Stimulation-palooza!
Update: Romney unveils a $250 billion plan “centered on several permanent tax cuts…permanently reducing the rate for the lowest income tax bracket to 7.5 percent from 10 percent, retroactive to 2007. He also wants to eliminate Social Security payroll taxes for workers over 65 and eliminate capital gains and dividend taxes on households earning less than $200,000 a year. He also would permanently reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent over two years and allow businesses to depreciate the value of new equipment purchases faster.”
Update : $145 billion to spend, spend, spend.
***
Too many people have been borrowing money and spending beyond their means–charging their credit cards up the wazoo, buying more house than they can afford, etc., etc., etc. So what’s Washington’s solution? Give ‘em “tax rebates” so we can spend, spend, spend our way out of recession. President Bush takes to the podium this hour to unveil the outlines of his economic stimulus plan. Here’s the preview:
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said earlier that Bush also will outline about how much the government should spend in order for the short-term growth package to be effective. This new White House bottom line likely would significantly shape the president’s negotiations with Congress.
“It’s hard sometimes for people to understand how large this economy is,” Fratto said. “So he’ll have something to say about how large a package.”
Fratto said there are many ways to get quick agreement so that a measure can be in place and start working. Bush chose to lay out “principles” with few specifics to the American people now, while bipartisan negotiations with Capitol Hill are taking place privately. The White House feels Bush was out of the mix for too long, because he was away for eight days in the Mideast while Democratic leaders talked almost daily about the need to stimulate the economy — and how.
“What he believes is that we’ve got to do something that is robust. It’s going to be temporary and get money into the economy quickly,” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Friday on CBS’s “The Early Show.” “It’s going to be focused on consumers, individuals, families — putting money in their pocket. And it’s going to be focused on giving businesses the incentive to hire people, to create jobs.”
Bush has gone down the tax rebate road before. Back in 2001, he added refunds of up to $300 per individual and $600 per household as a recession-fighting element of the tax cut plan that had been the centerpiece of his 2000 campaign.
Economists said a reasonable range for tax cuts in the new package might be $500 to $1,000. A White House plan is looking at rebates of up to $800 for individuals and $1,600 for married couples under a White House plan.
I’m all for the government giving me back my money. But why not drop the economic stimulus pretense? Just give me back my money. If the government can spare these “rebates” and send them back now, why did they take the money in the first place? Forget this temporary candy. Why not make this “rebate” permanent?
Another point: Given the estimates so far, these “rebates” will be more than offset by proposed and scheduled tax hikes and spending increases in liberal-nomics-dominated states like Maryland, NY, and NJ.
Another point: When exactly would these “rebates” get into the hands of taxpayers? By the time the checks get cut and mailed, the recession could be over. Government has a way of lagging like that.
Another point: As I’ve said repeatedly now, stimulation-palooza will inevitably be larded up with special-interest pork and other spending goodies in the tens of billions of dollars.
And let’s be clear what Washington wants people to do with this money. They want people to spend it. Not to save it. Not to apply it to their debt. Spend, spend, spend:
Congressional leaders say any economic-stimulus plan may be as much as $150 billion.
“It’s getting money to people who are likely to spend it,” Leonard Burman, director of the Washington-based Tax Policy Center, said of the Bush plan. “It might do a little good for the economy.”
Bush has decided the U.S. needs a short-term economic assist from the government to avert a recession, White House officials said yesterday.
“The president does believe that over the short term, to deal with this softening of the economy, that some boost is necessary,” Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto told reporters at a briefing.
Ed Gillespie, senior counselor to the president, said today that Bush will call for a “timely” package of measures.
“The president is going to call for a growth package that is timely, that is direct, that is simple, that does allow for taxpayers to have more money to spend,” Gillespie told Bloomberg Television.
In other words: The stimulus will stimulate more of the same bad behavior that got people into trouble in the first place.
Brilliant.
***
The WSJ sighs: “We’re all Keynesians Now:”
So famously declared Richard Nixon back in 1971, in what we thought was a different economic era. But after yesterday, we’re not sure what decade we’re in. With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and President Bush both endorsing temporary tax cuts and more federal spending as “fiscal stimulus,” an inflation-adjusted version of Jimmy Carter’s $50 rebate can’t be far behind…
…r. Bernanke embraced the explicit Keynesian notion that the government should write checks to “low and moderate income people,” who will spend it quickly and thus lift consumer demand. In the academic literature, this is called having a higher “marginal propensity to consume” than the more affluent, who tend to save more.
