President Obama's $450 billion stimulus revolves around a plan to extend and expand the payroll tax cut. It also includes incentives for businesses to hire workers -- with a separate tax credit for hiring long-term unemployed workers -- and it extends unemployment benefits for another year. And it's all offset with a plan to reduce our long-term deficit.
In short, this is a tax-side stimulus to encourage business to hire and put more money in the pockets of both the employed and the unemployed.
incentives to hire the long-term unemployed is a great, great thing.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
95
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 17:32
I just read that the average federal employee in Washington DC earns well north of $140,000 yearly.
They can damn well share the depression with the rest of us.
96
Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 17:53
I just read that the average federal employee in Washington DC earns well north of $140,000 yearly.
You are the most gullible fool, that claim is preposterous. Even you must realize the number of clerical staff in DC.
Public sector Washington DC edges out private sector silicon valley for wealthiest metro area.
Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation’s greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out San Jose as the wealthiest U.S. metropolitan area, government data show. --- The figures demonstrate how the nation’s political and financial classes are prospering as the economy struggles with unemployment above 9 percent --- “Wall Street has moved to K Street,” [someone tell OWS - B] said Barbara Lang, president and chief executive officer of the DC Chamber of Commerce, referring to the Washington street that’s home to prominent lobbying firms. “Those two industries clearly have grown in our city.” --- The flow of federal dollars in and around the nation’s capital helped the region weather the economic slump better than most areas and is contributing to its recovery. The unemployment rate in the Washington metro area in August was 6.1 percent, compared with 10 percent in San Jose [aka silicon valley - B], --- “The region did experience a shorter, shallower recession than San Jose,” said Sara Kline, a Washington analyst at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania. “The federal government stepped in to take efforts to dampen the recession. It was focused to some extent in the D.C. area as well, given the presence of federal workers there and contractors. That insulated it from more of a downturn.”
Federal government spending for programs excluding Social Security and Medicare in fiscal year 2011, which ended on Sept. 30, rose to $2.38 trillion from $2.3 trillion the previous year
Like I said, there is no reason the political class aka leeches deserve to suck the rest of us dry so that they don't have to experience the same depression they led us into.
Or maybe you think the public sector produces something other than the spreading of misery and silicon valley is the leech.
98
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 18:45
The politicians who "led us into" this depression, carry the tag of REP, and were but enablers of the CEOs who "led us" into this quagmire. you know, those great bastions of capitalism, is who caused this mess B.
99
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 19:15
I guess I could show you Barney Frank telling off Bush's bank regulators for the millionth time about how healthy the sub-prime market was and what a great job FM/FM were doing, but you apparently you think Barney Frank is a Republican when it suits your purposes.
100
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 19:20
Let's hear all the democrats one more time.
Tell me again how the republicans were the ones against regulating the sub-prime market and FM/FM.
Someone help me with a term I can use to describe Sarge's blindness and amnesia on this subject that passes the civility test.
101
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 19:26
Try doing a little honest research B. Explore the causes of the Great depression and what led to the enactment of Glass-Steagall. Then how GLB rescinded that Act, and explore the deregulation of the financial industry during the Bush administration. THERE, lies the root causes for this fiasco. But to conclude such, requires unbiased honesty on your part, and thus is not expected by any here to ever be seen.
102
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 19:29
Barney telling a complete lie:
What he really said:
103
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 19:50
Glass Stegall was repealed during Clinton's administration with only 8 nay votes in the Senate.
How that is supposed to defang what the Democrat's said in preventing any regulation of the sub-prime market escapes me.
104
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:03
Glass-Stegall was repealed BY the Graham-leach-Bliley Act....I'd think you'd know that
105
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:04
That was the repeal. Yes. Whatever would I do without your illumination.
106
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:06
It happened in 1999 during the Clinton administration like I said. Whatever was your point?
107
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:08
good gawd B...is objectivity and comprehension entirely out of your grasp?
Tell you waht, read up on the passing of Glass-Steagall, then come back and we can talk. Right now, w/o your apparently understanding GS, there is no point.
108
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:10
It was repealed almost unanimously during a democrat administration. What is your malfunction?
109
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:11
go away...troll
unless and until you understand WHY GS was passed in the first place, and then admit that it was replaced by a REP controlled Congress and an Act authored BY Republicans, then you will not understand.
Either catch up, or shut up.
