The Next Four Years

[Shapley]

Yup, the world will end.

Not until Dec. 21st, 2012. But it's probably going to be a bumpy ride in the meantime....

[Haggis@wk]

If one day of carping in the blogosphere is enough to get The One to reverse himself, maybe we can work with this guy after all. The Change.gov plan as of yesterday:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

The Change.gov plan as of this afternoon:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

I guess they realized that if you can’t even force kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, forcing them to do community service was probably going to be an uphill struggle

Was that on Drudge or Limbaugh or something? The same meme from three different forums.

??? It was on Obama's previously change.com now change.gov site. The words changed from "require" to "setting a goal" overnight. I just thought it was cute.

[Haggis@wk]

Reaganism Is Not Dead.

"Barack Obama won the White House by campaigning against an unpopular incumbent in a time of economic anxiety and lingering foreign policy concerns. He offered voters an upbeat message, praised the nation as a land of opportunity, promised tax cuts to just about everyone, and overcame doubts about his experience with a strong performance in the presidential debates. Does this sound familiar? It should. Mr. Obama followed the approach that worked for Ronald Reagan.

His victory confirmed that voters still embrace the guiding beliefs of the Reagan era. . . . Down the campaign homestretch, Mr. Obama's tax-cutting promise became his clearest policy position. Eventually he stole the tax issue from the Republicans. Heading into the election, 31% of voters thought that a President Obama would cut their taxes. Only 11% expected a tax cut from a McCain administration."

Exit question:

What will happen when people learn that their taxes aren’t going to be cut?

[OperaTenor]

They'll either understand he has a compelling reason for it, or he'll be given opportunities in the private sector in four years.

Ain't this representative republic great?

[analog]

Well i've calmed down a bit now.

Sorry to reopen this subject but it took me a couple days to absorb what's up.

Here's the basic premise of that proposed Ghilarducci plan to eliminate 401K's. It's from a presentation she made to congress, Here's the link:
http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf

While it does not appear to confiscate what money you already have in a 401K, it does effectively kill the 401K concept replacing it with a 5% payroll tax and 3% interest on that money.


It amounts to a government grab of the money stream that is flowing into the stock market as a result of 401's..

and it's more of this "You cannot take care of yourself, Big Brother must do it for you"-ism .

Read and decide whether your retirement account is better than this one:

How Guaranteed Retirement
Accounts work
Structure.
Guaranteed Retirement Accounts are like universal
401(k) plans except that the government, as befits
a large and enduring institution, will invest and manage
the pooled savings.
Participation.
Participation in the program is mandatory
except for workers participating in equivalent or better
employer defined-benefit plans where contributions are
at least 5% of earnings and benefits take the form of life
annuities.
Contributions.
Contributions equal to 5% of earnings
are deducted along with payroll taxes and credited to
individual accounts administered by the Social Security
Administration. The cost of contributions is split equally
between employer and employee. Mandatory contributions
are deducted only on earnings up to the Social
Security earnings cap,2 and workers and employers have
the option of making additional contributions with post-tax dollars.

The contributions of husbands and wives
are combined and divided equally between their individual
accounts.
Refundable tax credit.
Employee contributions are offset
through a $600 refundable tax credit, which takes the
place of tax breaks for 401(k)s and similar individual
accounts and is indexed to wage inflation. Eligibility for
the tax credit is extended to part-time workers, caregivers
of children under age six, and those collecting unemployment
benefits. If an individual’s annual contributions
amount to less than $600, some or all of the tax credit is
deposited directly into the account in order to ensure a
minimum annual deposit of $600 for all participants.
Fund management.
The accounts are administered by
the Social Security Administration and funds are managed
by the Thrift Savings Plan or similar body. Though funds
are pooled, workers are able to track the dollar value
of their accumulations, as with 401(k)s and other
individual accounts.
Investment earnings.
The pooled funds are conservatively
invested in financial markets. However, participants earn a
fixed 3% rate of return adjusted for inflation, guaranteed
by the federal government. If the trustees determine that
actual investment returns have been consistently higher
than 3% over a number of years, the surplus will be
distributed to participants, though a balancing fund will
be maintained to ride out periods of low returns.

