Yes they do have a clue what they are doing.
That is the misconception. They know exactly what they are doing. Politicians have short term, intermediate, and long term goals ans plans, some that supersede their individual terms as politicians.
By doing like this not only do they accomplish the short term goal of tricking ing morons into thinking they're doign something great, but they are actually boosting their ultimate long term goal to hollow out america's economy.
SouthernFried - I'll happily take my refund check, but this is the political equivalent of kicking the can down the road.
At some point the correction is still going to have to happen. The credit bubble is going to burst. The idiots in D.C. are just trying to make sure it happens after the fall elections.
We have a ing winner.
I want my money back just as much as you, SF. Trust me, I do.
But not at the expense of worsening the already fragile economy.
Unless the federal government severely reduces its spending by any means necessary, its exactly as AHF said...passing the buck, in other words.
First of all...a tax cut is NOT going to worsen the economy. Period. Any tax cut is good...even if it's so minor as to be irrelevant. I don't care if it's a political ploy or not.
And everyone is right. Spending is the problem, always has been. But, giving people a little of their money really doesn't affect that much. In fact, it may help...
The only way I've ever seen ANY government control spending, is when they don't have any. Giving them less is always a good idea in this regard. The problem, is the debt they are willing to ac ulate to continue their out of control spending spree. Everyone's seen it in people's personal lives, it's the exact same thing in govt. You give these people more money, it doesn't matter...their credit limits just go up and up. You take money away from these people and, at some point, they finally have to DEAL with it.
IMHO, the best way to deal with people, or govt, who continually increase their debt...is not to keep giving them more money to make their minimum payments on the debt...but, to take money away so they finally cannot make those payments, and have to get their together and deal with their problem.
You don't reward bad behavior, you punish it.
Giving our govt more of our money just puts off the inevitable. Take away their cash flow, and they will have to deal with their debt and deficit spending...they wont be able to increase it anymore, they wont be able to meet the minimum payments on the debt.
Why I NEVER support any tax increase...and support EVERY tax decrease.
This has to be dealt with...and it's going to be horrible when we finally do. It always is, whether it's in your personal life, or our govt's.
When our govt finally deals with this problem...it will affect the economy.
For the better.
Last edited by SouthernFried; 01-25-2008 at 01:41 PM.
True statements for everyone not named The United States Government. They'll give your tax money back because all they do is phone the Fed and have them print more money to cover the shortfall in income.
Man, Im sorry, youre not getting it. The next administration, regardless of party, is going to do the....exact.....same...thing every government (in my lifetime) before them has...try and kick the can down the road.Giving our govt more of our money just puts off the inevitable. Take away their cash flow, and they will have to deal with their debt and deficit spending...they wont be able to increase it anymore, they wont be able to meet the minimum payments on the debt.
Wonderful. I agree completely. But the government will NEVER reduce its spending. Remember, we're fighting an ambiguous "War on Terror", the most expensive "War on (insert vague enemy here)" in America's dumbass history of "War on (ambiguous noun here)".Why I NEVER support any tax increase...and support EVERY tax decrease.
This has to be dealt with...and it's going to be horrible when we finally do. It always is, whether it's in your personal life, or our govt's.
When our govt finally deals with this problem...it will affect the economy.
For the better.
Sooooo, reducing taxes is not the answer. That only reduces the value of the dollar. Our politicians are flat-out refusing to address the real problem, their spending.
But, in the same breath, the lemmings and soccer moms of the world are worried about their bowling alleys being targets by Osama, and the protection of such "high yield" targets costs money.
ing idiots (not you SF).
Thanks for boiling it down for us.
With those two simple words, you have hit the nail on the head.
OG, DR is so profound. vague enemy. Hmmmm,
maybe if he was in one of the bowling alley's when the
vague enemy blew himself up along with the soccer
moms, He would know who that "vague" enemy was.
And he was understand a little more about those
idiots who worry about it. (not you SF)
You say that so matter-of-factly, like it's so simple. Yes, the government eventually will suffer the consequences of its spendthrift ways. The problem is that every citizen will suffer the consequences as well. Once the government is unable to finance its debt, the dollar becomes about as valuable as Monopoly money, and our economy collapses. This will happen just as soon as foreign powers like China believe their economies are strong enough to absorb the disruption of a "decoupling" from America. As long as you buy gold bars --and an arsenal to defend them-- with the proceeds of your rebate now, I guess you'll be all right.
