OFF THE CLIFF!

[Gaspar]

Carlton is right!

The Dow has now lost 500pts since the election and seems to be on a steady decline.  Every day, more company's are announcing layoffs and at this point a second recession is almost inevitable. . .unless lawmakers can figure out how to do their jobs and avoid the automatic tax hikes that will halt the anemic growth we are attempting to hold on to.  Even with an agreement it will be difficult to quell the uncertainty, but without it, it will very likely lead to deep recession or even depression.  Our constitution requires congress to agree on a budget.  They need to do their job, plain and simple.

Now with that said, I think everyone knows that a group of 535 people will pull each other in hundreds of different directions.  That is why it is absolutely necessary that the president lead, control, and moderate the dialoge.  Speeches, grandstanding, and other media events do not qualify as leadership.  Sure, budget is the responsibility of the congress, but when their is such division, it is expected that a president step in and act as executive, setting timelines, milestones, and brokering deals.  For the past 4 years, liberals in the media have run interference for president Obama on his detachment from economic issues.  We are beginning to see this again as the media is ramping up to lay 100% of the responsibility for an agreement on Republicans in Congress, rather than acknowledging the role of the president as a leader in the process.
 

[Teatownclown]

Carlton is right!

The Dow has now lost 500pts since the election and seems to be on a steady decline.  Every day, more company's are announcing layoffs and at this point a second recession is almost inevitable. . .unless lawmakers can figure out how to do their jobs and avoid the automatic tax hikes that will halt the anemic growth we are attempting to hold on to.  Even with an agreement it will be difficult to quell the uncertainty, but without it, it will very likely lead to deep recession or even depression.  Our constitution requires congress to agree on a budget.  They need to do their job, plain and simple.

Now with that said, I think everyone knows that a group of 535 people will pull each other in hundreds of different directions.  That is why it is absolutely necessary that the president lead, control, and moderate the dialoge.  Speeches, grandstanding, and other media events do not qualify as leadership.  Sure, budget is the responsibility of the congress, but when their is such division, it is expected that a president step in and act as executive, setting timelines, milestones, and brokering deals.  For the past 4 years, liberals in the media have run interference for president Obama on his detachment from economic issues.  We are beginning to see this again as the media is ramping up to lay 100% of the responsibility for an agreement on Republicans in Congress, rather than acknowledging the role of the president as a leader in the process.
 

Please don't force me to search your posts from 2008.

The market was due for a correction. And because of rate changes, there will be plenty of portfolio calibration. But don't fear chicken little as the Europeans appear to be getting their houses in order and if that were to become reality then we will see upward trends the next several years.

I'd be more in fear of "shadow" banks if I were you: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/concern-over-lack-of-regulation-of-shadow-financial-institutions-a-866763.html

[Teatownclown]

ah, good ole Okie Bill Moyers read my mind:

"...In fact, if you were choosing an image based on the coming fiscal
dust-up, it probably wouldn't be a cliff but an obstacle course - a series
of federal spending cuts and tax increases all scheduled to take effect as
2013 begins..."

http://billmoyers.com/content/why-washingtons-fiscal-cliff-is-a-myth/

As a start, relax. Don't let the headlines get to you. There's little reason for anyone to lose sleep over the much-hyped fiscal cliff. In fact, if you were choosing an image based on the coming fiscal dust-up, it probably wouldn't be a cliff but an obstacle course — a series of federal spending cuts and tax increases all scheduled to take effect as 2013 begins. And it's true that, if all those budget cuts and tax increases were to go into effect at the same time, an already weak recovery would probably sink into a double-dip recession.

[carltonplace]

Carlton is right!

The Dow has now lost 500pts since the election and seems to be on a steady decline.  Every day, more company's are announcing layoffs and at this point a second recession is almost inevitable. . .unless lawmakers can figure out how to do their jobs and avoid the automatic tax hikes that will halt the anemic growth we are attempting to hold on to.  Even with an agreement it will be difficult to quell the uncertainty, but without it, it will very likely lead to deep recession or even depression.  Our constitution requires congress to agree on a budget.  They need to do their job, plain and simple.

Now with that said, I think everyone knows that a group of 535 people will pull each other in hundreds of different directions.  That is why it is absolutely necessary that the president lead, control, and moderate the dialoge.  Speeches, grandstanding, and other media events do not qualify as leadership.  Sure, budget is the responsibility of the congress, but when their is such division, it is expected that a president step in and act as executive, setting timelines, milestones, and brokering deals.  For the past 4 years, liberals in the media have run interference for president Obama on his detachment from economic issues.  We are beginning to see this again as the media is ramping up to lay 100% of the responsibility for an agreement on Republicans in Congress, rather than acknowledging the role of the president as a leader in the process.
 

I don't agree that meeting with constituents, labor leaders and business leaders amounts to "media events" or grandstanding.

[Gaspar]

I don't agree that meeting with constituents, labor leaders and business leaders amounts to "media events" or grandstanding.

I do to some extent.  If there was a question as to what needs to be done, than an effort to court answers would be necessary.  If he comes out of these meetings with new answers or ideas, then I will be wrong and he was actually making an honest attempt to offer solutions, but I suspect his efforts are designed to generate political capital through courting agreement for his own policies instead.  He should be meeting with congress and hashing out an agreement.

