Chef Jim Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 Where this comprimise really sucks is trying to plan for the future. How can you do proper estate/financial planning when the government keeps changing the rules. How can you plan for someone's estate tax liability if you only know what that liability is likely to be and only for the next two years. Who the !@#$ plans only two years out when it comes to their estate? I met with an Estate/Tax attorney yesterday and she is pissed.
Magox Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 Not a chance the class warfare works IMO. It didn't work for Mondale and it will not work for Obama I hope you're right, because you can take it to the bank, that will be one of their main strategies.
Peace Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 Not a chance the class warfare works IMO. It didn't work for Mondale and it will not work for Obama It ALREADY worked. He's president. Where this comprimise really sucks is trying to plan for the future. How can you do proper estate/financial planning when the government keeps changing the rules. How can you plan for someone's estate tax liability if you only know what that liability is likely to be and only for the next two years. Who the !@#$ plans only two years out when it comes to their estate? I met with an Estate/Tax attorney yesterday and she is pissed. And how about planning for next year with the deal on the table off the table minute to minute.
Rob's House Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 It ALREADY worked. He's president. He didn't run too much on a class warfare platform. He demonized corporations which are an easy target because they are faceless entities that people like to hate. He did say he wanted to tax the "rich" and by rich I mean anyone making more than Obama thinks is enough (which incidentally is a small fraction of what he himself makes, but we all knew he was a hypocritical mouthwhore from the word go), but his main platform was: The sun will shine brighter, and the seas will look bluer, and the poor will rise to prosperity, and the children will sing in the streets, and the ugly will become beautiful, and all your wildest dreams will come true, yes we can, yes we can...
erynthered Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 but we all knew he was a hypocritical mouthwhore from the word go :lol: :lol: :lol: Nice one!!
/dev/null Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 but we all knew he was a hypocritical mouthwhore from the word go), but his main platform was: The sun will shine brighter, and the seas will look bluer, and the poor will rise to prosperity, and the children will sing in the streets, and the ugly will become beautiful, and all your wildest dreams will come true, yes we can, yes we can... I beg to differ with the bolded part. There were plenty of people who didn't know he was a hypocritical mouthwhore as you so elequently describe and were more than happy to buy into the sun will shine brighter, ..., etc that you describe. There are still people who buy into it and others who stopped buying into it, but only because they blame Obama's lack of success on George W Bush, Glenn Beck, John Boner, Sarah Palin, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or Lord Voldemort
IDBillzFan Posted December 9, 2010 Author Posted December 9, 2010 (edited) I'm not sure if I should be surprised by this or not. House Democrats defy Obama on tax deal Washington (CNN) -- House Democrats voted Thursday against considering the tax package that President Obama negotiated with Republicans, raising questions over the president's influence in his own party. The vote by the House Democratic caucus was a defiant rejection of both the agreement on tax and benefit measures, as well as what many Democrats in the chamber perceived as being marginalized in the talks by the White House. "This message today is very simple. That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus," said Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who represented House Democrats in the negotiations. "It's as simple as that." Van Hollen pledged to "work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs." The caucus members chanted "just say no," according to two Democrats who attended the meeting. Rep. Laura Richardson of California later asked reporters outside the room: "Did you hear us saying 'just say no'?" Edited December 9, 2010 by LABillzFan
erynthered Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 Guess I'll throw this here. obama is really in trouble now, he's lost K.O http://www.eyeblast....px?v=hd6UuzVr4z
/dev/null Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 Guess I'll throw this here. obama is really in trouble now, he's lost K.O http://www.eyeblast....px?v=hd6UuzVr4z At least Tingles is still on his side An Alliance Between God and the Democratic Party
IDBillzFan Posted December 11, 2010 Author Posted December 11, 2010 Guess I'll throw this here. obama is really in trouble now, he's lost K.O http://www.eyeblast....px?v=hd6UuzVr4z If Keith doesn't consistently deliver the DailyKos position on things, he loses the last of his audience.
Alaska Darin Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 "Above board" is right. When she first got fired, she couldn't believe she was entitled to it. So why say no? Since then, the check keeps coming. A "ton" is relative but he makes about 200K/year--certainly enough to live off. She gets something like $1800/month after being fired from a job where she worked straight 9-5 and made 40-50K/year. Salt in the wound? She's doing a little under the table work now because she's bored. That doesn't make her the typical case. There aren't a lot of available "real" jobs out there. It's easy to sit and pretend that extending unemployment is keeping everyone at home but the truth is most employers aren't hiring and those that are can be VERY choosy. Add to that the fact that the housing market is total ****, so people can't easily sell and move to places where there are jobs. Something has to give or it's going to get much worse.
