Jay Bookman

By AJC/DNC Management

January 7, 2009 7:28 AM | Link to this

None of his ideas will ever make it through the democrat Congress For Sale without them tacking on goodies and graft for themselves.

But that’s ok cause I’m sure you’ll blame the Repugs for it.

By Joey

January 7, 2009 7:39 AM | Link to this

Obama is not the first President to make this promise. So:

My hope is yes to both. But a no to either will mean same old, same old.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 7, 2009 7:52 AM | Link to this

A response to a recent blog topic-

Reagan’s letters, in fact, show not the slightest intellectual intimidation before the mighty Ivy League debater William Buckley. He was, instead, confident and strong. Reagan is often credited with dispatching Communism to the ash heap of history. This book will likely help dispatch something else to the ash heap, as well, which is the late night sketch comedy image of Reagan as a Forrest Gump-like lucky bumbler.-AmSpec

Anybody who followed Reagan’s remarkable career already knows this, of course.

If you read the man’s writings you would know too.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 7, 2009 8:01 AM | Link to this

And, of course, that tax rebate stimulus package from a year ago didn’t work. The economy continued to worsen throughout the year, and financial markets collapsed in the fall. Henry Paulson was back in September asking for another $700 billion, to save the economy supposedly from complete collapse, and another Depression. -AmSpec

Never mind whether it will work or not, my big question is what happened to all of the liberal “outrage” and hair pulling over tax cuts?

It doesn’t take much to remember the Great Gnashing of Teeth about how 500 bucks wasn’t squat, we all need to pitch in our fair share and China, blah, blah, blah.

So the democrats get in power and do the exact same thing they whined about?

huh

By jasper

January 7, 2009 8:03 AM | Link to this

Good one Jay, and monkeys may fly out me arse. But not curious george monkeys, that would be racist.

By Curious Observer

January 7, 2009 8:05 AM | Link to this

The stimulus package will have a chance of succeeding only if the money is spent, not diverted to tax cuts. The tax cuts will go largely into savings, which won’t be tapped for business expansion and therefore will not do anything to boost the economy. Keep in mind that the rebates provided last year had very little positive effect because consumers, wary of the future, spent them on paying down credit cards and building savings accounts.

If Obama goes too far in appeasing the Republicans with the tax cuts, the stimulus will fail. Using $200 million of a $750 million package for tax cuts is wasting an opportunity. I would rather have earmarks that represent spending to expand the economy than tax cuts that merely squirrel away money in savings accounts or fatten the bottom lines of banks. We saw what banks did with their bailout money—they bought other banks and paid bonuses to executives, while actually tightening access to credit. There’s no reason to believe anything will be different with credit card paydowns.

The Democrats won the election—emphatically. Obama should refrain from catering to Republicans in search of an 80-vote majority and focus on a stimulus that actually gets into the economy. A foolish focus on earmarks merely distracts him from the goal.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 7, 2009 8:16 AM | Link to this

“Obama should refrain from cratering to Republicans in search of an 80-vote majority”

Fixed your typo.

By Bud Wiser

January 7, 2009 8:25 AM | Link to this

Didn’t we just have a campaign where a candidate pledged to ban earmarks?

Didn’t that guy lose?

And now the winner is promising to do what the loser said he’d do?

More change you can believe in, I guess.

The stench is becoming stronger than that from the Obama airplane.

By Taxpayer

January 7, 2009 8:36 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jay.

I personally am hoping that he sticks to his promises to make their efforts in Congress more open and transparent and to eliminate the pork. I am so fed up with the years of incessant he said/she said dribble and the finger pointing and posturing and twisting and distorting of words and actions. Just post the facts on line for all to see and let each and every person with an interest draw their own conclusions. By the way, I think we need to include things such as lobbyist efforts in that list of on-line documentation. Let’s see who’s working behind the scenes to sway those votes.

By lwwmm7

January 7, 2009 8:37 AM | Link to this

When I divided 700 billion by 250 million, as in possible people getting rebates, it came out to $28,000 per person. That kind of money given back to the people who gave it up in the first place would go a long way in stimulating every facet of the economy. To hell with the bankers and brokers.

By AmVet

January 7, 2009 8:40 AM | Link to this

Speaking of stench, will Obama’s staff have to smudge the White House in 13 days?

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 7, 2009 8:44 AM | Link to this

“When I divided 700 billion by 250 million, as in possible people getting rebates, it came out to $28,000 per person.”

That’d be $2800. Which puts the potential $1000/family ($500/single) per annum tax cut being tossed around in perspective—it’s a pretty big chunk of the stimulus.

By Bud Wiser

January 7, 2009 8:45 AM | Link to this

They already smudged the 757 pretty well, by all reports.

Two weeks in the White House and the whole neighborhood will look like Cascade Road.

By JAY BOOKMAN

January 7, 2009 8:49 AM | Link to this

And Bud once again shows his true nature.

By AmVet

January 7, 2009 8:51 AM | Link to this

And to think that will be an improvement after these pigs move out!

By lwwmm7

January 7, 2009 8:59 AM | Link to this

Oops! Can’t even use a calculator this morning. Must be the cough syrup.Nothing like a sick day on the sofa to get the mind all discombobulated. Anyway, it’s Bush’s fault I have the flu. Damn repugs.

By The Corporal

January 7, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this

Jay

I usually don’t mind pro/con editorials but I couldn’t imagine the AJC giving a voice to Nazi sympathizers in 1944 as they do Hamas sympathizers in 2009.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 7, 2009 9:12 AM | Link to this

lwwmm7 @ 859, in your defense, those are a lot of zeros.

Henceforth it might help you do what I’ve become accustomed to doing. Whenever I hear about “billions” of Federal dollars being tossed around, I figure that it comes to about 3 bucks to be borne, directly or indirectly, per citizen times no. of billions.

Helps keep it somewhat real.

Anyway, hope you feel better soon.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2009 9:14 AM | Link to this

When the bulk of your plan to fix the economy is an endless series of earmarks for roads and bridges it’s pretty easy to say you won’t allow earmarks and then just make believe that earmarks are something different.

Let’s just hope there is some citizenship requirement for the infrastructure jobs.

By Taxpayer

January 7, 2009 9:19 AM | Link to this

Oh, the quandary. I like DB’s math for it’s correctness and yet I like lwwmm7’s “math” for it’s impressiveness. If only reality were a myth of our own creation.

By AmVet

January 7, 2009 9:20 AM | Link to this

Corporal,

No me either.

But BushCo’s grandaddy, Prescott, sure loved making him some Nazi money, even after we had entered the war and when there was already tons of information about the Nazis’ plans and policies.

He worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed the murderous Hitler’s rise to power. It’s likely the filthy money he made from those deals helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

No wonder this prez is viewed as such a traitorous crook. It’s in his blood.

Thirteen days.

By The Corporal

January 7, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this

Just prior to WWII, a high percentage of Americans wanted nothing to do with getting involved in that war and many(especially German Americans) supported Germany.

