Hope and Change Obama Style

[alexamenos]

Orwell: What is Fascism?

I think it's a bit much to say that fascism is indefinable, but I agree with Orwell that it's used to much as a swear word and not enough as a description of a political/economic mindset.

There is italian fascist manifesto, after-all....and things like universal suffrage, universal public education, minimum wages, etc., etc... were all planks in the fascist platform.

Anyhoo, I think fascism is a distinct variant of socialism, but instead of a centrally planned society based upon the state ownership of property, it's a centrally planned economy based upon state ownership of producers. So, fascists say, "we're not socialists because we don't agitate for ownership of your property."

Which is true, but no matter what I do with my property, I've got to send about one-third of the benefit to the state anyway. In this way, fascism is vastly superior to socialism because I still retain some vested interest in maintaining the means of production. Tho fascism is cruel and illiberal it is less idiotic than socialism.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Orwell: What is Fascism?

I think it's a bit much to say that fascism is indefinable, but I agree with Orwell that it's used to much as a swear word and not enough as a description of a political/economic mindset.

There is italian fascist manifesto, after-all....and things like universal suffrage, universal public education, minimum wages, etc., etc... were all planks in the fascist platform.

Anyhoo, I think fascism is a distinct variant of socialism, but instead of a centrally planned society based upon the state ownership of property, it's a centrally planned economy based upon state ownership of producers. So, fascists say, "we're not socialists because we don't agitate for ownership of your property."

Which is true, but no matter what I do with my property, I've got to send about one-third of the benefit to the state anyway. In this way, fascism is vastly superior to socialism because I still retain some vested interest in maintaining the means of production. Tho fascism is cruel and illiberal it is less idiotic than socialism.

the planks that you refer to were objectives sought by many varied political movements well over a century before fascism was conceived. would you classify benjamin franklin as an advocate of fascism? not in the least.

the economic objectives of fascism were but one component of its ideals. looking at the definition by mussolini, who gave fascism its name, shows the political movement incorporated a military ideal as well as a fervent nationalistic nature.

1932 mussolini piece

your simplistic definition of "state ownership of producers" does not correctly define the fascist model, which is more pervasive than what you state. fascism is the state control of the economy, centrally planned and controlled. in affect it is state control of production and consumption, all with a targeted goal of increasing the power of the state, and the expansion of that state apparatus through conquest. At its heart is a domination of other societies/people and subjugation of those to the fascist machine.

any political theory that has at its core expansionism through conquest is certainly a regression of our world's ability to value individual rights. while property rights are a fundamental right that should be protected, it is certainly not a superior right to liberty, which fascism is in direct opposition.
that is not the case with the classic theory of socialism, consequently fascism is a much more abhorrent philosophy.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

your simplistic definition of "state ownership of producers" does not correctly define the fascist model, which is more pervasive than what you state.

So do you think a state which owns producers isn't a terribly pervasive thing? I would never argue that fascism isn't a horribly pervasive thing, even more pervasive than that desired by the average US Liberal.

I get that fascism is state worship and that there is more to the story than the economic planks, I'm just making the distinction between the economics of regular ole socialism and the economics of the fascist variant. Both are state controlled, centrally planned economies even though one claimed ownership of property while the other didn't. The differences are aesthetic than economic.

hmmm....Of most interest to me is Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" thesis...hmmmm....here 'tis, something I wrote 4 years ago, well before Obama came along to tell us that only more government can save us from this present economic mess:

Originally Posted by alexawhileago

The thesis therein (Hayek's Road to Serfdom) is essentially that the national socialism of Germany in the 30's and 40's was a predictable outcome of democratic socialism and not some aberrant turn from democracy.

The process, according to Hayek, essentially goes...

a) centralization of power in national government creates dependency on government (and demand for government services);

b) "representative" democracy becomes an inneffective debating society incapable of fulfilling demand;

c) people elect a strong man who, unlike their legislative representatives, can get things done;

d) elected strongman consolidates power (ie, just disbands, or completely disregards legislative bodies) and decides he doesn't want to get unelected.

