Hope Over Fear?

ViRedd

New Member
February 06, 2009
So Much For Hope Over Fear

By Charles Krauthammer


"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."
-- President Obama, Feb. 4.

WASHINGTON -- Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn't understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.


The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.

He'd been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he's not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don't get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.

At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages.

Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal's private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he'd come to Washington to upend.

And yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.

It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress' own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

Not just to abolish but to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the "fierce urgency of now" includes $150 million for livestock insurance.

The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports The Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting "planted" for "ready to market" would mean a windfall garnered from a new "bonus depreciation" incentive.

After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.
 

max420thc

Well-Known Member
obama..like the good little democrat he is . is sitting in is his office trying to think of who he is going to blame for his failure to FIX the economy .maybe he can blame the democrats in congress that will give him anything he wants.to include another 9 trillion plus dollars in spending.the hand writing is on the wall right now.this country is completely fucked.
 

110100100

Well-Known Member
I hear Daschle said his biggest regret in this whole thing was that he paid his back taxes for nothing :bigjoint:
 

medicineman

New Member
So you're saying two wrongs make you right? :P
Uhhh, nope, Here it is again: THE-RIGHT-IS-WRONG. Doesn't imply there are two of anything,. But just for your interest, referring to the bailout and the rightys wanting all tax cuts, that is wrong. Won't stimulate anything except millionaires bank accounts and companys' treasuries. In this economic climate, no employer is going to hire more people unless he has more work for them. Conversely, rebuilding infrastructure and bailing out upside down states will create jobs and keep many employed that would be losing their jobs. If more people have jobs, they will spend money creating need for more products, producing more jobs ad-infinitum. What we need is a trickle up economy to get this thing jumpstarted, that is what Obama is proposing. Look, the rich are doing just fine. Maybe they cant afford that 300 ft. yacht this year, but if they save up and the economy turns around, they can get it next year. What we are "HOPING" for is a turn around, and anyone that has watched the results of the Bush tax cuts with eyes wide open, can see just how well that worked. The rich got richer and the poor and middle class got fucked. It's time to give us some relief.
 

110100100

Well-Known Member
Uhhh, nope, Here it is again: THE-RIGHT-IS-WRONG. Doesn't imply there are two of anything,. But just for your interest, referring to the bailout and the rightys wanting all tax cuts, that is wrong. Won't stimulate anything except millionaires bank accounts and companys' treasuries. In this economic climate, no employer is going to hire more people unless he has more work for them. Conversely, rebuilding infrastructure and bailing out upside down states will create jobs and keep many employed that would be losing their jobs. If more people have jobs, they will spend money creating need for more products, producing more jobs ad-infinitum. What we need is a trickle up economy to get this thing jumpstarted, that is what Obama is proposing. Look, the rich are doing just fine. Maybe they cant afford that 300 ft. yacht this year, but if they save up and the economy turns around, they can get it next year. What we are "HOPING" for is a turn around, and anyone that has watched the results of the Bush tax cuts with eyes wide open, can see just how well that worked. The rich got richer and the poor and middle class got fucked. It's time to give us some relief.
Check for wind burn Medman cause it went right over your head.
 

110100100

Well-Known Member
Don't put words in my mouth medman, it was a good natured joke.

Two wrongs make YOU right.

Like committing two wrongs makes you right wing.
 

medicineman

New Member
Don't put words in my mouth medman, it was a good natured joke.

Two wrongs make YOU right.

Like committing two wrongs makes you right wing.
Got it, beautiful, sorry, I guess I wasn't looking for humor. You're exactly "Right", I mean correct.
 

Twistyman

Well-Known Member
A question.. why will the right pass the bill for the banks and wall street and not the one for main street... they said why on the news here today..the expression is "the train is leaving the station" thats washington speak for the lobbyists need to hurry to get their little extras in... so the right will stall till this happens...also mentioned was the warnings given about Madoff which were quickly ignored... wasn't that gem "a home for everyone" program on the Bush watch.... way to protect the poor against the scamming rich guys....
 