110
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:17
and while you are at it....research the per centage of subprime mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie. No way in hell, that minimal holding, caused the recession. Can NOT honestly be said.
though I do not recall the last time anyone accused you of being honest.
111
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:19
And the benificiaries of Graham-leach-Bliley Act rewarded the Democrat party by campaign donations
Obama’s raised more money for Democrats from Wall Street donors than all Republican candidates combined
So how does any of this take away from democrats preventing regulation of the sub-prime market leading up to the bubble bursting?
112
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:23
read and learn..unbiased research B
explore the depression of the late 19th century and its cause
explore the depression of the 1930s and its cause,
explore WHY GS was written and enacted..what it prevented,
then look at what your REPUBLICANS did with GLB,
an d lets see if comprehension will cause ANY honesty within you, or whether you will continue to be obtuse, twist and turn the truth, and essentially lie your ass off while claiming the Christian moral high ground.
113
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:30
Until you read 'All The Devils Are Here', the definitive book on how the collapse happened, like I have, don't be lecturing me about any of it.
Answer why the democrats prevented regulation of the sub-prime market to in their minds increase the percentage of poor owning houses?
Answer how the Graham-leach-Bliley Act is Bush's fault when it was passed almost unanimously during Clinton's term?
Even if it were Bush's fault which obviously it wasn't, how does that expunge the guilt from Barney Frank and friends preventing regulation of the sub-prime market?
And then you can ask why FM/FM lowered their mortgage guidelines every year.
As it happens, FM/FM were at the absolute ground zero center of the meltdown. There was a race to the bottom as private brokers competed with the unfair advantage GSE's enjoyed because of their government monopoly 'will never be allowed to fail' status.
114
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:34
when/where did I say GLB was Bushs fault? Strawmen....
and since I am sic to death of your bullsh*t bullheadedness.....screw your friggin book..look at history and not a biased review
115
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:38
fannie and freddie were so far from "ground zero", it aint even funny. WALL STREET, was ground zero.
116
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:41
when/where did I say GLB was Bushs fault? Strawmen..
Sarge#98 - The politicians who "led us into" this depression, carry the tag of REP and you seem to think GLB was the key.
117
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:48
Sen Graham, Rep Leach and Rep Bliley, the 3 authors of GLB are/were Republicans. Or will you prete4nd to not know who wrote GLB?
118
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:53
WALL STREET, was ground zero
The competition to sell ever more risky products to Wall Street, carried on between private brokers and the GSE's was the cause. If FM/FM had been held to invariant standards, or if the private brokers hadn't had to compete with a government monopoly, or if ratings institutes had stuck with 'buyer pays', instead of 'seller pays', or if derivatives had clearinghouses and oversight and CDO's had never been invented, and if most importantly if the banking committees had insisted FM/FM accepted OFHEO guidance we would have had a chance to avoid this.
119
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 20:55
Do you think for one second that the lobbyists who lobbied for GLB aren't the same ones flooding Obama with cash?
120
Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:12
Can't handle the current debate, so you need to try to resurrect old ones?
121
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:34
The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. This repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial bank.
The conflict of interest prohibition which prevented investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks? This prohibition, ensured that no one selling packaged investments, had access to depositors funds for the purchase OF those packaged investments. Courtesy of GLB, investment bankers selling crap mortgage backed securitues, could now as officers of a commercial bank, use that banks deposited funds to BUY those same crap mortgage backed securities.
And B, you HONESTLY dont see any problem with this???????
122
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:35
Yeah, Sarge has to bring back that 'black is white and the sun is the moon' argument again.
123
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:36
smdh...yep, DONE with you B
124
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:39
This is Sarge burying post#97 under so much spam so no one reads it.
125
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:45
no, that was sarge correcting the erroneous assumption behind your post 97, which your summarized within 97 when you said:
Like I said, there is no reason the political class aka leeches deserve to suck the rest of us dry so that they don't have to experience the same depression they led us into.
It has GOT to svck being you, and finding yourself constantly shot all to hell by the truth.
126
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 21:56
Sucking is having to protect Barney Frank's guilty @$$. That is some job you have there.
127
DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 22:07
Wheeeeeeee... love to see Boldwin off the meds again!
128
Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 22:07
If there is one thing we know about Obama's jobs package, it is that Barney Frank is guilty of something big but non-specific. Enough to cause people to completely lose both perspective and focus...
129
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 22:20
Just watch him talk in the preceding embeds.
130
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 22:26
What we do know about Obama's 'Job's package' is that it's purpose is to prop up the bloated public sector at the expense of the private sector.
