President Obama has done more for low-income middle-class Americans than any other in generations.

[ProSense]

President Obama has done more for low-income middle-class Americans than any other in generations.

Let's assess:

The ARRA benefitted millions of Americans.

The ARRA:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5), is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009. The Act of Congress was based largely on proposals made by President Barack Obama and was intended to provide a stimulus to the U.S. economy in the wake of the economic downturn. The measures are nominally worth $787 billion. The Act includes federal tax cuts, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector. The Act also includes numerous non-economic recovery related items that were either part of longer-term plans (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) or desired by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank). The government action is much larger than the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which consisted primarily of tax rebate checks.

BIGGEST. TAX CUT. EVER...:

Chris Hayes had a similar observation.

On the politics side of the ledger, Ben Smith notes Obama's emphasis on the tax cuts in the bill. I'm not necessarily a fan, though politically it's true that every single Republican member of congress can now be accused of "Voting against the biggest tax cut in history" come next election." Clearly, this hasn't escaped the White House's notice.

Add to that the home buyers credit, cash for clunkers, student financial aid, $10 billion Community Health Centers and $5 billion Weatherization Assistance Program for low-income Americans.


From HCR that expands Medicaid, bans denying coverage based on a pre-existing conditions, free preventive care even for Medicare recipients, banning lifetime limits and rescission to the stimulus provisions, including the Making Work Pay credit, to Wall Street reform and the new consumer agency to student loan reform and massive Pell Grant support to the green initiatives, President Obama has done more for low-income middle-class Americans than any in generations.

His achievements will improve the quality of life of all Americans.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (More)

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009

End of 22-Year Discriminatory Travel Ban

Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act

Stopping Conflict-related Sexual Violence Against Women and Children

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (More)

VA is making it easier for veterans to get help for PTSD.

HHS announces first national strategy for HIV/AIDS.

Federal Medical Leave Act extended by Department of Labor to include same-sex relationships.

Executive order reversing stem cell ban.

Prevent hospitals from denying visitation privileges to same-sex partners.

Banning antibiotics in livestock production

LGBT-Inclusive Sexual Education

Fair Sentencing Act

Enforcing the National Voter Registration Act for the first time in its 15-year history

Appointing Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court

International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission

The Tribal Law and Order Act

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act

Wall Street Reform

Appointing Elizabeth Warren as the first-ever consumer advocate

Elizabeth Warren Recruits Dodd-Frank Enforcers From 50 States

Ending the combat mission in Iraq

Small Business Jobs Act of 2010

Manufacturing Enhancement Act

Obama’s Development Reforms: From Charity to Growth

The First Large-Scale Solar Energy Plants on Public Lands

Sustainability projects across the country

Big Win for the Obama Administration

The President Signs Repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell": "Out of Many, We Are One"

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act

Tax Cuts, Unemployment Insurance and Jobs

Support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Scientific Integrity Directive (America COMPETES Act)

Pigford, Cobell Settlements

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Which is why taxes will rise on many of the working poor

Many of the working poor will http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/12/09/the-obama-gop-deal-a-tax-hike-for-the-working-poor/">pay higher taxes

The Social Security cuts will be an added insult.

Just business as usual for the trickle-down crowd.

[ProSense]

3. There are no cuts

to Social Security

Payroll tax holiday is a plus for the economy.

<...>

Six. Propose a six month tax holiday for payroll taxes. Ask for the Republicans' support. This would provide direct tax relief to working people and lower the cost of creating jobs. It would provide more of a tonic to the economy and more practical help to American families than any of the Republicans' proposed tax cuts. Make up the loss to the Social Security trust funds with a temporary surtax on people making over $10 million a year.

<...>

The President fully understand which part of the package is stimulative.

Obama: Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Won’t Create ‘One Single Job’

[MannyGoldstein]

OK - so why not bet $20 on whether they'll be cut?

If Obama doesn't call for cuts, then I owe you $20 and will prominently proclaim my loss on DU.

