Well, now, THERE'S an original comment.

Geitner has to do his own taxes.

With Geitner leaving it tells us the US economy is on the bend for good.....now the last thing is Hillary Clinton to step down to tell us the warmongering of the republican era is over. Everything I voted for came thru....won't be long before we balance the federal budget again with a surplus!

Only about 4 years too late.............

Matt: When I read your post I nearly fell off my chair. Did you say balance the federal budget? Did you say surplus? With THIS president? Thanks!! I enjoyed the good laugh:)!!

Geitner, has to go cheat on his taxes again.

ProB......will take a while after the "great republican depression", but I feel if Clinton was able to do it, Hillary, when she gets elected in 2016 will also be able to get it done.

That's a real loss!!!

Hey matt..... you need to get to the doctor and get you head checked out. It seems you have a concussion and are quite delusional.

mattfromwash

ProB......will take a while after the "great republican depression", but I feel if Clinton was able to do it, Hillary, when she gets elected in 2016 will also be able to get it done.

Oh man, you guys are a riot!!

So on one hand, the President is the one that creates budgets that create surpluses and deficits when it suits your argument, but then when it doesn't, all of a sudden you say Congress controls it.

So which is it?

About time the tax cheating hypocrite left this job.

Joe..... They are called submarines. And it isn't sinking, it's what they do prior to attacking.

Our US economy is doing so much better. The stock market is up, 401 K are going up in value from the 2008 crash, unemployment is down, housing is improving, the debt that was created under W. Bush is going down some, we as a Nation are again respected by the World, One war is over, and revenues will be going up.

President Obama has done a great job as President in his first four years as President. In the second term we will see even better results.

Also, folks need to realize that President Obama is not the reason for our high debt. That is a total myth cooked up by the extreme right, who know noting but hate, and want our Nation to fail.

I am sure Obama can find another tax cheater to take Geithner's place. There is probably no doubt that Geithner spent his time in Washington ensuring he is set for life. I wonder if this would fall under the Pelosi promise of draining the swamp?

As campdog,

'Attacking' is your area of expertise?

The jobs are grueling. It is standard for WH personnel to go back to their former jobs/changeover every few years.

Many times & historically, this is an understanding from the beginning of the appointment.

I guess his new job at Goldman is waiting.

With Geitner leaving it tells us the US economy is on the bend for good.....now the last thing is Hillary Clinton to step down to tell us the warmongering of the republican era is over. Everything I voted for came thru....won't be long before we balance the federal budget again with a surplus!

Care to define long? Won't be this Administration nor the next (assuming 2 terms).

Our US economy is doing so much better. The stock market is up, 401 K are going up in value from the 2008 crash, unemployment is down, housing is improving, the debt that was created under W. Bush is going down some, we as a Nation are again respected by the World, One war is over, and revenues will be going up.

You do understand that asset values are rising because of QE 1, 2 and 3? The amount of dollars that the Fed is printing is the reason for asset inflation. A consequence of this policy is that poorer people in the world cannot afford to buy food.

http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/12/feds-quantitative-easing-increases-world-hunger/

The Speculation = Fact Party

Joe..... They are called submarines. And it isn't sinking, it's what they do prior to attacking.

so you're admitting that the Liberal Left is indeed the true warmongers?

Good! Wonder what his new job will be....... stealing from babies maybe?

Let's hope it won't be protecting babies with Armed Guards.

Backhouse,

For you to say that Obama is blameless for his part of the debt is just plain wrong... Only those on the left believe that fantasy that you claim...

The If-Zero-Evidence - Why-Not-Just-Accuse-Party.

Just like you have done, Backhouse, time and time again....

Job1 All recessions have ended in the past and unemployment always has decreased! The people that give Obama credit for any improvement ignore how long it has taken!

Try a FACT every once in a while - the lot of yez.

Fact?? Like that's close to anything you have ever posted... Keep believing in Obama...pretty soon, you'll think that you can turn lead into gold...

I wouldna lie, even for thee JK.

Backhouse,

You definitely have a warped sense of the truth (and reality) ...but that's ok...you make for amusing posts... Have a nice day!

All the best for 2013, JK !!