It took education and the truth to change all of that.

Plus a 66+% draft rate !

By mm

January 7, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this

In my opinion, the Repugs knew they were going to lose in 2008, so they allowed the economy to tank. Knowing that the incoming administration would have to spend all of its money and time fixing the economy, the Repugs felt they could prevent healthcare reform.

Just a thought. Have at it wingnuts.

By The Corporal

January 7, 2009 9:39 AM | Link to this

Headline:

(CNN) — President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday will announce his pick for chief performance officer, a newly created position that will work on the federal budget and to reform government, a Democratic official told CNN.

Isn’t that supporsed to be his job?

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 7, 2009 9:41 AM | Link to this

RW @ 9.14, interesting aside and the first I’ve heard it expressed in this context—is this a stimulus package condition being talked about seriously in the conservative blogosphere?

If so, would this mean that a company being contracted for infrastructure work couldn’t have anyone on the payroll who wasn’t an American citizen?

By Paul

January 7, 2009 9:47 AM | Link to this

Erica-Nicole 9:26

Because time is linear, the two regions are geographically separate and Americans generally don’t speak French.

Jay

Hopeful anticipation. Trying to keep the cynicism in check. He’s stated another goal - something I think he does not do casually. Add to that his pledge to go line by line thru the Federal budget and eliminate (not reduce, but eliminate) programs and we could see some break in the eternal life feature of Federal programs. Done by a Democrat. Now, that would be real change.

By Bosch

January 7, 2009 9:49 AM | Link to this

RW,

I had kind of the same thought this morning - the definition of an earmark.

Wouldn’t all of the infrastructure projects being proposed fall under that category as is defined now?

By Paul

January 7, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this

mm

[[Repugs knew they were going to lose in 2008, so they allowed the economy to tank]]

Wow. I never knew Republicans were so… organized…. so… prescient…. so…. powerful.

Especially at a time when the opposition Party held the Legislative branch. Especially when the Republican candidate for President advocated far more radical health care reform (breaking the back of an employer-based benefits system) than was the Democratic winner.

By Shawny

January 7, 2009 9:53 AM | Link to this

This is a ruse.

Economic stimulus packages are, by definition, big earmarks. It is all spending, without regard (in actuality, not in principle) to what is being spent.

Here is the whole problem I see with this. Spend a ton to create jobs that we don’t need, so that people that don’t have jobs now have them. If there is no true need for a job, then it shouldn’t be there to begin with. What are we financing these new jobs with? Basically printing money. Now everyone has more money, but the money is worth less and less, and things now cost more. What is accomplished when we do this?

I keep hearing that people in a down turn will start spending less and start saving more. What is wrong with that? That is what they should be doing anyway. I think that is good. Quit buying (mostly on credit) things that you don’t need and tuck some away for the future. Where is it in the Constitution that there always has to be job growth, more spending, and inflation? Retraction in the economy is a cycle and not an emergency. If the economy starts humming like it was more recently, then we are back at $4 gas, more houses than we have need for, and too many unnecessary luxuries. How is that good?

By Taxpayer

January 7, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this

The label, Republican, has been slowly but most decidedly transformed by its post-Roosevelt (Theodore, that is) constituency into something that bears no resemblance to its origin and the Junior Bush-era descecration of the party has finally put the last nail in the coffin. The new Republican party — a stigma from an enigma that we the people are left to bear.

By Paul

January 7, 2009 10:00 AM | Link to this

Bosch

As all the projects would be up for consideration and vote by both Houses, it wouldn’t be an earmark (inserted by one Congressman or Senator, avoid scrutiny and consideration). Even though the actual use of the money would be identical in both cases.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 7, 2009 10:08 AM | Link to this

Like I was saying-

In a world that claims to defend the lives of the innocent, any culture that encourages its women to become suicide bombers and straps bombs to its children and the mentally ill would justly earn the scorn and contempt of good men everywhere. Yet, in a crazed world, this behavior is incredibly excused by blaming it on the victims of such ungodly acts.

In a wise world, one that purports to learn from its history, those sworn to genocide would be universally condemned across the political spectrum as were the Nazis. But in our world, those who seek another “final solution” are given a free pass while George W. Bush is condemned as “Hitler.” Yes, in a mad, mad world, the executioners are invited in for tea while those who seek its salvation are reviled.-AmSpec

By Taxpayer

January 7, 2009 10:11 AM | Link to this

Republicans…Plan!…Give me another good laugh. Their so-called planning can be summed up in one of those little thought bubbles over a cartoon character of someone like Saxby, What’s in it for me? Not that people like Saxby are not outright jokes already. Portraying them as cartoon characters is really over-kill.

By Bosch

January 7, 2009 10:11 AM | Link to this

Paul,

So……in other words…….they’d all be considered earmarks.

I feel a little snarky this morning. I think its the codeine withdrawal.

By Paul

January 7, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this

Bosch

Withdrawals? Hey, find a suitable substitute! I thought you had some Tennessee whiskey laying about somewhere….

Wouldn’t be earmarks by the definition Jay laid down. But, one could still consider them pork.

Why do we say ‘pork’? in such circumstances. Given the power of the lobbyists, their political contributions, the extraordinary sums spent, I think we should say ‘corn.’

By The Corporal

January 7, 2009 10:24 AM | Link to this

This really is On Topic:

Do you ever read something and think, “Wow! I wish I had written that!” … well, this is one of those. This is great and it tells it like it is!

A Boss Who Tells it Like it Is …

To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.

First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You’ve seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I’m sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don’t see is the back story. I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn’t have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business - hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom’s for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn’t look like it was birthed in the 70’s. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don’t. There is no “off” button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden - the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations … you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I’ve made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn’t. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I’ve paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don’t pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my “stimulus” check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you’d quit and you wouldn’t work here. I mean, why should you? That’s nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don’t understand … to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn’t need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don’t defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.

So where am I going with all this? It’s quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child’s future. Frankly, it isn’t my problem any more. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I’m done. I’m done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

So, if you lose your job, it won’t be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about …

Signed,

Your boss

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 7, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this

Paul @ 10.19, is it because most everyone likes them some pulled pork?

By Taxpayer

January 7, 2009 10:27 AM | Link to this

Those states with the highest teen birth rates look decidedly RED to me. Perhaps some Republicans should abstain from making claims that don’t carry water. Could these disturbing results be due to a shortage of earmarks for getting the written word out in those states.

By The Corporal

January 7, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this

To AJC/DNC

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness …..

Isaiah 5:20

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 7, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this

Did y’all see what the deal turned out to be on Blair House?

By Bosch

January 7, 2009 10:29 AM | Link to this

Paul,

Are you an enabler? Are you trying to make me all co-dependent? Shame on you. It’s not even lunch time.

From earlier post @ 10:19, the operative word being “had” - as in “had” some whiskey lying about.

