The Republican Thread

[EvilMonkey]

Wow, why didn't AHB post this?

Wrong party, wrong direction. But make sure to be aware when it goes up 2 points.

[kapkomet]

Wrong party, wrong direction. But make sure to be aware when it goes up 2 points.

I'm sure he'll let us know.

 

[BigSqwert]

Obama's popularity rating has fallen 10 points in 4 weeks.

I'd say it would be nearly impossible to maintain a 69% approval rating for 4 years straight.

[kapkomet]

I'd say it would be nearly impossible to maintain a 69% approval rating for 4 years straight.

Really? I mean, he is the messiah.

 

*sigh*

 

I'm even getting bored with my posts.

 

[BigSqwert]

Scratch that....8 years.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/26/obama-tax...on_charity.html

 

Short-Changing Charities

Daniel Indiviglio, 02.26.09, 07:30 PM EST

New Obama tax plan could hurt the very people he wants to help.

 

Although President Barack Obama hopes to help the poor by providing government-regulated health care, his plan to pay for it might actually cause those same people harm.

 

In his preliminary budget, Obama says he plans to pay for his health care reform by increasing the burden on those he considers "rich," families earning more than $250,000. In particular, taxpayers would only be able to take itemized deductions against a 28% tax rate, instead of the actual rate they paid, which in 2011 could be as high as 39.6%. That means they'd still be paying nearly a 12% tax on items they were supposedly allowed to deduct.

Article Controls

 

imageemail

 

imageprint

 

imagereprint

 

imagenewsletter

 

comments (1)

 

imageshare

 

imagedel.icio.us

 

imageDigg It!

 

imageyahoo

 

imageFacebook

 

imagerss

Yahoo! Buzz

 

But the rich aren't the only ones who could lose under this plan, critics say. Those who benefit from the wealthy's deductible charitable contributions could also feel the pain, as the rich cut back on giving.

 

"It's a terrible thing for charities," says Conrad Teitell, a tax lawyer whose client roster includes the Salvation Army.

 

Obama's plan lessens the incentive for the rich to give, because it lessens the proportion of those donations that will be given back to them when filing their taxes. Sure, donors will still get that warm and fuzzy feeling for helping a charitable cause, but if they were not hoping to get some tax benefit as well, then they would not have bothered claiming these deductions.

 

Imagine someone who makes $1 million in taxable income and gives $100,000 per year to charity. Currently, that contribution would reduce his taxes by $35,000, or 35% of what he has donated, because that's his tax rate. Under the Obama plan, this person would see only a $28,000 cut in his tax bill, or 28% of his donation. In other words, this person currently has a 25% greater incentive to be charitable than he would under Obama’s new tax scheme.

 

Another way to think about charitable giving is by considering the effective amount spent by donors. If the person mentioned above wanted to spend $65,000 out of pocket on charity, he could do so by actually donating $100,000 under the current tax system, since he gets $35,000 back on his taxes. But under the Obama plan, if he were willing to spend $65,000 out of pocket (including tax savings), he would donate $90,278. The charity would lose nearly 10% because of the new tax policy.

 

The budget request could not come at a worse time for nonprofits. According to Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, in the second half of 2008, nonprofits have been in the worst fundraising climate for U.S. charities in more than decade. Gifts of $1 million or more fell by 33% in the second half of 2008, compared to the same period in 2007.

[southsider2k5]

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-obama-s...2009-02-24.html

 

It’s Obama spreading panic

By Dick Morris

Posted: 02/24/09 03:04 PM [ET]

 

Ultimately, all recessions and depressions resolve themselves into crises of confidence. The instant, global, 24/7 communications of today make them ever more so. President Obama, in his pursuit of liberal big-government spending, has totally neglected the role of the president of the United States in reversing global panic. To the contrary, his every remark and the constant preoccupation of his Cabinet is to heighten the sense of crisis and to escalate the predictions of doom if we do not do as they tell us and raise spending now and taxes later.

 

Instead of being a firewall, reassuring Main Street even as Wall Street crashed, he has become a conduit of panic, spreading the mood of desperation from the stock exchange floor to kitchen tables across the world.

