Start A Petition

The Stealth Stimulus, -- Obama, Spineless or Pragmatic?

Offbeat  (tags: americans, congress, corruption, democrats, dishonesty, Govtfearmongering, healthcare, housing, lies, media, obama, politics, propaganda, republicans, war )

- 2692 days ago -
Of the proposal's estimated $700 billion to $900 billion cost, about $380 billion goes to provisions for the middle-class, including tax cuts, and about $80 billion to the high-end earners. The one-year payroll tax cut costs the government approximately->

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Kit B (276)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 10:22 am
Why the president agreed to Republican demands on the Bush tax cuts.
By Annie Lowrey

"Americans are asking just one question," President Obama said last night. "Are we going to allow their taxes to go up on January 1st, or will we meet our responsibilities to resolve our differences and do what's necessary to speed up the recovery and get people back to work?" The answer was not, "We will allow their taxes to go up and shirk our responsibilities."

In his remarks, Obama used the word tax or taxes 33 times, whereas deficit, unemployment, and recession came in a measly four times each. One word that never appeared: stimulus. But don't let that fool you. In passing the tax compromise, Obama and his negotiators—White House budget chief Jack Lew and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner—sneakily constructed a tax-side stimulus plan. It is big: nine digits big, as big, possibly, as the original stimulus bill. But as stimulus, it is comparatively weak.

The compromise itself can best be described as tax cuts for tax cuts (plus extended unemployment insurance benefits). Democrats would agree to a two-year extension of all the Bush tax cuts, including those on the richest Americans and on capital-gains and dividend earnings. Democrats would also agree to reinstate the estate tax—though at rates that are really making them hold their noses: a $5 million exemption ($10 million for couples) and a 35 percent rate. (Liberals were hoping for something more like a $1 million exemption and a rate of 45 percent or 50 percent.)

In return, Republicans would agree to authorize extended unemployment benefits for 13 months, reduce the employee side of the payroll tax by two percentage points for a year, and re-up the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit expansions created in the 2009 stimulus package. They also continue an education tax credit and let companies fully expense business investment. Something neither party really needed to negotiate: fixing the alternative minimum tax, to avoid 21 million families getting hit by it.

On both sides of the ledger—taxing and spending—that amounts to a whole lot of cash. Of the proposal's estimated $700 billion to $900 billion cost, about $380 billion goes to provisions for the middle-class, including tax cuts, and about $80 billion to the high-end earners. The one-year payroll tax cut costs the government approximately $120 billion. The EITC, the Child Tax Credit, and American Opportunity Tax Credit (for education) take an additional $40 billion from the federal ledger. On the spending side, the big boon is for unemployment benefits, providing safety-net-level security to millions of households, most with children. The 13-month extension costs $56 billion.

All of those dollars—the tax-break dollars and the spending dollars—add to the deficit, which is another way of saying that they qualify as stimulus. Congress is using its credit card—aka the world debt market—to finance spending Americans cannot afford at the moment. This might come as a surprise to anyone paying attention to the half dozen or so (it's hard to keep track) deficit-reduction plans currently in vogue in Washington. Indeed, the announcement of the tax plan comes days after the report by the president's blue-ribbon fiscal commission on how to get the nation's spending under control, and a week after Obama proposed a two-year federal-government pay freeze.

That was last week. What changed? For one, the unemployment rate climbed to 9.8 percent, with 15 million unemployed, in November. That indicates the private-sector recovery has not really taken over since the loss of the public-sector stimulus. In addition, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has started agitating for more short-term fiscal stimulus in exchange for long-term deficit reduction.

Because as it turns out, everybody wants to reduce the deficit, but nobody wants to actually go about doing it. Republicans got their tax cuts. Democrats got their tax cuts, plus their spending boosts. The trade was, "You can have your deficit spending if I can have mine." That adds up to a lot of deficit spending.

But that doesn't mean it will be effective. Indeed, the package, as a whole, is not nearly as stimulative per dollar as the original Recovery Act. If you give a low-income family $1 for food via food stamps, it spends it. If you give a high-asset family $1 via a tax cut, it tends to save or invest it. Either way, the transfer costs the government $1—nothing comes free here, or pays for itself, despite some wonky mathematicians' protestations. But $1 worth of food stamps adds more to the GDP than the tax dollar because it actually gets spent.

The most stimulative spending program in the current bill is unemployment insurance, which will put $56 billion into workers' pockets over the next 13 months, a much-needed boon for those families and a quick infusion into a demand-starved economy. The payroll tax cut is among the most-stimulative tax options, leaving a bit more cash in 155 million workers' pockets.

