Gary Hofmeister: Clueless in DC

Advertisement

Even people who voted for President Barack Obama concede this was a very thin résumé for a man to ascend to the pinnacle of power in the entire world. And if they took the time to research anything other than his speechifying and charisma, they certainly knew he had zero business experience. But then again, that’s not so unusual in our elected officials, local, state or federal, is it?

Although I’m just a small businessman, I was kind of surprised when as a nominee for Congress in ’98 who was expected to win, several Republican members expressed their personal satisfaction that someone with a real life business background would be there to offer that perspective.

But the blank sheet that is emblematic of Obama’s (and all his court’s) background is especially pernicious considering his radical upbringing and education, both formal and informal. Part and parcel of that is a real misunderstanding of the importance of the private sector in financing the public sector.

The public depends on the private because government creates no wealth of its own. Anything it gives away it must take from the people in some form of taxes.

This administration hardly even acknowledges that.

You truly get the feeling that they believe the free enterprise golden goose will just keep laying those lovely sparkling eggs forever. And if they stop or slow up, you just need to talk sweetly or maybe kick them in the posterior to get them moving again.

The constant refrain coming from Obama and his group aimed at bankers and businessmen that they are sitting on tons of money when they should be hiring is almost funny if their ignorance weren’t so sad.

Businesses need some certainty regarding government action in tax policies and regulations before bringing on new workers.

Hiring new people takes confidence that times are looking up, and you will need bodies to do the overflow of work that your present employees can’t handle.

It is not a patriotic statement in reaction to the president to put people to work because they need it. Indeed, if anyone were to operate that way, they likely would find themselves out of business in short order.

Talk about “all politics is local.”

Well, all business really is local in the sense that it’s right here and now with only you making the decisions that will determine your survival and/or prosperity. In other words, “Sorry, Mr. Prez. I’d like to help out, but I’ve got to nursemaid my company first. If that works out for the country, I’m delighted. But I have to survive first.”

I’m hoping and praying that this little bit of reality might change public perceptions because at this tim,e it’s smack dab in their faces on daily TV.

A president is telling the electorate that the government is coming up with one more (and one more and one more and …) stimulus plan to jump-start the economy when we already have empirical evidence that it does no such thing, though it certainly leaves us deeper in debt.

Further, almost everyone knows this eventually will bankrupt us.

And all indications are that in November, there will be a resounding “No, thanks.”

If even those folks near the bottom of the food chain start to realize this basic economic fact that the private economy funds the public one, perhaps a genuine political transformation could begin to stop thinking of the government as the source of free this and that.

We then might start stealing the phrase “The fundamental transformation of the American economy.”

How would a 3 to 4 percent unemployment rate sound?

Gary Hofmeister is the owner and operator of Hofmeister Personal Jewelers in downtown Steamboat, a company he founded in 1973. He is a director of The Steamboat Institute and a former Republican nominee for Congress in the 10th District of Indiana. He made 18 trips to the former USSR to teach democratic capitalism during the 1990s.

Comments

allis53ca 4 years, 3 months ago

"Even people who voted for President Barack Obama concede this was a very thin résumé for a man to ascend to the pinnacle of power in the entire world"...yet those who twice voted in the man who w/his puppeteers, did more damage to this country (for personal gain) than every pres before him COMBINED...won't concede that no one could fix that amount of dmg in a mere 20 months...where were you while the last administration was trampling our civil rights and bankrupting the middle and working class ? ..i know, you were re-electing them....

"Further, almost everyone knows this eventually will bankrupt us." ....eventually ?? i think that happened about 3 years ago..

0

allis53ca 4 years, 3 months ago

"his radical upbringing and education, both formal and informal."....so when our children participate in student exchange programs in africa, (like my niece did in a muslim country) that must mean they have a "radical" education ??...or if they're raised by a single parent,(like my 4 successful kids) thats a "radical" upbringing ??......

i'm not defending obama, i'm defending those of us who don't share your political or religious views....IT DOESN'T MAKE US WRONG !

"If even those folks near the bottom of the food chain start to realize this basic economic fact that the private economy funds the public one, perhaps a genuine political transformation could begin to stop thinking of the government as the source of free this and that. ".......that statement alone, should offend the entire working class in this town, because here WE ARE THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN...FEW of us are takers, MOST of us are struggling to keep the lights on most months and busting our butts to do it....And lastly PILOT, this is OPINION, not NEWS

0

allis53ca 4 years, 3 months ago

sorry it shows me "anonymous", i don't know how to change that...im scott in the yellow chair

0

JustSomeJoe 4 years, 3 months ago

Another typical "column" from Gary. Short of, shoot, absent of any concrete plans, suggestions or ideas. However, as a former nominee for office, Gary can offer a 3 to 4 percent unemployment rate based on nothing specific. Yah!, let's get this guy into office, holy mackerel, what are waiting for, he can drop unemployment by 7-9% right away!

To me the gist of Gary's opinion is he would like to hire more people in his retail shops, but he's afraid to because the current tax situation might change. He's got no specifics, even though there's a tax break being discussed for small businesses. The Stimulus clearly hasn't worked because why? Unemployment leveled off? the foreclosure rate is down? Laid off Americans can afford to keep their insurance benefits through COBRA because of the Stimulus?

Gary - once again, you got nothing but an opinion backed up but no plan, no suggestions, nothing except for some stale talking points. You think a tax break for you is going to help the average america afford something in your shop? Nice stuff there, but you are selling a luxury item market during a down economy. Not a great fit, kind of like selling real estate out in the suburbs right now.

0

sledneck 4 years, 3 months ago

Thank you Gary. Many of us agree with you.

  1. The electorate got mad at "W" and threw a temper tantrum. As is often the case it backfired. In their blind rage they elected an imbecil economically speaking, at a time when we could least afford one. (the ironic part of this is that many were mad at Bush over the "temper tantrum" he threw in Iraq) See the irony? See it? Hee hee hee.

  2. The electorate needs to come to the realization that all government "stimulus" money was "de-stimulated" from someone else first. Therefore, trying to "stimulate" the economy with funds confiscated from the very economy you are attempting to "stimulate" is akin to trying to fill up a swimming pool by taking water from the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end. People who find this concept too "deep" to understand should do the nation a favor and stop voting.

  3. The "ticks" are killing the dog and if they don't soon back off both them and the dog are doomed. .

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 3 months ago

Joe, I think the idea here is to let the system work, micromanaging has obviously put put the world ecenomy on life support. We don't need more knee jerk activity, but a return to the most productive idea ever. Allis, you are trotting out the standard trump card, the "guilt trip" to counteract Gary's view. This trick is in evidence daily by the left to maintain the high ground. Following this trail of unintended consequences will be the end of a great nation.

0

JustSomeJoe 4 years, 3 months ago

Fred - what part of the system was working for you? Pick any time in the previous decade.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

Fred, You will end up in the same old argument with these folks, any minute now they will say, "why should we give the keys back to the people who drove the car into the ditch".

They will never open their eyes to the reality that we have lived through an era of Socialist programs that fed off of the Capitalist system which brought this Country to the greatness that it was. It was the leaching of the free market system by the Socialist programs through decades of Progressivism that is responsible for the decay of our society and economy. Who will admit that Fannie/Freddie, the FED, Social Security(ponsi), Wellfare, Affirmative action schemes, The D of Ed, The Unions and all the pork spending along with numerous spread the wealth stimulus scams are NOT Capitalist by nature and are the root cause for what is now failing all of us? Capitalism is not the failure here, it was a slow bleeding death by the Socialist schemes that leached on to it that created this massive failure, and there is video evidence from those in the WH(advisory staff) who admit to the murder of Capitalism. This is no accident. By killing off Capitalism and fully integrating into Socialism, a proven failure of an economic system, we are ensuring that the future of this Nation is uncertain. But we do have history and current events to see what we will look like. It doesn't look good to me.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

I forgot the new Socialist healthcare deal that is costing much more than was advertised.

