That’ll be 5 cents, please…

From the New York Post:

“In a move every bit as bold as its decision to buy into the newspaper business, Cablevision yesterday said that it plans to charge readers for access to Newsday’s Web site.

Newsday (a Long Island, NY newspaper) will be among the first general-interest newspapers to adopt a paid online model, and the move will certainly add to the industry debate about whether news outlets should make their Web sites free or paid.

Cablevision gave no details on how it will execute the pay model for Newsday, or how much it will charge for access.

Proponents of the free online model argue that it generates more traffic, which in turn allows companies to charge advertisers higher rates. Those in favor of the paid online model claim that advertisers aren’t paying enough online to make up for the revenue losses on the print side, and therefore need to find other ways to subsidize their business.”

There’s no talk that I’m aware of about making such a move at the AJC. But as news operations look for a sustainable economic model, people all over the country are going to be trying a lot of different approaches.

155 comments Add your comment

ByteMe

February 28th, 2009
8:06 am

The model only works if everyone is charging or you have content that people want (e.g., WSJ Online). Newsday?? Please.

The online advertising model is also going downhill, because there are too many choices for advertising and not enough dollars to go around, so unless you have a very specific niche, you have no chance to make enough money with advertising to satisfy corporate boards.

I like the “pay to consume” model. Every article costs $0.01 to read, which gets rolled up and billed monthly to a credit card. Focus on local articles no one else (e.g., AP wire) is going to cover online for free and you have something that can maybe be sustained in a metro area of 5 million people (+/-).

And, just to talk smack: you shouldn’t try to charge for editorials :-) .

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
8:15 am

I guess that shoots down my idea of being paid to read some of that trash out there.

I Report/ You Whine

February 28th, 2009
8:16 am

The Treason Times tried it and they withered on the vine.

I Report/ You Whine

February 28th, 2009
8:18 am

Hey! That would probably keep the deadbeat low renters like God’s Trash, Supersimp away from here.

I say let’s do it.

Jon

February 28th, 2009
8:34 am

TAXPAYER’s idea is great – except that they probably couldn’t pay me enough to read their nonsense. It’s sad because someday they might actually print something relevant and inportant, and everyone will miss it.

Jon - King of Typos

February 28th, 2009
8:36 am

‘inportant’ ain’t no word – sorry

GodHatesTrash, Superstar

February 28th, 2009
8:41 am

Anyhow, been fun so far this morning.

Catch my act on the last thread. Gotta run, breakfast out with some friends….

Ciao, decent folks and chickenhawks!

DB, Gwinnettian

February 28th, 2009
8:46 am

“Newsday?? Please.”

It’s a pretty decent paper, actually, from what I remember. Maybe it’s declined of late.

I heard something the other day from what RW would call the “fever swamps” I wanted to toss out there.

We could make much, much more net access publicly funded. We could essentially run most of the ISPs out of business, consigning them to the kind of niche currently enjoyed by (say) Canadian or British private health insurance companies. We could make it so that most Americans didn’t fork over 20-40 bucks a month just to tap into the commons via an ISP. Of course they’d pay for it indirectly, but through some other usage fees, taxes and so forth, and like a single payer insurance plan, there’d likely be economy of scale efficiencies brought to bear to lower overall costs.

(yeah, I know, this is crazy stuff. Work with me.)

That’d free up people, psychologically, to spend a bit of money here, a bit of money there, to subscribe to worthy news outlets. They could have an a la carte menu for individual visits (the first five-ten or so could be free, likely, to encourage repeat visits) but like subscribing to a paper or magazine, some would merit a heftier commitment.

Just something to think about. I don’t know that it’s workable. I might need more coffee.

DB, Gwinnettian

February 28th, 2009
8:51 am

“I…whine”, the NYTimes were early adopters. That was like fifty years ago in Internets time.

By the way, every time you call it the “treason times” rational people hear circus clown calliope music playing.

DB, Gwinnettian

February 28th, 2009
8:53 am

Anyone else feel like they need a shower after alighting on the NY Post’s site?

I’ve seen garish and ugly before, but this… wow.

GayGrayGeek

February 28th, 2009
8:57 am

DB, Andy can do nothing but name-call others. And then hypocritically WhineWhineWhine when others return the favor to him.

IOW, it ain’t just a calliope, it’s the whole damned circus parade when Andy posts.

AmVet

February 28th, 2009
9:09 am

GHT, the gadfly and his girlfriend had major league conniption fits last night, didn’t they?

One is an inveterate liar, who absolutely froths at the mouth at the mention of the word, (dare I say it?) chickenhawk. And the other is an equally obsessive and lurking madcap, who wants to duke it out with me!

Both of these Reich-wingers desperately need anger management counseling and are generally nuisances nonpareil.

I read where one of the Anointed Kings of the Regressive Movement, that Harry Potter loving, homophobe, James Dobson, is stepping down as the head of the American Talibaptists – Colorado Chapter.

Talk about your modern day Elmer Gantry.

No wonder the “conservatives” have gotten annihilated the past two elections. And this is just the beginning…

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
9:13 am

Well, the papers and other content providers could work with the ISPs to provide access to their sites and incorporate it into the monthly fee. Do something like DishNetwork. Basic service with certain access and ramp it up from there to the 2000 HDTV channel equivalent for only 199.99 per month.

Eric

February 28th, 2009
9:16 am

you’re already getting advertising revenue and should live within that constraint. i have to pay a cable/internet fee every month and have no additional money to support additional fees. i would not be will to pay for anything extra.

