Poor folks including Paul Alllen.
Billionaire Paul Allen is a Microsoft cofounder, the owner of the NFL's Seattle Seahawks and the owner of the NBA's Portland Trailblazers.
And, thanks to the stimulus bill President Obama signed this week, he's also about to be as much as a billion dollars richer.
Read the article for the explanation. Including Paul Alllen's claim that he didn't seek this tax break. Which I believe since, without Bill Gates, Allen has been better at losing money than making it, or even saving it.
Perhaps the "stimulus" package would have been better if at least one person had read it before it was passed. And signed.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at February 19, 2009 03:36 PM | Email ThisTax breaks to rich folks and companies = American way.
Tax breaks to rich folks and companies as part of a broader stimulus package = EVIL!
Again... I may not agree with all of the parts of the stimulus package, but seriously... do you even realize how hypocritical you all are at this point?
Posted by: demo_kid on February 19, 2009 03:59 PMdemo, read up the definition of stereotype. Perhaps that will help your confusion.
Paul Allen, if he is like all the other filthy rich and his former partner, Bill, can just give the money back. Why not? Movie stars and the other filthy rich want to be taxed more. Just give it back or better yet, don't take it.
Posted by: swatter on February 19, 2009 04:15 PMNow if I had a choice, I think I'd prefer that tax breaks to go to successful businesses and successful owners of those businesses. After all, why should we stimulate failed businesses or the people who backed them?
But then again, everything this new administration is doing appears to be focused on rewarding failure at the expense of the successful. That is, of course, when it's not pandering to its base or seeking unprecedented growth in government.
Maybe the title of the post would have been better if it had read, "Why is the "Stimulus" package throwing money at failures and not at endeavors that will restore our economy?"
Posted by: Reality on February 19, 2009 06:25 PMDo you realize what a complete and utter moron you are?
Do you realize the difference between daylight and darkness?
Idiot.
Posted by: Hinton on February 19, 2009 08:42 PMTruth is, I doubt that you have a clue as to all of the pork and garbage, sprinkled with sprinkled small lean portions that was in the bill. Yes, they needed to pass a stimulus package, but not until it was properly vetted, but fascists Pelosi and Reid did not want that and Obama just wanted something passed to make him look good, but was clueless about what he signed. Not inspiring, nor change I want to believe in..
Boo-ya!
Posted by: The King, Elvis on February 19, 2009 10:52 PMAnd these magical tax breaks just for "successful businesses" are found in which Republican proposal?
I'm not in favor of tax breaks for the rich, but I'm amused at how foolish and stupid conservatives can be when the shoe is on the other foot. The breaks here don't seem ANY different from those that would be proposed by Republicans, and if that were the case, you'd be falling all over each other to tell me how good this would be for the country.
Urrgh. You people are something else. Don't even try the fake populism... it doesn't work.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 20, 2009 06:29 AMWhere's the screaming?
LOL
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 20, 2009 06:48 AMHOPE, CHANGE, AND DEBT: Obama victory bash owes city $1.74 mil. "Chicago has yet to recoup the $1.74 million cost of President Obama's victory celebration in Grant Park -- despite a burgeoning $50.5 million budget shortfall that threatens more layoffs and union concessions." This is starting to sound like a theme.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 20, 2009 07:03 AMhttp://wjz.com/local/acorn.foreclosure.2.939119.html
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 20, 2009 07:15 AMAnd in terms of @15, figures that you'd be in favor of just throwing people out into the street. I think that unethical folks like you should just start shooting poor people. It would be faster and more honest.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 20, 2009 07:27 AMYour stereotype is the Rs give tax breaks to the rich. Period.
In this case, the Ds are giving tax breaks to the rich who are failing.
Other than the Chicago-like tactics Bill and Paul employed in their meteoric rise, they couldn't manage their way out of a paper sack.
What have they done outside of the Microsoft empire?
They are failures as venture capitalists. I doubt any Republican wants to reward these failures.
And I differentiate these two with the mess the banks were forced into and upon which the economy relies.
Posted by: swatter on February 20, 2009 07:28 AMI think demo-kid is a cranky these days. Odd though, they won.
Or did they? (-:
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 20, 2009 08:01 AMAnd heck, I'm not talking about "Bill" and "Paul". I'm talking about the fact that you all are arguing against the same tax breaks that, if proposed by a Republican, you'd be drooling over.