0

Troutguy 4 years, 3 months ago

Starting two unfunded wars might have helped sink our economy. Over 1 trillion dollars spent and counting. This doesn't include health care costs for our returning veterans. What a great idea. Let's start a couple wars, not budget for them, and cut taxes at the same time.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 3 months ago

Yep, if the people had just voted McCain Palin then unemployment rate would be 3-4% right now. It was the critical importance of education and experience that caused McCain to pick Palin as his VP candidate.

0

cody heartz 4 years, 3 months ago

seeuski: You, and others of your ilk, should get out an encyclopedia and gather a more thorough understanding of: socialism, communism, and marxism. All three are separate concepts. I'd say your understanding of the basic workings of capitalism are fairly foggy too. Machine gun regurgitation of soundbites from The Sean Hannity show doesn't make for a good argument. I'll extend this same advice to Gary Hofmeister.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

Thanks cody. What would I do without that advice? Do you consider Social Security a free market mechanism? The Fed? The stimulus? Or better yet, how about you describe what it is that our Government has been doing over the last, say decade or even Century. I am sorry that most people are realizing the truth about these things and no dictionary will stop that, just the ability to be able to know the difference between free market Capitalism and those forms of Government that you mentioned above. I would say that the taking of GM from the Bondholders and giving it to the Unions and the Governments of the US and Canada is NOT free market Capitalism. If it was done under the system of Capitalism then the natural flow of bankruptcy would have been the remedy instead of the Obamaruptcy and Union payoff that occurred. Do you know what the new health care system will become? Is it free market now? Read what HHS Secretary Sebelius said last week and tell me is that free market Capitalism? http://www.startribune.com/business/102561709.html

I think I have a grasp on what is going on my friend, but thanks anyway.

0

cody heartz 4 years, 3 months ago

Seeusski: I guess I'm missing the point of your attached link. What Sebelius has to say about corporations exploiting people and then passing the blame onto laws that haven't even taken effect yet makes sense to me. I applaud Sebelius's effort to stop "misinformation and scare tactics."

I'm guessing that you take issue with her warnings that she may keep companies, the ones that try to defraud and overcharge their customers, from entering markets in 2014. I always find it odd when people denounce labor unions but will stand up for the rights of lobbyists.

How dare government oversight infringe on the free market! We all know that lobbyists and corporate accountants will do the right thing if we just leave them to their own devices. If you need a good example of their virtuous nature you can just look at what happened to housing markets and oil industry safety practices under the Bush administration.

Your definition of free market capitalism seems more like corporate hegemony to me.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 3 months ago

Joe, Most of the last decade was good for construction but this was largely due to government intervention fanning the flames. Forcing bad loans for social justice had unintended consequences that leave the future in doubt. I would be happy with a sober market situation that made every dollar hard to come by and being in business, risky, as it should be.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 3 months ago

Fred, It was not the government that invented CDOs and all of the other exotic financial instruments that allowed those super smart people on Wall Street to believe they had eliminated risk in lending and thus allowed the average buyer to put 5% or less down when buying a home.

Government of both parties made it worse by allowing Freddie and Fannie to join in that orgy of greed.

The market risk that is supposed to provide market discipline failed because we had too much of our financial system too heavily leveraged. Every Wall Street investment bank would have collapsed (JP Morgan's internal docs say they would have failed if TARP didn't bail out their counterparties and Goldmann Sachs internal docs say they would have failed if JP Morgan failed). Even GE probably would have gone bankrupt because of GE Capital.

And the problem with Washington DC is that neither party is willing to take the sort of measures that puts true market risk of potential firm failure into the thinking of those executives.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

cody, If you are saying that no provisions of the Obamacare policies have yet to take effect then you are certainly not in on the information highway. I recommend you spend some time investigating the law and what has been placed in effect that will cause our health costs to rise. The bulk of that Socialist catastrophe won't take effect until 2014 and as Pelosi said, "we'll have to pass it to know what is in it". Well there are some people that are experts in law interpretation that have gone through it and have put out a book that explains what that pile of dog crud does. But you go ahead and enjoy the coolaid that the White House pours. The threats by Sebelius are meant to keep the public, you and me, in the dark as to why our rates are going up. They are meant to keep the sheep in line, that is us. Companies don't pay WE DO!! But based on your post, you hate private companies and like the Unions and the Government. Good, brilliant. Do you realize that people have NO recourse against the Government but have the legal right of court action against private enterprise? Why anyone would want the Government to hold such power over their lives is besides me. Can you shed some light on that? I mean, this Country came to be because people wanted freedom and that is what the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects, OUR FREEDOM from big Government intrusion. Your lack of understanding of what the housing market bubble was caused by and the fact that Obama is secretly financing offshore drilling in Brazil and now Mexico with OUR money just shows that "you can fool some of the people all of the time". P.S. It was the Obama Administration that was in bed with BP through the receipt of massive campaign donations and the Cap and Trade fiasco and had issued a safety award for the very drill platform that blew just 11 days before it happened.

Please, the info is so easily available, don't waste our time blaming Bush for everything, let Obama do that for you he does it so much better.

0

JustSomeJoe 4 years, 3 months ago

Fred - You should read The Big Short by Michael Lewis. Lewis is a great author and former bond trader that really understands the mechanics of the secondary mortgage markets and the role Wall Street played in the market crash. Wall Street basically handed out free money with no documentation loans because they wanted to believe that the real estate market would continue to go up forever, that they could invest in real estate and it would go up 10% a year. It's called chasing yield. Once you make 5% on your portfolio you want to know how to get to 10%. Once you get there, you go for 11 and 12 and so own. The Big Short is very well written, even for the layman, and doesn't have a political bent or edge. Our local library has it, although I had to put a hold on it to get it.

Did you know that the social justice loans you mention ( you are talking about CRA loans right?) have the lowest default rate of any mortgages? I realize that's just bait for other posters, but easily verified. Wall Street has no notion of social justice, they are just in it for the gain. Once the real estate market tanked the repercussions were felt far and wide, not just in the real estate and banking sectors.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

Do you mean that people defaulted on their loans and the market crashed because cash-flow ceased? That would usually cause a crash. Why is Fannie still backing sub prime loans? What percentage of loans are backed by Fannie/Freddie? What is the default rate of those low income and low credit type loans? Who passed laws that forced the Banks to fund these sub prime loans at the threat of redlining punishments? What group protested violently at the homes and offices of Bank executives to intimidate them into these loan programs? Hint(ACORN).

Please joe we are not all drinking the coolaid, try reading Thomas Sowell on the subject.

http://tsowell.com/Housing.htm

0

cody heartz 4 years, 3 months ago

Seeusski,

I don't know how to argue a point in the face of conspiracy theory and alleged clandestine government nefariousness. However, common sense tells me that articles five through ten of the bill of rights protect me from, and ensure my ability to take action against, the government. Also, that elected officials are not all "evil-doers" and will protect the public interest far better than corporate entities who's sole purpose is to make a profit.

