Posted by Observer, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 11:45 am
And please don't let our City Council anywhere near the President. They are likely to tell him everything is great, government is great, schools are great, more taxes are great, Google is great, he is great, etc. It will be a total love fest.
Besides, Solyndra in Fremont would have been a more appropriate setting.
Posted by Rich, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm
I know you didn't ask me, but I'll chip in that I'm paying much less tax since Obama took office!
Now, if only my income wasn't down way more % than my taxes...
And now we probably won't be able to move around the city much at all on Monday, costing the residents of Mtn. View many thousands, just so we can host this fund-raiser and campaign program. Well, I hope it's worth it. At least Fremont ended up with some nice buildings...
Posted by Evan, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Mountain View is a great place for the President to come. It is a microcosm of government and business. The City of Mountain View has admitted they can not run a tennis court or golf course (they outsourced them). If a municipal government can't run a successful tennis operation or a golf course, how can the federal government run our health care????
Mountain View is a great example of why government should stay out of private enterprise!
Posted by Sabrina, a resident of the The Crossings neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Is Obama going to talk about reinstating the Glass-Steagull Act so we will not have a repeat of the 2008 financial crash? I can't see the economy changing for the better until regulation is reinstated (as it was in effect during the "golden age" of the '50s and '60s).
Posted by nonsense, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 11:29 pm
@ MV Resident...
I can't comment on the competence of Rich's accountant, but I'm pretty sure he clearly stated his income and taxes were both down... and you nor I have any idea what tax bracket he was/is in. What we DO know is that the President has proposed higher taxes for those making over $200K (families $250K) per year, along with a host of other tax increases. He has not had the opportunity to raise taxes thus far, as it was politically (and likely economically) foolish to do so when unemployment was racing toward 10%. As soon as things started to look like they were settling down, a Republican house was voted in which has thwarted even the thought of raising taxes. Just because you and I may not be paying more in taxes now vs 2 years ago does not mean he will not advocate for higher taxes... he always has, and probably will for as long as he is in office. This point was driven home for me when (during the Democratic primary debates) he defended the position of taxing all capital gain as ordinary income even if it meant reduced tax revenue under the guise of fairness. It does not appear to matter if a tax policy position is ill-adviced economically, as long as the perception of fairness is achieved.
Posted by MV Resident, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 22, 2011 at 11:02 am
@nonsense. Thanks for clearing up the math for me. It seems I thought Rich claimed he was paying a larger percentage of his income in taxes, although his income was "way down".
Also, thanks for reminding people that Obama has not raised taxes, and that when he took office "unemployment was racing toward 10%".
Finally, thanks also for reminding me of Obama's biggest mistake, which, as you allude to, was not letting Bush's temporary tax relief expire. Bush's economic policy: borrow $5.5T from China to pay for 2 unnecessary wars and tax cuts has been a tremendous failure. Bush's failed economic policy led to the loss of 6 million jobs while he was in office.
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 22, 2011 at 12:54 pm
You appear to be so blinded by your hatred of Bush to be unable to see anything wrong with Obama. In the end you add nothing to the hope of a solution. So while you are at it, explain the Solyndra debacle for everyone.
Posted by MV Resident, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 22, 2011 at 2:50 pm
No hate from me, it is not personal, I simply disagreed with Bush's economic policies, as had many economists at the time. I don't know if you recall the famous quote: "deficits don't matter" from the Bush administration. You might Google it, and read what Cheney had to say back then (yes, I do like Google.)
What do you know about Solyndra? I wouldn't jump to conclusions, since it is still under investigation. It's hard to tell whether or not it will reach the criminal level that the Enron case did, in which CEO Ken Lay and CFO Jeff Skilling were convicted of fraud. Their phony energy crisis had a direct impact on California too, like Solyndra. It is sad when greedy felons like Ken Lay gain so much access to the President. Can you believe Ken Lay made 80 personal visits to the White House to meet with President Bush and Dick Cheney? Bush's personal nickname for him was "Kenny Boy". Don't take my word for it, use the Google.
Posted by Sharis, a resident of another community, on Sep 23, 2011 at 7:29 am
Please ask President Obama to invest in a committee to reveal the truth about the GOP obstrution tactics and the truth behind their lies. For example, they accuse their opponents of all the things they have been doing. They are lying about their opponents, but it shows that they know what they are doing is wrong; they just discount it when they do it. They should be asked why they have done x y & z; when they recognize that it would be wrong if their opponents did it.
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 23, 2011 at 11:19 am
Can you be any more vague, or is it you can't be any more specific? O
One could argue the same for Obama's democrats who controlled Congress for two years.