Hence, what happened in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's wasn't due to a dirth of democracy, but was instead a not-too-surprising consequence of democracy.

I think we're more or less on the same path here with our democratic 3rd-way-ism.

Bush and co may be bad, but they're not nearly as bad as it can (and probably will) get -- imagine what we might see from DC if we were faced with a series of attacks (even relatively small ones), month after month....combine that with hyper-inflation (another probable consequence of democratic 3rd way-ism) and economic meltdown....I don't think it'd be long before the cries for a real strongman would be so loud that we'd see first hand...

"this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause"

OK, I know that line is from Star Wars, and perhaps its a bit cheesey to quote Princess Pomade (or whatever her name was), but it's a great friggin' line. Liberty dies not because some external bogeyman marches in and make us all cite the Koran (nor because the Grandparents can't retire to Florida), but because we give it away for security (social and physical).

We've gone a longtime without being completely subsumed, but we had a pretty good basis (very strong classical liberal tradition) to start with....it's taking us a lot longer than it took the decidedly il-liberal (and I mean classically il-liberal) Germans....but we're on the path, so to speak.

What the hell, it's been a good ride.

anyhooo...my point is not that Obama won't give up office in 4 years when he's booted out, but rather that fascism is sort of a bastard child of so-called 'third-wayisms' of the modern welfare state. Unwelcomed, different, but intrinsically related nonetheless.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

So do you think a state which owns producers isn't a terribly pervasive thing? I would never argue that fascism isn't a horribly pervasive thing, even more pervasive than that desired by the average US Liberal.

government that controls production is not conducive for an efficient economy. it encourages the growth an underground economy in response.

I get that fascism is state worship and that there is more to the story than the economic planks, I'm just making the distinction between the economics of regular ole socialism and the economics of the fascist variant. Both are state controlled, centrally planned economies even though one claimed ownership of property while the other didn't. The differences are aesthetic than economic.

hmmm....Of most interest to me is Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" thesis...hmmmm....here 'tis, something I wrote 4 years ago, well before Obama came along to tell us that only more government can save us from this present economic mess:

hayek spoke of collectivism, not of benign democratic socialism. the course of history over the last five decades has shown him to be accurate about collectivism and your inclusion of democratic socialism to be false. take a look at the western european democracies, as well as the asian tigers, and your assertion proves hollow.

as for the rise of fascism in germany and italy, this was a consequence of nationalism and racism, not to mention the intertwining of an economic crisis that prompted the populance to seek solutions they would otherwise have not embraced. the rise of fascism was not a "predictable outcome of democratic socialism" imo.

anyhooo...my point is not that Obama won't give up office in 4 years when he's booted out, but rather that fascism is sort of a bastard child of so-called 'third-wayisms' of the modern welfare state. Unwelcomed, different, but intrinsically related nonetheless.

one can say that all modern political philosophies are "related" as they involve tenets from other ideals in a cafeteria approach, why should fascism be any different?

[wmbwinn]

I find it disturbing that I have to teach history for people to understand my posts. But, here it goes:

From Wikipedia:

The National Socialist German Workers' Party, (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945. It was known as the German Workers' Party (DAP) before the name was changed in 1920.

The party's last leader, Adolf Hitler, was appointed Chancellor of Germany by president Paul von Hindenburg in 1933. Hitler rapidly established a totalitarian regime[1][2][3][4] known as the Third Reich.

Nazi ideology stressed the failure of democracy, failure of laissez-faire capitalism, "racial purity of the German people" and persecuted those it perceived either as race enemies or Lebensunwertes Leben, that is "life unworthy of living". This included Jews, Slavs, and Roma along with German homosexuals, the mentally disabled, communists, and others. To carry out these beliefs, the party and the German state which it controlled organized the systematic murder of approximately six million Jews (in what has become known as the Holocaust), and about five million other people, mainly Russians, Poles and Roma. Many thousands of political enemies of the Nazi regime, along with homosexuals, people with disabilities, and members of religious minorities were also killed. Hitler's desire to build an empire in Europe through expansionist policies was a major influence that led to the outbreak of World War II in Europe.