Retirement age.
Participants begin collecting retirement
benefits at the same time as Social Security, and therefore
no earlier than the Social Security Early Retirement Age.
Funds cannot be accessed before retirement for any
reason other than death or disability.
Retirement benefits.
Account balances are converted to
inflation-indexed annuities upon retirement to ensure
that workers do not outlive their savings. However,
individuals can opt to take a partial lump sum equal to
10% of their account balance or $10,000 (whichever is
higher), or to opt for survivor benefits in exchange for
a lower monthly check. A full-time worker who works
40 years and retires at age 65 can expect a benefit equal
to roughly 25% of pre-retirement income, adjusted for
inflation, assuming a 3% real rate of return (see Table 1).
Since Social Security provides the average such worker
with an inflation-adjusted benefit equal to roughly 45%
of pre-retirement income, the total replacement rate for
this prototypical worker will be approximately 70%.
Death benefits.
Participants who die before retiring can
bequeath half their account balances to heirs; those who
die after retiring can bequeath half their final account
balance minus benefits received.


[and further down, in conclusions section:}
This plan pays for itself—it will not
increase the federal deficit or require a tax increase—by
eliminating all tax deductions for contributions to 401(k)
plans.

Well, that last line should kick Wall Street's butt.
Political appointees will decide how your retirement funds are invested. Imagine the power that gives them !

The propaganda is starting already. NPR had the lady on tonight.

Shouldn't affect me much for my career is a memory.
But it sure takes you young folks' hand off the helm.

a.

[analog]

Oral Testimony
Committee on Education and Labor
The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security
1:00, 2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Tuesday October 7, 2008
Teresa Ghilarducci
Irene and Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of Economic Policy Analysis at
The New School for Social Research Department of Economics
79 Fifth Avenue NY, NY 10003
ghilardt@newschool.edu
212-229-5901 extension #2


Short Term Solution to the Retirement Crises
Short term, I propose that since 401(k) accounts and the like are financial
institutions -- the bank about where 38% of the workforce can intend to save for their
retirement -- Congress let workers trade their 401(k) and 401(k) - type plan assets
(perhaps valued at mid-August prices) for a Guaranteed Retirement Account composed
of government bonds (earning a 3% return, adjusted for inflation). When the worker
collects Social Security, the Guaranteed Retirement Account will pay an inflation
adjusted annuity, based on the accumulated funds.
How would this work? Take a 55 year old who had $50,000 in his 401(k) account
in August and faces job loss and eroded assets because of the erosion of his retirement
accounts. Let him swap out the $50,000 for a guarantee of $500 per month .

it's sure not a good deal if your 401 is healthy.

[Haggis@wk]

Is this the start of Bush’s rehabilitation?

"President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party. Civil-liberties groups were among those outraged that the White House sanctioned the use of harsh intelligence techniques -- which some consider torture -- by the Central Intelligence Agency, and expanded domestic spy powers. These groups are demanding quick action to reverse these policies. Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration."

Pragmatic? Bush’s polices are suddenly pragmatic? What about the incessant ranting for years that Bush had gone far beyond any practical necessity?

Of course, this means that Obama will have to rehabilitate Bush in order to defend his adoption of Bush’s policies. He can’t say that Bush went far beyond necessity and the Constitution and then turn around and do the same thing.

No, he will patiently explain that it turns out that Bush had most things right and that we need to respect the wise decisions that he made and to finish the work he started.

And I doubt this will be the only area in which leftists will quickly “re-evaluate” Bush’s legacy. Now that leftists face the same responsibilities that Bush has faced, they will see his actions in a different light.

Obama praising George Bush, I want to be a fly on the wall when all the Bush haters get that memo!!

[Shapley]

No, he will patiently explain that it turns out that Bush had most things right and that we need to respect the wise decisions that he made and to finish the work he started.

And I doubt this will be the only area in which leftists will quickly “re-evaluate” Bush’s legacy. Now that leftists face the same responsibilities that Bush has faced, they will see his actions in a different light.

Obama praising George Bush, I want to be a fly on the wall when all the Bush haters get that memo!!