Where does the unfolding Solyndra scandal lie on your spectrum. How about those billions in bailouts followed by bonuses? How about 9-12% unemployment? How about the ATF fast and furious scandal? Take a break with an $18 dollar doughnut and $9 cup of coffee (DOJ prices under Obama) and detail some specifics.
Posted by nonsense, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:07 pm
People are missing the forest for the trees with this whole $16 muffing thing. It is not the $16 muffin thing that people should be angry about, it is the intentional lack of accountability that has become commonplace in the government (both parties). The maximum per diem lodging rate for federal employees in the DC area is roughly $200 less than the nightly rate of the Capitol Hilton. Hundreds of conference attendees stayed at a $400 per night hotel, paying the per diem rate. Now, why would the hotel give the government such a deal? Answer: they didn't. They roll the cost into the catering, AV services, conference space rates, etc. OK, so go after the crooked federal employee that worked the system, right? Nope, they contracted out all the event planning services for the DOJ (or at least this section of it)... a contractor negotiated the rates on the government's behalf and some half-wit approved the charges since the contractor told them these were going rates in DC (of course they are when all business is federal in DC and every agency is doing this!). The contractor was just doing what they were asked (put the conference in a nice hotel, close to DOJ HQ), and the DOJ bosses claim innocence because they contracted out event planning precisely to involve event planning experts that would negotiate better deals for the government (false outrage alert). Absolutely no accountability... just watch this play out... IF it stays in the news, the contractor will be made the bad guy when they would have had there contract terminated if they had arranged the conference in suburban VA where they could actually have contracted reasonable fees and gotten per diem off the rack. Ignore the man behind the curtain, please.
Posted by nonsense, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:14 pm
No argument from me on Bush's bad economic policies (although my primary beef was the spending, not the tax policy... shouldn't have both tax cuts AND increased spending). However, don't expect me to endorse putting bad money after bad money. Shouldn't we expect better?
Posted by MV Resident, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:56 pm
A tax cut paid for with money borrowed from China is a spending program, bottom line.
Your discussion about the cost of outsourcing just goes to further destroy the myth that privatization of traditionally government functions will somehow will be cheaper. There is plenty of data to show that outsourcing government functions cost twice as much to the tax payer. It is too easy to rip off the federal govt, just check out halliburton...
Posted by nonsense, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 23, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Sheesh, MV Res, you're nitpicking. I was, and am a critic of dubya... his spending was out of control, as is our current president's spending. I did not think the tax cuts were wise under dubya given the spending that was taking place, nor do I think the spending over the last few years while maintaining those low rates has been wise. My preference is for less spending, but if the spending is necessary, let's man-up and pay for it ourselves rather than pass on the bill to our kids. I personally think that if everyone saw their paycheck reduced proportionally to the debt we are incurring that an awful lot of essential government services would suddenly become less essential.
We also agree on outsourcing government jobs... contracting out government jobs is expensive and only makes sense for short-term projects (i.e. the things we should not be hiring civil servants for to begin with). I think the types of things Halliburton did fit the bill for contracting, but the oversight mechanisms failed. We should NOT outsource enduring services believing we will save some money by contracting. However, that is fundamentally different than calling into question the role of government in providing a service at all (either directly or through a contractor). There are some things the government should be involved in, and some things where involvement is detrimental... the tricky part is figuring out which is which... sincerely, -nonsense (your loyal civil servant)
Posted by nonsense, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2011 at 5:33 pm
not sure, but if you watch flightaware.com for SF Bay Area, when all the aircraft tracks clear out, you can be sure AF1 is there (even though you it will be filtered from the feed). That might give you 5-10 minutes to step outside or drive over.
Posted by sean, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2011 at 11:30 pm
@nonsense thanks, I work on el camino and saw AF1 from the parking lot one day really thought it was cool with jets behind it, i am off and would love to see it again. kite park at shoreline park would be a nice place
Posted by Jose Jimenez, a resident of the Cuernavaca neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 8:16 am
It's time you visited areas that are suffering during this recession. People in Mtn. View and Silicon Valley are not that bad off. You policies are not helping and we are all looking for better days ahead. Please stop these fake campaign stops in friendly, wealthy areas that make you look bad.
Posted by nonsense, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 8:46 pm
I hope you're not implying that the government should be in competition with VC firms. Businesses succeed and fail, but they should do so on their own, as should those that back them (VCs, banks, etc.).
Posted by Rank and file, a resident of another community, on Sep 26, 2011 at 9:10 am
If the first two big stimuli were really creating jobs, unemployment rate will reduce at least 1% (but it's not)and Mr. President won't waste a third tiny stimulus. This third stimulus is merely to stimulate innocent voters to create the job for the President otherwisw next year he will be out of the WH