Uh Oh! Bad news for all you "take money from the rich

[IDBillzFan]

I went back and found one of the posts where I predicted this: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1179853. Props to me for calling it early, even if I missed the scale of it by a factor of three.

 

Take a look at some of the "he'll cut programs, he knows he has to" responses I got. Classic.

Man, that thread is the walking dead of liberal posters.

 

I sure miss Coli. He was a liberal, but a great poster. I got a kick out of this comment, and wonder what his thoughts would be after the SOTU.

 

Unlike McCain who wants to just start cutting programs and freezing all spending regardless of what is/isn't working, which would be a freaking disaster.

[IDBillzFan]

I've said it before--the Dems are more intellectually honest on this point than the Republicans. The Dems spend more and tax more. The Republicans spend more and tax less. Both are wrong but one makes some sense.

I can't argue with any of that. It's unfortunate that intellectual honesty won't balance the budget.

[Magox]

How about not creating a $1.8T deficit to begin with? If Obama were to raise taxes and cut (or at least not raise) spending, that would be fiscally responsible. Jacking up taxes and spending is just stupid.

California anyone?

 

Btw, anyone hear of the decision from the California State legislation?

 

They approved Single-Payer Health Care.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/s...a_n_440869.html

 

Here is what we know, California has one of the highest if not the highest tax rates in the country and yet they are the state that is bleeding more than any other. Hmmmmm, that's odd

 

Yet, they want to add a huge entitlement program, and guess what? They want to tax payrolls and use more federal money to fund it.

 

Holy !@#$ing ****!

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California Senate approved creating a government-run health care system for the nation's most populous state on Thursday, ignoring a veto threat from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

Supporters said it is time for state legislatures to take up the debate as the Obama Administration's national health care proposal falters in Congress.

 

"If it's not to be done at the national level, let us take the lead," said state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego.

 

The move in California comes after Massachusetts voters changed the calculus in Congress by electing a Republican to the Senate who opposes the pending plan.

 

Democrats are the majority in both houses of the California Legislature. The 40-member state Senate passed the single-payer plan on a 22-14 vote, sending it to the Assembly. One Democrat voted against the measure.

 

Schwarzenegger promised to veto the proposal, as he has two similar plans that previously reached his desk. Spokeswoman Rachel Arrezola cited the state's massive budget cuts and looming $20 billion deficit in arguing the state cannot afford to shift to a single-payer health care system.

 

"Any elected official who thinks it's a good idea to strap the state with tens of billions of dollars from a government-run health care system is clearly not in touch with what voters need and deserve," Arrezola said.

 

The proposal by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, authorizes $1 million to establish a commission that would decide how to pay for the system. The funding plan would ultimately have to be approved by voters.

 

Leno argued the state-run plan would replace the $200 billion Californians already pay for their health care while eliminating insurance companies' share. He previously said the system could use existing state and federal money and a payroll tax, coupled with increased efficiencies from a government-run system.

[Doc]

California anyone?

 

Btw, anyone hear of the decision from the California State legislation?

 

They approved Single-Payer Health Care.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/s...a_n_440869.html

 

Here is what we know, California has one of the highest if not the highest tax rates in the country and yet they are the state that is bleeding more than any other. Hmmmmm, that's odd

 

Yet, they want to add a huge entitlement program, and guess what? They want to tax payrolls and use more federal money to fund it.

 

Holy !@#$ing ****!

Symbolic, at best. The Governator will veto it and then mid-term elections will happen and the Dem majority will be gone.

[Magox]

Symbolic, at best. The Governator will veto it and then mid-term elections will happen and the Dem majority will be gone.

That is true to an extent, but the point that I was making was the mindset of the people in control of the California state legislation, which is to tax and spend, tax and spend.

[DC Tom]

That is true to an extent, but the point that I was making was the mindset of the people in control of the California state legislation, which is to tax and spend, tax and spend.

 

Looks more like spend and beg from the federal government to me.

 

How can CA even float a bond issue? Who in their right mind is lending that state money?

[Magox]

Looks more like spend and beg from the federal government to me.

 

How can CA even float a bond issue? Who in their right mind is lending that state money?

Funny that you mention that, I read a scary article a couple days ago from the Telegraph that indirectly touches that subject.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-b...sky-assets.html

 

China has ordered managers of its vast currency reserves to withdraw from risky dollar assets and retreat to core debt guaranteed by the US government, a clear sign that Beijing is battening down the hatches for fresh trouble on global markets.

 

A Communist Party directive leaked to the Chinese-language edition of the Asia Times said dollar reserves should be limited to US Treasuries or agency mortgage debt such as Freddie Mac that enjoys Washington's implicit backing.

 

BNP Paribas said the move has major implications for global risk assets. "The message from Beijing is that we don't like this environment," said Hans Redeker, the bank's currency chief.

 

There will be slim pickings if China loses its appetite for Western debt"When the world's biggest investor turns risk-averse, that is something you take notice of. We think this could become the new theme for the markets in the medium-term," he said.

 

The directive covers both the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) and China's state-controlled commercial banks. Together they have an estimated $3 trillion (£1.9 trillion) of foreign holdings.

