Packaging For Tomorrow

barefoot prince asked:


1) The proverbial Wall Street capitalists believe that, with new federal income tax rates, the removal of FICA ceilings, increases in capital gains rates, decreases in deductions, and simultaneous tax raises, not only will Obama remove incentives for innovation and productivity, but that he does not seem to care aboutor perhaps appreciatethe consequences?

On the spending side, investors see too many subsidies and entitlements that may Europeanize the populace and erode incentives, while creating so much debt that in the next decade, should interest rates rise, the federal budget will be consumed with servicing borrowing and entitlement obligations. A redistributive economy in which government ensures an equality of result is Wall Streets worst nightmare. Debt can only be paid back by floating more foreign debt, issuing more US bonds at home, raising taxes, or printing moneyall bad options in the mind of the investor.

3) Too many are beginning to think Obama is, well, a nafand hence dangerous. He chest-thumps speeches Geithner cannot deliver. He says we are near the Great Depressionbut then, after the stimulus package passes, suddenly hypes future growth rates to suggest that we will be out a recession, soon after all? Add in all the talk of high-tax, Al-Gorist cap-in-trade, wind and solar, socialized medicine in the midst of a financial crisis, and at best Obama comes across as confused and herky-jerky, and at worse, clueless on the economyas if a Chicago organizer is organizing a multi-trillion-dollar economy. Talking about gyrations and confusion about profits and earnings, and offering ad hoc advice about investing do not restore authority.

`4) Given the amount of debt the US is incurring (and the decades needed to pay it off), given the loose talk about the rich, and given the rumors about nationalization, investors are unsure whether the United States will remain a safe haven for investment, or even offer a climate for profit-making, since it would either be taxed to the point of seizure, or its beneficiaries would be culturally and socially demonized. Ultimately perhaps some will accept that as the price of doing business in a socialist US, but for now it creates doubt. This is not a defense of Wall Street (a year ago Richard Fuld and Robert Rubin were our Zeuses on Olympus who strutted like gods), simply a warning that we are going from excess to stasis, and the cure will be as bad as or worse than the disease.

IMO, this man is the most thoughtful thinker in the world today:
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/
Calvin: one can’t change the facts can they?
obamaBot: what history book are you reading?
When I placed this question in another place on YA, my stalker “badboyinheat” reported me… only been reported by one person - 8 times! so read while you can!!
actually, I have 2 stalkers who love to report others to YA … “bob” is on duty when “badboyinheat” is sleeping LOL

Riley

spink_is_not_dead asked:


By Dr. Merrill Matthews, resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation

There are at least three necessary ingredients for jumpstarting a faltering economy. John McCain embraces all three; Barack Obama shuns them. It’s just that simple.

Free Trade — Economist Milton Friedman once said that of all the pro-growth policies a government should adopt, free trade is the most important. Former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Alan Greenspan has said that taxing trade between countries makes no more economic sense than taxing trade between states.

McCain aggressively pushes free trade agreements. Obama, especially since pandering to the union vote in the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, talks like a protectionist and even opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Low, simplified taxes — McCain maintains the current tax rates on income, capital gains and dividends and cuts the corporate tax rate. Obama proposes numerous “tax cuts,” many of which are nothing more than income transfers to people who dont pay taxes. He would complicate the tax code and, because he’s targeting the cuts, he gets to pick the economic winners and losers.

Reduced government spending and regulations — According to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, during the first session of the 110th Congress:

* McCain sponsored or cosponsored 22 bills, which would have increased federal spending by $8 billion annually.
* Obama sponsored or cosponsored 114 bills, increasing federal spending $75 billion annually.

That’s a little more than $9 of government spending for Obama for every $1 for McCain.

While McCain has also suggested some troubling programs (like buying up home mortgages), his basic economic plan would be the best “economic stimulus package” the country could get.

Lydia

serenely, soMEone asked:


Dear Mr. [soMEone]

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

On September 19, 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced a plan by the Bush Administration to stabilize the financial services sector of the economy. This plan included broad authority for the Treasury Secretary to purchase troubled financial instruments with very limited oversight and few protections for taxpayers.

