It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bobby Jindal refuses Obama’s payout for Louisiana

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I just called Senator Landrieu's office in Washington, Her liaison for labor affairs, Angelique Roche, was not available, but I did leave a voice mail to see if I can get a copy of that report


If I get it, I'll post it!




posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


It's true, if no one spends money then even the rich can't profit, but at least they can still afford to keep on some staff while they keep businesses running as long as they can.

How does raising a businesses tax rate during a time of recession make sense? If the goal is to keep business doors open and as many people employed as long as possible so the economy continues to flow while you weather out the recession, then raising taxes on the business class would only serve to help kill businesses faster! It seems like Congress doesn't understand that you can't collect taxes on a business that you've forced out of business.

As for the free market, actually I've never stopped putting money into my 401k. In fact, I've increased my contributions lately, even though the overall value is still falling for now, but I've a long way to go before retirement. Things will turn around eventually. Right now things are just beginning to get ripe for buying.

[edit on 24-2-2009 by sos37]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
It's true, if no one spends money then even the rich can't profit, but at least they can still afford to keep on some staff while they keep businesses running as long as they can.


So, that's your argument? At lease their staff have jobs???

"Oh, I had to let my butler go last week, but at least I'm providing jobs for my personal trainer, my chef, my housekeeper and my driver. I'm doing my part"!



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


so is the cutting the AMT bad...

cause its in there



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Those rich folks that everyone love to hate are the ones that invest their money which in turn creates business which in turn creates jobs.

Atlas shrugged is fiction, but it's very accurate when it comes to cause and effects on the economy. Read up everyone.


"Atlas Shrugged"
Where Ayn Rand proposes that civilization would stagnate without a profit motive, that acting in ones own self interest is what is best for everybody.

Selflessness and charity a waste and in fact counterproductive to advancing a society.

A book cherished more than the bible by wall street executives ....Madoff and Stanford and the rest...

Giving more money to the rich does not create jobs.

Trickle Down Theorey aka "Reagononomics"...Or as George Bush Senior called it "Voodoo Economics"

Trickle-down economics" and "trickle-down theory" are terms of political rhetoric that refer to the policy of providing tax cuts or other benefits to businesses and rich individuals....Today "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or supply-side economics.
en.wikipedia.org...

I recieved my degree in economics and can tell you with certaintity that even the folks on Reagans staff who pushed reagonomics agree it doesn't work...along with a staggering majority of economists on the left and right.

It is only when politics enter the equation does anyone make a case for it.

What does create jobs...hard work and innovation, new technology and euntrepenurial risk taking, education. Real growth.

Give the rich more money and....the rich have more money.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Stimulus is all or Nothing Deal, says Schumer

Chuck Schumer has written a letter to Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, about these governors who are "cherry-picking" from the stimulus package...



As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation. It would also undermine the overall success of the bill, as the components most singled out for criticism by these governors are among the most productive measures in terms of stimulating the economy.

For instance, at least two governors have proposed rejecting a program to expand unemployment insurance for laid-off workers. Economists consistently rank unemployment insurance among the most efficient and cost-effective fiscal stimulus measures; by one frequently cited estimate, it provides an economic return of as high as $1.73 for every dollar invested. Thus, by denying this provision for their residents, these governors are not just depriving some of the neediest Americans of relief in a dire economy; they are undermining the overall stimulative impact of the package.

No one would dispute that these governors should be given the choice as to whether to accept the funds or not. But it should not be multiple choice. The composition of the package was rightly dictated by economic considerations; we should not let the implementation of the package be dictated by political considerations.


So, if this goes anywhere, the Republican grandstanders might have to stand down. If it will undermine the purpose of the stimulus, I can understand the concern.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


That depends on how long they are collecting the dole. I think as we've allowed more and more unproductive people into this country, more and more would rather sit on their azzes and collect benefits. That may be a sad statement, but that is reality and what this country is coming too.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I keep thinking that these bankers are partially responsible for this mess we're in because they loaned money to people, knowing they couldn't pay it back,


Banks do not want to give loans to people that they know won't pay it back. It's against their nature. They are in business to make money. The reason that banks were FORCED to give loans to bad risks was because of OBAMA and his ACORN group and Barney Frank and people like them.