Face it, hypocrite. You're not interested in the well-being of the country, only scoring political points. That's pretty much why the Republican party should be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 20, 2009 08:21 AMHouse "flippers"...you lose. Should have sat down while the music was still playing.
Overleveraged/undercapitalized businesses...same for you, as you probably won't survive anyway, so why waste the money extending your death throes.
"Bad News Banks"....die already, and stamp an "F" for failure on your executives' foreheads on their way out the door.
Democrat Congress....Send em home, we can't afford to buy anymore "pork" futures. And stamp a "P" on their foreheads.
Obama....send him to live in the box with his brother, before he does the same to the rest of us.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 20, 2009 08:24 AMNot going to waste any time explaining how Congress mandated, by means of the CRA (Community Redevelopment Act), forced banks to grant home loans to unqualified buyers. And how "Community Organizers" threatened lawsuits if they didn't. No, I won't waste my time on an idiot like you.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 20, 2009 08:34 AMNo, they were just sued by Obama to give high-risk loans through ACORN thug intimidation and Governmental pressure under the CRA (aka racist shakedown).
Posted by: Rick D. on February 20, 2009 08:42 AMA finer example of projection you'll never find.
It's like we simply imagined liberal behavior over the last eight years.
Posted by: jimg on February 20, 2009 09:22 AMJeff B. talks about the infrastructure stimulus that will take 4-5 years to setup.
Posted by: swatter on February 20, 2009 09:36 AMClass warfare is alive and well. Just line up the poor people and start shooting.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 20, 2009 11:05 AMHow were the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "tax cuts for the rich"? Did they not cut ALL tax rates? Did they not cut the lowest tax rates proportionally MORE than the highest tax rates?
If anything, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were skewed TOWARDS the poor, and AGAINST the rich.
Exactly the opposite is happening here.
The fact you cannot see this plain and obvious truth speaks more to your blind hatred and willful ignorance than any malfeasance of the GOP, or trickery of President Obama and the Slavery party (who are quite blatant about the gifts to their wealthy friends).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 20, 2009 11:26 AMI'd be careful who I was calling a liar, punk.
That aside, there are many factors that contributed to the housing crash. The CRA coupled with Congress' refusal to provide oversight to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac led to billions in loans to people unable to repay. Now many of those same people expect us to bail them out. If you're stupid enough to loan money to someone who isn't going to repay it, then that's your problem. But don't speak for me.
And don't pull that "poor people" strawman out of the pile either. Most of the people who signed up for sub-prime loans knew full and well they could never make a full interest payment, let alone principle. They were gambling their future, not mine, that the real estate market had no ceiling. They lost.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 20, 2009 12:43 PMAre all liberals as stupid as the ones who post on SP? You'd wear all the skin off your hand trying back-slap some sense into even one of them. My father would have spanked me, as a six-year old, for spouting the asinine jibberish these leftist idiots write. Shheeeesh! And these idiots control our government? God help us.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 20, 2009 12:51 PMEveryone agrees that this debacle stems from the real estate market. Well, what went wrong in the real estate market?
Answer: a lethal combination of (1) government and interest groups (ACORN) forcing banks to write mortgage loans that their normal underwriting would not have allowed them to write (sub-prime and Alt A loans); (2) low (negative real) interest rates that further encouraged people to buy homes they could not otherwise afford; (3) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (primarily) bought up these loans--the banks and mortgage companies wanted to get these loans off their books, so the ability to sell them to Fannie and Freddie made their underwriting issues disappear; (4) Fannie and Freddie, because of the implicit (now explicit) federal guarantee of their credit was able to package these loans into CMO's (Collateralized Mortgage Obligations) and sell them to the financial community, spreading this risk throughout the financial system; and (5) the impact of "mark to market" that came out of the Sarbanes-Oxley, post Enron, legislation which required these financial institutions to write down these assets to what someone would pay to buy those assets today (in a panic mode where NO ONE is buying them) rather than looking at the discounted cash flow.
Now as to assigning blame--in order of these 5 issues:
(1) is all on the Democrats, and especially Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The Community Reinvestment Act, passed by Democrats under Jimmy Carter, was meant to restrict red lining--not lending to people based on where they live rather than looking at the credit of the individuals looking for a loan. This was expanded under Bill Clinton, and ACORN as well as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, demonstrated and/or threatened banks who did not loan to their favored constituencies.