LOL backhouse being a hypocrite? get outta here

Emperor, sincere best wishes to you & your family for 2013!!

thanks Navy, you too

Campdog,

You may very well be right. The President has made it perfectly clear, multiple times now that he is not about to negotiate the debt limit again. Seems to me this means one of two things. Either the Republicans in Congress play nice or he will do whatever is necessary. So what can he do you ask? Ignore them. It is a debatable topic but the 14th Amendment provision could very well be used. Additionally, there is ample room for the President to exercise executive privilege for the good of the United States.

There is strong evidence that if the debt limit were brought to the Supreme Court it would be found in fact Unconstitutional.

Additionally, without the approval of Congress, the Treasury has the authority to mint coinage. They can mint trillion dollar coins and deposit them in the treasure and buy back debt with them thereby going below the debt ceiling. An additional option is to update the value of US gold reserves held by the US Treasury currently valued on the books at$42/ounce. Simply by monetizing these reserves to current market value generates about $400 billion.

I do not believe that any of these options are something the President wants to initiate, however I believe he is ready to if necessary. Don't be surprised to see the public campaign start to get behind the President's position on the debt limit. About a month ago, the Treasury proposed a change in the debt ceiling process. At the time enough Senators to allow a filibuster signed a letter asking that the proposal be withdrawn. It may not have been perfect but the Congressional procedure regarding the debt ceiling isn't perfect either. The reality is that the very concept of a debt ceiling is a contrived way to try to undo previously allocated spending that has already been approved by Congress. Historically at has been used by Republicans who pass new unfunded spending which creates a deficit. Then they use that deficit in an attempt to undo Democratically passed legislation they don't approve of. the thing is that they do not have the votes to repeal the Democratically passed legislation, much of which has been long established with wide public approval. So they use the debt limit as the nuclear option to blackmail the funding of these established spending programs.

Many in the general public still don't understand the debt ceiling and think it is about some new spending the White House initiates without the approval of Congress. It isn't. Congress already approved the spending long before. I think that most in the general public, if actually understanding the debt ceiling, would find it hypocritical to use the debt ceiling in this way. Frankly I think and proposals for cutting spending of already approved programs should only come from the party that lead the legislation. Meaning the Republicans could only put Republican driven spending on the table and Democrats could only put Democratically driven spending up for negotiating. I think this would quickly bring some civility to the discussion.

Did I miss something? Did we give president Obama special power in 2008 never before granted a US president? I keep hearing ad nausea Obama's spending, Obama's debt, over and over and again. The problem I have with that is that I never knew the president had the power to appropriate the spending of a single dime. I never knew the president had the power to determine tax rates, approve a budget, or pass a law. Maybe I missed some new power granted the POTUS but I was always under the impression that it was the sole responsibility and soley within the scope of power of the Congress to approve all budgets, approve all spending, set all tax rates, and create all our laws. I did not know that the president could just whip out the nations checkbook and go on a spending spree, or for that matter refuse to spend money if Congress approved it. I thought the president could only sign of on bills pertaining to spending, budgets, taxes, and our laws that were approved and passed by the Congress or veto them, and that if it was the overriding will of Congress his veto could be overridden. Correct me if I am wrong and our manner and rules of government have changed but I actually believe that evey single dime this country has ever spent, borrowed, or taxed, was voted on and approved by the Congress and not the president. I actually thought the Congress holds our purse strings and controls our spending, not the president, did we change the rules, or are you putting all the blame on one man who does not even have the power to spend, tax, save, or borrow a single dime.

Joey's in Albany apparently thinks a ship is sinking right after it runs over him. Sure, he's got a hard head, but enough to sink a fast moving ship? Not in this lifetime.

BTW Joe, a gene-pool isn't billiards in denim.

Didn't you know? The Democrats in 2007 and 2008 gave those very powers to Bush!

Forrest,

You know that applies equally to Bush...so everytime someone from the left screams about those Bush tax cuts are just as ill informed, correct?

Joe, you beat me to that comment. I agree wholeheartedly, rats sure are prevalent in this administration.

Forrest - You do know that any spending approved by Congress must be signed into LAW by the President. A bill can not become law without the President's signature. The left likes to talk about all the Bush spending but remember Congress wrote those spending bills and they passed with Democratic support. It takes both the Legislative and Executive Branch to make a spending bill a law, so there is plenty of blame to go around.