I watched our freedom fall to the wayside under the Bush administration in the wake of scandals like: -The military commission act -NSA warrantless wiretapping -The trashing of medicare's long term solvency -A stolen election -A preventative war doctrine -The attempt by the government to impede and exploit family privacy rights in the case of Terry Schiavo -Signing statements -The patriot act -Black sites and rendition -The clear skies/healthy forest act -A war on science -FEMA and President Bush's inability to deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina -Anti-immigration raids that separate children and parents -The fact that president Bush spent 35% of his presidency on vacation -Lack of oversight in the office of thrift supervision and the subsequent bank failures -Shady BLM deals -Unilateral executive docterine -Oil lease fiascos and a policy of energy companies "self reporting" -KBR

... well gosh, I could go on. I don't blame everything thats wrong with the US on the Connecticut Cowboy and his cronies, just the major atrocities that have made this country weaker than it has been in 200 years. The current administration is now tasked with fixing the mess and restoring american prestige. So, I don't think that we're all necessarily "drinking the coolaid" --an obnoxious piece of locution by the way-- some of us may just have a broader view of whats going on in washington.

And since were handing out assigned readings maybe you could brush up on your Thomas Paine. Try "Common Sense".

"We have it in our power to begin the world over again."

"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary."

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 3 months ago

It is interesting that the liberal politicos have all turned from the party line of the past and ane now avowed conservatives. O is now considered the plague and Sarah Palin and the tea party are no longer the butt of ridicule for fear of losing votes. Michael Bennett sounds like me, but his votes and old footage will certainly be his achilles heal. Anyone for health care?.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

Someone is living on the dark side of the planet in an alternate universe. Are you for real buffy? Are you saying that Obama has ended all those things you listed? Are you saying that Dems didn't support the Patriot act? Are you saying that Bush did not talk to Ray Nagin and Gov. Blanco days before Katrina hit and warn them to order a mandatory evacuation? Are you aware that Nagin was pressured by New Orleans businesses not to do it because it would cost them huge money? We don't need to remake the World, we just need to take our Country back on November 2nd and get the Progressives out of our lives.

I will list the Obama highlites if you wish but it will take me a while since he has shoved over 200 new laws down our throats, including one that keeps the SEC safe from FOIA requests. Hows that for transparency for ya?

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

While it is easy to bash each other from the perspective of policy and policy failures what is really happening is a simple assessment of raw COMPETENCE.

The Nation has been waiting in the President's anteroom for some meaningful change and we have now lost any semblance of hope.

This administration has demonstrated an ability to do almost nothing well other than to give another melodious speech which promises everything and delivers nothing.

W is no longer the President and has not been for some time.

McCain lost the election.

The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.

The Obama administration's incompetence has now made many thoughtful folks simply indifferent. Folks who had fallen in love with the Perfect Storm of an Obama candidacy. Seduced by an extraordinary campaign and very ordinary and predictable President.

Hillary was right, the guy does not possess the raw talent to be able to run anything --- well, in absolute fairness, except a never ending campaign.

Me, I'm waiting for the closure of Gitmo and the trial of MSK to say nothing of DADT -- all great job creation initiatives.

But, hey, that's just me.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 3 months ago

.

hey see, will you please go ahead and post the one that keeps the SEC safe from FOIA requests? Thank you

0

Stan Zuber 4 years, 3 months ago

So Gary where are you on the food chain? I believe you are the one that is clueless.

This country has been losing jobs for the last forty to fifty years. Mostly manufacturing. Millions of farmland acres taken out of production. Things are coming to a head.

As we sit here and point out and argue how ignorant the other side is, China sits there patiently and waits. The growing pains of establishing a world economy.

It appears we are becoming a divided nation. When is the last time both parties acknowledged that they really did something to benefit the whole country. The fact that we import so many of our goods and a lot of our food, we are losing our independence.

Just remember Gary, when the bottom of the food chain loses it's food source, you'll eventually lose yours.

Just some of the thoughts of this bottom feeder.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

First @stosh, You are 100% right, we have been shedding manufacturing jobs and you didn't explain why, the Unions have created such a crutch on the USA in global competitiveness in regards to COGS that we have what you correctly describe. Compare the hourly labor costs with the US auto manufacturers and their Japanese counterparts, the Japanese save about a third. We lost the garment district in the 80's due to the Unions, remember the commercials, "look for the Union label"? try and find a Union label now. Good luck on that one. Anyone who thinks our modern Unions are out for the workers is naive.

Next,@JohnFielding, here is some info on the Dodd Frank nightmare.

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/article.asp?articleid=108214 http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20100912/REG/309129990?sms_ss=twitter

0

NamVet 4 years, 3 months ago

When W took office he inherited an economy in great shape and a Federal budget surplus of over $200 billion. When Obama took office he inherited an economy on the verge of a Great Depression and a $1.3 Trillion deficit. Everyone expected Obama to come in sprinkle Holy Water on our country which would turn everything around. It did not happen and will not happen. The reason Republicans nominated McCain and Palin was they wanted to lose because they knew they could not turn around the mess they created. They would sit back knowing no one could fix this mess and come back in 4 years and blame their mess on Obama and regain power. Their plan is working well as all Republicans took the Limbaugh pledge of doing everything possible to make Obama fail. Republicans take great pride in blocking everything except "Defense Spending", no surprise there. They will come back so they can finish the job they started in 2001. You can count on more wars they will not serve in or pay for and big tax cuts for the top 1 %. This is why the top 1% went from 6% of all income in 1980 to almost 30% in 2009.
As Paul Volker said when he visited Steamboat, his best advice to young people is that they should learn Chinese.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

Let's get something straight about the national debt and budget mythology in the US.

Uninformed folks confuse the "budget" with the "national debt" because, well, they are --- UNINFORMED.

The budget is a mythological number which completely disregards inter- and intra- government transfers and thereby is just a subset of the actual spending picture. An important subset granted, but not a complete picture nonetheless.

Here is a printout of the national debt on the last day of each fiscal year since 2000.

Do you see any reduction in the national debt? That would be evidence of a "surplus", right? But what you really see is that the national debt just keeps climbing.

All this baloney about surpluses is just nonsense.

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

At least fight fair, uninformed zealots.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

Is that all you have Nam? The continuum of the lies? Bush inherited a mini recession and then 9/11 which should never have happened if Clinton would have dealt with Hussein in 1993. Bush warned the Dems in 2003 and again in 2005 that Fanni/Freddie was in trouble and they should curb the subprime madness, he was called a racist by the Dems in Congress. Do you need me to post the youtube of Barney Fwank in 2005 claiming Fannie was in good shape and that he wanted to expand the spread the wealth scheme further? And yea, Limbaugh wanted Obamas Socialist policies to fail and they have, miserably, because Socialism is evil and it has never provided the euphoric economy that you and others believe in. Free market Capitalism is, and has been, under attack from the Progressives for decades with Socialist programs that finally succeeded to bring it to its knees as Cloward and Piven taught the hippie Marxists at Columbia over the last few decades. America is becoming aware of this process and that is what is fueling the Tea Party movement which can't be stopped, not even by the NAACP who is planting operatives to damage it. Good luck in your preaching of old talking points and the only thing the Dems can use in the November elections. Yes we'll take the keys back from the Progressives in both the Democrat and Republican parties. The evidence being the removel of the old guard as seen by O'Donnell's victory in DE along with the other RINOS who went down to defeat recently. Get ready for a slow march back to a strong economy, it won't be easy to unravel all the damage done but it will be worth it.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@namvet

Your view on the taxes paid by the top 1% is just more uninformed nonsense. Let me share w/ you some "facts" about which you are clearly not informed.