We’re all for putting more money in the hands of the poor and moderate earners, especially via stronger economic growth that will give them better paying jobs. But the $250 or $500 one-time rebate check they may now receive has to come from somewhere. The feds will pay for it either by taxing or borrowing from someone else, and those people will have that much less to spend or invest themselves. We are thus supposed to believe it is “stimulating” to take money from one pocket and hand it to another.
Don Surber pours cold water on stimulation-palooza:
Instead of “doing something,” politicians should do nothing. They have already messed things up.
In the 1960s, people complained about the redlining of inner-city neighborhoods. Banks would not lend money to people to buy homes in the slums.
Politicians changed that.
Today, banks loan money to people who can’t repay loans. These are called subprime mortgages. Lo and behold, the live-beyond-their-means crowd defaulted on these loans.
Now the politicians are blaming the banks and want to save the “homes” of those who don’t pay their bills.
Ta-da.
Here’s how the Surbers save their house. Every month, I get out this thing called a checkbook. I peel off a check and write out an amount and sign it. Then I put the check in an envelope and mail it to the bank.
I could do this electronically, but I’m old-fashioned. I pay the mortgage first. By mail.
Congress should encourage such behavior. It motivates people to show up for work. They show up and taxes get paid.
Of course, first Congress has to live within its means – or better put, within the means of taxpayers.
Instead, Congress and President Bush are moving to encourage bad behavior. They will reward the Corvette owners and designer jeans ladies to spend, spend, spend without ever having to pay back.
Getting into a bidding war over how big an economic stimulus package to foist upon the taxpayers is not a confidence builder among the great majority of us who don’t own Corvettes, don’t wear designer jeans and don’t miss mortgage payments.
I hope we vote accordingly.
Scott Ott pleads: “Mr. President, Don’t Stimulate Us.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Don Surber » Blog Archive » What recession?
- “Stimulus” « The View from Alexandria
- UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Democrats Having Difficulties With Economics
- monoblogue » Blog Archive » So far I’m not “stimulated”
- Bush’s Stimulus Woes « Axis of Right
- Michelle Malkin » The global market meltdown and the stimulus farce
- Michelle Malkin » Stimulation-palooza: The inevitable lard-up
- Michelle Malkin » Stimulus-palooza: The first wave is done
- Michelle Malkin » Rebate-mania: Borrow, spend, repeat
- Michelle Malkin » Pelosi: Hey, how about another crap sandwich?
- Michelle Malkin » Stimulus-palooza: It never ends
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Politics, Subprime crisis
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
NewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristGay Patriot
» The O So Hip ObamaLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?Weekly Standard
» DVR Alert: Oprah, Obama, Primetime, ChristmasJustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The Turkey
Another point. Why are they so hot and heavy to hand out money when many Americans will be getting money on their tax returns, especially middle class folks with kids who benefit from the child tax credit and what not?
Also, the rebate thing last time was sort of a scam. They gave me the $300 and then when I filed my next 1040 it came out of what over return I would have received so what’s the point?
And I seem to also recall that most people paid off debt with the money which is not really the kind of consumer activity you need to move the economy.
I know it may sound funny,
But people ev’rywhere running out of money
We just cant make it by ourself
It is cold and the wind is blowing
We need something to keep us going
Mister President have pity on the working man
“Fix the problem”, indeed. Even liberals (the smart ones, anyway) admit that if you tax something you get less of it – if you subsidize something you get more of it.
So giving money to people who made bad or greedy or uninformed choices, will only bring us more bad, greedy or uninformed decisions since there will be little penalty and every incentive to continue making them.
The market should be allowed to work. President Bush is wrong to propose any kind of bailout – this just penalizes those of us who have tried to live within our means.
President Bush is just a big-government Republican – let’s not make the same mistake again. Let’s elect a real conservative this time who doesn’t see a government solution to any and every problem.
You might be right about the futility of a short term stimulus package, but Uncle Sam did not force banks to make subprime loans or to over value them using mispriced CDOs. Nobody forced banks to pretend the super-senior tranche was AAA worthy.
Hear, hear.
Bulls-freakin-eye!
How many people wanting to be bailed out have a 50″ LCD TV? $40k car? House double what they can afford?
The stimulus will be: I need to get mine while the getting is good.