110100100

Well-Known Member
Got it, beautiful, sorry, I guess I wasn't looking for humor. You're exactly "Right", I mean correct.
LOL, NP medman.

You are right in that taxes won't cut it (pun intended) BUT spending on infrastructure although we need to do it anyway really is not going to help much in the short term. It will take years for that money to actually get into circulation and create jobs.

People need their faith restored in the economy because we have a catch 22 going. Consumers not spending is making matters worse. I surely do not know what the answer is but I do know FDR's new deal is not what got us out of the great depression it was the war effort that did that.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Uhhh, nope, Here it is again: THE-RIGHT-IS-WRONG. Doesn't imply there are two of anything,. But just for your interest, referring to the bailout and the rightys wanting all tax cuts, that is wrong. Won't stimulate anything except millionaires bank accounts and companys' treasuries. In this economic climate, no employer is going to hire more people unless he has more work for them. Conversely, rebuilding infrastructure and bailing out upside down states will create jobs and keep many employed that would be losing their jobs. If more people have jobs, they will spend money creating need for more products, producing more jobs ad-infinitum. What we need is a trickle up economy to get this thing jumpstarted, that is what Obama is proposing. Look, the rich are doing just fine. Maybe they cant afford that 300 ft. yacht this year, but if they save up and the economy turns around, they can get it next year. What we are "HOPING" for is a turn around, and anyone that has watched the results of the Bush tax cuts with eyes wide open, can see just how well that worked. The rich got richer and the poor and middle class got fucked. It's time to give us some relief.
And you don't think a tax cut of 10% would give us all some relief. Though personally, I'm in favor of slashing Income Taxes by 50% across the board, regardless of income level.

Of course, probably need to zero out some of those "credits" so that people that don't pay taxes stop getting money given to them. Totally absurd thing, credits that can earn you rebates on money that you didn't actually pay...
 

110100100

Well-Known Member
And you don't think a tax cut of 10% would give us all some relief. Though personally, I'm in favor of slashing Income Taxes by 50% across the board, regardless of income level.

Of course, probably need to zero out some of those "credits" so that people that don't pay taxes stop getting money given to them. Totally absurd thing, credits that can earn you rebates on money that you didn't actually pay...
How you figure, I looked the other day and It looked like you could only get back up to what you paid in. IOW if you paid no taxes no credit for you.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
How you figure, I looked the other day and It looked like you could only get back up to what you paid in. IOW if you paid no taxes no credit for you.
There are credits that allow people to get back more than they paid in. I believe the Earned Income Tax Credit is one of those.

There's also Deductions which allow you to reduce your gross income by a set amount, and thus have a indirect effect on the amount that you have to pay. As opposed to the credits mentioned above which are dollar for dollar reductions in taxes.
 

medicineman

New Member
And you don't think a tax cut of 10% would give us all some relief. Though personally, I'm in favor of slashing Income Taxes by 50% across the board, regardless of income level.

Of course, probably need to zero out some of those "credits" so that people that don't pay taxes stop getting money given to them. Totally absurd thing, credits that can earn you rebates on money that you didn't actually pay...
1st, to get a "tax cut" you must be paying taxes. Unemployed or poor people don't pay income taxes.
My contention that a trickle up economy would jump start the economy is solid, in fact, if this bailout bill would just give everyone that made under 25,000 last year 10K, this economy would turn around in a heart beat. It is those that need the money most and by saying they need it I mean they would spend it. They don't have the luxury of stuffing it into a savings account, they need relief right now.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
1st, to get a "tax cut" you must be paying taxes. Unemployed or poor people don't pay income taxes.
My contention that a trickle up economy would jump start the economy is solid, in fact, if this bailout bill would just give everyone that made under 25,000 last year 10K, this economy would turn around in a heart beat. It is those that need the money most and by saying they need it I mean they would spend it. They don't have the luxury of stuffing it into a savings account, they need relief right now.
What, and you don't think I'd spend $10K if I got it, I can think of quite a few ways to spend $10K

Big Screen TV $1,000
Bed $1,500
New Computer System $2,500
Tires for my vehicle $800 ($5,800)
Remote Start for my vehicle $300
and then the balance ($3,900) would probably go towards publishing the book that I'm trying to publish through a subsidy publisher.

