2/15/2009 3:16:47 PM

Quote :

"They decided a culture war was more important than sustaining and improving the country. Now they're shit out of luck and got swept in the elections. Their dissent now is just political survival, what else are they going to run on?"

While the Republicans are trying to survive politically, the Democrats have decided a political war was more important than sustaining and improving the country. This stimulus package is a Democrat power play disguised as a way to turn the economy around - Pelosi and Co. have made it their mission to crush whatever remains of Republican opposition, as little as it is. I expected it from her, I was just hoping Obama would bring at least some of the "change" he had been throwing around to his party leaders but that hope was short-lived when he basically let Pelosi write the fucking thing and he decided to go around campaigning for it instead.

Now I think, we're all shit out of luck.

2/15/2009 5:57:32 PM

Let's just hope that the spendulus plan and other liberal stupidity wakes people up so they vote these communists out. American prosperity makes it hard for the fear-mongering and success envy that Democrats rely on to work.

2/15/2009 6:38:45 PM

Quote :

"American prosperity makes it hard for the fear-mongering and success envy that Democrats rely on to work."

FDR managed to fix that little problem. If Obama wanted to, he could too.

2/15/2009 7:24:15 PM

FDR just created a government juggernaut that has caused a large portion of the economy to feel entitled to what someone else has. Most of the federal government operates in violation of the 10th amendment, but FDR (and Johnson later) ensured that enough people were sucking on Uncle Sam's teat that it was impossible to fight.

2/15/2009 7:28:17 PM

the only solution is to out fear-monger the fear-mongering

[Edited on February 15, 2009 at 8:18 PM. Reason : We can get WW3 ON!!!1]

2/15/2009 8:14:06 PM

Or, we can accept our Dear Leader's wishes and allow him to turn us into a socialist Utopia where we all sit around non-carbon-emitting campfires and sing "yes we can" while roasting the marshmallows that are raining down.

2/15/2009 8:22:04 PM

that's crazy

everyone knows we're gonna be part of the soviet bloc by march

2/15/2009 10:27:39 PM

we won't be part of the soviet bloc, but at least they admitted to being Marxists.

2/15/2009 10:29:08 PM

I don't know what you all are crying about, I for one am really looking forward to having large portions of my paycheck redistributed to people who have done nothing to earn either my help or my respect.

2/15/2009 10:30:07 PM

^why don't you try holding your breath till that happens?

[Edited on February 15, 2009 at 10:31 PM. Reason : I'll take my tax cut and tax credits while you whine about imaginary shit]

2/15/2009 10:30:53 PM

I like how every economic thread devolves into bitching about welfare.

2/15/2009 10:33:15 PM

tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes is redistributing other people's paychecks. how can 95% of the people get a tax cut when 40% of the people have no income tax liability?

2/15/2009 10:33:26 PM

I agree with the sentiment, but in fact, social security with-holdings are just a tax when it comes down to it. The funds are not protected once they're paid and no one will ever be able to collect on the benefits they're supposedly paying into the plan for at the moment....

If the SS funds are just spent for whatever pork the Gov. wants and you won't be able to collect on the benefits, then its just a tax, and by that definition, all those people getting a refund really were paying what might as well be taxes, IMO.

[Edited on February 15, 2009 at 10:37 PM. Reason : s]

2/15/2009 10:35:06 PM

Quote :

"tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes is redistributing other people's paychecks. how can 95% of the people get a tax cut when 40% of the people have no income tax liability? "

Thank you. Guess what, some people will end up with a net negative tax liability. Those of us who don't fall into that group will basically end up handing them money.

2/15/2009 10:36:22 PM

Social Security witholdings are a tax, especially when Congress raids the money to spend on other stuff. If you think about it, Social Security is just a Ponzi scheme.

2/15/2009 10:37:24 PM

I don't know of anyone who's not paying social security who still gets a tax refund.

2/15/2009 10:38:11 PM

You don't have to think very hard when you realize that in a very short time more people will be withdrawing from it than are paying into it.

Madoff could learn a few things from Uncle Sam.

2/15/2009 10:38:40 PM

well thats all fine and good, but then you have to admit that it makes sense to give people a tax refund even if they don't pay officially named federal income taxes, as long as they're paying SS taxes

2/15/2009 10:39:50 PM

Whether it makes sense or not, it proves that such a recipient is getting money from someone else's paycheck, whether it is at the time of the refund or when they draw social security that someone else footed the bill for.