John Maynard Keynes lives on, doesn’t he?
That economic mindset will be the primary negative legacy of the 20th century.
Only when seemingly innocent and innocuous individual policies are seen collected and stacked over time do we see their pernicious effects. By then the problems created seem monstrous and insurmountable (see Social Security.)
The majority never decries these proposals when they occur, but they are ready to lament the lingering effects as the years pass.
We don’t need economic engineering. We don’t need Keynesian proposals. We need to free up the economy and let it correct itself–assuming it is even on the verge of suffering.
We all know the famous Keynes rebuttal to the obvious burden his proposals for “stimulus” place on future generations as seen by the more intelligent critics of his day: “In the long run, we’re all dead.”
Well, this kind of thinking has been happening for over 70 years. The “long run” is here, and those people that were so callously dismissed by the dead of the past are alive. And they’re paying the price for the well-intentioned policies and programs of the past just like the one on the table today.
I’m not interested in continuing this legacy of passing the price of my economic sins to my children and grandchildren. The buck has to stop with us.
Don’t do it, Mr. President.
No body put a gun to borowers’ heads and made them buy more than they could afford, either, lgm. I see your point, and the banks should lose based on the risks they took, but the people screeming about losing their mcmansions need to feel the market work as well.
No, I’n not for any bailout. We will recover. We always do. We’re America.
This is just another excuse for the privately owned central bank to add some vacation money to their investor’s accounts.
If they give me any money, I’m putting it toward my debt. . . which is exactly what Congress and DC should be doing with the tax revenue that they get.
They are trying to encourage the rest of the country to live as fiscally irresponsibly as they do. If Congress would not spend so much money, our economy would not be in crisis.
I haven’t been spending money for 3 years, and I don’t intend to start until I am 100% out of debt. That’s how Congress should act.
So much for the fiscal discipline of the Republican Party.
If they’re targeting the spenders rather than the savers, I guess they will all go and buy lotto tickets, thus giving their “refund” right back to the government.
It’s an election year, and it’s a chicken in every pot time!
Great! Another bad idea, which will only make things worse in the long run. Let the free market correct itself and recover on its own. Every time DC touches something they just screw it up.
Speaking for me anything I get back from the government will go against our household’s current debt and will not go back into stimulating the economy. We want to retire in another 15 years and are working hard to either increase our savings account or pay down loans with any financial windfall we are handed to be able to live on a fixed income.
I have a good idea…how about we DON’T give Billions to known & approved-by-terrorist Terrorist Nations?!!
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/01/18/liveblogging-the-latest-friday-january-18th/
I do not want to subsidize them w/ my hard earned money.
How about we DON’T give money to Nations whose dictators have a track record of STEALING it & NOT giving it to their starving & dying peoples?!!
http://tizona.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/kenya-turned-into-a-killing-field-it-just-never-stops-does-it/
I have a Good Idea. No More handouts until things settle down a bit….i mean….would you give your con-artist brother the password to your bank account????
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7646781421119150735
Mr. President!…can’t say I dug your saudi-snakedance-ritual-be-bop from a few days ago….but!…..& this is crucial!!!…. I really DON’T dig the way you throw my money @ ppl&Nations that want to KILL me.
signed: my Mama didn’t raiseup no fool!
A free market economy is supposed to be just that. When artificial means are employed to impact its direction, it only delays what will eventually happen.
A stimulus is temporary, so once the billions are spent, the economy will go back to its prior course.
This move is nothing but pure political drama. If you caught any of Bernake’s testimony yesterday, the money will not be spread out among taxpayers, but will be focused on those that pay little or no taxes to begin with.
This is pure “Robin Hood” economics, taking form the rich and giving to the poor. While it is not likely to have a long term impact on a slowing economy, it will “stimulate” votes. Political pandering.
People need to be told some tough medicine. Get better educated, learn a skill, stop living beyond your means.
Americans get fatter, lazier, and dumber every year.
I read that 90 percent of the Phd technical degrees given by US colleges are given to foreigners.
Austrian Economics (the one that preceeded Keynesian and we’re not taught about at our Universities – hmmm, I wonder why?)…. stands for 3 things:
1. Limited Government
2. Free Markets
3. Sound Money
Any questions?
Fed Up
Is anyone besides me feeling a little over-stimulated?
I’m with you, Thacker. Put it back and wait for the even harder times that look to be ahead with Republicans and Democrats seeing who can outspend the other with our tax dollars.