The top 1% of taxpayers in the US --- that would be 1.4MM persons --- paid 40.4% of ALL income taxes paid. <<<2007 numbers, the most current data available

The bottom 95% of taxpayers in the US --- that would be 134MM persons --- paid 39.4%. <<<again 2007 numbers

The top 1% pays more than the bottom 95%. The top 1% uses almost no government provided services. Is this your idea of fair? Really?

To give you a historic frame of reference, let's look at what has happened since 1987. This is an important frame of reference because it is the year after the 1986 Tax Act, a huge change in the tax structure and one in which the Congress thought --- "well, we finally got it right."

Top 1% paid ---------- 24.8%.

Bottom 95% paid ---------- 58%,

The tax burden in the US has been effectively shifted to the top 1%. Would you not agree that 24.8% >>> 40.4% is pretty damn progressive? While 58% >>> 39.4% is a great deal?

The US has a more progressive tax code than France or Sweden --- a couple of socialist countries. The top 1% in the US pay MORE in the US than they would pay in France or Sweden!

Why do you think there is no job creation in the US just now? Because you cannot simultaneously flog the top 1% and make them pay for everything and HOPE they will create jobs. Simple logic.

Sorry to confuse the rant w/ facts, namvet.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@namvet ---

Your view on the taxes paid by the top 1% is just more uninformed nonsense. Let me share w/ you some "facts" about which you are clearly not informed.

The top 1% of taxpayers in the US --- that would be 1.4MM persons --- paid 40.4% of ALL income taxes paid. <<<2007 numbers, the most current data available

The bottom 95% of taxpayers in the US --- that would be 134MM persons --- paid 39.4%. <<<again 2007 numbers

The top 1% pays more than the bottom 95%. The top 1% uses almost no government provided services. Is this your idea of fair? Really?

To give you a historic frame of reference, let's look at what has happened since 1987. This is an important frame of reference because it is the year after the 1986 Tax Act, a huge change in the tax structure and one in which the Congress thought --- "well, we finally got it right."

Top 1% paid ---------- 24.8%.

Bottom 95% paid ---------- 58%,

The tax burden in the US has been effectively shifted to the top 1%. Would you not agree that 24.8% >>> 40.4% is pretty damn progressive? While 58% >>> 39.4% is a great deal?

The US has a more progressive tax code than France or Sweden --- a couple of socialist countries. The top 1% in the US pay MORE in the US than they would pay in France or Sweden!

Why do you think there is no job creation in the US just now? Because you cannot simultaneously flog the top 1% and make them pay for everything and HOPE they will create jobs. Simple logic.

Sorry to confuse the rant w/ facts, namvet.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

Hmmm, sorry, the post was cutoff and truncated and posted twice. Sorry.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 3 months ago

When O flew AF1 over New York I predicted that this was a preview of things to come and I have not been surprised.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

Thanks buffy, I think it is emblematic of the left wing ideologues like the head Liar Clinton who have no argument so they claim the Tea Party is the ideologues, pretty funny. These are the same boobs who rely on the Union thugs and ACORN etc to hold them in power. Talk about fear mongering, Clinton claiming that those wanting limited government and strong National defense along with private sector free markets thriving and more personal responsibility are the evil ones? Take a look at Greece, Spain and soon the UK and you will see what we are in store for with the Unions. Riots. We are here to stop this downfall of the "Great Shining City on a Hill".

Pelosi tried to call us astroturf and now Clinton calling us Ideologues, good luck with that.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@ buff ---

Perfect example of a "false" choice. One does not have to be either idealogical or philosophical --- life provides lots of opportunities to have core values which are applied in concert w/ the evidence even when the evidence changes over time.

What sheer utter nonsense from a guy who would seek to debate the meaning of "is".

Bill Clinton's resurgence is a perfect example of how President Obama is losing the leadership mantle in the Democrat party.

I only hope he gets his wish --- a one term presidency.

0

knee_dropper 4 years, 3 months ago

JLM, you forgot to include how much of the total income the top 1% make, 22.8% of the the total adjusted gross income of the country! They pay that because they can afford it. The infrastructure, education system and workers of this country have allowed them to gain that wealth.

A more telling figure that you didn't include is what the top 1/1000 of the population make and pay. "For the first time this year, we are also presenting data on the top 0.1% of tax returns (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). This 10 percent of the returns in the top 1 percent amounts to only 141,000 tax returns but accounts for nearly 12 percent of the adjusted gross income earned and approximately 20 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes. The average income for a tax return in this top 0.1 percent is $7.4 million, while the average amount of income tax paid is $1.6 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

I guess that only leaves them $5.8 million a year to live on, must be tough to let any of that "trickle down" and create jobs.

0

cody heartz 4 years, 3 months ago

JLM I don't think Clinton is posing a false dilemma, he's simply stating that many in the tea arty leadership are ideologues, and they are. It seems like what you are describing --''life provides lots of opportunities to have core values which are applied in concert w/ the evidence even when the evidence changes over time"-- would be a person with a philosophy. Clinton isn't chiding real conservative leadership, the kind that is open to political discourse.

What is dangerous though, is people like seeuski. People that create false dichotomies.

Clinton would never use the word "evil", like you do when you describe progressives. That is the kind of language reserved for sweaty faced ranting conservatives demagogues like Glenn Beck. Clinton is too smart for that.

See, as far as fear-mongering goes you're the ones predicting that the end is nigh. With all you talk about marxist insurgencies, labor riots, and the fall of empires, you're starting to sound like a conservative Nostradamus. It's the doomsayers like you that Clinton is talking about. Do you really think that Clinton and others on the left are working towards weaker national defense and a failed economy? Come on, lighten up. And by the way what is it with you and ACORN? You're aware they've gone bankrupt and disbanded right? As of March 22 ACORN had 4 employees. I'd be careful if I were you about calling a bunch of middle aged women and undergraduates doing community service, thugs. It might make you sound a little nutty. (nutty - ACORN, get it?)

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

Socialism 101. Do your homework dropper, you can't take from one class and give to another and create prosperity, it never worked. The top 5% earners pay over 60% of the fed income tax and THEY are the ones who create jobs, not the Gov. Who the heck are you to say that, "The infrastructure, education system and workers of this country have allowed them to gain that wealth." Why don't all those that want to live under the Marxism they so often preach for go ahead to a country that already has it? There are a few out there you know.

By looking at that tax chart, good thru 2007, I would say the tax structure is reasonable now and the Bush tax cuts made it that way which pulled us out of the recession he inherited from Clinton and the attacks of 9/11.

The answer to our woes is to cut spending and eliminate useless entitlement programs, especially the recent one that is going to dwarf all the others, Obamacare.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

buffy,

ACORN just went ahead and changed their name to fool the fools like you. And if ACORN is so meaningless why is there funding for it included in the Obamacare laws? Downplay it if you will but we are aware of this group along with the Unions and who their main man is. OBAMA, UMM UMM UMM. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/ACORN-drops-tarnished-name-and-moves-to-silence-critics-48730537.html

Your post above just shows 1 of 2 things, you either are not aware of what is happening to this Country or you like it and root for the completion of the "fundamental change" to Socialism that Obama is working on so diligently. I say too that I can provide many historical bits of evidence to prove that Socialism IS evil. It is the opposite of freedom. You apparently have made your choice for which you choose to live under, I have made mine along with the majority of awakening Americans. There can be no compromise with Socialism, in order to live free we must put a stop to it. I am not sweating at this time but need to in order to cleanse myself of this nightmare we are in.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 3 months ago

Oh JLM, the Almighty One, Mr. All Knowing, Mr. Holier Than Thou, Mr. I'm Smarter Than All, Just keep preaching to your sheep; you'll convince them that they need to vote Republican so your taxes won't increase, and the private sector will thrive, because the top 1% are the only people creating jobs. Then we'll have this economy back on track. Keep preaching how incompetent Obama is-maybe you'll fool anyone interested. But anyone who doesn't want to walk with your herd might see things differently-but then they are uninformed zealots.

