>> ^Chaucer:

President Barack Obama lauded the landing in a statement, calling it "an unprecedented feat of technology that will stand as a point of national pride far into the future." Obama went on to say, "If you've got a rover, you didnt build that..."


Actually, after he congratulated tax payers, he went on to say this rover was made possible by Well's Fargo, Citibank, and Pizza Hut.

@ForgedReality, @nock,

Funny, I always thought the "C" made a "Sh" sound in the case of CitiBank...

>> ^ForgedReality:

It's pronounced "Citibank," not "City Bank." sigh


I do believe those two spellings result in the same pronunciation.

It's pronounced "Citibank," not "City Bank." sigh

Citibank statement -- “A large amount of protesters entered our branch at 555 La Guardia Place around 2:00 PM today. They were very disruptive and refused to leave after being repeatedly asked, causing our staff to call 911. The Police asked the branch staff to close the branch until the protesters could be removed. Only one person asked to close an account and was accommodated.”


From what I read only two of the protesters went to close accounts. The other 28 stood there chanting and shouting stuff about student loans. They didn't leave for about 5 mins when the bank then locked some of them in that didn't leave.

What is shocking is, how can you arrest someone OUTSIDE the bank for trespass? and then forcibly drag them inside. Also, didn't CITI violate illegal imprisonment laws? I mean how can someone be trespassing if you lock them inside? So you call 911 because you are ?scared and then lock them inside with you?

>> ^notarobot:

But in all seriousness, this warondrugs set up BS probably cost some astronomical sum to nab a guy who might have just become desperate trying to keep Citibank from foreclosing on him.


and have little to no real impact on the amount of drugs in the street, now the amount of people in prison is another story

But in all seriousness, this warondrugs set up BS probably cost some astronomical sum to nab a guy who might have just become desperate trying to keep Citibank from foreclosing on him.

We have to disagree on the politics; this last fiasco has shown me politics and ideology trump our economy for some of these rascals.

There is a huge difference between letting the 1st Bank of Palookaville fail, and letting the likes of CitiBank and BOA fail. You much be rich enough to think you can ride out the resulting depression, or an ascetic.

I think I get it. So, screw everything, let's just declare currency armageddon, and start from scratch? >> ^marbles:
>> ^longde:
To answer your first question a) republican filibuster, b) democrats are a coalition, not a lock-step party, so there are "blue dogs" who would not every support tax increases.
To your second point, what would you have done 3 years ago? I'm curious. Let the banks, car companies fail, and let our country sink into depression? Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough, not that he spent too much.
I think your last paragraph shows a very limited perspective indeed. Hope you're not anyone's CPA.>> ^marbles:
If Obama or the democrats wanted to raise taxes, why didn't they do it when they had super-majorities in the house and senate. Congress ingores it's responsibility to pass a budget the last few years and instead decides to "stimulate" the economy with huge deficit spending. 1.5 Trillion x 2 years. They overspend by 3 Trillion!!! Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Meanwhile the Fed is handing out free loans to mega-banks totaling 15 trillion so they can speculate on any and everything with fake bids using fake money. All the while colluding with S&P and other rating agencies until the housing bubble pops, but no problem: They made huge bets on that too. But now they need bailouts, otherwise the stock market will crash: Financial terrorism!
You can't fix this with taxes and cuts. A system based on debt can only be fixed by either 1. defaulting or 2. repudiating the debt.


No, it was never an issue. Don't buy that political bullshit. Government is a lock-step party. Back then they were still claiming they wouldn't need to raise taxes, meanwhile deficit spending by 1.5 trillion.
Second point, absolutely lets the banks fail. We have bankruptcy laws for a reason. By the way, plenty did fail, just not the ones involved in the behind the scenes fraud and collusion--most of those were saved.
Third paragraph: Suppose I am the sole creator of money and I create $5 dollars. This is the only money I have ever created. I invented this money from nothing and loan/give it to you under the agreement that you would repay me $10 dollars the following week. Where do you get the other $5 dollars to repay me from?

UNWANTED is right.