But a whole lot of the tax changes give cash to the very wealthiest Americans and will not do much for economic growth. For instance, the estate tax will grant about $7 billion in tax cuts to the 0.14 percent of estates worth more than $5 million—money that will go to the pockets of wealthy inheritors, and will be added to the deficit, but to little to no broader economic benefit. The high-earner tax cuts will also add tens of billions to the deficit, in exchange for perhaps a 0.1 percent drop in the unemployment rate. (The middle-class tax cuts should bring the rate down two to five times more.)

A lot of this money, then, will do nothing except put the country deeper into the red. That said, if the deal goes through—and the president may have trouble selling it to his own party—it will do something to aid American families, help American businesses, and soothe markets concerned about congressional intransigence and confusion over the looming tax changes.

But stimulus is not a popular word, even within the administration, and no one likes to talk about the deficit. Tax cuts, on the other hand, are almost by definition irresistible to politicians of all stripes. That is what the president is counting on as he tries to sell this don't-call-it-stimulus plan to his fellow Democrats.


Cher C (1430)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 10:32 am

Thnx hun!


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 10:36 am

Spineless or pragmatic?

Neither. He's been hobbled by the Republicans, with weak Democrats offering little or no support, and brainwashed citizens who don't realize that the very government they want nothing to do with was their last vestige of hope to control conscienceless corporate greed.

Why they continue to campaign for war -- this country's biggest percentage of the deficit -- and champion lower taxes for the wealthy I'm at a complete loss to understand.


karin h (22)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 10:53 am
how can a tax cut cost anything? the money never touches the government, but stays with the wage earner! the government spent NOTHING!

AWAY AWHILE Cal M (1067)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 11:13 am
Alittle bit of both, Kit. My friend, Obama was elected to lead and press an agenda radically different than that he settled for and he knew the state of he economy coming in. He cna't just blame Republican intransigennce for a lack of courage in pushing ideas not easily embraced by all.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 11:35 am
Noted, thanks Kit. I agree Cal...some of both.

Ramona Thompson (210)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 11:35 am
DINO=Democrat In Name Only. (Maybe he will run as a Reublican in 2012.)

I hear of "knock down drag outs" taking place "in the back room" between top Dems. Do ya think R's are twiddling their thumbs, NOT!


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 11:40 am

"Hobbled" he is! The so-called "representatives" of citizens have bitten the hands that feed them and turned rabid.

One can not send out a warrior, but disarm him.

A stealthy attack on ALL Americans has been orchestrated here; and the cunning message used to seduce them into believing they are being saved has made many willing, and complicit, victims.

This really has less to do with Obama, the figurehead, than the destruction of the rights of citizens, for the ultimate (and overwhelming) greed and power of elitists.

Terry King (113)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 11:45 am
IMHO The Republicans are playing the president like a trout. They are going to get him to commit to two more years of tax cuts for the rich now. With this legislation in place They will be free to attack the enormous deficit they create by coming after the middle class by raising social security taxes, repealing health care, and taking back the deduction for mortgage interest. The worse things get, the better it becomes for them!

Kit B (276)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 11:50 am
Karin asked how a tax cut can cost any thing... A tax cut by it's nature and name indicate money that was once coming into the government coffers and is no longer. When the tax-cuts add up to 60 billion a year - that's a big loss.


Caitlin M (104)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 12:25 pm
Karin H., I think it is said tax cuts "cost" us because of the income that is lost when taxes are cut. If the wealthy (& anyone) do not pay a certain amount because of a tax cut, the "cost" to the government is that amount the taxpayer did NOT pay into the system. Does that make sense?

Terry King (113)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 12:33 pm
I just watched the Obama speech. There was good news and bad news. The good news is that the president found his fire and passion.....The bad news is that he changed sides!

Caitlin M (104)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 12:50 pm
Obviously Kit and I submitted our answers simultaneously...or at least Kit's answer had not updated by the time I came to the site.

Anyway, the Republicans are disgusting no matter how you look at it. If anyone has heard and/or seen Pres. Obama's press conference today, he presents a good case for his thinking. BUT, I'm with Bernie Sanders of VT, I think. He says the answer is to convince a "handful" of Republicans to give a square deal to the lower income & middle class by all of us calling Republican Reps & Sens and bombarding them with what our expectations are. I think I'd rather have that tried than to accede to Repubs. right now. I think there's still a possibility that the President is not all wrong but whether he's right won't be known for a while. Clear as mud to me!