I very specifically said that I had no intention in my post of ascribing or assigning genocidal thoughts or plans to our current National Socialists who prefer to be called far left Democrats (or far right in the left wing if that makes any sense in the Wikipedia entry).

Now, let us examine where the politics of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are:
1)constantly talking about the failure of capitalism and how we cannot allow this to happen again
2)attacking not a race or ethnic group but targeting the heads of capitalism (if I can call CEOs and COOs and other similarly titled persons who make millions).
3)buying AIG (government now owns around 70-80% of AIG)
4)buying into other aspects of the system such as the other banks and the auto industry and bailing out state governments; applying their own controls to the banks and auto industry and states in exchange for the money/government ownership/bailout
5)nationalizing healthcare

and I could go on. The point is that we have entered into European style Democratic Socialism.

Again, from Wikipedia:

Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist movements, tendencies, and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. The term is sometimes used synonymously with 'social democracy', but many self-identified[citation needed] democratic socialists oppose social democracy, seeing it as capitalist.

Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term. Some definitions of democratic socialism simply refer to all forms of socialism that follow an electoral, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism, rather than a revolutionary one.[1]

Frequently, this definition is invoked to distinguish democratic socialism from Communism, as in Donald Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey[2], Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945-1951, Norman Thomas Democratic Socialism: a new appraisal or Roy Hattersley's Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism.

However, for those who use the term in this way, the scope of the term socialism itself can be very vague, and include forms of socialism compatible with capitalism. For example, Robert M. Page, a Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at the University of Birmingham, writes about "transformative democratic socialism" to refer to the politics of the Clement Attlee government (a strong welfare state, fiscal redistribution, some nationalisation) and "revisionist democratic socialism", as developed by Anthony Crosland and Harold Wilson:

"The most influential revisionist Labour thinker, Anthony Crosland..., contended that a more 'benevolent' form of capitalism had emerged since the [Second World War]... According to Crosland, it was now possible to achieve greater equality in society without the need for 'fundamental' economic transformation. For Crosland, a more meaningful form of equality could be achieved if the growth dividend derived from effective management of the economy was invested in 'pro-poor' public services rather than through fiscal redistribution."[3]

Indeed, some proponents of market socialism see the latter as a form of democratic socialism.[4]

A variant of this set of definitions is Joseph Schumpeter’s argument, set out in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1941), that liberal democracies were evolving from "liberal capitalism" into democratic socialism, with the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[5]

In contrast, other definitions of democratic socialism sharply distinguish it from social democracy.[6] Peter Hain, for example, classes democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism, as a form of anti-authoritarian "socialism from below" (using the term popularised by Hal Draper), in contrast to Stalinism and social democracy, variants of authoritarian state socialism. For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary/reformist divide.[7] In this definition, it is the active participation of the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism, while nationalisation and economic planning (whether controlled by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, but more complex, argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas.[8]

Other definitions fall somewhere between the first and second set, seeing democratic socialism as a specific political tradition closely related to and overlapping with social democracy. For example, Bogdan Denitch, in Democratic Socialism, defines it as proposing a radical reorganization of the socio-economic order through public ownership, workers' control of the labour process and redistributive tax policies.[9] Robert G. Picard similarly describes a democratic socialist tradition of thought including Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Evan Durbin and Michael Harrington.[10]

The term democratic socialism can be used in a third way, to refer to a version of the Soviet model that was reformed in a democratic way. For example, Mikhail Gorbachev described perestroika as building a "new, humane and democratic socialism".[11] Consequently, some former Communist parties have rebranded themselves as democratic socialist, as with the Party of Democratic Socialism in Germany.