 

There are bad loans, which became bad assets, that lie at the root of the crisis. Through deregulation by the government and the greed of financial institutions, they spread to every portfolio in the world. But these basic facts have metastasized out of all proportion to their real harm into job and financial insecurity for every family on Earth. It is President Obama, not the markets themselves, who has spread this fear. A global Paul Revere, he has not only aroused us, but incited fear and trepidation in his wake.

 

Previous panics have been global in impact, but local in focus. The world panicked because of developments in Mexico or Argentina or Thailand or South Korea. Now, with Collateralized Debt Obligations spreading the poison of a bunch of bad loans all over the world, infecting every portfolio, the panic is not only global in impact but in focus as well. Modern communications have hastened the spread of the virus of panic throughout the global bloodstream.

 

In addressing this panic, the president of the United States must truly be the leader of the world — showing the way back to confidence.

 

Instead, Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt. It is his pronouncements, reinforced by the developments they kindle and catalyze, that are destroying good businesses, bankrupting responsible people and wiping out even conservative financial institutions. Every time he speaks, he sends the markets down and stocks crashing. He doesn’t seem to realize that the rest of the world takes its cue from him. He forgets that he stands at the epicenter of power, not on the fringes campaigning for office. This ain’t Iowa.

 

Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? Because he is so anxious to cram through every last spending bill, tax increase on the so-called rich, new government regulation, and expansion of healthcare entitlement that he must preserve the atmosphere of crisis as a political necessity. Only by keeping us in a state of panic can he induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring.

 

And then there is the matter of blame. The deeper the mess goes — and the further down his rhetoric drives it — the more imperative it becomes to lay off the blame on Bush. He must perpetually “discover” — to his shock — how deep the crisis that he inherited runs, stoking global fears in the process.

 

So, having inherited a recession, his words are creating a depression. He entered office amid a disaster and he is transforming it into a catastrophe, all to pass every last bit of government spending and move us a bit further to the left before his political capital dwindles.

 

But the jig will be up soon. The crash of the stock market in the days since he took power (indeed, from the moment he won the election) can increasingly be attributed to his own failure to lead us in the right direction, his failed policies in addressing the recession and his own spreading of panic and fear. The market collapse makes it evident that it is Obama who is the problem, where he should, instead, be the solution.

 

Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail, or to order a signed copy of their new best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com .

[kapkomet]

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-obama-s...2009-02-24.html

 

and

 

 

Now, I await the "this is spew from the right" and "Obama isn't really doing this" and "he has to do this" and... ... ...

 

IMO, this is dead on and what some of us have been saying here for months.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Wow, why didn't AHB post this?

i havent looked at Gallup since the day before the election.

Also, from other polls I've seen, his approval has gone UP among Democrats and Independents, but has plummeted among the far right. Nothing shocking to me.

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-obama-s...2009-02-24.html

IMO, there is a difference between "spreading doom and gloom" as it says he is doing and being frank. You cant stand before America and say "the state of our union is strong" with a straight face. It just isnt. It's week and sinking fast. Too often the President is expected to be a cheerleader, rather than the head of state. I want a president who will say "it sucks right now, but we're working to make it better"... and that's what he has done.

[clyons]

I think Dick Morris is a POS as a human being, so I'm inclined to disagree with whatever he says on general principle. He knows politics, but I'm not sure he knows economics (I admit I don't), and I think he has stretched his limited credibility in that piece.

 

The Dow was near 13,400 in November 2007. It was 9600 on Election Day and its around 7,100 now. Obama has been president for 5 weeks. Yet the stock market has "crashed" because of him and his failure to lead? I somewhat agree with his point about Obama's economic fear-mongering, but that particular point's a tough sell for me, especially coming from Dick. Seems to me that the markets had been heading south for a long time before that. Dick's great at second guessing and playing contrarian opportunist, but would things really be that different if Obama whistled Dixie? I know confidence is great and all, but how does attitude solve the underlying credit crisis?

 

ps. I love Dick's line about Obama's "failed policies." I guess if the markets don't immediately respond to them (long term consequences be damned), its okay to declare them "failures."

