Late Night Democrat Only Negotiations = Final Stimulus Bill

[Count Chocula]

Several posts have already knocked down the "substance" of this alleged argument. In addition, each previous version of the stimulus bill has been put up for full public display at the website thomas.loc.gov. An emergency session to pass the final form of a bill which has been debated and in public scrutiny throughout that process does not violate the principle of transparency in government nor any promise by the Obama campaign along those lines.

I'm aware of that, and I spent about two hours reading the House version I downloaded from Thomas. The final version, if I may hyperbolize (is that a word?) from the proverbial smoke-filled room in the dead of night, was some $40 billion less than the House version. Lower? Yes. Good thing. Reallocated? Substantially different than the versions passed by the House and Senate? Unknown, and now there's no time left to look at the thing. Which, not to put too fine a point on it, is in direct contradiction to Congress' resolution to have it open for review 48 hours prior to vote.

Your evidence that Obama is engaging in corrupt practises right now, please.

I did not say Obama was engaging in corrupt practices right now, and frankly it's a bit disingenuous of you to say something like that when the guy's only been President for three weeks. Whatever he did to encourage banks to follow CRA was, I'm sure, within the law; he is a trained lawyer, after all.

So far, three weeks into the administration, I'm seeing "Hope" = "more" and "Change" = "of the same." In other words, par for the course. +780 billion $$$.

[ray245]

So far, three weeks into the administration, I'm seeing "Hope" = "more" and "Change" = "of the same." In other words, par for the course. +780 billion $$$.

I have to ask you, what kind of changes can be considered as change?

[D.Turtle]

So far, three weeks into the administration, I'm seeing "Hope" = "more" and "Change" = "of the same." In other words, par for the course. +780 billion $$$.

So, $780 Billion, of which about a third is various spending items, a third is aid, and a third is a tax cut mainly benefiting those with a lower income (its a flat amount, which means you benefit more the less you earn) is the same as a several trillion dollar tax cut for the richest 1%?

Banning torture is the same as allowing torture?
Invading a country is the same as leaving a country?
Having members of the opposition party in your cabinet is the same as not having them?
Enabling women to sue if they earn less for the same work is the same as doing everything to stop that?
Actually addressing a crisis is doing the same as simply hoping it will go away?
Supporting health care for children (S-CHIP) is the same as vetoing it?
Telling other countries (Iran and North Korea among others) that you are willing to negotiate with them is the same as telling them "do as I say or fuck off"?

Frankly, you're full of shit.

Like all right-wingers in the US.

[Simplicius]

So far, three weeks into the administration, I'm seeing "Hope" = "more" and "Change" = "of the same." In other words, par for the course. +780 billion $$$.

"What's that? Obama is a politician with a policy agenda who wants to see that agenda accomplished? He isn't the magical sparkly strawman that right-wing 'tards constantly compare him to? Shock!"

If you have to distort slogans into promises to bolster your criticism of Obama, well, that's your problem. Other, more intelligent people have managed to construct effective criticisms - in this thread, even - using substance alone.

[CmdrWilkens]

Going back to the transparency debate it really is a matter that Obama, smartly, promised no mroe than he can deliver which is a public posting AFTER passage but BEFORE signature. Since he has the ability to negotiate with Congress but does not control the apparatus we know of as "Thomas" there is no actual ability on the part of the White House to control when the text of a bill goes online prior to its passage. Certainly his team hasn't fully kept this promise yet but they are also running up against the huge mess which is the federal IT infrastructure which is an entangled web of user privledges, software liscenes, workarounds for record keeping purposes, and outdated hardware.

[Patrick Degan]

Several posts have already knocked down the "substance" of this alleged argument. In addition, each previous version of the stimulus bill has been put up for full public display at the website thomas.loc.gov. An emergency session to pass the final form of a bill which has been debated and in public scrutiny throughout that process does not violate the principle of transparency in government nor any promise by the Obama campaign along those lines.

I'm aware of that, and I spent about two hours reading the House version I downloaded from Thomas. The final version, if I may hyperbolize (is that a word?) from the proverbial smoke-filled room in the dead of night, was some $40 billion less than the House version. Lower? Yes. Good thing. Reallocated? Substantially different than the versions passed by the House and Senate? Unknown, and now there's no time left to look at the thing. Which, not to put too fine a point on it, is in direct contradiction to Congress' resolution to have it open for review 48 hours prior to vote.

Which vote, precisely? There were three right up to the final negotiation phase to produce the version headed for the president's desk and nothing is being hidden, no matter how much you and Krauser like to bleat to the contrary as part of some "gotcha" game.

Your evidence that Obama is engaging in corrupt practises right now, please.

I did not say Obama was engaging in corrupt practices right now, and frankly it's a bit disingenuous of you to say something like that when the guy's only been President for three weeks. Whatever he did to encourage banks to follow CRA was, I'm sure, within the law; he is a trained lawyer, after all.