Hal Draper uses the term "revolutionary-democratic socialism" as a type of socialism from below in his The Two Souls of Socialism. He writes: 'the leading spokesman in the Second International of a revolutionary-democratic Socialism-from-Below [was] Rosa Luxemburg, who so emphatically put her faith and hope in the spontaneous struggle of a free working class that the myth-makers invented for her a "theory of spontaneity"'.[12] Similarly, on Eugene Debs, he writes: '"Debsian socialism" evoked a tremendous response from the heart of the people, but Debs had no successor as a tribune of revolutionary-democratic socialism'.[13]

Justification of democratic socialism can be found in the works of social philosophers like Charles Taylor and Axel Honneth, among others. Honneth has put forward the view that political and economic ideologies have a social basis, that is, they originate from intersubjective communication between members of a society.[14] Honneth criticises the liberal state because it assumes that principles of individual liberty and private property are ahistorical and abstract, when, in fact, they evolved from a specific social discourse on human activity. Contra liberal individualism, Honneth has emphasised the intersubjective dependency between human beings; that is, our well-being depends on recognising others and being recognised by them in turn. Democratic socialism, with its emphasis on social collectivism, could be seen as a way of safeguarding this dependency.

As to fascism, what else do you want to call Pelosi's rule in the House of Reps passed at the start of the session that prevents the Republicans from offering any amendments and prevents any debate. What do you call it when Pelosi forces the omnibus stimulus package down our throats by forcing a vote on the bill before the House members in EITHER party could even read it?

It is tyranny. It is all about bigger government control. And, it must be stopped.

I am sorry to those I offended with the title of Nazi Pelosi. It is a reference to her politics (minus genocide).

[Flacolaco]

Seems like people should be mad at Chris Dodd for inserting the language allowing the bonuses into the stimulus bill, if indeed they want to get mad.

Or they could get mad about why AIG sent Billions (that's with a B) of that money to European banks.

Why are we always bailing out Europe?

[alexamenos]

I think this whole affair is pretty funny. The Republicans, if they were really concerned about free markets, might have bothered a bit more about Bush handing AIG et al $170 gazillion dollars in the first place.

I think the error in this latest bit is that 90% is too low....102% tax on these bonuses would have been reasonable I think....you know, an extra 2% to cover transaction costs. If nothing else, the dems have given some companies a rare incentive not to take money from the government.

[dude1394]

Nice...I'm so happy that Obama is going to take 90% of those multi-millionaires' bonuses who screwed AIG and the taxpayers.

You know..those multi-millionaires who make 125K. Rich bastards..

TARP Bonus- For purposes of this section--

(1) IN GENERAL- The term ‘TARP bonus’ means, with respect to any individual for any taxable year, the lesser of--

(A) the aggregate disqualified bonus payments received from covered TARP recipients during such taxable year, or

(B) the excess of--

(i) the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for such taxable year, over

(ii) $250,000 ($125,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).

[alexamenos]

I just saw a clip of some sanctimonious congressman saying that the tax on the bonus was justifiable because the money should be returned to its rightful owners....

....the taxpayers!

That's wonderful news. I wonder when we'll receive our refund checks.

[Mavdog]

odd, but when I look at the sponsors of the hr 1586 it doesn't have obama's name anywhere on it....and I've never read that obama asked for this new tax, unless you have a quote that says different.

oh yeah, I forgot, according to the right everything that congress does is tied to the president. every item in every bill, right? obama "owns it" if congress passes it and he signs the bill, correct?

[dude1394]

Gosh what an adoring fan. Is he going to sign it, is he demagoguing(sp) these bonuses everywhere he speaks.

Is there nothing that he's responsible for? Will he not be responsible for any bill that he signs?

Now we are going to divorce obama from his own party so that he can be absolved blame.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Gosh what an adoring fan. Is he going to sign it, is he demagoguing(sp) these bonuses everywhere he speaks.

Is there nothing that he's responsible for? Will he not be responsible for any bill that he signs?