Edited February 27, 2009 by PlaySumFnJurny

[kapkomet]

Confidence = money moving where it needs to. It's that simple. Everyone's assholes are puckering up because they are AFRAID of getting burnt.

 

Obama HAD to take advantage of this to get his s*** through, and everyone knows it.

[clyons]

Obama HAD to take advantage of this to get his s*** through, and everyone knows it.

 

That part I get; the rest is Dick being dick.

[kapkomet]

That part I get; the rest is Dick being dick.

Dick's a dick... I agree. But it's also well documented that ALMOST every time the Messiah opens his mouth, the markets go down. Funny how that is. They have a lot of confidence in this guy, huh?

 

[Balta1701]

Dick's a dick... I agree. But it's also well documented that ALMOST every time the Messiah opens his mouth, the markets go down. Funny how that is. They have a lot of confidence in this guy, huh?

Seriously, you're actually going to reduce yourself to playing the level of this game?

 

The markets are dropping virtually every day. Obama is the president and speaks almost every day. Therefore, the markets are dropping because Obama is speaking.

 

This rock on my countertop keeps tigers away. I would like to sell it to you. You don't see any tigers around here do you?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Dick's a dick... I agree. But it's also well documented that ALMOST every time the Messiah opens his mouth, the markets go down. Funny how that is. They have a lot of confidence in this guy, huh?

The martket doesnt have confidence in anyone right now.

What would the market do if McCain was pres... walked up to the mic and said... "tax cuts for all... that is all we shall do... free markets reign... banks and wall street no regulations... do what you see fit... we're going to cut tons of government programs"?

 

My guess... complete market implosion.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

Seriously, you're actually going to reduce yourself to playing the level of this game?

 

The markets are dropping virtually every day. Obama is the president and speaks almost every day. Therefore, the markets are dropping because Obama is speaking.

 

This rock on my countertop keeps tigers away. I would like to sell it to you. You don't see any tigers around here do you?

 

There have been multiple times where a sell off was directly related to an Obama policy speech on something in the economy or private sector. This has been quoted all over the place by the specialists and marketmakers on many trading floors, on different occasions. Yes the market is going to go down when the President gets on TV and says things are really bad in order to get what he wants passed. I don't get why this concept seems to be so odd to people. Important people can move markets with their words. Hell am I the only one old enough to remember the "Irrational Exuberance" speech. Are you guys seriously going to tell me that selloff was independant of Greenspans words?

[clyons]

There have been multiple times where a sell off was directly related to an Obama policy speech on something in the economy or private sector. This has been quoted all over the place by the specialists and marketmakers on many trading floors, on different occasions. Yes the market is going to go down when the President gets on TV and says things are really bad in order to get what he wants passed. I don't get why this concept seems to be so odd to people. Important people can move markets with their words. Hell am I the only one old enough to remember the "Irrational Exuberance" speech. Are you guys seriously going to tell me that selloff was independant of Greenspans words?

 

But doesn't the market already know that "things are really bad?" Isn't that stark reality already factored in? I'm not naive enough to think that the President's words are meaningless, but it isn't like he's disclosing heretofore secret information. Things have been bleak for a long time now. I can accept that the market might be a little better off at the moment if he had taken a different tact to get the bill passed, but I have trouble comprehending how it would be appreciably better (especially long term) if he played Pollyanna instead of Eeyore.

 

 

[Balta1701]

But doesn't the market already know that "things are really bad?" Isn't that stark reality already factored in? I'm not naive enough to think that the President's words are meaningless, but it isn't like he's disclosing heretofore secret information. Things have been bleak for a long time now. I can accept that the market might be a little better off at the moment if he had taken a different tact to get the bill passed, but I have trouble comprehending how it would be appreciably better (especially long term) if he played Pollyanna instead of Eeyore.

Obama's approval ratings would be farther down as he'd be looking like a dishonest, out of touch, imbecile. And since Democrats hate Wall Street and Wall Street always gets its best returns under Republicans, that's exactly what they'd want. I mean, take a look at the stock market during the Bush years. From Jan 2001 to Jan 2009 it absolutely soared.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Something I agree with Palin on...

Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday threw her support behind a controversial bill that would generally require parental consent before girls under age 17 could get an abortion.

 

She called a press conference Thursday and surrounded by a dozen lawmakers including state Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole, and Sen. Donny Olson, D-Nome, said:

 

"Wherever you fall on the abortion issue, right or left, this legislation is about family, and it's about parents' rights and protecting our children, and it's supported by legislators on both sides of the aisle."

 

She said she's throwing her support behind Coghill's House Bill 35, which backers are calling "parents' rights" legislation.

 

The measure may have trouble in the state Senate, where Senate President Gary Stevens said months ago that "far left and far right issues" would be off the table for his coalition of Democrats and Republicans.

 

Sen. Hollis French, D-Anchorage and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he would give the bill a hearing. He hasn't yet analyzed it. Last year a similar bill died in his committee.

[southsider2k5]

But doesn't the market already know that "things are really bad?" Isn't that stark reality already factored in? I'm not naive enough to think that the President's words are meaningless, but it isn't like he's disclosing heretofore secret information. Things have been bleak for a long time now. I can accept that the market might be a little better off at the moment if he had taken a different tact to get the bill passed, but I have trouble comprehending how it would be appreciably better (especially long term) if he played Pollyanna instead of Eeyore.

 

He has an assload of spending plans he wants passed. In order to help pass them, he has to make things look as bad as possible. On top of that, most of the things he is trying to pass, are going to hurt Wall Street, and they know it. Wall Street reacts to the news, as well as the policy.

 

It isn't even that he has to bury his head in the sand, but if you contrast his message, with the message on the campaign trail, it is 180 degrees different. 4 months ago, it was about Hope and Change. Hope is gone all of the sudden. That whole optimism and inspiring people thing is out the window. Its sad when Ben Bernanke is inspriring more hope than Obama is.

[Balta1701]

Something I agree with Palin on...

Without explicitly taking sides, I will give the argument against it. I'd say it's likely the sort of homes where this would be an issue that tend to be ones where things aren't exactly the greatest. Otherwise, you'd expect that the child would be willing to speak to their parents about it in most cases.

 

In other words, that type of requirement gives a child in a broken home who makes a mistake, which probably directly relates to the fact that they're in a broken home, a choice between having the child and putting it in an even worse environment or going to the parent and getting herself beaten senseless or worse.

[southsider2k5]

Something I agree with Palin on...

 

Its amazing, but you need more parential permission to take an asprin in a school than you do for an abortion at a clinic. I don't know about right or wrong, but it is pretty mindblowing to me.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Its amazing, but you need more parential permission to take an asprin in a school than you do for an abortion at a clinic. I don't know about right or wrong, but it is pretty mindblowing to me.

totally agree

[NorthSideSox72]

He has an assload of spending plans he wants passed. In order to help pass them, he has to make things look as bad as possible. On top of that, most of the things he is trying to pass, are going to hurt Wall Street, and they know it. Wall Street reacts to the news, as well as the policy.

 

It isn't even that he has to bury his head in the sand, but if you contrast his message, with the message on the campaign trail, it is 180 degrees different. 4 months ago, it was about Hope and Change. Hope is gone all of the sudden. That whole optimism and inspiring people thing is out the window. Its sad when Ben Bernanke is inspriring more hope than Obama is.

I really don't know where some of you guys are getting this. You YOURSELVES have pointed out how bad the economy is, and done so in much more strident terms than Obama has. If anything, I think Obama is understating the many dangers involved here.

 

SS, you and I may disagree a lot, but usually I can understand your perspective. But this is just ridiculous to me. Hope, as Obama portrays it, is right where it has been, if you watch him speak. Now, the media likes to pick out his most dire statements, of course. Makes better "news". But the idea that Obama is somehow abandoning his identity and overstating how bad the economy is to get more spending in, is just ludicrous.

 

ETA: I am not saying its ludicrous that he'd want to push his agenda, including its spending. Just saying that the idea of him making things appear worse than they are to get it done is not accurate.