“Stimulus” you can’t afford
The Foundry shows you in graphic form just how unaffordable the Generational Theft Act of 2009 really is:
Average spending for all family groups in the United States is similar to that of families with children. On average, families annually spend:
* $2,330 on apparel and services,
* $3,595 on health care,
* $4,322 on food at home, and
* $11,657 annually on shelter.If all families were asked to equally shoulder the burden of the $825 billion “stimulus” package, it would be like asking them to take on an amount of debt equivalent to what they spend on food, clothing, and health care — or most of what they spend on shelter — for an entire year.
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Stimulus-Backed ‘Green’ Bankruptcy of the Week: Ener1
January 26, 2012 03:06 PM by Doug Powers
67 Comments
Obama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 CommentsWhite House Calls Solyndra Subpoena ‘Unreasonable Burden on the President’s Ability to Meet His Constitutional Duties’
November 5, 2011 10:22 AM by Doug Powers
84 Comments
California High Speed Rail Project Triples in Projected Cost, Won’t Be Ready for 22 Years
November 1, 2011 09:02 AM by Doug Powers
117 Comments
The Latest Dept of Energy Loan Recipient to Declare Bankruptcy Is…
October 31, 2011 02:00 PM by Doug Powers
75 CommentsWhite House Orders Review of Energy Department Loans
October 28, 2011 04:49 PM by Doug Powers
52 Comments
While you were sleeping: Sneaky midnight-hour Senate moves; EduJobs rejected, Commerce nominee/solar subsidy mogul approved, Fannie/Freddie loan limits increased
October 21, 2011 02:11 AM by Michelle Malkin
46 Comments
Categories: fiscal stimulus
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Sounds free to me!
I’ll just take my portion in cash. No check please as I don’t think you have the funds.
Are these guys nuts??????????????????
I’d like to see the number for buyers remorse about now, and it’s only been 6 days. Dumb Voters.
“How deep is the well I’m free falling down?” you know he’s thinking it.
This guy is in wayyyyyyy over his head.
I’ll take mine in gold, thank you very much.
Some of the stimulus money is going for grants to social and behavioral scientists to study the American public.
What will happen when they push the spending bill to two trillion? It could happen with these jokers.
Excuse me folks, I need a drink of cognac.
The whole idea of the Phlegm ‘n Crap program is that their voters won’t pay for this.
That’s funny as hell.
Most O voters are either, broke, mentally deficient, or Gov’t Employees…Of which, by the way, O will increase gov’t by 600,000 jobs. Minimum ! Here’s a dopey idea…Bill countries for care provided therie citizens including, cost of incarceration. A co-worker was jailed for child-support and was billed for HIS premium lodgings.
therie = their…New keyboard…I somehow got some liquid on old one. Spit-take…
I prefer recession to this “stimulus”
BTW…He didn’t owe anything…computer glitch 3 months in a row.
What a stimulus to the economy if, instead of going to the boondoggles, that money was divvied up and given to each taxpaying household…
MtsEdge: Exactly, I would purchase american whisky, guns, and ammo…lol
At this point I’d prefer a good old fashioned depression to the ‘stimulus’.
You’ll get all three!
Roughly $2,700 per every man, woman, and child in America. That’s enough to stimulate my temper.
Don’t worry…We will get both !
Dont worry. by the time Obama is thru with the tax code, most people wont be paying taxes anyway. So it will probably be 27 million per rich man woman and child.
Will there be any change left?
Of course, without a job or other source of income you won’t be able to afford food, clothing or shelter. And without some kind of stimulus package, millions more will be in that position.
So what’s the alternative? Poor houses?
FamilyMan said: (#7)
Sounds right. I think there’s going to be a lot of that need in the future. Keep to the good stuff as long as you can.
Cut capital gains tax so there will be private investment which creates jobs.
It’s as simple as that sport.
Let’s be honest. Most families will not be paying $11,000 for the stimulus package. The vast majority will be coming from the richest Americans.
Was just looking at the searchable data
on the stimulus bill at Senate Conservatives.com
http://senateconservatives.com/2009/01/27/searchable-text-of-the-stimulus-bill/
It looks like 100,s of millions$$$$$$$$$$$$$ will be channeled to groups like ACORN in the name of Census access and (many other ways) and of course many green projects like agricultural conversion of food into fuel will continue.
They also say they expect over 6 million jobs to be lost due to the crisis, while they generate 4 million “temporary” (mostly government) jobs with this “first step” emergency spending. They justify increasing the deficit by claiming it might be worse without the bill.
Apparently, because it’s pretty naive to assume that all families will share the burden equally.
If it’s true that 40% don’t pay any income taxes, the cost will be higher for those stupid enough to continue working and paying.
Just found this jewel of a quote from Nancy Pelosi in an interview with the AARP in Jan. 2007 (emphasis mine):
And then a couple of questions down, it gets even better:
Funny how deficit spending under a Republican president is irresponsible and a burden on future generations but under a Democrat president it’s necessary to save the economy.
So your constitutionally happy with that?
Yes and who creates the jobs? Poor people.