Now we are going to divorce obama from his own party so that he can be absolved blame.

it is interestng to see that you fail to respond to the simple quesion- is the president responsible for every item congress puts into the bills that the president signs.

your sidestepping the question is due to the answer- no, the president doesn't "own" (as you put it) items that he didn't promote or ask for.

so no, obama doesn't get the "blame" for these punitive taxes on the bonuses paid to tarp recipients.

as for if it is demogaugery, don't see that he crossed the line. if he did promote the tax in his speeches I'd agree it was, yet all he spoke to was the audacity of aig paying bomuses to employees with the monies that were given to keep them solvent.

I've got no problem with bonuses, but to pay bonuses to executives who made such poor decisions that the compnay almost was destroyed seems to not provide accountibility.

and I do not want 90% taxes retroactively applied to that compensation.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it is interestng to see that you fail to respond to the simple quesion- is the president responsible for every item congress puts into the bills that the president signs.

.

He's as responsible for the things that happen under his administration as the last President was responsible for Acting on intelligence of WMD's.

Ultimately as President these men have to either enjoy the benefits of others making sound decisions, or suffer the consequences of blame.

Seems to me, that the current President is having a fairly eventful blame tenure so far...perhaps he should rethink the type of people he surrounds himself with...of course the perception of him being an empty suit is starting to look a bit more genuine as an assessment.

Exactly who is pulling his strings?

[dude1394]

Now THIS he will be very good at. No doubt.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123792991709930321.html

WASHINGTON -- The White House said it would launch a search for new tax revenues, as Congressional leaders moved to scale back proposed spending increases and tax cuts in President Barack Obama's ambitious budget.

The budget blueprint estimates a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009.

The Obama administration plans to create a task force to consider elimination of corporate loopholes and subsidies, tougher enforcement against tax avoidance, and tax simplification, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said late Tuesday.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

He's as responsible for the things that happen under his administration

ok, then you must support the statement that bush is totally responsible for the economic mess the usa finds itself in today.

[92bDad]

While everyone else in the world is in the process of cutting back budgets...the Obama government continues to increase spending.

Why doesn't the Obama Government believe it has a duty to cut back on spending rather than finding new ways to increase taxing by basically stealing money from the American people?

Why are some people more outraged at Big Business bonus than they are at the Obama Big Government Bonuses being handed out to these companies?

When are people going to be outraged at all the handouts to companies...keep in mind those handouts are being paid by you and I, the People!!!

[92bDad]

You might be right...so let me rephrase...Obama and this Current Administration and Congress.

By the way, Obama was a Senator in the last administration...hmmmm And he was involved with the biggest culprate of this crisis...ACORN...see a pattern yet???

Best of luck to you and your views...obviously there is no point that will change your perception of reality. It's truly misfortunate, I believe you could be a great assett for the American people, but instead you choose to support those who aim to destroy this nation.

This is not about winning a debate or an argument...but rather it's about how this country will come out of the tragic turn of events caused by the Democratic party.

Complain about the Patriot Act all you want...this administration is doing it's worst to break America into a dependant nation...if all citizens are dependant on the government then they are no longer free.

No money is not freedom, but take away the peoples ability to earn their own keep and make them rely on the government for necessities, and you have yourself a nation of subjects rather than Free Citizens.

The scary part is that Obama isn't the one pulling the strings...their are others controlling Obama. He's just a puppet and none us know who the Puppet Master truly is...

[Mavdog]

you know, bs like this is as repulsive as it gets.

for you to take the position of being the only side to the discussion who is patriotic, who is the only one who truly loves this country, is not only insulting it reveals your ignorance.

stupid is as stupid does....

[92bDad]

What can I say...reality and truth hurts...and at times can be repulsive.

It's funny, I post based on my own opinion based on my experiences and what I learn through what I read, listen and experience first hand. As such an opinion is simply that...it's my thoughts and beliefs.

So, I have no objection to anyone who disagrees with me, after all it is everyones own beliefs and opinions and for that matter everyone has a different experience in life than I.

