(11-13-2012 05:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  SHHH! Don't want to end up like Petraeus

& his story ALL IN

(11-13-2012 05:22 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 05:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  SHHH! Don't want to end up like Petraeus

& his story ALL IN

In the generals defense he tried to only put the head in.

(11-13-2012 04:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 04:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, guys. you won the election. Now make something work. And I'll give you a hint, if the economy craters in the next four years, it didn't work.
If Obama can make the economy come back with his approach, then he is right and I am wrong. But it's not going to happen, particularly not if he gets his way on future legislation. If he somehow got his 28% tax on worldwide corporate earnings, that would be the absolute end of any US economy. Period.

I'm somewhat hopeful of a good compromise coming out of this election. Not assured, of course, but I think the chance for a compromise that will lead to real results is higher with this election outcome than the other way around.

My sources on Capitol Hill (bipartisan) tell me that probably 80% of congress (both houses, both sides of the aisle) pretty much agree what needs to be done, but the leadership (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, McConnell) keep getting in the way because they want to keep things polarized for political purposes. My sources expect that some subset of the Gang of Six will lead an effort toward reaching consensus on some basic issues, which is better than compromise. One source sees the leaders as being Baucus and Coburn, with Durbin along for the express purpose of keeping Obama out of the room until a deal is done.

I think Boehner has shown, given his post-election comments, that behind closed doors he is very open to meeting the Dems halfway. I get the impression from Obama that he is willing to do the same, he wants to be a Clinton and not a Carter for instance, but you're likely right about the rest of the leadership gang. I hope the quiet majority of the House and Senate can strongarm those extremists into accepting a good deal.

I've got more hope now in this than I've had in a long time.

(11-13-2012 05:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 04:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 04:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, guys. you won the election. Now make something work. And I'll give you a hint, if the economy craters in the next four years, it didn't work.
If Obama can make the economy come back with his approach, then he is right and I am wrong. But it's not going to happen, particularly not if he gets his way on future legislation. If he somehow got his 28% tax on worldwide corporate earnings, that would be the absolute end of any US economy. Period.

I'm somewhat hopeful of a good compromise coming out of this election. Not assured, of course, but I think the chance for a compromise that will lead to real results is higher with this election outcome than the other way around.

My sources on Capitol Hill (bipartisan) tell me that probably 80% of congress (both houses, both sides of the aisle) pretty much agree what needs to be done, but the leadership (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, McConnell) keep getting in the way because they want to keep things polarized for political purposes. My sources expect that some subset of the Gang of Six will lead an effort toward reaching consensus on some basic issues, which is better than compromise. One source sees the leaders as being Baucus and Coburn, with Durbin along for the express purpose of keeping Obama out of the room until a deal is done.

You man are a hoot!

(11-13-2012 05:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think Boehner has shown, given his post-election comments, that behind closed doors he is very open to meeting the Dems halfway. I get the impression from Obama that he is willing to do the same, he wants to be a Clinton and not a Carter for instance, but you're likely right about the rest of the leadership gang. I hope the quiet majority of the House and Senate can strongarm those extremists into accepting a good deal.

I've got more hope now in this than I've had in a long time.

I hope you're right about Boehner and Obama, but that's not what I'm hearing. I've basically been told we would have had a deal in 2011 if they had been able to keep Reid and Obama out of the room. And I don't think Boehner covered himself with glory either. Maybe they're all older and wiser now. But I'd still be more inclined to put my money on Baucus and Coburn executing and end run than on any of the leaders making any useful attempt to compromise.

And we don't need compromise, we need consensus. What I'm hearing is that the consensus will probably end up looking something like Bowles-Simpson. I'd be happy if that were enacted 100% tomorrow. But Obama has this huge dislike for lowering tax rates for upper incomes, so it may be a hard slog.

(11-13-2012 05:09 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Wall street rebounded, housing market is showing signs of rebounding, auto industry rebounded, one war ended, another ending, taxes cuts for the middle & lower classes continued, drug war is slowly ending, Osama's been taken out, immigration reform on the horizon, civil rights improvements (gay marriage, gays in military), job market improving, education finance reform, more people have access to healthcare.
Now if only he could make something work.