There will be a press conference in about 2 minutes.  It's been 8 months now since he last took questions from the WH Press Corpses.

I suppose we will see what happens. 

[Townsend]

I suspect his efforts  

You always have and you always will.  Nothing will change that.

[carltonplace]

I do to some extent.  If there was a question as to what needs to be done, than an effort to court answers would be necessary.  If he comes out of these meetings with new answers or ideas, then I will be wrong and he was actually making an honest attempt to offer solutions, but I suspect his efforts are designed to generate political capital through courting agreement for his own policies instead.  He should be meeting with congress and hashing out an agreement.

There will be a press conference in about 2 minutes.  It's been 8 months now since he last took questions from the WH Press Corpses.

I suppose we will see what happens. 

I can see your point. He is holding on to the "tax the rich" mantra. I think everything needs to be on the table: Increased income tax, closing loopholes that don't hurt the middle class, restrain entitlements, reduce military spending, even taking a hard look at tax exempt entities (NGO and Not for profits). 

[nathanm]

I can see your point. He is holding on to the "tax the rich" mantra. I think everything needs to be on the table: Increased income tax, closing loopholes that don't hurt the middle class, restrain entitlements, reduce military spending, even taking a hard look at tax exempt entities (NGO and Not for profits). 

The President has specifically stated that all those things are on the table except extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Congress and the President have already enacted $1.5 trillion of the $4 trillion or so in budget cuts the Bowles-Simpson commission asked for. The Republicans, unfortunately, have been trying to avoid any tax rate increases even though the arithmetic simply doesn't work without it.

[Gaspar]

According to his press conference he has met with "Civic Leaders and Labor leaders"  and the "CEOs of the nation's largest companies."  That's not who he needs to meet with.  Small business owners are what comprises most of the job creation and economic growth in this country.  They are the ones that have been hardest hit by his policies and will be hardest hit by his tax increase.  They have the most to lose in complying with Obamacare, and will be affected the most by limitations on their abilities to compete with the "nation's largest companies."  It seems that he is avoiding a conversation with representatives from that group, instead, he is meeting with his standard stable of cronies and donors.  

[Gaspar]

[nathanm]

Gaspar, your entire post is divorced from the facts. Most people are employed by large employers. The vast majority of "small businesses" (by the usual Republican definition) have zero employees other than the owner. I agree that small businesses are important. After all, they collectively employ around 40% of the workforce, although the majority of that employment is among the few percent of small businesses that are close to being large businesses.

As long as you believe that businesspeople pay tax on their gross receipts you will be unable to understand how taxation and the economy intersect.

No, the real problem for small business has nothing to do with the federal government and the policies they will or will not implement, and everything to do with state and local governments subsidizing their competition through tax incentives, subsidized loans, development deals, and simply funneling cash from workers' paychecks directly back into the owners' pockets. All this is, of course, funded with the tax dollars of existing businesses in the community.

[carltonplace]

According to his press conference he has met with "Civic Leaders and Labor leaders"  and the "CEOs of the nation's largest companies."  That's not who he needs to meet with.  Small business owners are what comprises most of the job creation and economic growth in this country.  They are the ones that have been hardest hit by his policies and will be hardest hit by his tax increase.  They have the most to lose in complying with Obamacare, and will be affected the most by limitations on their abilities to compete with the "nation's largest companies."  It seems that he is avoiding a conversation with representatives from that group, instead, he is meeting with his standard stable of cronies and donors.  

And our back and forth illustrates the over arching problem: I tried to meet you half way and then you ran back to your FOX Noise corner.

[Gaspar]

Gaspar, your entire post is divorced from the facts. Most people are employed by large employers. The vast majority of "small businesses" (by the usual Republican definition) have zero employees other than the owner. I agree that small businesses are important. After all, they collectively employ around 40% of the workforce, although the majority of that employment is among the few percent of small businesses that are close to being large businesses.

As long as you believe that businesspeople pay tax on their gross receipts you will be unable to understand how taxation and the economy intersect.

No, the real problem for small business has nothing to do with the federal government and the policies they will or will not implement, and everything to do with state and local governments subsidizing their competition through tax incentives, subsidized loans, development deals, and simply funneling cash from workers' paychecks directly back into the owners' pockets. All this is, of course, funded with the tax dollars of existing businesses in the community.

Sorry, no time for more sock puppets today.

Not sure where you get your numbers but the SBA must be wrong.
Fully 99 percent of all independent enterprises in the country employ fewer than 500 people. These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Some 19.6 million Americans work for companies employing fewer than 20 workers, 18.4 million work for firms employing between 20 and 99 workers, and 14.6 million work for firms with 100 to 499 workers. By contrast, 47.7 million Americans work for firms with 500 or more employees. http://economics.about.com/od/smallbigbusiness/a/us_business.htm http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24

[Gaspar]

And our back and forth illustrates the over arching problem: I tried to meet you half way and then you ran back to your FOX Noise corner.

He's still talking and it's tanking the market again.  Sorry, no FOX at work, CNBC again.

[Townsend]

Sorry, no FOX at work, CNBC again.

He's so broken he thinks FOX is CNBC.