:-)

J/K - Codeine and whiskey don’t mix so well.

Yeah, why do we say “pork?” I guess as in “oink, oink” the fat pigs coming to the trough for feeding - for some reason that reminds me of Saxby - Saxby just SOUNDS like a name for a pig, doesn’t it? You know I’m right, admit it.

By The Corporal

January 7, 2009 10:35 AM | Link to this

Hummmmm……..the plot thickens

Headline:

“If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. … I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him,” Senator Reid said.

By The Corporal

January 7, 2009 10:37 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON (AP)

The federal budget deficit will hit an unparalleled $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year, according to a Capitol Hill aide briefed on new Congressional Budget office figures.

By Dusty

January 7, 2009 10:37 AM | Link to this

Obama “barring” earmarks by calling them infrastructure improvements?

Sounds like it but I’ll wait and see.

As Shakespeare said about this: ” A rose by any other name will still smell as sweet.”

I might add: ‘PORK’ by any other name will still smell to high heaven (and it isn’t sweet).

By RealityKing

January 7, 2009 10:39 AM | Link to this

“the circumstances under which Obama takes office will be the most dire that have faced any incoming president since FDR in 1933.”

…with 6.7% unemployment? WHAT A JOKE!

No, obviously this is the new liberal lie to justify Obama’s deficit spending. Historically liberal spending like America has never seen before, spending that will surely have negative affects on our future well being without matching GDP gains. Look out you window Jay! WHAT DIRE CIRCUMSTANCES? Did you not see all those people going to work this morning!!??

Meanwhile…

“U.S. budget deficit in 2009 will rise to record $1.2 trillion or 8.3% of GDP, not counting any Obama stimulus”. Obama says “trillion dollar deficit spending for years to come”, as he sells our children’s future to the Chinese.

By Paul

January 7, 2009 10:40 AM | Link to this

DB

Good call. That, and you can’t make moonshine from pork!

Bosch

Enabler? Heck no. Co-dependent? Not a chance.

I just like your posts when you get blasted.

Mrs. Godzilla

g’morning. Well, looks like it was a valid booking. I think it’d have been decent for PM Howard to have stayed elsewhere, but you know how the high and mighty like their perks.

Did you happen to see Senator Reid on Meet the Press? I’m really shocked - that new host Gregory has completely lost his liberal media left-wing bias cred. On NBC, no less. He kept pressing and challenging and pressing poor ol’ Harry. Sen Reid wouldn’t budge on his “the Iraq war is lost” pronouncement. Even though that now-conservative hack Gregory pressed him about the surge’s success. Then Gregory got all over him about secret communications - just like Cheney!- with The Blago. When pressed, Sen Reid just didn’t remember what he said! Shades of Cheney-Rove-Scooter! Yuck! Then that right-wing race-baiting host Gregory just had to announce to everyone that Reid said he told The Blago that Rep Jesse Jackson would not be a suitable pick. Can you imagine?!!? Gregory even asked him to release the tapes. I mean, that partisan Gregory is making The Good and Fine Democratic Senate Leader so sound so much like…. those guys in the Bush Administration.

What has the media come to?

Out for a bit -

By Curious Observer

January 7, 2009 10:41 AM | Link to this

Congrats to the 4 year old who was 2009’s first assault-with-a-deadly-weapon perp when he shot his obnoxious baby sitter.

I certainly hope the kid had a carry permit. That would make everything all right, according to the conservative doctrine. We have to defend ourselves. If gun ownership is outlawed, pretty soon only obnoxious baby-sitters will have guns.

By CommunistAJC

January 7, 2009 10:42 AM | Link to this

Bookman, Next you’ll be telling us that Obama will cure aids, cancer and end poverty. I will be surprised if Obama can make it through his first six months without having a panic attack. It’s going to be painful to watch this country go straight to hell due to the inexperience of this “one.”

By AJC/DNC Management

January 7, 2009 10:43 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats plan to accept Roland Burris for President-elect Barack Obama’s vacant seat.

Stay tuned to Newsradio 780 as this story develops.

Did I not tell you?

Now that the proper amount of mau mauing and the public spectacle of faux outrage has been dutifully attended to, the high bidder for the seat can now join the Senate.

ew

By Bosch

January 7, 2009 10:50 AM | Link to this

Good morning Dusty.

I’ll bring you back a secret decoder ring from the Galaxy flea market. K?

I was thinking this morning about the definition of earmarks and the semantics of all of it, and how you can hide what is simply by changing the definition.

I mean, if an earmark, say, went towards improving a children’s hospital. Would that be so incredibly horrible? Or fixing a crumbling bridge that has the potential of collapse killing and hurting people?

And so what if it’s a Democrat or a Republican who brings this up for debate.

So, can’t we call the “bad” part of Congressional spending something else?

We need better definitions, and oversight of the spending of these funds.

I’m having an epiphany here, somebody help me out.

By Taxpayer

January 7, 2009 10:50 AM | Link to this

Bosses don’t waste their time rambling on to the riff-raff. They just inform one of their hired hands to insert the pink slip in with the Corporal’s final check as they head out the door to enjoy another round on the Corporate golf course.

By Davo

January 7, 2009 10:50 AM | Link to this

Here’s my thinking regarding this bogey-man word ‘earmarks’. I’m all for em. If they tack on an earmark to the stimulus plan to teach kids in Georgia to pound rocks, at least it’s money wasted closer to home.

This is a ruse, perpetrated by Keynesian hucksters. Spending got us into this, spending is how we get out. Watch some of these repeaters like Ali Belshi; they will dissaude you from saving because in their Krugman world it undermines their economic philosophy.

The best part of the ruse is that everyone is in on it. When it comes to national economic policy the left and right virtually the same. Both parties are now of the mind that it’s free-market greed that got us into this mess…pretty clever, huh? Both parties want to move us toward a planned economy.

This economy is failing because the Krugman’s of the world won’t admit they got it all wrong.

By Bosch

January 7, 2009 10:57 AM | Link to this

Commie AJC,

Your definition of “hell” must be alot different than mine.

I thought we were already there! Wow, can it get worse?

By AmVet

January 7, 2009 10:57 AM | Link to this

…as he sells our children’s future to the Chinese.

*It’s going to be painful to watch this country go straight to hell due to the inexperience of this “one.” *

Already done and done.

Thanks BushCo, you’ve done a helluva job…

By mm

January 7, 2009 11:00 AM | Link to this

Corporal,

If the business owner didn’t pay the $288,000 to the IRS, he would probably pocket the money. Claiming that taxes prevented him from growing his business is total BS.

His business only grows if demand for his product grows. Whether or not he used that money for taxes or pocketed it does not make his business shrink or grow.

Supply and demand drives business, not taxes.

For example, what did the banks do with the extra cash they received from TARP? They pocketed the money or bought other banks. The result of buying other banks? Layoffs.

Wingnut lies are so easy to shoot holes into.

