Tax cuts sound like a good thing right? The problem is that this is NOT a real tax break. This is the government version of a coupon book with $2,000 in savings. Sure there are $2,000 worth of savings, but you have to spend $20,000 to get the savings. So, where's the problem? Well, if you can afford to spend $20,000 to "save" $2,000 then you don't need the discount. Check out the fact sheet from the White House.

This is simply a ploy to make it seem as if the administration is trying to help small businesses. Earlier this year Obama touted to eliminate Capital Gains Taxes for small businesses, which would be great except that small businesses generally do NO trading of capital assets.

First look at what constitutes a "capital asset." --> IRS Publication link.

Capital Asset

Most property you own and use for personal purposes, pleasure, or investment is a capital asset. For example, your house, furniture, car, stocks, and bonds are capital assets. A capital asset is any property held by you except the following.

* Stock in trade or other property included in inventory or held mainly for sale to customers. But see the Tip on this page.

* Accounts or notes receivable for services performed in the ordinary course of your trade or business or as an employee or from the sale of stock in trade or other property held mainly for sale to customers.

* Depreciable property used in your trade or business, even if it is fully depreciated.

* Real estate used in your trade or business.

* Copyrights, literary, musical, or artistic compositions, letters or memoranda, or similar property (a) created by your personal efforts; (b) prepared or produced for you (in the case of letters, memoranda, or similar property); or (c) that you received from someone who created them or for whom they were created, as mentioned in (a) or (b), in a way (such as by gift) that entitled you to the basis of previous owner. But see Tip on this page.

* U.S. Government publications, including the Congressional Record, that you received from the Government, other than by purchase at the normal sales price, or that you got from someone who had received it in a similar way, if your basis is determined by reference to the previous owner's basis.

* Certain commodities derivative financial instruments held by a dealer. See section 1221(a)(6).

* Certain hedging transactions entered into in the normal course of your trade or business. See section 1221(a)(7).

* Supplies regularly used in your trade or business.

Basically, if capital assets are a part of your business they are not considered taxable anyway.

Obama is all about cutting taxes, in areas where those particular taxes DO NOT apply. This is a completely dishonest way to claim and help the economy.

Real tax cuts are without an element of direct government control. Why can't this administration keep their hands out of the inner workings of business?

Real tax cuts for small businesses, if enacted at the beginning of Obama's presidency, would have greatly helped the economy. Real tax cuts still can help! A tax reduction for small businesses, with no strings attached, would spur more long term growth. Instead we have the Obama administration trying to throw a bone to businesses as long as they jump through the correct hoops. We have the government "attempting" (but not really) to subsidize job growth.

I've got a brilliant idea! ...How about the government cut taxes on small businesses and just stay the hell away so they can make their own decisions on hiring and wages.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

The State of the Union address was a flop as far as most pundits are concerned. If you missed the address you didn't miss much. It was primarily a reiteration of each previous speech Obama has made. Apparently the TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) was feeling lazy.

So what happened in the speech that was note worthy? First let's take a look at what he said in relation to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United State) ruling on the issue of the McCain-Feingold Act.

Obama:

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

There are quite a few incorrect statements here. The SCOTUS ruling had nothing to do with foreign corporations much less "reversed a century of law." Is John McCain more than 130 years old? For an individual to sit on the U.S. Senate they must be at least 30 years of age. For McCain-Feingold to be centuries old its supporters would be more than 130 years old. The McCain-Feingold Act was passed into law in 2002. McCain-Fenigold only coveres contributions for TELEVISION ADS, not direct contributions that put feet on the ground. As far as companies are concerned, companies can consist of as little as one person. So, is it wrong for one person to be able to fund an ad? And should the congress be able to abridge free speech rights in any way? The United States Constitution strictly prohibits this. The president's remarks are completely baseless.

The interesting thing here is that the Obama campaign might be one of the the first presidential campaigns to collect foreign money.

More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.

I wonder why Obama is worried about foreign interests in elections? Obama might be one of the only U.S. presidential candidates to openly accept foreign donations. If the campaign doesn't know where the donations came from, they can't claim that they were from domestic sources.

Back to the speech. Another noteworthy part of the speech was where Obama pledged to keep going forward with health care reform. As I recall the vast majority of polling shows that Americans want to stop the current health care reform legislation.

Obama:

Now let's be clear — I did not choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.

I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; and families — even those with insurance — who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying, we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care. And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make our kids healthier.

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office — the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress — our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what's in it for them.

Whenever Obama says, "Now let's be clear" It means that he is attempting to distort the truth. There are so many problems with this I don't know where to begin. The fact is that as soon as individuals are educated on the current proposed legislation, many don't want it! Not because they are partisan or mean or anything else. People don't want this legislation because it's bad policy.

Obama:

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument — that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped lead us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again.

