|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
What I find striking is the willingness of our elected officials to hand out Billions and Trillions of US Taxpayer dollars to fund the rebuilding and expenses of the Iraq War and yet turn their backs on those same US Taxpayers who are losing their jobs in an economy second only to the Great Depression.
IMO, President Obama is being way to nice to those who oppose his stimulus program. My guess is, everyone of those elected officials now against stimulating The United States of America's economy, all voted for wasting taxpayer dollars in an effort to stimulate Iraq economy thru rebuilding projects funded by US Taxpayers.
If we could check the records, my guess is not one of the elected officials who claim they can't vote to stimulate America's economy now, due to "pork"....never questioned one pork project Bush included in his funding packages for the Iraqi people.
We don't dare spend any extra money on the American people according to some elected officials....but they damn sure loved spending our Taxpayer dollars on Iraqis and they didn't give a damn how much waste and pork was in those Iraqi Economic Spending Bills, did they?
Ask your elected officials if they voted against any of these projects or even asked questions about them before they voted...
Data is presented as of December 10, 2008, except as indicated.
U.S. SPENDING IN IRAQ
Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $800 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through mid-2009.
U.S. Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion in 2008
U.S. Spending per Second - $5,000 in 2008 (per Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on May 5, 2008)
Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service)
Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.
Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)
Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings
Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion
Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion
Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion
Number of major U.S. bases in Iraq - 75 (The Nation/New York Times)
web page
Do you get the feeling that your a second class citizen in your own country?
If you moved to Iraq, you would not have a problem finding United States funding to support your employment in your area of expertise.
If you lived in Iraq, you could get a job today, backed by an Iraqi Stimulus package, funded by US Taxpayer dollars, and passed by the same US elected officials who now oppose the current American Stimulus Bill....
Think about that for a while...then write or call your elected official who opposes this Stimulus package for Americans.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
If we could check the records, my guess is not one of the elected officials who claim they can't vote to stimulate America's economy now, due to "pork"....never questioned one pork project Bush included in his funding packages for the Iraqi people.
You're probably right.
The fawning over Obama that so many disdain is bordering on psychotic obsession...however, it's good to see that there is hope that it hasn't warped Washington too badly.
When the media and the public fawned over Bush post-9/11, the government followed suit, letting him take us further and further into a war that most of the world knew was bunk. The adoration and kid gloves that the media and public mindlessly gave him seeped into D.C., and I've been fearing that the same would happen with Obama.
It still may, but let's hope there's enough opposition to keep these insanely idiotic stimulus bills in check.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,126
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,126 |
Please enlighten me mac. Just how this so called "stimulus bill" going to stimulate the economy? It's not. I commend everyone in congress that opposes this thing. I'm not against stimulating the economy. I am against passing a massive spending bill under the guise of a stimulus bill.
Mac, you said on November 4 people voted for change is this country. I am asking where this change is. Obama's actions are not change, they are more of the same politics we've seen for decades in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
You're barking up the wrong tree mac.
Obama is not to "blame" for a stimulus package. The problem is, he sells it as "do it or it will be catastrophic". Where did the last stimulus package go? Call it Bush's if you will. It went to banks that said "thanks".
Where is this one going? To national parks (whoa, there's job stimulus), it's going to socialized medicine (a lot more job stimulus)
It's going to buy congress "green" vehicles. Whooooohooooo! That'll save millions of jobs.
It's going to convert gov't. buildings.
It's going towards programs that didn't even ask for money (milwaukee schools - check it out)
It is NOT going for infrastructure - last I heard was $33 billion.
It is NOT going to save jobs like it was sold as.
It is NOT going to save jobs (well, yeah, to the tune of $1,370,000 per job for 388 jobs - not sure how that stimulates anything honestly. And yes, that's just one small category - but there are more)
No, the people's problem is not with Pres. Obama - the people's problem is, as this is being rushed through, people are finding out that all it amounts to is pork. It does not result in jobs.
Wanna make gov't. buildings energy efficient? Have our Air Force pilots train on them. Blow half of them up. That would save money, and it wouldn't cut services.
The problem is not that Obama is president. The problem is not that he's a democrat. The problem is the people that got us into this mess by spending too much are the ones in charge of getting us out of it, by spending even MORE. Sorry. Maybe I'm the only one that sees it that way, but I damn well know if I can't pay my bills, the last thing I need is more bills.
And what do I get out of all this? Supposedly my wife and I will each benefit to the tune of $500. $1000 total. As will the married couple that was living on welfare last year. As will the married couple that paid no taxes last year.
You want stimulus? Cut taxes. (of course, then you need to cut gov't., and we all know that won't ever happen). So, since it will never happen, what we WILL see is huge increases in tax rates, huge increases in the number of people living off the gov't., and no way out.
Either that will happen, or this:
When the rest of the world decides to quit using the american dollar as the standard monetary unit, what we will see is anarchy in our country, to put it mildly. We will see crime sky rocket. It will be bad, my friend. Bad.
And now I'm hearing that Pres. Obama will leave guns alone, but that the administration would like to see taxes on ammunition quadrupled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
The problem is not that Obama is president. The problem is not that he's a democrat. The problem is the people that got us into this mess by spending too much are the ones in charge of getting us out of it, by spending even MORE. Sorry. Maybe I'm the only one that sees it that way, but I damn well know if I can't pay my bills, the last thing I need is more bills.
 Nicely put.
Quote:
And what do I get out of all this? Supposedly my wife and I will each benefit to the tune of $500. $1000 total. As will the married couple that was living on welfare last year. As will the married couple that paid no taxes last year.
Being single with a good income, I do not see any stimulus dollars. Even though I have a child who lives with me 50% of the time, I am not considered a "family". That is a little annoying, but I can live with it - what angers me is the people that DON'T pay taxes who get this stimulus money.
Quote:
You want stimulus? Cut taxes. (of course, then you need to cut gov't., and we all know that won't ever happen). So, since it will never happen, what we WILL see is huge increases in tax rates, huge increases in the number of people living off the gov't., and no way out.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Oh, I forgot to add, mac: There are too many parts of this "stimulus" bill - you know, the stimulus bill that foots bills for gov't. programs while it is supposed to stimulate the economy - yeah, this stimulus bill that must be passed as soon as possible, got it? We're talking Pres. Obama's stimulus bill, that, I'm 90% sure he hasn't even read.......you know what stimulus bill I'm talking about, right? The one that needs to be enacted NOW.
Well, there are too many "programs" and "funding" that don't even come into play until 2010 or even 2011. That hardly seems like immediate "stimulus" does it? If we are indeed at a point where not voting this bill in immediately in order to avoid catastrophe - why does the bill delegate money for 2010 and 2011?
That is a question in and of itself, but perhaps, while you're looking for answers to that, you could also tell me how 50% of the spending is on pork and how that will help stimulate our economy.