Of course, I'll expect you to do the same if he does call for cuts.

Deal?

[Clio the Leo]

62. I'll bet YOU $20...

.... that I cant find you saying anything positive about the MWP tax credit before 12/10 ... quite the opposite if I remember correctly. ;)

[MannyGoldstein]

71. I highly doubt I said anything positive or negative

Have at it.

[Jakes Progress]

87. Notice the silence.

[Jakes Progress]

88. Notice the silence.

[Hawkeye-X]

14. Dude. Can I bet you $20 that the "tax holiday" becomes permanent?

Please?

[MannyGoldstein]

22. I've tried this bet many times

Never a bite.

Good luck to both of us.

[Lucky Luciano]

77. Maybe you can do that on some of the gambling sites that bet on political events?

It would be a good hedge against getting pissed off if the cuts are fully extended because at least you will have won some money off the deal!

[MrTriumph]

42. Yes, funding has been cut for SS. Drum roll...Here come Obama's SS cuts.

x

[knitter4democracy]

5. Add in the mandated health insurance, and we're worse off.

At least in a lot of ways.

Many of those other programs, you need to know how to apply, have the time to apply, and live somewhere where you can have access to them. That's not better.

Does the tax cut that's now been rescinded and turned into a tax increase and the mandated health insurance at several hundred dollars a month (don't get me started on how some tax incentive is supposed to help with the month-to-month costs--it doesn't) somehow make the ephemeral tax break and the maybe job better?

[Hawkeye-X]

12. That was recently ruled unconstitutional

so that's not going to happen.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[knitter4democracy]

27. True, but I'm not so sure about that.

I personally can't afford it. Any extra money I have has to go to my lawyer who's been fighting hard to protect me and my kids. I owe her a fortune and the divorce attorney another fortune. I looked at that and threw up my hands--so now it's unConstitutional? Do you really think they won't find a way to make it work out and make me carry health insurance that will just push me further into debt?

[phleshdef]

51. Its not unconstitutional. The judge has political ties to the tea party, was a Bush appointee...

...and 2 other judges have said that its not unconstitutional.

Even many advocates who are against the mandate agreed that his decision was not based on sound law. He completely ignored the commerce clause.

The problem with the mandate isn't in how it works but its in how people interpret it. If they had raised everyone's taxes by 2% and then gave that back in a tax credit for those that have health insurance, it would have logically been the same exact thing, but people wouldn't "feel" like it was the same and thus there wouldn't be all this bitching about it.

The reasoning behind the mandate is perfectly sound. If you are able to pay your share into the healthcare system but you aren't doing so and you end up getting expensive emergency room care because of an accident or sudden onset of life threatening illness, the other tax payers will end up footing your bill. This dynamic exists whether we have a single payer system or a system that uses private insurance companies as a utility to facilitate the financing of your healthcare. At the end of the day, everyone that is financially able has to pay into the pool somehow. Whether we all pay into one pool via some form of tax (basically single payer) or we all pay into different pools via a premium, it still has to be paid for someway. The mandate is just one way to skin that cat. Its an inferior way to do it because of the overhead created by the participation of private companies, but that was passable whereas the superior way was not.

[knitter4democracy]

75. There's the key: if you can pay your share.

If I could, I'd have health insurance. Frankly, my kids need food and clothes more.

Have you priced individual health insurance lately? I get calls all the time, but with my pre-existing conditions, no one wants me, so I have to get a plan with the only company my state requires to accept everyone. That's $300/mo. I'm still having trouble coming up with that in my budget, especially knowing my job ends in June and I might not have a teaching job next fall.

[FogerRox]

55. ruled at the state level

While 2 other cases based on the mandate were ruled against. All 3 cases were at the state level, so unless an appeal gets to the SCOTUS..... mandated health care moves forward.

[Clio the Leo]

58. Is your problem that there's a mandate period...

.... or do you feel the subsidies that will be given to the poor to help cover the cost of the mandate are not large enough?

