• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I'm disgusted - stimulus package

Meadmaker

Unregistered
Meadmaker
Joined
Apr 27, 2004
Messages
29,033
I thought about calling this thread "Obama offers 50 billion dollar bribe."

I'm simply disgusted by "economic stimulus" packages.

True story from the last stimulus package. One day, I was opening the mail, my wife was preparing dinner, and my then four year old son was playing. He was just getting some clue about what money was. I saw that our "stimulus check" had arrived. The conversation went like this:

Me: "Hey, honey, George Bush sent us some money!"

Wife: "Huh, what are you talking about?"

Son: "Who's George Bush?"

Me: "Geoerg Bush is the President. It's a check. It's part of some 'stimulus package'"

Son: "So he sent you money?"

Me: "Yeah."

Son: "Why?"

Me: "He wants me to vote for him. The problem is that you have to pay it back."

Son: "Why do I have to pay it back?!?! (starts crying).

Me: "No. No. son. you don't have to pay it back."

Of course, the last line was a lie. He does have to pay it back. That's why I'm disgusted. With deficits of a gazillion dollars a year, first Bush and now Obama want to buy votes, and the nine year olds of the US will have to pay for it when they finally get jobs. Disgusting. I'm sure McCain will go along with this, too, probably offering an even bigger stimulus package.

I'd like to vote for Obama, and I suppose I probably will, but it would be nice to vote for someone who actually promised to pay the bills, instead of borrowing more money.
 
If it stimulates the economy it could at least partially pay for itself. When you use it to buy something, that is income for the recipient, and subject to income taxes. In a recession, the government's tax receipts go down, and they go up when the economy grows.

Your son won't have to pay that all back. Buy him a toy and tell him it's his cut of the stimulus. :D
 
Puppycow said:
If it stimulates the economy it could at least partially pay for itself.
Click to expand...

At least that's what's been offered for the past eight years.

It's a strange development, but I guess two points in his favor are that it's less than the current package, and seems more directed at benefits than straight checks...
 
Obama the Tax Cutter. I'm convinced.

Change you might believe in, and whatnot.
 
He had his chance to vote for stimulus but he voted yes on the last more-expensive-gas-and-food bill (aka, the farm bill).

Who thinks making goods and services more expensive and then giving out tax prebates to help pay for artificial inflation is a good idea?

Change you can _believe_ in. Because its purely a matter of faith with this guy.
 
Puppycow said:
If it stimulates the economy it could at least partially pay for itself. When you use it to buy something, that is income for the recipient, and subject to income taxes. In a recession, the government's tax receipts go down, and they go up when the economy grows.

Your son won't have to pay that all back. Buy him a toy and tell him it's his cut of the stimulus. :D
Click to expand...

Except that it won't stimulate the economy. Let's follow the money.

I get a check from Uncle Sam. Now I can spend money. Yay!

Where did that money come from? We, as a government, don't have any money, so the government had to sell a bond. Suppose that the buyer was from the US. If that's the case, then the amount of money that left circulation is exactly equal to the amount that entered circulation. No stimulus. All it did was create a nice, safe, investment for someone who didn't want much risk. Of course, that means he isn't going to buy stocks with that money. Sorry, Wall Street.

On the other hand, suppose the buyer was outside the US. (Chinese, probably.) Now, there is indeed more money in the US economy. There's the
money from my stimulus check, plus the money from the Chinese bond-buyer. Yay! More money.

Except that some day that bond matures, and at that time, guess what, money leaves our economy, plus interest. And who pays that money? My son. (At a time when he ought to be paying his Social Security taxes, so they could go to me.)

So, great, I can buy a new toy for my son. (Made in China no doubt) Unfortunately, when he starts paying taxes, his taxes will go overseas to pay the debt that this generation of politicians used to buy votes. A pox on them all!
 
corplinx said:
He had his chance to vote for stimulus but he voted yes on the last more-expensive-gas-and-food bill (aka, the farm bill).
Click to expand...

It used to be that we paid farmers to not grow food. Now we pay them to grow it, and burn it.
 
Meadmaker: You do have a point, but on balance I think it’s still justifiable as a way of smoothing over a rough patch in the economy.
McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, which would also take a lot more money from the budget. Lessee, here’s the math:

Making the Bush Tax cuts permanent would cost $1.8 trillion over 10 years, or $180 billion per year. Compared to a one-time $50 billion stimulus, that's a huge difference, and the beneficiaries would be the richest people, the wealthy and those in the upper middle class.

· Making the tax cuts permanent would be regressive; that is, it would confer by far the biggest benefits on high-income taxpayers. After-tax income would increase by more than 6 percent for households in the top 1 percent of the nation's income distribution, 2 percent for households in the middle 60 percent, and only 0.3 percent for households in the bottom 20 percent. The share of the tax cut accruing to high-income taxpayers would exceed their share of federal tax payments today, so their share of the federal tax burden would decline. The tax cuts will ultimately have to be financed with other tax increases or spending cuts. Once plausible methods of financing the tax cuts are taken into account, more than three-quarters of households are likely to end up worse off than they would have been if the tax cuts had never taken effect.
Click to expand...

So unless you are in that top quarter, I suggest you do some comparison shopping. Whatever you think about Obama's proposal, McCain's would take a much bigger bite out of the budget.
 