I'll be waiting for your reply to this massive gov't. spending bill that doesn't even address jobs - the bill that only addresses gov't. spending.
I'll also be waiting for your reply as to how I am playing partisan here - when I have said repeatedly that this bill, and the one that passed under Bush, are a waste of money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
You want stimulus? Cut taxes.
I'm with you on the fact that this stimulus bill is utterly ridiculous...
...but these rebates that have been floated is just as dumb of a solution. It's an old Keynesian strategy that Bush and Obama have both pitched as a way to 'stimulate' the economy, but it simply doesn't work.
I find it baffling that so many who were bashing or praising Bush's tax rebates are now bashing Obama's. The plans are quite similar -- it's a big leg-up to the rich, but doesn't do much for the poor except give them a few bucks to send back up the ladder.
But all of the parrots complain that Bush's favored the rich while Obama's favors those who don't deserve it. 
An equal, permanent, across the board tax cut - not a rebate - might be something I'm willing to listen to. But when we say 'tax cut', we usually mean 'tax rebate', or we're talking about something short-term apt to fluctuate. To simply say 'cutting taxes will stimulate the economy' is a broad-stroked myth.
Forget tax cuts, tax rebates, stimulus packages -- we need to cut down our debt. Period.
But that's too much sacrifice for our ilk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962 |
Quote:
What I find striking is the willingness of our elected officials to hand out Billions and Trillions of US Taxpayer dollars to fund the rebuilding and expenses of the Iraq War and yet turn their backs on those same US Taxpayers who are losing their jobs in an economy second only to the Great Depression.
You bring this up and it made me think of what I'm doing at home right now.
As you may have seen me write recently, I've lost some of my business and as a result my income was kicked in the teeth pretty hard. (don't worry, I'll make it ,but it's just a little tougher)
But here's what I did to lower my monthly costs,,
I use two job boards for which I pay about 15k a year for.. I've asked for and received a 50% reduction because the need just isn't there.
I've Called my cell phone provider and since I'm not getting the incoming calls that I once was, I reduced by minutes by half... my cost went down by almost half.
During this time, I had two storage lockers that I was paying for. Still am for another month. I've made some room in one and eliminated the other. Reducing my costs.
Up until Feb 3, I had every channel (non HD) that Time Warner offers and the fastest Internet speeds.. I threatened to cut out premium channels and lower the speed on my internet.., instead, they agreed to lower my monthly bill by almost $50 bucks if I remain the same.. its's only for year.. but I'll take it.
That's a few of the things I've done to lower my expenses on a monthly basis.
I could have kept everything the way it was, but I looked at it and decided what was more important.
I came away thinking that a roof over our heads, food on the table, maintence of my credit rating and in general a decent quality of life.
SO something things had to go.
Don't jump on my back about how we can't just stop being at war and simply save 10 billion a month.. I know it's not that easy. I know it's not something that any sitting president can snap his fingers and end overnight.
But, we need to trim the fat from that war.... WITHOUT putting our armed forces in any extra jeopardy.. in other words, don't cut the costs of body armor.... and things of that nature.
Here's one example:
We have contractors over there that cost us a fortune. They are doing jobs that our soldiers are capable of doing. We have jobs that contractors are being paid the equivilent of 150k a year do to that one of our military persons could do for 50k or less.
We are wasting money by how we spend it and on what.
There is something like 38% of the monthly budget for the war that goes to contractors who's work could be done by military personnel.
So if the cost of the war is really 10 billion, and 38% is the true number, that's 3.80 billion loped off and then you would have to add in about a third of that back for military personnel to replace them.. net savings of something like 2.5 billion a month or 30 billion a year.
What would 30 billion a year do back home.... plenty if you hack out the pork.
Our politicians have thier heads so far up thier butts it's amazing they can even see anything.
Quote:
IMO, President Obama is being way to nice to those who oppose his stimulus program.
I didn't see that press conference from yesterday yet, just some bits and pieces, but he seemed to be hitting them pretty hard.. without listening to the whole thing, I can't say I agree with his stance yet.. can't say I disagree either at that this point.
This isn't a democratic problem, this isn't a republican problem, it's an american problem and the sooner both those idiot sides get to work fixing it instead of nagging at each other in the press,, the quicker we get this country going in the right direction.
JMO however.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I'm with you on the fact that this stimulus bill is utterly ridiculous...
...but these rebates that have been floated is just as dumb of a solution. It's an old Keynesian strategy that Bush and Obama have both pitched as a way to 'stimulate' the economy, but it simply doesn't work.
You're right in one regard: $500 "rebates" or what ever you want to call them - they don't do spit.
[quit]
I find it baffling that so many who were bashing or praising Bush's tax rebates are now bashing Obama's. The plans are quite similar -- it's a big leg-up to the rich, but doesn't do much for the poor except give them a few bucks to send back up the ladder.
I understand that under Bush we got - what, $300? That does and did nothing. However, you forget about the TAX RATE decrease under Bush. You can doubt it if you want, but that DID make sense, and it DID work. Imagine where this country would be without that. I know, I know, you can't imagine that, but we would be so much worse off.
Quote:
But all of the parrots complain that Bush's favored the rich while Obama's favors those who don't deserve it.
No. Wrong. Bush's policy did not favor the rich. It favored the people that pay the freaking taxes. If there were a 10% across the board tax cut - who benefits? Duh - the people that pay taxes. Who benefits the most? The people that pay the most. Who benefits the least? The freaking people that don't pay any taxes to begin with. And actually, that didn't even happen - the people that didn't pay taxes still got MORE back. Well, not more back, as they didn't pay anything to begin with.
Sorry, some people get hung up on "well, so and so got a tax cut of $10,000, and all I got was $300. That's not fair."
I say BS. The guy that saved $10,000 on his taxes due to a 10% decrease in taxes is also the guy that was paying $100,000 to begin with.
Quote:
An equal, permanent, across the board tax cut - not a rebate - might be something I'm willing to listen to.
That would work. Except the people that don't pay any taxes say "oh, the only people that benefit are the rich", completely forgetting or ignoring that they themselves haven't paid ANY.
Quote:
Forget tax cuts, tax rebates, stimulus packages -- we need to cut down our debt. Period.
But that's too much sacrifice for our ilk.
Right. And wrong. Cut taxes. Watch the "rich" start creating jobs. Jobs means incomes for middle class and poor. Middle class and poor class working and paying taxes would more than make up for the tax cuts - and in your example, EVERYONE would be paying less in taxes anyway.
The problem comes when Joe, who's making $30,000 a year is told that he is only getting a $1,000 tax break per year when Joe's boss is saving $50,000 in taxes. All of a sudden, Joe says "hey, that's not fair: (actually, what happens is Joe is told that by a certain party and he believes it. Poor old dumb joe)
There will always be people richer than me. There will always be people poorer than me. I need look no further than the road I live on. We, on my road or we in this country, will NEVER have income equality. Ever.