Can we point and laugh yet?
Welcome to the USSR…
*Somebody please throw P-BO a life preserver, he’s splashing around frantically in the shallow end of the gene pool.
*As I have said before, this stimulus package has about as much chance of stimulating the economy as a necropheliac, in the apex of his perversion, stimulating the object of his desire.
*Republicans need to just say NO in unison and not provide the cover that P-BO is looking for.
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. Are you suggesting that unequal taxation is unconstitutional?
Some of us demand, no taxation without representation…Which is in short supply.
Were you eligible to vote in the last election?
Actually, blue, grossly unequal taxation is unfair and dangerous to a democratic system. What you get is a majority of voters who derive benefits but pay little to nothing into the system, and a minority of taxpayers who are powerless to mitigate the siphoning power of the majority. The wealth of the rich or the shrinking middle class isn’t a natural resource to be harvested for the good of the nation.
And, eagle, to suggest that the stimulus package’s enormous cost is justified because without millions won’t be able to eat or clothe themselves is extreme hyperbole and, in my view, blatant fear-mongering.
I might agree if the minority didn’t have other means of political influence (campaign contributions, political favors, etc.).
Also, I’m not sure exactly why it would be dangerous to democracy. Unfair, perhaps, but dangerous I’m not quite getting. Would you care to elaborate?
Yes, and I did.
Well, that’s all the representation you’re gonna get from the constitution.
I believe there should be a ban on any, so called, pulic service after term limits. Especially lobbying. I think a 90% tax on lobbying would be a good start. Citizens don’t hire unemployed congress-critters !
The other means of influence you mention are restricted mainly to a very small minority of super-rich, not to the mid to upper middle class folks. And I thought the goal was to get money out of politics, not the other way around.
You are willing to concede that the above system might be unfair, which should by itself disqualify it as viable public policy. The danger to democracy isn’t necessarily to the act of voting, but to the integrity of the country. If you have a majority of voters who pay no taxes, they will have no vested interest in how tax dollars are spent, no interest in curtailing government spending, reducing costs and increasing efficiency, and will instead vote for the politician who promises them the most money and benefits from the public trust, which is provided for by a small minority of taxpayers whose interests are outvoted by the non-taxpaying majority. Such a system is not only unfair, but unsustainable in the long term.
Wait, I did not use vote-fraud nor intimidation when I cast my vote. Shouldn’t my vote count ?
Apperantly, only if it helps the Holy Party.
Jeff, I don’t think blue is saying your vote shouldn’t count, he’s just saying that since you did, you can’t claim taxation without representation. Unless, you were to say the one you voted for never had any intention of representing your interests in the first place, which might be closer to the truth.
Smart man, Ben Franklin…
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
Benjamin Franklin makes the argument better than I can. Anyways, I’m off.
I’m constitutionally thrilled with that.
Than you truly are an illiterate moron.
I don’t think public policy has to be fair. I think the objective of public policy should be to increase the public good. A progressive/unequal tax system can arguably be unfair AND increase the public good. Fairness should be given consideration, however, I don’t think it should be necessary.
Perhaps what you argue is true in theory, but I do not think it’s true in practice (in the US). We’ve had a progressive tax system for nearly 100 years (not certain on this point). You would expect that our government would have gone radically left. How can you explain Reagan?
FamilyMan: I’m sure his legs are all tingly…
I still am not clear what you were asking.
Fairness has nothing to do with it sport. The question is it constitutional?
Can you make an argument that it’s unconstitutional?
He could, but he would be wasting his breath.
bluesoc said:
Can you make an argument that it’s unconstitutional?
Do you mean equal taxation?
Sure. I’m actually not sure what you were referring to in the first place. But if you’d like, that’d be fine.
Looks like there may be hope for the House GOP. They may oppose this boondoggle as a bloc. That way the Dems own it. Well, along with the Vichy Senators.
When you look at it this way, it looks really bad.
well…
looks like the number of man is decided, then…
works out to $2666.66 per person
imagine that.
Unequal taxation is definitely true in this country. Just ask Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi, wealthy members of Congress who hide their money in off shore accounts. Taxing the rich always makes me laugh, and liberals are so cooky. The rich don’t pay equal taxes, they have accountants and attorneys who hide their money. What always ends up happening is the middle class get soaked. What money the rich cannot hide, they make up by cutting employees, putting more pressure and decreasing funding the government so desperately want. Anyway, I’m looking forward to rubbing it in my brain dead liberal friends faces. The majority don’t even know who Nancy Pelosi is, even as Californians. As the middle class becomes smaller and smaller and as liberals defend their failed policies, I’m curious as to how long the majority of Americans are going to take it. American Idol is not on tv all year long you know.
That reminds me of something I learned as a young man…”there is no free lunch.” Eventually we’re all going to pay, the hard workers and the free loaders, everyone will pay in the end.
bluesoc
The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.
Total shelter cost = $11,657??
In what part of the country is that the total shelter cost?
Mine is $19,889+, and that’s the cheapest in this and four or five adjacent county’s.
Oh, bama!