Here are a few things wrong with the above statements. Obama just shifted the argument away from providing health care, to reducing the deficit. How did health care have anything to do with the current economic crisis? Health care is one of the few industries still hiring people.

- What does it mean to make "investments in our people?" If the government is to invest in anything, they do it with tax money. Redistribution anyone...

- Extending tax cuts to anyone is better than not! Wealthy Americans create jobs.

- Regulations are the exact cause of many "real" problems with health care.

- It is misleading to use phraseology like "maintain the status quo on health care." There is no status quo, there is only what Obama "claims" is the status quo --at any given point in time.

The point in the speech I want to cover is public high-speed real. Obama is "on" about public rail systems. As if spending tax payer dollars on public rail systems is really going to make things better. Why not just spend the money on more rides at Disney World, or a bigger tank for the whales at Sea World? That would create jobs too! Oh, and people might actually pay real money to visit those attractions.

Obama:

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help our nation move goods, services, and information. We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it's time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America.

The House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same. People are out of work. They are hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

Again this is another example of cronyism within this administration. Since when is there a public outcry for high-speed rail? As a matter of fact the high-speed rail system in Florida was voted down by a large margin. These kinds of projects are always started from within government not from the outside.

That was the essence of Florida voters' behavior on Nov. 2nd. Sunshine Staters went to the polls that day and defeated the very same constitutional mandate for a state bullet-train network (www.floridahighspeedrail.org) that they'd approved in 2000.
And the outcome was certainly no Bush-Gore nail-biter. Sixty-four percent of 2004 Florida voters cast a "yes" ballot on Amendment 6, repealing the bullet-train appendage to the state's constitution.

To sum things up, Obama told the American voter that he is determined to help push through any piece of legislation congress puts in front of him.

If only congress were producing legislation the American people actually agreed with and wanted.

Wow, the spin never stops. Here is a story from CNN where they are trying to warn candidates not to lean too far to the right.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released this month found that 39 percent of Democrats say they're extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this year, down 11 points from November. Forty-nine percent of Republicans questioned in the poll say they're enthusiastic, up 6 points.

"[Democrats] will try to mobilize more voters, but you have to overcome the enthusiasm gap. The best grassroots, ground operation will only work if the territory is fertile," Gans said.

He predicted the economy will be the most important issue in the midterms. The Obama administration has said it plans to emphasize job growth both in this week's State of the Union address and in the months to come.

"He had a year in which he could blame the Bush administration for not dealing with the economic problems. The economy is now his baby, as Afghanistan is his baby," Gans said.

But Republicans can't get too carried away. If they swing too far to the right, they run the risk of alienating independent voters like those who swung the Massachusetts election for Brown.

"If the 'birthers' and the Tea Party people win most of the primaries in the Republican Party, that may not yield as much of a Republican victory in the general election as if their more moderate elements win," he said.

This scenario played out last year in a special election for New York's 23rd Congressional District. Local Republican leaders backed state assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava because they thought she would appeal to centrists and independents. But more conservative party members revolted and instead backed Doug Hoffman, who ran on the Conservative Party line.

Scozzafava dropped out days before the race and endorsed Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate and eventual winner. The split among Republicans contributed to Owens' win.

Dede Scozzafava was a RINO. Doug Hoffman lost to Bill Owens by a very narrow margin. The Republican Party backed a loosing candidate from the beginning. This was brought to light by the fact that Doug Hoffman ran a tight race without the backing of the Republican Party. In other words Doug Hoffman did not loose because he was too far to the right, he almost won because he was so far to the right.

There was no split amongst Republicans, there was a split amongst Conservatives and Republicans.

A similar battle could take place in Florida, where Republican Gov. Charlie Crist and former state House Speaker Marco Rubio are competing to be their party's nominee for the Senate race. Crist has the backing of mainstream Republicans, and Rubio is the darling of the right.

"Rubio has the enthusiasm of the birthers and the Tea Party people and others like that, and that may propel him to the nomination, but it will be harder for the Republican Party to win in Florida under Rubio than it would be under a more moderate person," Gans said.

What Curtis Gans is forgetting here is that Charlie Crist only won the governorship because he was the least left leaning person, not because there are a bunch of "Moderates" in Florida. Republicans in Florida all had to grit their teeth while voting for Crist. Remember, he voted to block offshore drilling in Florida, an issue that became a negative for Crist.

Moderate is a relative term anyway, as the left pushes their socialist agenda harder there become less Moderates, and more Conservatives.

Here are "relative" definitions for moderates...

Moderate: When used to describe a voter means, someone who doesn't know enough about what is going on (the issues) to make an informed decision. Usually someone with little historical perspective. Tends to be someone who considers politics to be completely unimportant.

Moderate: When used to describe a candidate means, someone who has no backbone and campaigns based on polling data alone. Usually someone who will not take a stand on any issue for fear that they might have to defend their position. Being a moderate is the fastest way to insure that you never gain backing (amongst Conservatives). How can you back someone who doesn't really stand for anything? Look what happened to McCain. Can anyone tell me what McCain really stood for? I covered this in an earlier post.

