Ibime:

If the Bush tax cuts are so special, why are they not creating the jobs to offset the depression?

Some niggas are really deluded.

Don't mind those O' yes idiots trolling this thread. They are seriously deluded. Republicans are holding the govt hostage by forcing the president to do as they wish or nothing will be done and they are happy about it. They managed to sweep this elections and that is what they needed to wreck the havoc and to be honest they don't want anything to get done before 2012 so they can use it against Dems in the election.

These deluded fools are not yet convinced about the republican ploy even after they clearly showed that they have no clue on how to cut costs after the election. Something they ran their tickets on. Of course, it is practically impossible and they know it. CNN gave them 3 months to come up with a plan and their plan will surely be to cripple Obama's government so as to force him out of the white house and wreck America for another 4 years. This is a grand style coup d'etat. They used that system to get oust Jimmy Carter and got George Bush into office and it took another 4 years for Americans to realize that they have been fooled, then comes Bill and after 8 years, they cleverly hijacked the election for another 8 gloomy years of which the economy is still suffering today.

Like you said before, some niggers are seriously deluded. Having a college education is not the same as having common sense. Many black people pack degrees upon degrees yet they are still confused.

@Pres,

when I talk of foreign negotiation, I meant real foreign policy like defence treaties etc, not sports, lol. Ok I know you are bored again, go back to your room and look at that unclothed Sarah palin photo on your wall and enjoy your fantasies. Aight!

Is it not the same principles in every walk of life? Like I said, if you can point to anything this guy did or accomplished before he became President that gave you any indication that he could handle this office, then I will concede.

You and this your infatuation with Palin. She is a married woman o. Go find your own wife. You probably stand a better chance of doing that if you will only stop imagining other people's wives naked.

Tayo-D:

@Ibime,
If the tax cuts are so bad, why is everyone in agreement that it should be extended?  Never mind that some are using it for class envy politics by calling for extension only for the group that translates to a bigger voting block!!!!

That wasn't the question he asked you and if you believe that is the probable answer to that question then you need to seek for refund from the school that trained you.Who is everyone by the way?. Assuming everyone is in agreement that it should be extended, why should we after all, who likes to pay taxes?. If there is a way the government can propose the elimination of taxes for all citizens, I bet you that 100% will be in agreement whether liberal ,conservative and independents.

@Emeka,

I can see you are one of those who try to feel important and smart by claiming others are not as knowledgeable as you are.  If it'll help your ego, I will not ask you to desist from it.  Afterall, nothing you say takes away anything from me.  I am very comfortable in my skin, my mind and my spirit.  

So you are of the opinion that the best way to grow this economy is to take money away from the productive sector and give it to the leeches?  I'm sorry, but nothing in my educational background, life experience or common sense will make me agree with the faulty logic you guys present.  I guess unlike giving tax cuts and incentives to the productive people who can create jobs, you must agree with Nancy Pee-losi who said the best way to grow the economy is to hand out unemployment checks  .  We cut down the deficits by borrowing money to hand out unemployment checks  .  That is the Democrat way out of this recession.  While it takes Pee-losi to say such a thing, it takes a complete slowpoke to believe it  .

@Aloy,

That wasn't the question he asked you and if you believe that is the probable answer to that question then you need to seek for refund from the school that trained you.Who is everyone by the way?. Assuming everyone is in agreement that it should be extended, why should we after all, who likes to pay taxes?. If there is a way the government can propose the elimination of taxes for all citizens, I bet you that 100% will be in agreement whether  liberal ,conservative and independents.

That is because the question is based on a faulty logic.  The question assumes that the depression was caused by tax cuts.  Where is the data to prove that?  The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 resulted in more money in govt coffers and led to one of the longest periods of prosperity ever known by this country.

Was it the tax cuts that led to the subprime mortgage mess? Was it responsible for the exponential increase in govt spending?  Like I mentioned much earlier, this is nothing but class envy politics where a demarcation is made with votes in mind.