Redneck Convert

February 28th, 2009
9:26 am

Well, I don’t even pay for the cable service I get. All it takes is a splitter and a line you run to your neybor’s box. I for danged sure ain’t going to pay to read the news on my PC. That guy that says they ought to pay us for reading their junk is dead right.

I’m all for Free Innerprize and all that, but charging a person that happens to stumble on your web site is just too much. If the papers want to make a living they ought to print what most people want to read. Like Fox News. Now there’s a place that knows what godly Republicans want to see and hear. We don’t care if it’s the truth. No wonder the AJC is in such trouble. They print stuff we don’t want to see. I won’t even read a piece if it’s got a picture of this Tucker woman or some of the other kind of Those People on account of I know already it’s something I don’t want to see.

That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good day everybody.

AmVet

February 28th, 2009
9:34 am

Personally, I won’t even subscribe to access a web sites information, much less pay for it. Too many other alternatives.

I say let the free market dictate.

If they can pull it off, great. Otherwise the market will self-correct.

Just like Wall Street!

Then they can qualify for a bailout and join the growing list of welfare queens…

Cherokee

February 28th, 2009
9:48 am

My guess is I’m not the first to suggest this, but Redneck Convert should take over Wooten’s spot. Then, I’d go back to reading at least one conservative columnist…

ByteMe

February 28th, 2009
9:50 am

DB: Have you seen this article about wireless internet meshes?

http://www.2000wave.com/article.asp?id=mwo051107&keyword=wireless%20internet%20access

Well worth the read if you’re into seeing what the near future might hold. The technology is definitely viable even if the economics aren’t quite yet.

getalife

February 28th, 2009
9:53 am

I would not read any murdoch’s rags if they paid me.

BDAtlanta

February 28th, 2009
9:55 am

I would pay a subscriber rate. A mag like Esquire isn’t worth the newstand price but I would pay for the subsciption price if they charged for it.

Same with AJC, if I could get a good subscription rate, sure.

Salon, NYTimes, Slate, HuffPost, Mother jones, yeah, I could pay that rate.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
9:56 am

jon

February 28th, 2009
10:01 am

More news from the “change you can believe in” front.

According to today’s AP story, the O’man is nominating Jon Leibowitz as FTC Chairman. Now Mr. Leibowitz may be a fine man, and at least he knows how to properly spell his first name, but I find the final line in the AP report interesting: “Before joining the FTC, Leibowitz was vice president of congressional affairs for the Motion Picture Association of America.”

Sounds like another lobbyist made good.

RW-(the original)

February 28th, 2009
10:26 am

I see the one sided blog rules march on unimpeded around here. Jay B, if you’re going to pull down my response to a bald faced lying accusation made about me just because I used one very mild insult you ought to pull the lie down too, which, by the way, includes the exact same level of insult yet remains on the last thread.

Moreover you’ve let the very same lie be repeated on this thread. Good job!

DB,

Thanks, but I certainly didn’t coin the phrase “fever swamp” and I’m hardly the only one to use it. You didn’t list your source, but the idea certainly sounds like it emanated from the fever swamps.

If I’m following you the government would take over the entirety of our internet access and give it to us for “free” and then charge us for, and monitor, what we read.

God help us!

Bud Wiser

February 28th, 2009
10:29 am

Charging for internet access to your site, if that is the only way to get there, is creative alright – creatively suicidal. Just another way for an alleged news rag to die.

But, as far as Conservatives go, it might be interesting to watch how the moonbats react if their favorite brain foods start charging real money for access.

If Democrat left wingers buy their internet sites with as much largess and agression as they approach charitable giving (see Joe Biden), then the far left media sites are dead already.

Speaking of charitable giving, anyone else notice how Oblama wants to eliminate that as a tax deduction? Talk about helping the poor and needy, I guess this is another ‘change you can believe in’ move; from simply poor into absolute destitution.

Obama – making tough times tougher, while expanding centralist rule. It’s all about creating a whole new depth of power.

Oh, and also notice that now that there is not going to be a Republican in charge of commerce (and census), that the White House has changed its mind (again)about having that report directly to, and coordinate through, them?

Mrs. Godzilla

February 28th, 2009
10:35 am

Morning hugs to all. Special pat on the back and scruffle of the hair to the Republicans!

Newsday? Thanks but no thanks.

We have Coors Field and Citi PArk, why not JCPenney Atlanta Journal?
White sales and local news and information.

As much good clean fun as we have here 24/7 how many of us would be willing to pay $$$ for the privilege of playing whack a mole with the other side on an anonymous local newspaper blog?

Anyway, y’all try and be nice to each other. I’ve got 25 or so stella d’oro lillies that need to be dug up, quartered and moved. Someplace where Joe won’t romp through them chasing butterflys or carpenter bees.

Economic pressure requires that I do more of the heavy lifting in the garden this year. Great excersize for a 200 ton commie pinko socialist lib with a wretched lonely life. Although I may try a little mother pressure one weekend coming up.

ByteMe

February 28th, 2009
10:35 am

Speaking of charitable giving, anyone else notice how Oblama wants to eliminate that as a tax deduction? Talk about helping the poor and needy, I guess this is another ‘change you can believe in’ move; from simply poor into absolute destitution.

Oh no!!! The sky is falling!!

But wait… maybe it’s just a well-placed lie:

In a document outlining his 2010 budget plans, President Obama proposed limiting the value of the tax break for itemized deductions, including donations to charity, to 28 percent for families making more than $250,000. In other words, taxpayers would save 28 cents on their federal income taxes for each dollar donated.

