So how muh longer until we can say Obama sucks?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

I honestly think that the underlying intent is to cause inflation in order to decrease the domestic debt. Problem is, it's never worked.

I don't know how that would work, it makes no sense to me to jack up inflationary pressure to decrease the domestic debt. All that happens when you jack up inflation is that people lose even more money on top on increased taxation.

The best way to address a national debt is to adress the massive trade imbalance that the U.S. is holding up.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Nice indeed. Obama, in September of 2008, warned that the TARP should include regulations to prevent the use of Federal money to pay bonuses to failed executives. No such language was included--and it turns out, Obama was right.


I'm not sure that quote is damning who you think you're damning. This one lies at the feet of one Henry Paulson.

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Well Obama's amended TARP plan uses those stated goals which you quote. So, the plan that Obama proposed while president ascribed to the values that he was quoted as saying while he wasn't president but voting on the TARP plan as proposed by the previous president. What the hell is your point man?

This debate is so moronic. A bunch of guys trying to stir up crap for the sake of it without any contextual realization and a heckuva lot of blatant conjecture.

Found this.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said Wednesday his staff agreed to requests from the administration to delete the executive pay provision that would have applied retroactively to recipients of federal aid.



However, Dodd said he was not aware of any AIG bonuses at the time the change was made.



President Barack Obama, who took office just under two months ago, told reporters Wednesday that his administration was not responsible for a lack of federal supervision of AIG that preceded the company's demise.
But Obama added, "The buck stops with me." ——— The bill is HR 1586.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_11950170?source=rss

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Give me a break. Ignoring the fact that Obama had to vote for the bailout bill as well.....the President=elect is directly involved with the serving President, and throughout history, the POTUS has always gone out of their way to accommodate the policies and agenda of the President-elect.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_News"]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...f_Barack_Obama

Like I said.....very much involved.



And the fact that states and local governments have the ability to give money to ACORN is because of the bailout passed by the Federal Government. Either way, doesn't matter. I don't care about ACORN....they're just one company, or one part of the bailout process that was handled incorrectly.



Because the direction of their Presidency is completely opposite. At least for now. When it came to a bailout....Bush largely agreed with Obama on everything while he was still in office. Not very much to compare them with.



Not even going to bother responding. For someone who rails against arguments that 'Rush' uses....you're doing quite well yourself.

Well--if you don't care about ACORN, why bring them up?

As for the President historically helping the President-elect, you and I both know that Politics is a rough game. No-one helps anybody else unless they have something to gain--and they certainly don't help out their ideological opponents. You might read up on the Hoover-Roosevelt transition for a better comparable example here--neither man wanted to be President for a second longer than they had to be.

These guys talk a good "transition"--because that's what people want after an election--civility. And if you seem to be uncooperative, or stonewalling, you can be punished for it in the polls. But trust me: it's an act. Bush had no interest in the success of the Obama administration, and Obama's only interest in the Bush administration was reducing the size of the **** sandwich he had to eat in the beginning of February. There are no altruistic actors here.

And you don't need to be grumpy with me: I was merely pointing out the absurdity of laying blame at Obama's feet for things that he could not possibly have been responsible for. My guess is that you didn't know that the ACORN thing happened before the election--and that's fair. I didn't know about it at all until I looked it up. But I think we can agree to take it off the table, can't we?

In the end, I'm not sure we disagree about Obama that much. I think he's too cautious, and I think the stimulus wound up being unweildy and a bit incoherent. I hope it works, but I'm worried that Paul Krugman is right that it's too small and not sufficiently directed. The problem is that it has the fingerprints of Congress all over it, and Obama's failure if we want to find one in this mess was in not controlling the language of the stimulus bill. Democrats aren't his allies here--they're politicians like anybody else, and I think he may have underestimated the extent to which Democratic lawmakers would fail to fall in lockstep with his agenda.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well--if you don't care about ACORN, why bring them up?

ACORN, GM, AIG.....all companies that received stimulus money. Notice the trend?

You brought up ACORN out of that group.