(2) The low interest rates (negative real rates) is all on Greenspan. He waited WAY too long to raise interest rates.
(3) Fannie and Freddie were practically a subsidiary of the Democrat Party. It was run by Democrats, and Democrats (again especially Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) refused to allow regulation to rein them in because they were allowing loans to be written to their favored constituents (i.e. low income and minorities who vote for Democrats).
(4) Again, Fannie and Freddie were allowed to run wild by the Democrats. I do fault the Republicans for not pushing harder to rein them in, but it was the Democrats that consistently blocked any legislation to regulate them.
(5) Mark to market came out of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation which was itself in response to the Enron scandal. Since Sarbanes was a Democrat and Oxley was a Republican, BOTH parties are to blame for this issue.
Ok, I have given SPECIFICS as to what I think caused the financial problems. Left-wingers, in trying to blame Bush, or the Republicans, give only generalities such as "a culture of deregulation" or "they were in charge" or other bromides.
Let's see some specifics from those on the left as to WHY the economic problems we are in are SOLELY the fault of Bush/Republicans or why the current situation "proves" that Reagan was wrong or that supply-side economics doesn't work. I have seen nothing but BDS from those on the left. Do you actually THINK or do you just EMOTE?
And just in case that wasn't clear enough -- DON'T CALL ANOTHER COMMENTER AN IDIOT OR A LIAR. OR SOMETHING SIMILAR. CLEAR ENOUGH NOW?
Posted by: Jim MIller on February 20, 2009 01:13 PMhttp://www.clusterflock.org/2009/02/crisis-of-credit.html
Posted by: RobertSeattle on February 20, 2009 02:39 PMVery concise and complete explanation. Most of us have heard it all before but you stated it exceptionally well.
And gee, I hope our really neat and very bright and totally cool liberal friends agree with you too. That would be so swell.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 20, 2009 04:06 PM@27: I'll call your lies as I see them. (And I see a lot of them.) If you have some sort of problem with that... well... I don't really care.
@29: I have seen nothing but BDS from those on the left. Do you actually THINK or do you just EMOTE?
I've seen nothing but Obama Derangement Syndrome from the right. Recycled talking points and tired and unproven economic theories from the right don't make for real policy. Case in point is the constant use of ACORN as a right-wing bogeyman/punching bag. If you seriously think that the credit crisis is due to a couple of middle-income folks being able to buy a house, I'd really encourage you to take a look at foreclosure listings and you can tell me if it's just affordable housing advocates that were the problem.
As far as whether the Bush Administration was "responsible" because he was "in charge", the Fed and federal agencies WERE responsible. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/business/18subprime.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print) Democrats have put through bills in the past to try to deal with the problem (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/03/senate_mortgage_brokers.html). And, of course, Bush was all over the idea of an "ownership society", until the collapse came of course. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/19/bush-ownership-society/)
Are these economic problems the exclusive domain of the Republicans? Hardly. I do think that the Democrats share the blame. But the laughable notion that this can be laid at the feet of the Community Reinvestment Act is not based in fact. It's simply based on the need for Republicans to blame poor people, yet again.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 20, 2009 04:23 PMAnd hey look... no bogeyman! If you assume that: a.) a critical number of subprime mortgages are related to the CRA, b.) foreclosures are only related to subprime mortgages and not ARMs or other exotic instruments, c.) the lending industry didn't use its influence to derail tighter regulation, and d.) aspects of the "free market" didn't lead us directly into this mess... well... you're not paying attention.
Much of the blame lies with HUD, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Reserve Board. As near as I can tell, three of those four are executive-controlled agencies which had the power to rein in problems with borrowing using powers they already had. Congress certainly has its share of explaining to do, but to assume that Republicans are blameless is silly.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 20, 2009 04:51 PMI did not even mention Obama in my analysis, so don't try to lay that off on me.
"Recycled talking points and tired and unproven economic theories from the right don't make for real policy."
Recycled talking points and tired unproven economic theories from the LEFT don't make for real policy.
See, I can say the same thing as you, and it is just as meaningless. How about THINKING about the situation and what caused it instead of spouting a knee jerk partisan outburst.