2/15/2009 10:42:49 PM

how is it any different than a one-time tax cut?

[Edited on February 15, 2009 at 10:44 PM. Reason : s]

2/15/2009 10:44:26 PM

Look, if we're ignoring SS (which I think we have to since it's a long lost cause, just accept the fact that you'll never see that money again and move on) the fact of the matter is that over 30% of all people filing federal returns have either zero or negative tax liability. For those of us who are paying federal taxes the idea of giving these people more money (in the form of tax credits) is pretty abhorent. Hell, some people have negative tax liability greater than their SS tax paid and end up with a total net gain.

Fuck that. The burden of the federal budget is being shifted to an ever narrower tax base which means that things will only get worse. The federal tax system in its present form has some serious longevity issues.

2/15/2009 10:47:17 PM

a tax cut is a reduction in taxes paid. receipt of money that has not been paid out is a handout, not a tax cut.

2/15/2009 10:47:52 PM

Yeah, you can't cut taxes when you're already paying zero. Things like the EIC tax credit and tax credits for having kids and that kind of thing really hurt. When you're getting a "refund" greater than the amount you paid it's a problem.

2/15/2009 10:50:04 PM

Well, if we just consider that SS is another tax then everyone receiving a refund, HAS PAID TAXES and isn't being given back more money than they paid in as far as I understand the plan.

2/15/2009 10:50:55 PM

^^^^ Exactly. there are too many hands drawing out of the pot and not enough filling it back up.

2/15/2009 10:52:57 PM

Quote :

"Well, if we just consider that SS is another tax then everyone receiving a refund, HAS PAID TAXES and isn't being given back more money than they paid in as far as I understand the plan."

What about those people who have a negative tax liability greater than the amount of SS tax paid in (which by the way is probably a pretty hefty portion of them)?

I firmly believe that the lowest income tax allowable should be zero. The current entitlement system is bad enough, we sure as hell shouldn't be paying people more than they paid in in income tax.

2/15/2009 10:56:53 PM

Wow, after looking it up, the percent of people with no payroll tax liability (that's SS tax) is astonishingly high, and the percent with a total net tax liability (income, corporate, and SS) of zero or less is even more than I would have guessed.

Yup the SS argument pretty much goes down the shitter when you take a look at these figures:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2012

2/15/2009 11:13:13 PM

That link doesn't say anything about social security. As far as I know, everyone has to pay into social security...

2/15/2009 11:37:11 PM

a few weeks back Obama tried to call the tax rebate for non taxpayers a tax cut because they were eliminating FICA for a lot of people who weren't paying income taxes. That was by default a handout because they will get benefits from Social Security and Medicare even if they are not paying in. (provided that Social Security does not collapse)

2/15/2009 11:39:17 PM

Quote :

"That link doesn't say anything about social security. As far as I know, everyone has to pay into social security..."

Did you even bother to read my post or the footnotes in the link?

[Edited on February 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM. Reason : k]

2/15/2009 11:39:34 PM

no, of course not...

But I just did

Well, ok, its a handout to a small percentage of people, but honestly thats not really the worst part about this bill. In fact, since its going out to the people themselves, I'd say its a damn bit better than all the rest of the money in the package which is getting sent out to Pelosi and Reids relatives and friends.

2/15/2009 11:42:04 PM

You have a point. This bill is nothing but paying off people who campaigned for them.

2/15/2009 11:43:27 PM

sweet. there's the halliburton argument. check that off the list of democrat behavior that is now being copied by republicans in week 3.

2/15/2009 11:50:07 PM

How is 27.9% a small percent? Granted, it doesn't differentiate between those paying zero and those with negative tax liability, but all things considered it's pretty staggering, and just looking at zero or negative income tax liability it's 38.0% of tax payers.

The worst part is that there's almost no chance we'll ever see effective tax reform since it would be so incredibly unpopular with the public (it's an ass backwards upside down pyramid if you look at the tax payment breakdown, the top 10% pay about 70% of taxes). The current tax system really encourages demagoguery.

But yeah, all in all the "tax cuts" aren't the worst part of this bill.

[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 12:03 AM. Reason : percents wrong, oopsy]

2/15/2009 11:56:38 PM

i'll have to hand it to the Democrats. If Halliburton getting defense contracts was payback ( I don't agree that they were) , then the Democrats have beaten the Republicans hands-down in the amount of money squandered.