Tell me something Almighty One-what did the Bush Tax Cuts do for job creation? How did those tax cuts help the economy? Enlighten us with more facts please.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

I find this year old article most appropriate today.

"Time is short. Either accept responsibility for our own lives and reduce the role of government in our most important affairs, or a chaotic future with citizen against citizen and neighbor against neighbor will be our fate. Our founders and many great leaders warned us of the dangers of unlimited government; let us be wise enough to heed their words now more than ever."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/is_the_us_government_bankrupt.html

These posts are evidence of where we are.

0

knee_dropper 4 years, 3 months ago

Seeu, the Bush tax cuts are one of the major things that have gotten this country into the mess it's in. Maybe you didn't realize the top 5% pay what they paid roughly what they during the Clinton years. If you don't agree paying taxes for the infrastructure of this country YOU could move to one that doesn't, there are of few of those as well, you know, like Somalia. I agree that spending needs to be cut, only I believe that it's the military-industrial complex that are the fattest pigs at the entitlement trough.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

Well we will have to disagree. If you think that the spending is on infrastructure then I have oceanfront property to sell you in Nevada. And you and your cohorts won't get away with rewriting history as long as we are here to keep the truth alive. Bush's tax cuts stimulated the economy and that is fact. Eat it, wear it, sleep with it. And moving out is not out of the question if your type succeeds in completing the full transformation to Socialism you seek. There would be long term pain in this Country, worse than we have now and life is much shorter than the change back would take. But don't get your hopes up. we are about to stop this Progressive agenda in November. 32 House Dems are now on board with extending Bush's tax cuts. Ooops.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@jim ---

What is being done now by the Obama administration is not working. The Stimulus was passed w/ the promise that unemployment would not top 8%.

There is not a reputable economist --- including Christine Roemer and Peter Orszag --- who suggest that the answer to our woes is to RAISE taxes during a recession.

The President's competence is not greater than his inability to make any progress with the Iranians, to shut down Gitmo, to hold a trial for KSM in NYC or to hold unemployment to below 8%.

Amateur hour.

This is a guy who is simply not a leader nor an executive. He is a Chicago political machine lightweight.

He is proudest of a piece of legislation which he did not write, which nobody has read and which nobody even understands --- himself included.

Remember how the force of his personality was going to change the American position in the world --- because he was just so much more competent and likeable than his predecessor?

What is his crowning achievement thus far? Other than taking a bunch of vacations? Giving a bunch of empty speeches? He has accomplished nothing of real value for our country.

At some time, competence must be measured by results. That time is now and the American people will reject the Democrats soundly come November.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@ buff ---

What Clinton said drew a choice between a "philosophy", a governing philosophy, and an idealogy. The clear implication was that one would be guided by one or the other but that both did not co-exist.

I think that to be a false choice. One made to cast his opponents in the worst possible light for crass political purposes.

Most thoughtful people have an idealogy which then influences and guides their governing philosophy. An idealogy guides ones thoughts and a philosophy guides ones actions.

Idealogically I am in favor of a very strong national defense while philosophically I am inclined to place more emphasis on the size and deployment and use of the military while being generally opposed to the development of large, expensive weapons systems to meet threats which do not currently exist.

The comparison of idealogy and philosophy is the same as strategy and tactics.

Make no mistake, Clinton is not intending to be taken seriously in any of this --- he is just stirring the pot to try to create a more favorable election outcome for the Democrats in order to lay a base for Hillary. You can bet he is keeping track of everybody he helps along the way.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@ knee ---

The Bush tax cuts had absolutely NOTHING to do w/ the mortgage crisis, the creation of derivatives, the proliferation of liar loans, the obscene leveraging of Fannie, Freddie and Wall Street, the rise of unemployment, the freezing up of the credit markets. Lay that blame squarely at the feet of Congress --- and, fairly played, a Democratic Congress.

I defy you to find a single instance of somebody paying a bit less in taxes contributing to the recession. That is just pure puffery.

Bush went from a quarter trillion dollar surplus in his first year to a projected $400B deficit in his last year. Obama is projecting deficits in excess of a trillion dollars as far as the eye can see and the CBO is projecting even worse.

I know...............................................................................it's all Bush's fault.

Hell, I wish Bush were still President. We would have the same foreign policy we have today. Gates would still be Sec Def and the Sec Treas would know how to operate Turbo Tax.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@ knee ---

In 2007, the top 1% made 22.8% of the total adjusted gross income and paid 40.3% of the total income taxes.

Is that fair?

In 1987, that number was 25% of all taxes paid.

The burden on the top 1% has been disproportionately higher, growing higher with the passage of time and will grow even more if Pres Obama and the Democrats have their way --- but even that is still not enough.

The top marginal rates are higher than France and Sweden --- socialist countries --- and the corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. You might want to consider that most countries don't tax capital gains at all --- giving rise to folks wanting to start a business and risk capital.

Why is there no job creaton in the US today --- because folks who have the wealth to create jobs are sitting on the sidelines. If you are unemployed today you may want to think carefully about how you want to cast a vote in November.

Oh, you may get a few more weeks of unemployment coverage but would you rather have a job?

Job creation in the US is not going to turn around until the class warfare stops.

0

housepoor 4 years, 3 months ago

JLM, In 1987 the top tax rate was 38.5%, 2007 35%

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 3 months ago

@JLM-Thanks for not answering my simple question. Excellent debate tactic. You failed to mention, the Dem's controlled congress starting in November 2006 (but we all know you believe that's when all the problems started). Regardless, your political philosophy just isn't adding up, nor does it carry any weight with me, considering the track record. If it's the economy your most worried about, or lack of jobs, again tell me how the Bush Tax Cuts created jobs? The old Trickle Down hasn't begun to trickle yet, but I'm sure it'll start this November.

Bush holds the record for vacation days, but that's neither here nor there. Good argument though.

0

housepoor 4 years, 3 months ago

So in 1986 we lowered the top tax rate from 50% to 38.5% then to 35% on 2003. What has happened is the share of income that goes to the top income bracket has increased while the share that goes to the middle and lower income brackets declined. So yes the top 1% is paying a bigger % of the overall tax burden but they are also earning a larger piece of overall income pie.

0

knee_dropper 4 years, 3 months ago

JLM,

I defy you to find where I stated paying less taxes added to the recession. Work on your reading comprehension there buddy, read the string above. . .

The top 1% is twice as wealthy they were in the 70's, so yeah, I don not think they are being taxed into oblivion, nor do I think they aren't creating jobs because of the tax burden. The middle class keeps shrinking, the amount of Americans in poverty is at it's highest level in 50 years and the top 1% keep getting wealthier, yet raising taxes to the level they were at 10 years ago for the richest 1% is class warfare?

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@ housepoor ---

Taxation rates have absolutely nothing to do w/ what percentage goes anywhere. They determine who pays taxes and in what magnitude.

Further, the bottom 95% is not only paying less comparatively in taxes, they are in some instances getting a check --- a payment --- funded by the top taxpayers.

That is not the same thing as paying taxes at a lower rate, that is simpy wealth redistribution. That is not tax policy. That is social program aimed at using the Federal Treasury at buying votes.