"Case in point is the constant use of ACORN as a right-wing bogeyman/punching bag."
If you don't think ACORN had an impact on the issuance of bad loans, then you just have not been paying attention. They threatened banks with lawsuits (and filed lawsuits), and Democrats (specifically Barney Frank (House Banking Committee) and Chris Dodd (Senate Banking Committee) backed up their threats.
" If you seriously think that the credit crisis is due to a couple of middle-income folks being able to buy a house, I'd really encourage you to take a look at foreclosure listings and you can tell me if it's just affordable housing advocates that were the problem."
A "couple of middle-income folks"? Are you serious? If it was just "a couple" this would NOT be a problem. Non-performing mortgage loans are far and away in the sub-prime and alt-A markets, NOT in the standard mortgage market. It is people who were encouraged to buy and did, in fact, buy more house than they could afford.
As far as "...and you can tell me if it's just affordable housing advocates that were the problem."
If you were to read my full post, I didn't JUST BLAME ACORN. I said it was "a lethal combination of" 5 things. And I put most of the blame for those 5 things on:
Democrats, especially Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, (and assisted by Fannie, Freddie, and groups like ACORN) and Alan Greenspan. I also give Republicans some blame for not pushing harder to regulate Fannie and Freddie, although their attempt was filibustered by the Democrats. I also give the Democrats and Republicans equal blame for instituting Mark to Market in the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation (a response to Enron).
"I do think that the Democrats share the blame."
We agree on something, although I likely assign a much greater percentage of the blame to Democrats, ESPECIALLY Frank and Dodd than you do.
"But the laughable notion that this can be laid at the feet of the Community Reinvestment Act is not based in fact."
As I said in my post, this was but one of 5 elements of the problem. By itself, it may not have created the crisis, but combined with the other 4 elements, we have the situation we are in now.
"It's simply based on the need for Republicans to blame poor people, yet again."
First of all, I am not a Republican. Second, I don't believe I blamed ANY poor people, since I don't think Frank, Dodd, and Greenspan are poor, and I kind of doubt that any of the other Democrats and Republicans in Congress could be considered poor. So your comment is simply an ad hominem outburst.
Posted by: Bill H on February 20, 2009 05:15 PMCheck the actual rates. The bottom rate was cut 33%; the next group was cut 9%, then 8%, then 7%. Hey, the biggest cut went to the bottom end. The tax rate cuts made the tax scales even more "progressive".
Facts are difficult things, you simply can't get around them!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 20, 2009 06:43 PMNearly half of Americans pay no net income tax. Guess which segment of our population elected Sugar Daddy Obama?
Posted by: Saltherring on February 20, 2009 07:22 PMThe tax cuts are often portrayed by their supporters as painless and simply "giving people their money back." But the numbers presented above indicate that the substantial majority of American households ultimately will be made worse off by the tax cuts, because the tax cuts ultimately will have to be financed. Different methods of financing would generate variation in the particular results, but the basic findings -- that most households end up being worse off and transfers would flow from low- and middle-income households to more affluent households -- are likely to continue to hold unless a significant portion of the tax cuts themselves are repealed. The reason is that the tax cuts scale back or eliminate many of the most progressive elements of the federal tax system, including the estate tax, the taxation of capital gains and dividends, the top income tax rates, and the phase-outs of certain exemptions and deductions for households with high incomes. It is unlikely that any method of financing those changes, other than repeal of the tax cuts, will be as progressive as the tax provisions that have been scaled back.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 20, 2009 09:56 PMAgain, D.K., there was no mention of Obama. However, I will say I have PDS- Progressive Derangement Syndrome (also called Pelosi Derangement Syndrome) at clowns in denial like you for the "Republican formerly Bush Derangement Syndrome" that you have exhibited by your baseless allegations. Enlighten us, what are you fighting for in 50 words or less ?
Why do you think we are pissed off at ACORN ? You know full well dipstick, because they cheat and they abuse taxpayer money; Enough of your strawman argument about them.
I am holding out hope for the economy to recover, but if the left and Obama uses the failed and antiquated policies of FDR - Keynesian economics and refuses to listen to loyal opposition and govern more bipartisan fashion, his administration is doomed to failure and that's a prediction. Newsflash: Sarah Palin will not be Obama's opponent in 2012.
