jasonxctf

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 06:26 PM) Actually you would get more economic growth from not collecting the tax in the first place, and creating the whole governmental circle of involvement and waste. so explain again, how in this environment, a state would see economic growth by laying off an employee and losing any/all tax revenue associated with it? If the argument is shifting jobs from public to private, then that certainly makes sense. However in an environment of little private growth, I'm lost with the explanation.

i think this is a tiered argument. Like cutting government spending/waste. In that situation, assuming that you cut an unnecessary job to balance a budget, you need to actually cut more to off-set the adjustment to tax revenue/income that is lost in that job cut in the first place.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 18, 2010 -> 08:22 PM) what does it matter, you need a 60 seat super majority now. Nothing will ever be passed again. read this article yesterday which reminded me of your post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odo...p_b_426604.html the main points... McConnell accepted an agreement brilliantly designed by Reid that required 60 votes to pass an amendment. McConnell did that without anyone noticing anything odd after a year of saturation coverage of the importance of 60 votes in the Senate. Everyone outside the Senate now thinks it takes 60 votes to do anything. Not amendments. Amendments pass by a simple majority, 51 votes. Amendments are usually debated for a couple of minutes or hours or days, then voted on. Once in a while, a 60-vote cloture motion is needed to end debate on an amendment. What McConnell agreed to was an implicit cloture motion in every vote on every amendment, thereby completely surrendering the minority's real power. In all my years in the Senate, I never saw a leader make such a mistake. If it was a mistake. There are no real filibusters in the Senate anymore. The way you "filibuster" a bill that you want to kill is offer an endless stream of reasonable sounding amendments that have to be debated and voted on. It's easy to come up with one amendment per page of legislation. That's why the Republicans offered hundreds of amendments during the Senate committees' debates on the bill. When the majority leader brings up a two thousand page bill, the minority would normally come up with at least five hundred amendments that could drag out the debate for several months. That's what the Republicans did in 1994 when they killed the Clinton health care reform bill on the Senate floor. No filibuster, no forcing the Democrats to clear 60-vote procedural hurdles, no forcing a reading to the bill, just an endless stream of reasonable sounding amendments -- so reasonable that some of them passed with votes of 100 to 0. And the Democrats, seeing this could go on forever, surrendered. Fifty-seven Democrats were defeated by forty-three determined Republicans. This time, Republicans tried to look obstructionist. To the media, the Tea Partiers, and Sarah Palin, it sure looked like Republicans were pulling out all the stops -- forcing a reading of the bill, forcing a frail elderly senator to vote in the middle of the night. But the Republicans only offered four substantive amendments along with five hopeless motions to send the bill back to the Finance Committee. One Republican amendment actually got 51 votes, but didn't pass because McConnell's 60-vote agreement with Reid sabotaged it. A Democratic amendment on re-importation of prescription drugs got more than 50 votes but did not pass. It would have shot a hole through Harry Reid's bill, as would other Democratic amendments that got more than 50 votes and failed. McConnell's unanimous consent agreement with Reid made Reid's bill impenetrable on the floor.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 02:44 PM) Of course it did. Those people that are affected by the AMT are the biggest spenders in the economy. Putting cash in their hands means some of it will be spent, some of it invested. Both are good for the economy. I'm not going to get into the whole multiplier argument, because no one really knows how much of that would happen, but at the very least, it would do SOMETHING to help. It is not targeted, nor is it a direct job creator, so in that sense, its perhaps not the most efficient way to generate economic positives. But its false to say it "didn't have anything to do with economic stimulus". As an AMT'er myself, I can tell you that any extra money in my world neither gets spent nor invested (in the true sense). It goes into that Money Market account earning 1.25%, which the Banks aren't lending out to anyone.

I've got one and use it pretty actively. I'm in sales, so its been a good way for me to connect with partners after they've changed jobs or as a way to get into new accounts.

He'd be 35 in Spring 2011, so if they could do a 3 year, $12 million for him to DH, that would be nice. (or 2/$10 mil)

well i dont think CT is in play anymore, now that Dodd dropped out. Connecticut Senate - McMahon vs. Blumenthal Quinnipiac Blumenthal 64, McMahon 23 Blumenthal +41 Connecticut Senate - Simmons vs. Blumenthal Quinnipiac Blumenthal 62, Simmons 27 Blumenthal +35 Connecticut Senate - McMahon vs. Blumenthal Rasmussen Reports Blumenthal 58, McMahon 34 Blumenthal +24 Connecticut Senate - Simmons vs. Blumenthal Rasmussen Reports Blumenthal 56, Simmons 33 Blumenthal +23 Connecticut Senate - McMahon vs. Blumenthal PPP (D) Blumenthal 60, McMahon 28 Blumenthal +32 Connecticut Senate - Simmons vs. Blumenthal PPP (D) Blumenthal 59, Simmons 28 Blumenthal +31

certainly it has happened before (at least on the house side). 11 in the Senate would be unreal. However looking at the actual races, is it realistic?