It was not earned, it was simply sucked out of the most productive slice of the population and GIVEN to the lowest slice of productivity.

But don't kid yourself, when the Bush tax cuts expire a family making $59K will see a $2,900 increase in their taxes.

No recession was ever throttled by raising taxes on those who create jobs.

We will all look back on a decade of trillion $$$ deficits with great affection for George W Bush. And President Obama will be writing childrens' books after his single term.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

One only has to look at the level of employment --- not unemployment, but Americans with non-farm jobs to appreciate the stability of the Bush years. Non-farm jobs are fairly impacted by increased government employment but if one took a look at only "private" employment the trends are magnified.

1-2003 130,266,000 1-2004 130,420,000 1-2005 132,453,000 1-2006 135,075,000
1-2007 137,067,000 1-2008 137,941,000 1-2009 133,549,000 1-2010 129,602,000 8-2010 130,311,000

Contrary to all the revisionist history, the number of Americans employed during the immediate aftermath of the Bush tax cuts INCREASED until the Congre$$$ shifted to Democratic control and then the slide began.

Why are so many folks hurting --- because since the Obama election we have lost over 7MM jobs. Of about 700K jobs "created" in 2007, almost 100% have come from government --- the US Census counting for an enormous increase.

So, yeah, give me 2004 and I would be pretty damn happy. Would you not make that trade?

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

It is not really the number of vacations that irks me, it is the nature of the vacations. President Obama and family go to the Gulf Coast for 26 hours, get a few pictures in and then go to Martha's Vineyard for 10 days.

How tone deaf is this guy really? How shallow?

Why even bother going to the Gulf Coast at all?

President Obama's tone deafness is rivalled only by his incompetence.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 3 months ago

Still making vacation time an argument-well done. Just reach for anything-I guess its retribution for years of Bush bashing. No problem-when are you going to say how much better Bush's dog was than Obama's-another potent argument you could take on.

While there was 'moderate job growth until 2007', I liked the WSJ's headline "Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record." "The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton's administration."

But hey-I'm glad you're taking great pride in the Bush years. I tend to look at the Bush years a bit differently. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

This, also straight from the WSJ, tells a different story than what JLM is preaching.

"As the CBO notes, most Bush tax cut dollars go to higher-income households, and these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners. In fact, of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck. (The CBO did not examine the high-income tax cuts separately, but the logic it used suggests that extending those cuts alone would have even less value.) The government could more effectively stimulate the economy by letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits and tax credits favoring job creation. Dollar for dollar, each of these measures would have about three times the impact on GDP as continuing the Bush tax cuts."

Sorry to rain on your parade.

0

Troutguy 4 years, 3 months ago

Job creation numbers George H.W. Bush 2.5 million Bill Clinton 23.1 million George W. Bush 3.0 million

No. I don't think I'm gonna get too nostalgic for 2004. Tax rates under Clinton were much higher, but there were far more jobs created. Tax rates under W. Bush went down. So where are all the jobs that are supposed to be created when tax rates are lower?

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@ jim ---

"...these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners."

Exactly the point, they INVEST it and those investments are what create jobs.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@ trout ---

If you want to see the real impact of job creation driven by tax cuts look to the Reagan numbers and remember that Clinton had a Republican Congress which restrained spending and the magnitude of growth of government.

All Clinton did was pick the low hanging fruit left by Reagan and Bush.

You remember Bill Clinton's famous utterance --- "the age of big government is over." That was because the Republican Congress didn't allow it to grow.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 3 months ago

Where are/were the jobs? Love your philosophy, but you don't have the numbers to back it up.

0

housepoor 4 years, 3 months ago

"All Clinton did was pick the low hanging fruit left by Reagan and Bush." LOL He inherited a deficit, left with a surplus............ Then what happened???

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

Ahh, the Clinton budget surplus canard ---

Here are the ACTUAL National or Federal Gross Debt numbers from the Clinton years:

1994 $4,643,307MM <<< millions of dollars 1995 $4,920,586 1996 $5,181,465 1997 $5,369,206 1998 $5,478,189 1999 $5,605,523 2000 $5,628,700 2001 $5,769,881

So, if President Clinton ran a "surplus" where is it?

When gov't folks talk about the budget they like to pretend they are talking about all revenue and all expenses (cash method of accounting) but they never account for inter- and intra- government revenues and expenses. This tends to overstate revenues and understate expenses.

Chief amongst these types of abuses is the series of notes given to Social Security by the general fund. During the Clinton years, receipts from SS payroll tax collections greatly exceeded the current payments for SS. [ Translation: more SS $$$ coming in than going out!] They simply ignored this fact and ignored the series of notes given to SS to allow this money to be spent currently.

Lockbox, anyone?

What is even worse, is the reality that the receipts for SS arguably were and are intended to pay FUTURE requirements and should not have been included in revenue in any manner --- more closely following GAAP and accrual accounting methodology.

So, sorry to break it to you, but there were really no "Clinton surpluses" --- kind of a little blue dress moment, eh?

Just for the record, I would take a Democratic President and a Republican Congresss any time if the Congress were actually real Republicans who restrained spending a la Newton G.

0

sledneck 4 years, 3 months ago

"A pox on both your houses".

Democrats and republicans; the 2 biggest problems in America.

There has not been a decent president since Reagan. Before that, Kennedy. Yes they were different but they were not ashamed of their country or affraid to call a spade a spade.

Now all we have are mealy-mouth nit-pickers who put theirself ahead of their country. Todays democrats would kick Kennedy out for being too conservative. Todays republicans would do the same to Reagan. They all suck.

If you guys think your guy in DC is an exception you are sadly mistaken.

0

Troutguy 4 years, 3 months ago

Well said, Sled. I've said before I don't drink the coolaide of either party, and also tire of people preaching their guy/party is the best. Neither party cares about the average Joe Schmoe. It's all about re-election and power. JLM- Reagan also had the rocks to raise taxes when he needed to. Total tax cuts under Reagan were around $275 billion. Total tax increases under Reagan were around $133 billion. He would be labeled a RINO if he was put up to todays GOP litmus test and probably wouldn't even win a primary election. Also, even Jimmy Carter was able to muster up over 10 million jobs during his 4 years in office. Bush II presided over the least amount of jobs created under any Administration since Herbert Hoover, when the country shed over 6 million jobs during the Depression. So far, we've lost over 3 million jobs under Obama, who still has just over 2 years in office. It remains to be seen what happens in the future, if we can put our nation back together and put people back to work.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@ trout ---

What do you find to be the very best thing that President Obama has done thus far and which of his many "stimulus" programs do you think is working the best just now?

Where has his great competence shined the brightest thus far?

Which of his many campaign promises that he made are you the most happy with his actual governing experience?

President Obama is so hopelessly over his head that I truly feel sorry for him. He reminds me of when I reported into an elite Army unit as a newly minted 2nd Lt and realized that everyone who was within my view knew more about soldiering than I did. It was a truly hopeless and despairing feeling. I can feel his pain.

The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. I am totally indifferent to President Obama and pity his total incompetence.

0

seeuski 4 years, 3 months ago

And it's the sound of crickets to that one.

What will we have left to put together once Obama and the George Soros puppets are done enacting laws that change us to a Socialist Oligarchy? It must be stopped now.