The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!!

@@

February 28th, 2009
10:35 am

There’s no talk that I’m aware of about making such a move at the AJC.

But things ARE gettin’ “hairy” out there, aren’t they jay?

Go ahead…..make my day.

IHB anyway.

If, however, the AJC does opt to charge a fee and continues their blogsites, they’d be wise to reinvest a portion of it into conservative bloggers. It’s been proven time and time again…..first at Luckovich’s, then Wooten’s — where go the AJC’s conservative bloggers, the liberal bloggers follow.

It’d be a “bloggo” fest. Libs are so desperate, they’d pay to play.

Just a suggestion….

Bud Wiser

February 28th, 2009
10:36 am

And carrying over from Friday, I have a couple more dedications:

For Midori -This one’s for you

An Mrs G – For you and Mr G

Enjoy.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
10:46 am

Charitable giving shouldn’t have preconditions such as only if there’s a tax deduction associated with it.

RW-(the original)

February 28th, 2009
10:59 am

Back when Reagan wanted to lower tax rates he negotiated with Congress to eliminate a litany of tax deductions in exchange for lower rates. That seemed to make a lot of sense and for a time simplified the tax code. Now Obama wants to raise the tax rates and eliminate even more deductions. This will certainly simplify the tax code. A one time confiscation of all capital leaving the country destitute. Good luck with that.

AmVet

February 28th, 2009
11:03 am

Ahh, the wackiness. Will this vast left-wing conspiracy against the true patriots and conservatives here never end?

Taxpayer, what a hoot.

I especially enjoyed the part about how the Republiconneds situation is paralleling the DJIA.

Karma.

The week in review:

Jindal’s less than scintillating or weighty response to that uppity one.

Shelby reviving that critical birth certificate issue. Never mind, as the article pointed out that he chaired the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs from 2003 to 2007. (You’re doing a heckuva job Dicky.)

The maverick preoccupied with (Hillary?)copters.

That oh-so naught Vitter vs. that oh-so naughty Stormy.

The aforementioned Dobson has a newly irrelevant toady, Tony Perkins, who is convinced that the party lost power because it was too rational, moderate and accommodating.

Jim “Choke during the pennant race” Bunning who has threatened to sue his own National Republican Senatorial Committee if they do not support his reelection in 2010.

Michael “Hip Hop” Steele implying very bad things for the three “Judases” who didn’t march lockstep to the GOP’s “Party First, Party Last, Party Always” dance – Snowe, Specter and Collins.

Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah also gave us a sense of how low his GOP has sunk, saying of the party’s Congressional leaders: “I don’t listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential — completely.” (Utah has rational Republicans???)

The Larry Craig-like hanger on, Norm Coleman, is still bravely battling Al Franken to be seated in the Senate, but has taken a paid job as a consultant to the Republican Jewish Coalition. Just in case, of course!

Ahhhnuld threatening to ditch the Old White Guy party. (Finally.)

Michele Bachmann. the woman who would be right at home in Nightmares and Dreamscapes, a story written by Richard Bachmann (aka Stephen King).

Tom “What corruption?” Delay, the man who blamed the Columbine shootings on “school systems [teaching] our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup of mud.” and Newt — the middle man in the GOP’s Unholy Trinity — are disappointed in the new president. NO! Really?

And, of course, HeadRush, endlessly tripping over his enormous tongue.

Bud Wiser

February 28th, 2009
11:05 am

Charitable giving shouldn’t have preconditions such as only if there’s a tax deduction associated with it.

This is true, however, the loss of the deduction is essence makes the lack of the donation yet another ‘hidden tax’: instead of giving time, materials and services to organizations, those goods and services will now be sold to the highest bidder, whether it be at a garage sale, consignment, or whatever.

The real losers are the poor and needy who would have benefited, but now segments of the population who once donated these items are now selling them (without reporting the income, probably), to cover taxes that were redirected by the government with the loss of the deductions.

Doesn’t affect me, because I routinely give to the American Kidney Foundation in remembrance of my Grandmother who died from simple kidney failure, and my Father who suffered from kidney problems as well in his later years, and will continue to do so. But other charities will suffer from loss of products and revenues, and it is quite frankly all at the feet this time of the tax-and-spend Democrats who are now in office.

Can’t lay this one on GW Bush, try as you might.

BDAtlanta

February 28th, 2009
11:17 am

Don’t forget to add jindal’s office admitting he completely fabricated the Katrina story he told on Tuesday night. They admitted jindal was 70 miles away, then they admitted the events occured weeks after Katrina hit, then they admitted the Police fellow was on the phone screaming about events that had already occured.

Nice lie, Jindal. Make it up as you go along.

BDAtlanta

February 28th, 2009
11:21 am

Can any GOP leaders tell the truth about anything? WE got BushCo with their endless lies. Now we get jindal who can’t even tell a story without refabricating all the events of the story.

jeez. I guess they see you are all so used to getting lied to by your conservative leaders on the talk radio stations.

And don’t tell me Rush isn’t your leader as of right now. He is giving the key note address on the last day of the CPAC conference in Washington and will be drawing the largest crowd of the whole week. Don’t even try to beat that horse any more.

Heil Limbaugh! Heil Limbaugh!