The political elites in power whenever this goes down probably will pay the price with their lives at the hands of a revolutionary mob. When economic collapses happen in major world powers like Russia or Germany, as opposed to less-powerful places like Argentina or Southeast Asia, it changes the course of history, usually in a bad way (we narrowly missed our own communist or fascist revolution in the 1930's). What emerges from the collapse more likely will be an America goose-steppin' for Jesus than one which restores Jeffersonian ideals of democracy. When taken in those terms, I guess it makes sense for politicians to kick the can down the road as far and as long as they can.
If you cant make the conection between "soccer moms fearing terrorism at their local bowling alley" and the ing REAL world, then please, dont eneter the discussion trying to speak for SF.
In regards to ES's post, dystopian governments are born from collectivism.
Collectively, the American people are going to eventually be put over a barrel. Thats why its funny to me to hear about people investing in the future thru the market. Those stocks arent going to be worth a bucket of piss in 20 years because the USD isnt going to be worth a bucket of piss barring MAJOR, revolutionary government decrease in size and spending (<--- that was a qualifier, govt reduces one or both, you investors are still smart. But then again, Im not of the trusting nature to any flag).
Obviously it is you who has a hard time understanding
the "Real World". Not I. You and your stupid vague
enemy crap.
What about my foreign stocks which will be worth $5,000,000,000,000,000,000 by then?
What, no blue text?
I figure $5 quintillion will make a decent nest egg in a world where a cup of coffee costs $10 trillion.
Oh...got it. I forget sometimes.
Terrortopia is a country that we can just invade and kick ass. Its denizens go by "terrorists" and dislike the perversion of their nationality as "terrists".
, when do we invade? I mean, they were responsible for 9/11 (queue Guliani) and all the numerous attacks on US sovereignty since.
, just the other day I heard they were planning an offensive, so I called Homeland Security and told them to put us all on "Orange Alert".
So keep your eyes out from the comforts of your bunker, you spinless, mindless Lemming.
You did not just go thru the pain of counting the zeros in your random number just to stay accurate, you perfectionist quintiliionaire.
One of 91ul1ani's former staffers explained what to do. Just bomb the crap of of every Muslim country. He explained that this is because really all Muslims are terrorists, so it's OK to kill as many as you can. It's not necessary to kill all of them, however, because after the first 800 million or so, those that are left hiding in the rubble of what used to be their countries will be too broken to fight.
Worried about domestic terror as a result? Don't be. Under a 91ul1ani Presidency, Muslims will be easy to spot on account of the green crescents they will have to sew on their outer clothing. If they raise too much of a stink after that, they can be used for fuel in order to wean ourselves off foreign oil.
Well, I don't go to those extremes. In general, I agree. However, the government does need some money to operate with. If you look at it from the tax rate that is optimum for government revenue, which the smart politicians do... the problem is determining what that point is. I tend to believe it is between 10% to 15%. That's an arbitrary educated guess.
Sure, I would like to pay 0% like 47% of the people do. That's not realistic. I would also like to see them pay their far share. If we aren't going to change to a system like "The Fair Tax" then I would like to see some minimum tax at all income.
So instead of robbing Peter to give to Paul, you want to rob Paul to give to Peter?Sure, I would like to pay 0% like 47% of the people do. That's not realistic. I would also like to see them pay their far share. If we aren't going to change to a system like "The Fair Tax" then I would like to see some minimum tax at all income.
"Stimulus" = "swindle"
Bush administration again caters to big business
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 01/24/2008 09:29:18 PM MST
Denver political analyst David Sirota (www.credoaction.com/sirota) is author of "The Uprising," to be published in June."Stimulus." You've probably heard that nebulous, scientific-sounding word this week. Every politician suddenly wants economic "stimulus," and wants you to think this "stimulus" is unequivocally good.
But here's the question: Why are we talking about "stimulus" only now? After all, most people have been hurting for quite awhile.
Paychecks have been stagnating, foreclosures have become commonplace, health-care premiums continue double-digit increases — and up until recently, conservatives greeted such hardships with saccharine fantasy.