BTW, thank God that the voters had enough sense to make sure the Republicans still control the House where those spending and tax bills originate, they sure stopped a lot of the spending Obama wanted.

You are right about Congress being responsible for FY Budgets, which the Republican controlled House has done but the Democratic controlled Senate has refused to do for the last 3 or 4 years.

1 New Day, I am not as knowledgeable as you seem to be in regards to the 14th amendment and other options, but after seeing what went on the last time around I like the presidents stance in regards to the debt ceiling. From a political standpoint, I would hope the president just tells the Congress there is no discussion of anything, you either pass the debt ceiling or you don't, everything else is a separate discussion. Just solve it politically, tell them they can pass the debt ceiling or take sole responsibility for the consequences if they do not, and walk out of the room. Congress approves all spending whether people want to admit it or not, it is their responsibility, they hold the purse strings, they can honor the debt they approved, or not, and they can suffer the political consequences. If I was president Obama I would do just what I said tell the Congress there is no discussion you pass it or you don't the ball is in your court fellas just let me know what you decide so I can inform the world. The debt ceiling stands alone, if you want to address the business of future cuts, expenditures, or budgets put it into a bill get it through your branch of government (Congress) and when it gets to my desk I'll sign it our explain why I must veto it. Put them in the position of just flatly passing it or not, no deals, no haggling, up or down, you keep the American government in operation or you take responsibility for the consequences, they never did this to any other president for the spending Congress has approved, and I would never let them do it to you again.

but enough to sink a fast moving ship? Not in this lifetime.

Femme Portfolio, dont you think youre taking this Turbo Timmy G thing a little too far? Sure he was able to be sly enough evade taxes (merely a typo right?) but fast?

Maybe Fast and Furious.

Yes JK to my knowledge it applies to all presidents even Bush, the difference is this is the first time in history I have heard members in Congress complain about Obama's spending, these are people who work in government and pretend, or maybe really don't even have a grasp of what their own responsibility is and what the presidents responsibilities are. I can see this kind of talk from some poor soul who has no clue, has drained a thirty pack and is wound up by Sean Hannity, but when you have members of Congress complaining about Obama's debt and spending I am thinking they should have to take an 8th grade test on our government before they can be sworn in, or continue in their elected position of the government they don't even seem to understand. The point is JK that falsely laying the blame solely at any single presidents feet is damn silly, and to my amazement I watched the most powerful republican in the nation, the highest ranking republican senator in our government Mitch McConnell basically claim that Obama wants control of the debt ceiling so he can just spend any amount of money he wants to on any thing he wants to, that's some damn stupid stuff coming from a man who knows better and is a big reason the republican brand suffers so much lately. I may have heard silly crap like that from a citizen about Bush, but never from a high ranking representative of our government. If republicans want to cater to damn fools who might believe that the president can spend a dime without people like McConnell's approval then they will continue to suffer politically, most of the nation does not appreciate being taken as damn fools. I thought they learned on election night that they can't believe their own spin, they should have at least learned the majority of the nation does not believe their spin.

Geithner flees the sinking ship.

Even this limp-wristed Liberal/Progressive tax cheat sees the writing on the wall.

In less than 4 years Barrack Hussein will have exploded our National Debt over $20 trillion. Our economy will be downgraded at least 2 if not 3 times, and our great Republic will be in ashes.

Of course this will thrill the typical Liberal/Progressive because they hate America, success and exceptionalism. Barrack Hussein and his useful idiots will have accomplished their century long goal of destroying the last hope of Freedom and Liberty for some mythical social and economic justice nonsense.

It's a shame so many once hard-working Americans have been reduced to believing the best they can achieve is middle-class.

The indoctrination is complete. Now all that's left is for the Left's ultimate ruination of America.

God Bless and save our great Republic.

Yes Sarge I understand how it works, maybe you can explain it to Jim Spence.