Uh uh. You stated as FACT your inferences that Obama was engaging in corrupt practises by virtue of a) being in Chicago and b) being an attorney for ACORN, and left the clear suggestion that the man was a crook. Now you start backpedaling when you get called on your bullshit and think you're simply going to skate away from your own words. Doesn't work that way around here, boy.

So far, three weeks into the administration, I'm seeing "Hope" = "more" and "Change" = "of the same." In other words, par for the course. +780 billion $$$.

And this has been knocked down in a previous post as well. The fact that this administration is taking proactive measures to address a serious crisis instead of simply hoping things will fix themselves by giving more tax cuts to the top 1% alone marks a significant phase-change from the previous maladministration.

[Next of Kin]

Fact: Obama's political experience came from Chicago politics, which are widely recognized as being among the most corrupt in the nation.

Care to elaborate? Did Obama engage in any corrupt practices when he was the senator?

[General Zod]

Fact: Obama's political experience came from Chicago politics, which are widely recognized as being among the most corrupt in the nation.

Care to elaborate? Did Obama engage in any corrupt practices when he was the senator?

He doesn't actually have any proof that he was, so he's hoping that people will be stupid enough to connect the dots in the way he wants and accept the thinly veiled implication that Obama was in fact corrupt by virtue of coming from a city known for hardball politics.

[Darth Wong]

Don't be too hard on Count Chocula, guys. I'd be good money that he's just mindlessly repeating "talking points" he found on right-wing websites anyway. I know a copy-paste right-wing argument when I smell one.

[Next of Kin]

Chocula must have picked it up the corruption/association from some Rush Limbaugh blatherings...

[Count Chocula]

Who's this Rush guy you're all going on about? Do we have proof, or even hints, that Obama engaged in corrupt Chicago Blago-style politics? No. In retrospect, I should have prefaced that line "Hyperbole" instead of "Fact;" my bad. Rather than infer that, since Obama learned politics in Chicago he's corrupt, I will infer and insinuate that he learned the methods used in Chicago politics, and facing intense pressure to get this bill passed, may have (this is my speculation only) remembered those lessons. However, upon further thought, I'm now starting to suspect he's removed from this and it's actually Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling the strings on this spending. If so, that's not to his advantage.

No, I don't listen to Rush Pill-Baugh, while like other hosts he does have intelligent thoughts he couches them too sensationally. He, and hosts like Hannity, have a rabble-rousing approach that leaves me cold. They're no more my cup of tea than Al Franken is.

More than the broken promises, or perception thereof, what bothers me is the sheer fucking magnitude of this spending and the source of funding. The 2009 federal budget was $3 trillion, with a huge deficit as a result of Bush's 09 budget and the various bailouts:

The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the federal budget deficit will hit an all-time high of 1.2 trillion dollars in the current fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, 2009.

The estimate doesn't include the cost of a huge economic stimulus bill that U.S. President-elect Barack Obama is seeking approval from Congress.

To pay for this, someone in the world will have to buy hundreds of billions more in Treasuries, from a Treasury and Fed that have already disbursed hundreds of billions of borrowed funds with no accounting of the funds, and who (Geithner) have threatened to directly interfere in the bond market. Will it be China or Japan, the largest foreign holders of US debt? Not fucking likely, they are already in financial trouble.

Clinton, Bush and Congress lit the fuse on this financial bomb (yes there are many others who assisted as well), and instead of going home to get the home's finances under control, Obama (and Congress) are acting like Las Vegas gamblers who have mortgaged their houses and already blown their kids' college funds, but are sitting at the table with a busted flush hoping for a miracle. Irresponsible does not begin to describe this; this package is not "hope and change," but simply a Democratic party slant on Bush's 2007-2008 spend-a-thon that my child and grandchildren will have to pay off.

[General Zod]

Who's this Rush guy you're all going on about? Do we have proof, or even hints, that Obama engaged in corrupt Chicago Blago-style politics? No. In retrospect, I should have prefaced that line "Hyperbole" instead of "Fact;" my bad. Rather than infer that, since Obama learned politics in Chicago he's corrupt, I will infer and insinuate that he learned the methods used in Chicago politics, and facing intense pressure to get this bill passed, may have (this is my speculation only) remembered those lessons. However, upon further thought, I'm now starting to suspect he's removed from this and it's actually Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling the strings on this spending. If so, that's not to his advantage.

There's been a lot of bitching on various right wing sites about Pelosi blocking House Republicans from discussions regarding the bill, so if these have any kind of substance behind them it wouldn't be too much of a massive shock. Course these just might be over-inflated accusations as usual, it's hard to say.

Also, Chicago Blago-style politics? LOLOLOL. Sorry, but "Chicago politics" outdates Blago by at least 50 years if not more.

