3 edits
Ok kids, I realize that the financial crisis can't be blamed on Obama, however, what can be said since he came into office?
The Market has declined about 20% since January. In fact, it is startling that every time Obama or Geithner speaks, the Market reacts in a negative light much like it did after the stimulus package was unvieled. So are the correlations warranted?
What we do know is that he has unveiled plans to increase capital gains taxes. He has unveiled plans to reduce mortgage deductions for the average Joe. He has declared a jihad on "rich" CEO's. He has declared war on fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas etc. So why wouldn't the market react negatively to this man? Granted, we would still be hurting but not this badly I don't think.
Of course, you may agree with these decision, however, why in the middle of a financial crisis? It makes my blood boil much like a recent property tax increase where I live to build a new school. I don't deny that we need new schools every now and then but do we need them bad enough to add fuel to the fire when people are losing their homes? Can't we wait until the Depressionary gloom has lifted or is this the time to strike to further agenda's such as these? In short, should we take the attitude that since we can't do anything much to avert the crisis, we might as well take advantage of it to try and push through agenda's that may help us long term even though more people may be hurt short term?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI agree with part of what you say, perhaps Obama needs to focus on the economy for now, rather than taking on education and healthcare as well. As for taxes, that's part of the old tug of war...people want roads, schools, a system of government etc, but no one wants to raise the tax revenue to pay for them.😏
Ok kids, I realize that the financial crisis can't be blamed on Obama, however, what can be said since he came into office?
The Market has declined about 20% since January. In fact, it is startling that every time Obama or Geithner speaks, the Market reacts in a negative light much like it did after the stimulus package was unvieled. So are the correla h agenda's that may help us long term even though more people may be hurt short term?
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718Then you agree that he is part of the economic problem the US and the world is having. Oh yea, I forgot the coming "carbon tax" that will effect every aspect of our economic viability once initiated. The man is a menace.
I agree with part of what you say, perhaps Obama needs to focus on the economy for now, rather than taking on education and healthcare as well. As for taxes, that's part of the old tug of war...people want roads, schools, a system of government etc, but no one wants to raise the tax revenue to pay for them.😏
The problem with taxes is they have a direct correlation to the economic welfare of the economy. The way the government is spending they have no choice but to begin taxing us to death. Maybe that is the plan, force the issue of taxation by spending us to the brink of bankruptcy. It kinda reminds me of the credit crisis. Push us to the brink of economic destruction and tell the tax payers to pay up or else!! 😠
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBesides capital gains taxes, your other claims are blatantly false (as usual). Unless you think that an "average Joe" makes $250,000 a year or CEOs aren't "rich", you are just blathering your usual ill-informed propaganda. I missed the part where Obama "declared war" on fossil fuels. In case you missed it, there was an election last November and Obama and the Democrats won it. To expect them to continue Republican policies is absurd.
Ok kids, I realize that the financial crisis can't be blamed on Obama, however, what can be said since he came into office?
The Market has declined about 20% since January. In fact, it is startling that every time Obama or Geithner speaks, the Market reacts in a negative light much like it did after the stimulus package was unvieled. So are the correla h agenda's that may help us long term even though more people may be hurt short term?
The country is in a severe recession. It's hardly surprising that the price of stocks would fall.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo war on oil and gas companies eh?
[ I missed the part where Obama "declared war" on fossil fuels. In case you missed it, there was an election last November and Obama an ry is in a severe recession. It's hardly surprising that the price of stocks would fall.[/b]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123566872495184681.html
"The Obama administration has proposed raising at least 31.5 billion over 10 years from oil and gas companies, reflecting a repeal of tax breaks for domestic production and new charges on oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.
The plans, outlined as part of a fiscal 2010 budget proposal, revive long-standing Democratic efforts to turn the oil and gas industry as a source of funding for other priorities."
Oil companies have been fighting to maintain the tax treatment, which they say keeps jobs in the US by encouraging domestic production...."
"....The White House said that the new tax, along with plans to change user fees to oil companies for processing oil and gas drilling permits on federal lands, would "ensure that federal taxpayers receive their fair share".....
Couple that with Obama's proposed cap-and-trade policy that is designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions that will be lowered over time and that allows polluters to trade emissions permits on a carbon market. This would increase the burden upon such companies financially to "clean things up a bit". So the question is, should the US attack the industry in such a way during such hard economic times or is the concern for global warming trump these concerns? Unfortunatly, however, its not that cut and dry. In fact, emissions among the industrialized countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol - a treaty that embraces the cap-and-trade approach - have risen since 2000. Analysts cite several reasons for the rise, including the fact that Western Europe energy utilities effectively lobbied for free pollution permits as part of the European Emissions Trading Schemes. Also, cap-and-trade mechanisms have led to volitale prices in these countries.