That last item is probably more useful than the other five combined, because it represents production, as opposed to just consumption.

Of course, Med o Mao, you fail to explain how the conspicuous consumption of the poor is any different from the conspicuous consumption of the rich.

I fail to see how it matters if some one is building a $1,000,000 versus a $100,000 houses, because in both cases they are still generating jobs, or requiring production of goods and services. Thus both provide jobs, thus both benefit the economy as a whole.

Even when the wealthy do nothing more than sit on their money they are doing something useful. They are making it available to other people to use.

When a person buys shares in a company they are giving their money to another person to purchase the shares, thus the other person then has the money, and it is entirely possible that they are going to spend it doing something, or buying shares from some one else, and eventually it will reach some one that is going to use that money to purchase items.

Hardly a case of the money being taken out of the economy...

The other case scenario is it being put in a bank, in which case the bank then has that money available to lend out.

Which means once again it is available to others to borrow and use.

Besides, I think a 50% reduction in taxes across the board would do more to spur the economy, it's stupid to give people that have not contributed to society benefits from society. It is immoral, wrong, and unjustifiable to give $10,000 to some one making $25,000 or less, unless they can show that they have paid at least that much in taxes over however many years.

If they are routinely taking advantage of tax credits to reduce their tax amounts into negative net amounts then they shouldn't get a bloody dime.
 

medicineman

New Member
What, and you don't think I'd spend $10K if I got it, I can think of quite a few ways to spend $10K

Big Screen TV $1,000
Bed $1,500
New Computer System $2,500
Tires for my vehicle $800 ($5,800)
Remote Start for my vehicle $300
and then the balance ($3,900) would probably go towards publishing the book that I'm trying to publish through a subsidy publisher.

That last item is probably more useful than the other five combined, because it represents production, as opposed to just consumption.

Of course, Med o Mao, you fail to explain how the conspicuous consumption of the poor is any different from the conspicuous consumption of the rich.

I fail to see how it matters if some one is building a $1,000,000 versus a $100,000 houses, because in both cases they are still generating jobs, or requiring production of goods and services. Thus both provide jobs, thus both benefit the economy as a whole.

Even when the wealthy do nothing more than sit on their money they are doing something useful. They are making it available to other people to use.

When a person buys shares in a company they are giving their money to another person to purchase the shares, thus the other person then has the money, and it is entirely possible that they are going to spend it doing something, or buying shares from some one else, and eventually it will reach some one that is going to use that money to purchase items.

Hardly a case of the money being taken out of the economy...

The other case scenario is it being put in a bank, in which case the bank then has that money available to lend out.

Which means once again it is available to others to borrow and use.

Besides, I think a 50% reduction in taxes across the board would do more to spur the economy, it's stupid to give people that have not contributed to society benefits from society. It is immoral, wrong, and unjustifiable to give $10,000 to some one making $25,000 or less, unless they can show that they have paid at least that much in taxes over however many years.

If they are routinely taking advantage of tax credits to reduce their tax amounts into negative net amounts then they shouldn't get a bloody dime.
I'm sure that is the view from the top, but on the bottom, that 10K would probably be spent on clothes for their children, rent, food, maybe a better car, things that needy people need. Those things you mentioned were not really necessary, just pleasure producing perks. Maybe i'd give the bed a pass, but the rest, just frivolous bullshit.
 

ilkhan

Well-Known Member
Giving out ANY money that does not handle the real problem of upside down mortgages is a waste and a way for the banksters to get rich off Loans made to pay for all that money. (Not going back over central banking again) Look the housing Market is frozen because the housing prices need to be allowed to fall. Congress and the President need to understand that housing is not an investment. It is a place were people live. These Bankers used the easy money (Low FED rates) over the last 6-8 years along with loosened restrictions on mortgage lending to fill the market with speculators betting real-estate would always go up. Now, The banks conveniently constrict the money supply and the music stops.

