Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Sep '10 04:22
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071281687927918.html
  2. 10 Sep '10 04:35
    e.g.:

    ....

    As for blaming the Republicans, with only 40 and then 41 Senators they couldn't stop so much as a swinging door. The GOP couldn't even block the recent $10 billion teachers union bailout. The only major Obama priorities that haven't passed—cap and tax and union card check—were blocked by a handful of Democrats who finally said "no mas." No Administration since LBJ's in 1965 has passed so much of its agenda in one Congress—which is precisely the problem.

    ....
  3. 10 Sep '10 05:03
    Obama has not even repealed the Bush tax cuts, he merely says he will not renew them after they expire. The guy that wrote the article talks as if the tax cuts have already been repealed. They have not.

    I don't think Obama is trying to stimulate the economy with his latest proposal. 800 billion would not work so he thinks 50 billion will? Who believes that?
  4. 10 Sep '10 05:13
    maybe that's all he's got left.

    re the tax cuts, they've been talking about it for a while, but maybe the author's not up to speed on that point.

    headline today was that some Democrats are refusing not to extend the tax cuts. the Dem leadership is going to try to get them onboard.
  5. 10 Sep '10 05:41
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    maybe that's all he's got left.

    re the tax cuts, they've been talking about it for a while, but maybe the author's not up to speed on that point.

    headline today was that some Democrats are refusing not to extend the tax cuts. the Dem leadership is going to try to get them onboard.
    So Obama's plan to tax the wealthy will be undercut by his own political party? I think the democrats should get together and decide what part of the republican positions they like and dislike. Why are the democrats allying themselves with the republicans against the president? All I can figure is so Obama doesn't have to go back on his word and show who he is really working for.
    Why didn't Obama try to repeal the tax cuts to the wealthy from the beginning if he is not working for the wealthy fat cats he wants us to believe he is not working for? Am I the only one that thinks this stinks?
  6. 10 Sep '10 05:47
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    So Obama's plan to tax the wealthy will be undercut by his own political party? I think the democrats should get together and decide what part of the republican positions they like and dislike. Why are the democrats allying themselves with the republicans against the president? All I can figure is so Obama doesn't have to go back on his word and show who ...[text shortened]... cats he wants us to believe he is not working for? Am I the only one that thinks this stinks?
    $250K is not wealthy in the US anymore.
  7. 10 Sep '10 05:52
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071281687927918.html
    ...

    The explanations from the White House and liberal economists boil down to three: The stimulus was too small, Republicans blocked better policies, and this recession is different because it began in a financial meltdown. Only the third point has some merit, and for a different reason than the White House claims.

    On a too-small stimulus, this isn't what Democrats or most Keynesian economists told us at the time. Even Paul Krugman, who now denies intellectual paternity for this economy, wrote on November 14, 2008 that "My own back-of-the-envelope calculations say that the package should be huge, on the order of $600 billion." The White House raised him by 33% two months later, but now we're told that wasn't enough.

    Given that the stimulus program was so poorly structured and so overtly politicized, how do we know that, say, $500 billion more would have made a difference even on Keynesian terms? The money for government spending has to come from somewhere, which means from the private economy. Our guess is that by ensuring even higher debt and implying higher taxes, a bigger spending stimulus would have done even more harm.

    Stimulus godfather Mark Zandi and CBO have produced studies claiming that the stimulus saved millions of jobs and thus prevented an even deeper recession. But these are essentially plug-and-play economic models that multiply the amount of dollars spent by the assumed impact on jobs based on previous studies, and, voila, the jobless rate would have been higher without such spending. In the real world, the economy lost 2.51 million jobs.

    ...
  8. 10 Sep '10 06:20
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    $250K is not wealthy in the US anymore.
    The Bush tax cuts are for people making more than that.

    I know Obama has proposed giving tax breaks to people making $250K or less, but has that plan been put into effect yet? I was under the impression that it has not and won't until after the Bush tax cuts expire. Am I mistaken?
  9. 10 Sep '10 08:12
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    $250K is not wealthy in the US anymore.
    Err.
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 Sep '10 08:32
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    $250K is not wealthy in the US anymore.
    Well, with U.S. per capita GDP at 46K I'd say, in relative terms - by definition, 250K is "wealthy".
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    10 Sep '10 08:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    $250K is not wealthy in the US anymore.
    It puts you in the top 2% of households as regards annual income making more than 5 times what the median household does. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

    That isn't "wealthy"?
  12. 10 Sep '10 14:07
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It puts you in the top 2% of households as regards annual income making more than 5 times what the median household does. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

    That isn't "wealthy"?
    http://financialplan.about.com/od/personalfinance/a/rulesofthumb.htm

    Another rule of thumb for housing is that you should buy a house that costs no more than two and a half to three times your annual income.
  13. 10 Sep '10 14:17
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://financialplan.about.com/od/personalfinance/a/rulesofthumb.htm

    Another rule of thumb for housing is that you should buy a house that costs no more than two and a half to three times your annual income.
    houses between $100 and $750K sale price in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties

    http://www.zillow.com/homes/san-mateo-county,-ca_rb/#/homes/for_sale/San-Mateo-County-CA/2842_rid/100-750000_price/0-3002_mp/pricea_sort/37.778877,-121.340004,37.036016,-123.262611_rect/9_zm/

    http://www.zillow.com/homes/santa-clara-county,-ca_rb/0-_price/0-_mp/#/homes/for_sale/Santa-Clara-County-CA/3136_rid/100-750000_price/0-3004_mp/pricea_sort/37.561564,-120.744022,36.816544,-122.666629_rect/9_zm/

    for example:

    http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1660-Duvall-Dr-San-Jose-CA-95130/19611142_zpid/

    Make Me Move®: $750,000
    Zestimate®: $772,000

    Property type: Single Family
    Bedrooms: 4
    Bathrooms: 3
    Sqft: 1,716
    Lot size: 6,324 sq ft / 0.15 acres
    Year built: 1958
  14. 10 Sep '10 14:20
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    houses between $100 and $750K sale price in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties

    http://www.zillow.com/homes/san-mateo-county,-ca_rb/#/homes/for_sale/San-Mateo-County-CA/2842_rid/100-750000_price/0-3002_mp/pricea_sort/37.778877,-121.340004,37.036016,-123.262611_rect/9_zm/

    http://www.zillow.com/homes/santa-clara-county,-ca_rb/0-_price/0-_mp/#/homes/for_ ...[text shortened]... edrooms: 4
    Bathrooms: 3
    Sqft: 1,716
    Lot size: 6,324 sq ft / 0.15 acres
    Year built: 1958
    a wealthy person's house

    http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/27040-Old-Trace-Ln-Los-Altos-CA-94022/19527446_zpid/

    For Sale: $24,950,000
    Estimated Monthly Payment $134,629

    Property type: Single Family
    Bedrooms: 6
    Bathrooms: 6.5
    Sqft: 14,855
    Lot size: 137,649 sq ft / 3.16 acres
    Year built: 1992

    Description
    Spectacular estate situated on 3.394 acres per prelim on a quiet country lane. 15, 000sf main home 6bd/6.5ba, dramatic entrance salon, library/office, pub room, family/game room, theatre, exercise room, wine cellar, indoor exercise pool, attached 8-car garage, generator, well for irrigation. 2bd/2ba guesthouse, tennis court, huge pool w/shallow lounge area, elevated spa and terrace w/fp. PA schools…
  15. 10 Sep '10 14:28
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    $250K is not wealthy in the US anymore.
    In most parts of the country you would have to be a financial idiot to not be able to live very comfortably at least on $250,000 per year.