Caitlin M (104)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 12:57 pm
I think Terry described pretty well dear President's press conference today. Too bad!

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 12:59 pm

It's bizarre to me that, those who grasp that this government was purposely composed with the essence of "checks and balances" -- meaning that no one sector had ultimate control, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT -- are blind to the fact that the very system initiated to ensure fairness and equity, is now being used to render the Chief Executive of this country powerless . . . AND YET, they wish to hold him accountable!

Countless times, the Republican representatives have been immortalized on camera vowing to render this president powerless (while rejoicing in watching him be blamed for his inability to govern).

This is becoming a farcical exultation of bullies. The most ridiculous part is that those who are laughing are also victims.

Terry King (113)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 1:07 pm
Sanders / Kucinich in 08!

Terry King (113)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 1:08 pm

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 1:09 pm

Doesn't matter, Terry . . . KEEP THAT SPIRIT!

patricia lasek (317)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 1:37 pm
Sen. Bernie Sanders vowed to do anything he could to stop this bill, including filibuster. He said over 90% of the callers to his office disapproved of the "deal".

We shall see, in the coming weeks, what happens.

Blast Dorrough (43)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 3:24 pm
President Obama's only position to take was one of principle againt the unscrupulous one taken by the political stooges of the lawless Corporatecrafters. FDR welcomed the hatred of the imagined nobility that he refered to as "economic royalists." FDR never wavered to the desires of the parasitical reprobates. Obama should have DICTATED what was the true, good and right economic course to take for the public good or "general Welfare" as commanded by the Preamble to the Constitution. This would have shown true statesmanship and qualities of a true leader. He should have been ready to counter the expected wrath of slander that would come from the evil GOP accusing him of non-partisan politics. That was the honorable course FDR chose to take under similar circumstances. FDR was in his fourth elected four-year term when he died. He would have been elected for life had he lived to be 200 years old because he gave no leeway to lawless and unscrupulous adversaries via compromise. There can be no compromise between true and false, good and evil or right and wrong. Obama would be sitting on top of the political world had he followed through on his campaign promise of reviving FDR's New Deal for the working class of today. Only time will tell whether he has lost his voter base of Demos and Independents. Progress for the working class can now only come from what is left of the honorable class of the Democratic Party when this "compromise" is considered for legislation.

Hans Mueller (591)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 3:46 pm
"the very system initiated to ensure fairness and equity, is now being used to render the Chief Executive of this country powerless"

Give me a break, The only power he's lost is the Bully Pulpit due to his diminished popularity. What is going on is what has always gone on - compromise. He still has the majority of the Senate and veto power. Other presidents have done just fine with much less.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 4:05 pm

(Somebody is begging for attention.)

Hans Mueller (591)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 4:08 pm
Just The Facts -

The deal announced last night to extend the Bush tax cuts may help the economy. But it also shows the president to be a pushover, with no taste for high-stakes negotiation.

Obama Gets Rolled (Click Here)

Blast Dorrough (43)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 4:11 pm
Money is borrowed to meet governmental payouts that is lost from taxes. The interest paid on the 700 billion in the tax cuts for the rich is a hefty sum that would help reduce the deficit or lost for governmental operations. They do not deserve nor do they need financial assistance. They are getting richer while pleading for their share of funds that should be available only to the needy. We are at the stage of economic diaster that the wealthy created via their greed and corruption and perversion of our constitutional Republic. This could not happen under a pure/true consitutional Republic free of corruptive forces. The wealthy are getting richer at the hardship of the working class who bears most of the tax burden. When I volunteered for the draft for Army service in 1955, Dwight Eisenhower was in his second term as president. If my memory serves me correctly the wealthy had a tax responsibility of 90% of their earnings and still were getting richer as years went by. Under Reagan the greedy wealthy "bought" legislation drastically reducing their tax burden via every tax break imagineable plus corporate welfare in every imagineable form. All of those funds were used for governmental operations but then went to agents of privitization. That tax burden was shifted to the middleclass taxpayer. It is easy to see where we are economically today. We are living as serfs under a born-again monarchy or under a Corporate State of communist capitalism as in Chinese communist capitalism of cheap labor. How can voters of the working class support and vote for politicians beholding to the Corporatecrafters? Especially the GOP masked as "Republicans."

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 4:12 pm

Thank you, Blast.


