BO Tax cut...

[gtrman66]

From yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_taxes

One tax provision would provide a $500 tax cut for most workers and $1,000 for couples, at a cost of about $140 billion to $150 billion over two years. The individual tax cuts may be awarded through withholding less from worker paychecks, effectively making them about $10 to $20 larger each week.

$10 to $20 a week????? He is kidding right? Yep, that'll increase spending by consumers. I almost choked on my coffee when I read it. So out of touch. Change, yeah right.

[Max]

Roy, I am trying to stay positive about BO but the fact is he is a candidate and nothing more. He has never done anything except mass a huge campaign fund and win an election. I want him to succeed but I give him a one in five chance of doing any good. The honeymoon will be over by the end of the first year is my guess. People will see that he did sell out to special interest to mass that huge campaign fund and it will show in a big way with the economy in the toilet.

Anyone that thinks the government can bring us out of the current turmoil is fooling themselves anyway. Remember the government can't balance a check book, now they run the banks, they run the auto industry and they run the local governments. Lord help us all.

[Engels]

The average worker in this country makes less than $800 a week. So believe it or not, an extra $10 or $20 after tax will definitely make a difference to a lot of people. They aren't necessarily going to go out and buy a new car or house because of it, but adding it up across the thousands of households in each community will help businesses just about everywhere.

The level of unalloyed negativity here is really beginning to get tiresome.

[The G]

The level of unalloyed negativity here is really beginning to get tiresome. You've notice this too.

[Max]

The average worker in this country makes less than $800 a week. So believe it or not, an extra $10 or $20 after tax will definitely make a difference to a lot of people. They aren't necessarily going to go out and buy a new car or house because of it, but adding it up across the thousands of households in each community will help businesses just about everywhere.



To me it's not the amount that each person will get, look at the cost. Were talking a cost of 140 to 150 billion dollars at a time when our government is passing out 5 billion dollar checks like trick or treat candy. We are in serious trouble, at some point that same 10 to 20 dollars a week is going to cost those same taxpayers ten fold that with interest to pay back.

[MYCAR47562]

that extra 10-20 wont help at all think about it you can barely go to mcdonald's once a week for 15 dollars. ok say you spend it on gas now you can get more places but what are going to do when you get there? oh i could spend it at the grocery store wait that will only by me one steak or maybe 3 gallons of milk. and before you flame me im one of those average american worker i dont bring home more than 800 a week the what it's going to cost in the long run wont even come close to what the little bit of money will do.

[MYCAR47562]

The average worker in this country makes less than $800 a week. So believe it or not, an extra $10 or $20 after tax will definitely make a difference to a lot of people. They aren't necessarily going to go out and buy a new car or house because of it, but adding it up across the thousands of households in each community will help businesses just about everywhere.

The level of unalloyed negativity here is really beginning to get tiresome.

the negativity comes from the fact that we dont like to take it up the butt, and by you saying we all are to negative all the time....

[gtrman66]

The problem is the printing of money will make that $15 McDonalds trip will now cost $20... print more and it becomes $25... vicious cycle.

[Engels]

Were talking a cost of 140 to 150 billion dollars at a time when our government is passing out 5 billion dollar checks like trick or treat candy.

The biggest problem our economy is facing right now is a dramatic fall-off in consumer spending. People are scared of losing their jobs, and as a result are cutting back on purchases of pretty much everything.

This is not really the place for an in-depth discussion of macro-economic theory, but the heart of the Obama tax-cut proposal (vs. the George Bush tax cuts) is that lower-income people have a different marginal utility for money. Translating that into English:

Give a middle-class family an extra $1000 a year in after-tax money, and they'll spend it at Wal-Mart, local restaurants, and maybe put an addition on their house. Give a wealthy investor an extra $50,000 a year (by cutting capital gains taxes from 35% to 30%) and he's likely to rejigger his investment portfolio and make some changes in his estate planning. Or he might buy himself a new Mercedes. Giving lower-income taxpayers a tax break is far more likely to boost consumer spending than anything else the government can do. And consumer spending (at the Wal-Mart, restaurant, and local building contractor) is what is going to create sustainable jobs.

Obviously the Obama administration is concerned about the looming deficit. But they believe (correctly, I think) that the economic crisis is going to be of relatively short duration - unless, of course, they don't do something to jump-start the economy. In which case it could linger on for years, which would, in the long run, be far more damaging to the Federal budget deficit.

In 1935 the standard of living of the average American was pretty dismal, compared to what it was in 1955. In the intervening twenty years the US Government had borrowed more than a quarter trillion dollars to pay for WWII - a far, far higher percentage of GDP than the current level of Federal debt.

[Max]

Engels I disagree, I know experts say that the printing of wheel barrels full of money won't hurt in the long run. Of course these are the same people that didn't see the housing bubble getting ready to burst and didn't see anything wrong with loaning people money and letting them pay an extra point or two not to prove income.

Mark my word in two years your dollar in your pocket right now won't buy a pack of gum. We are selling our debt all over the world. The national debt is already eleven trillion that is admitted to and probably closer to 14 trillion in reality. That national debt is right now costing the tax payer 3 million dollars an hour in interest alone. We are headed down a road no country has ever survived without taking itself into a world war.

[MYCAR47562]

that extra 10-20 wont help at all think about it you can barely go to mcdonald's once a week for 15 dollars. ok say you spend it on gas now you can get more places but what are going to do when you get there? oh i could spend it at the grocery store wait that will only by me one steak or maybe 3 gallons of milk. and before you flame me im one of those average american worker i dont bring home more than 800 a week the what it's going to cost in the long run wont even come close to what the little bit of money will do.

THE MORE I THINK OF IT THE MONEY WOULD BE BETTER SUITED PAID OUT OVER A YEAR BUT I STILL FEEL IT WONT HELP. THE ECONOMY IS GETTING WORSE EVERY DAY AND CUSTOMER'S ARE SPENDING LESS. I DONT KNOW WHAT WILL CAUSE US TO GET OUT OF THE FUNK. THE ONLY WAY THROWING MONEY AT IT WILL HELP IS IF THEY GAVE 30000 TO EVERYBODY, BUT EVEN THAT MIGHT CAUSE TO COLLAPSE EVEN QUICKER BUT IT MIGHT BE THE JUMP START TO WHAT WE NEED. THE MAIN PROBLEM FACING THAT WOULD BE THE GOVERMENT WOULD HAVE TO START DEFLATING THE ECONOMY QUICKLY AFTER WE GOT BACK ON OUR FEET OR WE WOULD CRASH.


WHEN THEY DID THE BAIL OUT THEY SHOULD HAVE WAITED TILL CHRISTMAS, THAT WOULD HAVE ALMOST GARENTEED THE MAJORITY OF THAT MONEY WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT BACK INTO THE ECONOMY.

[gtrman66]

The biggest problem our economy is facing right now is a dramatic fall-off in consumer spending. People are scared of losing their jobs, and as a result are cutting back on purchases of pretty much everything.

No, people that shouldn't have gotten credit in the first place can't get it now and can't buy the big TV in the house they can't afford. Shocking.

This is not really the place for an in-depth discussion of macro-economic theory, but the heart of the Obama tax-cut proposal (vs. the George Bush tax cuts) is that lower-income people have a different marginal utility for money.

Not here? Why not? I thought this was the political forum. I need the :stilpoke: smilie here.

A guy with an extra $10 will likely spend it on some piddly item or maybe do the responsible thing and pay on a bill. We saw what "poor" people do with "free" money during the Hurricane. Thanks to the debit cards they could track the spending at strip clubs and expensive clothing stores.


Translating that into English:


Don't do that... then half the people getting money won't be able to read it.

Give a middle-class family an extra $1000 a year in after-tax money, and they'll spend it at Wal-Mart, local restaurants, and maybe put an addition on their house.

Addition to their house with $10 more a month???? Wal-mart I can see.


Give a wealthy investor an extra $50,000 a year (by cutting capital gains taxes from 35% to 30%) and he's likely to rejigger his investment portfolio and make some changes in his estate planning. Or he might buy himself a new Mercedes. Giving lower-income taxpayers a tax break is far more likely to boost consumer spending than anything else the government can do. And consumer spending (at the Wal-Mart, restaurant, and local building contractor) is what is going to create sustainable jobs.


Investment portfolio = jobs for the "poor"
New Mercedes = Made in Alabama = poor workers staying employed, plus the guys who change his oil, tires, battery....


Obviously the Obama administration is concerned about the looming deficit.


If that were true, then we wouldn't be having this conversation


But they believe (correctly, I think) that the economic crisis is going to be of relatively short duration - unless, of course, they don't do something to jump-start the economy. In which case it could linger on for years, which would, in the long run, be far more damaging to the Federal budget deficit.