However, when I see others do their best to remove their own views and simply state facts, only to find Mavdog and others who support the Obama crusades taking place, I cringe as I see an UNwillingness to be open to the possibility that what they support could be improved through another means.

I see nothing that shows anyone on the left is any more an example of tolerance and open mindedness than anyone on the right.

Thus we are truly divided in this nation.

The worst part of this exercise over the past few years, is that under the previous administration, I saw a President who consistantly compromised in order to allow some things from the left to go through, in hopes that his cooperation would allow some things from his own agenda work its way through. Only he gets critized and blamed as if it was only his fault...without any praise for the good that took place under his watch.

Meanwhile, we see the Democrats continue the blame game and doing everything they can to avoid taking responsibility for what are some obvious bad choices along the way.

I personally don't have an answer, but I can share that from my view, I see Democrat continueing to take and take and take...They are the greediest most selfish group that I have ever observed!!!

What I believe we will see is more moderates getting angry at the ultimate Dysfunction of the Democratic party...the swing to the left may be a benefit to Conservatives around America. Fortunately this last election was by a slim margin and I believe the Democrats are doing a fair job of reminding everyone why they voted Republican after Clinton in the first place.

Now Republicans need to be prepared to do the right things when they get back in office...they need to stand up against Democrats and stay away from compromising on Conservative values.

It may take us some 10-20 years to rebound from the economic crisis.

Sad, if terrorist had caused this much damage, we'ld declare war on them...but for some reason, we listened to the media and were basically manipulated into electing the very people who have nearly bankrupted this nation.

There's a part of me that wonders if conceivably we could cause the Government to crash and start over...what if 100% of Americans simply stopped paying taxes...what are they going to do arrest us all? They couldn't afford it.

Is the U.S. Government the new Enron?

[Mavdog]

as ron reagan liked to say, "there you go again..."

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

It's funny, I post based on my own opinion based on my experiences and what I learn through what I read, listen and experience first hand. As such an opinion is simply that...it's my thoughts and beliefs.

So, I have no objection to anyone who disagrees with me, after all it is everyones own beliefs and opinions and for that matter everyone has a different experience in life than I.

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Best of luck to you and your views...obviously there is no point that will change your perception of reality. It's truly misfortunate, I believe you could be a great assett for the American people, but instead you choose to support those who aim to destroy this nation.

My only dog in this fight is the Logic dog, and these two statements are completely logically inconsistent.

[92bDad]

Was it Bush that said...."Get er done!!!"

:-)

[dude1394]

Doing what he does best.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/...arity-tax.html

One basic lesson of tax incidence (see Chapters 6 and 12 of my favorite textbook) is that the burden of a tax does not always stay where our political leaders try to put it. My Harvard colleague Martin Feldstein gives an example:

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Doing what he does best.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/...arity-tax.html

is it your opinion that people only give money to charities because they can get a tax deduction?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

is it your opinion that people only give money to charities because they can get a tax deduction?

Of course not...but it helps. Is it your opinion that people ONLY buy a house because of the tax deduction...no but it helps.

Do you think people only add energy efficient windows to their home because of the tax deduction...no but it helps.

Since theOne IS adding a tax deduction to promote energy efficient homes. You do agree that he IS adding this tax deduction, correct?

The converse must be that he is REMOVING a tax deduction from charitable contributions to suppress charitable contributions.

But I expect you knew all this when you asked the question.

[Flacolaco]

So...he found a way to tax rich people and poor people at the same time...genius.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

So...he found a way to tax rich people and poor people at the same time...genius.

It takes a tremendous intellect and skill doesn't it. He can demagogue the rich...while at the same time taxing the poor. Kewll....