....lybob Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 That doesn't make her the typical case. There aren't a lot of available "real" jobs out there. It's easy to sit and pretend that extending unemployment is keeping everyone at home but the truth is most employers aren't hiring and those that are can be VERY choosy. Add to that the fact that the housing market is total ****, so people can't easily sell and move to places where there are jobs. Something has to give or it's going to get much worse. Agreed, it's the difference between anyone who wants a job can get one and everyone who wants a job can get one.
Magox Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 It's easy to sit and pretend that extending unemployment is keeping everyone at home but the truth is most employers aren't hiring and those that are can be VERY choosy. I don't believe anyone rationally can make the argument that the extension of benefits is the a main reason why the unemployment rate is what it is, just that it is a contributing reason.
Alaska Darin Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 I don't believe anyone rationally can make the argument that the extension of benefits is the a main reason why the unemployment rate is what it is, just that it is a contributing reason. A very minor one, at best. I fail to see how keeping people fed and in their homes when there are few or no job prospects is a bad thing, even if a percentage of them are gaming the system. It's pretty much the equivalent of Democrats saying $250k a year is rich and undeserving of a lower tax burden.
Peace Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 That doesn't make her the typical case. There aren't a lot of available "real" jobs out there. It's easy to sit and pretend that extending unemployment is keeping everyone at home but the truth is most employers aren't hiring and those that are can be VERY choosy. Add to that the fact that the housing market is total ****, so people can't easily sell and move to places where there are jobs. Something has to give or it's going to get much worse. Perhaps. NEvertheless, it's undeniable that the system is a wreck when employable people like her who don't "need" the benefit in the first place, are doing this. Giving more money to unemplyment isn't a solution. It's a band aid to a wound that is not going to heal. 10-12% unemployment is here to stay and people need to figure out what that means for them. Same with the housing market. It's time to walk away from the houses that can't be afforded. These are awful real personal moments but the government is just extending the inevitable by handing out more checks. We are not going to have 4% unemployment and a rising home prices in the near future. And off-setting unemployment extension with a tax decrease is insane fiscal policy.
Chef Jim Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 Perhaps. NEvertheless, it's undeniable that the system is a wreck when employable people like her who don't "need" the benefit in the first place, are doing this. And it's a very easy "scam" to fix. You should be required to state household income (earned and passive) when filing for unemployment benefits.
X. Benedict Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 Although extending unemployment benefits so far out seems to smack me a bit wrong. That is money that goes right back into the US economy at local levels. It all gets spent.
Magox Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 (edited) A very minor one, at best. I fail to see how keeping people fed and in their homes when there are few or no job prospects is a bad thing, even if a percentage of them are gaming the system. It's pretty much the equivalent of Democrats saying $250k a year is rich and undeserving of a lower tax burden. So at what point in your view should the emergency extension of benefits end? Although extending unemployment benefits so far out seems to smack me a bit wrong. That is money that goes right back into the US economy at local levels. It all gets spent. it does, no doubt about it.. YOu actually get an immediate bang for your buck.. But you could also just print a trillion dollars and give every household a few thousand dollars, that would be stimulative as well... There is always an expense for handing out free stuff. So what is the expense? in my view there are a few 1) added debt on top of debt 2) moral hazard.. There is no doubt that there is a decent segment of the population that is gaming the system 3) creates incentive for SOME to stay home and wait it out. Meanwhile they lose job skills sitting home Edited December 11, 2010 by Magox
X. Benedict Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 So at what point in your view should the emergency extension of benefits end? it does, no doubt about it.. YOu actually get an immediate bang for your buck.. But you could also just print a trillion dollars and give every household a few thousand dollars, that would be stimulative as well... There is always an expense for handing out free stuff. So what is the expense? in my view there are a few 1) added debt on top of debt 2) moral hazard.. There is no doubt that there is a decent segment of the population that is gaming the system 3) creates incentive for SOME to stay home and wait it out. Meanwhile they lose job skills sitting home I'm not sure. The maximum benefit in New York is probably close to $400/week. The average benefit is probably close to $300. But the moral hazard seems to me a temporary risk. With unemployment so high I think i would suspend any assumptions about moral turpitude. The macro rate isn't coming down soon. A fall in consumption could drive it higher.
Alaska Darin Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 So at what point in your view should the emergency extension of benefits end? I have no idea and I'm not even sure where to look to find any real data on which to base a decision. It's a very slippery slope when so many families are barely holding on to their houses. Then went through the same thing in the late 1980s in Alaska. People started leaving their keys on kitchen counters and heading south because the Lower 48 wasn't facing the same issue. That certainly isn't the case here. But taking away what amounts to a pittance will surely lead to an even larger correction in the housing market and higher unemployment in the short term, as well as further downstream consequences that I don't even want to think about. It looks to me like the world is broken.
Recommended Posts