Obama sued Citibank under the CRA laws and FORCED them through intimidation tactics to give bad loans.

If you want to know who is to blame for this economic mess, take a long hard look at Obama, ACORN, and Barney Frank at the same time you are looking at executive salaries.


I keep forgetting the wealthy are the good guys and we should be thankful to them...

Wealthy people are just like anyone else. There are the good and the not so good. To lump everyone in together simply because of their financial status is no different then lumping all black people together because of the color of their skin.

To want to destroy the financial status of the top wealth earners in this country just because of jealousy or just because you wish to impose your own sense of morality on everyone else .. that will just bankrupt the country. Wealthy people invest. Those investments create business' and jobs. That's just the way it works.


Originally posted by maybereal11
Giving more money to the rich does not create jobs.

Rich industrialists aren't 'given' money. They have earned it.
Also - those who inherit money have a right to it.
Jealousy is not an excuse to take money away from those who have it.
Imposing our own morals upon those with money is just that - imposing our own morals.

(and no ... I'm not one of those who 'have it' )

We have no business telling someone else if we think they have made too much money or what they should do with their profits. It's THEIR money.

If we don't like what they have or what they are doing, then we stop doing business with them and their profits suffer. That's what a free market is supposed to be about. (After Bush43 and Obama, this country is no longer a true free market, is it??)


What does create jobs...hard work and innovation, new technology and euntrepenurial risk taking, education. Real growth.

Which is what Ayn Rand said. Atlas Shrugged. Who is John Galt??

How do you get new business ... innovation .. new technology ... euntrepenurial risks .. education? By people with money INVESTING.

Bail outs and faux-stimulus packages are NOT rewarding hard work, innovation, euntrepenurial risk, education or new technology. These reward the parasites, the lazy, those who make bad products (Detroit), pet projects of politicians (Pelosi's mice), business ventures that don't flourish in a free market .... etc etc



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Banks do not want to give loans to people that they know won't pay it back. It's against their nature.


No, they make the loans then sell the mortgage to someone else and let them worry about getting the money back. You do realize that, don't you?



If you want to know who is to blame for this economic mess, take a long hard look at Obama,


You really have yourself convinced that this is Obama's fault, even though it started back in the 1990s? Whoa... That's amazing. :shk:



To want to destroy the financial status of the top wealth earners in this country just because of jealousy or just because you wish to impose your own sense of morality on everyone else .. that will just bankrupt the country.


I don't know where you're getting the crazy ideas that I want to destroy anything or that I'm jealous of something or that there's anything about morality involved in my position, but you're wrong on all three. Sorry, I don't know what to say.



We have no business telling someone else if we think they have made too much money or what they should do with their profits. It's THEIR money.


I don't care how much money someone makes. I do want them to take on the responsibilities of caring for their employees and their businesses and to pay their fair share of taxes, though. I want them to not cheat on their taxes, use loophools and tax shelters to avoid paying their fair part as determined by the tax laws. That's not morality, that's law. If they're not willing to do that, which many of them clearly aren't, then they should pay the consequences.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
The fact is we live in the Era of Double Standards. The government is spawning more and more brainless, lazy Yes we can chanting morons.

As long as Obama can victimize people, he will stay in office as the nation gets poor and those bags in DC get richer.

BH, you are the lip service for this administration. If there was a mascot for Obama, you would be it.

Can you please tell us something intelligent about Obama without looking at CNN, what someone else said, or that chanting Obamanaut voice in your head?

I'm trying to come by as polite as I can, because I just can't take anything your saying serious.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Injustice for All
BH, you are the lip service for this administration. If there was a mascot for Obama, you would be it.


I am not the lip service for anyone. I am voicing my opinion, just like everyone else here.
If my position disturbs you to the point that you feel compelled to call me names, that just tells me that my opinion is getting out there effectively and your only recourse against it is not to argue my points with intelligent, effective points of your own, but to resort to ad hominem attacks against me personally.

