Stimulus package? uhh what

Will not stimulate the economy. How do you figure that? Many people will be put to work from engineers to concrete plant operators.

Most economists believe the depression would have been much longer and much more devastating without the actions taken at the time. Sure I disagree with some things that were done like extirpating some of the most amazing salmon runs on earth with the construction of Grand Coolee, but it was instrumental in our WW II and cold war victories.

Look what Hoover Dam did for the southwest. Do you think Nevada's or California's economies would be a fraction of what they are without this works project?

When levees are over topped and bridges fall into rivers something needs to be done. Even if it doesn't stimulate the economy, which I think is highly unlikely, we need to reinvest in America to keep us solvent for the long run.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/opinion/03herbert.html

 

Yep something needs to be done...
States need to start spending the federal money they already get to maintain these things on actually maintaining them....

And yes some economists agree that the depression would have been longer without the projects that were done, however some economists disagree and believe that it did nothing or even made it longer. Personally I believe that the govt needs to stay out of it and let it correct itself, yes some businesses will close down, yes some banks will come close to failing and be bought out by another bank. But we will come out a stronger nation on the other side, however if the govt keeps meddling in it and proping up businesses that need to fail we are just stretching out the pain. We have already essentially wasted $350 billion on the first bailout with no real results, what makes anybody believe that dumping almost another trillion dollars (that we don't have) is going to be any different? All we are doing is running up the defecit and causing more damage in the long run.

 

why do we keep doing this?
we know it doesn't work, right?
no matter which side does it, try to make a blanket plan, so large and immense most folks will only skim it and never see things hidden inside, and the ones that do get labeled as negative because they 'try and prevent something good', when they want the whole deal, just hold the onions, so to speak
no wonder we can't get anything done, everybody's trying to deceive and not be deceived

okay, back to the topic

 

I think we can all agree that the first 350 billion was a waste, well millionaires got bonuses. When banks merge into super banks then we have more problems, they get too big to fail and corrupt the whole system.

People seem to have a short view of infrastructure improvements. The prosperity of the 50's and 60's was indirectly attributable to the works projects of the 30's and a direct result of the enormous taxes we placed on obscene accumulations of wealth.

 

The other issue I have with the "Stimulus" bill is that the majority of the money is not programmed to come online until the end of 2010, how is that possibly going to help anything now? (not that it is going o help anything even in the end, well maybe the Chinese since they are going to fund the loan probably..)

 

My long term solution is to tax the billionaires out of existence, invest in our people and infrastructure and actually start making and building things in this country again.

Naive and idealistic, maybe. Good for the most people, probably.

 

I take issue with that philosophy. Why do the rich have a greater requirement to support the country. A flat tax would be much more fair across the board, everybody pays their fair share. The real issue with it though is it removes incentive to excel, why would a person work hard enough and create enough to become a billionaire (or millionaire) when the light at the end of the tunnel is the government waiting to take it away to give to somebody who has not earned it...Sorry rant off...

 

Well they don't.

I would ask you, why does the country have a greater responsibility to support the rich? Tax rates on capital gains, in which no real labor is involved, are less than what working people pay. The cleaning lady scrubbing a hedge fund managers gilded toilet pays a higher percentage in taxes then the billionaire she works for. The flat tax is no solution to the inequality that drove us over the cliff into this recession.

People should be payed fairly for the work they do. The drive to excel is human nature. Who wouldn't work harder to support a family?



One of my favorite quotes from the letters to the editor page of the NYT

"Those whom history has judged as great often came from less and strived for more than wealth. High compensation doesn’t attract the very best. It attracts the greediest." Nate Baumgart

This quote below says it all and I will suggest that this person is not proud to be an American, he may be proud to be a billionaire capitalist. Our country is better than people like Kenneth C. Griffin.

"I am proud to be an American. But if the tax became too high, as a matter of principle I would not be working this hard.” Kenneth C. Griffin multi-billionaire

 

Taxing the rich into oblivion is both unconstitutional (equal protection) and a horrible idea. Say you tax people like Bill Gates into oblivion. Who then creates the big companies that employ so many people? We could go back to the type of society we had before such ultra rich people existed, but then what is the point in the stimulus package? The economy then was nowhere near what it is now. We could have small, regional cottage industries, and then I suppose we could try to get the rest of the people to go back to agrarian lifestyles - you would also have to tax those ultra-rich farmers out of existence. Back then, under such a society, we could not support this size of a population, so you have the problem of where to put everybody and how to feed them. Back then, there were not massive government programs to provide jobs, because there were not enough tax revenues to pay for them. If you eliminate the ultra rich, there goes well over 75% of all taxes - sure, you will have record revenues for a short burst until you have wiped out the rich, but then the goose that lays the golden egg is dead. Tax revenues will drop like a rock. So, too, will pretty much most of the government programs. Bye-bye infrastructure spending. Government is dependent on taxes to pay for anything.

I didn't say that infrastructure spending doesn't stimulate - I said that infrastructure spending doesn't stimulate immediately. As I said, it takes much longer for the government to do anything than the private sector. So infrastructure spending will potentially stimulate, but not immediately, and the supposed purpose of this stimulus bill is to provide immediate stimulation for the economy.

Additionally, most government enterprises are wasteful and ineptly managed. With all the talk of overhauling the health care system by the government, why has nobody looked at the fact that government can't even properly regulate the government-run health care that already exists - Medicare is rife with fraud and problems. Or look at one of the hallmarks of the New Deal - the TVA. Over 60 years later, the TVA still has not been able to actually turn a profit. If it were not a government-backed program, it would have gone belly-up long ago.