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
11:24 am

We have been giving to charities for more years than I can remember and we have not been claiming any deduction. The various organizations, groups, etc., that we give to always offer the receipt and we always turn it down. Besides, if you look at the IRS requirements, they have really started to crack down on this because many people were just dumping their trash on these organizations and claiming writeoffs that would make one think that it was a brand new, in the box item. And, yes, I also remember the infamous Bill Clinton writeoffs for his underwear. If people are going to be charitable then they should just be charitable.

jon

February 28th, 2009
11:28 am

The Dems don’t like charitable giving unless it’s “tainted” money that they want to get rid of when they get caught with it.

_______________

AP 1/30/08

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama is giving to charity more than $70,000 in contributions linked to an indicted Chicago businessman whose past connections to the Democratic presidential candidate have created a distraction and raised questions about his judgment.
______________________________

Most Dems would prefer that the government take money from others and give it to the needy. That way votes can be bought and it’s easy to be generous with other peoples’ money.

Sam

February 28th, 2009
11:31 am

From the Treason (NY) Times:

“Yet, in drawing up the budget, the White House assumed the economy would expand by a robust 3.2 percent in 2010, with growth accelerating to 4 percent over the next three years.

“It’s a hope, a wing and a prayer,” Mr. Sinai said. “It’s a return to a sanguine view of the economy that is simply not justified.”

If, as is widely anticipated, the economy grows more slowly than the White House assumes, revenue will be lower, forcing the government to cut spending, raise taxes or run larger deficits.”

In 2012, Pres Barry won’t be able to hang this around GWB neck…the government-schooled American public’s attention span is too short. They’ll be calling for his head on a platter. BTW, hope you enjoyed he enjoyed the Bulls game….shouldn’t he be doing something constructive like finding ways to raise more taxes?

ByteMe

February 28th, 2009
11:33 am

however, the loss of the deduction is essence makes the lack of the donation yet another ‘hidden tax’: instead of giving time, materials and services to organizations, those goods and services will now be sold to the highest bidder, whether it be at a garage sale, consignment, or whatever.

Bud, that’s more lies on top of lies.

Where to start…

Ok, the big lie: the deduction is not going away. Just like the “Fairness Doctrine”, you’re getting your panties in a wad over something that just isn’t going to happen. It’s not in the plan. If you find it in the plan, please provide a link to the particular section of the plan as documented. Until then: find something else to lie about.

And then the little lie: You can’t deduct the value of your personal services rendered, just tangible assets (cash, stuff). IRS is real clear on this. Corporations can do a little paper trail to make this happen, but that’s not a personal charitable deduction. Not sure there’s anything in the plan about corporate deductions at this point.

Gotta get back to my real work. Enjoy the day!

AmVet

February 28th, 2009
11:37 am

I’ve looked at the new budget numbers and I don’t know why you neo-cons are so mad at the uppity one.

He’s increased the DoD’s budget by over $20,000,000,000 from last year. Tell me you’re not stoked about that! And $200,000,000,000 more (at least) for the Dual Quagmires in the next two years. Now, that’s GOTTA warm the cockles of your hearts! Quickly approaching $1,000,000,000,000.00 (Where is that damned Iraqi oil revenue when we need it, Mr. Cheney?)

It also supports so-called “clean coal” – Carbon Capture and Storage technology. Nice. Non-military expenditures thrown down a hole. Literally.

He’s upped agri-welfare by another $1,4000,000,000.

The budget also boosts funding for “food safety inspection and assessment and the ability to determine food safety risks.” But curiously the amount is not specified.

As is the case with funding for more prosecutors and agents to combat financial fraud. I hope it’s more than a few thousand dollars and a couple of laid off hedge fund managers turned “clean”.

The bottom line? I have no earthly idea if this “package” is a good idea or not. Exceptionally complex and complicated, I doubt anyone really knows.

I keep waiting for that superior alternative offered by the “loyal opposition”. But where the hell is it? Can one of you “conservatives” point me in the right direction here?

RB from Gwinnett

February 28th, 2009
11:43 am

Jay, It would be wise of the AJC to figure out how to produce a product it’s customer base is willing to pay for REGARDLESS of the format. Your paying customers are leaving you faster than you can cut costs, Jay.

Here’s an intersting thought for you. One of the main reasons liberal talk radio doesn’t work is the format depends mostly on local small business advertising to survive. Most small business owners are not liberal and won’t give them money to spout anti capitalist rhetoric. When newspapers actually attempted to provide balanced coverage, the local advertisers who make the local paper format work would support them. Those days are passing. When you spout liberal crap and biased coverage disguised as news on internet, Jay, they won’t support that either.

No charge for the advice, Jay.

RW-(the original)

February 28th, 2009
12:09 pm

I keep waiting for that superior alternative offered by the “loyal opposition”. But where the hell is it? Can one of you “conservatives” point me in the right direction here?

You’re reading from a budget outline. The full budget won’t be submitted to Congress for more than a month and debate will begin in the weeks and months after. It’s kind of silly to be demanding full counter proposals today.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
12:13 pm

My all seeing future vision predicts that they’ll just say no.

AmVet

February 28th, 2009
12:21 pm

So if I read correctly, tweaking “porkulus” slightly in one direction or the other is the superior alternative?

Man, oh man, oh man, oh man.

I thought they might propose something fundamentally different altogether. Something quite different from taxing and spending as Rep/Dem business as usual. Some well-thought out, expertly crafted legislation to stem the nation’s bleeding. These are extraordinary circumstances, no? Don’t they require extraordinary ideas and efforts?

At least from what I’ve read, Obama’s efforts fit that description. Supposedly.

No real ideas combined with armchair quarterbacking and endless bellyaching, continue to pass as effective governance in the Grand Old Pasty Party.