That's weak.



I'm trying to come by as polite as I can, because I just can't take anything your saying serious.


If that's the best you can do at being polite, you have a lot to learn. If I cared whether or not you took me seriously, I might do something about it. But I don't. I'm not here to act like something I'm not in order to gain approval from people I don't even know. I'm here to share my opinion. What you think of it is irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Its a crock and nothing but grandstanding... unemployment has been extended before and the states didn't have to change anything because of it.

I listened to his response last night and it was the most vacaous tripe I've heard since Sarah Palin last opened her mouth...

... he is obviously posturing for a bid in 2012 that's why half of his speech was spent talking about himself...

The rest of his speech could be summed up in 6 words... tax cuts and Americans can do anything... anyone have a count of how many times he said that one.

The Republican party as it stands right now is totally devoid of ideas and their tax cut mantra sounds like a broken record...

... no wonder they are still sinking in the polls.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by maybereal11
Giving more money to the rich does not create jobs.

Rich industrialists aren't 'given' money. They have earned it.
Also - those who inherit money have a right to it.
Jealousy is not an excuse to take money away from those who have it.
Imposing our own morals upon those with money is just that - imposing our own morals.

(and no ... I'm not one of those who 'have it' )

We have no business telling someone else if we think they have made too much money or what they should do with their profits. It's THEIR money.

If we don't like what they have or what they are doing, then we stop doing business with them and their profits suffer. That's what a free market is supposed to be about.


Apparently you are very confused. No where did I state making money is bad..actually I didn't state any of the above????

I spoke to the effectiveness of Supply Side economics.

Making money is good...and if someone earns a great deal of it...great!!! I make no moral judegments about the wealthy.

* But you talk about EARNING money and what we have learned is that many businesses, banks and wealthy individuals were not EARNING money, but rather INVENTING it via ponzi schemes, fraud and outright stealling...from hard working Americans.

Do you know what a "Toxic Derivative" is. They FICTIONALIZED assets...mixed loans they knew were valueless with good loans and then defrauded investors by lying about what those pooled investments were worth.

This is BAD. I don't care if someone is rich...as long as they EARN it through innovation and hard work. Or even inherit it. But not FRAUD.

I think being wealthy is great...but a Tax Code designed to favor the wealthy via tax-breaks and loop holes puts a greater burden on honest tax payers and lower income folks. This is unfair.

No moral judgement on the wealthy here...what are you talking about?

AND YES...Reagonomics, Voodoo Economics, Supply Side Economics DOES NOT WORK...not a moral judgement, but rather a scientific fact that has been clearly demonstrated both theoretically and in a very real world way in the past!



[edit on 25-2-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Injustice for All
The fact is we live in the Era of Double Standards. The government is spawning more and more brainless, lazy Yes we can chanting morons.


Not really sure how to respond to an unsupported general insult upon anyone that supported President Obama...I could state the fact that Obama supporters mobilized the largest grass roots presidential campaign in the history of USA..and that seems in stark contrast to "Lazy"...or I could simply say that your statement appears "Brainless" and "Moronic"...but that would be offensive..right?


Originally posted by Injustice for All
BH, you are the lip service for this administration. If there was a mascot for Obama, you would be it.

Have you followed her posts? She has been honest and even critical of President Obama. BH voice is a voice of reason supported by facts in stark contrast to unfounded drivel...such as your post.


Originally posted by Injustice for All
Can you please tell us something intelligent about Obama without looking at CNN, what someone else said, or that chanting Obamanaut voice in your head?

I am confused...would you like BH to offer information about Obama or his policies without citing actual sources? If so then that explains alot about what you consider intelligent
There are plenty of posts here that will satisfy that need of yours for "intelligent" information ...maybe visit one of threads claiming he is the Anti-Christ.


Originally posted by Injustice for All
I'm trying to come by as polite as I can, because I just can't take anything your saying serious.


Yah...I know the feeling.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Jindal...I have seen alot of folks say he came across like Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock and I have a hard time disagreeing.