However, the more the gov't. takes from me, the angrier I get when I drive past my one neighbor that - the 2 of them - have no job, yet still somehow afford their house. Not sure how they do it, but honestly I'm wondering if I shouldn't sit down with them to learn how. (and I know the parents of both of them - they aren't living off any inheritance)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,845
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,845 |
arch,
You make things way too easy.
First, the Bush tax cuts are already in place. How are they working out BTW?? That is why BO is opposing some of the Repub tax cuts because as we have seen, it will not make businesses add jobs right now. Now there are things in the TAX CODE that could be adjusted to help businesses save some money.
The last week stimulus form Bush was a form of direct money which most people, due to the amount of debt they were carrying either saved or put into bills
The national park spending, already taken out along with some other spending that I could agree with wacking.
There should be some money spent into making green buildings for the gov... cuts down on gov spending, fuels more research into green tech and possibly down the road will spur private growth in green tech.
AS far as the the schools and etc, I do not know what state you live in but EVERY state is in a budget crisis. So if they want to keep schools and other services at the current levels, there will have to be some spending there. Yes, the states will have to cut their spending but every state in the union is lining up for this. OR maybe you would like your state taxes raised very high or services cut( there will be some of this anyay)
And there are parts of the bill that will create some jobs. Unless you really like this 7.6% unemployment which if they do nothing, will probably grow to about 10+ percent by March or April.
We cannot tax cut are way to a darn thing, other than debt. If tax cuts worked, the economy should be smoking right about now and its not.
The economy is basically in 4 sections, Personal Consumption Expenditures, Gross Private Investment, Net Exports and Government Spending. Guess what, Personal consumption is way down, Expenditures WAY DOWN and exports = dont make me laugh! So the only other indicator that needs to grow an economy left if Gov Spending!
Create jobs then the Personal Consumption will come up, along with the other parts of the economy, Once that is done, the US Gov will have to cut spending.!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
arch,
You make things way too easy.
First, the Bush tax cuts are already in place. How are they working out BTW??
Take a guess at where we'd be without them. Then add in that SOME want them revoked.Quote:
That is why BO is opposing some of the Repub tax cuts because as we have seen, it will not make businesses add jobs right now.
Take them away and see where the job market goes.Quote:
The last week stimulus form Bush was a form of direct money which most people, due to the amount of debt they were carrying either saved or put into bills
Correct. Due to people spending too much to begin with - myself included, unfortunately.
Quote:
The national park spending, already taken out along with some other spending that I could agree with wacking.
Wasn't aware of that. Thank you for pointing that out.
Quote:
AS far as the the schools and etc, I do not know what state you live in but EVERY state is in a budget crisis. So if they want to keep schools and other services at the current levels, there will have to be some spending there. Yes, the states will have to cut their spending but every state in the union is lining up for this. OR maybe you would like your state taxes raised very high or services cut( there will be some of this anyay)
I live in Ohio. First of all, the schools in Ohio have been "needy" for the last 20 years (that I know of - that's when I started paying attention. Every year our school district says what dire straits they are in, and if we don't vote for a new tax, or tax increase, our district won't have sports..........or bussing.........or field trips. Yet I happen to see a/c in our schools. I happen to see 3 "curriclum directors in our schools. I see 2 IT specialists in our schools.....I see a brand new football field, 2 new school buildings, etc etc.)
Oh, as for every state lining up for money - wouldn't you if you were a state? Hell, it's a free for all. The worse you're doing, the more you stand to "get", forgetting that the money comes from your taxpayers. Hell, have the states get fed money - I pay. Have the states get state money - I pay.
Quote:
And there are parts of the bill that will create some jobs. Unless you really like this 7.6% unemployment which if they do nothing, will probably grow to about 10+ percent by March or April.
See, that's my problem with it - there are PARTS that create jobs. Not even half of it creates jobs.
Quote:
We cannot tax cut are way to a darn thing, other than debt. If tax cuts worked, the economy should be smoking right about now and its not.
The economy is basically in 4 sections, Personal Consumption Expenditures, Gross Private Investment, Net Exports and Government Spending. Guess what, Personal consumption is way down, Expenditures WAY DOWN and exports = dont make me laugh! So the only other indicator that needs to grow an economy left if Gov Spending!
Create jobs then the Personal Consumption will come up, along with the other parts of the economy, Once that is done, the US Gov will have to cut spending.!!
We cannot spend our way to a good economy either. Ever bother to look at what it costs this country yearly in ONLY interest on its debt?
Cut taxes to create jobs, and, here's the key, cut spending.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
However, you forget about the TAX RATE decrease under Bush. You can doubt it if you want, but that DID make sense, and it DID work
It most certainly made ZERO sense whatsoever...the guy was spending like a loon and dragging us into astronomical debt with his failed war. And then he cut the tax rate. Awful, awful, awful idea.
He cut everyone's taxes and borrowed from China and Japan like a junkie.
It made zero sense, and I don't really think it worked at all in the long-term.
Quote:
Imagine where this country would be without that. I know, I know, you can't imagine that, but we would be so much worse off.
I can imagine it...doesn't mean it makes the slightest bit of sense, nor do I think it helped to make anything better in the grand scheme.
Quote:
No. Wrong. Bush's policy did not favor the rich.
Bush's entire presidency favored the rich.
Almost all administrations do.
Quote:
That would work. Except the people that don't pay any taxes say "oh, the only people that benefit are the rich", completely forgetting or ignoring that they themselves haven't paid ANY.
I would agree with you if we're talking about 'rebate'...but a cut where no one's getting a check in the mail...I don't think you'd hear all that much racket.
Quote:
Cut taxes. Watch the "rich" start creating jobs.
That's like saying 'give the banks billions and watch them start handing out loans.
How'd that work out?
Quote:
(actually, what happens is Joe is told that by a certain party and he believes it. Poor old dumb joe)
American politics at it's finest.
While the Dems convince the parrots that the rich are to blame for their woes (all while promising that they can make you rich, too), the GOP convinces dolts that taxes are evil and the poor are living large (remember Reagan's idiotic comments about 'Cadillac welfare queens'? Morons still believe that.)
And no one stops to think that it's the boys in Washington that are the ones to blame...keep the pawns fighting the pawns...that way they don't look up to see what the kings are up to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,845
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,845 |
Arch, Quote: We cannot tax cut are way to a darn thing, other than debt. If tax cuts worked, the economy should be smoking right about now and its not. The economy is basically in 4 sections, Personal Consumption Expenditures, Gross Private Investment, Net Exports and Government Spending. Guess what, Personal consumption is way down, Expenditures WAY DOWN and exports = dont make me laugh! So the only other indicator that needs to grow an economy left if Gov Spending! Create jobs then the Personal Consumption will come up, along with the other parts of the economy, Once that is done, the US Gov will have to cut spending.!! Quote:
We cannot spend our way to a good economy either. Ever bother to look at what it costs this country yearly in ONLY interest on its debt?