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.stopshariahnow.org

Little by little Shariah is creeping into our society, as per the following examples:

*footbaths in banks & airports (Minneapolis)
*polygamy (USA & UK)
*forced child marriages (Europe & Canada)
*honor killings (USA, Canada, Europe)
*spousal abuse among Muslim immigrant populations (USA & Europe)
*Islamic holidays replacing American holidays like Labor Day (Tyson Foods)
*publicly funded Shariah-Islamic schools (Virginia, NY, Minnesota)
*companies creating Islamic prayer rooms (Wachovia)
*nurses required to turn beds towards Mecca five times a day (UK)
*elimination of wine and alcohol at hotels (Hyatt)
*separation of men and women for recreation activities (Harvard)
*taxi drivers refusing to pick up passengers with wine, alcohol or seeing eye dogs (Minneapolis)
*and a growing Shariah Finance investment market supported by Citibank, UBS, HSBC, Dow Jones, Standard & Pours, and nearly every national investment bank you can think of, which is branding “Shariah” as some innocuous religious accommodation required by “moderate” Muslims

---
I can only work with proven results, not what others want things to be or theorize is possible. Obamanomics has failed to deliver prosperity, and this may be because increasing prosperity is not what it's designed to do. It could be working beautifully if its goal is to increase dependency on government and curtail American influence worldwide.

REAL American unemployment is currently 18%, not the BS that D.C. is spouting. 2 to 3% more wouldn't even register with the crew in D.C.
---

You cannot 'prove' anything in a social science. What you can do is historically look at past crises and see what worked and what didn't.

Financial crises historically have high levels of unemployment following them. This is because as in this case for the US, consumers have overspent and must spend years rebuilding their savings levels. As they rebuild them, demand is low, the demand for employees is low, and there is relatively higher unemployment.

This is historically accurate for Latin America's debt crisis in 1982, the 1990 asset bubble bust in Japan and so far entirely consistent for the financial crisis in the US.

The way you label fiscal stimulus as Obamanomics leads me to believe you think that his policies are idiosynchractic and unique. They are not. Virtually every country in the world hit by the global financial crisis has enacted the same combination of direct spending, lower taxes and looser monetary policy. You would be well advised to be aware of this.

Also, despite what you may claim, the fact that unemployment is high and has risen under Obama is not evidence that his policies have not worked. In fact again there is historical evidence to suggest the US has fared better than other countries. See the first graph below:

http://www.economist.com/node/17041738

Unemployment is measured by virtually all countries as the number of unemployed out of the proportion actively seeking work. Yes, this is not an accurate measure when previous employees have been discouraged from looking for work and have dropped out, but it is consistent with most measures used internationally.

---
Though the government obviously denies it, the origins of this financial crisis were largely the fault of government policies and meddling.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

----Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury

Keynesian economic theory does not work. It mistakes action for results. Despite enormous spending (which began as Bush was sunsetting) Obamanomics hasn't created any jobs, unless you count the temporary kick of the useless Census.

The American people have the wealth and are indeed holding onto it. There are 2 trillion dollars in assets waiting to rejoin the economy. So why don't people jump in again?

No sane business is going to invest heavily or hire workers with our leftists in power, threatening to tax everything in sight and "punish" profits. This current govt--even with the coming Republicans in January--also offers no stability or confidence, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, and well before they installed the SOB they knew he was a tax cheat. Does it get any more obvious the lack of integrity and disdain for the public harbored by the crew in DC.
---

I agree that the financial crisis has much to do with government meddling. Policymakers in the US have historically encouraged the quintessential notion of homeownership frivolously and irresponsibly. At the other end equally though, predatory lending exacerbated the issue. Left to their own devices, banks knew full well that they could generate huge returns by lending, and then selling off those financial assets to wipe themselves clean of risk. They also knew that if worst came to worst, the government would bail them out as they were too integral to the functioning of the world economy. Both less intervention and more regulation was necessary to prevent what happened.

Either of these 2 factors in and of itself would have led to a crisis sooner than later, would you not agree?

I can't take a quote seriously that skips over text 3 times in 4 lines. For all you know, the original intent has been completely manipulated. For all you know (based on previous experience) this wasn't even SAID by who it's claimed to have been said by.

Besides, there is no evidence there. It is someone's opinion, without any facts, without any figures. Nothing to substantiate what is being said. I genuinely hope you don't rely on people's pure opinions as gospel and factcheck what you read.

Again, you are simply wrong the stimulus has not created jobs. It has created both permanent jobs by giving subsidies to industries, and temporary jobs to prevent skills loss from unemployed workers:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

Read the title of the article above.

