As Expected, Obama to Spend More Time "Campaigning" Than Negotiating Budget

Originally posted by Deetermined
So, rather than getting input from Labor leaders, it looks like Obama spent most of his time telling them about his own plan

Well then it looks like he's showing leadership qualities for a change.

As Expected, Obama to Spend More Time "Campaigning" Than Negotiating Budget

Obama has started the campaign for the 2014 mid term elections.

He and underlings will use the "fiscal cliff" to continue the discrediting of Republicans.

Watch for the unrealistic language and amendments in any legislation and proposals about the fiscal cliff.

The grand set up will be to "bait" a Senate filibuster and maintain the "blame game" tactics.

IMO, the Democrats quietly want the tax cuts to expire completely.

Expiration will give the blame game the most punch.

And they will use the spending cuts as "blame game #2".

The big goal is to get a Democrat majority in the House and to gain more Senate seats in 2014.

If that happens, look out.

In the meantime, "blame game #3" will happen when unemployment goes up over 9% again.

Remember ...... the issues and failures are still the same.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Well then it looks like he's showing leadership qualities for a change.

There's a difference between leading by example and being a leading tyrant.

reply to post by kaylaluv

This is precisely the political tit for tat nonsense that will totally destroy the economy and the nation. Even his own supporters say how Republicans deserve it and this is just so jolly good. Well, tell that to a couple hundred thousand people in the defense industry whose Happy New Year is applying for Unemployment for the layoff the notices are just now being received in notice of.

The Political games were played for 8 years before Obama. Bush got his two terms for playing them and they tore this nation to pieces in a way never seen before he came along. Obama played the same "perpetual campaign" "perpetual crisis" B.S. Bush did. Fine... He got his two terms playing the same game.

Now, 12 years of playing this between two Presidents has the nation at the end of the margins for being able to come back without depression. At 12:01am Jan 2nd, not one thing about politics will matter to anyone who loses their ability to feed their family......and unless the Republicans AND Democrats can work together, that happens automatically.

Fight about EVERYTHING else. Whatever. This ONE issue though has a very tight deadline on it and it's a doomsday deal BOTH sides made together, never expecting it would actually come to pass and not be fixed long before. There's nothing political in economic Crash and Obama won....there is nothing to lose now but the nation's future.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Well then it looks like he's showing leadership qualities for a change.

There's a difference between leading by example and being a leading tyrant.

One has to be delusional to call the milky toast that Obama is a "tyrant". He has been yielding to the unyielding Rebubs for some time now, how the hell anyone with half a brain can call him that?

If he finally grew a pair, more power to him and I applaud him for that.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

The Political games were played for 8 years before Obama. Bush got his two terms for playing them and they tore this nation to pieces in a way never seen before he came along. Obama played the same "perpetual campaign" "perpetual crisis" B.S. Bush did. Fine... He got his two terms playing the same game.

That's because Bush (and his cronies) were playing for the wrong stuff - to get themselves more power and richer. I see Obama playing for the right stuff - trying to fix Bush's mistakes.

12 years of playing this between two Presidents has the nation at the end of the margins for being able to come back without depression. At 12:01am Jan 2nd, not one thing about politics will matter to anyone who loses their ability to feed their family......and unless the Republicans AND Democrats can work together, that happens automatically.

The last 4 years, it's been the Republicans that have been playing most of the games - trying to make Obama a one-term president, and throwing America over a cliff in their attempts. Obama has got nothing to lose now, so he'll throw the Republicans over the cliff in order to save America, unless they work with him. More power to him.

Fight about EVERYTHING else. Whatever. This ONE issue though has a very tight deadline on it and it's a doomsday deal BOTH sides made together, never expecting it would actually come to pass and not be fixed long before. There's nothing political in economic Crash and Obama won....there is nothing to lose now but the nation's future.

Tell THAT to the Republican party.

Originally posted by Nite_wing
Please somebody explain to me.

Why is it that if I want to keep my money it is called greed.
When someone else wants my money, they say they are entitled to it.
..

I am so confused.

Lets see if I can help you out.

You are a wealthy business owner, you have 5 buddies who work blue-collar jobs.

Your 5 buddies gave you money, invested to get your business off the ground.

Then hard times hit. You tell them that your business is failing...and not only will you go broke, but they will lose every penny of what littel remains of thier investment that they are counting on to retire some day. Calamity! They need to scrape up every penny and give more or we are all screwed. They believe you...they dig deeper...you get a bailout.

A year later your business is doing great again and you guys all go out to dinner to celebrate. They eat soup, can't afford much else...you order the lobster and chow down. No one asks about thier money, they trust you will get it back to them soon and aren't just sitting on it collecting interest...of course they are wrong.