By Dusty

January 7, 2009 11:04 AM | Link to this

Reality King, 10:39

Bookman stays in a depressed state. Just say “Republican” or “Economy” and he falls into a malodorous mood.

Did you read his Christmas “message” for that special day? He should have just said “hey hey the sky is falling and I find it appalling.”

I’m sure Bookman expects the AJC will soon become the FDR REVISITED with black borders on every one of its four pages.

Be synmpathetic. Poor Jay CAN’T HELP IT!

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2009 11:07 AM | Link to this

DB,

I don’t have much time for hanging out in any blogosphere whether it be a conservative one or the fever swamps you’re always dragging things back from so I really have no idea if it’s a serious discussion topic.

It just seems to me that if public money from American taxpayers is being used to build American infrastructure with the end goal being that we have a vibrant American economy because doing so put Americans back to work, then somewhere along the line we have to make sure most of the people getting work are Americans and that isn’t the face of any construction project I’ve seen for several years.

Paul,

Harry Reid may not have budged from his “the Iraq war is lost” pronouncement on MTP, but he sure twisted the meaning of his words into something unrecognizable. He claimed that he and General Petraeus were saying the same thing.

Bosch,

It’s truly bizarro world. Local people ask for money for pet projects and their Washington reps get this money allocated in this enormous “stimulus” package, yet it’s going to be free of earmarks.

So I wonder what’s the new definition of an earmark?

By tcoach

January 7, 2009 11:07 AM | Link to this

Curious,

My 2 year old broke my little toe over the holidays, by hitting my toe much like a nail with a hammer. Does that mean we should ban all carpentry tools as well?

Children do dumb things, we as a society tend not to ban things for adult use because kids may hurt themselves or others with them.

Scissors, steak knives, pencils, pens, saws, razors, glass, plastic bags, cars, bikes, scooters, etc.

There is way more of an issue with the babysitter not watching the child closely enough, than with a gun. Could have just as easily been any knife from the kitchen.

By Bosch

January 7, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this

Aw, I missed the Day of Epiphany by one day.

Sorry ‘bout that God.

By Bosch

January 7, 2009 11:16 AM | Link to this

RW,

Good question.

By Davo

January 7, 2009 11:20 AM | Link to this

Tyranny of Dead Ideas -or- The Socialists are Out of the Closet Now by Matt Miller

http://www.colbertnation.com/home

Told ya; Left/Right…don’t matter.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2009 11:21 AM | Link to this

AJC/DNC-M,

Part of the reason for doing a 180 on seating Burris might be because Gallup did a poll and found a majority wanting a special election.

Couple that with DiFi saying their was no rules committee reason to block Burris and Jessie White saying they were scapegoating him as his signature was purely ceremonial of an appointment and we’ve got Harry looking like an even bigger idiot than normal.

The good people of Nevada should be sending to retirement soon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update

I’m not sure what this means, but Burris has left the meeting and Reid and Durbin haven’t come out the see the media yet. Maybe he’s gone to get sworn in or maybe they threw him out again.

By The Corporal

January 7, 2009 11:32 AM | Link to this

Well, well: Talk About “Wishy-Washy”

BLAGO WINS: Senate Dems ‘plan to accept’ Roland Burris for Obama’s vacancy…

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2009 11:33 AM | Link to this

Do Democrats know their words are recorded from one day to the next or do they just not care?

Harry Reid said yesterday the if Burris wanted this seat he better keep it out of the courts and today he says the courts need to rule.

Durbin says that they’ve said all along they would carefully scrutinize any Blago appointment. Of course for that to be true then the words “we will seat nobody that is appointed by Blago” actually mean careful scrutiny.

No wonder I can’t figure out what an earmark is these days.

By RealityKing

January 7, 2009 11:34 AM | Link to this

From 2001 to 2005 the national debt went from $5 to $8 trillion while the GDP went from $7 to $14 trillion under the republican congress. In fact, in 2005 the budget deficit was 100 billion or less than 1% of the GDP. But in 2006 democrats won control of congress by way of the corrupt media. At which point deficit spending skyrocketed to today’s 1.2 trillion dollars, or more than 8% of the GDP.

Our financial clamity has clearly followed democrats into office. Once again proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only thing worse than a republican in control of your wallet is a democrat. And hang on baby because you won’t want to believe what Obama’s deficit spending is going to do to us in the name of today’s progressively defined “dire circumstances”.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 7, 2009 11:43 AM | Link to this

“if public money from American taxpayers is being used to build American infrastructure with the end goal being that we have a vibrant American economy because doing so put Americans back to work, then somewhere along the line we have to make sure most of the people getting work are Americans”

I don’t disagree with the general sentiment, although I’ m not sure how one would best legislate such a requirement, i.e., do you stipulate that >50% of employees are American citizens? What kind of teeth does it have—do you fine someone who’s investigated and found out of compliance, or fire them?

By The Attorney/Surgeon Corporal

January 7, 2009 11:50 AM | Link to this

By Frances Fragos Townsend CNN Contributor

Because of the critical role the intelligence community plays in protecting our nation, the director of the CIA is not a position for on-the-job training.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2009 11:51 AM | Link to this

DB,

I’ve done many a federal contract job and there are more stipulations on who can work on the projects and even how each worker is classified so I suspect there are already some rules in place and it isn’t really worth wasting lots of space discussing how the rules are set up, but once the work starts being done it would be worthwhile to watch it closely because every sub-contractor I’ve ever seen on a federal project tries and usually succeeds in skirting the rules.

By Bud Wiser

January 7, 2009 11:54 AM | Link to this

Well Jay, I’m not the man, or the party, standing in the door to the Senate and refusing to seat a (so far) properly appointed black man to his legally entitled position.

You have no answer for that one, do you?

By The Attorney/Surgeon Corporal

January 7, 2009 11:57 AM | Link to this

Oh, this is just great

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A closed door meeting Monday with Joint Chiefs of Staff and General David Petraeus, who is in charge of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, ended with no consensus on troops plans for either Iraq or Afghanistan - a state of affairs that now paves the way for Barack Obama to take office with no final agreement among his top military advisors on how to proceed over the next several months, according to several top US military officials.

Time for private Obama to go to bootcamp!

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 7, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this

RW, yeah. The trick is to keep the projects from being subbed to the usual suspects.

It will be interesting to see if/how this issue emerges down the road; I can’t imagine it being a terribly partisan one, but you never know.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this

There’s a than you can imagine missing from my 11:51. Insert accordingly if you please.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 7, 2009 12:05 PM | Link to this

RW: What’s even worse, most construction trade workers send the money they earn back to their families………….in Mexico.

By Tommy Maddox

January 7, 2009 12:05 PM | Link to this

As a nation, we are about to get what we deserve [and quite honestly, what the majority has asked for].

Rotsa ruck.