Cut taxes to create jobs, and, here's the key, cut spending.
Since the other parts of that run the economy are down, giving money to people who are in debt is NOT going to make them spend and we have cut taxes before, your saying cut them some more, that should do the trick this time??? No, the US has spent, borrowed, cut taxes like mad men the last 8 years and now we are seeing the results of that. Now we have to have govt spending to spur jobs!!. And this bill has to/ will try to do it to spur most of the growth in the first 2 years. After that, the US govt will have to cut spending WAY BACK. There will be no stimulating much after that. WE cannot borrow any more( china and Japan), fake grow an economy( lower int rates, spur housing market), trick consumer to spend, UNTIL jobs are created!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,126
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,126 |
Quote:
So the only other indicator that needs to grow an economy left if Gov Spending!
Create jobs then the Personal Consumption will come up, along with the other parts of the economy, Once that is done, the US Gov will have to cut spending.!!
The problem is this bill only creates temporary jobs. Sure, spend money to build a bridge will give people a job. What happens when the bridge is done? They are out of job.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,367 |
Quote:
We cannot tax cut are way to a darn thing, other than debt. If tax cuts worked, the economy should be smoking right about now and its not.
Tax cuts do help the economy, however spending cuts, and laws to keep jobs in the United States will help more.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Just for the record, here's the Republican $440B alternative to the now-$820 Billion dollar Stimulus Bill (the so-called "compromise" Bill). Similar to Senator McCain's proposal earlier in the week, it was voted down 60-37.
Thune Introduces Targeted Alternative Stimulus Plan
February 5th, 2009 - Washington, D.C. - Senator John Thune yesterday introduced the House Republican Substitute as an amendment (S. AMDT.#197) to the stimulus bill currently being debated before the Senate. Joining as cosponsors are Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), and Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE).
"The debate surrounding the stimulus bill has gone from good to bad to worse. What started out with bipartisan agreement on the need for a timely, targeted, and temporary stimulus package has since degenerated into a slow, unfocused, and an unending spending bill filled with every kind of pet and pork project imaginable," said Thune. "This targeted amendment creates twice the amount of jobs at half the cost.
"South Dakotans are tired of business as usual here in our nation's capital. They expect and deserve to have their hard-earned tax dollars used wisely to get the economy moving again. This trillion-dollar-plus spending spree, which represents the largest inter-generational transfer of debt in history, will not put our economy on the road to economic recovery, but it will put us on a bridge to nowhere."
Amendment Highlights:
Total Cost: Approximately $440 billion in tax relief for middle-class families and small businesses - approximately $40 billion in unemployment benefits.
Using the economic models of President Obama's top economic advisor, this amendment is projected to create 6.2 million jobs, or twice the jobs at half the cost of the House-passed bill. It does not include wasteful pet or pork projects and it ensures that the funding goes into effect immediately.
Using President Obama's economic models, Senator Thune's plan would create 9,000 more jobs in South Dakota.
Immediate Tax Relief for Working Families:
This proposal reduces the lowest individual tax rates from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to five percent for 2009 and 2010. As a result every taxpaying-family in America will see an immediate increase in their income with an average benefit of $1,250 each year. A married couple filing jointly could save up to $3,400 a year in taxes.
Help for America's Small Businesses:
Small businesses (those employing less than 500 individuals) employ about half of all Americans and represent 99 percent of all businesses in the U.S., yet they can be subject to tax rates that siphon away one-third or more of their income. Among other small business tax relief provisions, this proposal would allow small business to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income. This will immediately free up funds for small businesses to retain and hire new employees.
Stabilizing Home Values:
The real-estate market is paralyzed as potential buyers wait on the sidelines for prices to fall even further. In order to encourage responsible buyers to enter the market and stabilize prices, this proposal would eliminate the requirement to repay the current $7,500 homebuyer tax credit for those buyers who can make a minimum down-payment of five percent.
No Tax Increases to Pay for Spending:
Faced with record levels of deficit spending and a growing national debt, this proposal states that tax increases now or in the future should not be used to pay for this new spending.
Assistance for the Unemployed:
Rather than taxing unemployment benefits as income, which only adds to the pain of those individuals already struggling, this proposal would make unemployment benefits tax free so those individuals between jobs can focus on providing for their families. The plan would also extend unemployment benefits from March to December, 2009.
"South Dakota families and businesses, and in other places across America, not government bureaucrats, know how best to reinvigorate our economy," Thune said
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962 |
Quote:
The problem is this bill only creates temporary jobs. Sure, spend money to build a bridge will give people a job. What happens when the bridge is done? They are out of job.
YOu are missing the larger picture of how it's supposeed to work. What's suppsed to happen is that people go to work, spend money and the economy comes out of it's funk.. over time, it heals itself to so that more jobs will be created and the whole thing gets back on track
The idea being to put more money in the hands of those that will spend it thus growing the economy.'
My biggest fear is pork.. Money going for pet projects that have no national economic value and no link to rebuilding the economy.
And frankly, I've still not seen where all the money is supposed to go but rumors have it that there is way to much pork in this thing.
As far as I'm concerned, if it doesn't to somewhere where it helps the people, creates jobs, gets the credit marketing going, then it's worthless.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Quote:
My biggest fear is pork.. Money going for pet projects that have no national economic value and no link to rebuilding the economy.
And frankly, I've still not seen where all the money is supposed to go but rumors have it that there is way to much pork in this thing.
From National Review Online:
February 05, 2009, 4:00 a.m.
50 De-Stimulating Facts
Chapter and verse on a bad bill.
By Stephen Spruiell & Kevin Williamson
Senate Democrats acknowledged Wednesday that they do not have the votes to pass the stimulus bill in its current form. This is unexpected good news. The House passed the stimulus package with zero Republican votes (and even a few Democratic defections), but few expected Senate Republicans (of whom there are only 41) to present a unified front. A few moderate Democrats have reportedly joined them.
The idea that the government can spend the economy out of a recession is highly questionable, and even with Senate moderates pushing for changes, the current package is unlikely to see much improvement. Nevertheless, this presents an opportunity to remove some of the most egregious spending, to shrink some programs, and to add guidelines where the initial bill called for a blank check. Here are 50 of the most outrageous items in the stimulus package:
VARIOUS LEFT-WINGERY
The easiest targets in the stimulus bill are the ones that were clearly thrown in as a sop to one liberal cause or another, even though the proposed spending would have little to no stimulative effect. The National Endowment for the Arts, for example, is in line for $50 million, increasing its total budget by a third. The unemployed can fill their days attending abstract-film festivals and sitar concerts.
