reportedly, Kudlow may run against Chris Dodd. [rquoter]Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And Posted By: Larry Kudlow | Anchor cnbc.com 27 Feb 2009 | 04:39 PM ET Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget. He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds. That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow. Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years. This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach. Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts. And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less. The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market. Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles. Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner. There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse. Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so? [/rquoter]
It should be coming from George Soros when Obama gets done slapping a huge luxury income tax on the ultra affluent.
Why? It was part of what he campaigned on, and it's part of the reason Soros and others supported him. Him, Buffett, Gates, and other uber-rich have all said the very wealthy should pay higher taxes.
Buyer's remorse? hardly... Obama gets 80% approval rating nationwide, poll finds February 24, 2009 President Obama receives strong grades for his first full month in office, as large majorities of Americans support his $787-billion economic stimulus package and the recently unveiled $75-billion plan for stemming mortgage foreclosures, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll. Nearly 70% believe Obama is bringing change to Washington, the poll found; 80% say he is meeting or exceeding their expectations.
Get ready for higher mobile phone rates as well. [rquoter]Obama proposes to boost public airwaves fees Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:48pm GMT WASHINGTON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - The Obama administration's proposed 2010 budget seeks to significantly boost the user fees the U.S. government charges holders of public airwaves held by many telephone and wireless companies. Yearly fees for spectrum licenses are proposed to rise to $200 million in 2010, from $50 million in 2009, according to the document posted on the Office of Management and Budget's Web site. After that, the fees eventually increase to $550 million per user per year, totalling $4.8 billion over the next decade. In the government's most recent spectrum auction, AT&T Inc(T.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Verizon Wireless, a joint venture between Vodafone Group and Verizon Communications (VZ.N: Quote, Profile, Research) spent about $16 billion to get access to the airwaves. The Federal Communications Commission runs auctions for public spectrum. [/rquoter]
But mc mark, basso's point (sic) is that of the 20% who disapprove, 0.0003% actually voted for Obama and now regret it. And we must conveniently ignore that 46% or so of the country voted for McCain, meaning roughly half of the McCain voters approve of Obama's performance to date. As always, we must focus on the 0.0003% that support our point and pull that Kaching! handle on the interwebs.
This is what Americans bought. Obama's budget gives it to U.S. straight http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-vpbud016053537mar01,0,5253291,print.story President Barack Obama gambled big Thursday when he unveiled his first budget. He treated taxpayers like grown-ups. His extraordinary candor about what Washington spends, and what he thinks it will cost to get the economy out of the tank and on course for a sound future, is refreshing. The figures are huge - $3.6 trillion to be spent in 2010, with almost $1.2 trillion of it to be borrowed. And the spending plan signals a sharp, maybe even historic, change of direction on taxes and the role of government. By baldly laying his cards on the table, Obama is betting that the public can handle the truth. It needs to. The economy is in a tailspin. It contracted at a 6.2 percent pace in the last three months of 2008, the Commerce Department reported Friday - its worst performance in decades. The White House announced the same day that it will take a 36-percent stake in Citigroup. Those are ominous reminders that the nation has critical decisions to make in order to turn things around. Obama's truth in budgeting will help to make them informed ones. First, he ditched Washington-style budget sleight-of-hand and honestly laid out what the government will actually spend. It has been common for presidents from both parties to employ gimmicks to make their choices appear more palatable. Obama explicitly rejected some of the more egregious budgeting practices of his immediate predecessor. President George W. Bush never included the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budgets, for instance, opting instead to treat those military campaigns as emergencies and fund them off the books. He took a similar approach with the entirely predictable $60 billion it cost the Treasury for each year that Congress spared 20 million taxpayers the expensive bite of the alternative minimum tax. Bush also budgeted nothing for federal disaster response, though natural disasters invariably occur. Obama included all three things in his 10-year budget. Next, he made it clear that laying the groundwork for a strong economy down the road won't be free. Want to kick fossil fuels for a green future? How about reforming how we pay for health care, so we can get more for our dollars and reduce the ranks of the uninsured? Want to keep Medicare solvent? Get a bigger federal contribution for our schools? Repair and maintain roads, bridges, airports and mass transit? Build a modern energy grid? It will all cost money, a fact Obama didn't sugarcoat. He budgeted funds as a down payment for those priorities. And he proposed taxes and identified savings to help cover the tab. The message to taxpayers and Capitol Hill? Quit the magical thinking. These things won't pay for themselves. And we can't just continue to borrow and spend and pass the bill to our kids. We can argue about the larger role for government that Obama envisions for the nation. And we can argue about whether high earners should pay higher taxes. But by putting his ideas into budgetary black-and-white, Obama has challenged taxpayers to make realistic choices about what they want from government - and then to pay for it. It's what grown-ups do. Deficits of almost $1.8 trillion in 2009 and $1.2 trillion in 2010 are daunting, particularly following seven years of red ink that have left the nation buried under $10.9 trillion of debt. But while Obama wants to extend tax cuts for the middle class, much of the current explosion of spending is designed to rescue the financial system, stimulate the economy and create jobs. So it should be temporary. The president is counting on the economy to be growing by 2011. Then the plan for increased taxes on high-income payers would make it possible for Obama to keep his pledge to halve the deficit by 2013. Determining when and how to go from stimulus spending to deficit reduction will be tricky, but doing it is essential. None of this will be easy or certain. But by rejecting stealth spending and honestly confronting costly choices about the nation's problems, Obama has challenged us all to do the same.