If it's the former, well, your asking a board full of Democrats to defend a libertarian talking point. We cant do that. :)

[knitter4democracy]

74. It's both.

Frankly, the mandate puts a huge financial burden on the poor. The car insurance metaphor really falls apart there--you can't find health insurance as cheap as you can find car insurance, and there are many poor who go without that and hope not to get caught. When health insurance costs as much or more than rent, you're asking too much.

The tax rebates are crap. So, I have to find the month-to-month money and then hope that what I get back once a year will cover it. Get this, though: I have to come up with the month-to-month money first and then hope that I'll get back enough to cover what I've spent and will cover it for the rest of the year when I know already that it won't. There's no way the gov't is going to give me the $300/mo the crappy health insurance I've found that will actually cover me but not actually pay for much. So, they're just subsidizing it and not well at that.

Single. payer.

[Clio the Leo]

79. It's not a tax credit, it's a subsidy....

..... paid to the insurer.

People who make less would have to pay a smaller slice of their income for coverage. For instance, individuals who make about $14,000, and four-person families with incomes of about $29,000, would not have to pay more than 3 to 4 percent of their incomes for insurance.

And those who make even less – under 133 percent of the federal poverty level – would be able to enroll in a newly expanded Medicaid program.

The federal subsidy would go straight to the insurer. It would look like a discount on the policy to the customer.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0320/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-gets-subsidized-insurance

[dflprincess]

80. Because a family of 4 with an income of $29,000 has a spare

$72 - $97 a month to send to a for profit company. And don't forget the deductibles, copays and other out of pockets they'll have for anything the insurance company decides aren't covered (dental and vision come to mind.

The federal subsidy would go straight to the insurer.

The whole bill was nothing but a scam to transfer billions in private and public money into the insurers' pockets. There is nothing is the bill that guarantees access to care, only that we will be paying the same old crooks for the same old crap.

[Clio the Leo]

81. And just wait until everyone finds out...

.... that the profits insurance companies make will be spent on .... dog fighting .... in Afghanistan.

[knitter4democracy]

82. Holy crap. That's even worse.

They're going to take that subsidy, put it in the bank, and then still charge a fortune for plans that don't cover squat.

[Clio the Leo]

83. No, that will only happen...

.... in the Land of Hyperbole.

[knitter4democracy]

85. You must not deal with insurance companies often.

It's all about the shareholders, not the patients. In states with tort reform, the promised lower malpractice rates really haven't happened--they've taken that lower risk and kept the profits.

[Clio the Leo]

86. No, I've dealt with a fair amount of insurance company employees...

.... and I've also dealt with a fair number of cynics.

[FogerRox]

54. Many of the working poor will pay higher taxes , correct.

So single taxpayers who earn less than $20,000 and married couples earning less than $40,000 will pay more in taxes under the payroll tax cut than under MWP (see graph).

http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/12/09/the-obama-gop-deal-a-tax-hike-for-the-working-poor/

[Clio the Leo]

60. But it's still lower than they would have paid...

... the MWP tax credit was due to expire at the end of the year and it was the GOP's preference to not renew it. I see this talking point posted over and over implying that the President ended the MWP credit in favor of this new deal, if that is your argument, it's not true. ;)

The "Making Work Pay" tax credit is, of course, the Obama tax credit that those bashing the President never gave him any credit for obtaining to begin with. So now some are using the very thing he instituted as proof positive that he's out to get the poor.
http://www.savvysugar.com/What-Making-Work-Pay-Tax-Credit-2860546

It's amusing to say the least.

[Hawkeye-X]

2. Dude, you're still misleading...

And yet Obama raised taxes on the poorest... and you're trying to *deflect* that...

[ProSense]

6. I'm misleading?

If those who wanted the all the tax cuts to expire didn't consider them raising taxes, how is expanding the tax cuts raising taxes?

The Making Work Pay credit was the President's stimulus. It expires at the end of the year. The President initiated another tax cut.

Period.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. The President negotiated a large package of stuff

allegedly to help working Americans.