Frankly, how is it POSSIBLE that you think it hasn't created any jobs? Where do you think the money goes? Do you think it's laundered into people's bank accounts and shipped overseas? How can you possibly think that a stimulus has not created any jobs? That the only jobs it has created are for the census is a typical right wing talking point from what I hear. Again, I implore you to consult some less idealogical sources without absolutist views.

Not to go on a tangent here, but how often have these sources you rely on information for actually lauded something that Obama has done? Do you really think it is possible that Obama has done nothing good, or let alone nothing that ideologically they would agree on? Take for example the increased drone strikes in Pakistan, relative to even Bush. This seems like a clear cut policy that right wing pundits and blogs would laud. Why is there no one mentioning this?

Or do you think that possibly, just possibly, they have an agenda or an absolutist view with which they perceive the Democrats and the left-wing that blinds them to anything that doesn't conform to their predisposed views that Democrats = bad?

Why would you want to emulate and follow the opinions of someone who cannot look at things at face value?

For your comment on why investors are not investing, they are not investing because of the debt which will worsen if taxes fall - this is historically proven as fact. But let's say for argument that taxes were drastically reduced. Demand is still low in the US though. People are still rebuilding their balance sheets. What will the multinational and wealthy corporations do with this excess revenue?

They will invest it overseas in developing markets with high growth rates. Lower taxes will be paying for growth in foreign countries. Since the money will be invested elsewhere, even less of it will be reaped back in tax revenue. Growth overseas will be rising while the US is falling further and further into debt default.

I am curious where exactly you don't agree with this logic.

I have nothing cogent to say against your notion that Democrats want to punish profits.

It does not make sense.

The buy-up of bank and auto industry stocks is being relinquished. Citibank recently bought back some of these shares, and the government made a profit. The auto industry is making a profit. There is simply no evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything. There is no public option. The independent review committee to trim Medicare will MINIMIZE government involvement, something the right quite hypocritically, is against.

How is it not obvious that punishing profits would be bad politics? How is it not obvious that doing this would not win votes? Where is your evidence that he intends to do this? The health care plan is deficit neutral. Financial reform will reduce risk.

Will taxes have to rise? Sure, because without that, the budget will never return to neutral. This is fact. Cutting social policies by that much is not feasible. Why do you blame Obama for this and not Bush who allowed this to fester during prolonged periods of economic growth? Would you rather the problem fester while taxes are kept low and imperil the whole economy in the process? There are only those two options.

Also, I think I laid out, what is a pretty simple and logical explaining of fiscal policy, and why it works.

Where do you disagree with it?

---
Well, like you or anyone else, I'm just as likely to vote to stop the other side as promote my own. Where you live, govt is seen as a benevolent force for good. And as you can probably attest, you pay through the nose for the government services provided.

Individual > State = America

State > Individual = everywhere else

If the Republicans don't repeal or de-fund obamacare they are finished.
---

The funny this is, if I were making the same as I am not in the US, I would be paying nearly the same in taxes.

I'm a recent university grad and make 60K/year.

I pay 15% between 6-35k, and 30% between 35-60k. (4350 + 7500 = $11850)

The US income brackets are very similar.

For me they would be, 10% between 0 - $8375, 15% between $8376 - $34,000 and 25% between $34,000 - $60,000. (838 + 3844 + 6500 = 11182)

So let's see. I'm paying roughly $700 more (a bit more actually, say $1000 for argument considering the exchange rate of 0.95, but close enough) for free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidized out of hospital expenses; for generous unemployment benefits if I ever lose my job. For university cost assistance, despite the fact that I could easily pay off my university debt if I lived at home with minimal expenses in one year (It's ~25k from 5 years of study with nothing paid back yet). I hear that in the US for Ivy league schools it can be 20-30K US A YEAR. I mean that last point alone MORE THAN makes up for the difference. Frankly any of those do by themselves. I also have great job prospects being in an economy that never officially went into recession (only one quarter of negative growth) with a private sector one lined up for next year.

To sum up, I'm actually paying only 1.7% more in taxes for a WHOLE HEAP of benefits.

How is that a bad deal?

Incidentally much of our (Australia's) economic success can be attributed to good bank regulation than anything else. If you are curious I can elaborate on this.

Cato Institute:

Established: 1977
Founders: Edward Crane and Charles G. Koch
President: Edward Crane

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cato-institute

Cato Institute was founded by Ed Crane with a $500,000 grant from Charles Koch, a chemical and petroleum heir who was active with Crane in the Libertarian Party.