You may want to check this out from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

In fact, the Bush tax cuts actually increased government revenue. According to economist Brian Reidl of the Heritage Foundation, The Laffer Curve (upon which much of the supply-side theory is based) merely formalizes the common sense observations that

•1. Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate,
•2. Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains, and
•3. Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, then they should know that high investment taxes will discourage investment and income taxes will discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some or all of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut.

Tayo-D:

@Aloy,
That is because the question is based on a faulty logic.  The question assumes that the depression was caused by tax cuts.  Where is the data to prove that?  The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 resulted in more money in govt coffers and led to one of the longest periods of prosperity ever known by this country.

Where did Ibime claim that depression was caused by tax cuts?. He simply asked you that if you believe that Bush tax cuts were so beneficial to the economy, why didn't it prevent depression and job losses?. That was the question and you are turning around now to take the liberal stance, arent you?. Is it not conservatives who claim that taxing the rich guys more will hurt their ability to provide us with our daily bread?.

and here we go, repeating the same old spin ad nauseum. Nobody understanding the other, simply shouting over our heads like good nigerians do. Our feet firmly rooted in our bunkers . . . the typical "i must be right" mentality even in the face of yawning ignorance. Na wa o. We nigerians are a special breed of people.

And talking of the americans . . . i hear some defence of the tax cuts here . . . i wonder why we are in a recession at all even when taxes are at the lowest they have been in over 40yrs. Going by republican BS, this shld be the time of economic boom. They cant pay for unemployment extension but have no problems dipping the govt in more red ink just so THEY (the rich) . . . not us, can get their money to buy yachts and take holidays to France.

Repubs have one goal in mind - the destruction of Obama. Its not about policy, not about the economy, nothing to do with taxes . . . Sen. McConnell  could not have made this point any clearer. But of course we still have those with their heads buried in the sands of denial.

Did i read about that republican who demanded his government health care even after campaigning to deny same to his constituents?

We need to rethink the old theories of supply-side economics and adapt it to the modern worlf we live in. The only way supply side policies can have effect like they did in Reagan years is if states start adopting protectionism.

Two economic theories cannot conflict each other anymore than two physics theories. The overriding theory is that firms will seek to maximise profit, and do so by keeping costs low.

Hence firms will try to produce where labour is cheap. This has knock on effect on demand side where people don't have jobs or regular income to buy these products and are increasingly reliant on the state to "stimulate demand".

American tax may be high in comparison to others, but firms have been dealing there long before the Bush tax cuts. Bush tax cuts will not bring Microsoft and Google back from Ireland where tax is 14%. Hehehehehe.

In fact, the Bush tax cuts actually increased government revenue. According to economist Brian Reidl of the Heritage Foundation, The Laffer Curve (upon which much of the supply-side theory is based) merely formalizes the common sense observations that

•1. Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate,
•2. Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains, and
•3. Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, then they should know that high investment taxes will discourage investment and income taxes will discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some or all of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut.

Tayo,

These are ideals, theoretical proposals that will not apply or produce the expected outcome on a personal or corporate tax. . . . . they do have validity in excise tax!

If you attach regulatory taxes (fines, penalties, seizures) to the personal income tax, any increase in rates will not necessarily result in the behavioral response that this economist alluded to. 

There is no catch-net alternative for an employee that quits a job because of high tax rate.

Corporate tax is handled differently than personal tax and so this theory will equally not be practical in a business environment.  Traditionally, government uses incentives to encourage business to expand production, conduct research and development, improve process and methodology for increased efficiency and so on. . . .  So a high corporate tax will simply be passed on to consumers. 

If you apply this tax theory to personal habits and nefarious activities - tobacco products, liquor and alcohols, unlicensed prostitution, casinos and lottery gamblings. . . . then, true the base will respond as described by the economist.

The theory is applicable only to excise tax!

Bush tax cuts did not increase any revenue. The revenue increase was a result of America coming out of the recession caused by the tech bubble burst and 9/11.

Clinton actually raised taxes whilst increasing revenue and creating 22 million jobs whilst Bush created only 4.8 million (admittedly thanks to increased outsourcing during Bush period)

The Laffer curve is no longer relevant today in respect of personal income tax. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Artur Laffer purportedly drew the curve on a napkin, the tax rate for the highest earners was 90%. Reducing the 90% tax rate did increase revenue but reducing personal income tax rates from say 36% to 33% merely loses revenue.