By Taxpayer

January 7, 2009 12:07 PM | Link to this

Spend. Spend. Spend! I say. Just don’t earmark any of it. Spend like we’re not going to live forever. If loads of money is good for corporate executives, then it must be good for everyone else. And, if they won’t come down and meet us, then we should go up and meet them. It’s only money and since when did Republicans see the light of fiscal responsibility — only after they lost control of the prized purse strings. It was on Bush’s watch that the national debt doubled and that deficits hit the trillion dollar mark. It was on Bush’s watch that the financial companies screwed up our economy. It was on Bush’s watch that hundreds of billions of dollars in war-related expenditures were deemed necessary. Republicans and their holier than thou spew — throw it on the compost pile and make something useful out of it.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2009 12:11 PM | Link to this

DB,

Never underestimate the ability of any issue to become highly partisan.

AJC/DNC-M,

If 1.3 trillion in make work construction projects get awarded you and I should set up money transfer and phone card shops right outside the payroll offices of each one.

By Bud Wiser

January 7, 2009 12:15 PM | Link to this

I thought not.

By tcoach

January 7, 2009 12:15 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer, are you saying because republicans did poorly with fiscal responsibility, then it is not only OK but a good thing that democrats do the same?

How is that good for any of us and how is that a change we can believe in?

By @@

January 7, 2009 12:21 PM | Link to this

Obama may actually succeed in barring earmarks

You’re such a dreamer, jay.

When a lobbyist bends the “ear” of a politician, it’s bound to leave a “mark”. We, the taxpayers, can’t see ‘em from our little domiciles far removed from D.C. Oh, we’ll know if the bridge or road in our neighborhood looks new…….we just won’t know how crucial its repair was.

How the heck are politicians from either party gonna get elected if they don’t bring home the pork? The goal is to get party members elected.

From out of the government’s mattress (the thin air one) comes money that’ll have us sleepin’ on lumpy ones thanks to the doom and gloom message put out by the media.

By Jake

January 7, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this

RealityBSKing - Real GDP was actually about $11.1T in 2001 and $12.4T in 2005, a pretty typical increase of about 3% a year. When Bush was asked about the huge deficits around 2003 he said, “we had a recession, we were attacked and we are at war”. Fair enough, but he forgot to mention that he and the Repub Congress also gave the richest Americans a huge tax cut on capital gains and dividends. That’s the reality, not that BS you’re slinging!

By Tank

January 7, 2009 12:33 PM | Link to this

In the US, according to the Kaiser Family statehealthfacts.org, there were 15.2 deaths per 100,000 population due to motor vehicle accidents in 2005. Compared to 10.3 deaths per 100,000 poulation due to injury by firearms.

Where is the outrage and public outcry to limit access to motor vehicles? The firearm figures include deaths associated with legitimate law enforcement actions; private citizens defending themselves, their families or their property; and suicides.

Ownership of a motor vehicles is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Why aren’t we calling for a ban on all vehicles that travel at speeds greater than 35 mph?

Where was the national and international outrage when the Hamas led Palistinian government in Gaza failed to do ANYTHING to stop continued launching of rockets into Israel from Gaza? Where is the outrage when Hamas terrorists use civilian population centers (hospitals, schools and markets) to launch these missiles?

Israel occupied the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank, etc., only after unprovoked attacks and invasions by neighboring Arab/Muslim nations. For years, Israel occupied this territory as a physical boundary to secure thier borders from future incursions. Over the years, as a result of mounting world pressure and “peace” initiatives, Israel has returned this territory. In almost every instance, these returned territories were used as a source for terror campaigns against Israel.

For the first time, after working for 33 years, I was laid off in December 2008. Up to this point in my life, I’ve never taken a dime (unemployment, food stamps, WIC, etc.) from the government. But you know what, I’m tired of watching everyone else get the handout. Pony up folks, because you’re now paying my bills. Feels kind of nice. Now this is Change I can believe in.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2009 12:34 PM | Link to this

I think this topic is about played out so I’ll see y’all upstairs at happy hour.

Maybe the next entry can be the ABC report that ties Obama to the same guy Richardson is tied to three weeks after it was known that Richardson and Rubin were under investigation. Somehow I doubt it though.

Later

By Truthman

January 7, 2009 12:34 PM | Link to this

Casinos in Georgia and Pot legal nationwide would generate a whole lotta revenue.

Too bad the “less government” repubs and bible thumpers won’t let us vote on either.

Legalize in ‘09!!

By Morningstar

January 7, 2009 12:45 PM | Link to this

Defining earmarks is a bit like trying to argue what came first, the chicken or the egg. Unlike many here I don’t pretend to ‘know it all.’ Hence, I try to make it simple for myself. If a BIG project is something worthwhile, that will benefit society as a whole, then what’s the problem?

One could say that all military spending is ‘earmarked’ for something. Smart spending would involve having those involved to determine if we really NEED 10 zillion new planes, or do we just appropriate and spend because the money is available.

Money designated for infrastructure would be a good ‘earmark’ if you wish to call it an earmark, because Humpty-Dumpty is afallin down.

Many counties in every state in the union has ‘earmarks.’ Did you ever wonder why a road was paved, when two families live on that road, and other roads in the county are crumbling into pieces. Smells like pork, er ‘earmarks’ to me.

Must be big bucks to glean in politics, otherwise why would they sell their souls for a little pischy job? The ‘root of all evil,’ of course.

Hopefully Obama will make some progress with this problem. It would definitely be a welcome “CHANGE.”

By Taxpayer

January 7, 2009 12:47 PM | Link to this

tcoach,

I think it is rather underhanded and outright despicable for Republicans to be standing up and clamoring about fiscal responsibility at this point in time. I’m actually one that is in favor of minimal government and fiscal responsibility. To that end, I believe that any and all earmarks need to be eliminated, government employees should treat every expenditure as though it were coming out of their hide, and every reasonable effort should be made to keep our national debt low. Every single government program should be scrutinized to make sure that it is truly for we the people and not a select few and they should be regularly reviewed to make sure that they are working as intended. Wars should be shunned but if we are attacked, then we should retaliate in kind. Our government should always work with other governments and try to seek mutually agreeable solutions to problems. Preemption is arrogance at its pinnacle and not something for civilized nations to tout…In short, I believe in some of the philosophies touted by Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc., and right now, I believe that massive deficit spending to counter the negative effects brought on us by the side effects of years of greed and abuse may be what this country needs, at least until we can get this economy back on a more even keel. I surely have not heard any better ideas from anyone else. Then again, we could always just blow up everything and start over. What do you think? Should government to nothing and let the economy go wherever it will? What if unemployment hit say 10%? 25%? Would you want government to step in at that point and try to fix it and if so what would you want the government to do?

By The Attorney/Surgeon Corporal

January 7, 2009 12:51 PM | Link to this

Oh, this is real nice:

FOXNEWS.COM HOME

Protester Calls for Jews to Go Back to the Oven at Anti-Israel Demonstration in Florida.

Is that hate speech?