Cato's corporate sponsors include: Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Bell Atlantic Network Services, BellSouth Corporation, Digital Equipment Corporation, GTE Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Netscape Communications Corporation, NYNEX Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Viacom International, American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc.

Other non-Bush Administration alumni include former board members: Rupert Murdoch and Theodore J. Forstmann, also founding chairman of Empower America, now FreedomWorks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomWorks

@imstellar28, this makes me think there's some way for us to eventually see eye to eye about things:

Society is like a pyramid...built on the backs of the working class who comprise the base. Nobody at the top cares about the poor - nobody - because the poor must exist for them to be rich. You think this tax gives money to the poor, all this does is give more money to the rich. Get real, who do you think you are talking to? You think I'm the CEO of Citibank or something? Why would I want to make more money for anyone at the top? Why would I want to take money from anyone at the bottom?

I'm all for the intentions of this measure - save the poor etc.

It's very Marxist of you to see things through the lens of a class struggle.

You also say:

This "Robin Hood" idea rests on the very naive assumption that if a bank adds a -$100,000,000,000 line to their operating expenses they would just say "oh well" I guess we are all taking pay cuts from now on, and the poor would rejoice with their newfound money. You must be kidding if you think thats what happens in the real world.

This, I think, is at the heart of our disagreement. Why do banks get to dictate their own profit margins? Why must the rest of society bend around the immutable preservation of these self-decided profit margins?

Isn't the price of a product based on "what the market will bear", and not "how much profit does the producer want to make?"

Putting a really fine point on it, why are you assuming that profit margins work exactly like production costs? Shouldn't competition reward the bank that pays the largest share of the tax out of their profit margin?

Also, $100 billion in the hands of the poor seems like it would have a positive effect on the level of consumer demand and the economy as a whole, especially when you're in a deep recession. It seems to me that banks might stand to make as much as they lose, and possibly more, assuming they're actually good at picking investments.

Mostly though, my point was that you seem to be downright hateful towards people who have a different viewpoint than yourself on how best to approach public policy, to the point where I often see you bluntly advocating violence. I also see a lot of conceit in your insistence that all people who disagree with your view are ignorant.

So I say, from the bottom of my liberal bleeding heart: Let go of the hate, man.

@NetRunner

1. Clearly you haven't ever seen any Robin Hood movies...you know...the guy who "steals from the rich and gives to the poor." This is the Robin Hood tax we are talking about after all...

2. You don't think poor people have checking accounts? Car loans? Mortgages? Rent from people with mortgages? Buy goods from small businesses who have business loans? Use credit cards? Maybe .01% sounds like a small increase in APR, but for a lot of people its enough to make a monthly payment just out of reach.

All this tax would do is give yet another person access to the cookie jar. Right now, its just banks, but this tax would expand it to bureaucrats -- you know, the guys who make $100,000 a year in pensions after they retire -- the guys who contribute and produce nothing in society. This "Robin Hood" idea rests on the very naive assumption that if a bank adds a -$100,000,000,000 line to their operating expenses they would just say "oh well" I guess we are all taking pay cuts from now on, and the poor would rejoice with their newfound money. You must be kidding if you think thats what happens in the real world.

The rich will NOT be paying for this tax, not one cent - the poor will because all they are going to do is pass along the expenses; and by getting the oh-so efficient-and-just government involved you can be assured that they will take their cut too. In reality, the banks will raise rates by $100,000,000,000 while the bureaucrats spend money on themselves and their cronies.

Society is like a pyramid...built on the backs of the working class who comprise the base. Nobody at the top cares about the poor - nobody - because the poor must exist for them to be rich. You think this tax gives money to the poor, all this does is give more money to the rich. Get real, who do you think you are talking to? You think I'm the CEO of Citibank or something? Why would I want to make more money for anyone at the top? Why would I want to take money from anyone at the bottom?

I'm all for the intentions of this measure - save the poor etc. but this implementation, formulated with emotion, hate, and ignorance, will ensure that those intentions are never achieved. We don't live in a fantasy world and Robin Hood doesn't save the poor with his merry men. The rich are rich because they are shrewd and calculating, and if you think something like this could possibly have any bearing on the rich you are daydreaming.

Disheartening? Maybe, but you can't change anything if you can't see it for what it really is.