 

The exact break-down of China's holdings are a state secret but it is understood that SAFE bought large amounts of corporate debt as well as municipal and state bonds during the boom years of 2006 and 2007. Any move to liquidate holding of California debt at this crucial juncture could have serious implications

 

California could be set to implode

[Doc]

That is true to an extent, but the point that I was making was the mindset of the people in control of the California state legislation, which is to tax and spend, tax and spend.

My bad.

[DC Tom]

Funny that you mention that, I read a scary article a couple days ago from the Telegraph that indirectly touches that subject.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-b...sky-assets.html

 

 

 

California could be set to implode

 

Hmmm. Not just CA...the ripple effect would be impressive as hell.

 

Of course, all Obama has to do is wave his magic wand and say "Sorry, you little yellow chinky-dink bastards, we're giving 80% of California to the unions." Just like he did with the GM bondholders. Problem solved.

[Magox]

Hmmm. Not just CA...the ripple effect would be impressive as hell.

 

Of course, all Obama has to do is wave his magic wand and say "Sorry, you little yellow chinky-dink bastards, we're giving 80% of California to the unions." Just like he did with the GM bondholders. Problem solved.

If this were to be true, then we are in for hell of a correction in the stock market, globally. We would fall into a Bear Market and there would be all sorts of anxiety out there, which I am beginning to sense now. I noticed something this week, a divergence of the normal inverse relationship between gold and the dollar. As you know they both usually move in almost perfect inverse lockstep with one another.

 

Early in 2009, when the stock market made a new low, people dumped stocks and corporate debt and went running into treasuries and the dollar, at that time gold also ran up to new highs along side the greenback, and that was a clear sign of investors running towards investments that are considered a "flight to quality".

 

Right now, I am beginning to once again see evidence of that. Gold was up 3.5% for the week and the dollar also made a 7 month high vs. the Euro. Now it is too early to tell if this is a beginning of a trend, but it is something that I have noticed. I also saw that the Major Chinese Sovereign Wealth Fund bought 8 tons of gold this week and that the European Gold ETFs saw heavy inflows, and usually when you see such strong physical demand it portends to a bigger movement moving forward.

 

Obviously there is angst over what is happening in Greece and Europe and I'm sure this is contributing to this, but I am very surprised that this Chinese rumor isn't getting more headlines. To tell you the truth, I havn't heard it anywhere, other than they are looking to tighten their lending standards.

[pBills]

Hmmm. Not just CA...the ripple effect would be impressive as hell.

 

Of course, all Obama has to do is wave his magic wand and say "Sorry, you little yellow chinky-dink bastards, we're giving 80% of California to the unions." Just like he did with the GM bondholders. Problem solved.

 

 

Damn those unions and the US Automakers. DAMN YOU ALL TO HELLLLLLLLL!!!

[Adam]

I don't want to say I told you so....but....

 

Looks like Obama is willing to raise taxes on people making LESS than $250k also

 

Many of us here are not shocked. Some of us here are WRONG, once again. Man, it must get old being WRONG 80% of the time. You guys should form a club, this way you can comfort yourselves, after you spend 16 months shooting your mouths off and then Obama turns on you/makes you a liar, again.

 

I am not saying that he will definitely raise taxes on the middle class, but, he really doesn't have a choice given his propensity to spend. The bottom line is: he definitively said he would NOT do this, now, at the very least he is considering it....so, add that to one long list of disingenuous statements those of you in the WRONG club told us were reasons why we should elect Obama.

 

God help him if he actually goes the whole way and actually breaks the promise....in the middle of a recession....killing jobs/growth.....doing exactly what I said he would do.....and renewing the membership cards of the WRONG club once again

Read my lips...........

[Magox]

Read my lips...........

That more than anything, probably did him in.

[Doc]

That more than anything, probably did him in.

Just as it will do Barry in.

[John Adams]

That more than anything, probably did him in.

 

Perot did him in. If he didn't split the vote, Bush wins.

[Nanker]

Perot did him in. If he didn't split the vote, Bush wins.

Yes. To paraphrase LaDaradingding. H. Ross Perot is 100% responsible for the election of Obama.

If he hadn't interfered, GHW would have won, Clinton would have lost against GW - or Jeb, Obama would be the junior Senator from Illinois - or a Law Professor at Northwestern.

[Magox]

Perot did him in. If he didn't split the vote, Bush wins.

Yes, but you could make an argument that as a result of "Read my lips", Perot wouldn't have nearly of received the votes that he did. But yes, Perot definitely split alot of the votes.

[Nanker]

Yes, but you could make an argument that as a result of "Read my lips", Perot wouldn't have nearly of received the votes that he did. But yes, Perot definitely split alot of the votes.

And Sonny learned a lesson. Raise taxes and you lose. That's why no taxes were levied to pay for the Iraq invasion and we now have 10 billion in debt.

Fickle, the American public.

[/dev/null]

And Sonny learned a lesson. Raise taxes and you lose. That's why no taxes were levied to pay for the Iraq invasion and we now have 10 billion in debt.

Fickle, the American public.

 

Did you mean Billion with a B? Or Trillion with a T?

 

10B is chump change these days. That's barely a fraction of a Bailout Stimulus Jobs Bill

[Nanker]

Did you mean Billion with a B? Or Trillion with a T?

 

10B is chump change these days. That's barely a fraction of a Bailout Stimulus Jobs Bill

You're right. Slow reflexes in the morning. What's a thousand trillion - a gadzillion? We'll be bantering that around soon no doubt at this rate.