Ok, Now I am confused.

darthtang aw

Active Member
Didn't Obama say the recession and the market would be around for at least a couple years before it started to get better?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/...s_stimulus_126
"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece titled, "The Action Americans Need."
He rejected the argument that more tax cuts are needed in the plan and that piecemeal measures would be sufficient, arguing that Americans made their intentions clear in the election.
"I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change," he wrote.

So if I understand this right, the economy will remain in recession maybe for years if we don't pass this bill soon (as in Friday), but once we pass this bill it will take years to work our self out of this recession.....someone explain to me the difference in passing the bill and not passing the bill, since the economy is going to suck for years anyway.
By the way, for running on a platform of hope, this guy is not doing a very good job at providing HOPE. Every time he speaks it is how bad crap is and how much worse it might get.....like we needed someone to tell us this.......
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
nd while I am thinking about it....Obama is calling for the capping of ceo pay at 500,000 dollars, where does he plan to make up for all the lost revenue to the govt. in taxes from these guys?
 

ruaround

Active Member
realism sucks huh... its gonna take a while to fix what past presidents have done... and perhaps our savior of hope & change isnt gonna be the one that does it, but gets it started... or heck makes it worse...
why does everyone hinge on Obamas every word??? is it perhaps that we can understand what he says???
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
http:///forum/post/2943888
.....
why does everyone hinge on Obamas every word??? is it perhaps that we can understand what he says???
you mean 2 words; "Hope" and "Change".
I personally hope I have more in my bank account than change when he's done.
 

bigarn

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2943778
nd while I am thinking about it....Obama is calling for the capping of ceo pay at 500,000 dollars, where does he plan to make up for all the lost revenue to the govt. in taxes from these guys?
Only CEO's who took bailout money are affected. You know this right?
 

ruaround

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2943900
you mean 2 words; "Hope" and "Change".
I personally hope I have more in my bank account than change when he's done.

right... he is the savior right??? do we just hope for change??? or make a change and hope???
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bigarn
http:///forum/post/2943901
Only CEO's who took bailout money are affected. You know this right?
Yeah I know this, still poses the same question though. If you only collect (picking a random figure) 20 percent of 500,000 now in taxes versus 20 percent in 200 million, where will the tax revenue losses be made up from?
This is my problem with it. While people are calling for a ceo cap for pay on these guys they are not thinking about how it might affect them. You lower their pay, you lower the revenue to the government, hence the government will have to make up for that loss somehow, who do you think will be penalized for this? Us?
 

ruaround

Active Member

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2943929
Yeah I know this, still poses the same question though. If you only collect (picking a random figure) 20 percent of 500,000 now in taxes versus 20 percent in 200 million, where will the tax revenue losses be made up from?

This is my problem with it. While people are calling for a ceo cap for pay on these guys they are not thinking about how it might affect them. You lower their pay, you lower the revenue to the government, hence the government will have to make up for that loss somehow, who do you think will be penalized for this? Us?
from the jar at the checkstand with a sign that says "The Drive For Hope And Change"...
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Here's your chance to become a star! You Anti-Obamites now have a chance to make yourself known:
***** We want your video! *****
The 44th president - FIRST 100 DAYS
CBSNews.com invites you to submit your videos about the First 100 Days
of the Obama administration. Focus on the issues that are most important
to your community, or the people and places you feel need attention.
What should President Barack Obama's top priorities be for the First
100 Days?
Tell us, and be creative. All Americans have a right to speak out,
and at CBSNews.com we are listening.
Submit your video now:
http://ct.cnet-ssa.cnet.com/clicks?t...d=CNET-SSA&s=5
 

hlcroghan

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2943929
Yeah I know this, still poses the same question though. If you only collect (picking a random figure) 20 percent of 500,000 now in taxes versus 20 percent in 200 million, where will the tax revenue losses be made up from?
This is my problem with it. While people are calling for a ceo cap for pay on these guys they are not thinking about how it might affect them. You lower their pay, you lower the revenue to the government, hence the government will have to make up for that loss somehow, who do you think will be penalized for this? Us?
By them getting paid less......that is pretty simple. They don't pay as much taxes but that other 2 million that they don't get can go somewhere else. I have always agreed that there should be no reason someone gets some obscene amount of money just for overseeing the running of a business. It's completely silly. Paid more?? Certainly. But millions?? Uh no. The people under him that went to college and work their butt off barely get a retirement and have to struggle the rest of their lives......yeah that extra he doesn't get can go to them.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by hlcroghan
http:///forum/post/2944098
They don't pay as much taxes but that other 2 million that they don't get can go somewhere else.
2 million, try over 200 million, but that is not the point. Ok so the employee more people, Who inturn make a lower wage than the to 2 percent. Who in turn pay a lower percentage in tax, thus less taxes are collected....and this is all IF the company employs more people. They could take the money they save, drop it into R&D instead and use it for a write off. But either way the government will still see LESS tax revenue. So I ask you where do they make it up?
 

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
Hey, How about this? I'm not one for anarchy.... but if we don't pull out of this "recession" in the next couple of years, how about we overthrow the government?
"A government for the people and by the people..." Bull rot. The minority gets to decide for the majority who runs the country. Liberals and Conservatives bashing each other because they think they are right. bah. A system of checks and balances that don't mean jack when either side of the house or congress is the majority. Idealist bullrot.
I'm just going to wait out the next four years and HOPE for a CHANGE.
 
Top