Uhhmm, mine was a joke. I should have put that in the header I guess.
The Stimulus Package
- Thread starter sanjuro
- Start date
I lol'ed.
Republicans want HUGE tax break:
My math might be a little fuzzy, but if you reduce the taxes on the first 16,700 by 5% ($800), and reduce the taxes on the next $50,000 by %5 ($2500), that's a $3300 tax break for all couples with an AGI of $67k or more. Yikes! That's a fair shake better than the Democrats are proposing...
Holy carp! That would be enough money for me to dump on a big screen TV to benefit the economy of China! Sweet!
as krugman notes on his blog (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/bipartisan-bromides/) the republicans seem blinded to anything but tax breaks.
So this is the thing that absolutely KILLS me about the current situation. I respect Krugman, and I also respect a lot of other economists that are advocating 100% opposite. Do I think that tax cuts are the magical elixir to fix what's wrong? Nope. Do I think that spending money for the sake of spending money (additional money for the arts, for example, something that is not going to either save us or make us money in the long run) is a worthwhile stimulus? Nope.
There are some (very minor) points that I agree with from each side. Yes, providing money to Americans will generate either savings (recapitalizing banks) or sales (providing some financial benefit to other Americans). Yes, focusing stimulus spending on things that will save us money (making federal buildings "green" and using less energy) or make us money (insuring lending to individuals for mortgages) will not only employ Americans now, but will be fiscally responsible going forward.
Unfortunately, Republicans are obsessed with tax breaks for corporations (can only make them more profitable, not necessarily encouraging them to not lay off people) and Democrats are obsessed with pet projects as a transfer of wealth, not in long-term sustainability. Can't we just have a nice, simple package of cutting taxes, investing in infrastructure and long-term energy savings, and drastic cuts in our military spending to bring the cost down to the Clinton levels? You could probably save $300-400b / year by exiting Iraq/Afghanistan and cutting military spending...
I don't see it happening, but I can dream, can't I?
I hate to say it, but corporate tax cuts will likely be the best way to slow job loss in the short term. When businesses run low on cash they start tossing everything overboard to stay above water. Staff is the #1 cost of most businesses. Put more money in their pockets and they can retain employees, re-tool, boost marketing etc. All of which benefits the greater economy. Most businesses aren't focused on padding profits right now, they're thinking about survival and you can't do that without your labor.
Commercial lending has evaporated for even the best companies. I applied for a business line of credit from a local bank I do tons of business with. They wanted me to jump through more hoops than a circus dog. Fortunately I had the pockets to self-fund instead but the banks seem to have forgotten why they exist.
This economy can't be weaned off consumerism overnight so we need to maximize disposable income. People are going to save themselves out of a job if they're not careful.
Commercial lending has evaporated for even the best companies. I applied for a business line of credit from a local bank I do tons of business with. They wanted me to jump through more hoops than a circus dog. Fortunately I had the pockets to self-fund instead but the banks seem to have forgotten why they exist.
This economy can't be weaned off consumerism overnight so we need to maximize disposable income. People are going to save themselves out of a job if they're not careful.
They *can*, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will. If you own a store and are currently employing 10 people, but business has dwindled so that you only really need to have 5 around, are you going to keep the full 10 to sit around doing nothing just because you got a corporate tax break and can afford to do so? Or are you going to cut back to the 5 employees that you need, and bank the cash for when the economy turns around and you need to purchase more inventory or hire more people?
Most companies, including the ones that are cutting back employees, are profitable. They're making making money (positive EPS) vs losing money (negative EPS). SBUX, making money and cutting back employees. CAT, making money (and still paying a dividend), cutting back employees. HD, making money, paying a dividend, and cutting employees. A corporate tax cut will just make it easier for corporations to do what they were going to do anyway.
I'd rather risk abuse of the tax cuts with the potential benefit of strengthening our existing businesses. Hoping that we can create new employment opportunities out of thin air while funding social change programs unrelated to boosting the economy is a waste of money IMO.
It's not the time to be pushing a social agenda as part of fixing the economy. Really, it's the same concept W & Co used after 9/11 to can the constitution and invade iraq only this time the message is HOPE/CHANGE instead of FEAR.