I know that some of the,lesser informed, think that the more they repeat their false claims, the more believable they become but I do think that the lies and hatred of our P.O.T.U.S.from the far right has moved on from disgusting lies to boring disgusting lies. I would like people like J.Spence to give it a rest and find another point or three in the political spectrum to discuss or even agree,disagree with.in other words ,give it a rest guys you are becoming beyond pointless.

Job1:

You say Obama is doing a great job so let's see:

1) Even after borrowing $1 Trillion a year and spending it in our economy GDP is STILL at an anemic less than 3% GDP 4 YEARS after a recession? Worst economic recovery in U.S. history.

2) 4 years AFTER a recession unemployment STILL near 8%. Worst job recovery in U.S. history.

3) 4 years AFTER a recession we find that we have the HIGHEST percent of citizens requiring Food Stamps. That is the HIGHEST percentage on Food Stamps since the program was started.

4) 4 years AFTER a recession we find we have the HIGHEST percent of citizens on Welfare in almost 50 years.

5) 4 years AFTER a recession we find we have the LOWEST labor participation rate since the 70's.

6) 4 years AFTER a recession we find we have the HIGHEST percent of citizens unemployed for more than 6 months since the Great Depression.

Congratulations, Obama is now the proud title holder of the WORST economic recovery in U.S. history. This clearly can't be considered a "success" and in fact there has not been a president in United States history that has done WORSE in the economy they have inherited.

I am sure Obama can find another tax cheater to take Geithner's place.

I hear Mitt Romney is available.

Job1, where did you get your "unemployment is down" soundbite? From Rachel Maddow?

I know facts are a democrat's worst enemy, but unemployment remains at a pathetic 7.8%... and it's only that "good" because our participation rate is one of the lowest it's been in 30 years.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/economy-creates-modest-amount-jobs-labor-market-heals-slowly-1B7822595

Jax, blah, blah, blah, America won, you lost. Get over it.

Jax, blah, blah, blah, America won, you lost. Get over it.

If your definition of "winning" is unemployment stuck near 8% with near the lowest participation rate in three decades, stagnant "growth," our long-term debt outpacing our long term GDP, the most people on welfare and foodstamps in history, and our country divided along racial/gender/class lines...well then, America certainly "won" all righty!

Better do an audit on the white house silverware before he leaves.........

Take Bernanke with you.

This failure should have left in 2010. Liberals should be happy as now someone who isn't a loser can do the job. In general, all of American should be happy the Geitner dope is out.

Geitner is no fool, he's getting on the swift boat while the titanic slowly sinks. Next up........

Fact by fact rebuttal (conservatives, avert your eyes)

1) Even after borrowing $1 Trillion a year and spending it in our economy GDP is STILL at an anemic less than 3% GDP 4 YEARS after a recession? Worst economic recovery in U.S. history. [Corrections - recession ended 2009, so it is 3 years; GDP was 3% 3rd quarter, not less than 3; and a 3% growth rate is the best we've had since 2005. And compare us to Europe - we are leading the world out of recession.]

2) 4 years AFTER a recession unemployment STILL near 8%. Worst job recovery in U.S. history. [Unemployment is falling at a rate of 0.8%/yr steadily for 3 years. That is sustainable recovery, consistent with all recession recoveries since WW2.]

3) 4 years AFTER a recession we find that we have the HIGHEST percent of citizens requiring Food Stamps. That is the HIGHEST percentage on Food Stamps since the program was started. [Who is the beneficiary of that? Corporations who get away with paying very low wages, like Walmart. What is the cause? Weak labor. If you decimate the unions, of course you are going to end up with weak labor, low wages, and high need for food stamps. Taking away labor's right to collective bargaining, and all the chips are in the corporate employer's pile, and laborers get walked over. Solution: more unions.]

4) 4 years AFTER a recession we find we have the HIGHEST percent of citizens on Welfare in almost 50 years. [Not true. This is totally wrong, as are most conservative "facts." TANF (temporary assistance to needy families) declined from 4.7 million in 1995 to 2 million in 2010. See CB) data.]

5) 4 years AFTER a recession we find we have the LOWEST labor participation rate since the 70's. [Not true either when considering only people who want a job. The only way this could be slightly true is if you include the fact that we have a record fraction of people who are retired.]

6) 4 years AFTER a recession we find we have the HIGHEST percent of citizens unemployed for more than 6 months since the Great Depression. [Again - are you counting the retired? We have a record number of retired people.]