In case you hadn't noticed, this polarization is killing us. The Dow has gone from 11,300 in mid-September, when Obama pulled ahead down to 7,300 today - get a clue, you may have won last November, but since then, the Dems in power are inflicting heavy losses on us, the people and if that's OK with you or anyone, you are not only in denial but you have smoked too many bong hits and you brains are fried !
Posted by: KS on February 20, 2009 11:13 PMAgain, D.K., there was no mention of Obama. However, I will say I have PDS- Progressive Derangement Syndrome (also called Pelosi Derangement Syndrome) at clowns in denial like you for the "Republican formerly Bush Derangement Syndrome" that you have exhibited by your baseless allegations. Enlighten us, what are you fighting for in 50 words or less ?
Why do you think we are pissed off at ACORN ? You know full well dipstick, because they cheat and they abuse taxpayer money; Enough of your strawman argument about them.
I am holding out hope for the economy to recover, but if the left and Obama uses the failed and antiquated policies of FDR - Keynesian economics and refuses to listen to loyal opposition and govern more bipartisan fashion, his administration is doomed to failure and that's a prediction. Newsflash: Sarah Palin will not be Obama's opponent in 2012.
In case you hadn't noticed, this polarization is killing us. The Dow has gone from 11,300 in mid-September, when Obama pulled ahead down to 7,300 today - get a clue, you may have won last November, but since then, the Dems in power are inflicting heavy losses on us, the people and if that's OK with you or anyone, you are not only in denial but you have smoked too many bong hits and your brains are fried !
Posted by: KS on February 20, 2009 11:14 PMAgain, D.K., there was no mention of Obama. However, I will say I have PDS- Progressive Derangement Syndrome (also called Pelosi Derangement Syndrome) at clowns in denial like you for the "Republican formerly Bush Derangement Syndrome" that you have exhibited by your baseless allegations. Enlighten us, what are you fighting for in 50 words or less ?
Why do you think we are pissed off at ACORN ? You know full well dipstick, because they cheat and they abuse taxpayer money; Enough of your strawman argument about them.
I am holding out hope for the economy to recover, but if the left and Obama uses the failed and antiquated policies of FDR - Keynesian economics and refuses to listen to loyal opposition and govern more bipartisan fashion, his administration is doomed to failure and that's a prediction. Newsflash: Sarah Palin will not be Obama's opponent in 2012.
In case you hadn't noticed, this polarization is killing us. The Dow has gone from 11,300 in mid-September, when Obama pulled ahead down to 7,300 today - get a clue, you may have won last November, but since then, the Dems in power are inflicting heavy losses on us, the people and if that's OK with you or anyone, you are not only in denial but you have smoked too many bong hits and your brains are fried !
Posted by: KS on February 20, 2009 11:14 PMI believe Obama and the Dims have purposely engineered a controllable economic downturn into a crisis in order to bring America down. They intend to destroy the Bill of Rights and ram their Euro-style, socialistic oligarchy down our throats. No group could be as collectively stupid as Obama, Pelosi and Reid. This power grab has to be planned.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 21, 2009 06:26 AMSo now you are opposed to tax cuts? Is that your point? Where were you vociferously attacking your Marxist Messiah when talking of "giving 95% of the people a tax cut"?
I see you try to use PROJECTED long-term possible results once you're PROVEN to be a LIAR (and yes Jim, I use the word liar because it was shown as such; the hard data - tax rates - proves that this "progressive" was wrong). If that's the case, then we can use LOTS of projections to say that everything is wrong about the current administration. Like what is That One doing about the end of the world on December 21, 2012 (which the Mayans predicted)?
Tax cuts WORK. They work EACH TIME, EVERY TIME. Receipts to the Federal Government INCREASE when taxes are cut responsibly, because the overall GDP grows much more quickly than the decrease of the tax rate.
But that removes the biggest chain you Slavers have left - the chain of economic oppression.
Tell you what - when you forgo ALL exemptions and deductions from your personal taxes, and you pay ALL sales taxes on anything purchased (even purchased out-of-state and shipped to you), then you will have a foundation. Right now, you're a two-faced hypocrite because you decry tax cuts yet grab and claim yours when you can!
Did you send your stimulus check back last year? If not, you're a hypocrite.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 21, 2009 08:17 AM