What really confuses me is why the coal producing companies are not being targeted to a higher degree than say natural gas companies. After all, natural gas is much cleaner than coal burners which are perhaps the dirtiest of all fossil fuel bunrners. It is perplexing to say the least.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe administrations new fiscal year 2010 budget proposes to cap the mortgage deductions on "higher income" households. That is if you consider households making $208,850 rich. Now in most parts of the country this may be considered rich, but we are talking about housing trouble spots like California where housing prices and incomes exceed pretty much any other state in the union. The National Association of Realtors replied, "Changing the mortgage interest deduction will not only negatively impact the 2% of families who own homes targeted by the proposal, but also will impact home prices and values across the board. The middle class would see their home values reduced even further by such action, and any further pressure on home prices will hamper prices and economic recovery, raise foreclosures and hurt banks' abilities to lend."
[b](as usual). Unless you think that an "average Joe" makes $250,000 a year or CEOs aren't "rich", you are just blathering your usual ill-informed propaganda.
In short, is this really the time to try and redistribute the wealth?
As far as the CEO's go, what about the $500,000 cap on CEO salaries who run companies receiving great amounts of bail out money with restrictions on bonuses to boot? Now you may think that this is an obscene amount of money and they should have nothing to cry about, but in terms of the average CEO this is like making minimum wage. Couple that with the fact that what is needed are the best and brightest to run these troubled financial institutions rather than flunkies who don't mind making chump change.
Originally posted by whodeySo Obama is in favoring of ending preferential tax treatment of oil companies. Good for him.
No war on oil and gas companies eh?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123566872495184681.html
"The Obama administration has proposed raising at least 31.5 billion over 10 years from oil and gas companies, reflecting a repeal of tax breaks for domestic production and new charges on oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.
The plans, outlined as ...[text shortened]... e perhaps the dirtiest of all fossil fuel bunrners. It is perplexing to say the least.
I really suggest you Republicans win elections if you want to continue policies that favor the super rich and a few well connected corporations.
Originally posted by whodeyThe top 2% of household incomes are hardly "average Joes". You'll pardon me if I don't put much stock in hysterical claims from the NAR; the slight reduction in mortgage interest that high income households will be able to claim under the Obama plan will hardly cause the sky to fall. In fact, it will merely bring their deduction amount in line with what everybody else has available.
The administrations new fiscal year 2010 budget proposes to cap the mortgage deductions on "higher income" households. That is if you consider households making $208,850 rich. Now in most parts of the country this may be considered rich, but we are talking about housing trouble spots like California where housing prices and incomes exceed pretty much any ot ...[text shortened]... troubled financial institutions rather than flunkies who don't mind making chump change.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. The "best and brightest" have been voting themselves huge salaries and bonuses for years and the result was financial disaster. Allowing them to make "chump change" that is about 10 times what the median household income is in the US is extremely generous; in a just society they'd be being led to the guillotine rather than making more money than 99.5% of the people who didn't wreck the economy.
Originally posted by no1marauderMy point here is we are going after corporations in a time of economic crisis. In addition, it would stand to reason that when taxes are raised on these corporations the incentives for them staying in the US to provide much needed jobs to Americans decrease.
So Obama is in favoring of ending preferential tax treatment of oil companies. Good for him.
I really suggest you Republicans win elections if you want to continue policies that favor the super rich and a few well connected corporations.
The whole transfer of wealth debate is not what this thread is about, rather, it is about timing. To tax and spend one needs economic growth to boot or there will be dire consequences.
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course the main concern here is that the housing situation seems to be at the heart of our ills. So is wise to potentially make it worse even though they are going after the "rich"? Shouldn't we first stabalize the housing market and then go after the evil rich people?
[b]The top 2% of household incomes are hardly "average Joes". You'll pardon me if I don't put much stock in hysterical claims from the NAR; the slight reduction in mortgage interest that high income households will be able to claim under the Obama plan will hardly cause the sky to fall. In fact, it will merely bring their deduction amount in line with what everybody else has available.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderPersonally, I think that if the government gives them all this money there the CEO's should get the boot because of their failures. I don't get so caught up in salaries as I do ineptitude and corruption. After all, who am I to say that someone is not worth X amount of dollars so long as they do their job and their company is profitable? I'll let you and Obama do that. But these guys are abject failures at what they do and the government is proping them up via bail outs. After all, without the government intervention they would all be out of a job. It would be a natural Darwinian effect eleminating the defective CEO gene pool.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. The "best and brightest" have been voting themselves huge salaries and bonuses for years and the result was financial disaster. Allowing them to make "chump change" that is about 10 times what the median household income is in the US is extremely generous; in a just society they'd be being led to the guillotine rather than making more money than 99.5% of the people who didn't wreck the economy.[/b]
What should be done is that these positions should be offerred to the best and brightest out there because they have been all bought out by the tax payers. To do so, however, where is the incentive if the salaries are capped and no bonuses are offerred?
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe price of a house has always largely been determined by what people can and will pay and afford for a house. However, when they over shoot this price the bubble bursts. This would have occurred with or without mortgage deductions. But now that the bubble has burst, why make the situation worse by taking more money away from home owners?
In any case all mortgage deductions should be removed, Holland also has such a system and it's costing us billions. Mortgage deduction increases house prices, contributing to bubbles.
I guess to sum up what I'm trying to say here is, I don't think that Obama has his priorities in order. First take care of the crisis and then go after all the evil rich people if he wants to. With his future proposed tax hikes, it appears he anticipates the economy rebounding in a year or two. The way he is going, however, I don't think this to be the case.