Then there are the usual welfare-expansion programs that sound nice but repeatedly fail cost-benefit analyses. The bill provides $380 million to set up a rainy-day fund for a nutrition program that serves low-income women and children, and $300 million for grants to combat violence against women. Laudable goals, perhaps, but where’s the economic stimulus? And the bill would double the amount spent on federal child-care subsidies. Brian Riedl, a budget expert with the Heritage Foundation, quips, “Maybe it’s to help future Obama cabinet secretaries, so that they don’t have to pay taxes on their nannies.”
Perhaps spending $6 billion on university building projects will put some unemployed construction workers to work, but how does a $15 billion expansion of the Pell Grant program meet the standard of “temporary, timely, and targeted”? Another provision would allocate an extra $1.2 billion to a “youth” summer-jobs program—and increase the age-eligibility limit from 21 to 24. Federal job-training programs—despite a long track record of failure—come in for $4 billion total in additional funding through the stimulus.
Of course, it wouldn’t be a liberal wish list if it didn’t include something for ACORN, and sure enough, there is $5.2 billion for community-development block grants and “neighborhood stabilization activities,” which ACORN is eligible to apply for. Finally, the bill allocates $650 million for activities related to the switch from analog to digital TV, including $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations” that they need to go out and get their converter boxes or lose their TV signals. Obviously, this is stimulative stuff: Any economist will tell you that you can’t get higher productivity and economic growth without access to reruns of Family Feud.
Summary:
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
POORLY DESIGNED TAX RELIEF
The stimulus package’s tax provisions are poorly designed and should be replaced with something closer to what the Republican Study Committee in the House has proposed. Obama would extend some of the business tax credits included in the stimulus bill Congress passed about a year ago, and this is good as far as it goes. The RSC plan, however, also calls for a cut in the corporate-tax rate that could be expected to boost wages, lower prices, and increase profits, stimulating economic activity across the board.
The RSC plan also calls for a 5 percent across-the-board income-tax cut, which would increase productivity by providing additional incentives to save, work, and invest. An across-the-board payroll-tax cut might make even more sense, especially for low- to middle-income workers who don’t make enough to pay income taxes. Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax credit is aimed at helping these workers, but it uses a rebate check instead of a rate cut. Rebate checks are not effective stimulus, as we discovered last spring: They might boost consumption, a little, but that’s all they do.
Finally, the RSC proposal provides direct tax relief to strapped families by expanding the child tax credit, reducing taxes on parents’ investment in the next generation of taxpayers. Obama’s expansion of the child tax credit is not nearly as ambitious. Overall, his plan adds up to a lot of forgone revenue without much stimulus to show for it. Senators should push for the tax relief to be better designed.
Summary:
$15 billion for business-loss carry-backs
$145 billion for “Making Work Pay” tax credits
$83 billion for the earned income credit
STIMULUS FOR THE GOVERNMENT
Even as their budgets were growing robustly during the Bush administration, many federal agencies couldn’t find the money to keep up with repairs—at least that’s the conclusion one is forced to draw from looking at the stimulus bill. Apparently the entire capital is a shambles. Congress has already removed $200 million to fix up the National Mall after word of that provision leaked out and attracted scorn. But one fixture of the mall—the Smithsonian—dodged the ax: It’s slated to receive $150 million for renovations.
The stimulus package is packed with approximately $7 billion worth of federal building projects, including $34 million to fix up the Commerce Department, $500 million for improvements to National Institutes of Health facilities, and $44 million for repairs at the Department of Agriculture. The Agriculture Department would also get $350 million for new computers—the better to calculate all the new farm subsidies in the bill (see “Pure pork” below).
One theme in this bill is superfluous spending items coated with green sugar to make them more palatable. Both NASA and NOAA come in for appropriations that properly belong in the regular budget, but this spending apparently qualifies for the stimulus bill because part of the money from each allocation is reserved for climate-change research. For instance, the bill grants NASA $450 million, but it states that the agency must spend at least $200 million on “climate-research missions,” which raises the question: Is there global warming in space?
The bottom line is that there is a way to fund government agencies, and that is the federal budget, not an “emergency” stimulus package. As Riedl puts it, “Amount allocated to the Census Bureau? $1 billion. Jobs created? None.”
Summary:
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
$500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of Health facilities
$44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters
$350 million for Agriculture Department computers
$88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building
$448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters
$600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
$450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”)
$600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”)
$1 billion for the Census Bureau
INCOME TRANSFERS
A big chunk of the stimulus package is designed not to create wealth but to spread it around. It contains $89 billion in Medicaid extensions and $36 billion in expanded unemployment benefits—and this is in addition to the state-budget bailout (see “Rewarding state irresponsibility” below).
The Medicaid extension is structured as a temporary increase in the federal match, but make no mistake: Like many spending increases in the stimulus package, this one has a good chance of becoming permanent. As for extending unemployment benefits through the downturn, it might be a good idea for other reasons, but it wouldn’t stimulate economic growth: It would provide an incentive for job-seekers to delay reentry into the workforce.
Summary:
$89 billion for Medicaid
$30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$20 billion for food stamps
PURE PORK
The problem with trying to spend $1 trillion quickly is that you end up wasting a lot of it. Take, for instance, the proposed $4.5 billion addition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers budget. Not only does this effectively double the Corps’ budget overnight, but it adds to the Corps’ $3.2 billion unobligated balance—money that has been appropriated, but that the Corps has not yet figured out how to spend. Keep in mind, this is an agency that is often criticized for wasting taxpayers’ money. “They cannot spend that money wisely,” says Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “I don’t even think they can spend that much money unwisely.”
Speaking of spending money unwisely, the stimulus bill adds another $850 million for Amtrak, the railroad that can’t turn a profit. There’s also $1.7 billion for “critical deferred maintenance needs” in the National Park System, and $55 million for the preservation of historic landmarks. Also, the U.S. Coast Guard needs $87 million for a polar icebreaking ship—maybe global warming isn’t working fast enough.
It should come as no surprise that rural communities—those parts of the nation that were hardest hit by rampant real-estate speculation and the collapse of the investment-banking industry—are in dire need of an additional $7.6 billion for “advancement programs.” Congress passed a $300 billion farm bill last year, but apparently that wasn’t enough. This bill provides additional subsidies for farmers, including $150 million for producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish.
Summary:
$4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
$850 million for Amtrak
$87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
$1.7 billion for the National Park System
$55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
$7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”
$150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases
$150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish”
RENEWABLE WASTE
Open up the section of the stimulus devoted to renewable energy and what you find is anti-stimulus: billions of dollars allocated to money-losing technologies that have not proven cost-efficient despite decades of government support. “Green energy” is not a new idea, Riedl points out. The government has poured billions into loan-guarantees and subsidies and has even mandated the use of ethanol in gasoline, to no avail. “It is the triumph of hope over experience,” he says, “to think that the next $20 billion will magically transform the economy.”