2/16/2009 12:07:35 AM

Or you can call the Haliburtonesque paybacks a Republican move being copied by the democrats.

They're all the same really, just slight differences in rhetoric and slight philisophical differences. I the long run (and frankly in the short run I think) we're all going to get properly fucked by our two party system and our ignorant, easily led populace.

2/16/2009 12:10:48 AM

You are right. Those in power are buying votes with taxpayer money through pork spending, and it is almost impossible for a candidate who is not an insider in one of the parties to get very far. They may talk a good game, but after the election it's time for the back-scratching and graft to begin.

2/16/2009 12:13:34 AM

The tyranny of the masses is one of the almost inevitable outcomes of a democracy (even a representative one like we have) unless it's incredibly carefully structured. At this point I don't even think term limits could save us so entrenched are the two political machines that churn out more of the same kind of candidate (Jack Johnson, meet John Jackson).

Meaningful reform will never happen again and this country is doomed to its fate, as dictated by its people. For good or for ill we are undeniably headed down a socialist path (and no, I'm not saying Obama is a socialist) and have been for the last 50+ years.

2/16/2009 12:18:52 AM

as much as i hate that my Washington Generals post got the bottom-of-the-page treatment

i do love the fact that this page just starts with a random harlem globetrotter youtube

2/16/2009 3:35:31 AM

so... how do we measure the success or failure of this plan?

2/16/2009 9:17:46 AM

we just wait and see what happens with the economy in the next year, then we all ignore what actually happened and stick to our party lines.

Democrats:
- if economy gets better, declare success
- if economy gets worse, blame republicans for standing in the way of a bigger/better bill

Republicans:
- if economy gets better, credit the tax cuts in the bill and declare that we need more tax cuts
- if economy gets worse, blame democrats for passing the bill, then call for more tax cuts

2/16/2009 9:59:34 AM

Quote :

"if economy gets better, credit the tax cuts in the bill"

The tax cuts in this bill are too miniscule to have much of an effect. This recession isn't much worse than the '81-82 recession- and we got out of that without a trillion dollar gov't spending spree. The difference is we've had another 28 years of encouraging people to believe the gov't's role is solve every personal problem and fulfill their every dream.

2/16/2009 10:33:19 AM

lol...
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/903458.html
GOP lawmakers tout projects in the stimulus bill they opposed

Quote :

""I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future," the Florida Republican beamed in a press release. Yet Mica had just joined every other GOP House member in voting against the $787.2 billion economic recovery plan. "

Looks like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

2/16/2009 10:34:36 AM

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-oscar-rogers/1018723/

2/16/2009 10:47:03 AM

Quote :

"we just wait and see what happens with the economy in the next year, then we all ignore what actually happened and stick to our party lines."

bingo

but as for the "economy getting better" - to economic "experts" on here, what's the first indicator? Unemployment rates?

2/16/2009 10:58:19 AM

Quote :

"The tax cuts in this bill are too miniscule to have much of an effect."

i'm not arguing that, but I'm saying if the economy does pick up within months or a year or so, that's what the Republicans in Congress will credit it to.

2/16/2009 11:19:12 AM

^^ not an expert, but employment numbers are a lagging indicator. retrospectively, the eye of the storm seems to form between (almost at the midpoint of) the bottom of market collapse and the bottom of the jobs number.

2/16/2009 11:47:19 AM

sorry if this is old but i peed myself reading this

“This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

“Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
“A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

“Q. Where will the government get this money?
“A. From taxpayers.

“Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
“A. No, they are borrowing it from China . You children are expected to repay the Chinese.

“Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
“A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

“Q. But isn’t that stimulating the economy of China ?
“A. Shut up.”

! Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China .

If you spend it on gasoline it will go to Hugo Chavez, the Arabs and Al Queda

If you purchase a computer it will go to Taiwan .

If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras , and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).

If you buy a car it will go to Japan and Korea .

If you purchase prescription drugs it will go to India
If you purchase heroin it will go to the Taliban in Afghanistan

If you give it to a charitable cause, it will go to Nigeria .

And none of it will help the American economy.

We need to keep that money here in America . You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer (domestic ONLY), or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US

2/16/2009 11:57:13 AM

now that you mention it - i do need new tattoos

2/16/2009 12:18:59 PM