By Maniac is accurate

January 7, 2009 12:57 PM | Link to this

Is that phrase you borrow from John McCain, who promised the same thing? Give him some credit. He was a good candidate. That’s why I voted for him.

An aside, here in the reddest corner (NW) of one of the reddest states, we have seen an explosion of Obama campaign stickers. They started appearing after Nov. 4 and keep getting more and more common. Funny.

By Morningstar

January 7, 2009 12:59 PM | Link to this

By Tank January 7, 2009 12:33 PM Regarding a “Stimulus” package - For the first time, after working for 33 years, I was laid off in December 2008. Up to this point in my life, I’ve never taken a dime (unemployment, food stamps, WIC, etc.) from the government.

Unless you’re old enough to start drawing that retirement (33 years), whatcha gonna do when that unemployment runs out?

Better HOPE that stimulus package helps the economy.

By Tank

January 7, 2009 1:11 PM | Link to this

Morningstar, I’ll be fine.

If you want to stimulate the economy; reduce corporate and business taxes and put any stimulus dollars in the hands of legal, taxpaying consumers.

By Morningstar

January 7, 2009 1:14 PM | Link to this

Money designated for infrastructure would be a good ‘earmark’ if you wish to call it an earmark, because Humpty-Dumpty is afallin (12:45PM)

To clarify: Money designated for our crumbling infrastructure would be great, as long as part of it is not designated for a “BRIDGE TO NOWHERE.”

By tcoach

January 7, 2009 1:19 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer, I am for the government being involved in as little of our lives as possible. From my experience is that the more money government spends the less actual improvement occurs. Think back to some programs you remember. Were you ever impressed with what happened? Think War on Drugs and Just Say No.

I do feel the government has no place in fixing the economy. Notice I did not say regulate. I feel there should be a group of watchdogs. I know these would most likely themselves become corrupt. However too much regulation will lead to telling people when they can buy or sell things and also how much to charge for it.

Roosevelt made some things easier for many during the depression but the excess spending to do so cost our economy to come out of the depression much later than many of our industrial and economical counterparts.

We disagree on this but I really feel that it is upon each individual to determine their own success and failure.

Education is not solely the responsibility of government. If a person wants to learn become educated. There is no law or anything preventing any child from receiving an education. Granted some school systems are better than others, but at no system is education withheld.

If a person wants to be wealthy, fine go make it happen.

Everyone wants to get a great job or they are looking for work and can’t find it, start your own corporation or invent something. Too many of us sit around and wait for things to change or get better without taking the initiative to make them better.

I also understand that there are obstacles to overcome and criminals trying to con anyone they can.

I ask though by investing in different stocks and other RISKY investments are the investors themselves not displaying greed?

So in general to answer your question, I think the government long ago overstepped their authority in regards to state’s rights and responsibilities.

Should the government really be paying for city, county and state road repair?

That should be the job of the city, county, state to raise those funds. It is set up that way in the constitution.

It is all said in a pretty simple statement.

Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness.

sorry for the length!

Notice it says pursuit, not giving or guaranteed.

By Morningstar

January 7, 2009 1:28 PM | Link to this

By The Corporal January 7, 2009 11:32 AM Well, well: Talk About “Wishy-Washy” BLAGO WINS: Senate Dems ‘plan to accept’ Roland Burris for Obama’s vacancy…

I would have been really surprised if they had not planned to accept him. I can also understand why they had to jump through all those hoops.

Imagine the hullabaloo from the R’s if the Democrats had not these steps, since Burris was appointed by a governor accused of alledged criminal activities.

I can hear it now, all the itching, scratching, moaning and groaning.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 7, 2009 1:36 PM | Link to this

RW: I was thinking more along the lines of opening a Corona distributorship and becoming bail bondsman.

By gatorboy62

January 7, 2009 1:36 PM | Link to this

Obama, and his plan will fall to the awayside as he continues to “pay” all his supporters. He is and always will be a Democratic hack from Chicago, who si used to backroom deals, never saying what he means, and lowering expectations. As for Bookman, what crystal ball does he have? He sits in the AJC office, next to Cythnia Tucker and Mike L. patting themselves on the back, having gotten Obama Hussin elected president.

By RealityKing

January 7, 2009 1:41 PM | Link to this

One mans ear marked bridge to no where is now another’s job creation gimmick.

Its kind a like fishing with crack, once you get them hooked they just start jumping into the boat… now that’s whack. Libbama whack.

By Morningstar

January 7, 2009 1:44 PM | Link to this

By Tank January 7, 2009 1:11 PM If you want to stimulate the economy; reduce corporate and business taxes and put any stimulus dollars in the hands of legal, taxpaying consumers.

I’m for corporate America paying their ‘fair’ share of taxes. I certainly don’t see that corporate America has been penalized, it’s the other way around.

Companies investing in the future is something of a myth. They’ll invest all right, they’ll move the companies to Mexico or some other country to exploit labor, and dump American workers on the streets.

Unfortunately, the Enrons of the world invest in a few fat cats, at the expense of thousands of others.

By Bosch

January 7, 2009 1:49 PM | Link to this

Just looking at a picture of the President’s lunch club. Carter and Clinton have on red ties, both Bushies and Obama have on blue ties.

Weird.

By atlmom

January 7, 2009 1:52 PM | Link to this

How about this statistic:

McCain: 20 years in senate - never - not once - asked for $1 for an earmark.

Obama - just 1000 days in the Senate - asked for $900 Million** for earmarks.

And he’s the one who wants to eliminate them? Hmmm….

By Taxpayer

January 7, 2009 1:57 PM | Link to this

tcoach,

I think your philosophy may have worked well for Davy Crockett but really…how would that “almost no government” thing work in practice today.

Regarding government programs, weren’t those just say no and war on drugs things from the Reagan times? I am looking forward to testing that Social Security Insurance one day to see whether or not all my years of payments were worth it. Roads…now there’s an interesting topic. I just cannot imagine what things would have looked like without Fed oversight. Roads abruptly ending at the state line or a given road that is well maintained in one state but not another. That would just drive those truckers crazy. We’d have to resort to air drops for our daily doses of Wal-Mart goods. Pakistani-made Levis would soar — literally and figuratively. Life would be, well, unthinkable, undoable. No, I don’t think so, tcoach. However, if you are really serious about such a lifestyle, I can hook you up with some former co-workers that are roughing it as missionaries in Africa. It’s definitely a different lifestyle than what we have grown accustomed to.

By Bud Wiser

January 7, 2009 1:58 PM | Link to this

Typical left wing drivel master - don’t like the question? Fine, choices become:

1) attack the questioner

2) play the race card

3) hide like a rat in the cellar

Works every time.

By Tank

January 7, 2009 2:01 PM | Link to this

As far as corporate taxes are concerned, if you, as a consumer, don’t think you’re offseting higher corporate taxes, you are sadly mistaken.