Someone was upset because the Chicoms and Arabs are buying up our banks. I assume that means they are taking on the bad loans and write-offs?
Read a short, succinct book that posits that demographics control what happens in the economy and that ages 49-54 are the big spenders at any particular time. So when their numbers as a group diminish, their spending falls. Dude claims we are headed for a major depression regardless of what we try to do and, give or take a few years, the axe will fall from 2013-2025.
http://www.thegreatbustahead.com Would be interesting to find something that refutes the hypothesis, since it appears to hold up well looking back many years.
I was just this morning reading an essay by Ayn Rand about the morality of accepting money from the government. In a nutshell: it’s only moral if you’re not promoting welfarism, and you regard it as restitution of monies taken from you by force. If you have your hand out, or if you promote Robin Hood government, you’re part of the problem and are morally culpable.
“Economic stimulus” my posterior. Americans don’t need economic stimulus. They need their rights, including the essential right to their property, restored.
As I said in another post
Bait: Refund’s
Switch: Bail out’s and Entitlment’s
There is something wrong with all the people who work inside the Washington DC Beltway. It’s as if they reside in an alternate universe or something. The “real” is invisible (i.e. illegal immigration problems) and the illogical becomes a viable, popular solution (taxation, housing bailout, etc).
This is going to cost more than any money we get back so save your pennies and watch your wallet.
Since spending it will send most of it to China, why don’t we send it directly there?
Money back is good, bailing out the irresponsible is ridiculous.
#14 Jim M
You took the words right out of my mouth.
#21 zorro
I also agree with you that inside the beltway is Bizzaro-world.
If the federal government is so keen on giving money back to people, how about they only give these rebates to people who can demonstrate that they have paid a mortgage on time for at least 10 years? It shouldn’t be too hard to go back and check your old tax returns for all of that deductible interest. Unfortunately, those people would probably do something stupid with the money, like pay down other debt. Yeah, what was I thinking?
Proof once again Bush is not conservative, nor is Wall Street.
They will punish the savers, who save to make a down payment on a house, who save to pay for their retirement. They will once again devalue the dollar (killing th value of savings). They will reduce interest rates, so the saver can’t make any money on his saving. They will then figure out some “Fair Tax” scheme to tax those saving (when you finally spend it).
It is interesting that the people who now want to give us money are the same people who are responsible for holding up our tax returns. If they had done their job I would have more money to spend. If you want to help the economy, leave it alone.
Scott Ott pleads: “Mr. President, Don’t Stimulate Us.”
Unfortunately, 99.9% of people in this country do not understand how the economy works and will only see that they get $500 or $1000, not realizing it’s their money to begin with. The same people who think they win the lottery when they get an income tax refund.
Not me. I’m just ecstatic each year, when I file, that I finally got some of my money back, after they forcibly took it from me.
Like others, I would use the $$$ to retire debt, which doesn’t do much to stimulate the economy. If the govt were serious, they would dispense gift cards instead of checks.
Everyone gets a gift card selected at random to one of five or ten retailers. The politicians could make a fortune from the retailers lobbying to be involved in the program.
I’m at work, so I can’t watch Bush outline the stimulus package…
Can someone watch for me and see if one of President Bush’s economic advisers is wearing parachute pants and goes by the name MC Hammer?
I do find it interesting that the politicians are already trying to find giveaways to get us out of a recession that we can’t even tell that we’re in yet. I suppose it’s another manifestation of the old axiom that if you say something over and over enough, it becomes fact.
This residential housing bust is very similar to the dotcom bubble that grew and then burst from ‘97 to ‘02. With a lot of the same adverse stock market effects starting to appear. Nobody argued to bail out the failing dotcoms. The free market took care of that, like it should be allowed to take care of shoddy mortgage lenders.
As a financial advisor, I am tired of having to help my clients deal with the market chaos created by other people’s greed. You don’t see many daytraders still active in the markets today. In a couple of months, you won’t see many fly-by-night mortgage companies left either.
I feel sorry for people who genuinely were misled, and got in over their heads. I don’t feel sorry enough to take them on as dependents.