It's not the time to be pushing a social agenda as part of fixing the economy. Really, it's the same concept W & Co used after 9/11 to can the constitution and invade iraq only this time the message is HOPE/CHANGE instead of FEAR.
The lack of social programs is inevitably linked to this crisis. The lack of good social programs is part of the deeply hurt economy. This crisis didn't start in 1999, 2007, or before, it started in the 70s when wages started stalling. Women entered the workforce, people started relying on credit, working longer hours, and families went into debt. This scheme would have worked if housing prices didn't collapse, but now we are going to have to fix the original problem from the 70s.
We need to fix the rotten structure now, implement UHC, fix roads and bridges, and go greener. The economy will not fully recover unless the underlying problems are met.
We need to fix the rotten structure now, implement UHC, fix roads and bridges, and go greener. The economy will not fully recover unless the underlying problems are met.
IMO, other than agreeing about the last paragraph, this is a stretch.
The social ills O wants to address are all things I can get 100% behind and am willing to make sacrifices for. I just don't think they are the immediate solution or priority at this moment.
and here's your analysis/decomposition:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/01/best-anti-stimulus-argument-from-kevin-murphy.html
Absolutely wrong. Dante is correct in his assessment and here's the reason why:
Employees are a companies' capacity, and the companies match that capacity to demand. Harsh times give them a good excuse to cut capacity, and why wouldn't they if the demand isn't there.
The goal is to create demand and corporate tax cuts are possibly the worst medicine to help the situation. Individual tax cuts will produce some of that demand, and government spending will produce the most... it's just that you can't spend your way out of the crisis without having to pay back that debt in the future.
somewhere there's gotta be a headline like this, right?
Republicans object to size of Obama's package
Republicans object to size of Obama's package
Nicely done. Why stop there?
Republicans choke on size of Obama's package
Obama's outsize package forced onto Republicans
My experience says otherwise but that's admittedly a limited view.
I'm in the construction industry, which is getting hammered with slowdowns and layoff. The market is flooded with available labor (both pro and recently unemployed from outside the trades getting their Handyman on; check your local craigslist) and there is seriously truncated demand for services.
We grew last year for one single reason: Investment in marketing.
I have 2 highly efficient crews that have been with me for 5+ years. In great years they can meet my sales capacity when we're both going balls out (I sell, product manage and they produce). We didn't have a single day without work in 08, weather permitting.
The last thing I want to do is lose these guys. Not only are there 14 mouths I really don't want haunting my sleep, these guys make me (and themselves) good money.
When things went pear shaped last year I poured $ into marketing and grew at a time when many, many others were seriously hurting. Capacity was my motivation for increasing spending and my reward for taking the chance.
There is a lot of opportunity in the marketplace. IMO, forward thinking companies would take a tax cut and try and capitalize on the fragmented market. That money has the potential to create many times it's stagnant/hoarded value.
I feel you here and I imagine there are countless small businesses that are on the same page. When you've got 10-50 people that you hand-picked, it's unlikely any of them are duds and you know them all personally.
But for a medium and large size business, there is ALWAYS a bottom 5% that can be cut without any effect on overall productivity (sometimes even an increase). And if demand is down, it makes sense to make additional cuts to stay in the black. This can definitely hurt morale, but in a down economy the remaining 95% tend to be more forgiving.
Case in point, my firm just cut 5%. We were profitable last quarter. We're projected to be profitable this next one. But demand is down, and it's a bit of preventative medicine in case times get worse.
to booku?
thanks Katie Couric:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl238
$6.2 billion for home weatherization
- $50 million for port modernization and water and wastewater infrastructure needs in Guam
-$100 million for children to learn green construction
- $198 million for U.S. military benefits for Filipinos who fought for the U.S. during WWII
- $75 million for "smoking cessation activities"
- $87 million for the "design of a new polar icebreaker"
- $335 million for HIV/STD screening
- $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees
-$800 million for AMTRAK
i hate politics and the people that are part of it.
$335m for STD screening... really? $100m to teach kids about "green construstion"? you people suck
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl238
$6.2 billion for home weatherization
- $50 million for port modernization and water and wastewater infrastructure needs in Guam
-$100 million for children to learn green construction
- $198 million for U.S. military benefits for Filipinos who fought for the U.S. during WWII
- $75 million for "smoking cessation activities"
- $87 million for the "design of a new polar icebreaker"
- $335 million for HIV/STD screening
- $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees
-$800 million for AMTRAK
i hate politics and the people that are part of it.
