The big O' stimulus plan?

[lupinus]

[snip]WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer about $300 billion in tax cuts to individuals and businesses, a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package and prodding companies to create jobs.

The size of the proposed tax cuts -- which would account for about 40% of a stimulus package that could reach $775 billion over two years -- is greater than many on both sides of the aisle in Congress had anticipated. It may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.[/snip]
The rest can be found here-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/04/obama-eyes-billion-tax-cut/

Had me more worried when they went into this as preliminary reporting said there were whispers of raising the gas tax to pay for some sort of stimulus package.  Seeing no mention of that in the after meeting reporting is a good thing.

Given the good basis that this sort of thing does indeed help the economy the ball is in Obomas court to make this work or screw it up royally.  If it's across the board cuts, good.  Even if it's only a cut on people making under a certain amount with no raises to those with higher incomes or businesses....still good but not as good.  Either would probably do a lot to stimulate the economy.  Lower taxes put a consistent flow of money into our pockets, unlike a one time shot of 600 which, while always helpful, isn't going to help long term.

However, if it's lower taxes for low income people but a tax hike for everyone else ("high" income, corporations, capital gains, small business owners, etc) or a higher gas tax as was whispered pre meeting, he will screw up what could have actually worked. Same if some combination above happens but we see continued massive borrowing or printing of money to pay for ridicules wastes of money such as the trillion or so new new deal that's been talked about.  In either case it will blow up right in his face.  Higher taxes on the people who give jobs and lend money, will help the economy crash lower by locking up most of the money.  If it's simply borrowed or printed to the extents news reports have talked, expect Bush to actually look like a conservative in comparison and it to blow up.

Reporting above leaves me strangely optimistic and worried at the same time.  Given his record and ideals, I'm scared he will screw it up or it will get filled with garbage by the time it gets through the house and senate and wont be vetoed.  But, I'm optimistic as it's a good plan at it's core provided it isn't screwed up.  Could be either very good, or very bad long term.

[taurusowner]

It has to be a "stimulus payment".  That's the only way to cut a check to the moochers as well.  If it were simply lowering taxes, how would those who pay no taxes be a part of it?  Don't forget that a big block of Hussein voters are those who receive tax money, not those who pay it.  Cutting them out of the free money game would alienate one of his biggest bases.

[MicroBalrog]

f it were simply lowering taxes, how would those who pay no taxes be a part of it?

For the umpteenth time, everybody pays taxes. Tax hikes lead to price hikes that screw over the people who don't directly pay them.

Additionally, everybody in the economy suffers from the lost economic growth and cost of opportunity that taxes create.

You want to help the poor? Cut more taxes.

[Standing Wolf]

...$300 billion in tax cuts to individuals and businesses, a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package...

It's a typical Illinois-style political move: talk about free money up front to entice the purported "opposition" into going along with the scheme.

Expecting government to solve economic problems is like inviting coyotes to stand watch around the hen house.

[K Frame]

"For the umpteenth time, everybody pays taxes."

DUH.

But paying a few bucks in indirect sales tax, or a gasoline tax, etc., is a far cry from shelling out 25% of your income to the government in a direct tax.

Obama's current tax proposals are focusing on direct taxes.

At least he's focusing on direct taxes for the middle class, instead of talking about how the lower class is laboring under such a direct tax burden that they need immediate, resounding relief.

So, when you start doing the parrot-like squwak of "EVERYBODY PAYS TAXES, RAWWWHK! EVERYBODY PAYS TAXES!", consider the context of the taxes being discussed.





"If it were simply lowering taxes, how would those who pay no taxes be a part of it?  Don't forget that a big block of Hussein voters are those who receive tax money, not those who pay it.  Cutting them out of the free money game would alienate one of his biggest bases."

I sincerely doubt that the people you're quantifying as "moochers" qualify to be middle class under this proposal, so hold off on your shock and indignation until after we have a bit better feel for what's going on.

[MicroBalrog]

But paying a few bucks in indirect sales tax, or a gasoline tax, etc.

That is not what I meant and you know it.

[Manedwolf]

President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer about $300 billion in tax cuts to individuals, including the 40% who pay no taxes, and minority-and-women-owned businesses, a move aimed at artificially forcing marketplace "diversity" in a manner that has never functioned outside of a liberal university classroom. This move is expected to drive yet more businesses offshore.

Fixed. They'd already made that a priority.

[AZRedhawk44]

"EVERYBODY PAYS TAXES, RAWWWHK! EVERYBODY PAYS TAXES!"

I lol'ed at that.  :-)

It has to be a "stimulus payment".  That's the only way to cut a check to the moochers as well.  If it were simply lowering taxes, how would those who pay no taxes be a part of it?  Don't forget that a big block of Hussein voters are those who receive tax money, not those who pay it.  Cutting them out of the free money game would alienate one of his biggest bases.

Yep, it does.  Moochers expecting a check are typically not intelligent enough to understand the fact that corporate taxes are ultimately paid by consumers of corporate products.... from electric bills to chicken wings to crappy loud car stereos.

You want to help the poor? Cut more taxes.

I don't really want to help the poor.  I want to help me.  I definitely don't want the government using threat of force to compel me to help the poor by taking money and redistributing it.

"Help the poor", in poor-speak, means handouts.  They don't see handouts when taxes get lowered.  All they see is fatcatwallstreetbigshots living high on the hog, perceived injustice and other such wonderful Marxist themes.  They don't understand that their soda at 7-11 costing $0.10 less is helping them, or the fact that a bushel of grain on the futures market dropping from $23 to $18 (or whatever it is) helps them.