He ended up with a tax increase for the working poor.

[phleshdef]

8. The senate took a vote on renewing MWP and it FAILED.

I guess he should have just fucking vetoed the whole damn thing and let the poor's taxes go up significantly because one paltry tax break couldn't be renewed.

Your logic is utter garbage.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hawkeye-X]

16. All they had to do was remove dual tracking

and they would have to REALLY work it out to get it passed or let it die and we'd have the right to accuse Rethuglicans for obstruction.

I'm also advocating nuclear option, but it's too late now. Removing Byrd's dual-tracking system is the right answer at this point.

Hawkeye-X

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

48. My usual bullshit snark is laced with plenty of good arguments.

Unfortunately, some around here have fragile sensitivities, so the posts get deleted.

But thats ok. I know how it works before I post. Its worth it if the message gets out, even if it only stands for a few minutes.

Hawkeye's problem, like a lot of posters around here is that you all can't accept that the President is not the only person in Washington that has power. And you can't accept the fact that the numbers in the Senate, when added up, do not equal our full agenda. Whenever that comes up, the blinders to that reality are put up in full force and the argument degrades in yelling out the initials of your favorite dead President while ignoring the fact that those men had a cooperative legislative branch to work with, whereas this President, like Clinton before him, does not.

What it comes down to is that the Senate is every bit as powerful as the President in many ways. And not enough of them want to use that power for liberal causes. Thats reality. But instead of accepting that for what it is and putting the focus on changing that dynamic come next election, you spend all your time blabbering on about how "easy" it is to get this stuff done, like all President Obama has to do is just act meaner and make threats and everyone is going to magically fall in line. How can one even argue against such a childish view of the political world?

No one here wants to see the progressive movement prevail in the form of strong legislations anymore than I do. But unlike myself, too many are unable to possess any empathy for the political climate.

[Clio the Leo]

63. The Senate is actually MORE powerful...

... because they actually MAKE the laws. If they dont want it to happen, it aint happenin. A basic civics fact lost on a lot of our buddies here huh?

and lol @ "yelling out the initials of your favorite dead President" ... that was funny.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Did they vote on the whole package that included MWP? nt

[phleshdef]

15. And amendment was proposed to swap it out for the 2% holiday. The vote failed.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. That's not the question I asked - so I guess the answer is 'no' nt

[phleshdef]

23. Your question isn't legit in the first place. They couldn't even get it into the whole package,

You can't vote on it that way if you can't get it in there.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. So, the fact is, Obama negotiated a tax increase on the working poor

By your own admission.

[phleshdef]

25. You are just trying to dodge the facts of how the whole event played out.

You claim you didn't want low income taxes to go up. But you can't have that without agreeing to the tax deal compromise because of the voting dynamics. MWP would have expired with or without the deal. So that leaves 2 options. Pass the deal (preventing an increase that is actually substantial, unlike the MWP credit) or not pass the deal and have their taxes go up in a very painful way. You seem to advocate doing the latter although you won't come out and say it. So instead you bitch about the former which actually does a lot more towards what you say you want.

You don't make any sense.

[brentspeak]

36. When did the Senate exclusively vote on the MWP?

Please point out when the Senate voted on the singular issue of renewing MWP (i.e., not when it was considered as part of an amendment that also included revoking the upper income tax cuts, etc.)

Thanks in advance.

[phleshdef]

50. Please point out a senator that was willing to bring it up as a singular issue?

I love Bernie Sanders to death, but he is the only one that brought it up and he brought it up in a way that was designed to fail and he knew it beforehand. Had he really thought it that important, he shouldn't have presented in a way that he knew was going to fail to begin with. And where were the other progressive heroes on this? Where was Feingold? Oh thats right, he didn't want any tax breaks renewed, not even that one. What about Al Franken? Why didn't Dennis Kucinich try to get it extended in the house? There are plenty of progressive legislators that didn't make one move to do anything about the MWP credit and it wasn't like they didn't know it was expiring. They knew and they did nothing. Yet I don't see any of you pointing the finger at them. You will let them off the hook any day if it means you get to pin the blame on Barack Obama. This is why I feel your objections are disingenious. Its because you are inconsistent.

