Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
2. Well, if the goal is really to be clear about them, they're imaginary.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:53 AM
Jan 2015

They will never happen, nor were they intended to ever be implemented, which is why they weren't actually leaked until after the republicans took control of the senate. They are a political ploy to try to gain some leverage on the republicans.

SunSeeker

(51,574 posts)
3. No, it would help couples without children and singles too.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 04:33 AM
Jan 2015

It would increase taxes on the rich by, among other things, instituting a tax on stock trades, to finance credits aimed at the middle class, including "extending the earned income tax credits to families without children, which would benefit an estimated 13 million low-income workers."

Also,

In addition to the tax credits, the president's proposals will also include a plan to give more workers access to retirement accounts. Employers with at least 10 workers who don't currently offer their employees a 401(k) would have to enroll them in what's known as an automatic IRA, ...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/17/obama-sotu-taxes_n_6493144.html
 

ND-Dem

(4,571 posts)
4. look, they're talking about killing ssdi with little to no pushback from the democrats;
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 04:36 AM
Jan 2015

they've changed the rules to do it and the democrats are pretending there's nothing they can do about it -- and you really think there's a will to get any of the presidents' proposals?

the only thing that's going to get passed is more necrophilia for the rich.

SunSeeker

(51,574 posts)
5. I think Obama is defining what Dems stand for and teeing it up for 2016.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 04:41 AM
Jan 2015

But in the meantime, he just might get some of these proposals passed, like taxes on the big banks, which have bipartisan support.

Other elements of the president's plan, however, have enjoyed some degree of bipartisan support. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) has proposed a similar tax on big banks, and many Republicans favor the idea of broadening the earned income tax credit.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/17/obama-sotu-taxes_n_6493144.html






 

ND-Dem

(4,571 posts)
6. he should have teed up earlier. he already left his legacy; it was bailing out the banksters who
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 04:54 AM
Jan 2015

took down the economy. job 1.

 

ND-Dem

(4,571 posts)
9. Joseph E. Stiglitz: Obama's Bank Bailout Plan Is Win-Win-Lose Proposal
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:06 PM
Jan 2015
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/01/joseph-e-stiglitz-obamas-_n_181646.html

THE Obama administration’s $500 billion or more proposal to deal with America’s ailing banks has been described by some in the financial markets as a win-win-win proposal. Actually, it is a win-win-lose proposal: the banks win, investors win — and taxpayers lose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01stiglitz.html?ref=opinion&_r=0


SunSeeker

(51,574 posts)
10. The bank bailot (TARP) PASSED under Bush in Oct. 3, 2008.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:18 PM
Jan 2015
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Perhaps you can link me to what was actually passed regarding the 2011 proposal these opinion pieces are talking about. Either way, the bank bailout was in 2008.

Obama's legacy will be the ACA.
 

ND-Dem

(4,571 posts)
12. If so, why doesn't stiglitz know this? He also talks about it being geithner's plan, and geithner
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:28 PM
Jan 2015

was Obama's appointee.

Under the plan by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the government would provide about 92 percent of the money to buy the asset but would stand to receive only 50 percent of any gains, and would absorb almost all of the losses. Some partnership!

 

ND-Dem

(4,571 posts)
15. maybe this is why.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 02:01 PM
Jan 2015

On March 23, 2009, Geithner announced a Public-Private Investment Program (P-PIP) to buy toxic assets from banks' balance sheets. The major stock market indexes in the United States rallied on the day of the announcement rising by over six percent with the shares of bank stocks leading the way.

P-PIP has two primary programs. The Legacy Loans Program will attempt to buy residential loans from bank's balance sheets. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will provide non-recourse loan guarantees for up to 85 percent of the purchase price of legacy loans. Private sector asset managers and the U.S. Treasury will provide the remaining assets.

The second program is called the legacy securities program, which will buy residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) that were originally rated AAA and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and asset-backed securities (ABS) which are rated AAA. The funds will come in many instances in equal parts from the U.S. Treasury's TARP monies, private investors, and from loans from the Federal Reserve's Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF).

The initial size of the Public Private Investment Partnership is projected to be $500 billion.[27

On April 19, 2009, the Obama administration outlined the conversion of Banks Bailouts to Equity Share.[32]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Let's be clear about the ...