We have a lot of people in this country that don’t have the least idea of how to live
on their salaries. If you spend too much, someone or something will always come
along to bail you out. It was their parents or other relatives or friends, for awhile
and then it was bankruptcy and now it’s the government. What lesson are they
learning folks? It certainly isn’t fiscal responsibility. There are a lot of users in this
country and “they ain’t all dems.” I know people that always vote conservative and
they cannot understand why, when they file bankruptcy, they cannot keep all of the
toys. I worked for a company where so many of the employees would come asking
for loans to “tide them over” until payday and then pitch a fit when you deducted the
money from that upcoming check. We finally had to stop the practice because it was
causing too many problems within the company. They did not appreciate the help, but came to resent the president of the company because he actually expected the money to be paid back. This is what happens when you keep helping people out. They eventually either grow to expect it or grow to resent it,
or, all of the above.
Michelle, I didn’t know you were a Lynyrd Skynyrd fan!
Why so stingy Mr. Bush? Everyone knows a decent 65″ HD TV goes for at least $1800 plus another $2000 for a decent stand and a surround sound system. What are we going to do with a measly $800?
It’s said that at some point after the Battle of Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington remarked of Napoleon’s army: “They came at us in the same old way, and we beat them in the same old way.”
What’s evident here is a lack of imagination at the Federal level when it comes to addressing the strains that our economy is under; we’re doing things “the same old way” through Keynesian “pump-priming.”
There was a moment, right after the 2004 election, when the administration felt bold enough to try new things – specifically, Social Security reform. But the combination of Democrats lying through their teeth about how nothing was wrong and reform wasn’t necessary, coupled with the usual congressional Republican cowardice in the face of Democrat obstructionism, doomed that effort.
The Bush administration hasn’t tried anything creative like that again, and it’s even less likely to do so now that the president is in his last year of office and the Democrats are running Congress.
I stand by my conviction that neither political party is going to seriously entertain any kind real economic reforms – tax reform, entitlement reforms, budget and spending reforms – until our economy as we know it completely collapses. The donkeys have absolutely no incentive to roll back their New Deal and Great Society white elephants, and the Republicans are too cowardly to try it on their own.
There was an old Soviet joke about how the Politburo dealt with economic problems: the economy was likened to a train that for some reason wasn’t leaving the station. Stalin, Kruschev and Brezhnev were in a passneger car. Stalin leaves the car and returns a short while later, saying, “I have had all the engineers shot; problem solved.”
Train doesn’t move.
Kruschev then leaves and comes back later, saying, “I have rehabilitated the engineers; problem solved.”
Train doesn’t move.
Brezhnev finally gets up, pulls down the shades to cover all the car windows, and says, “We are now moving.”
We’re at the “Brezhnev stage” of treating our economic ills: just keep on keepin’ on, doing the same old things in the same old way, and hoping that nobody notices that the problems aren’t really being solved but are festering instead.
The Soviets paid for their lack of imagination with a peaceful revolution that swept them from power and triggered the disintegration of their empire. I’m afraid that what we call the Federal Government today is steadily cruising toward a Second American Revolution in much the same way; although whether, when our Rube Goldberg economy implodes, the American people’s reaction will be as peaceful is an interesting question.
We’ll find out…
Nothing like a little pain from experience to be that dear teacher, TXRose (#32). We pretty much suck at saving as a nation.
When even the Fed Chairman, Paulson…I mean…ah…that other guy from Princeton, you know who I mean…when he advocates a kickback to encourage spending, well, it certainly speaks to our acquisitive culture, doesn’t it?
My problem with rebates, besides the pork that will be laden on the bill allowing this (as Michelle pointed out) is the fact that I didn’t pay my taxes in a flat rate with everyone else. If everyone receives $800, then this is just a redistribution scheme.
And if they tie it to income, which they almost surely will, then most of us won’t see a penny. We won’t even get the choice of using it for our own debts or savings.
Pat (#11) mentioned the chicken in every pot syndrome. This has all the earmarks of buying our goodwill and affection in an election year, even if the president is a lame duck. The surprising (gag) non-partisan bandwagon is all the proof we need.
I think PJ O’Rourke called it right many years ago:
Question: People who didn’t pay ANY income tax aren’t getting these “rebates” are they?
Our 43rd President, George W “Check in the Mail” Bush.
But what’s next, Mr. “Monthly Fair-Tax Rebates Check in the Mail” Buck-a-bee?
A tax refund check is nothing more than the government paying you back for a 1 year interest free loan. Best to bank it, earn some interest, and pay it 4/15. A so-called rebate check will not stimulate the economy; at best, only temporary. My check will pay off some bills, rather nicely, thank you. I expect that this, too, is nothing more than an interest free loan from the government, as I will be paying it back in the form of tax increases shortly. Once again, tax cuts stimulate the economy, not rebate checks. Is it just me, or is the economy always “in trouble” come Presidental election year? “Here’s your check, remember me in November.” Sorry, democrats, republicans, you didn’t fool me.
#37, that’s probably “to be determined”, but if the ‘D’s have their way, then those who don’t pay could still get rebates.
This happened before in 2001 and 2003, if I remember correctly…with ‘D’s whining about ‘tax cuts for the rich’ and ‘the working poor not getting their fair share’.
#39, I understand that, but with 4 children and 1 good job, I can zero my federal withholdings and still get a refund (child tax credit).
Politicians are trying to be nice, rather than effective. Easier to wave ca$h at constituents/voters than say SUCK. IT. UP.
The last time they did this BS we got a check for $1.98. I agree with Scott Ott.
Stop stealing 50% of what I earn in the first place and I will be able to spend like a congressmen on a bender.
Part of the problem is how Equal Opportunity Laws are enforced.
By Equal Outcome of loans granted.
And inadequate numbers of qualified protected minority applicants to reach the quota % of population is not accepted as an acceptable defense.
This leaves two options,
1) stop writing loans for qualified applicants who are not protected minorities (with the possibility of going out of business due to insufficient cash flow to keep the business afloat or management changes to people willing to go with option 2) or
2) write loans for protected minorities who do not meet the loan institution’s standard criteria for loans (and if the loan criteria are written properly, this means that larger % of protected minorities will default, because they shouldn’t have been offered the loan in the first place)
Offer government help, OK.
Make that help in the form of accepting that numbers matter, and # of qualified loan applicants choosing to apply to a given company may not equal the % of population that protected minorities comprise.
In Other words, make the help offered be help in getting government off loan companies’ backs.
And not offering tax $ available to cover bad loans.
(NO, I am not a supporter of loan companies who made bad loans just to be making “some” loans. Let them eat cake)
I’d much rather see the AMT go away.
Now THAT would make a real dent.
Amen, Azygos (#42).
But can taxpayers, industry, corporations, farms, and government endure the culture shift that this would require?
Writing the prescription is easy.
The hard part is taking the medicine.
Somewhere, somehow, we’ve got to find elected officials who are going to be willing to pinch our noses and shove the spoon in our mouths.
I suppose it would be wasting my breath to point out to the “Tax Breaks Only Benefit The Wealthy” Democrats that one first has to pay taxes before one gets a tax break.
Zorro, I work inside the beltway (I live outside the beltway), believe me, not all of us live in bizarro world. That said, the blue funk over the capitol dome speaks loads. Funny, they were on break over the holidays and the sky was clear, the air smelled better, traffic was light, no protests, no big news stories, heck, it was almost, I said almost, enjoyable
I agree, personal responsibility is the issue. I survived my late teens through twenties living on mac & cheese and Treat (I couldn’t afford an expensive option like Spam). Still, being military, I had more going out than I had coming in at times, but I paid my bills, drove a high milage car, survived the worst of it.
In my late twenties and early thirties, things went up an down, but I survived, paid my bills and did without some of the finer things others had. Today, I have a mortgage, a car payment, savings and secure retirement options. Provided I stay healthy, I will survive. I do not need a handout.
There were times when I needed help and there were times that I helped others. It was not charity, it was friends and neighbors helping each other. The way things ought to be.
Today, if a co-worker, or friend, is in need, I will be the first offer assistance, advice, etc… but, bailing out irresponsible behavior is not on agenda.
I’m always for a tax cut but have doubts that this anything more than an attempt to buy votes, with both parties raising the bid. Since we are already running huge deficits, this is pretty much the same as going shopping with your credit card. We all get to buy some shiny new toys and worry about the bill later.
How much of these rebates will be used to purchase products manufactured overseas? A quick sample of the products in most retailers will probably show that a majority of their products are made overseas. (Try picking up 20 items at random in Walmart sometime to see where they are made. You will be lucky if 3 are from the USA.) We may end up stimulating the economy of China with these rebates more than our own.
Ultimately this comes down to using my money [part of the national debt expansion] to reward others for their poor choices and lack of discipline.
While they buy toys from China I will use it to reduce my tax burden.