I am happy you all can see the scam.

The next task is for you to understand that the parties are working together in the scam.

:gnome:
 
Puppycow said:
McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent

snip

that's a huge difference, and the beneficiaries would be the richest people, the wealthy and those in the upper middle class.
Click to expand...

Explain to me why what you posted was intellectually dishonest in the form of a haiku.

I was deeply amused by the idea that across the board rate cuts are "regressive".
 
Puppycow said:
Meadmaker: You do have a point, but on balance I think it’s still justifiable as a way of smoothing over a rough patch in the economy.
Click to expand...

The problem is that these "rough patches" that we are "smoothing over" have been going on for decades, which is why we have something like 9 trillion dollars in debt right now. We had one budget surplus in the last of the Clinton years, and the last one before that occurred when Richard Nixon was president, in 1969.

American families have been "smoothing over" their own "rough patches" for a long time with credit cards and home equity loans and guess what? In the last two years those chickens came home to roost, giving us what is called "the sub prime mortgage crisis."

I must agree that the Republican presidents have been the worst offenders, and I assume McCain would continue that grand tradition, but it's disappointing that Obama would pick up on that pandering. I can't say I blame him. Walter Mondale was honest about what he would do, and he won one state.
 
Puppycow said:
Making the Bush Tax cuts permanent would cost $1.8 trillion over 10 years, or $180 billion per year.
Click to expand...

I understand the math, but I will objet to one thing, even though it sounds like something right out the Republican playbook. Tax cuts don't "cost" anything. Government programs have costs. When you refuse to pay for them, it doesn't actually "cost" anything, except obviously the interest payments.

That may seem like a Republican talking point, but it really isn't. My point is that when Congress spends the money, they have automatically passed a tax bill along with it. It just needs to be decided who will pay that tax increase. Unfortunately, during my adult life, , with the exception of a brief respite under Bill Clinton, they have consistently decided that it ought to be the next generation.

If politicians want to support tax cuts or "stimulus packages", they need to look at government spending honestly and say, "We ought to stop spending this money. Then we could afford to cut taxes." Of course, the key word in that sentence is "honestly". The GOP has been a master at saying they want to cut spending, but when it actually comes time to pass the appropriations bills, somehow the spending doesn't get cut. Since the spending isn't cut, that means someone has to pay the taxes, and George Bush decided it would be better if my son paid them.
 
Meadmaker said:
Unfortunately, during my adult life, , with the exception of a brief respite under Bill Clinton, they have consistently decided that it ought to be the next generation.
Click to expand...


The 1994 Republicans had a chance to permanently change the dynamic and put an end to thoughtless spending. For a short while, they did. Then they succumbed to the same power trip the democrats had enjoyed for 30 years, and along came "compassionate conservatism" and I wish I could say we're back to square one, but we are now far behind square one.

Is there a way out? I'm not optimistic because whichever party has the power, likes to use it. There is no greater power than reaching out to pickpocket you, and they are not bashful about it. If we have Obama, democrat Senate, democrat House, there really is no doubt what the future holds. Go out now and buy lots of vaseline.
 
corplinx said:
Explain to me why what you posted was intellectually dishonest in the form of a haiku.

I was deeply amused by the idea that across the board rate cuts are "regressive".
Click to expand...

Dishonest it ain't
The cicada's drone reveals
more than your weak claim

When the budget deficit gets large it causes the dollar to weaken and there is inflation. One way or another the budget deficit is going to have to be paid for. It is possible for your nominal income to go up but your real income and other benefits to go down. I'll not pretend to have done the math, or to be capable of doing it, but the Brookings institution is a reputable think tank. Take their scenario and add 3% inflation and you have real income losses at the middle and bottom, but gains at the top.

Look, the wealthy are already doing extremely well in this globalizing economy. Letting those tax cuts expire is not going to kill them.

Here is an example. How is this intellectual dishonesty?
snap20070328.gif
 
Meadmaker said:
I understand the math, but I will objet to one thing, even though it sounds like something right out the Republican playbook. Tax cuts don't "cost" anything. Government programs have costs. When you refuse to pay for them, it doesn't actually "cost" anything, except obviously the interest payments.

That may seem like a Republican talking point, but it really isn't. My point is that when Congress spends the money, they have automatically passed a tax bill along with it. It just needs to be decided who will pay that tax increase. Unfortunately, during my adult life, , with the exception of a brief respite under Bill Clinton, they have consistently decided that it ought to be the next generation.

If politicians want to support tax cuts or "stimulus packages", they need to look at government spending honestly and say, "We ought to stop spending this money. Then we could afford to cut taxes." Of course, the key word in that sentence is "honestly". The GOP has been a master at saying they want to cut spending, but when it actually comes time to pass the appropriations bills, somehow the spending doesn't get cut. Since the spending isn't cut, that means someone has to pay the taxes, and George Bush decided it would be better if my son paid them.
Click to expand...

OK, what do you want to cut?
 
mr rosewater said:
Ok, I know this one, the military.
Click to expand...
Given that the budget is over 600 billion, it's gonna get cut. The question is how deeply. Then comes the fun part: the lost jobs. A lot of the cost of the budget is contracts of a broad variety of types.

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom