Printable View
Salary cap for executives.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29003620/
Extending healthcare for children.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29011620/
Keeps making good moves and helping things. And looks like the new Senate is doing a great job too. And we aren't muslim or communists yet lmao. Where's the griping?
Hopefully the Senate will do a good job and cut a lot of fat out of the House passed on the stimulus package. Isn't it amazing how the sides of flip flopped on the idea of a stimulus?
I feel pretty good about it all.
Of course there'll be back and forths and finger pointing about the stimulus, but it wouldn't be Congress if there wasn't!
The executive pay cap was a pretty intriguing proposal - make no salary higher thant he president's if you're getting taxpayer bailout. I would expect these companies being targeted would find a way to get around that somehow in red tape and papertrails(they managed to give out $18B in bonuses....)
At least the man is doing something. I feel good about the man at least trying.
He's been doing a pretty good job so far.
Its very early and he is trying to do a lot of things quickly. The first 100 days is always considered very important for a president. Lord knows I hope he does well. I hope any president does well. There's only two things that I can really critique at this time personally. One, he's gotten caught flipping a few of his own executive orders so far for staffers (ie lobbyist), and the other is what the President called a morality issue. On the same day if I am not mistaken, he said that Gitmo was morally wrong and wants it closed within a year. He went on to open back up an overseas abortion funding program. Placing one on the wrong of morality and not the other is poor IMO.
I do like the freezes he put on staffers making over 100k, and as elp mentioned above the cap on executives of on the bailout.
These first 100 days are, and will be very interesting.
I agree at this point it is WAY to early for a good or bad review.....Some of his appointiees Tax problems have given him a bit of a black eye but IMHO That is more there issue than it should be his and the EU has made him back down off of Buy American stuff in the stimules........The CEO salery cap seems like a good idea but I worry that it may have unintended consenquences. The SCHIP is the logical 1st step to his Unaversal Health Care thing.
All in all I think Obama is doing as well as can be expected and I think that the media has turned on him a bit makeing some of his slipups seem worse than they actualy are and I am afraid that if he can not get the economy turned around that the negative media coverage will snowball.
He has always said he was pro-choice and completely against gitmo. It shouldn't have been a surprise with those issues, Clinton reversed it too when he took office. It's not just straight funding abortions, goes into education and contraception I believe - and of course things like that aren't as available as they are here. 180 industrialized countries contribute to this, the US is the only one due to political reasons. If I'm not mistaken, I think I read somewheres when he did this that abortions were down while Clinton lifted this and were higher under Reagan, Bush, and W Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
He needs to take charge of the stimulus bill before it gets completely out of control. Don't understand why he let Nancy Pelosi take charge of that. Anybody should have lnown she would have rolled out her wish list, exactly like she did. He will have to learn he can't simply show up occasionally like he did in the Senate. He said he was ready to lead and it is time for him to prove it. He won the election so even though I don't approve of him I hope he does the best job ever. I will reserve my judgement until he actually does something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
I know that is what he said, but to say that Gitmo is immoral and turn around and support funding abortions globally is not very moral IMO. It is how he based it that rubs me wrong. Plus, one thing we keep hearing is that we need to take care of our economy, which I agree with. I don't see helping fund other countries with condoms, Cyclen and coathangers when we have more pressing needs here at home. If we are going to spend money, spend it on something that is pressing to US needs. If 180 countries contribute to that, thats fine, its their money. I have no input on how they spend it.
As for the last sentence in your statement, that is irrelevant to me. According to UNPF the results of death in childbirth has only declined 1% in from 90-05, so it seems to me that that 1% is nice, but to me, their successes is pretty minimal by their own numbers, so is the money just being wasted is my point? We average giving them just under $35 million a year according to their info since they said they had not received a total of $244 million in the last 7 years from the US.
The Senate is close to a compromise bill that should make it through early next week. Still too much waste in it. B. HUSSEIN promised to cut out government waste. Time to step up and do the job.