The government should be smaller and taxes lower. That’s not going to happen in the next few weeks.
We are entering into a recession. Stimulus at this segment of the business cycle can help soften the landing. It is in the best interest of the GOP to have this economic downturn be as modest and brief as possible. We already got one Clinton president from “It’s the economy stupid”. A deep enough recession will almost certainly give the Democrats the White House.
Michelle should get a prize for the funniest graphics on the web.
You can add California to that list.
Not only do we get taxed by Sacramento, but the voters of this state are constantly taxing themselves via the ballot box.
Case in point, Proposition S…which will no doubt be approved by weak-kneed Angelinos.
Yes. They should also make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Unlikely Bush can get those things done before he’s out of office.
$150 Billion in stimulus is about all Bush can do. Good thing is that he said there can’t be any tax increases as part of the package.
If I get a rebate,I think I’ll use it for a down-payment an a Lexus,or a fifty inch t.v.,that I can’t afford the payments on,and wait for the next bail-out.I want the world,and you have to buy it for me.And don’t go tellimg me to get a job,because all you conservatives are just stoopid.sarc off
People – for the last time, this is not “Robin Hood” economics!! Robin Hood stole from the taxers and gave back to the taxees. He did it because the people were being overtaxed by the government. The story is all about less governement, fewer taxes!!!!!
So it looks like the government is going to send us a check that’s simply an advance on what we’d get anyway, like a payday loan.
You know, if the federal government really insists it has to do something on this economic situation to put money in our pockets RIGHT NOW, the solution is quite simple. And they can save millions on sending out all those checks.
Just end backup withholding for a few weeks or months – instantly all of us who work and pay taxes get a nice raise. And since most people do have the gullible idea that they’re screwing the government when they get that tax refund check, all it would do is make that check a bit smaller. Or, even better, when they have to come up with money to write the check to the government for taxes due, they’ll realize that “hey, this amount I have to pay is ridiculous!”
Welcome to conservatism, my friends.
Michael Swartz
http://www.monoblogue.us
Man I can’t wait!
I’m buying a crack rock this big- (holds arms apart) and some malt liquor!
Because we as a “free” people need to have central planning dictate to us where and how we spend our money of course.
Ever since Clinton’s term, the idea of the president involved with stimulation is just plain old wrong!
I’m confused here. Do conservatives want lower taxes or not? Do you want to keep more of your money or let the government spend it for you? Did the “temporary” Bush tax cuts help or hurt the economy? Please make up your mind!
As for me, I want lower taxes. I want a smaller government. And unlike McCain, I liked the Bush tax cuts and I think they did wonders for our economy. Would I prefer they were permanent? Of course I would, but I’ll take a temporary tax cut over nothing at all. And I certainly don’t believe the government spends my money more responsibly than I do!
Most of the comments in this discussion sound like the Democrats a few years ago when Bush proposed his tax cuts. “The American people are too stupid and irresponsible; don’t give any of their money back to them! The government knows better than the taxpayer how to spend their money. Tax cuts don’t stimulate the economy, they only decrease revenue and increase the deficit.”
You’re beginning to sound like a bunch of whining Democrats. If you don’t know what to do with your tax rebate, give it to me, I think I can figure out what to do with it. Or just quit whining and SUCK IT UP!
well the only candidate that does not support this is he who won’t be named in fear of being flamed by neocons
When will the under-educated Democrats admit (with overwhelming documented evidence) that tax CUTS actually INCREASE revenue?
Do they really have that much animosity towards people who work hard to create a business and grow wealthy because of it? Why is it SO hard for them to accept that?
The wealthy already carry the burden in this country, and are the least likely to need government handouts.
This is truly a bad idea. It is not a tax cut. It isn’t a rebate. It is just another spending program.
That money is not a return of your tax dollars. Your tax dollars have already been spent. This is borrowed money. We are running a deficit.
How is it ok to borrow money and give it to us? How is that any different from any other ridiculous pork barrel project? Because we get a morsel of the pig?
Please. This is a cynical bi-partisan purchase of our good feelings. It is a feeble Keynesian attempt to stimulate the economy. It isn’t going to work either way.
ANYTHING IT TAKES to lower taxes, and lower tax rates, and make Govt bureaucrats SLASH SPENDING on any unConstitutional programs they have NOT got a VOTE FROM THE MASSES for…
Gut the taxes, and let people have some accountability for their own lives – let them feel the THRILL of victory as they THRIVE for themselves.