That would be hilarious if Kudlow ran. I can see why though. He's been so right on matters of import... And more from the same source... Still there is some truth to Obama declaring war... but he doesn't care about the Republicans as much as he cares about their masters... That's from his radio address, and that's about as big a call out as anything we've heard in recent politics. And by going after the Masters of the GOP, he's attempting to transform the political landscape. All recent Dems have fought on the periphery. Obama's storming the castle and the American people love it.
Basso there is no point debating this topic on this forum anymore. The majority of people on this forum will never sniff the outer edge of making big money. I joined this forum to meet some fans of my favorite childhood team, but I slowly realized this forum was full of bitter, underpaid workers.There are a few "rich" people who support Obama and wish to pay more taxes and that's fine with me. I am not so gracious myself and believe in keeping what I have earned and I guess that makes me unpatriotic. There are just too many people in this country do not earn enough money and they are always going to have it out for those who made something of their lives. Basso I am with you 100%.
You are absolutely right I am ignorant! Let's see who is ignorant when gas goes back up and so does the average electricity bill in America. Will I complain? Not really because my electricity bill is already higher than most of the people that voted for Obama's rent. The average joe is whose gonna get hammered when these companies raise prices across the board to consolidate for what the president is doing to them. The average joe is not protected by either president, but the republican presidents put more cash in the hands of his boss and that makes sure his job is safe. I know flame me about how Bush led us into this economy, but most people who actually know something about this economy like my other buddies in high school will tell you otherwise. It is documented Bill Clinton allowed Freddie and Fannie to get into the subprime loan business. Clinton also took away most required insurance that protected banks from foreclosures. Clinton thought the insurance was too expensive for extremely poor people.
Well "unpatriotic" is a judgment call, but your whiny, self-important posts make d-bag, wingnut a lock.
Of course you had nothing to say about the housing crisis being the work of Clinton trying to help the bums of society. On June 6, 1996, President Clinton announced that he had directed FHA to reduce the up-front mortgage insurance premium (UFMIP) for first-time homebuyers who receive housing counseling and what did Bush do about it.... Bush Fought to Regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae 5 Years Ago Until Democrats Stopped Him http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea8_1221606601 Bush may have spent way too much on a war in Iraq that was "without a just cause", but did the armed forces liberate the Jews in Germany during WWII "without a just cause" also? Saddam was a violent dictator who tortured his people, and killed entire villages at a time. The United States saved those people in Iraq from hell. Times are bad in Iraq now but things will get better if we stay. If we pull out like Barry-O wants, can anyone please tell me why Bin Laden hates us so much? Is it because we helped him out, then when we bailed on him and his men they got slaughtered and he swore to get revenge on his former allies? Ding ding ding ZANTABAK1111 for the win. The people complaining about the Iraq war are worse than deomcrats because deomcrats want to help the people in society who just don't want to take action on their own. The US helping Iraqis who were at the mercy of a ruthless dictator are true patriots. I'm sorry if your kids died in Iraq, but they volunteered for that job, and they were paid for their time. It was their decision to go over there and help people out.
Just remember children history always repeats itself. Bin Laden was our friend and nowhates us because we turned our back on him, there is going to be a little Iraqi whose friends and family are slaughtered if we pull out and bail on them. The little Iraqi will grow up with hate for Americans in his heart and 9/11 will be a repeat scenario sometime in the future. That is why we must stay and get the terrorists out of the region. I'd much rather help the Iraqis any day over the people on welfare. Iraqis didn't choose their life, welfare recipients for the most part chose to be lazy.
Just playing devil's advocate here. It is unfair to point to a poll now. Let's see what the poll shows a year from now if and when any of that stimulus money funnels down to the people who are hurting. I suspect that the polls are skewed right now because of what people think is about to happen with the passage of the stimulus plan.
The polls are "skewed" because people believe in Obama's message and have faith in him - in other words, the nihlistic rejectionism of the Grand Regional Party has failed to prove an appealing message.