I have read about him and he strikes me as very ambitous and eager to trade any personal stance for that ambition. People that know and have been close to him have said the same...I can cite sources if someone needs them, but namely his Luetenant Gov. in New Orleans and recent financial backer/supporter for his last campaign.

I am a Democrat who believes strongly in the virtue of a multi-party system. Competition of differing views keeps people honest.

In other words...I want a healthy GOP and what I saw last night simply affirmed my belief that the GOP remains diseased. I don't think they even understand why they are sick yet.

They need to...stop pandering to the religious right. More headaches than votes.

Find a way to discuss reducing taxes without looking like they are protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and lower income folks.

Play ball with any initiatives from the President that even remotely makes sense...they need to claim more than "we voted against everything" in the next election and working with the president will give them clout to claim bipartisanship some measure of decision making skills in the next election.

Bridge the painfully apparent disconnect with the public. Everybody keeps repeating "they don't get it" and apparantly they still don't.

Jindal? Palin? The GOP can do much better.

That any many other things...Dear GOP...get better soon.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Fremd
 




I suppose you could stretch the definition of "threat" to include economic collapse but when the bulk of those troubles were caused by government you would have set the fed upon the task of dismantling itself as the threat.



So the government forced big business owners to buy buy buy, and squabble their money so that when THEIR bills came due they could not afford them?

i'm curious how you came to that conclusion....its funny how its the governments fault when big business fails, but its an individuals fault when they, themselves fail.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Injustice for All
The fact is we live in the Era of Double Standards. The government is spawning more and more brainless, lazy Yes we can chanting morons.

As long as Obama can victimize people, he will stay in office as the nation gets poor and those bags in DC get richer.



Hmm.

Im curious what makes you think that? Obama is a snob, is basically your approach (from how i read it, please correct me if im wrong)

If it is though - please tell us how Obama owning 1 house, raising a family, is being a snob?
Telling congressman to eat at McDonalds so they feel like the rest of Americans is not being snobbish. It is, however, calling out the people who are.

As far as "yes we can" being a negative thing.

I'd rather have a bunch of optimistic people chanting yes we can than have a bunch of idiots chanting "Mission Accomplished"




[edit on 25-2-2009 by Fremd]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 


Demands were made on lenders to supply bad loans under "equal housing" measures. When there was an initial protest by the lenders the system by which bad loans could be packaged and sold off was instated and then insured with psuedo governmental agencies like Freddie and Fannie.

You have to make bad loans they said.
Dont worry about losing money, we promise to buy the debt they said.

It's win~win for the lenders. Guaranteed huge returns and government insured security.

It worked until the notes came due. And here we are today.

Artificial demands were placed on the market and artificial incentives were created to gain favor for fulfilling the demands.

Obama has yet to apologize for his class-action suit forcing a bank to hand out bad loans. Until he apologizes I wont believe government has learned its lesson.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



Demands were made on lenders to supply bad loans under "equal housing" measures. When there was an initial protest by the lenders the system by which bad loans could be packaged and sold off was instated and then insured with psuedo governmental agencies like Freddie and Fannie.


Wow. The idea that you buy into that is astounding to me.

I know plenty of people who have been turned down for home loans. LOTS of people. I know lots of people who applied for student loans and got turned down, home loans, car loans just the same.

Not that they had bad credit, but they just didnt have "enough" credit.

If you honestly believe that a few banks giving out some bad loans is the cause of our current collapse, then i truly have sympathy for you.

Same goes for everyone reading this.

What we are in now is nothing more than the after effects of greedy business men and women who allowed their greed to option-out their common sense.

The businesses spent money they didnt have, and didnt anticipate having for decades (from home loans)

They made the decision to buy buy buy.

We have to live with the consequences.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Fremd
[more

Obama has yet to apologize for his class-action suit forcing a bank to hand out bad loans. Until he apologizes I wont believe government has learned its lesson.


Please check out www.ffiec.gov... to educate yourself on these topics. Read about the bill of which you think you know, and hopefully, it will open your eyes.


The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations
- source from link above.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join