I don't expect any such statements. Just as President Clinton did, he will probably employ the same tactics as President Bush employed, but deny that he is doing so. The press, of course, will not report it, with the exception of such sources as the National Review, The Weekly Standard, and, of course, Fox News, all of which are ignored by the 'mainstream'. The left won't care, they only care about power. They really don't oppose to those type of actions, as long as it is 'their guy' that's employing them.

Don't expect any mea culpa's. Democrats don't work that way.

[jamiebk]

Don't expect any mea culpa's. Democrats don't work that way.

No politician works that way...

[Haggis@wk]

I don't expect any such statements. Just as President Clinton did, he will probably employ the same tactics as President Bush employed, but deny that he is doing so.

I'm not so sure. The MSM and the Left have demonized Bush's policies and expect Obama to cancel or modify them. They'll be waiting for him to live up to their expectations that he will do so. Since he's never, apparently, said that he would rescind or cancel them he'll have to make some excuse why he won't.

We are already aware that Obama's capable of throwing anyone under the bus that has become a nuisance or an embarrassment. Now I think we are starting to see him establish some distance between himself and the fringe left, especially those who expect an immediate withdrawal of troops; this is now his war and he's not going to do anything that will tarnish his legacy.

Did you see that he's already being rated for presidential expectation?

[Shapley]

I'm not so sure. The MSM and the Left have demonized Bush's policies and expect Obama to cancel or modify them. They'll be waiting for him to live up to their expectations that he will do so. Since he's never, apparently, said that he would rescind or cancel them he'll have to make some excuse why he won't.

Perhaps. But, you will remember that President Clinton promised a middle class tax cut, which he had to renig on. He went on the air and told us that 'he had worked harder than he had ever worked in his life' trying to find the money for such a cut, and he couldn't. He didn't bother to tell everyone he was repealing, retroactively, the Bush I tax increase on the wealthy, and the press didn't bother much with that part of the story, either.

We are already aware that Obama's capable of throwing anyone under the bus that has become a nuisance or an embarrassment. Now I think we are starting to see him establish some distance between himself and the fringe left, especially those who expect an immediate withdrawal of troops; this is now his war and he's not going to do anything that will tarnish his legacy.

Probably true. I think he would have abandoned the war in Iraq if he thought he could blame the loss on President Bush, as the Congressional Democrats did with President Nixon and the Vietnam War. I think, however, the strategy in Iraq is too far along to risk reversing it now and not inherit the blame. I rather expect he will sign on to whatever agreement he can get the Iraqis to sign, and let the course run as it may. In Afghanistan, however, he will pursue a 'surge' stategy similar to the one used in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus is there now, and will insist on that course. Gen. Petraeus, who the Democrats no longer have to 'suspend disbelief' to follow, will most likely will have the confidence of the new President.

Did you see that he's already being rated for presidential expectation?

No, I missed that. Too bad for him. Expectations can be terrible things.

[Haggis@wk]

One thing we have to look forward to: the Obama administration will probably be the leakiest White House in history.

Just hours after President Bush and President-elect Obama met in the Oval Office of the White House, details of their confidential conversation began leaking out to the press, igniting anger from the president, sources claim.

“Senator Obama would be wise to keep close counsel,” a top Bush source warned.

So, is Obama going to be a tool for the shadowy, "Vast, Left Wing Conspiracy©"? or a strong Chicago style politician who takes no prisoners?

Regardless of style, I suspect his White House will leak like a sieve. The same thing happened with Clinton who packed his staff with a bunch of prima donnas who couldn't stand not being regarded as important.

[piqaboo]

Ok, I hate that proposal.
In more ways than I have time to enumerate.
I feel the need to quote my father "get your hand out of my pocket".
I'd rather stash the money in the mattress of a smoker than have to put up with this.

Well i've calmed down a bit now.

Sorry to reopen this subject but it took me a couple days to absorb what's up.

Here's the basic premise of that proposed Ghilarducci plan to eliminate 401K's. It's from a presentation she made to congress, Here's the link:
http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf

While it does not appear to confiscate what money you already have in a 401K, it does effectively kill the 401K concept replacing it with a 5% payroll tax and 3% interest on that money.


It amounts to a government grab of the money stream that is flowing into the stock market as a result of 401's..

and it's more of this "You cannot take care of yourself, Big Brother must do it for you"-ism .