Remember, a Moderate Democrat leans to the Right a Moderate Republican leans to the Left. This is how these candidates are viewed regardless of how much they "really" lean either way. Once the media labels them as such the name sticks, it causes people to loose interest and prejudge.

Obama and the Democrats rode to office on a wave of ignorance. Once their agenda is exposed people reject it. The Democrats know this. That is why they tried to pass their health care legislation through so fast. They knew that if the American people could see what was in the legislation it would be rejected. Polling data shows this to be true; as there is an overwhelming majority of Americans who DO NOT want the health care legislation passed.

If you ask me Rubio has it in the bag. As soon as he a larger platform to express his views his poll numbers will go up. As more of the Democrat agenda becomes visible, more people are going to reject it. All Rubio needs to do is be himself (not a liberal) and people will flock to him.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

There are many figures to look at in home sales. One of the most important figures is that surrounding previously occupied homes. New home sales do not give a very accurate look into the economy, or the home buyers market. Think of new car sales; just as new car sales figures neglect used car sales, new home figures are equally exclusive.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sales of previously occupied homes took the largest monthly drop in more than 40 years last month, sinking more dramatically than expected after lawmakers gave buyers additional time to use a tax credit.

The report reflects a sharp drop in demand after buyers stopped scrambling to qualify for a tax credit of up to $8,000 for first-time homeowners. It had been due to expire on Nov. 30. But Congress extended the deadline until April 30 and expanded it with a new $6,500 credit for existing homeowners who move.

The report "places a large question mark over whether the recovery can be sustained when the extended tax credit expires," wrote Paul Dales, U.S. economist with Capital Economics.

Sales are now up 21 percent from the bottom a year ago, but down 25 percent from the peak more than four years ago.

The big question hanging over the housing market this spring is whether a tentative recovery will stumble after the government pulls back support. The Federal Reserve's $1.25 trillion program to push down mortgage rates is scheduled to expire at the end of March -- a month before the newly extended tax credit runs out.

Last year, first-time buyers were the main driver of the housing market, but their presence is on the decline. They accounted for 43 percent of purchases in December, down from about half in November, the Realtors group said.

"There is some sustainable momentum building in the housing market right now," said Lawrence Yun, the group's chief economist. However, he cautioned that the recovery will depend on whether the economy starts adding jobs in the second half of the year.

Many experts project home prices, which started to rise last summer, will fall again over the winter. That's because foreclosures make up a larger proportion of sales during the winter months, when fewer sellers choose to put their homes on the market.

This goes back to what I was talking about last year. Home prices are going to fall so long as there are no buyers. This is the entire reason that the housing bubble popped in the first place! Property is worth nothing until someone buys it.

Now that the government incentives are going away home sales will drop again. For the most part, government home buying initiatives propped up people who otherwise couldn't afford to purchase a home, or move to a larger one. Sort of like Cash For Clunkers. The government incentives will do nothing to create a long-term increase in sales.

As for the experts predicting that home prices will fall again; of course they will. Prices are still too high. There aren't enough buyers to sustain current prices. The prices have to fall, or the property will just sit.

So in essence it comes down to two things. Either home prices fall so people can actually afford them, or the economy will have to do a 180.

With unemployment numbers on the increase and an anti-business environment (thanks to constant government interference in the market) a rebound is a long shot anytime soon.

I wonder why this hasn't been pointed out on CNN?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

So the SEC is treating the AIG bailout details like they are a matter of National Security. Reuters is sticking its neck out with this one. I wonder why it is that nearly everything that happens in Washington these days is a secret. Fed deals are secret, Health Care Reform is a secret crafted in the dark. So, what's next?

The request to keep the details secret were made by the New York Federal Reserve -- a regulator that helped orchestrate the bailout -- and by the giant insurer itself, according to the emails.

The emails from early last year reveal that officials at the New York Fed were only comfortable with AIG submitting a critical bailout-related document to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission after getting assurances from the regulatory agency that "special security procedures" would be used to handle the document.

The SEC, according to an email sent by a New York Fed lawyer on January 13, 2009, agreed to limit the number of SEC employees who would review the document to just two and keep the document locked in a safe while the SEC considered AIG's confidentiality request.

The SEC had also agreed that if it determined the document should not be made public, it would be stored "in a special area where national security related files are kept," the lawyer wrote.

I thought that the deal was supposed to be open and transparent. Remember this?

The secured loan has terms and conditions designed to protect the interests of the U.S. government and taxpayers.

If secured loan was implemented to protect the interests of the U.S. government and taxpayers; why then must the information surrounding the deal be kept secret? What in the world could be in the deal that makes it such a sensitive matter?

I covered this a while back, when Obama was on the rampage about AIG, even though his appointed Fed Chief was the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the time the deal was crafted.

Hmm...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.