In July, I voted against a similar proposed bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because it did not provide taxpayer protection and limits on executive compensation for a government owned entity. For the same reasons, I was not willing to support the Administrations initial proposal, and I encouraged my colleagues to continue work on a plan that would protect taxpayers, provide strict oversight, and place limits on the benefits to executives who accept taxpayer assistance.

In the days following the Treasury Secretarys announcement, concerns about the danger to the broader economy deepened. The high-profile failure of numerous financial institutions caused the commercial lending market to accumulate and hold cash. The credit markets effectively froze, making it difficult for consumers to obtain loans for purchases such as homes and automobiles. The lack of lending in these areas began to place further pressure on the troubled housing market and threatened to spread deeper into the economy. Similarly, many small and mid-sized businesses were finding it difficult to obtain financing to meet their payroll obligations and purchase inventory. Many cities were entering the bond market and getting no bids, even with AAA ratings. The current liquidity crisis still poses a real potential for significant job losses. After consulting with numerous financial experts, small businesses, and bankers in Texas, it became clear to me that normal commercial lending activity would not resume without action by Congress.

Despite this realization, I was still not inclined to support the Paulson plan. After weeks of negotiation, however, a bi-partisan compromise was reached. While there are provisions in the bill that I do not favor and would not have drafted, overall the need for action to stabilize the market and to protect the retirement savings of millions of Americans weighed heavily on my mind. Ultimately, I supported the Senate bill along with 73 of my colleagues. The bill we passed was a major improvement over the initial plan announced by Secretary Paulson.

We increased the deposit insurance cap from $100,000 to $250,000 so that families will have added protection for savings and retirement accounts. While the initial proposal authorized up to $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, the measure we passed takes a more cautious approach, initially authorizing $250 billion and requiring the approval from Congress and the President for additional funding. Importantly, the bill we passed includes restrictions on the benefits received by executives whose companies are selling some of their distressed assets to the government. In return for purchasing the assets, taxpayers will obtain an ownership stake in the companies. Many leading economists believe that the real estate market will turn around in the foreseeable future and government owned properties and assets will be sold at a profit. A provision in this bill that I supported requires any profits realized to be placed in the nations treasury to reduce the deficit. If, however, after five years the government is facing a loss in the program, the President must submit a plan to Congress recommending how the money will be recouped from financial services companies. I believe that these protections are a dramatic improvement over the Administrations initial proposal.

The bill passed by the Senate included an important package of tax policy provisions. One of these provisions is an extension of the state and local sales tax deduction, which is a matter of fairness for states like Texas that do not have a state income tax. The average Texan will save $520 when they file their federal income tax forms next year. We also shielded low and middle-income taxpayers from higher taxes associated with the flawed alternative minimum tax (AMT) and included tax incentives to spur energy production and innovation including the wind energy production tax credit and the research and development tax credit.

As Texans, we have learned to take responsibility for our actions and being asked to pay for the mistakes of others is something many, including myself, find deeply troubling. However, after careful deliberation, I believe that the risks associated with doing nothing outweighed the risk of passing a less than perfect bill that nevertheless includes important protections for taxpayers. Economic evidence clearly suggested the problems were spreading into the broader economy. That i
============
[cont.]

That is why I voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.

I appreciate hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov
==========
Kat: We have no choice but to drive 10 over. Our cows do eighty in their sleep!

Seriously, you’re spot on, as always. Lucky for you your Senators (unlike our Sinners) did it down.

Thanks!

(beware the Texas Cow)

…

Estrella

David S asked:


McCain released a Web ad that distorts Obama’s positions on clean-energy innovation and nuclear power.

The ad portrays Obama as saying “no” to energy “innovation” and to “the electric car.” In fact, Obama proposed a $150 billion program of research into a wide variety of clean-energy technologies last year, long before McCain proposed to award a $300 million prize for developing a commercially viable battery package capable of powering automobiles.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143344

Annalise