$335m for STD screening... really? $100m to teach kids about "green construstion"? you people suck
Last edited:
a polar icebreaker is more important than cops.
duh
yeah, but thats $6.2b of awsomeness, that delivers 90 planes to kick ass and not take names.
we aint fightin a war in Antarctica or the North Pole.
id rather them build another B2 to replace the $1.2b one that crashed in Guam, than build a ice breaker...
Last edited:
Well you can invest $6.2 billion tax dollars in better ways to kill brown people, or you can provide everyone in the country with free university and health care.
Last edited:
$6.2b isnt going to give people a free college education and free health care.
plus the USS H.W.Bush will be the last of the crazy priced Nimitz class carriers...and it was built during during W's reign as warlord...im sure Obama's reign wont let that happen.
and it wasnt built to just kill "brown people".....dont forget about the slanty eyed N. Koreans
plus the USS H.W.Bush will be the last of the crazy priced Nimitz class carriers...and it was built during during W's reign as warlord...im sure Obama's reign wont let that happen.
and it wasnt built to just kill "brown people".....dont forget about the slanty eyed N. Koreans
Yes, yes you can.
What I meant was that all the money we could ever need to better our citizens exists inside of the defense budget.
Of course Obama is going to continue building warships.
c'mon, now, you know better than that: you think saddam had the mass graves made from hand shovels? do you know nothing about what makes up the defense industry? it's military. it's industrial. above all, it's complex.
don't question or try to understand the complex
don't question or try to understand the complex
What is good for Northrop Grumman is good for me and you.
our taxes probably help pay for that mug. it better be a insulated mug for christs sake
Will one of you 10 lb. brain types 'splain to me in public school terms why we DONT have a flat, across the board say 10% income tax? No loop holes, no evading tactics, just a flat tax?
Short version: a progressive income tax is way better.
Long version: Taxes are essentially a moral argument. America's government has 2 basic functions, protection and empowerment. Protection is police, military, firefighters, etc. and empowerment is the roads, schools, SEC, water supplies, etc.
Taxes are part of the common wealth of the country, and that common wealth should go to the common good. This common wealth empowers the wealthy to be able to make money. Examples of this include people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who couldn't have succeeded without the roads to move their product, schools to teach their workers, tax-funded research to advance computers, etc.
The average person just drives on roads for transportation, while corporations use them to send fleets of trucks. The average person may get a loan to buy a house, but corporations get loans to buy other companies.
Corporations and the rich have been empowered by benefits from taxes, and since their wealth is largely derived from the empowerment of taxes, they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are repaying their debt to society by sustaining the empowerment systems in place and ensuring the future is empowered.
Unfortunately, tax forms don't really show the empowerment derived from taxes, and our politicians don't do a good job of it either. People like Warren Buffet are actively showing how they have benefited from the empowerment systems in place, and saying that they need to pay more.
No income tax at all. A use tax based on consumption is the fair and reasonable way to do it.
I will say it again, the truly wealthy do not have income. They have wealth. But everyone consumes.
I will say it again, the truly wealthy do not have income. They have wealth. But everyone consumes.
(http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html)
There are a number of problems with a use tax system, that shows how the cost would be shifted from the rich to the middle class. The article there goes into more detail on why it isn't smart, but it would have an effective tax rate of 30%, and would affect credit card interest, houses, doctor bills, utilities, etc.
It is a really terrible idea and luckily only a small Republican minority likes it.
Your chart only measures wealth by income level. Those with actual wealth are excluded.
(http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html)
There are a number of problems with a use tax system, that shows how the cost would be shifted from the rich to the middle class. The article there goes into more detail on why it isn't smart, but it would have an effective tax rate of 30%, and would affect credit card interest, houses, doctor bills, utilities, etc.
It is a really terrible idea and luckily only a small Republican minority likes it.
You would be willing to screw over all the people that make 15,000-200,000 a year just so the super rich will get taxed on their use?
If they are super rich, they will just slip in a loophole that allows them to get around the use tax.
I think the use tax is a pretty good idea. IMO the middle class could stand to SPEND LESS and SAVE MORE...