However, it will make sense for the US to reduce the Corporation Tax for the mere reason that it makes the US more competitive. In this respect, the Laffer curve is still valid.

@Aloy,

Where did Ibime claim that depression was caused by tax cuts?. He simply asked you that if you believe that Bush tax cuts were so beneficial to the economy, why didn't it prevent depression and job losses?. That was the question and you are turning around now to take the liberal stance, arent you?. Is it not conservatives who claim that taxing the rich guys more will hurt their ability to provide us with our daily bread?.

You are trying too hard to appear smart. If the tax cuts were present before and during the depression, and someone insists it be taken away, isn't that a tacit admission that it is a contributing factor to it? So why the insistence that it should be taken away? Why not insist that the givt should live within its means and roll back spending to the pre-depression era?

Now to my own question. Would you be so kind as to provide us with the answers that Pres-elect is obviously at a loss in answering? What are Obama's antecedents or record that will cause anyone to believe that he is in a position to negotiate anything as President?

@Davidylan,

and here we go, repeating the same old spin ad nauseum. Nobody understanding the other, simply shouting over our heads like good nigerians do. Our feet firmly rooted in our bunkers . . . the typical "i must be right" mentality even in the face of yawning ignorance. Na wa o. We nigerians are a special breed of people.

To think you have the audacity to say others are reapeating the same old spin and yet denigrate the character of millions of people with a few taps of your keyboard smack of sheer hypocrisy. Next time, you might want to live up to whatever vices you condemn.

And talking of the americans . . . i hear some defence of the tax cuts here . . . i wonder why we are in a recession at all even when taxes are at the lowest they have been in over 40yrs. Going by republican BS, this shld be the time of economic boom. They cant pay for unemployment extension but have no problems dipping the govt in more red ink just so THEY (the rich) . . . not us, can get their money to buy yachts and take holidays to France.

Let me make it simple for you. Could it be that we are in this mess just because the govt is spending more money than it has ever done? It's like Pres-elect claiming that the only reason why he is broke is because I am not giving him enough money. He will probably do better if he is living within his means, don't you think? By the way, if you are so concerned about the govt being so deep in red ink, why the support to extend the tax cut for any group of people for that matter? You mean extending the tax cut for people not tagged rich according to Obama will make no difference to the govt's income?

@David,

Repubs have one goal in mind - the destruction of Obama. Its not about policy, not about the economy, nothing to do with taxes ,  . Sen. McConnell  could not have made this point any clearer. But of course we still have those with their heads buried in the sands of denial.

Would you think they are only returning the favour seeing what the Dems including Obama did to Bush?  That is the nature of politics, it is not pretty.

Did i read about that republican who demanded his government health care even after campaigning to deny same to his constituents?

This is so blatantly foolish.  But of course, knowing how dishonest you Leftists are, one will not expect you to make a distinction between an employer provided health coverage and the socialist inclined universal health care.

The majority of Americans get their healthcare through their employers.  Politicians, like civil servants should have health coverage throgh their employer.  I will take you seriously if you ask that all Federal workers like the politicians should drop their health coverage.

why would anyone describe Obama as weak - Obama is a wall street puppet, who is doing exactly what his backers want him to do, the highest donors to his presidential  campaign were some of the biggest investment banks in america, jp morgan chase, goldman sachs, citgroup, and morgan stanley.
These are the same corporations which received millions of dollars of american tax payers money in bailouts therefore why would anyone describe Obama as a weak candidate.  He is merely carrying out his paymasters instructions.

Many people voted Obama in without even knowing who he was and what his policies were, you only have to look at members of his cabinet to understand whose interests he represents.

Obama does not represent the ordinary american but the super rich financiers and major corporations in america, the good thing about him though is that unlike George Bush he uses deception and charm to hoodwink people into beleiving that he stands for change.

I understand unemployment in america is now officially 10% and unofficilally 15% and yet the recession has still not run its full course.