Following government reports showing a surge in income inequality, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson last year gushed that the economy is "as strong as I have seen it in any time." In the summer, as the housing crisis exploded, President Bush said the economy was "thriving." And with word that there are now 195,000 homeless veterans nationwide, Bill O'Reilly insisted on Fox News that, really, "There's not many [homeless veterans] out there." Message: Nothing to see here. The economy is fabulous. Move along.
Lately, though, the rhetoric has switched. Paulson now says there is an "urgent need" for action, and President Bush is demanding a "stimulus" package from Congress. And that gets us back to the critical question: Why the sudden shift?
Because the group demanding help has changed. Before, it was just commoners complaining — regular homeowners, wage-earners, troops coming home from Iraq, you know, the 99 percent of us who can't afford the $1,000-a-plate political fundraisers.
But now Wall Street is panicking. In the last month, the financial industry's profit margins dropped, thanks to mortgage defaults brought on by irresponsible lending. And when the corporate executives who underwrite campaigns start whining, politicians develop "stimulus" schemes using the blight of layoffs, foreclosures and wage cuts to justify tax cuts for those doing the laying off, foreclosing and wage cutting.
Specifically, most GOP presidential candidates are demanding corporate tax cuts as the "stimulus" to improve American compe iveness, ignoring a recent Treasury Department report noting that the U.S. already has among the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the developed world. Republicans like John McCain, fresh off a Merrill Lynch fundraiser, say we need not expand unemployment benefits and food stamps to help workers and give the economy a reliable Keynesian boost. No, they say we must hand over more cash to the same financial industry that just gave its executives $39 billion worth of year-end bonuses.
Leading figures of both parties seem eager to help limit the debate over "stimulus" and make the final package a corporate goodie bag.
According to The Washington Post, Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus asked economists affiliated with The Hamilton Project — a Citigroup-backed think tank — to testify to Congress at its initial hearings on a stimulus package. Labor economists, by contrast, were not invited.
You might think Citigroup's central role in creating the current financial crisis would disqualify it from influencing legislation addressing that crisis. But remember, Citigroup gives lavishly to Democratic politicians and pays Democratic financier Bob Rubin roughly $10 million a year as a top executive.
Not surprisingly, congressional Democrats appear poised to support a package stripped of increases in safety-net programs and comprised largely of business tax cuts. This, even though experts agree the former would have an immediate economic impact and the latter will take at least six months to hit. As usual, we are told to wait patiently as moneyed interests claim their latest gift from Washington.
President Bush is undoubtedly pleased. He said he wanted "stimulus" built primarily on tax cuts and no new public investment — more proof of his desire to win the Most Out of Touch President le from Herbert Hoover.
Let's be clear: There's nothing inherently bad about Washington interacting with Big Business, and nothing wrong with "stimulus" as a concept. But as this recession intensifies, there's a big problem with politicians catering exclusively to Big Business and an even bigger problem with converting "stimulus" into yet another code word for "swindle."
DAN...just have those people you quote come here if you can't contribute anything to the discussion yourself.
thanks
Not at all. I just want everyone to have a stake in government expenditures so they have a reason not to ask for more government programs.So instead of robbing Peter to give to Paul, you want to rob Paul to give to Peter?
Notice it's people who don't pay taxes that want more and more from the government! I believe in an equal burden of taxes, by ones ability to pay.
As for the quoted article:
Dan, I don't know how you solve problems, but as a technician, I've learned to go to the root problems. Not the symptoms. The article only lists symptoms.
What useless tripe you quoted.
Foreclosures: Stupid people who don't know how to budget.
Medical Bills: In serious need of tort reforms and deregulation of the industry.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Wages are climbing at a proper pace for the conditions we have, but don't keep up with expenses. Tough luck. Fix the root problems. Not addressing the proper problems will not fix a damn thing.
Slow wages: Supply and demand of the work force. Kick the illegals out!
As for homeless vets? What are the percentages? I once heard the numbers. Wish I remembered. I do remember the percentage of homeless vets was far less than homeless that are not vets!
Meaningful numbers please with proper benchmarks. Not just something that sounds good for the consumption of you'all lemmings.
This rebate is not our money. It's an addition to the decifit. Our money is long gone into 100 years in Iraq. BushCo and the Congresscritters are just scrambling so they can say they did something the upcoming recession.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