RW-(the original)

February 28th, 2009
12:26 pm

mavet,

You should really make up your mind whether you’re talking about the stimulus bill that was signed into law or the budget outline numbers you referenced above, provided you know the difference.

RW-(the original)

February 28th, 2009
1:08 pm

The way this blog is working today 5¢ would be a serious overcharge.

Later!

I Report/ You Whine

February 28th, 2009
1:27 pm

The American Bankers Association has a message for the president: Stop talking trash about banks.

Hehehehe, trash, they called it.

You can fool a dimwit liberal with your BS but apparently the adults are falling for it.

Mark

February 28th, 2009
1:49 pm

I would pay $5 dollars to get Jay Bookman’s ugly left-wing smug face off of this blog.

CommunistAJC

February 28th, 2009
1:58 pm

This just breaks my whittle heart! All those poor whittle journalist are going to be out of a job soon.

Newspaper convention canceled amid industry woes

An annual convention of newspaper editors has been canceled for the first time since World War II, undone by the worst economic crisis since that harrowing era.

The American Society of Newspapers Editors’ decision to skip this year’s meeting was announced Friday, coinciding with the final edition of the Rocky Mountain News—the largest daily U.S. newspaper to shut down so far during a steep two-year slide in advertising revenue that’s draining the life out of the industry.

“The industry is in crisis,” said Charlotte Hall, president of the trade group and editor of the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel. “This is a time when editors need to be in their own news rooms doing everything they can,” to help their publications survive.

Until now, 1945 had been the only year that the American Society of Newspaper Editors didn’t meet since the group’s first convention in 1923. The newspaper industry weathered through 10 U.S. recessions since the last cancellation.

If it hadn’t been canceled, this year’s convention—scheduled from April 26-29 in Chicago—probably would have attracted a sparse crowd because so many newspapers are pinching pennies to ease their financial pain.

Newspaper staffs have been gutted, stock dividends have been suspended and, in the most extreme circumstances, bankruptcy petitions have been filed as more readers get their news for free from the Internet and advertisers curtail their spending on the print medium amid the recession.

Canceling the convention will likely result in some penalties to compensate the host hotel, the Fairmont in Chicago. The newspaper group is still negotiating with the hotel, Hall said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96K7GD82&show_article=1

I Report/ You Whine

February 28th, 2009
2:00 pm

Will the 50,000 troops he intends to leave in Iraq, the trainers and maintainers, be forbidden to defend themselves? Are they just going to hang out? If terrorists or the Iranians skunk us, are we just going to ask for more?

The fundamental purpose of the speech was to hide the 50,000 residual troops in plain sight: “It’s OK, see? They’re not combat troops.” Obama’s scared as a naked sheriff at a moonshiners’ convention.-NY Post

Trash talk, indeed.

Now back it up, bozo.

CommunistAJC

February 28th, 2009
2:01 pm

Do any of you idiot lefties on this blog understand that Obama is trying to kill Capitalism? Yeah, that means EVERYONE will end up unemployed. Nice job libs.

Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More.

Posted By: Larry Kudlow

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
2:02 pm

Jay,

Put up a picture of Palin and rename your blog something that Rush would approve of and you could get away with stating that you’re for abortion and the Iraq war was for oil, for example, and never hear a negative reply from the right wing fringe. Why is that. <–Notice the lack of a question mark. Further, you could probably charge your new loyal following whatever you wanted.

CommunistAJC

February 28th, 2009
2:03 pm

OBAMA’S PHONY PULLOUT

REAL IRAQ PLAN: STAY IN & WIN

YESTERDAY, President Obama went to Camp Lejeune. He spoke in front of US Marines, but his real audience was his left-wing campaign supporters.

And his carefully worded speech – its parsing of language worthy of Bill Clinton – may go down in history as his “Mission Accomplished” moment. We’ll see who leaves Iraq when.

During last year’s presidential campaign, it was evident that Obama wouldn’t keep his promises to his leftist base to pull our troops out rapidly.

While he benefited greatly from the troop surge he opposed – which handed him a convalescent Iraq – he’s learning that reality trumps rhetoric.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02282009/news/columnists/obamas_phony_pullout_157314.htm

Mike

February 28th, 2009
2:05 pm

I am just going to post to push AmVet’s frothing button.

Ready and….push

Let the name calling begin

Dave R

February 28th, 2009
2:18 pm

RW, the whole darned newspaper isn’t worth 5 cents, let alone this blog. Heck – Taxpayer, Chad Harris and AmVet OWE us money every time their fingers get near the keyboard just for wasting our time.

Mike

February 28th, 2009
2:19 pm

Oh yeah: AmVet is a chickenhawk.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
2:21 pm

Tick Tock Tick Tock.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
2:29 pm

Jay,

Offer a Sarah Palin hunting calendar with each online subscription.

RW-(the original)

February 28th, 2009
2:39 pm

Ah yes, the hopeandchange amateur hour continues.

Obama’s Chief Vetter Has His Own Tax Problem

A spokesman at the Washington D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs told Gawker that no one has ever sought any kind of permit or registration for a business under the name of Noyes Graphics or at the Craigs’ home address. By not registering Craig may have avoided local business taxes.

Greg Craig took over the vetting because of all the other tax cheats getting through the old vetting process.

Dusty

February 28th, 2009
3:34 pm

Dear Bookman,

How about a reverse of the free flyer program? Anybody posting more than ten times during every 12 hour period would have to pay to post. That might cool some of the constant culprits here who think their every thought is entertaining 24/7.

But, as Obama has not learned, taking money away from people (like his tax programs) does not attract admirers. Pay to read only won’t work either. Everybody would be reading and no one would be posting.

Since the blogs have lost any claim to more than common knowledge, go ahead and charge. I, like the majority of readers, would not miss this mendacious exchange of political and personal insults and name-calling.

Bud Wiser

February 28th, 2009
3:47 pm

Yeah, all I hear from you left wing idiots/cheapskates are reasons why you do not apparently like to be charitable, by attacking me when I point out the reasons your lordship the Messiah wants to attack Republicans in any and every way possible, right down to denying his people what they may need because the benefits of receiving hope and help to continue on may have been donated by a Conservative; after all, Oblahma apparently is into eliminating each and every conceivable potential ‘tax break’, particularly if it was started by the GOP.

Go on and follow the Messiah’s little pet dogs (Biden) example, and be as cheap as a Salvation Army donated rag, it is after all what you do best, and that is follow.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
3:58 pm

Under the plan announced in Obama’s budget on Thursday, deductions on charitable contributions for people earning $250,000 a year or more would be limited to 28 percent, down from the current 35 percent.

Oh, the pain. So many children must die now because the charitable contributions would be cut. Of course, these rich, caring people could just make up the difference out of the kindness of their cold black hearts. Better yet, just throw that old used underwear in the trash instead of taking a deduction for it. That’s the ticket. Show everyone that you’re better than Bill.

Chad Harris

February 28th, 2009
4:00 pm

NYT started requiring a subscription for access to a lot of their columnists and features about 3 years ago. they stopped several months ago when their accounting dept. pointed out that they could make more money charging advertisers based on hits to these columnists if they made everything free.

And they make money for charging newspapers who have bought out all of their staff who was formerly reporting national and international news and become a local newspaper importing national and international from wire reports and NYT and WaPo often several days after they’ve been oririginally published (and closed their Washington Bureau because Jaw Jaws are too stupid to understand Washington stuff).

Billy Bob Jindal Admits lying in his crash and burn speedh–no surprise there</strong

Judd the Gregg alledged to have steered earmarks to investment

Bud Wiser

February 28th, 2009
4:12 pm

That soak the evil rich crap is so old and worn out, kind of like you, Taxtaker. Nothing you could ever say could possibly be of interest to anyone with a functioning brain, because your dribble borders on incoherence.

If you could just for once recognize something for what it is, perhaps you might find life out from under the rock much more interesting.

Go back to your Daily PoS or Huffington POS, and inflate your head with something else other than compressed air.

A little time away from the keyboard might not hurt either, because as I have said many many times before to people like you: “Why open your mouth and confirm to everyone just how stupid you really are, instead of just remaining silent and letting them guess?”

I Report/ You Whine

February 28th, 2009
4:15 pm

My goodness, this oughta burn you liberals right up-

“We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime — and you got the job done. -Oblahmi

Mission Accomplished, eh?

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha, oww!

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
4:17 pm

Jay,

Have you considered marketing your paper in areas where people can afford the subscription cost as well as enjoy the content. Where the $200,000+ Crowd Lives Well, you may have to talk about things outside the state of Georgia a little more often in order to keep their attention.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
4:18 pm

Thanks for your interest, Bud. HAHAHAHA

I Report/ You Whine

February 28th, 2009
4:22 pm

Taxie: I know you and Oblahmi have no idea about charitable giving, so allow me to clue you in. You don’t get back all of what you write off, only a small percentage of it.

But go ahead on, have at it, cut people’s charitable giving of their choice so that the democrats can lavishly fund ACORN, abortion and their other assorted pervert groups.

It will go over well with voters, sure will.

I Report/ You Whine

February 28th, 2009
4:25 pm

But if there’s one thing those attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference this week agree on, it is this: They don’t want another George W. Bush.-Politico

Amen.

I told you we would solve our problems.

Banish the aisle reachers, ew.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
4:34 pm

Why don’t you guys read a little more before you jump to your “conclusions”.

But while many charitable-giving experts expressed alarm about how reduced rate for charitable deductions would affect giving by wealthy Americans, others say that Mr. Obama’s proposal may be less cause for concern than it initially appeared.

The reason: Many wealthy Americans who would otherwise be in the 33- or 35-percent tax bracket — and thus able to take that same percentage deduction for their charitable gifts — have used mortgage payments and other deductions to qualify for the alternative minimum tax rate of 28 percent, says Robert F. Sharpe, a Memphis planned-giving consultant.

By paying the alternative minimum tax rate of 28 percent, those wealthy taxpayers are already restricted to the same percentage on their charitable deductions, Mr. Sharpe says. “A lot of the rich are already used to the 28-percent deduction,” which means the Obama proposal would not result in any change for them.

I Report/ You Whine

February 28th, 2009
5:24 pm

They destroy people’s futures.- Rush Limbaugh, CPAC

Guess who “they” are.

Ms. Josephine

February 28th, 2009
5:33 pm

I Report/ You Whine
February 28th, 2009
4:15 pm
We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime — and you got the job done. -Oblahmi
Mission Accomplished, eh?

And we are still there????? Why??????

Dave R

February 28th, 2009
5:43 pm

But remember, Taxpayer isn’t willing to help out his GOVERNMENT when they are down on their luck. He just prefers you an me to pony up OUR money.

It’s so much easier to take from someone else by force, rather than do the right thing voluntarily yourself, isn’t it, Taxpayer?