[Patrick Degan]

Clinton, Bush and Congress lit the fuse on this financial bomb (yes there are many others who assisted as well), and instead of going home to get the home's finances under control, Obama (and Congress) are acting like Las Vegas gamblers who have mortgaged their houses and already blown their kids' college funds, but are sitting at the table with a busted flush hoping for a miracle. Irresponsible does not begin to describe this; this package is not "hope and change," but simply a Democratic party slant on Bush's 2007-2008 spend-a-thon that my child and grandchildren will have to pay off.

Uh uh. Bush's approach was to simply throw money at the banks and "hope" that they'd do the right thing while he and everybody else kept their eyes closed and counted to ten billion, and if it just happened to finance the golden parachutes of his pals in the finance world, well that's just bidness. The stimulus bill which just passed is far more proactive towards attempting to right the jobs and credit situations, with far more oversight over the banks than either Bush or Paulson wanted to think about and sets firm caps on CEO pay.

Anything else from talking-point central you wish to air in place of an actual argument?

[Darth Wong]

Clinton, Bush and Congress lit the fuse on this financial bomb (yes there are many others who assisted as well), and instead of going home to get the home's finances under control, Obama (and Congress) are acting like Las Vegas gamblers who have mortgaged their houses and already blown their kids' college funds, but are sitting at the table with a busted flush hoping for a miracle. Irresponsible does not begin to describe this; this package is not "hope and change," but simply a Democratic party slant on Bush's 2007-2008 spend-a-thon that my child and grandchildren will have to pay off.

Not necessarily. All you have to do is back off your ridiculous military spending and raise your taxes. Hell, the stimulus could have been cut to 40% smaller if the right-wingers didn't insist on adding a shitload of tax cuts to it.

Is it really such a shocking thing to say? RAISE YOUR TAXES. It's painful but it has to be done. Especially on the upper class, who have been laughing all the way to the bank under Bush and who now need to start pitching in to help the less fortunate. The problem is that the American people themselves are accustomed to being told they can have their cake and eat it too, and they won't stand for it.

And yes, you're part of the problem. After all, your statements are only correct if we add the implicit disclaimer "ruling out any tax increases" to the end of every sentence. And you would probably vote down any tax increase if you had the choice.

[D.Turtle]

This is where the following article becomes relevant:

A Rich Income in ’06 Was $263 Million

Article Tools Sponsored By
By LYNNLEY BROWNING
Published: January 29, 2009

The income of the 400 wealthiest Americans swelled in 2006, soaring nearly 23 percent from the previous year, to an average of $263 million, according to data released Thursday by the Internal Revenue Service. Since 1996, this group has nearly doubled its share of all income earned in the United States.

The top 400 paid just more than $18 billion in federal income taxes in 2006, or an average of $45 million, on a record $105 billion in total income — the lowest effective tax rate in the 15 years since the agency began releasing such data.

That compares with nearly $1 trillion paid by all other individual taxpayers in 2006.

The gains for the richest took place amid a booming economy, in which hedge funds and private equity firms blossomed and the subprime lending machine went into high gear.

The rising wealth of the nation’s richest taxpayers will most likely intensify debate among tax and policy analysts about the equitability of the tax code, which analysts say favors the ultrawealthy.

Tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration that benefit the wealthy are set to expire by 2011.

“Until recently, we had a financial system that rewarded investors, and we have a tax system that does as well,” said Robert S. McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice.

Now wealthy people, he said, pay income tax rates well below those of working-class citizens because of a myriad of tax breaks. A lower capital gains tax, now at 15 percent, down from 28 percent in 1997, benefits investors with big portfolios.

The average adjusted gross income in 2006 of more than $263 million for the top 400 taxpayers compared with an average of $214 million in 2005. It was three and a half times what they earned in 1996, which was $74 million.

And their average tax rate continued to a 15-year low of 17 percent.

But their contribution to federal coffers rose slightly, to nearly 1.8 percent of total contributions by all individual taxpayers. About 130 million taxpayers file returns each year.

The growth in income came primarily from dividends and interest income, not rising salaries and wages. Capital gains income jumped to 63 percent of the adjusted gross income of the richest 400, up from 58 percent in the previous year.

As a percentage of their income, salaries and wages fell to 7.4 percent of their total income, down from more than 12.5 percent just two years earlier. But taxable interest as a percentage of their income rose to nearly 7.8 percent, the highest level since the dot-com boom era of 1995.

The higher income also came from a sharp rise in claims for foreign tax credits, typically through privately owned entities. Such claims rose in 2006 to an average $2.5 million from $1.7 million the year earlier, and quadruple the level in 1996.

More than half, or nearly 54 percent, of all the itemized deductions taken by the wealthiest were related to their charitable contributions, a figure roughly unchanged since 1996.

And while the top 400 wealthiest earned more deductions from their charitable contributions, such gifts still account for just 5.19 percent of all itemized charitable contributions by all taxpayers.

17% effective tax rate. Triple that, and you already have an additional 36 Billion Dollars - just from the richest 400.