We had, what, 59 senators in the Democratic caucus and not ONE of them tried with any realistic effort to maintain MWP? Even if you take out Lieberman and the blue dogs, you still have a hell of a lot of so call progressive/liberal Senators and yet not one of them tried. Its not like the President would have vetoed the damn bill if they put it in there and the worst that could have happened is it failed as a singular amendment the same as it did when Bernie Sanders brought it up as a symbolic gesture.

If we wanted a better deal, we should have elected a better Senate. They hold all the power when it comes to what makes it to the President's desk. But you can't pin a tax increase on him if he was never put in a position to turn it down or let it become law. Had he signed a law that actually stated that the taxes would increase on the poor, that would be a different story. But he didn't.

I guess President Obama never should have agreed to let the MWP credit exist in the first place, otherwise he just ends up getting blamed for the lack of an extension on it.

[Clio the Leo]

64. The "Making Work Pay" tax cut...

.... the tax cut everyone hates until it's gone. :)

[Clio the Leo]

61. No....

.... he should have waved his scepter and deemed that the MWP tax credit should continue.

It's what LBJ would have done. ;)

[Hawkeye-X]

9. Thank you Manny.

Always good to have you backing me up on this fight.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. My pleasure

The few of us who remain on DU need to do what we can to present our side.

[elizm]

26. And thank God he was able to negotiate SOMETHING!

The Democrats in Congress were too damn afraid of their own shadow to do it before the election when they might have had a chance to actually get something. If Obama had not come in and cleaned up the mess, and the Bush tax cuts had expired like most 'progressive' Democrats wanted them to do, we'd be a hell of a lot worse off. President Obama got the best deal he possibly could. But that's okay...go ahead and continue to beat up on him. If we lose the White House in 2012 it will be more because of folks like you than from Republicans and Independents voting against him.

[mtnsnake]

29. Something? The tax deal wasn't much more than a political victory

It was a deal which allowed Obama to take credit for extending tax cuts instead of allowing Republicans to take credit. It was also a win-win for those Democrats and Republicans who worry more about getting re-elected and worry less about doing what's best for the country's financial future. But that's politics in a nutshell for ya.

[great white snark]

31. Tell that to the unemployed who were helped.

[mtnsnake]

32. Using the unemployment extension was a pathetic excuse to extend Bush's tax cuts, period

The extension of federal unemployment benefits was tied to Bush's tax cuts at the hip for no other reason than to continue giving obscene tax gifts to the richest people in the country for sake of future political gain with corporate America. Instead of dealing with unemployment benefits separately, he used it as a bargaining chip.

[paulk]

47. correct

Obama tipped his hand with that one - or else showed himself as a complete naif


I'm not sure which is worse

[great white snark]

30. +1. They trip over themselves to give congress & GOP a pass.

So long as they can blame President Obama.

[Clio the Leo]

65. It's highly unlikely he'll lose in 2012...

... those here who bash him doing it with that convenience to rest on. ;)

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

44. Yes

"The Making Work Pay credit was the President's stimulus. It expires at the end of the year. The President initiated another tax cut."

How come you didn't volunteer to point that all those making less than $20,000/year will actually see their taxes go up from last year because the Obama/GOP tax package won't cover the difference between the MWP credit and the 2% payroll tax cut?

Any explanation why you didn't want to point that out to readers?

[firedupdem]

4. K&R

Thanks for posting this info! I'm passing it along!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. K&R, my friend. So many people want this president to fail. They refuse

to give him ANY credit whatsoever.

Let's wait and see what happens to SS. I'm not buying into this fear-mongering crap!!