Congratulations, Obama is now the proud title holder of the WORST economic recovery in U.S. history. This clearly can't be considered a "success" and in fact there has not been a president in United States history that has done WORSE in the economy they have inherited. [Completely absurd!! If you are talking relative to that which was inherited, come on. Not end the dumbest Fox viewer could believe that! Bush took a $300b surplus and left a projected $1.85trillion deficit; he took 4% unemployment and left 7.8% unemployment and 700,000 job losses per month; he took a stock market at 10,300 and climbing and left a stock market at 8,000 and falling.]

It is just insane the lack of facts on the right. Once again, under Obama:

DJIA from trough of 6600 to 13,400 now (it took until March to turn the slide around)

GDP from -6.7% to +3% (it took until July to end the recession, in large part due to wise stimulus)

Unemployment from 10.2% to 7.8% (it took until December to turn that lagging indicator around)

If Obama was a Republican with these exact same economic numbers, you know what? His same critics who say he is the "WORST" would be calling him the "GREATEST."

Conservatives are not fact-based.

Geithner to leave Treasury post by this month

Not soon enough though. Another unqualified loser from the Dumbama club.

Back over to Goldman Sachs then.

Good deal, send the tax cheating idiot out with the fat, old, hurt cow Hillary, and all the other punks deserting the failed socialist Bozobama. One more in a list of useless clowns running off after failing along with Bozobama, in spite of the socialist buying enough votes for reelection. What a joke the next four years will be with this failed socialist trying to turn the US into the crumbled EU.

Ccertainly is an announcement that came about three years and 11 months too late. Perhaps he is off to lead some tax payer guarantee,several hundred million dollar "green venture" that is predesignated to fail.

Glad to hear that Hillary is up and about again and headed back to work. Maybe, she can take a detour through Congress to explain her role in Benghazi, before she bails her post.

What America really needs now is for Holder to announce that he would step aside. Doubtful that that would happen because who would really want Holder after his poor and failed performance as AG.

BO will pick another "yes man". Good riddance Geithner! Maybe BO will pick John Corzine! LOL LOL LOL

Tom Daschle has been mentioned as a replacement for Geithner. Which if that happens means out with one scumbag, and in with another.

Dotties girl, You do realize that Administration officials change with reelections? Even Dubya had a change in Secretary of State and others. I am no fan of Geithner but he is what we had so, like you, I had to live with it. As far as tax cheating, at least he wasn't hiding 20 years like a certain Presidential candidate who was also probably a cheat did. Unfortunately all Administrations will have their scoundrels. One of Obama's is now Mayor of Chicago and the other is leaving Treasury. Their departures can only strenthen the Administration.

There will be some people who won't be satisfied no matter who is nominated but that's life. I hope, some day they can stop with the nonsense and work together to make our once great nation great again no matter who is in what position.

Now I wonder, what Wall Street house will hire him for his expertise in Big Government finance?

He can now also revert to submitting creative tax returns.

I've kinda always seen him as being the next spokesperson for TurboTax or TaxCut....

Oh no, now who will the Chinese have to laugh at!

Charles-666933 ...(#2.7)..."Oh no, now who will the Chinese have to laugh at!"

Whoever P.0bama puts there next...

Lucky for Tiny Turbo Timmy the housing market was so lousy he couldn't sell his house in NY....Maybe he'll get his old job back as Chair of the New York Federal Reserve Bank....this way he can Oversee the next Wall Street meltdown from the same desk he oversaw the last meltdown....Talk about a Bambi caught in the headlights....Scheesh !!!

No $hit Rev. Geithner was my least favorite appointment of Obama's first administration. We needed some one like Paul Voelcker who would scare some people straight....instead we got "too gigantic to fail."

For about the nine millionth time:

"Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for
more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by
taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it. "

http://factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

Oh, I'm just soooo glad you asked! From the same link:

"SafeLink Wireless, the program mentioned in the e-mail, does indeed offer a cell phone, about one hour’s worth of calling time per month, and other wireless services like voice mail to eligible low-income households. Applicants have to apply and prove that they are either receiving certain types of government benefits, such as Medicaid, or have household incomes at or below 135 percent of the poverty line. Using 2009 poverty guidelines, that’s $14,620 for an individual and a little under $30,000 for a family of four, with slightly higher amounts for Alaska and Hawaii.

SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the
e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households."

Oh, wait, it gets better!

"The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson."

Wilson Phones, anyone?"

mjbo44 - the only dumba** here is you. The "free phone" program started in 1996 and at that time was land lines. It was started by the FCC because they realized everyone should have a phone for emergencies. It switched to cell phones when the technology made them more cost efficient. And, JoAnne is right - this has been explained over and over and over again. But for those like you - who have comprehension problems - it has been explained yet again!

JoAnne - my bad - it's been around longer than I thought!

interesting that it says funded by the telecom companies; that is very misleading though accurate -- "Although not required to do so by the government, many carriers choose to pass their contribution costs on to their customers in the form of a line item, often called the “Federal Universal Service Fee” or “Universal Connectivity Fee”.

so while technically not a tax it is a mandated fee by the federal government which has the same effect for anyone paying for telephone service.

governments are good at disguising taxes as fees -- either way it comes out of our pocket and into theirs

Billybob quit whining. It is only a few cents a month and if you don't want to pay the fee, tax or whatever than don't have a phone. Some day you may be in a position to need such a phone and you or a loved one would want you to have an hour of communications for emergencies don't you think?

adler -- not whining -- pointing out facts -- relax and take a breath

a few cents?? who is your carrier?

my last bill from att had $5.11 for the fees.

. It is only a few cents a month

so what stops you from stealing more and more... its just a few cents here and a few there.....

You're right Billybob quit complaining.. F*ck your phone get a carrier pidgeon.

The POINT being made is that the some of you morons on the right need to get new "talking points" because yours keep getting debunked. You know, I never even had heard of a debt ceiling until Obama became our president. Never questioned a Presidential vacation either! Sure loved that dishonest "spew" from Michelle Bachmann about the Presidents $200 million dollar a day trip to India...is it a disease with you people this passing on of inaccurate and ignorant information?

The POINT being made is that the some of you morons on the right need to get new "talking points" because yours keep getting debunked.

yeah talking points...surprised you didnt actually say 'Faux News' like the cool kids on FR do, you know the Jersey shore aspect of the Vine.

...is it a disease with you people this passing on of inaccurate and ignorant information?

just like youtube vids spawned random attacks in Libya. try making your point without being a hypocrite

JoAnne in PA...(#5.1)...."For about the nine millionth time:"

That's all fine and dandy....except that all the low-information voters truly believe it is P.0bama that gave them the phone and he needed to be re-elected cause he gonna give them more stuff:

"Everybody in Cleveland Got an Obamaphone"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

42.9 MILLION people on Food Stamps.....that is all you need to qualify for an ObamaPhone...Obama only got 66 Million votes....you do the math.....

Seizure. Just how am i a hypocrite? Last i checked i was not involved with any of the informaton released regarding Benghazi. Too bad you could not refute ANYTHING that i had to say so you farted out some comments. Good Job!

He reminds of Obozos Carney! Everything he says is bull sh.t. Buy hey, when you have a president then lies, you dont have a choice!

I would agree Steeler.

Good to see you, myvote--hope you had a nice holiday season.

Geithner was good for my business as an accountant---I have clients with political ambitions who want to be sure their returns are done properly!!

The only reason I am sorry to see Hillary leave is because John Kerry is her replacement.

Now if we could only get Holder a ticket on that abandonment train..........

I'm happy to see the Hill go. But I do want to hear her testify under oath on Benghazi. Where was Barry during the event, who made the call to leave four lives be terminated.

Hillary wants payback from Willy..after all she stayed with the cheater to further her own career. He better start campaigning. She is a lousy example for young girls everywhere. I would have kicked his ass to the curb a long time ago.

The only reason I am sorry to see Hillary leave is because John Kerry is her replacement.

The left sure hates rich people, ooops, both are rich. (as 7 of the top 10 richest in congress are dems, too)

The left sure claims to hate rich people who try to evade taxes, d'oh! Kerry docked his yacht in another state to avoid taxes.