The bill arrives and you divide equally by 6...one guy says that doesn't seem fair...after all we lent you money after you lost our first investment, we haven't seen a dime of that money come back to us, you have been keeping it and collecting interest and you sat here eating Lobster while we ate soup....instead of dividing the bill 6 ways...how about you pay your fair share just this once!

For that you call your buddy greedy...envious...a taker..a socialist...a hater of success ...and scream what is mine is mine.

reply to post by Indigo5


What sense did any of that make?

If you think a wealthy business owner has his middle class buddies investing more in his business than he is, you're delusional.

reply to post by Deetermined


All BS aside Det...It is difficult to have a conversation with someone either denying or entirely ignorant of basic economics.

When a business grows or struggles, they take loans. That money doesn't magically appear. Even Bain Capital invested other people's money...and that money derives from Banks and Investment firms...Savings accounts and 401ks of the middle class. When those same banks couldn't get thier money back from those investments in the crash...the government bailed them out with MORE middle class money...Bailouts. So the middle class lost thier original investment and then further money in the bailouts. The recipients promised to invest and restart growth and hiring...that the money would be returned. Instead they parked it to collect interest at historically low tax rates.

That said, I can't fathom you acknowledging even basic economics or finance, idealogical fever rarely affords for rational discussion, so will leave you with the last word here.

I'll tell you this...I own two businesses and also own 3 office buildings, renting to about 18 different businesses...I am well over the income tax rate that I believe should be raised...cuz I know my long-term success depends on a healthy middle-class. So the whole idea that you would inform me somehow of how wealthy business owners think or operate seems a bit silly to me.

reply to post by Indigo5


First of all, it would help if you gave us your definition of middle class.

When the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of our taxes, it's hard to say that bank bailouts were paid for with middle class money. So, where is your line?

Secondly, as a business owner, do you have investors and shareholders that collectively hold more stake in your businesses than you?

As for owning buildings in which business are paying you rent, it's not like they aren't getting anything for their money. You're still the one responsible for maintenance, insurance, property taxes, taxes on rent income, etc., so I don't know what you're getting at here.

Originally posted by Deetermined

When the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of our taxes, it's hard to say that bank bailouts were paid for with middle class money. So, where is your line?

The vast bulk of taxes paid in this country are not via income tax...it's payroll tax...state tax...tax everytime you buy a candy bar, gas, groceries ...anythnig. And considering that 90% of this country does that 9 times more often than the 10%, the 90% of Americans pay much more in taxes than the 10%...everyday taxes adn payroll taxes.

9 people buy groceries...9 people buy gas...9 people buy anything and everything every day.
vs.
1 Millionaire buying gas...1 millionaire buying groceries

Which group paid more tax on everyday living?

Extrapolate that to everything plus payroll taxes.

Who pays more in taxes?

80% of the taxes collected in this country are not through Federal Income tax.

Again math vs. partisan idealogy...I'm OK with being wrong, but idealogical BS that demands I abandon logic or basic math? Not interested. That whole propaganda that somehow 10% of the country pays the taxes for the rest fails basic math...not partisan...not idealogy...MATH and LOGIC....and I won't sacrifice my thinking centers to any political BS.

reply to post by Indigo5


That's funny, I thought we were talking about businesses, federal taxes and bailouts.

Regardless, I'll address a comment you made earlier about the banks not lending money in order to create jobs.

I still don't think the banks are in a position to lend, regardless of all the rosy reports that come out.

Regulations are much stricter on who to lend to and starting in January, Basel III kicks in making their capital requirements go up even more.

Supposedly, the big banks have paid back most if not all of the bailout to the Treasury, but I think they paid the money back with loans from the Federal Reserve. Rest assured, the Federal Reserve will get it's money back before the American people see any of it.

If anyone thinks that the banks are really in a better position than they were before, I think they're kidding themselves. If for any reason I'm wrong, I can't help but think that the banks are hoarding their money in order to prepare for a larger financial collapse that will start in Europe. The big banks are heavily invested overseas. They're also being forced to purchase treasuries and mortgage backed securities on a regular basis.

I don't expect any of this to change, even with higher income taxes on the wealthy. The next collapse, which I expect to see in 2013-2014, will wipe out a larger percentage of the wealthy than the last crisis.

Originally posted by Deetermined
I don't expect any of this to change, even with higher income taxes on the wealthy. The next collapse, which I expect to see in 2013-2014, will wipe out a larger percentage of the wealthy than the last crisis.

The only "wealthy" that were wiped out in the financial crisis were all running scams...where they were living off other peoples money, running Pyramid schemes etc. When the markets crashed and everybody came asking for thier money at the same time...they were exposed. Bernie Madoff being the largest example of this...having stolen more money than any scam artist on the globe...at least that got caught. Many others ran for it...remember those stories about those "investors" faking thier own deaths or making a break to south America?

My poin is, we won't see a repeat of that in a second crash since most of those crooks were outed just a few years ago.