Read and decide whether your retirement account is better than this one:

How Guaranteed Retirement
Accounts work
Structure.
Guaranteed Retirement Accounts are like universal
401(k) plans except that the government, as befits
a large and enduring institution, will invest and manage
the pooled savings.
Participation.
Participation in the program is mandatory
except for workers participating in equivalent or better
employer defined-benefit plans where contributions are
at least 5% of earnings and benefits take the form of life
annuities.
Contributions.
Contributions equal to 5% of earnings
are deducted along with payroll taxes and credited to
individual accounts administered by the Social Security
Administration. The cost of contributions is split equally
between employer and employee. Mandatory contributions
are deducted only on earnings up to the Social
Security earnings cap,2 and workers and employers have
the option of making additional contributions with post-tax dollars.

The contributions of husbands and wives
are combined and divided equally between their individual
accounts.
Refundable tax credit.
Employee contributions are offset
through a $600 refundable tax credit, which takes the
place of tax breaks for 401(k)s and similar individual
accounts and is indexed to wage inflation. Eligibility for
the tax credit is extended to part-time workers, caregivers
of children under age six, and those collecting unemployment
benefits. If an individual’s annual contributions
amount to less than $600, some or all of the tax credit is
deposited directly into the account in order to ensure a
minimum annual deposit of $600 for all participants.
Fund management.
The accounts are administered by
the Social Security Administration and funds are managed
by the Thrift Savings Plan or similar body. Though funds
are pooled, workers are able to track the dollar value
of their accumulations, as with 401(k)s and other
individual accounts.
Investment earnings.
The pooled funds are conservatively
invested in financial markets. However, participants earn a
fixed 3% rate of return adjusted for inflation, guaranteed
by the federal government. If the trustees determine that
actual investment returns have been consistently higher
than 3% over a number of years, the surplus will be
distributed to participants, though a balancing fund will
be maintained to ride out periods of low returns.

Retirement age.
Participants begin collecting retirement
benefits at the same time as Social Security, and therefore
no earlier than the Social Security Early Retirement Age.
Funds cannot be accessed before retirement for any
reason other than death or disability.
Retirement benefits.
Account balances are converted to
inflation-indexed annuities upon retirement to ensure
that workers do not outlive their savings. However,
individuals can opt to take a partial lump sum equal to
10% of their account balance or $10,000 (whichever is
higher), or to opt for survivor benefits in exchange for
a lower monthly check. A full-time worker who works
40 years and retires at age 65 can expect a benefit equal
to roughly 25% of pre-retirement income, adjusted for
inflation, assuming a 3% real rate of return (see Table 1).
Since Social Security provides the average such worker
with an inflation-adjusted benefit equal to roughly 45%
of pre-retirement income, the total replacement rate for
this prototypical worker will be approximately 70%.
Death benefits.
Participants who die before retiring can
bequeath half their account balances to heirs; those who
die after retiring can bequeath half their final account
balance minus benefits received.


[and further down, in conclusions section:}
This plan pays for itself—it will not
increase the federal deficit or require a tax increase—by
eliminating all tax deductions for contributions to 401(k)
plans.

Well, that last line should kick Wall Street's butt.
Political appointees will decide how your retirement funds are invested. Imagine the power that gives them !

The propaganda is starting already. NPR had the lady on tonight.

Shouldn't affect me much for my career is a memory.
But it sure takes you young folks' hand off the helm.

a.

[Haggis@wk]

Is the Obama Transition Team looking at implementing "congestion charges" on U.S. roads?

"The new programs would be paid for with massive new tax hikes, including a per-mile driving tax that would begin with 'proof of concept' trials as early as 2010. The tax would initially be one cent per mile to generate an estimated $32.4b a year. An extra one cent per gallon in the federal gasoline tax would generate another $1.8b, and a national sales tax on cars of one percent would generate $7.6b."

Would this offset the promised tax cuts for 95%?

[Haggis@wk]

One thing we have to look forward to: the Obama administration will probably be the leakiest White House in history.

And it begins....

The Washington Post reports that Barack Obama really, really wants to close Guantanamo:

Announcing the closure of the controversial detention facility would be among the most potent signals the incoming administration could send of its sharp break with the Bush era, according to the advisers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak for the president-elect. They believe the move would create a global wave of diplomatic and popular goodwill that could accelerate the transfer of some detainees to other countries.