Frankly, I'm just not interested in helping the poor.  There have always been poor, and there always will be.  "Help" is just a way to forestall them from re-evaluating their lives and making smarter decisions, IMO.

[MicroBalrog]

.  "Help" is just a way to forestall them from re-evaluating their lives and making smarter decisions, IMO.

So pardon me when I point out that making business owners freer to make their own decisions and to create wealth helps EVERYBODY in the long run.

[Manedwolf]

So pardon me when I point out that making business owners freer to make their own decisions and to create wealth helps EVERYBODY in the long run.

The way to give business owners more freedom is for government to GET OUT OF THE WAY.

Propping up failed business models doesn't help anyone.

[MicroBalrog]

The way to give business owners more freedom is for government to GET OUT OF THE WAY.

Where do I disagree?

[HankB]

I don't really want to help the poor.  I want to help me.

What a greedy b****** you are - it sounds as if you actually think that you have some sort of a claim on the fruits of your own labor!!

Just why is it that some people think they're more deserving of the wealth that they worked for or created than some slacker underprivileged individual in need?

[AZRedhawk44]

What a greedy b****** you are - it sounds as if you actually think that you have some sort of a claim on the fruits of your own labor!!

Just why is it that some people think they're more deserving of the wealth that they worked for or created than some slacker underprivileged individual in need?

   Ain't I a stinker?   

I've helped the poor before.  They don't improve.  I dunno, maybe some small percentage do if you help them for a long time, but I have yet to find poor folks that really have a drive to improve their station in life and be not-poor.

Perhaps that's how they got poor in the first place?  Lack of drive?

In any case, I can't give that particular trait to them.  They have to find it themselves.  Once they do... they are usually not-poor very quickly.  Most children of poor folks that have that drive are vastly more successful than their parents.

In any case, "fixing poor" is not a function of my billfold.

[K Frame]

That is not what I meant and you know it.

Actually, I have NO clue what you meant.

If you're actually talking about taxes on earned income, then your claim is false.

In the United States, depending on income and number of deferments claimed it is entirely feasible for an individual to have ZERO income taxes withheld from their weekly, biweekly, etc., paycheck, and to have a ZERO tax income tax liability at the end of the year.

But, as you've so wonderfully proven, you're not talking about all taxes.

So, to alieviate the confusion, just what taxes are you talking about?

Property tax? Sales tax? Nebulous claims on the internet tax?

[buzz_knox]

Anyone heard if an AWB renewal or ammo tax hike has been brought up in the discussions?  Capital News reported that the stimulus package may include one or more such provisions as a way of getting the ban through.

[Boomhauer]

Anyone heard if an AWB renewal or ammo tax hike has been brought up in the discussions?  Capital News reported that the stimulus package may include one or more such provisions as a way of getting the ban through.

I've heard that on another board.

I would not put it past the sleazebags to ram it through with the stimulus package.

[seeker_two]

Before this thread gets closed....I just want to thank all you rich folks here for making sure that Obama gives me free money....as I spend it on frivilous consumer goods (like more ammo and loading equipment), I'll have warm fuzzy feelings in my heart for y'all..... 

[HankB]

Before this thread gets closed....I just want to thank all you rich folks here for making sure that Obama gives me free money....as I spend it on frivilous consumer goods (like more ammo and loading equipment), I'll have warm fuzzy feelings in my heart for y'all..... 

I'll be stopping by to smack you upside the head with my bag of gold . . . under Obamunism, it's considered to be too heavy, anyway.

[MicroBalrog]

But, as you've so wonderfully proven, you're not talking about all taxes.

As I've pointed out again and again, there is research that shows that a tax increase on one part of the population often causes an increase of prices to roll over to other parts of the population. So while it is true that poorer Americans do not directly sign checks to Uncle Sam, they still suffer when taxes get raised on 'The Evil Rich' – and I'm not even talking about indirect sales taxes, fuel taxes, and the costs of regulation. The truth is that we all bear the cost of taxation, some in direct ways, others less so. It is possible to correct that to some extent by fiddling with the code, of course, but, speaking generally, all taxation is a burden on the entire economy, the question is only whether what you buy with the tax money is worth it to you

[grampster]

We've been "helping" the poor since the 60's.  The only thing we've "helped" them do is stay poor.

I've discovered a weird analogy since I retired.  Because I planned and saved, I could retire.  In other words I have enough money to not have to work.  I don't have to pay anything to shelter myself because I am debt free  What I have found is that I have elevated putting stuff off to an art form.  I am not inclined to start any project because I am not pressed for time or money.  I do or don't do as I please.  Ambition has been suppressed because I have no need to be ambitious.

It occurred to me that "the poor", (other than the mentally ill and those with debilitating physical problems) if they have enough .gov money for some food, booze, cigarettes, cheap public transportation, lottery tickets and have their housing paid for on the dole, are a lot like me.  No motivation to do anything because they don't have to.

Comments?

[anygunanywhere]

You nailed it, Grampster.

I was planning on joining ranks with you on June 1 but the 401(k) took a dump because I was greedy....and didn't transfer the funds into a les risky investment.

Oh well.

I still have a job.

Anygunanywhere

[MicroBalrog]

Comments?

That is true.

I live in a 'poor' neighborhood. I see a lot of people who are on welfare. In my experience, there's a certain kind of people who, if offered the option to live in abject poverty but not actually have to work, would prefer that to having a more decent lifestyle with a job.

[digitalandanalog]

How is it that every time I read about how someone is going to get stimulated I know it won't be me.

How is it that I get hackles knowing that our tax dollars are going to those who have zero interest in improving our society, and just might use that free money to degrade our society?

Which pops first? My brain or my ability to be patient?