Linda G (187)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 5:22 pm
After I heard about the "compromise" last night I was angry and couldn't sleep. I composed two letters, one for Republican senators with a copy to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mr. Boehner and one to Democratic Senators.

Republicans cannot in good conscience claim that tax cuts to the wealthy stimulate the economy or create jobs in the US. But they continue to sing the same song. They complain bitterly about spending, debt and the deficit but their actions are completely contrary to their rhetoric.

Republicans are doing their "stealth" tactics once again for political gain. When the tax cuts were initiated in 2001 and 2003, everyone who voted for them also voted for them to expire. That was how they got enough votes to get them passed. Now, they insist that tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% must be included by holding the unemployed, the middle class and the working poor hostage once again. And when the tax cuts are set to expire once again, this time it will be just in time for the 2012 elections giving the Republicans another "Democrats want to raise your taxes" platform once again. So do you think their strategy has political gamesmanship overtones?

I believe it is time for the irresponsible madness to stop. That's why I sent letters via email to every single senator and to several members of the House. I have also signed the petition, contacted Bernie Sanders and have emailed my thoughts to the White House.

I believe Obama is truly doing what he believes is best for the middle class and working poor but having come from Chicago I expected him to be a better street fighter and I hope the Dems don't go along with him.

Because this compromise still adds so much to the deficit, because it increases the amount we must borrow from China, because it causes our international credit rating to lower resulting in having to pay higher interest rates on our debt (thereby increasing spending) I am very much against it. And those who were elected during the 2010 midterms are not going to want to cut spending on defense, or their perks. No, they will attack social security, education, veterans, medicare, infrastructure and so forth. Once again breaking the backs of the middle class and working poor.

Our country is not what it once was and it is weakened because a strong, vital middle class no longer exists. And the real pity is that many vote against their own best interests to remain loyal to a "party".

Jae A (316)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 5:44 pm
At least now the GOP will start to love and praise Obama so we will not have to hear their same ol tired rethoric as how he caused all the problems in the world and is sending our nation down the tubes by going against their will. He's on their side now so they can shut up at last.

Terry is right..He just switched sides.

I suggest suvival skills and preparedness for what is to come now instead of 'hope and or petitions' of a politial nature. They are both being ignoed by all of D.C. At the first of the new year we will see soaring prices and serious economic problems beyond those of today, I think, so that's why I offer the suggestions.
Jusss say'n.

Kathy Chadwell (354)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 6:33 pm

I saw a special about what the new prez learns on his first day in office.
Much to my surprise (or maybe not really surprised) they didn't really bother to tell us what he learns. But it's supposed to contain knowledge about the reality of our Nation & our economics.
In other words, he learns you must scratch their back or else. Just my opinion
This is America, so why is this so secretive? Why are we not entitled to this information?
I forget myself,, I'm just the working class peon, we pay for it all but are not entitled to know nor to have our say in it:(

Kathy Chadwell (354)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 6:34 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last week.
Thank you Kit

Hans Mueller (591)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 6:43 pm

At Least Obama Is Satisfied (Click Here)


Hans Mueller (591)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 6:45 pm

>At Least Obama Is Satisfied (Click Here)

Linda G (187)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 8:36 pm
I truly hope Obama has not "switched sides". I believe he feels he has an obligation to make sure the unemployed are not shafted once again, nor the middle class and poor. As President, he needs to look at the big picture.
That being said, I am totally in opposition to the "compromise" and have made my views known rather strongly. I thinkk we need to hold the GOP accountable for their profligate spending while decreasing revenues.

Dave Kane (308)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 9:14 pm
Well Obama Bush just extended all the tax cuts -- he's more of a Bush than a Bush -- what a fake.

Kathy Chadwell (354)
Tuesday December 7, 2010, 9:58 pm
And the hits just keep coming:(

Tell Congress Now: Stop $9 Billion in New Nuke Loans. No More Taxpayer Bailouts for Giant Corporations!
December 7, 2010

The Obama Administration is asking Congress, as one of its last acts during this lame duck session, to sneak in $9 Billion for taxpayer loans for new nuclear reactor construction as part of its upcoming "Continuing Resolution" to keep the government funded.

This is at least the fourth attempt this year to increase the money available for new reactor "loan guarantees" (actually, these would be loans from the government's Federal Financing Bank)--despite the fact that the Department of Energy has not been able to spend the money it currently has available for such loans--it still has $10.2 Billion in unspent money available!

This money would go to some of the world's largest corporations; companies like Electricite de France, Toshiba directly, Westinghouse (owned by Toshiba), General Electric, and so on. When will Congress learn that taxpayers don't want to subsidize giant corporations, especially when they want to build dirty and dangerous new nuclear reactors in our communities!

With your help, we beat back the first three attempts to increase funding for this program. This one will be the hardest to beat yet, since the Administration's request is wrapped up in a larger package. So we need the loudest outcry possible. Please send a letter to your Senators and Representative below.

If you're on Facebook, Twitter or other networking sites, please help us spread the word. Just click on the icons on the top right of this page to share this action with your friends. Suggested tag line: Tell Congress: No more taxpayer loans for giant nuclear corporations (or use a tag line of your own!). Or send your friends an e-mail with the link to this page:

If you have any problems doing this action, please try again in a short time, and let us know by sending an e-mail to Occasionally, especially when we first issue an Alert, the servers become overloaded and people can't get their letters through. The tech people have been working on the problem. But waiting a few minutes and trying again usually works.

And, after you've sent your letter, we hope you'll consider making a tax-deductible donation to NIRS during our Holiday fundraising drive. Your support makes our work possible.

Note to our many friends outside the U.S.: you will need a U.S. address to participate in this action. U.S. Congressmembers reject mail coming from addresses outside their states or districts.

Loading data, please wait ....
In order to address your message to the appropriate recipient, we need to identify where you are.
Please enter your zip/postal code:


Charmaine C (177)
Wednesday December 8, 2010, 2:57 am
I don't see president Obama as either. The deal has been struck, both sides have got something the wanted, president Obama's will benefit the people and the republican's will benefit only the pockets of the wealthy, clearly speaking to loyalties. Both parties are spending money they have to borrow, so who does this really benefit in the long term?

Thank you Kit for posting.

Kit B (276)
Wednesday December 8, 2010, 7:01 am
I think we have to wonder at the rush for condemnation of the president. Many voted for him, as he did win the election, and it might be a good idea to hear him out.

So many truly insightful comments here, and I do agree with many. We have not only allowed but encouraged the Senate to take the normative role of those who "check" the Bills of the House, to being those who petulantly seek attention and block all Bills for no logical or reasonable purpose. The earliest ideas of a filibuster were that one would "talk till they dropped" though not really seen much, it just might provide a better environment for real discussion if the Senate (pro or con) had to present honest ideas, and not just the evening sound bite.

Many on both sides may feel a loss at the "deal" struck by the GOP and the president, which makes me think it probably is a good thing. The best compromises are when neither side is completely happy.

However, that said - I do wonder that the tax cuts will not become permanent as 2 years from now is another election year and frankly neither side will want to address that explosive issue at that point. Sadly, far too many middle and lower class are not aware that they have tax cuts from Obama that will absorb most of the changes in dissolving the Bush cuts. No such watershed does nor should exist for the top 5% .

Hans Mueller (591)
Wednesday December 8, 2010, 7:17 am

Kit H (173)
Wednesday December 8, 2010, 1:43 pm
The worst has yet to come after the end of this year. Obama cannot stand up against GOP with both Democrats in 2 chambers. How will he do the next 2 years? It does seem that he is wearing a hat not suited for him.

Hans Mueller (591)
Wednesday December 8, 2010, 1:51 pm
Obama came into the White House with the best of intentions but little real political savvy. That would have been survivable if he had surrounded himself with exemplary advisors. Hillary Clinton was much better suited for the job. Perhaps in 2012.

Kit H (173)
Wednesday December 8, 2010, 2:06 pm
I agree with you Hans. Judging from his voting records as a politician, he did not put up with any hard stand. He was not tested but hid in the background of others' votes..

Craig Zimmerman (86)
Wednesday December 8, 2010, 8:49 pm
What really annoys me about Obama is that he has no problem making promises to get votes, and then discarding those promises when they are no longer needed. I don't trust anything that he says anymore.

Mary L (132)
Thursday December 9, 2010, 5:42 pm
The unemployment rate isn't 9.8%, it's a lot higher. The rate doesn't count anyone who isn't getting a check. There are probably hundred of millions of people in that category. The PTB are afraid to add the people who've tried so long and so hard and been turned down so many times they quit looking. Particularly in the 22 right to be fired states and one territory, there is a low, low incidence of people classed as "unemployed" Companies will fight tooth and nail to insure that no one can collect unemployment. Some will go so far as to fire people rather than lay them off.

Personally after watching this situation for years, I'd bet that Tennessee's rate is conservatively more like 12 to 15%.