Many of the renewable-energy projects in the stimulus bill are duplicative. It sets aside $3.5 billion for energy efficiency and conservation block grants, and $3.4 billion for the State Energy Program. What’s the difference? Well, energy efficiency and conservation block grants “assist eligible entities in implementing energy efficiency and conservation strategies,” while the State Energy Program “provides funding to states to design and carry out their own energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.”
While some programs would spend lavishly on technologies that are proven failures, others would spend too little to make a difference. The stimulus would spend $4.5 billion to modernize the nation’s electricity grid. But as Robert Samuelson has pointed out, “An industry study in 2004—surely outdated—put the price tag of modernizing the grid at $165 billion.” Most important, the stimulus bill is not the place to make these changes. There is a regular authorization process for energy spending; Obama is just trying to take a shortcut around it.
Summary:
$2 billion for renewable-energy research ($400 million for global-warming research)
$2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants
$3.4 billion for the State Energy Program
$200 million for state and local electric-transport projects
$300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs
$400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments
$1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries
$1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees
$8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$4.5 billion for electricity grid
REWARDING STATE IRRESPONSIBILITY
One of the ugliest aspects of the stimulus package is a bailout for spendthrift state legislatures. Remember the old fable about the ant and the grasshopper? In Aesop’s version, the happy-go-lucky grasshopper realizes the error of his ways when winter comes and he goes hungry while the industrious ant lives on his stores. In Obama’s version, the federal government levies a tax on the ant and redistributes his wealth to the party-hearty grasshopper, who just happens to belong to a government-employees’ union. This happens through something called the “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund,” by which taxpayers in the states that have exercised financial discipline are raided to subsidize Democratic-leaning Electoral College powerhouses—e.g., California—that have spent their way into big trouble.
The state-bailout fund has a built-in provision to channel the money to the Democrats’ most reliable group of campaign donors: the teachers’ unions. The current bill requires that a fixed percentage of the bailout money go toward ensuring that school budgets are not reduced below 2006 levels. Given that the fastest-growing segment of public-school expense is administrators’ salaries—not teachers’ pay, not direct spending on classroom learning—this is a requirement that has almost nothing to do with ensuring high-quality education and everything to do with ensuring that the school bureaucracy continues to be a cash cow for Democrats.
Setting aside this obvious sop to Democratic constituencies, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund is problematic in that it creates a moral hazard by punishing the thrifty to subsidize the extravagant. California, which has suffered the fiscal one-two punch of a liberal, populist Republican governor and a spendthrift Democratic legislature, is in the worst shape, but even this fiduciary felon would have only to scale back spending to Gray Davis–era levels to eliminate its looming deficit. (The Davis years are not remembered as being especially austere.) Pennsylvania is looking to offload much of its bloated corrections-system budget onto Uncle Sam in order to shunt funds to Gov. Ed Rendell’s allies at the county-government level, who will use that largesse to put off making hard budgetary calls and necessary reforms. Alaska is looking for a billion bucks, including $630 million for transportation projects—not a great sign for the state that brought us the “Bridge to Nowhere” fiasco.
Other features leap out: Of the $4 billion set aside for the Community Oriented Policing Services—COPS—program, half is allocated for communities of fewer than 150,000 people. That’s $2 billion to fight nonexistent crime waves in places like Frog Suck, Wyo., and Hoople, N.D.
The great French economist Frédéric Bastiat called politics “the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” But who pays for the state bailout? Savers will pay to bail out spenders, and future generations will pay to bail out the undisciplined present.
In sum, this is an $80 billion boondoggle that is going to reward the irresponsible and help state governments evade a needed reordering of their financial priorities. And the money has to come from somewhere: At best, we’re just shifting money around from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, robbing a relatively prudent Cheyenne to pay an incontinent Albany. If we want more ants and fewer grasshoppers, let the prodigal governors get a little hungry.
Summary:
$79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
*Stephen Spruiell is a staff reporter for National Review Online. Kevin Williamson is a deputy managing editor of National Review.
National Review Online
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcyODIyZGM2MGU1ZDdkNDgxZDc3OTNjYjM4ZDY1ODI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
elp for America's Small Businesses:
Small businesses (those employing less than 500 individuals) employ about half of all Americans and represent 99 percent of all businesses in the U.S., yet they can be subject to tax rates that siphon away one-third or more of their income. Among other small business tax relief provisions, this proposal would allow small business to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income. This will immediately free up funds for small businesses to retain and hire new employees.
That, right there, would help me stimulate the economy! Wow, a 20% tax break on my income. That would be incredible! As it stated above I pay over 30% of what I make in federal taxes - a tax break of 20 percent would take that down to about 17%. That would be sweet and allow me to invest in some things for the business that I have been wanting to but am holding off on right now.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Thanks for posting that: hopefully the people that think, in discussion about this, that people are bashing the president - hopefully they will see that we are NOT doing that - rather, we're bashing the waste. We're bashing the ludicrousness of this bill. We're bashing the fact that this bill is all about immediately helping the economy when it is quite obvious a relatively small amount of it is for that.
If we wanted to bash pres. Obama, there is enough out there to do that as well - tax cheats in his office, lobbyists in his admin, etc, etc.
No, bashing this bill is pointing out what congress has done, or is trying to do - to the future of this country.
Thanks for posting it. Now I will puke in my mouth as I suddenly feel sick.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
That article seriously makes me want to puke. Unreal.  Hope and change! Hope and change! 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690 |
The goal is to have a welfare state with the vast majority depending on the government.
Buying votes is about what it amounts to.
We are a nation of wimps, who now outnumber those that aren't.
It was bound to happen.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
That is so sad, but it seems to be coming true and fast. On the welfare subject; I was coming out of Wal-Mart yesterday and the person in front of me paid with food stamps. If I can I always try and see what kind of car they get into after leaving the store - not sure why I do this because it normally ticks me off. Anyhow, they get into a new BMW 740il - a freaking $100,000 car! It just irritates me more, because that is my dream sedan type car and here I am footing the bill for them to eat and God knows what else so they can drive around in this 100k car. So, one of the probably has a descent to good job, the other one has no job and they aren't married - therefore setting up the perfect situation to live off of others. 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Where Obama has gone wrong is letting the House and Senate write his bill. By allowing Congress to write in what they want he has lost credibility with me. Like Bush before him he is doing what it takes to get along instead of fighting for what he promises.
If he really believes this joke of a stimulus bill is good then he was full of crap during the campaign.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,289
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,289 |
Quote:
Just for the record, here's the Republican $440B alternative to the now-$820 Billion dollar Stimulus Bill (the so-called "compromise" Bill). Similar to Senator McCain's proposal earlier in the week, it was voted down 60-37.