0

Troutguy 4 years, 3 months ago

That sound of crickets, See, is me having a life and not sitting in front of this computer screen all day trolling Pilot postings. I've never said I'm an Obama supporter, but I'd guess I'd have to say the best thing Obama has done was to finally wind down Bush's worthless Iraq war. Unfortunately, he's upped the anti in Afghanistan, so we're just spinning our wheels again, wasting billions of dollars trying nation building half way around the world while America crumbles. I'm still left wondering, if job creation is dependent on extending Bush tax cuts, why did we have such horrible job creation under Bush, while under Reagan / Clinton (who both raised taxes along with giving tax cuts) had stellar job creation?

0

Troutguy 4 years, 3 months ago

Actually, I change my mind. The best thing Obama has done was appoint Elizabeth Warren to oversee the creation of the Bureau of consumer Financial Protection. Much better than the lapdog the GOP and some Dems would rather have. Finally, score one for the little guy!

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@ troutguy ---

If I were a little guy --- hey, I AM a little guy --- LOL, damn I find myself funny!

OK, back on subject --- tenured Harvard professors are not really that focused on helping the little guy, more so on helping themselves. Witness the affair Skippy, no?

Elizabeth Warren would be great --- if confirmed, shame Pres Obama is not going to send her name along for Senate confirmation, no? --- as a consumer advocate if she were not simultaneously a big company hater.

The guys she needs to focus on are the entrenched Democratic Wall Street crowd who have emerged from this recession spotless. The big dogs just keep on eating and sending campaign contributions to the Democrats and they will not touch them.

Who were the first guys to get bailed out? Who were the first guys to get well?

Come on, now, those are EASY questions!

0

Troutguy 4 years, 3 months ago

I wish she was put up for confirmation, but there are not the votes to get her through the Senate. That's because she will be on the consumer side, not Wall Street.
And, It's not just the Dems who have been taking money from Wall Street. In early 2009, Dems got 70% contributions from Wall Street (The party in power will always get more bribes, er, campaign contributions. By the middle of this year, it has turned, with the GOP getting around 68% campaign contributions from Wall Street. They know when the GOP get some more votes, they can work with bought off Dems on repealing any meaningful financial reforms. That's why Wall St was the first to be bailed out and the first to get well. We've got to move past this 'it's the Dems or it's the GOP who's bought and paid for by special interests'. It's both.

0

cody heartz 4 years, 3 months ago

"Socialist oligarchy" is an oxymoron; there's no such things. So we don't have to worry too much about Obama creating one. Just saying. However, there is such a thing as a corporate oligarchy. That's the entity that owns and runs the GOP.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

@ trout ---

It sounds like we are in agreement that WS is a bunch of whores, no?

Now the only real issue is are they turning tricks primarily for Dems or Republicans? Both?

Your comment suggests both --- which is of course how a capitalist, free market, lady of the night would actually act, no?

I think you will find that this particular bunch of harlots is working primarily on the Democratic side of the street.

Isn't it ironic, that the guys who caused most of the trouble are the guys who got bailed out first? A bunch of these guys would have been well served by a public beheading on the steps of the NYSE because that is what they did to the Nation's collective wealth?

See, folks can truly discuss and reason together. Have a nice damn day!

0

sledneck 4 years, 3 months ago

Buffpasser, Since the "evil rich people" and corporations control too much perhaps you would be so kind as to share with us the system you have discovered that is superior to it.

It is ammusing that you forget all the promises Mr. Obama made.

Wiretapping has not been stopped by Obama. The patriot act has not been stopped by Obama. The wars have not been stopped by Obama. (although he is taking credit for winning the one in Iraq) Gitmo is still open. The 9/11 conspirators have not been given a "fair trial". Hurricane Katrina vs Gulf oil spill? It was under the Obama administration (not Bush) that the regulatory utopia (for which leftists yearn) failed.

Our nation is so screwed up and world events and situations are more complicated than many Americans could possibly comprehend. That was evident when people started railing on Bush for every imaginable offense as if they imagined him a god, capable of but ruthlessly unwilling to produce some "fantasy world" results for the nation.

Your state of denial that Obama is equally responsible is evidenced by your blaming Bush for so much while refusing to acknowledge those situations are yet un-rectified after 2 years of Obama control. Attacking the man who instituted the problems while ignoring the responsibility of the man who has refused to fix them betrays your ignorance not only of the limitations of men such as Bush AND Obama but also of REALITY... which is NOT OPTIONAL.

0

cody heartz 4 years, 3 months ago

Sledneck, How dare you! I would never betray my own ignorance.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 2 months ago

Not so fast Seeuski-I hadn't looked at my computer since Friday-don't sound so cocky-I'm back and ready to play.

Accomplishments that come to mind-Stimuls Bill-like it or not, it saved and created jobs. Kept many people working-opened up jobs for others-put food on the table for many families.

Signed bill that expanded State Childrens Health Insurance.

Cobra Insurance reforms

Public Lands Bill-some 2 million more acres of Wilderness Lands

Eliminated the wasteful F22 Jet Fighter

Put a ban on lobbyist gifts-restrictions on hiring lobbyists-is trying to ban lobbyists from serving on advisory boards.

Credit card reform

Stem Cell Research

Inherited a collapsing auto industry, and brought GM back-saved jobs-loan is paid back

20 Billion from BP

I do like how he brought combat troops home, and never has he taken credit for victory in Iraq-that's straight from Hannity or Beck's mouth Sled. Not cool.

There's others, but these should stir the pot a bit.

0

JLM 4 years, 2 months ago

@ buffer ---

Pretty damn....................................................................................funny!

The thing I have begun to appreciate more and more is that George W Bush was really doing a whole lot of stuff --- way more than President Obama --- because apparently he is responsible for damn near everything that has gone wrong in the world for a couple of years now.

The guy is just awesome. What a work ethic.

And I thought he was a slacker.

Not to put too fine a point on it --- but really when does President Obama's term actually kick in? You know, where HE is responsible for some stuff?

0

JLM 4 years, 2 months ago

Not to be a ragger, but GM "repaid" the $6.7B "loan" with other government funds.

Of the total of $52B in gov't $$$, only $6.7B was considered a loan. Why? Hell, nobody knows.

They used excess funds --- working capital really --- from the balance of the $52B to "repay" the loan. So, really that warm feeling running down your leg, pal, it's not rain!

Don't forget that because the gov't was reluctant to put GM into bankruptcy, they pissed away another $30B that was lost when they finally did a "private" bankruptcy deal.

So, the GM story is still filed under sci-fi for a lot longer, folks.

Did I mention that the UAW got everything they wanted out of the deal and a big slice of ownership? Paid for by you chumps.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 2 months ago

You can paint the picture with your turd brush only so much. Bottom line is the company, it's workers, and the ripple effect from having GM survive is being felt. Like I've said before-if McCain and Numbskull were elected, you might have gotten a different result. Sucks to be you. Better luck next time.

Watched Obama on CNBC at lunch-answered many tough questions admirably (with no prompter).

0

JLM 4 years, 2 months ago

There are some things which cannot be spun --- business is like buoyancy, some stuff floats and some stuff doesn't and no amount of sophomoric prattle is going to change the reality.

GM started this mess with an $8K per car cost disadvantage when compared to Toyota. This cost disadvantage is entirely attributable to legacy and current comp and benefit plans. Management knew it and the UAW knew it.

GM --- $82B of our money and an enormous loss of market share later and an anemic dealer network --- now has a $4.5K cost disadvantage.

Tantamount to removing only half of a cancerous tumor and hoping the other half will just go away.

As the economy recovers the cost advantage of GM's competitors will be felt and they will ultimately be in the hospital again but this time, they will have lost the grace period created by the Cash for Clunkers and recession.

Cash for Clunkers and the recession bought GM time to retrench and they failed to do so.