Bud Wiser

February 28th, 2009
6:05 pm

The idiot left is so self absorbed in their own hatred that charitable giving, just for the sake of giving and helping, is beyond their comprehension.

It is the easy Democrat way to take money from those who have, to give to those who have not (as long as it is not your own money, right Mr Geithner, Mr Daschle, etc., etc.), then call it your own ‘charitable’ giving. Then have fools like Taxpayer chide others, while never even uttering a single breath about his own concepts, because he probably has none, but to trash out everyone else.

So typically stupid.

So vapid.

So Taxpayer…..a clever choice of name however, seeing as how you use in it the sense of everyone else but yourself.

Right out of the left wing playbook.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
6:11 pm

By the way, did I mention this:

But the [Obama] proposals will not necessarily change giving patterns, says Giving Institute, an association of consultants in Glenview, Ill., and its research arm, Giving USA Foundation.

They noted in a statement that 53 percent of high-net-worth donors surveyed in a 2006 study for Bank of America said their giving would stay the same, or even increase, if the tax deduction for charitable gifts fell to zero.

Giving Institute members have found that “the most important factor in how much people give is how committed they are to the purpose of the request,” the statement said. Furthermore, giving will increase when wealth is created and “if the president’s plan generates more wealth for Americans then giving will go up.”

Now, you kids try not to let the truth interfere with the fantasy lands that you created for yourselves.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
6:15 pm

And, don’t worry. According to IRS Publican 526, those Palin approved end times churches still qualify for the 50% rule — probably all the way ’til their end time.

@@

February 28th, 2009
6:18 pm

Taxpayer:

There are even democrats who are questioning Obama’s cap on charitable giving.

I do so enjoy it when that happens.

There are a lot of “disenfranchised” people out there who “depend on the kindness of strangers.” How are they gonna feel when the giving dries up?

Remember Katrina…..victims of the tsunami in Indonesia? There was some serious giving done in the name of charitable organizations, large corporations and churches. They donated employee’s time, goods, services…..long term too. Still doing it down in New Orleans and parts of Louisiana. They succeeded where the bureaucrats failed.

The corporations did it partly because it was the right thing to do and partly because their customers expected them to. Had they not, they’d have heard about it. Their business would have suffered. They deserve the deductions at the old rate.

The government doesn’t need to worry about it. It’s not their money. Votes come cheap.

Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years.

“Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track,” said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it’s impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear – less philanthropic giving.

Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.

“Contained in the recovery act, there’s $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty,” he said.

I’m guessing that $100M will go to ACORN and Planned Parenthood, compliments of the American taxpayer.

So in other words, Taxpayer, Obama gave away your money. He got to pick the charities and you don’t even get to claim it. Heck! you, your children (if you have any) and their children will be paying interest on your charitable giving if what you say is true…..if you do, in fact, give anything other than liberal lip service.

Doesn’t get any better than that now, does it, Taxpayer? /sarc/

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
6:30 pm

getalife

February 28th, 2009
6:31 pm

rush was a clown.

Which was more embarrassing for the gop?

CPAC or the tea parties.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
6:35 pm

And, let’s not forget Katrina. After all Jindal was right there in the heart of it all. What! Say that again! He LIED. He wasn’t REALLY there! You don’t say. You DO SAY.

DB, Gwinnettian

February 28th, 2009
6:47 pm

“Which was more embarrassing for the gop?
CPAC or the tea parties.”

What’s wrong with grown men who are into teabagging? homophobe!

(slaps own wrist)

Mrs. Godzilla

February 28th, 2009
6:48 pm

Just heard Rush Limbaugh. He did the cause no good.

Is he more Big Daddy Pollitt or Bluto?

The thrilled masses at CPAC just don’t have this:

http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/barack-speaks-to-100000.jpg

…oh and Bud…thanks for the dedication.

here’s one for you:

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

that man’s silk suits…..oh my.

Saturday night …have a cold one and hug a Republican.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
6:49 pm

Hello DB. Now that you’re here, give me your assessment of today’s close encounters. Have I been a good boy.

@@

February 28th, 2009
6:52 pm

Taxpayer:

Much ado about nothing unless you consider your rapid farts a lingering hurricane.

Trivialities “R” You!

DB, Gwinnettian

February 28th, 2009
6:56 pm

way upthread RW replied to meme:

Thanks, but I certainly didn’t coin the phrase “fever swamp” and I’m hardly the only one to use it. You didn’t list your source, but the idea certainly sounds like it emanated from the fever swamps.

I know RW didn’t invent the term–he’s just the only one I hear here using it, is all.

For the record, it’s not that I was embarrassed by the source, it’s just that it was obscure–it was someone who IM’d Sam Seder during his “Break Room Live” internet show the other day, with the idea. I just didn’t feel like explaining it.

If I’m following you the government would take over the entirety of our internet access and give it to us for “free” and then charge us for, and monitor, what we read.

Two things.

1) I get a little tired of conservatives mischaracterising the way some things have been proposed like, say, single-payer health insurance as “free.” I don’t know of any reputable analyst from the center to the left who’s called it “free”–obviously healthcare providers need to be paid, and if it’s a publicly funded insurance, then we all pay into it through our taxes, and likely we’d have to pay monthly premiums of some sort as well. (end of that rant)

2) My post put out an admittedly halfbaked idea. I was just saying that if there were more publicly funded internet services available, psychologically, people might feel a little less resistent to pay a bit for accessing some news services. Key word being “might.”