[wndycty]

28. K&R

:kick:

[Time for change]

37. "Helping Families Save their Homes"

How misleading. Robert Kuttner explains what the Obama administration did for homeowners in his book, “A Presidency in Peril – The Inside Story of Obama’s Promise, Wall Street’s Power, and the Struggle to Control our Economic Future”.

several trillions in loans and loan guarantees for the banks, and a grudging $3 billion for the homeowners who had been the banks’ victims. As a consequence of the administration’s half measures and failure to move boldly, the mortgage foreclosure crisis is continuing to drive millions of Americans from their homes, depress housing prices… and retard the recovery… Refinancing underwater retail mortgages is comparatively easy. It just requires political will.

The fact remains that millions of Americans have lost their homes or are in the process of losing it. Obama's plan gave orders of magnitude more help to the big banks than to homeowners. Just think how many Americans could have remained in their homes if he would have devoted a slightly larger fraction of what he gave to the banks to helping homeowners.

That's the problem with laundry lists. They don't explain much, and they are aren't much help in looking at the big picture.

[ProSense]

38. "Robert Kuttner explains...in his book, 'A Presidency in Peril'"

You mean the person who was pushing his book even as a historic health care reform act was on the verge of being signed into law? In December 2009, he and others were pondering what a defeat of such a bill would mean for the President. The person who wrote this three months into the Obama Presidency, wrote this: Obama's Loyal Opposition

<...>

Progressives now find themselves in an awkward position of simultaneously wishing Barack Obama well, but feeling dismayed by his policies on some key issues, most notably the banking bailout. If this were a normal economic situation, the posture of semi-opposition would not be that big a deal. We would simply gratefully accept the decent policies and keep pressing for bolder ones. But a failure to revive the banking system would be Obama's Vietnam. It would wreck everything else.

<...>

Reality:

Thank you President Obama

Obama administration announces $73 million in housing counseling grants

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Time for change]

52. So, you wish to discredit Kuttner's excellent book on the basis that:

1. He is "pushing his book"

2. Obama was in the process of passing "historic health care reform" while Kuttner was writing his book -- that is, "historic" health care reform" that was mainly a bonanza for the health insurance industry and included no public competition to the insurance industry, though Obama promised it during his campaign.

3. Because Kuttner also criticized Obama's bailout of the banks in an article not included in his book.

I fail to understand why any of those criticisms discredit Kuttner, whose book is very thoroughly documented and explained. Have you read it?

[brentspeak]

39. Thanks for catching that

The HAMP program has been, at best, a complete dismal failure. At worst, the Treasury may have been abetting a gigantic banking fraud.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/geithner-blocking-legal-h_n_796773.html

Geithner Blocking Legal Help For Foreclosure Victims

WASHINGTON -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has authorized big payouts to banks in an effort to encourage mortgage modifications, but is preventing borrowers in danger of losing their homes from accessing legal assistance under the Obama administration's foreclosure relief plan -- even when banks are wrongfully or fraudulently attempting evictions.

As of August, the administration's foreclosure prevention program -- which had paid a total of $231.5 million to banks -- had paid nothing specifically for borrower's legal fees, despite the urging of congressional Democrats who say legal funding is critical to easing the crisis.

Democrats from foreclosure-battered states are pushing new legislation that would overrule Geithner's edict, but the legislation is doomed this session with apathy from leadership in both parties and a packed lame duck calendar.

The 2008 bank bailout bill gave the Treasury secretary broad discretion to spend money to fend off foreclosures. But while Treasury has approved $7.6 billion in expenditures to help states prevent and clean up foreclosures, the rules dictate that funding cannot be used for legal aid, dramatically blunting the impact of the program. States initially applied for funds from the program in the spring of this year, but the Treasury refused to extend money for tackling legal bills. For cash-strapped borrowers battling foreclosure, such legal fees can make the costs of defending their homes insurmountable. Consumer advocates say the Treasury's legal reasoning is specious, and members of Congress are pushing against the edict.

[ProSense]

45. HAMP has had its problems

but it has helped a lot of people, and is improving.