The article concedes that there will be problems involved. And not too long ago, the New York Times did a front-page story upon discovering that Guantanamo is filled with bad people who are both difficult to deport and house in the United States. But the goodwill!

Many of these killers won't be convicted because the govt. will refused to testify and compromise national intelligence gathering techniques.

So, they are acquitted, then what? Their home countries have already refused to take them back, that's why some of them are still at Gitmo. So, they just hang around the states.......this is going to end poorly

[Haggis@wk]

Obama vs. Pelosi/Green Machine vs. Jobs

On the Detroit bailout, Obama has hinted that he wants to make sure the money goes to retooling for clean, fuel efficient cars. Just like the original $25 billion Department of Energy bill was supposed to do. Nancy Pelosi is most worried about the UAW and jobs and would probably pump fresh blood into an entire city of the dead to save a single union job. So it looks like Obama and Pelosi are going to clash — and soon. Some reports indicate that GM will be down to its minimum operating cash before the end of the year — and that would make Chapter 11 all but a foregone conclusion. Detroit needs cash, but for what? The Obama Plan or the Pelosi Plan?

Obama vs. Southern Democrats on Guns

Obama is also gearing up for a fight with southern Democrats. After being mostly silent on guns during the campaign, Obama’s Web site has recently added or restored language indicating the return of the “assault weapons ban” or as we in the South like to call it, the "scary-looking rifles" ban. Southern Democrats paid with their jobs for Clinton’s ban back in 1994. You might expect the new Blue Dog Dems to join hands and sing Kumbaya with House and Senate Republicans to block a new "Scary Looking Rifles" Law.

[Shapley]

After being mostly silent on guns during the campaign, Obama’s Web site has recently added or restored language indicating the return of the “assault weapons ban” or as we in the South like to call it, the "scary-looking rifles" ban.

"Quiet about it" is an understatement. His campaign thugs, err.... lawyers.... threatened to sue anybody that reported his record on it.....

[OperaTenor]

One thing we have to look forward to: the Obama administration will probably be the leakiest White House in history.

And it begins....

The Washington Post reports that Barack Obama really, really wants to close Guantanamo:

Announcing the closure of the controversial detention facility would be among the most potent signals the incoming administration could send of its sharp break with the Bush era, according to the advisers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak for the president-elect. They believe the move would create a global wave of diplomatic and popular goodwill that could accelerate the transfer of some detainees to other countries.

The article concedes that there will be problems involved. And not too long ago, the New York Times did a front-page story upon discovering that Guantanamo is filled with bad people who are both difficult to deport and house in the United States. But the goodwill!

Many of these killers won't be convicted because the govt. will refused to testify and compromise national intelligence gathering techniques.

So, they are acquitted, then what? Their home countries have already refused to take them back, that's why some of them are still at Gitmo. So, they just hang around the states.......this is going to end poorly

And you want to hold Obama responsible for it?!!

[Haggis@wk]

And you want to hold Obama responsible for it?!!

Who else will be responsible for releasing them in the U.S.?

Many won't be prosecuted, they won't be expelled and they'll be here. If one American dies because Obama turns the dregs of Islamic terrorists loose, then yes, I will hold him responsible.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

And you want to hold Obama responsible for it?!!

Who else will be responsible for releasing them in the U.S.? ...

Obama's not responsible for catching the, uh, detainees (let's not just call 'em the violent amoral thugs that they are, they're not actually convicted of specific crimes in US territory at this time). And he's not responsible for putting 'em in Gitmo.

He does find the use of Gitmo as a long-term holding facility objectionable, so he'll be the one responsible for finding an alternate disposition of the detainees. I doubt he'd like the solution I suspect Haggis would offer so he'll have to find another solution that is acceptable to most of the people who voted for him.

He can't send 'em back where they came from. He doesn't want to keep them where they are. What alternates are there? And which of those alternates are safe for the American population at large?

I suggest housing them in the White House basement, starting on about February 2nd (to allow for structural upgrades as necessary). If they're safe enough to turn loose where our children are, they are safe enough to be where his children are.