FamilyMan what ever made you think a liberal Maxist would be interested in what the constitution says or represents, never mind being “happy” with it?
I suppose that if the all income tax is unconstitutional, then an unequal income tax would be unconstitutional. Kinda seems like a cop out to me.
Also, good luck using that argument in court.
bluesoc
Ask the IRS to show you the laws on the books that say you must pay income tax. I have many times and they can’t
hmmm….sounds like you’re changing the topic. I wonder why
Bluesoc
Why don’t you show me that law.
I believe all income, from whatever source, should be taxed at the income level you are at. If, you make a million dollars from your dads trust fund, your income is a million dollars. Is it so hard to grasp? Like the millionaire selling his 13 million dollar house to his wife for 10 dollars.Let’s treat ALL income equally.
It’s laughable that the Walton kids…Walmart…Pushed so hard to have no tax on their inheritance in 2010. Sounds like they know dad’s dying next year. Billions of dollars handed to them and, Whaaaaa…They might have to pay taxes? Give me a break.
That IS the subject. THE LAW
copy of my note to both LA senators
$10,000.00 in additional debt per family is unacceptable. If every family were GIVEN $10K, then you would have a stimulus package that worked rather than a governmental boondoggle. This is disgusting. I would advise a quick read of the Cato Institute ad running in the NY Times and others.
Jeff2161′ The “fair Tax’ is the only constitutionally correct federal tax.
It’s pointless to have an argument with you.
FamilyMan:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html
Took about 5 seconds.
. I agree. You knowledge of history and constitutional law is pathetic.
Do you have a response to vargas? Or will you change the subject again?
BTW
all families WILL pay.
the taxes that will have to be raised to pay for this idiotic mess will be passed on to the masses in higher prices for everything which means food clothing shelter will all become more expensive. the very people supposedly helped will be the worst hit demanding (socialist view) more government largesse.
vargas
That is not the law that is the code.
GEEES!
SHOW ME THE LAW
US Code is the collection of US laws. It is the law.
Go back to school sport.
The irony is sweet…Sport.
Obamasiah translation
The Obamasiah says: Spread the Wealth
The Obamasiah means: Bend over and spread your cheeks
Intelligent educated Americans with knowledge of history do not want his “stimulous package”
Hi Michelle!
Can you update the health coverage number, or at least make a comment? That number is crap.
I have Blue Cross.
For a family of 4, non-smoker, white male head of household, professional non-construction worker, conservative, tax paying, self-employed with employees, not fat like Micheal Moore, blah, blah, blah,…
I pay $580/month. That equates to a hair under $7000/yr.
I am not going to discuss the rest of the horsepuckery that this article states are “average” costs.
When these idiots use flawed data, mostly corrupted by the losers who do not pay taxes, then the numbers mysteriously always seem low.
This is not reality.
Since the government has said over and over again that they will need to reform the immigration law because there are 12 million illegals here and they cannot do anything about that, then why not 12 million of us stop paying our taxes, demanding comprehensive tax law reform? Will the government say, too many to do anything about it, we must reform the law.
Ya!
I have three degrees and in some years a seven figure income. Ya! I one of those rich SOBs
let’s compare SAT scores /sarc
FamilyMan:
I hope that you are some form of elaborate trolling. If so, you’re doing a bangup job.
Maybe everyone who voted for Obama should be treated to a complimentary lobotomy.
I didn’t realize we were all so sick and injured.
I’ve pumped over 50 million dollars into this economy.
I’ve created good paying jobs that have payed even more taxes.
I’ve voluntarily given more money to charities, than you see in ten lifetimes.
What have you done for this country other that encourage under achieving people to suckle at the teat of the giant sow of government?
I am being truthful kid.
You don’t think public policy has to be fair. Great, I’m going to hold that argument up to liberals next time they whine about the uncaring policies of conservatives. I actually somewhat agree with you in principle, but fairness is in the eye of the beholder, especially when your party holds the legislative and executive branches.
Reagan was in part a reaction to the taxation policies that came before him. He was a correction to the right, and the subsequent Presidents have undermined that taxation philosophy. If Carter had served a 2nd term, and been followed by another Democrat, we’d be seeing a quite different America today, economically, socially, and internationally. And our century-old progressive taxes are becoming more progressive. Obviously the first year, decade, or twenty years the progressive tax apparatus is in place you don’t automatically see radical leftist effects, but eventually, a tipping point is reached. You’re making my argument that the country can’t go radically left and expect to survive economically over the long term.
Who said I’m a liberal?
The rest of your points are well taken. I’d agree with your conclusions if I took your premises to be true. However, I just don’t think the country has turned that far left (fiscally).
This country began its accelerated downhill fall after Oliver Wendell Holmes was appointed to the Supreme Court,
Holmes was criticized during his lifetime and afterward for his philosophical views, which his opponents characterized as moral relativism. Holmes’s believed that he saw few restraints on the power of a governing class to enact its interests into law.
See also:
That’s the CHANGE they want. And it’s not change most Americans can believe in.
Pardon…
the…
bump…