You only have to look at how Obama handed $3 trillion dollars of US tax payers money to wall street on the advice of  henry paulson former CEO of goldman sachs and former federal reserve president timothy geithner to understand where he is coming from. 

By the way nobody knows what these banks actually did with all of this money as they refused to give an account of what it was used for to the american tax payers.

What i find amazing though is the fact that Obama dealt with the auto industry in a much harsher manner.
He set up an auto task force and appointed his friends on wall street, (the same guys who caused the financial meltdown in the first place !!!!)to oversee the "restructuring" of major motor manufacturers like GM and Chrysler.  This resulted in thousands of job cuts.

Am i the only one who has come to the conclusion that Obama goes out of his way to favour his super rich friends while treating ordinary working people as if they are expendable?

Now to add insult to injury Obama intends to extend  tax cuts for the rich whilst simultaneously imposing wage cuts, mass unemployment , cuts in health care, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on the working poor.

When are people going to wake up and understand that Obama does not represent the interests of  ordinary working people but that of the super rich.  Ive noticed that some people on here actually think there's a difference in policy between the republicans and the democrats - open your eyes, they both serve the same master - if you want to know who is really running america look no further than the banking cartels and the multinational corporations.

Tayo-D:

@Emeka,

I can see you are one of those who try to feel important and smart by claiming others are not as knowledgeable as you are. If it'll help your ego, I will not ask you to desist from it. Afterall, nothing you say takes away anything from me. I am very comfortable in my skin, my mind and my spirit.

So you are of the opinion that the best way to grow this economy is to take money away from the productive sector and give it to the leeches? I'm sorry, but nothing in my educational background, life experience or common sense will make me agree with the faulty logic you guys present. I guess unlike giving tax cuts and incentives to the productive people who can create jobs, you must agree with Nancy Pee-losi who said the best way to grow the economy is to hand out unemployment checks . We cut down the deficits by borrowing money to hand out unemployment checks . That is the Democrat way out of this recession. While it takes Pee-losi to say such a thing, it takes a complete not-so-smart person to believe it .

Jeez this guy is so clueless its painful to read his posts, first of all the only leeches that readily come to mind with regard to the american economy are the investment banks like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and many others who received THREE TRILLION DOLLARS IN AMERICAN TAX PAYERS MONEY FOR CAUSING THIS VERY ECONOMIC RECESSION THAT AMERICA IS CURRENTLY BATTLING.

IF THAT ISNT LEECHING OFF THE GOVT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.
BY THE WAY CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW CORPORATE DEFAULT SWAPS, DERIVATIVES AND SUB PRIME MORTGAGES ARE PRODUCTIVE TO THE AMERICAN ECONOMY OR ANY ECONOMY FOR THAT MATTER

I think you desperately need a crash course in economics 101 - how does giving welfare to the rich grow an economy??

Also if you close down businesses, lay off staff and outsource jobs to the third world dont you think the least that you owe your jobless masses is an unemployment cheque??

@cap28,

I think you desperately need a crash course in economics 101 - how does giving welfare to the rich grow an economy??

It will be good to understand what is being said before you go off tangent making rather baseless comparisons. At what time did I ever condone welfare for the rich? I was actually contemplating going in the same direction you did but I just didn't want additional whining from Pres-elect about people going off topic.

In any case, how can you compare tax cuts (which I support) to bail outs (which I don't)? Tax cuts is asking people who make money to keep more of that money so that they can re-invest it to make more money and jobs which drive the economy. Bail outs on the other hand is subsidizing failure and promoting risky behavior. I support the former and not the latter.

So please understand what you read before suggesting what others need to learn! Capish!!!!

Tayo-D:

@cap28,
It will be good to understand what is being said before you go off tangent making rather baseless comparisons. At what time did I ever condone welfare for the rich? I was actually contemplating going in the same direction you did but I just didn't want additional whining from Pres-elect about people going off topic.

In any case, how can you compare tax cuts (which I support) to bail outs (which I don't)? Tax cuts is asking people who make money to keep more of that money so that they can re-invest it to make more money and jobs which drive the economy. Bail outs on the other hand is subsidizing failure and promoting risky behavior. I support the former and not the latter.