These guys talk a good "transition"--because that's what people want after an election--civility. And if you seem to be uncooperative, or stonewalling, you can be punished for it in the polls. But trust me: it's an act. Bush had no interest in the success of the Obama administration, and Obama's only interest in the Bush administration was reducing the size of the **** sandwich he had to eat in the beginning of February. There are no altruistic actors here.

Actually, I believe that both Bush/Obama were trying their best to make thing work, and neither really cared about the polls. Obama, because he already had a very high approval rating, and Bush because he was gone in Jan anyways.

And you don't need to be grumpy with me: I was merely pointing out the absurdity of laying blame at Obama's feet for things that he could not possibly have been responsible for. My guess is that you didn't know that the ACORN thing happened before the election--and that's fair. I didn't know about it at all until I looked it up. But I think we can agree to take it off the table, can't we?

Well, I knew the original bailout happened before the election, but I also knew Congress was supposed to read the bill, and then vote on it. Did they? Or was it like the NIS report regarding Iraq where the majority didn't even touch it?

ACORN and their $5.2 billion is only part of the concern.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Azure

Found this.


http://www.denverpost.com/ci_11950170?source=rss

I get it....nobody wants to blame Obama for something he wasn't responsible for.

Well, according to this article, and all these....Obama not only KNEW about the bonuses, but he told Dodd to make sure they were paid out. So really, who is to blame?

Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told CNN that Obama officials wanted the language added to an amendment limiting bonuses that could be paid by companies receiving federal bailout money. He said they were afraid that without it, the government would face numerous lawsuits from employees who were promised bonuses.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29763023

March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said the Obama administration asked him to insert a provision in last month’s $787 billion economic- stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing American International Group Inc.’s bonuses.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aT_tMXRy2vDs

That is simply not what happened. What actually happened is the opposite. It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed. The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/

Clearly Obama wasn't responsible.

Article is pretty damning though.

The timeline.....also damning.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/17/tr...r-aig-bonuses/

What they're talking about is a clause in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on Feburuary 17, and places limits on executive compensation for TARP recipients. According to the white paper obtained by FDL written by AIG to explain its legal justification, the $1.2 billion in bonuses they say they are contractually obligated to pay in 2009 are exempt from these limits:

We have been advised that the bonus provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 prohibiting certain bonuses specifically exclude bonuses paid pursuant to pre-February 11, 2009 employment contracts.

During final negotiations on the $787 billion economic recovery package last week, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) “slipped in a provision to limit bonuses for executives at institutions receiving government bailout funds to a third of their salaries.” The limits go beyond what President Obama had proposed. The caps also apply to a wider circle of employees at financial firms, rather than just the senior executives.
The White House is concerned that the stringent limits “could prompt financial institutions to repay the government too quickly.” Financial firm lobbyists are also worried that they will lose personnel, “driving talented employees to companies that aren’t subject to the regulation or to overseas banks.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/15/exec-pay-debate/

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Well, in that case the entire thing comes down to the Obama administration worrying that making the regulations retroactive would have exposed them to lawsuits. I'm no lawyer, but I have a feeling these guys know what they're talking about. In any case, the "smoking gun" here is whether a given regulation is retroactive to Feb. 11th or whether it only applies after a certain date.

Not much of a nefarious motive here. Unless Obama somehow benefits from the AIG bonuses, which is a bit doubtful. Nothing to see IMO, except that they perhaps underestimated the political risk they were taking by protecting themselves from a lawsuit. No offense, Azure--but I sort of have a feeling that if he'd gone the other way, some around here (not you in particular) would be saying "look, government is interfering with corporations! How dare he! Socialism! SOCIALISM!!!"

[Azure]

Actually, I would have had no problem with the contracts for the bonuses would have been restructured. As long as it would have been down within the realm of the law.

About Obama benefiting from AIG.....he did receive money during the campaign. I don't know if that matters though.

At least in the general scheme of things. My biggest problem is the Obama administration first trying to play the 'dumb' card when the news about the AIG bonuses came out, and then they tried to push all the blame on Dodd.

'Outrage' indeed.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Actually, I would have had no problem with the contracts for the bonuses would have been restructured. As long as it would have been down within the realm of the law.