U.S. Treasury's Home Loan Modifications Pass 500,000, Short of Obama Goal

[impik]

43. You really should stop bring facts here. It's against the rules

[Clio the Leo]

66. seriously. nt

[jtuck004]

49. Well, given that with that help we hit a new record with over 40 million on food stamps,

unemployment is not getting any better and in some cases much worse, foreclosures are set to reach a staggering 13-14 million,
20% of the country now owns 87% of the private wealth instead of 85%, insurance premiums are significantly higher than when he took office and a reported 15 million more people don't have health insurance than in 2008, and he signed a bill for equal pay which doesn't help 30 million unemployed or underemployed people...

I wonder how much more help they can take?

[johnaries]

53. Economists agree that it would have been much worse

without Obama's stimuli and that the economy is getting better - including unemployment figures.

[FogerRox]

56. U3 is up-9.6% to 9.8%, U6 is up 16.5% to 17.%

[jtuck004]

67. I'm sure that will help the hungry kids feel better. And perhaps the

"economists" are too busy agreeing to notice the unemployment rate went up last month?

On any month that we don't add at least 130,000 jobs, according to the head of the BLS, we add more unemployed
people to the rolls - and more unemployed is all we have lately.

[rug]

57. Are these the same people: "low-income middle-class Americans"?

[jenmito]

59. But he gave a tax cut to the rich! Nothing else matters!!!11!!!1!!

[maritzasolito]

69. I cannot think for myself and will vote repuke the next time around!

That should teach me to get screwed some more after Bush!

I see Rusia 2012/2012-1/2!

[Number23]

68. Rec'd. Go get'em, Pro!

[mmonk]

70. Volume is not quality.

Instead of going through each one, some of us are not impressed and nothing can counter the heart of Reagan economic theory the administration and the Republicans just dealt us heading into a year when more Republicans take over.

[ProSense]

72. "Volume is not quality"? What

exactly does that mean in relation to the OP?

What's not quality, these:

$10 billion Community Health Centers
$5 billion Weatherization Assistance Program for low-income Americans.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Fair Sentencing Act

Care to point out what you consider in the OP to be volume, not quality?

"Instead of going through each one, some of us are not impressed and nothing can counter the heart of Reagan economic theory the administration and the Republicans just dealt us heading into a year when more Republicans take over."

Despite the attempts to compare the current President's economic policy to Reagan's because of the Republican-driven tax cuts for the rich, there is no similarity.

This President knows the difference between stimulus and stuff that doesn't work.

Obama: Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Won’t Create ‘One Single Job’

[mmonk]

73. Everything is nice sounding and all but you have to look deeper

at effects. For example, you label anything that sounds enticing but where are you going with the overall structure? An example is the payroll tax holiday. Sounds nice right? That is until you realize it defunds a social safety net. Would you need community health centers if you had universal care in the first place? The New Deal is about to be dismantled and what input do people have to save it? Is that what they really want?

[ProSense]

76. "An example is the payroll tax holiday...

Sounds nice right? That is until you realize it defunds a social safety net."

No, the payroll tax holiday does not defund Social Security, and it is a plus for the economy. The tax holiday is paid for out of the general fund.

Robert Kuttner supported a payroll tax hoiliday, the difference is that the trust fund would be replenished with a temporary surtax on the rich.

<...>

Six. Propose a six month tax holiday for payroll taxes. Ask for the Republicans' support. This would provide direct tax relief to working people and lower the cost of creating jobs. It would provide more of a tonic to the economy and more practical help to American families than any of the Republicans' proposed tax cuts. Make up the loss to the Social Security trust funds with a temporary surtax on people making over $10 million a year.

<...>

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whosinpower]

89. The surtax was dumped

There is no surtax on the wealthy to pay for the 2 percent payroll tax holiday which will now be paid for out of the general fund.

You know this.

[whosinpower]

78. In two short years.....

If the middle class of America grows....then Obama is doing well. But if it isn't.....then no amount of saying it could of been worse will make one iota of difference. He has two years.