So what is the Governments answer?? Give the banks money!! WTF it was banking that failed to run properly in the first place. Yes the Government was the ones who loosened the lending standards, But I would bet the house that Banksters put them up to it. So they botch up the market then expect the Government to bail them out by letting the government print more funny money?? WTF???

No, Let the Banks Fail. seize all the mortgages and have a 1 year holiday from mortgage payments. That will stimulate the economy big time!! And nobody gets their home repo'ed.

Meanwhile the Government arbitrarily cuts the mortgages by 20-50% refinances them with 4-6% fixed rates and sells them back to the banks. At the same time new lending regulations are enacted in congress. That will stabilize the Markets and provide ongoing stimulus to the economy.

Then Obama uses Executive order 11110 to begin printing US notes to pay back the Debt. That will cause massive inflation as this new currency comes flooding onto the markets. You offset that by requiring the banks to run 100% reserves that will eat up all that new money.

You then set up a congressional committee on monetary policy. They regulate the amount of money in circulation based on Population growth and the price index. That stabilizes the currency. And ends the bankers hold on the American economy.

The new money doesn't even have to be backed in anything. Money is a commodity it doesn't need to be backed in a commodity. So long as this money is good for paying for things like taxes it is good. So long as people have confidence in it.
Abraham Lincoln did just this to pay for the civil war.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Giving out ANY money that does not handle the real problem of upside down mortgages is a waste and a way for the banksters to get rich off Loans made to pay for all that money. (Not going back over central banking again) Look the housing Market is frozen because the housing prices need to be allowed to fall. Congress and the President need to understand that housing is not an investment. It is a place were people live. These Bankers used the easy money (Low FED rates) over the last 6-8 years along with loosened restrictions on mortgage lending to fill the market with speculators betting real-estate would always go up. Now, The banks conveniently constrict the money supply and the music stops.

So what is the Governments answer?? Give the banks money!! WTF it was banking that failed to run properly in the first place. Yes the Government was the ones who loosened the lending standards, But I would bet the house that Banksters put them up to it. So they botch up the market then expect the Government to bail them out by letting the government print more funny money?? WTF???

No, Let the Banks Fail. seize all the mortgages and have a 1 year holiday from mortgage payments. That will stimulate the economy big time!! And nobody gets their home repo'ed.

Meanwhile the Government arbitrarily cuts the mortgages by 20-50% refinances them with 4-6% fixed rates and sells them back to the banks. At the same time new lending regulations are enacted in congress. That will stabilize the Markets and provide ongoing stimulus to the economy.

Then Obama uses Executive order 11110 to begin printing US notes to pay back the Debt. That will cause massive inflation as this new currency comes flooding onto the markets. You offset that by requiring the banks to run 100% reserves that will eat up all that new money.

You then set up a congressional committee on monetary policy. They regulate the amount of money in circulation based on Population growth and the price index. That stabilizes the currency. And ends the bankers hold on the American economy.

The new money doesn't even have to be backed in anything. Money is a commodity it doesn't need to be backed in a commodity. So long as this money is good for paying for things like taxes it is good. So long as people have confidence in it.
Abraham Lincoln did just this to pay for the civil war.
Yes, and at the end of the Civil War his worthless greenbacks which started out at 1:1 parity with Gold Dollars(that is they were valued at 1/20th oz of gold just like the dollar) slipped to a 3:1 parity. That was a result of the government printing too much money.