Beyond this, today I was listening to an NPR “On the media” interview this week with the guy who wrote What would google do, Jeff Jarvis. He thinks it’s inevitable that whatever business model the media corps think they will have to work with today won’t exist just a few years out.

Which is another way of me saying I’ve no idea where this is all leading. But that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, and independent investigative reporting, should we continue to want it done, will have to be funded by someone.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
6:56 pm

Rumor has it that Rush is preparing to battle it out with a 13-year old for control of the new Republican party. Cookies and grape flavor-aid will be served at the pre-game show.

DB, Gwinnettian

February 28th, 2009
6:58 pm

Taxpayer, I’ve barely skimmed this thread, I don’t really have an opinion on your behavior today. I saw where c’ajc had posted some typically shrill, stupid stuff and scrolled on.

Do I really have to read it? er… I’ll just say you’ve been fine, here’s a biscuit.

Bud Wiser

February 28th, 2009
7:01 pm

Robert Palmer, the ‘Best Dressed Man in Show Business’, I believe was conferred upon him by someone at the Grammys, shortly after his sudden and tragic death.

Thank you Mrs G., I never tire listening to him, and watching and listening to this………

Yes, I am a baaaaaad boy.

DB, Gwinnettian

February 28th, 2009
7:01 pm

“probably all the way ’til their end time.”

Reminds me–did anyone see the End Times authors on Rachel Maddow’s show last night?

I’m not sure what surprised me more–that they agreed to appear, or how congenial it all was. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by the latter, since Rachel is almost always incredibly gracious to those of the conservative persuation who deign to appear. But still, the rather clinical way she went about establishing from these guys that Barack Obama, fer sure, really is NOT the AntiChrist… that was a little out-of-this-world-y.

I Report/ You Whine

February 28th, 2009
7:01 pm

Oh, duh wibs didn’t wike wush, well, boo hoo hoo.

Let me see if I can well up a tear for y’all.

Uh, nope.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
7:03 pm

RW-(the original)

February 28th, 2009
7:03 pm

DB,

You could have spared me the theatrics about “free” and just said I had capsulized your outline properly with the exception that the “rich” would have even more wealth confiscated so the “unfortunate” could have “free for them, but not for achievers” internet access. Presumably they would then purchase news content, except I’m pretty sure someone would go back to the less fortunate card and make the “rich” pony up for the “free for them, but not the achievers” news content.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
7:05 pm

Darn those Republicans and their philosophy of “We don’t need no steenking regulations”. Peanut butter recall bites smaller businesses Now, all those small businesses will be lucky to even survive, much less make a charitable contribution.

RW-(the original)

February 28th, 2009
7:06 pm

Just heard Rush Limbaugh. He did the cause no good.

Because the cause of freedom and liberty is just so darned antiquated. Right, Mrs, G?

DB, Gwinnettian

February 28th, 2009
7:12 pm

Well yes, RW @ 7.03, I could do all that, but then I wouldn’t be me.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
7:16 pm

In round one of Rush versus the 13-year old, Rush lands a real doozy,

At his closing speech at the CPAC conference, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh doubled down on his widely-controversial claim that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail, insisting that he meant what he said, and chastising those who were critical of him. “This notion that I want the president to fail, this shows you the problem we’ve got. This is nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it?

That’s going to be a tough one for the 13-year old boy to beat but I think he can take him.

DB, Gwinnettian

February 28th, 2009
7:18 pm

Taxpayer, that article you linked @ 7.05 reminds me of something I’d been meaning to mention.

I really feel bad whenever events overtake innocent businesses like those cookie-dough sellers stuck with a ton of unusable peanut butter and horrible sales. Honestly, even though I don’t care all that much for peanut butter, it makes me want to go out and stock up on some, along with some products with peanut butter filling, just because.

@@

February 28th, 2009
7:21 pm

Bud Wiser

February 28th, 2009
7:26 pm

On a lighter note, I suppose everyone has heard about the auctions going on downtown for all of the condos. I would have bought a couple and held them, because real estate always used to be a pretty good investment.

But with the ‘new wave’ of Obamaniacs on the ‘buy’ list now, thinking they’ll eventually get them for free, it suddenly did not look so attractive after all.

Plus, these little nuggets, provided by AJC:

Participants are required to register and bring a cashier’s check to enter the auction rooms.

“It’s certainly going to be difficult for some owners to justify paying a mortgage for a property that’s worth 40 percent to 50 percent less than what they paid, especially if that loss is worsened because of a developer-sponsored auction,” said Element resident Vashon Brand.

The Element auction begins at 1 p.m. at the W Hotel-Atlanta Downtown. On Sunday, 35 units at the Sterling of Dunwoody will be auctioned, beginning at 2 p.m. at the W Hotel-Perimeter Atlanta.

Now if that’s not an open ended engraved invitation for every punk with a gun in Atlanta to stand out on the sidewalks and score a big cashiers check, I don’t know what is.

That you, AJC, you probably just cut the potential investors in attendance by 85-90%, thus fulfilling your liberal duties to see that the economy continues to slide, and Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc., will be there to rearrange the pieces.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
7:26 pm

DB,

People are scared to buy anything containing peanut butter and who can blame them. It’s no different than melamine-laced milk. We cannot afford to operate like this. People need to have faith that businesses are not just out to make a buck no matter the cost. They don’t and rightfully so. On a side note, during the last trip we made to the local grocer, I picked up a jar of peanut butter. Did I ever get a weird look from the cashier.

Taxpayer

February 28th, 2009
7:31 pm

Jindal Admits Katrina Story Was False Really! Well, who would have ever thought that.