So please understand what you read before suggesting what others need to learn! Capish!!!!

this is what you said in your previous post:

So you are of the opinion that the best way to grow this economy is to take money away from the productive sector and give it to the leeches?  I'm sorry, but nothing in my educational background, life experience or common sense will make me agree with the faulty logic you guys present.  I guess unlike giving tax cuts and incentives to the productive people who can create jobs, you must agree with Nancy Pee-losi who said the best way to grow the economy is to hand out unemployment checks  .  We cut down the deficits by borrowing money to hand out unemployment checks  .  That is the Democrat way out of this recession.  While it takes Pee-losi to say such a thing, it takes a complete not-so-smart person to believe it  .

Tax cuts for the rich and bail outs amount to the same thing - welfare for the rich. 

You are confused, on the one hand you say you dont beleive in bail outs and on the other you say you believe in tax cuts - they both acheive the same thing ie they put large sums of money in the hands of undeserving leeches albeit rich leeches.

You are blindly being brainwashed into beleiving that its only poor people who receive welfare.

If you dont beleive in money being taken away from the most productive sector  and being given to leeches then you should not be in support of Obama's lopsided policy of giving welfare to the rich whilst simultaneously cutting numerous jobs in heavy industry and laying off thousands of workers. 

I asked you what is productive about credit default swaps, derivatives, sub prime mortgages and structured  investment vehicles and you havent answered the question, these are the type of products that the "productive" investment banks were speculating on - can you explain why these products are useful to the american economy?

The proposed tax cuts which Obama intends to extend will benefit the rich much more than the poor, why reward the very people who are responsible for the current economic crisis that we are in with even more money?

@Cap28,

I think you are the one that is badly in need of that crash course in Economics 101. It will be fool-hardy for me to be explaining investment products to someone who does not know the difference between a tax cut and a bail out. That politicians sometimes use the terms interchangeably to achieve a political end does not make them the same. Go figure!!!!

Tayo-D:

@Cap28,

I think you are the one that is badly in need of that crash course in Economics 101. It will be fool-hardy for me to be explaining investment products to someone who does not know the difference between a tax cut and a bail out. That politicians sometimes use the terms interchangeably to achieve a political end does not make them the same. Go figure!!!!

ha ha you make me laugh - why are you shying away from answering my question?

let me try again, what is productive about a CDS, SIV or sub prime mortgage?

also why do you support tax cuts for the rich but do not realise that the $3trillion bail out (american tax payer money) was also a form of welfare given to undeserving greedy rich leeches?

Negro,

These are ideals, theoretical proposals that will not apply or produce the expected outcome on a personal or corporate tax. . . . . they do have validity in excise tax!  The theory is applicable only to excise tax!

4_Play,

The Laffer curve is no longer relevant today in respect of personal income tax.  However, it will make sense for the US to reduce the Corporation Tax for the mere reason that it makes the US more competitive. In this respect, the Laffer curve is still valid.

You are both right to the extent that some aspects of human behavior are not taken into consideration here.  In these days of "funemployment" where unemployment checks can be relied upon to roll in for months, any increase in taxes could make the difference between keeping a job or opting for unemploment.  I say this because I know people who actually chose to not work because the returns are comparable to what they get in the form of an unemployment check.

One other thing we also should consider here is that this talk of taxing the rich goes way beyond personal income taxes.  A lot of small businesses here in the US will get taxed at the higher level being suggested by the Socialist Democrats.  As you both agree, rasing taxes on these entities is surely a bad idea.

@cap28,

ha ha you make me laugh - why are you shying away from answering my question? let me try again, what is productive about a CDS, SIV or sub prime mortgage?

You are a lost cause aint you? You don't even know the basics and you are asking me to lecture you on the advance. This is like asking to do a Doctorate when you don't even have a first degree.

also why do you support tax cuts for the rich but do not realise that the $3trillion bail out (american tax payer money) was also a form of welfare given to undeserving greedy rich leeches?