As far as a 2013 crisis...our natural course if recovery, slower than anyone likes, but recovery. The only thing that will disrupt that is the Fiscal Cliff, so if the GOP opts to serve Grover Norquist, then yes we will double-dip.

If a deal isn't reached...recession...it will likely kill off a large chunk of the middle class so close to the first recession. It will also kill off the TP and a large chunk of the struggling GOP as ..wether you think they deserve it or not...Americans will blame them. The polls have shown that without question.

So the long knives are out in DC and the cliff is comming. The only survival plan I see for the GOP is making a deal. We will see.

So I guess pointing out for the millionth time that taxing the rich will be a drop in the bucket compared to the drastic overspending by the government will just be ignored by liberals again.

Ask any liberal and you'd think raising the tax rate on the top 1% is going to eliminate the deficit fix the economy and bring harmony to the world.

If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit.

Our national debt would continue to explode. It’s the spending, stupid."

www.forbes.com...

Originally posted by jjkenobi
www.forbes.com...

Did you notice how much of the article is a conjecture? Meh.

Of course taxing the rich won't solve all of our fiscal problems, but it will have an impact, which combined with spending cuts (which would happen sooner or later) will have a chance to push the curve in the right direction.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You might also notice the numbers are based on raising rates for those making over 1 M vs. 250k...but I am bit exhausted pointing out where folks fudge the math.

reply to post by Indigo5


You must have forgotten that Obama based his campaign around raising taxes on those making over $1 million. Joe Biden even mentioned it again in the V.P. debate.

I can only assume that Obama brought it back down to those who make $250,000 a year or more based on allowing himself room to negotiate with Republicans to make it look like he's compromising.

reply to post by Indigo5

The only "wealthy" that were wiped out in the financial crisis were all running scams

Not true. There were plenty of real estate investors who lost their a$$ in the last crisis.

As for 2013, it's not just our fiscal cliff that could send the U.S. into a downward spiral. Keep your eyes on Europe. The Federal Reserve has invested plenty in European banks and the U.S. banks have much invested in the form of derivatives over there as well.

What has also been conspicuously missing in most public commentary thus far concerning the J.P. Morgan losses is what is the source of the $2 billion derivatives-credit default swap losses? What specific speculative CDS trades lay behind the $2 billion? Was it speculation in global commodities – which have recently gone bust? Was it gold futures speculation? Oil futures insurance contracts? Or perhaps European periphery states’ (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Latvian, etc.) sovereign debt CDSs? Or was it CDS ‘bets’ placed in US markets or Brazilian or other currencies? European securities speculation is the most likely source, given that J.P. Morgan’s big trader – sometimes called the ‘London Whale’ appears responsible for much of the $2 billion in losses.

truth-out.org...

Originally posted by Deetermined
The Federal Reserve has invested plenty in European banks and the U.S. banks have much invested in the form of
derivatives over there as well.

You see, if commercial banking was properly insulated from investment banking, trading derivatives and other exposure to risk wouldn't be that much of a problem. Think of Glass–Steagall. Both parties are squarely guilty of undermining this important regulation item.

In other words, if the trading arm of an investment bank gambles and goes kaput, this shouldn't be a problem for population at large.

Update on Obama's whopping 90 minute meeting today with business leaders:

Cote was among 12 CEOs of the nation's largest companies who met with President Obama on Wednesday to talk about the fiscal cliff. The CEOs rushed out of the White House about 90 minutes after the meeting started. They all declined to talk to the media except Xerox (XRX, Fortune 500) CEO Ursula Burns, who said the meeting went well.

money.cnn.com...

I'm guessing Ms. Ursula Burns from Xerox didn't have more than that to say today after these statements that came out yesterday...

On Tuesday, Xerox provided some details of that restructuring: By the end of the year, 2,500 current employees will be former employees.

More info on Xerox's restructuring...

Examples of the services Xerox now provides include automating payments for governments and processing claims for insurers as more consumers choose to view documents electronically.

So, while their helping governments and insurers...

"We have a cost issue, not a revenue issue," Blodgett said. He outlined the restructuring plan and said Xerox also will use more low-cost labor, meaning workers overseas and those who work out of their homes.

And while no one had much to say after exiting the meeting, Walmart's CEO, Mike Duke wrote up a press release basically repeating everything everyone's been saying for the last two years...

“We encourage the White House and Congress to work together on an approach that includes additional revenue, comprehensive tax reform, and spending cuts, including entitlement reforms, to get our fiscal house in order while creating economic growth.”

news.walmart.com...

blah, blah, blah....

Meanwhile, back at the ranch in Arkansas...

Wal-Mart Stores' U.S. employees will pay between 8 percent and 36 percent more in premiums for its medical coverage in 2013, prompting some of the 1.4 million workers at the nation's largest private employer to say they will forego coverage altogether.

www.cnbc.com...