Well if that's the case, I don't think either side will see 60 seats again, for a long-long time.

all comes out to turnout. if i read a table on-line properly, i believe that there is no early voting in MA. Is that correct? On a side note, I voted early for the Primary here in IL on Saturday. In the first 4 hours of being open, my poll worker said about 20 ppl had stopped by to vote.

for the Republicans to gain control of either House? I post this as I searched Charlie Cook's website of House/Senate Race Ratings. Right now, its 60-40 in the Senate. Right now, its 257-178 in the House. In a 50-50 senate tie, the VP breaks the Tie and thus Democrats retain control. So in the Senate, the Republicans would need to win 11 seats. In the house, they need to win 40. Now granted, its 10 months off, but Charlie Cook currently lists 9 of 19 Democratically held Senate seats as Toss Up/Leans Republican (incl Mass). He lists 4 of 18 Republican held Senate seats as Toss Up. So in the Senate, if the Republicans won all of their 4, and capture all 9 of the Dems seats they are still down 51-49. Now this could certainly flip with a Death (Robert Byrd) and a party switch (Joe Lieberman). In the House, it gets even tougher... he currently lists 40 Democratic seats as Lean Dem/TossUp/Lean Rep. He currently lists 10 Republican seats as Lean Rep/TossUp/Lean Dem. So if the Republican party was able to win all 40 of those Democratic seats, while keeping all of their 10 (incl downtown New Orleans, LA) they would have a 218-217 advantage.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 16, 2010 -> 07:27 PM) anytime there is 10% unemployment the economy is not performing well. so when unemployment was 7-8% and the DOW dropped to 7500 in Nov 2008, things were just aces?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 06:36 PM) Way to miss the point. Evil wallstreet bankers should be taxed and hung. Pseudo gov't institutions , ,,,ok to pay outrageous bonuses for f***ing up the entire mortgage mkt. so you are in agreement with the Obama Administrations Pay Caps on highly compensated bankers?

Market closes above 10,700

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer – 58 mins ago SAN FRANCISCO – A state ban on gay marriage is costing the city of San Francisco millions of dollars a year in lost revenue and increased services, an economist testified Thursday in a lawsuit aimed at overturning the prohibition. Chief city economist Edmund Egan said married people accumulate more wealth and have more to spend on property and consumer goods, which bolsters tax revenue. He also said the city must spend more on health care for uninsured workers because same-sex couples are not always covered under their partner's employee health care plans. "It's clear to me that Proposition 8 has a negative material impact on the city of San Francisco," he said. "These are impacts that are hard to quantify, but over the long term they can be powerful." Egan testified during the fourth day of a federal trial on a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, the ballot measure approved by statewide voters in 2008. The city was allowed to join the suit to demonstrate that governments bear some of the costs of the ban. Egan said San Francisco has seen higher mental health costs because of discrimination against gays and now spends $2.5 million a year on specialized services for them. "I believe that the prohibition of marriage of same-sex couples is a form of discrimination, and it's reasonable to assume that if that prohibition were removed there would be over time a lessening of the discrimination those individuals see in their daily lives," he said. Egan acknowledged he could not quantify many of the potential revenue and savings benefits San Francisco would realize if same-sex couples could marry. The most solid estimate he cited was $2.6 million the city was losing in hotel and sales tax revenue every year from weddings that can't take place. He based the figure on the 5,100 marriage licenses San Francisco issued to same-sex couples during a five-month period in 2008 when gay marriage was legal, as well as on wedding industry data on how much couples spend on average when they tie the knot. "Certainly San Francisco experienced an uptake in weddings (in 2008), and I can conclude with that the economic activity associated with weddings increased as well," he said. In addition, if same-sex couples were recognized by the federal government and could file joint income tax returns, they would realize tax savings that could be spend locally, Egan said.