So who is rich if I may ask? I can see you still have trouble distinguishing between tax cuts and bailouts. Come back here after you can tell the difference between the two!

Tayo-D:

@cap28,
You are a lost cause aint you? You don't even know the basics and you are asking me to lecture you on the advance. This is like asking to do a Doctorate when you don't even have a first degree.
So who is rich if I may ask? I can see you still have trouble distinguishing between tax cuts and bailouts. Come back here after you can tell the difference between the two!

no im just having fun laughing at your stu.pidity, you are defending a system which you do not understand and which you do not benefit from.  Why would a nigerian immigrant like you strenuously defend a system which you are not benefitting from? I can understand a high income earner jumping to the defence of Obama's austerity measures and tax breaks for the rich but you do not fall into that category.  The tax cuts are to be extended for only those earning in excess of £250,000 - do  you fall into that category?  I think not.

do you not understand that that will mean that people like you will be paying a higher proportion of their earnings in tax than someone who earns more than £250,000 per annum or more. 
only dummies slavishly follow and even agree with policies which are of no benefit to them.

by the way i take it that you do not understand what those investment products are hence your defensive stance, i was testing you to see if you could explain how they are productive as you earlier claimed that money should not be taken away from the productive members of society up till now you still can not explain to me how investment products contribute productively to society, you have confirmed my suspicion that you are just another wanna be economist.

Oh by the way what IS the difference between a tax cut and a govt bail out -  i await your enlightened response with bated breath 

@cap,

Up until about 2 years ago, I owned 4 properties here in the US. I have close family members and friends that work in the mortgage industry. I have now withdrawn virtually all the money I have in the stock markets with only a few thousand dollars. Do I know anything about Subprime mortgages and investment products derived from them? The answer is experientially (I hope you know the meaning of that word). As for you, I can tell all you know about them is whatever you may have dug up on wikipedia and allied websites.

And just as I said before, I will not waste my time trying to explain complex financial products to someone who does not know the difference between a tax cut and a bailout.

Tayo-D:

@cap,

Up until about 2 years ago, I owned 4 properties here in the US. I have close family members and friends that work in the mortgage industry. I have now withdrawn virtually all the money I have in the stock markets with only a few thousand dollars. Do I know anything about Subprime mortgages and investment products derived from them? The answer is experientially (I hope you know the meaning of that word). As for you, I can tell all you know about them is whatever you may have dug up on wikipedia and allied websites.

And just as I said before, I will not waste my time trying to explain complex financial products to someone who does not know the difference between a tax cut and a bailout.

hahahaha - what has your "owning" 4 properties in the US got to do with anything?

Up until the recent sub prime mortgage crash obtaining a mortgage in the UK or america was about the easiest thing to do in the world - whats the big deal about taking out 4 loans - absolutely nothing, but i see youre one of those nigerians in america who think theres something great about being lumbered with 4 massive loans for the rest of your life. Unless you actually paid cash for those properties (which i doubt)  then whats the big deal? 

by the way, i noticed you referred to your properties in the past tense were you a recipient of one of those sub prime mortgages?

The reason you have refused to explain to me the difference between a bail out and a tax cut is because you do not know, i am making you eat humble pie and your having a difficult time swallowing it.
You have spouted all these pseudo economic arguments without being able to even explain to me why you made your earlier statement about protecting people who you refer to as the most productive members of society.  I highlighted an area - investment banking - in which you pretend to be an authority on, and i have asked you to set out for me why investment bankers should be protected by the us govt by way of bail outs and now tax breaks and all you have done is get defensive on me, oh well i guess im going to have to accept that you are really just another NL poster who just loves pretending to sound intelligent. sorry pal you don't fool me.

@cap28,

I am tired of going back and forth with someone who clearly cannot read or at best has a problem understanding simple english. You have accused me of supporting bailouts when I have consistently opposed it. Please point out anywhere in my post where I called for bailouts. And please shove it if you can't.

I have just now learnt of the death of bawomolo and I am really tired and feeling sick to my stomach. I do not have the strength to continue to suffer fools.

I agree.