It's truly frightening that there are people who buy this narrative. The absolute best you can spin Obama is that he's an improvement over Shrub, and that's debatable.

Obama hates tax cuts for the rich because they don't work.

And that is a FACT!

(11-13-2012 04:02 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Owl, I haven't seen much of anything that would support your claims concerning the stimulus. The harshest criticisms I've ever seen levied against it were that it wasn't effective, which is a far from causing more economic problems.

It was very effective and laden with tax cuts (40% of the stimulus)

But, but, but.....tax cuts hurt the economy, or did you forget that? Can have it both ways.

(11-13-2012 07:55 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 04:02 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Owl, I haven't seen much of anything that would support your claims concerning the stimulus. The harshest criticisms I've ever seen levied against it were that it wasn't effective, which is a far from causing more economic problems.

It was very effective and laden with tax cuts (40% of the stimulus)

But, but, but.....tax cuts hurt the economy, or did you forget that? Can have it both ways.

Tax cuts for top earners do not have the same positive effects for the economy that tax cuts for the poor do.

Tax cuts for the poor? Which ones exactly

(11-13-2012 08:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 07:55 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 04:02 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Owl, I haven't seen much of anything that would support your claims concerning the stimulus. The harshest criticisms I've ever seen levied against it were that it wasn't effective, which is a far from causing more economic problems.

It was very effective and laden with tax cuts (40% of the stimulus)

But, but, but.....tax cuts hurt the economy, or did you forget that? Can have it both ways.

Tax cuts for top earners do not have the same positive effects for the economy that tax cuts for the poor do.

No, they have different positive effects. It depends on which effect you need at the time. As for the "Bush tax cuts" for the "wealthy," might as well let them expire. When you can pay 20-30% on income sourced in foreign jurisdictions, whether the US rate is 36% or 39.6% is not going to keep your investment here except in unusual circumstances.

This is what I find mind-boggling about the left. On the one hand leftists decry investment going offshore to escape US taxes and regulation. On the other hand they pretend that raising rates further and adding regulations will not chase more investment overseas. Those two don't go together.

And why do you suppose it is that the two bipartisan looks at this problem, Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, both recommend lowering rates in top brackets?

(11-13-2012 05:03 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Up on private, down on federal - is that not what the right wing wants? So Obama has been encouraging private enterprise and now you are complaining that the feds should be doing it.

Are you really that clueless? The feds aren't doing it anywhere.

(11-13-2012 03:46 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:44 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:35 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  As President Obama approaches greatness with the passage of immigration reform, Affordable Care Act and the Grand Bargain. He will be remembered most fondly for saving the economy by those sculpting his likeness on Mt. Rushmore.

Exactly what did he do to save the economy? The way I see it, the economy is fighting back against Obama and gained a little ground. This is hardly an accomplishment for the man who wants $5 gas and to see gas companies go bankrupt - those are his words, not mine.

His results however have been more oil production than was even dreamed possible 5 years ago and we will be the worlds # 1 producer by 2020 per todays WSJ

Exactly what did Obama do to bring about increased production?

(11-13-2012 09:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:46 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:44 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:35 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  As President Obama approaches greatness with the passage of immigration reform, Affordable Care Act and the Grand Bargain. He will be remembered most fondly for saving the economy by those sculpting his likeness on Mt. Rushmore.

Exactly what did he do to save the economy? The way I see it, the economy is fighting back against Obama and gained a little ground. This is hardly an accomplishment for the man who wants $5 gas and to see gas companies go bankrupt - those are his words, not mine.

His results however have been more oil production than was even dreamed possible 5 years ago and we will be the worlds # 1 producer by 2020 per todays WSJ

Exactly what did Obama do to bring about increased production?

He said it would, therefore, any increase that occurs comes from Obama's will. If no increase occurs, then Obama's will has evloved.

Now adjust for inflation and QE-Infinity and recalculate.