With all the New Deal programs, it took about a decade to get out of the depression - what is more, it actually caused another recession within the depression. The Hoover Dam was a program that was started before FDR - hence its name. FDR tried to change the name, but lost that one. The problem with the New Deal was that it was so punitive to private industry, that it prolonged the Great Depression. With all the government spending, they couldn't get out of the depression. Only once WWII started and FDR realized that he needed to utilize private industry to generate the massive build-up, did he start to ease restrictions on private industry - and that is when the economy started to recover. Government spending doesn't stimulate, because it requires taking money out of the economy to accomplish its goals. There is no net gain. They take money out and then put it back in - very inefficiently. Private industry actually puts new capital in - that is why new private industry stimulates the economy, whereas new government spending, at best, has no net effect.

By the way, I am not blaming any one party, per se. True, my comments are directed at Democrats in government, since they are running the show. But I know that Republicans have been just as guilty as of late, and I have no illusions that most of the Republicans voting against aren't doing it for political reasons.

 

Many a failed socialist country would suggest the contrary. The drive to excel is human nature, for the most part, but the drive to not bother also becomes particularly prevalent when the expected compensation falls below a certain level. And why is it so wrong for someone who provides much more than others to expect to earn more than others? Most people can't start up some multi-billion dollar company that provides goods and services to people around the world and that employs thousands of people. I would think that a person who can create such a company is certainly deserving of significant compensation. As long as nothing illegal is done in achieving that goal, I see no problem.

 

The problem is that this $800-$900 Billion stimulus bill has very little money earmarked for what most folks would consider "infrastructure".

 

Good rant.

 

Mike you seem to forget that it's been done in the past and that's how we got a middle class in the 50's until well I guess there may still be a middle class somewhere?



Some statistics.

"The IRS revealed last week that America’s 400 highest-income taxpayers averaged $263 million each in 2006 and paid just 17.2 percent of that, or $45 million, in federal income tax. In 1992, America’s 400 richest averaged only $46.8 million in income and paid 26.4 percent of that in tax."

This is, of course, assuming they reported all their income and weren't hiding it in tax shelters. Bet you pay more. I know I do.

"A generation ago, the top estate tax rate on grand fortunes stood at 77 percent."

Of course this is after they die.

http://www.toomuchonline.org/tmweekly.html




"The Reagan 1981 tax act did more to benefit America's “successful” than any single piece of legislation in modern American history. The act sliced the top tax rate on most income over $200,000 from 70 to 50 percent and, in the process, set the nation on a course that would lower this top rate all the way down to our current 35 percent."

http://www.toomuchonline.org/weeklies2006/Aug212006.html





It's been done and it worked fabulously for average American's. We can do it again and there is no better time than the present.

Hoover dam was actually named Boulder Dam until renamed for Hoover. Construction started in 1931 and was completed in 1935. It was a depression era project although it was conceived earlier.

We will not get out of this quickly and I'm more concerned about our long term health and stability.

 

There are workoholics and lazy people and there always will be. We need to aim for the middle.

What does shuffling papers and moving money around actually provide? It did lead us to where we are now. It's smoke and mirrors Mike. The pie can grow but sometimes it will shrink and the wealthiest will have the pie. Maybe we can get crumbs like the trickle down failure that got us here.

 

I agree and have emailed my legislators to increase funding for projects that break ground or repair what we have.

 

I know this is not really indicative of anything by itself, but I worked for ten years before I started making enough money yearly to be taxed by the feds. This year they only want 3.5% and I consider myself middle class

The flat tax would hurt me, and yet I would prefer it for fairness' sake... although I am not quite so principled that I am sending the numbskulls in D.C. extra money of my own volition just to help out. It seems a lot wiser to use the money I dont spend in taxes to help out people around me locally who are having a hard time. But maybe I am too narrow in that thinking

 

These are interesting statistics and were what I was searching for in post #153




http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/08/wsj_reaganomics.html

Greed is not good.

 

Actually there is a huge number of Americans who at the end of the year pay NO taxes, they receive a refund. And chances are the cleaning lady in your example would be one of them. Essentially meaning that they only loaned the money to the Govt for the year. A flat tax would require that everybody pay taxes for the year, there are no refunds. Everybody carries a portion of the burden for running the govt in proportion to their earnings.

As far as the estate tax, I despise it. It is taxing money for a second time. The money was earned by somebody and taxes were paid on it. The govt has decided that since that person died they are entitled to tax that money again, should my children be taxed on the allowance I pay them? There is no reason other than govt greed to tax estates, especially at that high of a rate. Think about it, if you leave your children $100,000 when you pass on, they will receive $23,000 of it once the govt takes their cut. Why not just tax any money saved each year also?

 

Neither is a feeling of entitlement to something you have not earned. The ultra rich you want to tax out of existence are the ones who own the mega corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of people.
If you tax GM out of business, how many people really lose their jobs:
1. The people who work directly for GM
2. The people who work for the companies who supply with sub-assemblies
3. The people who supply the sub-assembly company with materials
4. The people who supply GM with raw materials
5. The people who deliver GM products
6. The owners and employees of every GM dealership

The list goes on and on, and we could play this game with any large company.
Ambition is not evil, being paid for your hard work in is not evil. These people are the ones taking the risks to keep the companies running, they deserve to be compensated.