Obama have not done NOTHING but list excuse after excuse.

Unemployment is at 10% in this country

The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer

Whats worse is that the Middle class is SHRINKING!!!!

He HAVEN'T DONE NOTHING!!!!

You only have to look at how Obama handed $3 trillion dollars of US tax payers money to wall street on the advice of  henry paulson former CEO of goldman sachs and former federal reserve president timothy geithner to understand where he is coming from. 

By the way nobody knows what these banks actually did with all of this money as they refused to give an account of what it was used for to the american tax payers.

What i find amazing though is the fact that Obama dealt with the auto industry in a much harsher manner. 
He set up an auto task force and appointed his friends on wall street, (the same guys who caused the financial meltdown in the first place !!!!)to oversee the "restructuring" of major motor manufacturers like GM and Chrysler.  This resulted in thousands of job cuts.

Am i the only one who has come to the conclusion that Obama goes out of his way to favour his super rich friends while treating ordinary working people as if they are expendable?

Now to add insult to injury Obama intends to extend  tax cuts for the rich whilst simultaneously imposing wage cuts, mass unemployment , cuts in health care, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on the working poor.

When are people going to wake up and understand that Obama does not represent the interests of  ordinary working people but that of the super rich.  Ive noticed that some people on here actually think there's a difference in policy between the republicans and the democrats - open your eyes, they both serve the same master - if you want to know who is really running america look no further than the banking cartels and the multinational corporations.

  wHY YOU WORRY ABOUT aMERIKKA SO MUCH?  YOU IN THE uk?   nobody in america is concerned about the UK. damn man

Tayo-D:

@cap28,

I am tired of going back and forth with someone who clearly cannot read or at best has a problem understanding simple english. You have accused me of supporting bailouts when I have consistently opposed it. Please point out anywhere in my post where I called for bailouts. And please shove it if you can't.

I have just now learnt of the death of bawomolo and I am really tired and feeling sick to my stomach. I do not have the strength to continue to suffer fools.

If ever there was a fool its you my friend, you have consistently avoided answering a simple question and have continued to duck and dive in order to cover up your ignorance.

Dummy go back and re-enrol in your adult education evening classes, tax breaks for the rich and tax payer funded bail outs are a form OF GOVERNMENT WELFARE if you support tax breaks for anyone earning over £250,000 and dont support the other (bail outs) that shows you are complete id.iot with no understanding of what govt funded welfare is, both acheive the same objective. This is basic common sense here.

now goodbye and good riddance.

I am tired of going back and forth with someone who clearly cannot read or at best has a problem understanding simple english

not at all surprised to read this.

cap28 is a loose cannon.

usually very loud and with limited cognition. He overcompensates for this with bullheadedness.

Tayo-D

I am sorry but you are wrong on so many accounts. The republicans are just bent on making life difficult for Obama which consequently makes life more difficult for the average American including those republican supporters who do not understand a damn thing. You argued that the republicans are right in discussing tax cuts first before any other proposals. Does that sound right? The only reason republicans want to discuss tax cuts first is because that affects them and their supporters more. The tax cuts being proposed by Obama are fair in my opinion because they extend tax cuts to 98% of people who will be able to have extra disposable income which will in turn drive the economy. Supply side economics can be argued in the case of tax cuts to 98% of tax-payers but not to 2% tax-payers who earn over $250,000.

All through this recession why is it that luxury good corporations did not suffer? It is because the rich were/are not affected yet there is a recession. That implies that the spending habits of the rich does not drive the conomy. Secondly, the US has a budget deficit of approximately 11 percent of GDP and a total congress approved debt of $14 trillion. It is not brainer that the US must reduce its budget deficit and total budget. Does it make economic sense to extend tax cuts to people who will spend regardless of the economic climate? In 2003, 450 economists argued against the tax cuts on the basis that it worsened the debt position. Bush argued on the basis of the laffer curve but we know that the laffer curve is not too relevant with regards to small increases and decreases. The laffer curve is very relevant when the tax percentages are huge. The costs of extending the tax cuts to the top 2% is $80 billion over two years and $830 billion over ten years.