Thune Introduces Targeted Alternative Stimulus Plan
February 5th, 2009 - Washington, D.C. - Senator John Thune yesterday introduced the House Republican Substitute as an amendment (S. AMDT.#197) to the stimulus bill currently being debated before the Senate. Joining as cosponsors are Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), and Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE).
"The debate surrounding the stimulus bill has gone from good to bad to worse. What started out with bipartisan agreement on the need for a timely, targeted, and temporary stimulus package has since degenerated into a slow, unfocused, and an unending spending bill filled with every kind of pet and pork project imaginable," said Thune. "This targeted amendment creates twice the amount of jobs at half the cost.
"South Dakotans are tired of business as usual here in our nation's capital. They expect and deserve to have their hard-earned tax dollars used wisely to get the economy moving again. This trillion-dollar-plus spending spree, which represents the largest inter-generational transfer of debt in history, will not put our economy on the road to economic recovery, but it will put us on a bridge to nowhere."
Amendment Highlights:
Total Cost: Approximately $440 billion in tax relief for middle-class families and small businesses - approximately $40 billion in unemployment benefits.
Using the economic models of President Obama's top economic advisor, this amendment is projected to create 6.2 million jobs, or twice the jobs at half the cost of the House-passed bill. It does not include wasteful pet or pork projects and it ensures that the funding goes into effect immediately.
Using President Obama's economic models, Senator Thune's plan would create 9,000 more jobs in South Dakota.
Immediate Tax Relief for Working Families:
This proposal reduces the lowest individual tax rates from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to five percent for 2009 and 2010. As a result every taxpaying-family in America will see an immediate increase in their income with an average benefit of $1,250 each year. A married couple filing jointly could save up to $3,400 a year in taxes.
Help for America's Small Businesses:
Small businesses (those employing less than 500 individuals) employ about half of all Americans and represent 99 percent of all businesses in the U.S., yet they can be subject to tax rates that siphon away one-third or more of their income. Among other small business tax relief provisions, this proposal would allow small business to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income. This will immediately free up funds for small businesses to retain and hire new employees.
Stabilizing Home Values:
The real-estate market is paralyzed as potential buyers wait on the sidelines for prices to fall even further. In order to encourage responsible buyers to enter the market and stabilize prices, this proposal would eliminate the requirement to repay the current $7,500 homebuyer tax credit for those buyers who can make a minimum down-payment of five percent.
No Tax Increases to Pay for Spending:
Faced with record levels of deficit spending and a growing national debt, this proposal states that tax increases now or in the future should not be used to pay for this new spending.
Assistance for the Unemployed:
Rather than taxing unemployment benefits as income, which only adds to the pain of those individuals already struggling, this proposal would make unemployment benefits tax free so those individuals between jobs can focus on providing for their families. The plan would also extend unemployment benefits from March to December, 2009.
"South Dakota families and businesses, and in other places across America, not government bureaucrats, know how best to reinvigorate our economy," Thune said
How could anyone with any sense vote "No" on this stimulus proposal? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Where Obama has gone wrong is letting the House and Senate write his bill. By allowing Congress to write in what they want he has lost credibility with me. Like Bush before him he is doing what it takes to get along instead of fighting for what he promises.
If he really believes this joke of a stimulus bill is good then he was full of crap during the campaign.
I agree. Obama had a real opportunity to show that he truly wants to end this partisan BS and really try to help. I would have gained a lot of respect for him had he not let the House/Senate write this thing, or if he would have reviewed it and cut all the pork mentioned in the article Dave posted. The same old, same old continues in DC....
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
How could anyone with any sense vote "No" on this stimulus proposal?
I'm not sure, it is the best one I have read. Lets see, it costs over 1/2 less and has some legislation that might actually stimulate the economy, plus NO PORK!
Like I said above - the small business tax break alone would have taken my federal tax rate down to about 17% from over 30%. That would have prompted me to spend some money on my business that I have been reluctant to spend as of late.
I think we can answer your question about "how could anyone with any sense vote no on this" though. It is Washington, there are not a lot of politicians with any sense. 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Where Obama has gone wrong is letting the House and Senate write his bill. By allowing Congress to write in what they want he has lost credibility with me. Like Bush before him he is doing what it takes to get along instead of fighting for what he promises.
If he really believes this joke of a stimulus bill is good then he was full of crap during the campaign.
I agree. Obama had a real opportunity to show that he truly wants to end this partisan BS and really try to help. I would have gained a lot of respect for him had he not let the House/Senate write this thing, or if he would have reviewed it and cut all the pork mentioned in the article Dave posted. The same old, same old continues in DC....
Agreed.
The next question I would love to have answered is: exactly how many people in congress have read the entire bill? President Obama included.
I have a feeling if that question were asked, the percentage of people that could honestly reply that they had would be in the single digits, percentage wise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690 |
That doesn't bother me....people have staffs...2-3 are assigned to read a segment, then give a brief.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,367 |
Quote:
How could anyone with any sense vote "No" on this stimulus proposal?
They can't. However most of the IDIOTS voting don't have any sense
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
This pretty much sums up how CROOKED ALL POLITICIANS ARE right there ... I pay attention ... and I never knew this .. and the sad part is this did not even shock me ... it is what i have come to EXPECT FROM THESE SCAM ARTISTS ... and make no mistake .. that is what they are ... Quote:
Remember what passes for a “cut” in Washington. Any decrease in the rate of increase counts as reduced spending. If you spend 20 percent more this year than you did last year, that’s a spending increase. But next year, that additional 20 percent is part of the baseline. And if your budget grows by “only” an additional ten percent, you’ve just "drastically cut" spending!
thats just PATHETIC ... really really pathetic ... that right there is exactly why I feel the way I do about politicians ...
they've MANIPULATED the wording and used math to make it acceptable to be able to tell us they've DECREASE SPENDING when in FACT they have INCREASED IT ..
that right there is the definition of SCUM TO ME ... there our leaders ... we put our faith in them and they've manipulated things to DECIEVE AND LIE TO US ...
in my world .. if I spend $100 in 06 on a widget .. then in 07, I spend $120 on the the widget .. I have a 20% spending increase from 06 to 07 ..and the gov is with me so far ....
now in 08 I spend $130 on the widget ... my math works like this ...
$130 - $120 = $10 ... that would mean i spent MORE IN 08 than I did in 07 by about 7.5 % ... to me thats a SPENDING INCREASE ...
but according to OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES they have had a SPEDNING DECREASE because there MATH DIFFERES FROM MINE ...
for them ... instead of 130 - 120 = 10 dollars more being spent and a 7.5% increase in spending ... there math is as follows ..
20% = the 07 increase in spending ...