Julie S. (0)
Monday February 14, 2011, 1:17 pm



Scarlett P (126)
Monday February 14, 2011, 1:27 pm
It took the United States of America 233 years (1776-2009) to amass a national debt of $11 trillion. Yet President Barack Obama’s record large 2009 budget deficit estimated at $1.85 trillion and his own spending plans for the next 10 years (2010-2019) show that our national debt will likely double over the next 10 years.

Using the Obama administration’s own projections, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that, including the record 2009 budget deficit of $1.85 trillion, and huge annual deficits over 2009-2019 will result in an additional $11.1 trillion in national debt, on top of the current $11.4 trillion. The national debt will very likely more than double in the next decade because some of the CBO’s economic assumptions may be too optimistic.

The CBO also recently revised its estimate for the budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 to at least $1.85 trillion. But unless the economy rebounds soon, that number will very likely top $2 trillion by the end of September when FY2009 comes to an end. According to the CBO, Obama plans to run a FY2010 deficit of apprx $1.4 trillion and almost $1 trillion in FY2011.

Keep in mind that these deficits do not include even half of the massive costs for Obama’s health insurance plan, which some experts now project will cost between $1.5 and $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Likewise, these projections do not include any money for the trillions that will have to be spent saving Social Security and Medicare over the next decade.

Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, these numbers should alarm you! If the national debt doubles over the next 10 years, it will almost certainly be a disaster for the US dollar and the bond markets, and it will almost certainly wreck the stock markets as well. The largest foreign holders of US Treasury debt are already expressing concern about Obama’s record spending, and they could abandon the dollar and US Treasury securities if the national debt rises 50% over the next five years, and doubles over the next 10 years, as is projected by the CBO.

Julie S. (0)
Monday February 14, 2011, 7:13 pm
My last comment sounded reall fanatical. I was venting & I really regret losing my marbles, there. To anyone who found my All-Caps rant nuts, please forgive me. Fanaticism solves nothing. However, WE THE PEOPLE need to regroup. Protests won't work because the media doesn't cover it. We need to regroup & unite. We need to realize these few things:
1.) The NeoCons are NOT really stupid! They know what they're doing! They're masters of psychology & manipulation! We must learn from their playbook!
2.) Like them, we must change the Govt. from the BOTTOM-UP. Progressives must run for lower, local government, first, then work up.
3.) Two words: PROGRESSIVE LOBBYING....And the funding thereof from Progressive organizations like the ACLU, PFAW, etc. & Progressive wealthy bigwigs like Soros.
4.) Take to heart JFK's words "Ask not what your country can do for you....." and do stuff for ourselves!

Julie S. (0)
Monday February 14, 2011, 7:19 pm
I hope Hillary runs in 2012, she's got my vote! Her spouse managed to put us in the black for the first time in ages & she was most likely the real brains behind Bill's Administration. They're not perfect & may have some corporate associations but they got things done & they were fairly Progressive.

Julie S. (0)
Monday February 14, 2011, 7:23 pm
I hope Hillary runs for Prez in 2012. She'll get my vote! Her spouse managed to get us back in the black after years of debt & she was most likely the brains behind Bill's administration. The Clinton's may have had some corporate links but they got stuff done and they were fairly Progressive. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON IN 2012......PLEASE!!!

Julie S. (0)
Monday February 14, 2011, 7:24 pm
Sorry about the repeat message. I thought the first didn't take.

Kit H (173)
Tuesday February 15, 2011, 7:42 am
What’s the Stimulus of Extending Tax Cuts For The Rich? CBO: Not Much.

To clarify: The high estimate of extending the full tax cuts instead of the partial tax cuts on the unemployment rate is reducing it by 0.1% by 2012 (and not at all in 2011), with a 2012 high-end estimate of new full-time equivalent employment of 300,000. The low estimate is zero on the unemployment rate in 2011 and 2012, with a full-time equivalent employment of 100,000. I sincerely hope they are going to get a lot else at the bargaining table, given the outpouring of public reaction when the deficit increases but unemployment barely nudges as a result of this move

Kit H (173)
Tuesday February 15, 2011, 8:05 am
Obama criticized Bill Clinton of triangulation, but I think that he has won the ultimate chief commander in triangulation. His record through the span of being politician, he has not taken stand for hard issues, pretty talk but cannot take the walk.
He is also the ultimate lucky guy, getting all political offices and the Nobel Peace Prize not based on merit or accomplishment.
Pretty talk sells.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Offbeat

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.