Then there's the fact that during the revolutionary war the government printed tons and tons of paper money, the Continentals. At the end of the Revolutionary War it took $50 in Paper to buy $1 in Gold or Silver.

Paper money is a failed concept that has been tried, and tried, and tried, and has consistently failed miserably. The only currency that has withstood the tests of time is Gold and Silver (real commodities.)

You can not have a unbacked dollar, because while money is a commodity, if it is not maintained at a fixed value to something or if more are produced (decreasing the value of all the other dollars) then you will see its value erode and vanish.

The easiest way to illustrate this is by taking a look at the United States dollar from 1913 - 2007. In that short time span of 94 years the dollar slipped from being valued at 1/20th oz. Gold ($20/troy oz. gold) to 1/900th oz. Gold ($900+/troy oz. gold.)

Up until the passage of this gigantic Trillion dollar spending bill I would have stated that the dollar was worth 1/800th oz. Gold, but with this spending bill the amount of money in circulation has drastically gone up.

What's truly sad is that the passage of this spending bill shows that the politicians have no idea what money is. Money is a commodity, and as such it should have a stable value, because it should also be relatively fixed.

Much like gold, which hasn't actually gone up in value, 1 oz of gold will still get you a nice suit. 1 oz of silver will still buy you a nice dinner. No, the only thing that has happened is the dollar has gone down in value, because the government continues to print more and more diluting its value further and further.

1913 - $20/troy oz.
1918 - $22/troy oz.
1935 - $35/troy oz.
1971 - $35/troy oz.
1980 - $200/troy oz.
1990 - $300/troy oz.
2000 - $400/troy oz.
2008 - $800/troy oz.
2009 - $900/troy oz.

An easy way to compare the value of gold and the dollar is to look at relative wages. For instance in 1913 a worker at Ford was earning $5/day, (of course, they were also the highest compensated in the industry, but that's irrelevant) That would have been approximately $25 - $30/week enough to buy an ounce of gold if they wanted to.

Since the creation of the income tax and the federal reserve the value of the dollar relative to gold has consistently gone down. By the end of World War I the value was $22/troy oz due to the insane amount of borrowing that the United States did to finance its involvement in that great European Civil War.

The left's great American Socialist (FDR) over saw the destruction of 40% of the value of the dollar by confiscating gold in the 30s. Due to his actions the value of the dollar crashed to where it took $35 to purchase one troy oz of gold. Keep in mind that at the time people were starving on the streets, and FDR gave them a big, "FUCK YOU", by making everything more expensive. (The reason's why he had to do this, was to create the socialist welfare state.)

In 1971 the Gold Standard was still in force, and as long as you weren't an American Citizen you could use the gold window to purchase gold from the US Government at $35/troy oz. That all changed due to the stupidity of Nixon, who closed the gold window and decoupled the dollar from gold.

The effects of his idiotic actions were clear, and by 1980 Gold had soared to $200/troy oz. By 1990 it was $300, by 2000 it was $400, and by 2008 it was $800. Due to the actions of Obama the dollar has since crashed further slipping to under $900/troy oz.

Gold isn't any scarcer than it was last year, the only thing that has changed is the fact that the dollar has been drastically debased by the idiots in D.C.

Any one that believes that the politicians have their best interests at heart needs to go visit a pshrink, because they are psychotic. Today a worker at a restaurant is lucky to see $200/week, less than .25 oz of Gold.

A worker in a call center might see $300/week, about .33 oz of Gold.

A pharmacist might see $500/week about .5 oz of Gold.

When looked at through a logical framework measuring the value of dollars vs Gold it is easy to see that much of the prosperity of the last decade is a myth, a dream, a lie that allows politicians to feed the citizens bullshit when they need to.

Despite having more money we are actually worse off. The reason is because wages have not kept up with inflation, and thus everyone has slowly been forced deeper and deeper into poverty by the government and their failure to control the printing presses.
 
Top