7.5% = the 08 incease in spending ...
here is the formula they use ...
20% - 7.5% = 12.5% SPENDING DECREASE ....
*LOL* .. HOW SAD IS THAT???????????? ...
I wonder how else they use numbers so they can manipulate verbage to DECIEVE AND LIE to us like they do here ..
this is truely pathetic .....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
your going off a wrong initial premise GM .. as is about 98% of Americans ...
U believe there goal is to help us ... when there goal is to actually keep themselves and there buddies (and there buddies are both sides .. they bith squabble in public about different sides ... but they all know they've got a GREAT THING GOING) ... in there HIGH PAYING jobs with ASTRONIMICALLY HIGH PAYING PERKS ....
the term public service is a joke .... these guys make a truck load of cash in salary and beni's and then the perks are out of this world ..
and the best way to do that is to keep this thing rolling as long as they can ... and this and bushes stimulus packages are ALL THE PROOF U NEED ...
look at Obama's pre-election mantra to change lobbying and PAC's influences on gov't .. and then he has a bunch of those same people surronding him and he gives them cushy jobs to boot .. and he is just the last example .. this happens all the way down to the state and local gov't level ...
U want to get sumtin done at the local level .. go into your local reps office with a local church leader (like a local bishop .. one that influences 1,000 voters in that area) ... and see what happens ...
A friend of mine would walk into the local gov't reps office by himself and try to get a politician to exert some pressure on a bank to give someone some $$$ for local projects and get laughed at ... then a wise man explained some things to him one day ... and once he started going in with local church leaders it was like the loan gates of heaven opened up for him and his clients ...
the POWER OF VOTES WAS AMAZING .... and these guys will stop at nuttin to garner them ... the crap that is going on now has gone on for the last 20 years .. yet we still keep electing the same damm people locally, statewide and to congress ...
there goals are different from what they should be ... they've created nice little kingdoms for themselves .. WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO RUIN IT?? ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I wonder how else they use numbers so they can manipulate verbage to DECIEVE AND LIE to us like they do here ..
this is truely pathetic .....
If you care to find out exactly how bad things are, google: David Walker, comptroller general of the u.s.
He is retired, but, as comptroller for years under reagan, bush 1, clinton bush 2, etc - the guy knows what he's talking about.
Our federal gov't. has 3 sets of books, and none of them need to match up with the others.
Do some reading. You'll be amazed how deep in debt this country is, yet no one seems to care. All in the name of "we'll get someone else to pay for what you want, long as you vote for me", which, to me, is just wrong, but we're seeing it even today........"don't worry, gov't. will take care of you", and all the while those of us that were taking care of ourselves are getting tossed aside.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,367 |
Quote:
your going off a wrong initial premise GM .. as is about 98% of Americans ...
U believe there goal is to help us
No I'm going off the premise that 2 percent want to help us, and the other 98 percent don't. Which is why I called most of them IDIOTS. Of course that makes most of us IDIOTS for failing to do anything about this whole mess
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
there goal is to actually keep themselves and there buddies (and there buddies are both sides .. they bith squabble in public about different sides ... but they all know they've got a GREAT THING GOING)
And there you go.
I always imagine that while the pawns squabble over ideology, these 'political rivals' are spending their tri-annual vacations on a boat somewhere laughing themselves silly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I always imagine that while the pawns squabble over ideology, these 'political rivals' are spending their tri-annual vacations on a boat somewhere laughing themselves silly.
We may not be too far away from some "pirate" action for these idiots on their "tri annual vacations on a boat". And I sure as heck won't rescue them.
They make a very decent wage, considering they work less than part time. Considering too many of them have tax issues. Considering the benefits they get. Considering they don't follow the laws they create for us "commoners".
They have come to see themselves as the elite. Screw them.
On a side note, I read today that the senate dems even called Kennedy back in order to vote on the porkulus bill. The guy hasn't seen the senate in over a month I believe - what's he doing still being a senator, and why was it so important to get him back to vote on this? The senate hasn't voted on anything else in the last month? Why this bill? He's what, 75 years old? With brain cancer - why is he even still a senator? I can guarantee that when socialized medicine hits the u.s., any other 75 yr. old with brain cancer will be treated for pain and left to die.
Sad reality, isn't it? That's where we're headed, and congress as a whole is leading us there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
I may as well bury this in here as opposed to starting a new thread. I wish musicians and actors would keep their mouths shut about who they support. Springsteen included. They need to realize we don't give a flipping rip who they support. They need to realize they have money and fame not because of who they support, but because of the product they put out. Here's a vid of springsteen in Cleveland. The stage was conveniently set not too far away from CBS, and oh so conveniently the time was for shortly after the Browns ravens game. Bruce, I was at the game. I knew exactly where you were going to be perfoming. I didn't go. And I won't go to see any more of your concerts. And honestly, it sounds like one of the worst singing gigs he ever did, but lo and behold, he did it for Obama, so it must make it ok, huh? http://www.youtube.com/v/XfKF5i_h3eQ&feature=related
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Forgot to add: I love Bruce as a singer. Love his music.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Quote:
U believe there goal is to help us ... when there goal is to actually keep themselves and there buddies (and there buddies are both sides .. they bith squabble in public about different sides ... but they all know they've got a GREAT THING GOING) ... in there HIGH PAYING jobs with ASTRONIMICALLY HIGH PAYING PERKS ....
the term public service is a joke .... these guys make a truck load of cash in salary and beni's and then the perks are out of this world ..
Two words:
1. Term
2. Limits
Its way past time to send most of these people home. I'll risk losing the few that actually have the public interest at heart if we could just be done with the Kennedy's, the Byrd's, the Conyers', the Kucinich's, the Spector's, and all the rest of these A-holes who only pay lip service to the Constitution. I'll be generous about it if I'm in charge: House of Representatives - you get three 4 year terms (enough of this running for re-election every 2 years) - 12 years; Senators - you get two 6-year terms. PERIOD. After that, you go home - MINUS the sweetheart benefits package that sets you up for life.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I wish musicians and actors would keep their mouths shut about who they support. Springsteen included. They need to realize we don't give a flipping rip who they support. They need to realize they have money and fame not because of who they support, but because of the product they put out.
I never, ever understood this line of thinking.
I could care less if it comes from a musician or my barber...it's an opinion.
I don't know what you do for a living, but would it make any sense at all for me to use your profession as a means to disqualify your opinion? How - in any way shape or form - is Bruce Springsteen's opinion or your's or mine any less qualified than Olbermann's or Hannity's?
Everyone has a cause they wish to promote, and they usually use venues at their disposal to express them. We use DawgTalk. Bruce uses his mic. Last time I saw him live and he started going on an Obama diatribe, I went and grabbed a beer. Got back just in time to catch "Candy's Room".
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Stimulating the Economy..
|
|