By Bosch

January 7, 2009 2:11 PM | Link to this

Bud Wiser,

I was reading through the thread from last night:

Behind Beck’s - Dinkelacker rules.

By The Attorney/Surgeon Corporal

January 7, 2009 2:15 PM | Link to this

Well, concerning the appointment of “Senator” Burris, and the rapid backpeddling of the Constitutional Law Professor Elect, it appears as though he is not as well versed on the Constitution as one might have hoped for.

I wonder now what his students did learn?

By Paul

January 7, 2009 2:18 PM | Link to this

Bosch

regarding earmarks: they can be worthy or not. For the general good or a targeted payback. It’s not about good or bad. It’s about how they get approved and funded - either by all the people’s representatives or by one person bypassing the system.

Of course, that leads to the question of what the Fed govt (read: all the citizens in the country) should pay for vs what a state should pay for. And that leads to the current spectacle of states that have approved programs, committed themselves, then come up short, asking the citizens of other states to bail them out.

Interesting aside: most of the states that overspent, mismanaged and are in the red who are asking for a bailout? Democratic. Go figure -

By Morningstar

January 7, 2009 2:20 PM | Link to this

By Tank January 7, 2009 2:01 PM

As far as corporate taxes are concerned, if you, as a consumer, don’t think you’re offseting higher corporate taxes, you are sadly mistaken

Of course the middle class, lower middle class, working poor, et. al. will pick up whatever is driveled down from the employers. We all know employers ‘pass it on’ to the consumer. Until they move the company to South America.

I’m all for big business. We need them; they just need policing and regulating.

By RealityKing January 7, 2009 1:41 PM One mans ear marked bridge to no where is now another’s job creation gimmick.

It depends on the number of people who will benefit from that nowhere bridge. Is it for the common good. Interstate 85 running North and South would certainly be for the common good, but other examples seem to come to mind……

By tcoach

January 7, 2009 2:21 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer, You missed the point as usual. You attack my points and spend time to discredit them. By the way interstate commerce does fall under the catagory of federal government, so those roads between states are taken care of. Interstates are a different story those were a government started program. Hence the name interstate, that is fine that those roads are funded through some federal money.

Also to your point about the drugs. See unlike you I think for myself and make my own decisions. I am not just a partisan joke hating anything opposite loving anything in my party like you. I could care less if it was Reagan, or Washington who came up with the plan, it did not work and wasted moeny.

I also do not think life would be undoable. Sorry if you cannot take care of yourself or deal unless it is cushioned by the government. I need themfor nothing more than safety, and protection of my rights that aare granted to me by the constitution. I know what you will say Bush trampled the constitution. I know, that is why i want less involvment from the government.

See also unlike you I do not worship and pray to anything democrat or republican or anything involving any other mortal. I do not need the government to save me or insure my finacial security. I also do not need them to regulate the wealth of everyone to make sure wea re all on level finacial standing as you suggested at 12:07.

Maybe you are incapable of success on your own and NEED the government to live your life and do your budget and welth achievment for you as well. However I will leave the determination of my sucess and future to myself.

Also Please tell me why I pay a state tax and federal tax if they are going to use my federal tax to fix an access road in Ewing Virginia, that I will never use, unless site seeing?

By Taxpayer

January 7, 2009 2:22 PM | Link to this

That’s right. Why should corporations have to pay taxes when taxpayers, i.e., that group that consists of consumers and non-consumers of said corporation’s product(s), can be handed the tab. After all, it’s only fair that non-consumers as well as consumers share in the cost of those executive’s compensation packages, amongst other things. Taxes are such a complicated thing, aren’t they? That’s one reason why some folks are so interested in this thing called FairTax[TM]. These folks think that this new form of taxation makes all things fair but that’s a fairy tale also for there’s no such thing as “fair”. It’s just another one of those suburban legends.

By Bosch

January 7, 2009 2:27 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Good points and I agree. So can we either stop thinking of earmarks as a curse word, or just stop the bs spending that goes with it, or rather make them public knowledge so we’ll know how the money is spent.

A database would be nice, with abstracts outlining the projects, merits of the projects, total spent, contractors hired (with resumes/vitaes attached), Congressional member who proposed it, etc. etc.

Is that too much? Did I leave anything out?

AHHHAAA HHAAAHHHHHHAAA. Sometimes I crack myself up. Yeah, we can do that right? We can do that, but the question is do you think for ONE minute something like that WOULD get done?

By Neil

January 7, 2009 2:30 PM | Link to this

Hear, hear tcoach!

If a person wants to be wealthy, fine go make it happen.

What individuals need to understand is that politicians have the power to justify their own necessity by misleading the public into thinking they give a damn about the little guy.

Corporations have the power to do whatever it takes (price increases) to meet their bottom line.

That leaves the individual who, with today’s gimme mentality, is all too eager to relinquish their power to someone else who can manage what they can’t.

By Morningstar

January 7, 2009 2:33 PM | Link to this

By Paul January 7, 2009 2:18 PM regarding earmarks: they can be worthy or not. For the general good or a targeted payback. It’s not about good or bad. It’s about how they get approved and funded

Paul, I tend to think even a ‘targeted payback’ would probably benefit many, if it were approved by all the people’s representatives. Note, I used the word ‘probably.’ In the world of politics, who knows…..

By Taxpayer

January 7, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this

Dang tcoach,

I can’t help it if your point is so hard to find. Use something smaller than a haystack to hide it in. Geez, you said you believe in small government and now you’ve gone and thrown in a ton of stipulations that just made government bigger. I thought I was just debating a point — not arguing about its existence. And, on top of that, you had to go and get personal with me when you clearly know nothing at ALL about me. At least, I don’t think you do. Do we know each other? That’s scary. Dude, I’m really disappointed. But, I’m willing to let bygones be bygones if you can tell me something about me that is truly factual. OK.

By tcoach

January 7, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this

Neil,

Until people stop thinking things should be given or made easy for them we will continue to be let down and the government will continue to expand their power.

But as you stated maybe it is not that these people truly want the government to help them and in turn give more power to the government. Possibly these people understand they are incapable of helping themselves and need someone to take care of them and someone to blame if things go bad, because we all know that personal responsibility is nothing more than a couple of words with many syllables.

By Morningstar

January 7, 2009 2:42 PM | Link to this

By Bosch January 7, 2009 2:27 PM | A database would be nice, with abstracts outlining the projects, merits of the projects, total spent, contractors hired (with resumes/vitaes attached), Congressional member who proposed it, etc. etc.

Ha Ha Bosch. I see you have bested the bug, and now able to partake of some Christmas cheer (smile). This will happen when pigs fly. If Obama can make some improvements, that’s all I ask.

The same goes for the economy and other things. Some improvements would be nice.

