I thought the expiration of these tax cuts didn't hurt anyone but the rich (who can obviously afford it!!!!!)? Damn, get your talking points straight.

I thought the expiration of these tax cuts didn't hurt anyone but the rich (who can obviously afford it!!!!!)? Damn, get your talking points straight.

The expiration of $200 billion (annually) of tax cuts, mainly directed at upper incomes, does about as much damage as the expiration of $40 billion (annual) of unemployment benefits, if the multiplier for upper income tax cuts is about 0.4 and the multiplier for unemployment benefits is about 2.0.

Jobs number better than it seems?

 

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/20...ss-350000-jobs/

 

We might need a jobs recount.

 

The employment numbers came out on Friday morning for November and they were far lower than people were hoping for. But here's the problem: The employment picture might not be as disappointing as the number the Department of Labor reported. Why's that? The Labor Department failed to count just over 350,000 jobs in its final tally. Include those jobs into the mix, and the economy actually added nearly 400,000 jobs in the month of November. So why did November become such a downer?

Read more: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/20.../#ixzz17G6j4N58

Jobs number better than it seems?

 

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/20...ss-350000-jobs/

 

 

Read more: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/20.../#ixzz17G6j4N58

Really, a "Seasonal adjustments are bad" argument?

 

What a negative retail jobs number in November is telling you is that even if there are 350,000 jobs added by retail, in an average year out of the last 10 years, 450,000 jobs are added. So yeah, seasonal hiring happens, but it doesn't somehow mean that the employment report is hiding a solid report.

 

What usually happens in down years is that you get a weak November report because you don't get the normal number of seasonal hiring, then you get a better number in January, because you have fewer layoffs than in an average year (since fewer people were hired in the first place)

Glenn Beck Estimates There Are Close To 157 Million Islamic Terrorists

That article had fun math.

 

10%= 157mil

 

1%= 1.57mil

 

????

 

 

HAHA! Good catch

Things sound pretty bad for Elizabeth Edwards.

The administration is sounding like they've reached a 2 year tax cut extension deal, and they seem to think they've extracted stimulative concessions in exchange for it.

That said, the contours of a final package emerged with more detail than ever before. While it's clear that the White House gave in on its main front -- the desire to let the tax levels for the upper-income levels revert to pre-Bush rates -- administration officials claimed that they were able to secure major victories in return.

 

In exchange for allowing those rates to continue for two years, Republicans agreed to extend unemployment insurance for an additional 13 months, to offer a two-percent employee side payroll tax credit (at a cost of about $120 billion), and $40 billion in tax breaks for families and students (including a $1,000 child tax credit extended for two years and an expansion of the earned income tax credit)

 

Finally, the final deal would include a 100% expensing for businesses to write off purchases of outdated equipment -- another key element of Obama's fiscal plans. There also would be a compromise on the estate tax, which will be set for two years at 35 percent, with a $5 million exemption amount, according to the Daily Caller, which first reported the arrangement.

 

Briefing The Huffington Post about the deal, which could be announced as early as Monday night, the two senior administration officials claimed that they were able to get more bang for their buck than previously imagined. The costs for the payroll tax holidays, UI and other refundable credits come in at roughly $215 billion over two years. The extensions of the income tax rates strictly for the wealthy is estimated to cost about $95 billion. All of it is unpaid for. But the former provisions are more stimulative than the latter.

 

The question, of course, is whether that's enough to placate Democratic members of Congress. Earlier in the day, the president convened a meeting with Congressional Democratic leadership to lay out the forthcoming arrangement. And in speaking to the Huffington Post, Obama's aides seemed hopeful.

I'll admit, if I were in Congress, I'd probably vote for that package.

LOL, great start by Obama of throwing the Republicans under the bus.

 

"We have really important things to get done, things that will help all Americans. But the Republicans refuse to do anything without giving ineffective millionaire and billionaire taxcuts, so we had to compromise on this issue."

The worst part of that whole deal is the estate tax number. That's a lower number (percent) than at any point in the Bush administration prior to this year when it vanished for a year.

Ok, so his entire speech can be summed up by that, not just the start.

Just to note once again...nobody cares about the deficit.

But at least Democrats got the message Mark Kirk thinks the voters sent--tax cuts for the top 1%!

Obama signs on to Bush tax cuts

Perfect! Now when the Presidency is up in 2 years he'll be beaten over the head for wanting to "raise taxes" when they're expiring.

Perfect! Now when the Presidency is up in 2 years he'll be beaten over the head for wanting to "raise taxes" when they're expiring.

 

Great! You're already admitting defeat on that debate...

Great! You're already admitting defeat on that debate...

 

He'll win that debate if his argument is still that the richest 1% needs to pay a little more. If not, then it won't resonate with voters.

 

This deal isn't as bad as the liberal Dems want to believe it is. They did get a lot of what they wanted out of it. But it's also not a great deal either. Unless the Senate plans on changing the rules of debate in that chamber, compromises like this are going to be the only way things will get done going forward.

He'll win that debate if his argument is still that the richest 1% needs to pay a little more. If not, then it won't resonate with voters.

 

This deal isn't as bad as the liberal Dems want to believe it is. They did get a lot of what they wanted out of it. But it's also not a great deal either. Unless the Senate plans on changing the rules of debate in that chamber, compromises like this are going to be the only way things will get done going forward.

 

A lot more satisfying if he can also get START and or DADT.

Edited December 7, 201015 yr by KipWellsFan

A lot more satisfying if he can also get START and or DADT.

 

I really hope that people weren't holding back a yes vote for repealing DADT to get tax cuts. "Gays in the military will be the end of our dominance as we know it, everyone will be distracted by everyone being gay all the time, gay gay, oh tax cuts? They're alright."

I really hope that people weren't holding back a yes vote for repealing DADT to get tax cuts. "Gays in the military will be the end of our dominance as we know it, everyone will be distracted by everyone being gay all the time, gay gay, oh tax cuts? They're alright."

 

Given that START support was being held over for the same reason, it wouldn't shock me.

Hmph. This deal still ends unemployment benefits at 99 weeks.

Just focusing on unemployment benefits--this only funds the four tiers of benefits created thus far, up to 99 weeks of benefits. It does not create another, 5th tier for all of those people who have exhausted the 99 weeks they've received, the 99ers. There's now over two million in that category. Their number is expected to triple over the next year--there will be 6 million people who have exhausted everything by the end of next year.

I must say that racial profiling would be a great idea to catch terrorists. Here's another example of where it could have helped.

I must say that racial profiling would be a great idea to catch terrorists. Here's another example of where it could have helped.

Shoebomber was named Richard Reid, 9/11 terrorists were all clean cut business-looking, the woman in PA... Has ANY terrorist we've heard about in the US in recent years fit the stereotype of a headdress-wearing, arabian-named, long-bearded dude? Profiling works BEHAVIORALLY, racial profiling is useless, in addition to be disgusting.

 

And now, for the most disturbing "trend" I've heard about in, oh, a million years: stay at home daughters.