 10:28 PM   #216
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:21 AM
"Social Security is a program that works... it's fully funded for the next 40 years."
Sen Majority Leader Harry Reid, Meet The Press Jan 2011

"I cannot guarantee that those checks (Social Security) go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
President Obama. CBS Evening News July 2011

Indy needs some help here, which is it?
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-12-2011, 10:45 PM   #217
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Indy needs some help here, which is it?


depends on the Republicans and how much they are going to continue to try and prevent an economic recovery.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-12-2011, 10:57 PM   #218
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Now it appears to me that public sector jobs would also employ people that would in turn expand the tax base and revenues throughout the economy as they buy things and help create demand for business products, but its possible this statement is a general qualitative preference for private over public jobs in which case that is certainly your right to say. But as seen above it's been solely private sector job growth that's been propping up the topline job numbers as the public sector's been shrinking so you're aspiring to a shfit that's already happening under Obama.
Depending on the numbers it takes roughly 18 private jobs to fund a federal employee's wages and benefits.


Quote:
Also, if you're dividing the stimulus price tag by a jobs created estimate to get that $250,000 just keep in mind that one of the single largest expenses was simply helping state budgets and the social safety net through programs like Medicaid or Unemployment Insurance so people have food on their tables for the next year or so. Beneficial! But not a direct "jobs program".
The numbers are from the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors.

The “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion.

$278,000 per job. And that's accepting the added or saved # to be accurate. I think it dubious myself.

Quote:
Finally, wouldn't the stimulus "drying up" by definition contradict your snarky "out of control spending" quip? Why did it dry up? Medicare cost growth for example is certainly out of control as there's no projected restraint in the long term future, but this is just throwing epithets against the wall to see what sticks.
By definition isn't "stimulus" money an investment in the future which should show benefit well after the money faucet gets turned off? Well after "Recovery Summer"?
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-12-2011, 11:16 PM   #219
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"Social Security is a program that works... it's fully funded for the next 40 years."
Sen Majority Leader Harry Reid, Meet The Press Jan 2011

"I cannot guarantee that those checks (Social Security) go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
President Obama. CBS Evening News July 2011

Indy needs some help here, which is it?
edit OH I see what you're talking about

Harry Reid's talking narrowly in terms of whether more revenue is earmarked to pay for SS than its giving out, while Obama's taking a holistic view. They're both valid perspectives, because while SS has enough specific income to pay for it into the near future, in total when the government can only pay 70% of its bills there must be some sort of prioritization. Money that would otherwise have gone to SS recipients might have to pay off the overall debt interest and bondholders. Or it may not. That's the uncertainty of the issue.
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-12-2011, 11:42 PM   #220
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:21 AM
Quote:
Depending on the numbers it takes roughly 18 private jobs to fund a federal employee's wages and benefits.
That's the mother of all caveats. It would probably take quite a few minimum wage workers to equal a US Senator's salary. It would also take a fraction of a single Goldman Sach's executive's salary.

Quote:
$278,000 per job. And that's accepting the added or saved # to be accurate. I think it dubious myself.
$260 billion of the 660 distributed so far is in tax credits, like this:

Quote:
Tax Incentives for Businesses
$33.4B
The Work Opportunity Tax Credit added unemployed veterans and 16-to-24 year olds to the list of new hires that businesses could claim. The Net Operating Loss Carryback allows small businesses to offset losses by receiving refunds on taxes paid up to five years ago.
What a waste.

213 billion has been in contracts, grants, and loans. That's the direct stuff, like 29 billion on building highway infrastructure or 16 billion in federal student aid.

Why don't these students have jobs? Higher education: more waste that's not remotely any sort of an investment in the future.

What about the 24 billion spent on extending food stamp programs? They may not be dead, but they're certainly a dead weight on the economy. Way 2 go Obama.

If only we had saved all this money to pay down our debt in order to get the bond market off our back

__________________

mobvok is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×