By tiny bubbles

January 7, 2009 2:48 PM | Link to this

if a county is overrun with youth crime and the parents of those youth make up the majority of voters, who and what will they support? will they vote for expansion of law enforcement or youth centers where their kids can make their drug deals and kill each other on government owned property?

answer: youth centers.

after the money has been wasted on centers they’ll want to take law enforcement off the streets and put them at the youth centers to protect their kids from their neighbors kids.

By Bosch

January 7, 2009 2:50 PM | Link to this

Morningstar,

I’m on to Epiphany Cheer, Christmas was over Monday much to my dismay.

Indeed I think you are right….something like I described will happen when pigs do sprout wings.

But it’s always nice to dream and hope!

:-)

Later all.

By RealityKing

January 7, 2009 2:55 PM | Link to this

Dreams without execution are hallicinations..

By tcoach

January 7, 2009 2:57 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer,

What comment of mine got personal with you?

An actual fact about you.

You have not said anything negative about any current dems in senate or presidential team. While at the same time have not said anything complementary to any rep.

My point is easy to see I feel the government should do as the constitution says. City and county roads are not part of that jurisdiction, sorry.

All of the earmarks are for nothing more than political gain. Let state and local officials take care of these issues. What else are they doing?

I have never argued for the elimination of government either. Only for government to stop with the rapid expansion, just because the economic times are not easy.

See once again though I have another fact about you. I have manors and respect for my fellow man, I may not agree and even argue but I do have respect. See I have answered every question you have asked of me to the best of my ability, without trying to make sure one party looked better than the other. You on the other hand have left numerous questions of mine unanswered, leaving no other choice than you are just a disrespectful person who is only interested in your own opinion and has no motivation to hear much less talk about differing opinions. FACT

By mm

January 7, 2009 3:03 PM | Link to this

Once and for all wingnuts, get this straight. If you cut corporate taxes, you will end up paying their share, or the deficit rises.

You are paying the corporate tax no matter how much the corporations are being charged.

If you cut their taxes, they will pocket the money. They certaily won’t pass the savings on to you. If you believe that, you’ve been listening to Rush way too long.

By @@

January 7, 2009 3:10 PM | Link to this

A brokered ceasefire in Gaza albeit limited and most-likely temporary is underway. The IDF either went into this with a strategic military plan (don’t take the bait) drawing them into urban warfare or Hamas has been considerably weakened.

From Stratfor: Rumors continue that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers personnel are already operating on the Egyptian side of Gaza, using their expertise to help identify smuggling tunnels. The most recent report came from London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, which is somewhat reliable but very pro-Palestinian. Nevertheless, there is clearly at least discussion of forming an international force with combat engineering expertise to monitor the border with Egypt for tunneling activity as part of a more lasting cease-fire process.

Israel has made clear that while it is entertaining an Egyptian- and French-brokered cease-fire deal, it will not agree to a halt in its military operations unless Hamas completely halts hostile fire from Gaza and measures are included in the proposal to prevent Hamas from rearming. The latter issue will require Egypt reluctantly agreeing to establish a multinational force to patrol the Gaza-Sinai border and prevent further arms smuggling through tunnels and the main Rafah gateway into Gaza. Though Cairo has serious concerns about preserving its sovereignty in the territory, it has not been able to clamp down on arms trafficking on the border, particularly in regards to disgruntled Egyptian security officers who are bought off by weapons smugglers for Hamas. The Egyptians have a serious need to see Hamas contained, and, given the circumstances, could very well acquiesce to such a proposal.

Iran has also put the skids on an attack from the northern front (Hezbollah) into Gaza. It seems they value negotiations in Iraq more than they value Hamas and the Palestinians.

We shall see.

Off to see what I can find on The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

By Taxpayer

January 7, 2009 3:20 PM | Link to this

Well, tcoach. You certainly told me and thank you for clearing everything up. That debate was every bit as stimulating as I had expected it to be. By the way, how’s that toe healing. Good, I hope. And, the little one? Try getting one of those Little Tykes carpenter’s sets or something. There. Is that better.

By @@

January 7, 2009 3:20 PM | Link to this

If you cut their taxes, they will pocket the money.

OR, they’ll expand the business, hiring more workers to up their productivity, thereby increasing their profit.

By Davo

January 7, 2009 3:22 PM | Link to this

“We haven’t had free market policies in this country for a long, long time,” Paul concluded. “The economists (Krugman) you hear from in our universities and from Warshington D.C. are all interventionists, they’re liberals. … The culprit is really the Federal Reserve … and once that’s realized and we have enough people, it will change.”

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/RonPaulU.S.spends1trillion0107.html

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2009 3:32 PM | Link to this

mm,

A few years back the government hadn’t struck a deal to extend a 10% tax on airline tickets so it expired. The airlines started to do what you seem to be claiming they would and pocketing the extra 10%, but in a very short period of time an airline passed the savings on to their passengers and the others soon followed.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 7, 2009 3:39 PM | Link to this

By mm January 7, 2009 3:03 PM If you cut their taxes, they will pocket the money. They certaily won’t pass the savings on to you. If you believe that, you’ve been listening to Rush way too long.

What a dullard.

Out here in the real world, the majority of business operates on cost plus a set profit margin, together which compromise the price they charge for their product. This is so that they remain competitive and do not get undercut by another company selling a similar product.

If taxes are less, the product costs less.

Take for instance the automakers, the Japanese don’t have to pay exorbitant prices to the unions so they don’t “pocket” the money, they sell their cars for less.

In the world of mmoron, everybody is out to get he/she and comparing prices is a struggle imposed by the greedy capitalists as a scheme to confuse and baffle innocent and naive little it.

Does it take the arugula at 10 bucks a pound or the arugula at 12 bucks a pound, hmmmmmm?

By Jake

January 7, 2009 4:11 PM | Link to this

mm - Corporations have never paid taxes, they can’t. They merely pass whatever taxes they are charged on to their customers as higher costs for their goods or services. We think because thye pay taxes they can’t give those fat bonuses and perks to the execs but taxes actually don’t impact the rest of their budget one bit.

By John J

January 7, 2009 4:32 PM | Link to this

Worst economy since the depression? 1982-Unemployment at 10%+ today 6.7% 1980- Inflation 13.58% Today 4+% 1980- 30 yr mortgage 13.74% Today 5.5% 1981- 30 yr mortgage 16.63% 1980- Misery index 21.98 Today 7.77 I would greatly appreciate if just one liberal would argue with the facts as they are not as they are presented by the media.
I agree things are not very good but this isn’t even close to the worst economy since the depression.
(all of my facts are available on US Govt. web sites)

By fed up

January 7, 2009 4:34 PM | Link to this

I don’t think mm knows anything about anything and especially about running a business.

By fed up

January 7, 2009 4:40 PM | Link to this

I don’t think mm knows anything about anything and especially about running a business.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

January 7, 2009 5:00 PM | Link to this

If Obama can get a bill out with no earmarks, pork, or whatever you want to call it included, more power to him. I’ll believe it when I see it. I’m sure any career Senator or Representive can figure a way to walk right around it. They always do.