Let micromanagerial powermongers feel the sting of DEFEAT as our tax dollars are JERKED from their cold, vicious, grubby hands. SLAP the Toady Chappaquioddick Kennedy’s and Robert KKK Byrd’s all full and soundly right in their faces and their pocketbooks. When their fat fingers claw at MY wallet, let ME stab their fat fingers mercilessly, until they pay me to stop it. WITH COLD HARD CASH.
Have you never read their STATED GOALS?
How much evidence, how much CONSISTENCY, do you need to make you understand – yes, they hate people being independent and self-sustaining, absolutely, YES THAT MUCH!
They have looked fully into the face of the most desperate years of the USSR, and said, YOU HAVE TOO MUCH OF THIS PLANET’S RESOURCES AND IT IS NOT FAIR!
Hundreds of thousands of folks operate this way, and always have – what is so difficult about comprehending that yes, THEY REALLY DO HATE YOUR GUTS.
Joseph Stalin – “America is like a healthy body, and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we (communists) can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
–Norman Thomas in 1969, former U.S. Socialist Party Presidential Candidate
Karl Marx – The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.
Karl Marx- My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.
Karl Marx – The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
They do not intend to leave you with the capacity to simply THRIVE.
You cannot draw Water of Life from a dry, dusty, dirt-filled well. It simply isn’t there to give.
I didn’t read the plan but permanent tax cuts are a really, really good start.
How many people are going to spend the money and then won’t be able to pay their taxes becuase the $800 is more than their return will be. It’s not free money it comes from the taxes they have collected and they will make you give it back at the end of the year. Mine will go in the back so I’ll have it when they want it back.
The rebate idea is idiocy.
Moving on.
Romney could do better. Eliminate the first $4 or 5 thousand in dividend tax. This will clean up corporate books faster than the IRS or BS Lawyers.
Ah yes, fairness. That’s the word. Redistribution of wealth so everyone is equal. I hear Shrillary use that word way too often.
No thanks.
What does Bush care? This is not his hard-earned money. This is honest American’s hard-eraned money. Bush just gets to spend it, whatever way he likes.
On a serious note: another consequence of not impeaching Bush. And it ain’t over yet.
Excellent analysis, Michelle.
Why aren’t you part of the Bush Cabinet?
Obviously, Bhishma, you are unfamiliar with the way the U.S. gov’t works. That’s okay, though, because fewer and fewer Americans do, these days. They assume we have a 1 man gov’t under Bush. The President just doesn’t take money and spend it, whatever what he likes. First, the House (democrats) have to submit a spending bill. The House(democrats) control the money. Once passed, then the Senate (democrats) approves it and sends it to the President(Bush) for signature. The money “is spent” according to the way the Congress(democrats) set it up. So, in other words, Congress doesn’t approve spending and let Bush spend, so they can impeach him. Under that thinking, if I suggested you rob a bank and you do, I’m the one going to jail and you go free, with the money. If Congress (democrats) wants it done, the President can veto. However, in this case, I think there is plenty of blame to go around. Same with budgets. The President(Bush) submits a budget proposal to the House(democrats). They must approve of it. Then it goes to the Senate(democrats) for approval too. Once that is done, the President signs it. To blame it ALL on the President is ridiculous, but that is the way Congressmen would like you to believe.
Although it’s been over a decade since I last had an econ class, I think the injection of few a quick dollars at this point in the slow-down may just provide the type of adrenaline stimulus needed to jump start into action our economy’s heart – the U.S. consumer – to get things rolling again and avert a full blown recession (sorry cnbc, but you may yet be denied the recession you’ve tried to talk us into for the last two years!).
I don’t like when our government starts crowding out investment and meddling with natural market forces, such providing artificial safety-nets for defaulted subprime loans, but I do think a one-time, quick-fix solution like the president has suggested may well work; after all, it worked to bail us out of the mess left by the Clinton’s when the Internet bubble began to burst on “their” watch, in early 2000!
We’re all Keynesians now.
And that’s too bad.
Because a wise man once said “To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.”
The government shouldn’t be in the business of choosing winners and losers in the market. That’s a sure recipe for mischief.
Capitalism is a profit and loss system. Bad investments must be liquidated or the structure of production is distorted and business cycles inevitably result. Every boom the government engineers will result in a bust.