The left sure likes to claim that they had nothing to do with Iraq, zoinks! Both of them (along with Biden and Reid) voted for Iraq.

The party of "do as I say, not as as I do" will have another hypocrite soon enough, don't worry.

From the:

We-Will-ReWrite-Your-Family-History (for a small fee) Party.

Oh Backhouse, you need to stick your trash into your ear. How about some discussion on the Senate-of-NO?

Or how about discussing the PORK in the latest Obama legislation that he auto-signed?

So without further ado, here are eight corporate subsidies in the fiscal cliff bill that you haven’t heard of.

1) Help out NASCAR - Sec 312 extends the “seven year recovery period for motorsports entertainment complex property”, which is to say it allows anyone who builds a racetrack and associated facilities to get tax breaks on it. This one was projected to cost $43 million over two years.

2) A hundred million or so for Railroads - Sec. 306 provides tax credits to certain railroads for maintaining their tracks. It’s unclear why private businesses should be compensated for their costs of doing business. This is worth roughly $165 million a year.

3) Disney’s Gotta Eat - Sec. 317 is “Extension of special expensing rules for certain film and television productions”. It’s a relatively straightforward subsidy to Hollywood studios, and according to the Joint Tax Committee, was projected to cost $150m for 2010 and 2011.

4) Help a brother mining company out – Sec. 307 and Sec. 316 offer tax incentives for miners to buy safety equipment and train their employees on mine safety. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to bribe mining companies to not kill their workers.

5) Subsidies for Goldman Sachs Headquarters – Sec. 328 extends “tax exempt financing for York Liberty Zone,” which was a program to provide post-9/11 recovery funds. Rather than going to small businesses affected, however, this was, according to Bloomberg, “little more than a subsidy for fancy Manhattan apartments and office towers for Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Corp.” Michael Bloomberg himself actually thought the program was excessive, so that’s saying something. According to David Cay Johnston’s The Fine Print, Goldman got $1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds.

6) $9B Off-shore financing loophole for banks – Sec. 322 is an “Extension of the Active Financing Exception to Subpart F.” Very few tax loopholes have a trade association, but this one does. This strangely worded provision basically allows American corporations such as banks and manufactures to engage in certain lending practices and not pay taxes on income earned from it. According to this Washington Post piece, supporters of the bill include GE, Caterpillar, and JP Morgan. Steve Elmendorf, super-lobbyist, has been paid $80,000 in 2012 alone to lobby on the “Active Financing Working Group.”

7) Tax credits for foreign subsidiaries – Sec. 323 is an extension of the “Look-through treatment of payments between related CFCs under foreign personal holding company income rules.” This gibberish sounding provision cost $1.5 billion from 2010 and 2011, and the US Chamber loves it. It’s a provision that allows US multinationals to not pay taxes on income earned by companies they own abroad.

8) Bonus Depreciation, R&D Tax Credit – These are well-known corporate boondoggles. The research tax credit was projected to cost $8B for 2010 and 2011, and the depreciation provisions were projected to cost about $110B for those two years, with some of that made up in later years.

Oh yes, let's discuss the pork unfunnygirl... Who put it in there?... Should he have vetoed it?... Do tell...

Obama on vacation half the time? Count the number of days he has been on vacation and compare to his predecessor or others. You only show how hateful you are because you certainly don't do research or care to get facts before spewing.

The current path has improved under the Obama Administration, albeit not as fast or as much as we would like. Unfortunately the Bush Administration and many in Congress were and are beholden to corporations over middle class people. Geithner is one and was never a good choice. Now that is going to change. Any suggestions?

mjbo - you really don't get out much do ya? No more at the taxpayer expense than any OTHER President. All First Families pay their own lodging, food, anything they buy, etc. Taxpayers pay for their transportation and security - as we have with EVERY President and First Family. You really look dumb!

SeekingSanity, don't try and use facts with these people. It makes their tiny little brains hurt.

Mike076 - darlin, they have no brains!

Because no one left after W's first term. Or Reagan's. Some people need to read a little bit before commenting.

That is how we climbed out of the worst recession since the great depression by "two men that was waaayyy over their heads" making decisions. Right, I perceive you are a Butt Head Beavis with not brains yourself. Stupid is defined by the name bagdadjoe.