[Mavdog]

fyi the tax deduction for a charitable contribution will still be there under the obama proposal. it's just that there is a ceiling on the deduction. people who are in the highest tax brackets will have it treated at the lower tax bracket rather than the higher tax rate.

seems to me that people who want to give to charity will continue to do so, and they will continue to get a tax deduction. so what's the big deal?

those who scream the obama plan will stop people from making charitable donations are merely seeking things to bitch about imo.

as for the house, I'm going to buy a house because I need a place to live, and buying makes more sense than renting. for that matter my home is paid off, am I going to go buy a new one, or take out a mortgage just to get a tax deduction? absolutely not.

the tax credit (the energy incentive is a credit, not a deduction) for energy efficient home repair was there already, so this is not something new in the obama plan. it certainly helped me make my decision last year when I replaced a broken water heater with a tankless water heater and got what? $500 back. it didn't make up the difference between popping another tank in vs the tankless, but it did reduce the delta.

[dude1394]

The availability of the tax deduction will factor into even YOUR assessment of whether to buy x house or y house...Or whether you can afford to buy one now or you have to wait.

Pretending that tax policy has no effect on behavior is not rational.

So the tax credit (deduction whatever..) had an impact on your decision...ergo...so will obama's new tax (tax-deduction removal) on charitable giving.

[Mavdog]

without a doubt, we use the tax code to influence decisions. does the deduction on contributions determine of a person gives to charity or not? remember, if you don't itemize you don't get the deduction. people who don't itemize still give to charity.

again, the proposed plan says there will still be a tax deduction for charitable contributions available to every taxpayer who itemizes.

all will have the tax deduction, it's just all deductions will be treated like the filer was in the 28% tax bracket.

the deduction is not going away, so why the bitching?

[dude1394]

As the article states...theOne is too silly to understand what will happen, as most liberals he just thinks he can continue to milk the gravy train...in his world it's never-ending.

He think he can just raise taxes and nothing will change....eeeee...wrong answer.

People will react and his attempt to get his greedy little paws on more tax dollars so that he can spend it buying votes (imo) will only wind up causing less charitable funds to go to charities.

That's the bitching.....but with this guy I'd better start watching my shorts...he'll tax those next. He's REALLY good at it.

[Mavdog]

<sigh> if the deduction for charitable contributions is going to be available for all taxpayers who itemize (just like it is today), why don't you explain what change in behavior is going to occur?

you keep screaming that "less charitable funds go to charities", but if the deduction will still be available, why will this happen?

answer: if the taxpayer still gets the tax deduction, the behavior won't change.

much ado about nothing.....

[Flacolaco]

I see the president is telling Europe that Al Qaeda is a big threat to them. (Which is true)

I'm going to keep an eye out for cries of "fear mongering" from the media.

[mcsluggo]

.... because...... ?

[12 Tone Melodies]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
APRIL 4, 2009
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.
By STUART VARNEY
I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

Mr. Varney is a host on the Fox Business Channel.

[bernardos70]

I present you Banco do Brasil

No, Brazil is not a communist state and has done quite okay through this enduring crisis.

[alexamenos]

worth a watch

[dude1394]

It's for the children.

Maybe theOne and the democrats sorta have NEA and Children confused??

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...rter-the-cost/

D.C. Vouchers: Better Results at a QUARTER the Cost

Posted by Andrew J. Coulson

The latest federal study of the D.C. voucher program finds that voucher students have pulled significantly ahead of their public school peers in reading and perform at least as well as public school students in math. It also reports that the average tuition at the voucher schools is $6,620. That is ONE QUARTER what the District of Columbia spends per pupil on education ($26,555), according to the District’s own fiscal year 2009 budget.

Better results at a quarter the cost. And Democrats in Congress have sunset its funding and are trying to kill it. Shame on them.

If President Obama believes his own rhetoric on the need for greater efficiency in government education spending and for improved educational opportunities, he should work with the members of his own party to continue and grow this program.

[kg_veteran]

Anybody who doesn't recognize what's going on is incredibly naive.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Anybody who doesn't recognize what's going on is incredibly naive.

Just a healthy dose of fascism to keep the trains running on time and a massive inflationary drive that's almost certain to destroy the currency teamed with a constant and consistent build-up of the police state.

nothing to see here...move along.