The compromise bill reportedly contains "tax rebates" the pubs are still fighting. How do you give a "rebate" or a "refund" to somebody who has paid NO taxes? Taking taxpayer money and giving it to somebody is WELFARE. Can't possibly be called anything else. Socialism. here we come.
Where did he say he was giving a tax cut to ones that don't pay taxes? He didn't. Said working Americans.
New marijuana policy?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...uanana-policy/
Stimulus may not be too popular, but Obama's approval ratings continue to rise.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...lus/index.html
Refer back to Spring 2008. That's what Bush did. Some of the rebates went to non-taxpayers.Quote:
Originally Posted by PVVikeFan
From IRS.gov re: rebate 2008
Quote:
How do I find out if I am eligible?
A. The easiest way to find out is to use the Economic Stimulus Payment Calculator. Most people with a 2007 net income tax liability qualify. This includes most people who get tax refunds. Net income tax liability is the amount shown on Form 1040, Line 57, plus the amount on Line 52. For 1040A filers, it is the amount on Line 35 plus the amount on Line 32. For Form 1040EZ filers, it is the amount on Line 10.
Families with children under 17, as of Dec. 31, 2007 will qualify for an additional payment. Some people with no tax liability also qualify. This includes Social Security and Railroad Retirement beneficiaries, recipients of certain veterans’ payments, low-income workers with earned income and/or benefits of at least $3,000 and individuals who have combined income of at least $3,000 from any combination of these sources.
Some higher-income taxpayers will not receive a stimulus payment or will receive a reduced payment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imported_elp6n
It wasn't right then and it isn't right now. But of course since some here swear 13 that isn't Dumbama's plan I guess I can throw out the newspaper I read it in. May even cancel my subscription since they print false information.
"Some people with no tax liability also qualify".
"This includes Social Security and Railroad Retirement beneficiaries, recipients of certain veterans? payments, low-income workers with earned income and/or benefits of at least $3,000 and individuals who have combined income of at least $3,000 from any combination of these sources."
Are those the people you were referring to? I don't think the US has too much of a problem with that. Might as well cancel or at least come backing it up with something instead of "Well I read it in da paper".
There was a glimmer of hope for us all for just a few days. Word going around Washington was that I was being considered for a position in the new "administration's" cabinet. Unfortunately word leaked out that I HAD PAID MY TAXES and I was immediately disqualified.Quote:
Originally Posted by imported_elp6n
So you quoted that same comment just to tell that dumb joke?
Senate passes bill.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...ext/index.html
Dow falls 382 as Wall Street boos bailout plan
Waves of selling batter stocks because investors want more details from Treasury Secretary Geithner's bank rescue plan. The Senate approves a huge stimulus bill. GM plans to cut 10,000 jobs. Intel will spend $7 billion to upgrade plants.
[Related content: stocks, investments, stock market, financial crisis, economy]
By Charley Blaine and Elizabeth Strott
Investors were quick to tell the Obama administration what they thought of its plan to save the financial system: Where's the beef?
The result was the biggest loss for stocks not just since President Obama took office but since Dec. 1, when the Dow Jones industrials fell 680 points.
The Dow finished down 382 points, or 4.6%, to 7,889. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was off 43 points, or 4.9%, to 827, and the Nasdaq Composite Index was off 67 points, or 4.2%, to 1,525.
All of the 30 Dow stocks were lower. Just eight S&P 500 stocks were higher, along with only two stocks in the Nasdaq-100 Index ($NDX.X), which tracks the largest Nasdaq stocks. The index was down 52 points, or 4.1%, to 1,229.
Expediters International of Washington (EXPD, news, msgs), the freight management company, led the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq-100 with 6.1% gain to $32.30.
Today's losses came despite the Senate's approval of an $838 billion economic stimulus plan.
The sell-off abruptly ended an uptick that saw the Dow rise 334 points over the previous five sessions and the Nasdaq actually show a gain for the year. The Nasdaq's gain, however, was wiped out today.
The sell-off hit financial stocks the hardest because of the uncertainties about whether the administration's plans included nationalizing some of the most troubled banks.
At least post a link.
More troops in Afghan.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...rease-in-days/
Hopefully lifting ban on stem-cell funding. Thank you.
Obama Considers Lifting Federal Ban on Stem Cell Funding - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com
OK's more troops in Afghan.
Sources: Obama OKs more Afghan troops - Afghanistan- msnbc.com
Defends Bush's gun regulation. B-b-but I though he was going to take them from everyone.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...ational-parks/
Tax cuts to begin in April.
Obama: Tax cuts will be felt by April 1 - White House- msnbc.com
On to healthcare.
Obama announces healthcare summit - UPI.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
From this link it sure looks like he is taking steps to take guns out of citizans hands
ABC News: Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
Good. Take all assault weapons away.
Most combat troops out of Iraq in 19 months.
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Officials: Obama expected to OK 19-month Iraq plan - Blogs from CNN.com
There is the rub......After you Ban the assault weapons then you can redefine what an assault weapon is till anything bigger than a BB gun is illeagle (Do you know what the current defanation of an assault weapon is anyway?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
All I am saying is do not start makeing claims that Obama is a champion of gun rights when it is clear that he is not
It'll be the same definition as it was while the same ban was in place 94-04. It wasn't a suprise, Obama said he was going to put the ban back in place during his campaign ("As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons") During those ten years, everyone got to keep their rifles, shotguns, pistols etc. Its a ban on selling/buying them. Never said he was a champion of them, but he isn't going to pry all of someones guns from their cold dead hands like it was made out to be.
"there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make" And this was one of them. Guns aren't on the top of his list and won't be anytime soon with the economy, healthcare, Iraq, education etc in need of attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
1 step at a time.....1 step at a time :)
30 days and already the amount of debt that was ran up the last 8 years has increased by 25%.
Well did you think he had it in his back pocket? :)
I was under the impression he could twinkle his nose, snap his fingers, or command it to appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
Dang, fooled again! :D
No but the whole campain was based on paying for the new spending via taxing the 250K plus crowd but now that the numbers are rolling in there is no way that bumping up taxes on that group alone will pay for this spending and in true polatision form he has pushed most of the tough cuts and paybacks till after his 2nd term (if he is reelected) would be over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
It could be that Obama like Clinton would/will be a much better Presadent with a Republacan controled Congress
There are other factors that will help pay for these things, not just the tax hikes on the rich. For things like healthcare, he will be raising the cost of some senior citizens prescriptions that are making 170k+ a year and so forth.
I don't think that would help one bit, they are unwilling to agree with the dems on one single issue. They had their turn and didn't do anything.
Exactly the less Goverment can get done the less that they can screwup the country :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
I am interested in how the Healthcare thing will play out and which side the NARP comes down on.
On a side note when SS starts useing more money than it takes in a few years (10 I think) Things will get ALOT worse :(
[QUOTE=Burton13;1771087]There are other factors that will help pay for these things, not just the tax hikes on the rich. For things like healthcare, he will be raising the cost of some senior citizens prescriptions that are making 170k+ a year and so forth. QUOTE]
By simple argument, your second sentence negates any substantive argument of the first.
He can tax the rich at 100% and never come close to paying off his bailout - even in several generations. And whatever happened to the tired old story of the dems from years past - that big companies were in the hands of the republicans? Now the biggies seem to be the only ones the dems want to bail out. I realize he is merely reaching out to the numb-brained who voted for him - the government-dependent, the unions, ad nauseum infinitum.
No it didn't, obviously you missed the last few words when you analyzed it. It said "and so forth", meaning there are more ways of getting the money to pay for these things instead of taxing the rich part which most conservatives seem to focus on...that was an example, there are more.