John, had it not been for Obama and his staff, this recession would have been over by now. No matter who gained the presidency in '08, a recovery was in the cards. The slow recovery is purely the result of this administrations policies. My business has survived thus far, however I don't employ as many as I used to because we just don't have the work we used to have. Those of you who praise Obama for the great job he has done with our economy are out of touch with the real world I do business in.

Johnth...we are out of the recession at what cost to the next generation? Smoke and mirrors...liberals are masters at spending other people's money. I wonder if we will have a budget this term? Crooks plain and simple.

She has a bad headache! I dont feel bad for her. She is as corrupt as the president and their entire cabinet

If Hillary gets a shot at the presidency, it will be because of the liberal voters who always look the other way when their people get in trouble. The Stae Department, led by Hillary Clinton, was responsible for the slaughter of our Ambassador and the other 4-Americans in Benghazi according to the investigation. I wonder if that fact caused Hillary to faint and bump her head? When it comes to the Obama Administration, the buck never stops. It's easy to be President or Secretary of State when you are never held accountable.

Go find out if your curious.

Sorry the family didn't come over for the holidays. You probably would have.

Oh look... The sore-losing hungry little butt-brain hit the hook as soon as it touched the water... Lol. And made a stupid joke to verify his right-wing chops!!!

BTW Johntho... They were losers to begin with. Been perfecting it since they were hatched. Backward idgits... Obama just brought these poor excuses for rabble up to the surface by making their little pea brains think they were gonna take a turn under the lash...

And so far none of them are leaving.

You really meant to say abc cbs & nbc r doing such a fine job for OdumbO covering all his mistakes and bumps in the road as the ambassador and 3 americans killed in libya. I don't worry about the 401k cause i don't have any.

Job1 - Please tell me, if not Obama, who is responsible for the $4 Trillion, according to the CBO, additional deficit from the recently passed "fiscal cliff" law.

The majority of the recent deficit is due to reduced tax revenue and two unfunded wars that W. Bush left off the budget. This fell back on the books under Obama. The argument of high spending on the watch of Obama has been debunked over and over again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Job1 - You still haven't answered my question, by signing the "fiscal cliff" bill into law, did Obama add $4 Trillion to the deficit over the next 4 years? The left likes to say it's Congress that controls spending not the President, so how is it that Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower? BTW, on reason less money may have been spent under Obama is because the House stopped most of his big spending bills. How many billions were saved because Congress refused to give the President all the spending he wanted.

Why do you thing the voters sent a majority of Republicans back to the House, could it be that it was to make sure Obama's spending was held in check? It was pointed out that the 112th Congress was the least productive in that only 220 bills were passed, I say thank God, because every bill would have cost billions.

As for the so called "unfunded wars" there were not in the budget but were funded off the budget, so in reality they were still funded and added to the National Debt. Further President Obama could have ended the war in Afghanistan anytime since being elected.

sfcret... You are dumber than an un-washed rock. And clearly always will be.

Your "arguments" or "guesses" or whatever you like to call them don't even warrant discussion.

chick binder - When one can't refute or discuss something they revert to name calling and snide remarks which shows that you are the really stupid one. So if you can say something constructive just STFU.

So if you can say something constructive just STFU. Should read if you can't say something constructive just STFU.

The funny thing is that he said, "dumber than an unwashed rock". What does that mean? I've heard "Dumber than a rock". But you're right sfc, all Liberals have is insults when they can't or won't answer a simple question. But the CBO said it was 3.9 Trillion, but what's a few billion here or there?

I don't know why the left clings to the "unfunded wars" talking point. If it's because of the costs of those wars, well, they VOTED for them. Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and a whole lot of other dems voted for them, and their costs, but for some strange reason, want to pretend they had nothing to do with it.

marco - another racist moron from the right. Do you ever tire of looking the moron?

Actually, The President is more of a man than marco. Also, 10 times smarter!

Marcomanynumbers... Justin Timberlake called... He's decided to bring stupid back this time and wants you in the video...

Actually, The President is more of a man than marco. Also, 10 times smarter!

Which his college transcript will surely prove...

...oh, wait....