The average two income federal employee family are the rich even by Obama's definition...$250K yearly, and the long-suffering middle class is supposed to bail them out while no one bails out the middle class.
See post #97 which Sarge doesn't want you to read, thus the detour.
131
Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 23:37
Where in #97 does it state that the average two income federal employee family make $250k a year?
It says,
Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation’s greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out San Jose as the wealthiest U.S. metropolitan area, government data show.
Federal employees include members of Congress, members of the cabinet, the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, etc. Nowhere does it state the average federal employee makes the salaries claimed.
Are congresspersons like Michelle Bachmann, with a residence in the DC metro, part of the equation? If so, shame on her for contributing to the long-suffering of the middle class
132
sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 23:38
gawd B, if your hatred werent already toxic enough, let us all get this straight:
you advocate the dismissal of Police Officers, Fire Fighters, First Responders and Teachers BECAUSE they are on the public payroll and should be forced to share in YOUR economic hardship. Is that essentially correct?
yet you would and DO, argue that in your economic good times, you should not be required to share that with others?
So a fair summary would be that like a spoiled teenage child, you want-want-want-want and ALL of it, someone else should pay for.
In the words of a British friend of mine...piss off.
133
Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 00:16
"Compensation" includes benefits such as health care, retirement, and so on. FYI.
Those embeds, Boldwin, as about Fannie Mae. Nothing about Obama's jobs bill.
I know you want to wrench this discussion onto ground you feel more comfortable, but stop it. There are plenty of other threads in which you can concentrate all your half-baked Democratic demonizing.
134
Tree
ID: 41512710 Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 00:59
This is Sarge burying post#97 under so much spam so no one reads it.
it's been read. it's another of your lies or mis-truths.
I just read that the average federal employee in Washington DC earns well north of $140,000 yearly.
is not the same as
Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000
never mind that the dollar figures are off, but there is a GIANT difference between what one *earns* and what one's *compensation* is. I would expect anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of how being employed works to understand that, but i guess i'd be wrong.
what one EARNS, is one's salary. one's COMPENSATION includes benefits, from health insurance to 401ks PDOs to vacations and everything in between.
#3 In 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense had just nine civilians earning $170,000 or more. When Barack Obama took office, the U.S. Department of Defense had 214 civilians earning $170,000 or more. In June 2010, the U.S. Department of Defense had 994 civilians earning $170,000 or more.
#4 Last year, federal employees “earned” approximately 447 billion dollars in total compensation.
#5 According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, federal workers earn 30 to 40 percent more money on average than their counterparts in the private sector.
138
Tree
ID: 41512710 Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 10:20
are you proposing we slash military spending significantly?
139
biliruben
ID: 59551120 Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 10:51
Links to census data you are referring to please, not the spin.
140
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 11:04
bili
I am quoting Bloomberg. Bloomberg says that is what the census data says. Do you think that is a biased source?
141
DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 11:30
Once again, post 137 is cleverly (???) edited to make it sound as though that's their salary, when it should be pointed out that it includes all compensation including health care and benefits of all kinds (which of course begs the question of how precisely those are calculated, a factor conveniently left out of the article altogether).
There may actually be SOMETHING to this, but when you kind of can't get the basic facts like that right, it's sort of hard to take you seriously. (That isn't the only reason for that problem, of course.)
142
DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 11:32
(From the USA Today article cited in the link in 137):
Jessica Klement, government affairs director at the Federal Managers Association, says the government's official pay analysis shows that federal workers earn less than private workers for comparable jobs."
143
DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 11:36
Still more LOLZ from that same article in 137:
#7 More than 50 percent of the members of the U.S. Congress are millionaires.
#8 The median wealth of a U.S. Senator in 2009 was 2.38 million dollars.
The extensive analysis of how wealthy they were before they became members of the U.S. Congress, or more specifically U.S. Senators, is not given. I await the reconciliation of this minor detail with "people should be allowed to make as much as they want and how dare the government touch any of it". Unless you're IN the government, then you should have to take a vow of poverty so those people not in the government should be able to have even more, I guess.
144
Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 12:59
What we want, apparently, are minimum wage earners to protect our rights, pass laws, protect people, fight fires, teach children, etc.
None of this sudden outcry over federal employee pay (who got a big 1.4% raise last year, I believe) is talked about in-context. Because context would humanize the government and its workers, and the Right can't stand for that. The first step to demonizing people is to de-humanize them.
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com