I was listening to Genesis's Land of Confusion last night. That song could have been written today.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 07:10 PM) Why are the airwaves silent about the $6 million bonuses paid out to the current heads of Fannie and Freddie? ......CASH!!!! because all things considered, $6 million is chump change. Hell, Peavy will get that for 10 starts this year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 06:37 PM) Those three things shouldn't be true. Those sort of things becoming "assumptions" is a big part of the problem which leads to the mentality that governments never have to cut back. Remember governments don't exist on their own. They exist at my expense, which means that they are assumed to be taking more and more of my money, every year, and people don't seem to see a problem with that. That line of thinking just blows my mind. Times are tough, so while I cut back, the popular opinion is that the government is OBLIGATED to take more. Wow, just wow. Technically since only 20% of the people in this country pay any "real level" of taxes, it operates primarily on their expense. As population levels continue to grow, so will government. Do we need more teachers, fire fighters, police officers, street/sanitation people as we add more people. Of course. This means that government will have increased revenues. They'll obtain this by either general population growth (fixed % multiplied by a larger group) or an increase in the % itself. Should a government always run a deficit.. of course not. In the good times, you should break even or run a slight surplus, in the bad times, smart economic thinking has shown time and time again, that you should run a deficit and borrow. Economics 101. So then you put yourself into Real Time. Has the Federal/State government done what they were supposed to do in the good times... no. But does that mean that they shouldn't do the economic sound thing in the bad times.... two wrongs dont make a right.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 03:29 PM) When I got fired from my job, I didn't go out and spend my savings. I cut costs and tried to make it last as long as possible. I didn't sit around trying to justify why every expense was necessary. From a prudent standpoint we have no idea how long this lasts, especially with the pretty commonly held belief that this recession could have another leg, why blow all your money right away? but that's the problem. people think that govt should act like individuals. nothing could be further from the truth. you don't have guaranteed income over time, they do. you have a short life cycle, they don't. your total assets (at some point) will start to go down. theirs will always increase. you may not get more/more money every year, they typically do. you can't borrow at rates near inflation, they can. it's a whole different economic formula.

I would think that it would be wise to "spend" that money instead of keeping it aside for simple economics. There is a budget shortfall. So either... (1) You borrow money at 4-5% to cover that shortfall or (2) You use the money from the sale, that otherwise would be sitting in money market accounts earning 1-2% interest. So do you forgo earning 1-2% to save spending 4-5%, absolutely.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve made a record profit of $46.1 billion last year, reflecting money made off its extraordinary efforts to rescue the country from the worst economic and financial crisis since the 1930s, the central bank announced Tuesday. The windfall gets turned over to the Treasury Department. It marks the biggest profit on record dating back to 1914 when the Fed was created. The previous record profit -- of $34.6 billion -- was registered in 2007. In 2008, the Fed reported a profit of $31.7 billion. The Fed says the bigger profit was primarily due to increased income from the securities it held last year. Such income went up as the Fed's holdings of securities mushroomed. The Fed launched several securities-buying programs last year to help revive the economy. Its goal is to drive down rates on mortgages and other consumer debt. Under one program that ended last year, the Fed snapped up $300 billion worth of government debt. Under another program, the Fed is on track to buy $1.25 trillion in mortgage securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and an additional $175 billion in debt issued by the mortgage giants. Those programs have boosted the value of securities held by the Fed. The Fed faces a risk, however. The Fed could lose money if the central bank had to sell those securities and their prices were to fall. The Fed might need to sell the securities to sop up some of the unprecendented amount of money pumped into the economy during the crisis. The Fed is funded from the interest earned on it vast portfolio of securities. It is not funded by Congress. After covering its expenses, the Fed gives what is left over to the Treasury Department.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 8, 2010 -> 10:55 PM) You are working from the assumption of the number of companies being static. Often, one of the primary drivers out of any recession is new, small businesses cropping up or growing. oh absolutely. the only problem with that, in this environment, is that new small businesses can't obtain credit to grow/acquire what they need to get things off the ground. Better have some angel investors lined up.

SYMPATHIES -- Vice President Biden's mother "passed away peacefully" Friday at Biden's home in Delaware, the vice president said in a statement Friday: "My mother, Catherine Eugenia 'Jean' Finnegan Biden, passed away peacefully today at our home in Wilmington, Delaware, surrounded by her children, her grandchildren, her great-grandchildren and many loved ones. At 92, she was the center of our family and taught all of her children that family is to be treasured, loyalty is paramount and faith will guide you through the tough times. She believed in us, and because of that, we believed in ourselves. Together with my father, her husband of 61 years who passed away in 2002, we learned the dignity of hard work and that you are defined by your sense of honor. Her strength, which was immeasurable, will live on in all of us.".

I like the Jenny McCarthy comment on the left.

Hey it could be worse, you could be taking home the amount before the tax credit was added in 2009.