That's right, the recession has prevented GM's competitors from applying the coup de grace. Just wait.

The much ballyhooed IPO? It will be sending shares out at below the average cost per share --- even disregarding the $30B lost in the bankruptcy --- because the enterprise value is not equal to the investment.

Let me say that again --- even after pissing away $30B, GM is still not worth the "new money" valuation after flushing all the common and nobody seems to be upset about this.

GM will turn out to be one of the all time great shorts before and after the restructuring.

I agree w/ you that President Obama handled some very tough questions very well. He is a fabulous communicator. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do w/ creating jobs and getting folks back to work. It is all more show and tell and tell and tell.

0

JLM 4 years, 2 months ago

No prompter? Really?

It is such a proud moment to see a tyke take off the training wheels, no?

How many jobs did you create w/out the TOTUS today, POTUS?

None.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 2 months ago

I'm sorry you lost your shorts on your GM stocks, but bottom line is they have turned a profit, and are now hiring.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

0

JLM 4 years, 2 months ago

Hahaha, the whole damn market was short GM for the last 10 years. You been in Siberia or something? They went bankrupt.

It's guys like you who will not believe basic financial analysis who make the market work in the first place. GM has an internal economic engine which is at a $4.5K disadvantage per vehicle to their competitors and you are talking about "profits"? Are you on crack? This is real money.

Talk about picking low hanging fruit.

GM is a financial disaster cobbled together with YOUR money waiting to happen again and again.

The second they come public --- at less than the "new money" value, mind you --- I will be short again.

Sounds like a win-lose to me. My only regret is that they have a bit of my money in the deal through taxes. Go long Ford and short GM.

Don't forget I told you so, mullet money.

0

sledneck 4 years, 2 months ago

For people who want to believe the dream, reality is optional. Never mind America paid $4 for every one it will ever collect. So long as the union thugs have a job it's all ok. Win win my arrrrrs.

Anyone who thinks America won at the GM deal is... QUITE MAD.

I was a GM customer for 25 years. Owned 17 of 'em. Hell will freeze solid before I ever buy another GM. Win-win that.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 2 months ago

Hey numbnuts, I never told you where to invest your money. Put down the cocktail and read.

0

JLM 4 years, 2 months ago

"numbnuts" --- hahahahaha --- you gotta respect that kind of witty repartee! That is some first class humor.

Did you finish your homework early tonight or have they stopped giving homework in third grade?

Sheesh!

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 2 months ago

If you weren't so impressed with yourself, you might actually get some sleep. Between the mirror your so fond of, and your keyboard, I hope your poodle is getting her attention elsewhere.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

jimmmmmmmmmmmm, Are you seriously going to slide down that slope of promoting Obama's make believe accomplishments?

("Put a ban on lobbyist gifts-restrictions on hiring lobbyists-is trying to ban lobbyists from serving on advisory boards.")

I forgot how fun it is to google.

Created or saved, language for the Zombie faithful.

How about the figures that were released last week that showed Obama spent $111 million taxpayer dollars to create or save 55 jobs in CA?

Do you want to claim that one jimmmmmmmmmmmmm? It's only $2 million per job, pretty good for porky the pig and his spread the wealth money trough.

And as for Iraq, this POTUS made statement after statement while a Senator claiming that the surge would fail etc and now he says mission accomplished and praises himself for setting up the forces removal time-line which was already in place when he took office because Bush had devised those plans. The same occurred when he decided on the new surge in Afghanistan, Bush left him with those also. This guy is classless, especially in his giggly smirky response to the woman who was a disaffected voter and gave him what fer at that Townhall.

Umm Umm Ummmmmmm jimmmmmmmmmmm.

0

Troutguy 4 years, 2 months ago

JLM- This year, the GOP is getting the majority of campaign bribes from Wall Street. That shows me that those 'harlets' are working a little more on the GOP side of the street this year, as compared to 2009. Sled- Find it kind of ironic that you're calling out Obama on not following thru with his campaign lies considering that most of the things on your list were started under the previous administration. Illegal wiretaps Patriot Act Iraq and Afghanistan wars etc, etc, The gulf oil spill happened under Obama, but the regulations that were being followed were leftovers from the previous administration's secret oil industry/govt pow-wows when it first took office. Once again, it's time to stop blaming one party or the other for our country's ills. IT'S BOTH. Neither party has our best interests in mind!! They are beholden to whomever gives them the most money, and will pass laws and regulations that favor these donors.

0

seeuski 4 years, 2 months ago

jimmmmmmmmmmmm,

I almost forgot that Obama is now calling Bush's tax cuts, the Obama tax cut. Thief.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 2 months ago

That's funny Seeuski, but I'm thinking they are a bit different.

As far as your other post, I haven't had time to check into that stuff. What is it, gang up on ole Jimbo today?

0

sledneck 4 years, 2 months ago

No Trout, Thats not what I was doing. What I was doing was calling out Buffpasser for listing all Bush's bad acts without acknowledging that Mr Obama has also failed by not correcting most of them. Furthermore, Bush never made promises to close gitmo, for example. Obama did. That makes him not only the president who is currently operating the "concentration camp" (to hear the leftists describe it 3 years ago) but a liar also, get it?
It doesn't matter who wrote the damn oil regulations. If they were flawed Obama should have fixed them on day 1... k?? Thats like telling the cop the previous owner wore-out your tires so it should be ok to be driving on bald tires! Please.

My major point was that if it was wrong during Bush it's still wrong now and if we are going to listen to all the righteous indignation from either side they shuold remember their "pot" is as black as the other mans "kettle".

Bush started this crap. He was wrong. Obama continues this crap. He is wrong. "Neither party has our best interest in mind." YOU GOT IT! On that we agree, totaly.

0

Troutguy 4 years, 2 months ago

Agreed. Campaigner Obama didn't quite realize how hard it is to change these policies once he's Pres. Obama. Talk is cheap. It's time to **** or get off the pot. The unfortunate thing is that while our country is down, the extreme fringes of both parties drowns out any of the meaningful debate we need to have to move forward. There is no compromise in the Senate from either side, so there will be nothing extraordinary coming from that body of Govt any time soon. After the elections this fall when the Dems are sure to lose some seats, gridlock will be the norm for the next two years. It's amazing to me that we now have two parties in power who's only aim is to make the other party look bad. Gotcha politics. God forbid that one party supports the other party on certain legislative items. Can't make it seem like those kooks on the other side actually have a good idea. Disgusting! It's hard right now not to point the finger at the GOP for being the united party of no. The hypocracy is especially thick when it comes to some items in the health care reform bill, finance reform, Social Security, etc. that were supported by sitting GOP senators 10-15 years ago, but are against them today. Simply because it's coming from the other side of the aisle now. If senate Dems came out with a bill that says the sun sets in the east, our GOP senators would probably come out saying it doesn't and filibuster it.

0

sledneck 4 years, 2 months ago

A friend if mine intended to vote for Obama. He alluded several times to how there would be change. I'm sure he voted for Obama and we are still great friends although I would never give the man my vote. (Bush either)

However, what I told him months before the election was: When Obama sits down on his first day many people will walk in the room. Experts in foreign policy, military leaders, economic advisors, bankers, Federal reserve people, etc, etc. They will explain to him, as they did to Bush before him, just how utterly tied his hands are. America, for fifty years has been painting itself into a corner and no one man is going to get us out.

We had better get that thinking out of our minds or we are doomed. The people of this country are running it. They need to start doing a better job and get their selfishness under control and think as Kennedy ask us... "Ask not what your country (government) can do for you..."

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.