BO was quoted today saying this was a "long term" problem that will take years to fix. Government intervention is only prolonging and worsening the problem.


In 1935 the standard of living of the average American was pretty dismal, compared to what it was in 1955. In the intervening twenty years the US Government had borrowed more than a quarter trillion dollars to pay for WWII - a far, far higher percentage of GDP than the current level of Federal debt.

I think there was a point in there, but I couldn't find it.

Now this is funny (sad, but funny)

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political adviser, along with campaign media adviser Jim Margolis, are encouraging lawmakers to use the word “recovery” instead of recession, and “investment” instead of “infrastructure.” Those recommendations came from focus-group research indicating that such framing would make the package more appealing to voters.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090108/pl_bloomberg/ahnaiptix3lk_1

[cajun]

BO said we are going to spend our way out of this mess. makes perfect sense to me, If me and my wife can't pay the bills i tell her to take the credit cards and spend like hell, we are going to spend our way out of this mess. I'm in that less than 800 a week catagory, 15 to 20 bucks a week, yea baby, lookout harley dealer, is that a new streetglide i smell.

[Engels]

The national debt is already eleven trillion that is admitted to and probably closer to 14 trillion in reality.

And eight years ago, with the Federal Govt. showing a ~ $200 billion annual surplus, people were worried about the lack of US Treasury bonds and bills as an investment vehicle. Its amazing how quickly things can turn around.

Of course, if anyone talks about Bill Clinton, the political geniuses and freethinkers you've got here can't wait to start yapping about Monica Lewinski.

Just a couple of months ago the chatter here was about how that bad old socialist Barack Obama was going to take away everyone's money. Now that he's proposing an immediate tax cut, all of sudden everyone is concerned about "fiscal responsibility." I really wonder where all these "fiscal conservatives" were when we decided to toss a couple of trillion dollars down the sewer that is Iraq? I'd far rather we spent a trillion dollars fixing bridges in our own country, rather than paying to have guided missles blow them up (and then rebuild them) someplace else.

Economics is apparently way too complicated for a) John McCain b) certainly Sarah Palin and c) most of the gun nuts and Fox News viewers here on the forum.

[Engels]

http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww163/sisyphus1963/spidey.jpg

Even Spiderman is a Barack Obama fan. You folks are lining up on the wrong side of history.

[MYCAR47562]

maybe so but id rather be over here and be proven wrong then the opposite

[gtrman66]

And eight years ago, with the Federal Govt. showing a ~ $200 billion annual surplus, people were worried about the lack of US Treasury bonds and bills as an investment vehicle. Its amazing how quickly things can turn around.

Of course, if anyone talks about Bill Clinton, the political geniuses and freethinkers you've got here can't wait to start yapping about Monica Lewinski.

Just a couple of months ago the chatter here was about how that bad old socialist Barack Obama was going to take away everyone's money. Now that he's proposing an immediate tax cut, all of sudden everyone is concerned about "fiscal responsibility." I really wonder where all these "fiscal conservatives" were when we decided to toss a couple of trillion dollars down the sewer that is Iraq? I'd far rather we spent a trillion dollars fixing bridges in our own country, rather than paying to have guided missles blow them up (and then rebuild them) someplace else.

Economics is apparently way too complicated for a) John McCain b) certainly Sarah Palin and c) most of the gun nuts and Fox News viewers here on the forum.

Tax cuts (real ones, not $10 / week) are the way to go. BUT it HAS to be matched by less spending. Entitlements have to go. Subsidizing big business must end. Earmarks need to go. Spending must be curtailed. Homeland security is a joke. Federalizing the airport mall cops was a bad decision. The fed has no reason to be in education, arts, entertainment, owning property...

The feds have no business other than providing for the common defense. Let the state and locals do the rest.

[Remphoto]

Economics is apparently way too complicated for a) John McCain b) certainly Sarah Palin and c) most of the gun nuts and Fox News viewers here on the forum.

That's right Engels, in typical Liberal fashion, when you can't make an intelligent case, you resort to denigrating your opponents. You, sir, epitomize liberal arrogance and condescension. The people on this forum repeatedly demonstrate more street smarts and common sense than you and your pointed-head "intellectuals" will ever possess.

[TaxmanHog]

The level of unalloyed negativity here is really beginning to get tiresome.

You've notice this too.

SOMA or Reality, I prefer the latter in this Brave New World.