About Obama benefiting from AIG.....he did receive money during the campaign. I don't know if that matters though.

At least in the general scheme of things. My biggest problem is the Obama administration first trying to play the 'dumb' card when the news about the AIG bonuses came out, and then they tried to push all the blame on Dodd.

'Outrage' indeed.

Well, fair enough. A public relations blunder to be sure--but not the sort of thing that attaches a big "FAIL" to your legacy, quite honestly. More of the kind of thing nobody remembers a few weeks later. Just the nature of politics.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

The context has always been the massive stimulus packages. It is fair to criticize those simply on the moral question, "Should governments use taxpayer's money to bail out industries that are no longer competitive?"

I'm no economist (hell, I can't even count to H) but the way I understand it, all this stimulus business is being done in the hopes of keeping the economy viable.

Basically --try something (spend money) and hope, or do nothing and know it'll fail.

I don't know if it's a moral question or not, but "Should governments do whatever they can to avoid a depression?".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, fair enough. A public relations blunder to be sure--but not the sort of thing that attaches a big "FAIL" to your legacy, quite honestly. More of the kind of thing nobody remembers a few weeks later. Just the nature of politics.

Well true....given that we are only talking about 1/10 of 1% of the bailout money.

And it isn't just a public relations blunder. Its intentionally lying from the Obama administration to keep from having the blame pinned on them.

[tjinaz]

He came in with lofty promises and whether he really meant it or just sold a bill of goods remains to be seen, but it is looking more and more like politics as usual.

With today's headlines about the auto industry I think he will be eating his words about what it would mean for if GM went Bankrupt. The spin will include the words "structured" and "controlled" but it will in essense be GM declaring bankruptcy and restructuring their debts and contracts. Something I belive he said would never happen. He can't give them more money without losing face and they can't survive without it

[Azure]

WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.

The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.



This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.



To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always.


"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on

Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."



He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."



Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Hope and change, FTW.

[Montana Moe]

I was pleasantly surprised to see my Copenhagen went from $5.25 per can to $4.35. Perhaps they are trying to gain market share?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Hope and change, FTW.

You're really reaching here. Taxing tobacco as a tax on the poor? Laugh.

They could always... you know, not smoke?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You're really reaching here. Taxing tobacco as a tax on the poor? Laugh.

It is in fact more of a tax on the lower class than anything else.

Persons of higher status are less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise regularly and be more conscious of their diet.

From here, if you have access to it.

http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/57/6/440

Obama said this....just in case you missed it....

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

....which was a blatant lie, considering....

Government and private research has found that smoking rates are higher among people of low income.



A Gallup survey of 75,000 people last year fleshed out that conclusion. It found that 34 percent of respondents earning $6,000 to $12,000 were smokers, and the smoking rate consistently declined among people of higher income. Only 13 percent of people earning $90,000 or more were smokers.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/oba...01/198442.html

So please, explain to me how this doesn't hit the lower class?

34% of the people who smoke are considered lower class, and make anywhere between $8,000-$20,000 in one year.

The tax on rolling tobacco increased from $1.09 to $24.78, an increase of about 2,200 percent.

Again, tell me how that isn't going to effect the lower class.

They could always... you know, not smoke?

And obese people could just quitting eating unhealthy foods, which is a hell of a lot easier to do than quitting smoking. Or drug addicts could just quit doing drugs, or terrorists could just quit killing people......

Obama lied, and outright broke one of his campaign promises, and secondly....the government shouldn't be forcing people to make lifestyle choices by increasing the price of certain items.

What's next? Taxing fast food like crazy?

Then again, you're big government, so you probably think taxing what the government deems to be unhealthy is good. That would be a problem though, because the standard for 'healthy' has changed numerous times the past 60 years.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

but Obama lied, and outright broke one of his campaign promises, and secondly

You are going to have to find a direct quote in which he said "I won't increase tobacco taxes" to prove this stretcher.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You are going to have to find a direct quote in which he said "I won't increase tobacco taxes" to prove this stretcher.

He said he wouldn't increase the taxes of the middle/lower class, not 'even a dime.'

You can't correlate an huge increase in tobacco taxes with a tax increase for the lower/middle class?

I mean...

"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

No, clearly he was talking about all OTHER forms of a tax, EXCEPT an increase in the tobacco tax rate.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

He said he wouldn't increase the taxes of the middle/lower class, not 'even a dime.'

You can't correlate an huge increase in tobacco taxes with a tax increase for the lower/middle class?

I mean...



No, clearly he was talking about all OTHER forms of a tax, EXCEPT an increase in the tobacco tax rate.

Are you pissed about the increase on tobacco taxes, or are you just trying to find something new to gripe about?

Did you find the quote where he said he wouldn't increase tobacco taxes?

Going by what your own quotes, including the big bolded ones, the subject of tobacco taxes never even came up. Hell, you even had a list of things he specifically promised not to increase taxes on, and this wasn't in it.

Despite your insistence, this isn't a tax increase on any specific group of people or income bracket.

And besides, Joe Camel is taking the beating here, not Joe The Plumber.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Despite your insistence, this isn't a tax increase on any specific group of people or income bracket.

And despite your outright ignorance, or just sheer blind support(really can't figure out which, considering I used to judge you as a straight shooter)....the fact is that lower class people smoke more than upper class people do, so no matter how you want to defend what Obama has done, this WILL hit the lower class more.

That is a FACT.

I still remember how IFF argued in the election thread how Obama's tax plan would BENEFIT the lower/middle class. I even saw his point, especially when looking at what McCain was proposing. Granted, there was no way anyone knew he would increase the the tax rates on tobacco by 156% to fund his insane spending programs, but the idea was that Obama would level more taxes against those people earning more than $250,000 dollars, whom Obama deemed as rich. Of course, I disagree with the idea of taxing the rich more, or simply taxing anyone MORE....as I think money should be put back into the hands of the consumer.

But, if I had to CHOOSE, obviously one would support taxing the rich, because they can deal with it without breaking the bank. The lower class should be left alone as much as possible, and Obama seemed to agree during the campaign. And yet, 2 months into his presidency, he breaks those campaign promises, and imposes a tax that would greatly hamper a lot of lower class folks.

If you want to reduce smoking, educate the people.....don't tax the hell out of their hard-earned money, and expect them to make good decisions. There is a reason they smoke, and as much as they should just 'quit smoking'....like IFF, someone who obviously isn't a smoker, and has probably never dealt with an addiction to nicotine, or a lower class lifestyle....thinks they should.....it takes a lot more than just 'quitting.'

People should also quit eating fast food 3 times a day, or living a highly inactive lifestyle, or eating junk food, or consuming insane amounts of sugar, refined carbs, transfats, etc, etc, but they don't. And taxing those 'foods' isn't going to stop them from indulging. It'll just hurt those people around them that they have to support.

People shouldn't drink and drive either....should we start taxing alcohol like crazy to prevent more people from 'buying' it, hoping that it prohobits at least 5% of drinking and driving accidents?

The tobacco tax is nothing more than a means to an end....the end being Obama's insane spending projects, and its quite apparent that he is willing to tax the rich, or the poor to get that money.

Because the group of people who are going to suffer from the increase in tobacco taxes, ARE the poor....not the rich, or even the middle class.

Poor people smoke more than rich people, of that there is no doubt.

Look beyond the wording. Look at the people who this is going to affect. That is my problem.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

And despite your outright ignorance, or just sheer blind support(really can't figure out which, considering I used to judge you as a straight shooter)....the fact is that lower class people smoke more than upper class people do, so no matter how you want to defend what Obama has done, this WILL hit the lower class more.

Well if we are going to go the "ignorance" route...

I smoke cigarettes and make considerably less than 250 grand a year. If I lived a couple hundred miles south of here, this tax that so infuriates you would apply to me.

But I wouldn't be infuriated. If the taxes on smokes go up, I volunteer to pay 'em or I stop smoking. I (and my likeminded lower class brethren who make less than 250 per) haven't seen our taxes increase, the taxes on a plant have been increased, and we can decide to pay them or not.

That being said, I do appreciate the "won't somebody please think of the stupid poor people who can't quit smoking" sentiments, so keep that up.