Economic Stimulus Package
What a fancy name that is. Too many syllables though.
"Tax Relief?"
That's a noble concept. We all want tax relief, right? But since those who pay three-fourths of the income tax in this country won't be getting any relief from this package, perhaps that isn't the right term to use.
"Tax Rebate?"
Yes! Give the taxpayers some of their hard-earned money back. That ought to be good for a few votes. Of course somewhere between 30 and 50 million people who pay zero taxes will be getting a government check, so maybe rebate isn't the right word after all.
No, let's just call it welfare and move along. Karl Marx would be proud. This redistribution of wealth is just a disguised way to widen the already perverted progressive taxation scheme.
I guess reducing the federal deficit isn't that important after all.
Don't take my word for it. Here's a roundup of some actual economists' views.
Who would have guessed President Bush would turn into Jimmy Carter?
"Tax Relief?"
That's a noble concept. We all want tax relief, right? But since those who pay three-fourths of the income tax in this country won't be getting any relief from this package, perhaps that isn't the right term to use.
"Tax Rebate?"
Yes! Give the taxpayers some of their hard-earned money back. That ought to be good for a few votes. Of course somewhere between 30 and 50 million people who pay zero taxes will be getting a government check, so maybe rebate isn't the right word after all.
No, let's just call it welfare and move along. Karl Marx would be proud. This redistribution of wealth is just a disguised way to widen the already perverted progressive taxation scheme.
I guess reducing the federal deficit isn't that important after all.
Don't take my word for it. Here's a roundup of some actual economists' views.
Who would have guessed President Bush would turn into Jimmy Carter?
Labels: politics, prostitutes, rants, scammers
posted by scalpel at 4:44 AM
17 Comments:
Yeah, as soon as I saw it was going to be (at least partially) based on the number of children in the family, I went straight to "welfare". At least it's not quite as bad as Hillary's plan to give $500 to every child born in the US. That's all we need is a bounty on giving birth.
Free money in an election year is always good. It's the new "A chicken in every pot."
God forbid any politician would get behind a halt to spending rather than giving it mere lip service. But I suppose that's impossible when their axiom is more like, "Ah, a problem. Let's throw money at it - er, someone else's money."
I'm in the top 25% of income earners?
That's sad.
If the checks come in May, that will be just in time to pay off the charges I'll run up in Europe in early April.
I really hate the government in times like this. Why can't they just lower tax rates instead of giving out rebates, especially to those that don't pay taxes to begin with.
Dang. I knew I should have had a couple more kids. People keep looking at me like I'm crazy when I ask "But where is the money COMING from??" Yes, that extra $ will be nice, but someday, when a bridge collapses under me, I'll wish that money had been spent on infrastructure instead.(and yeah, I get that infrastructure $ comes from some other part of the budget but you see my point, right?)
-lpnmon
This comment has been removed by the author.
Economics not being my strong suit...I always thought a stimulus was good for the economy -getting those dollars back out there for purchases, helping businesses.
However, any extra money we have these days goes to buy the utilities -huge electric and oil bills! I actually feel pain along with shock and awe when I write the check to the oil company.
I guess I could stop turning the Christmas lights on. They're clear and I still like to turn them on ,especially on dreary or snowy nights. :)
Bush is just trying to save his sad legacy - with one final "conservative" act - lowering taxes (or tax credit whatever he calls it). Of couise history will remember him for Iraq more than giving a few people a few bucks back.
I pay lots of taxes, and much as I need the money, I'd rather get my refund all at once, instead of getting half now and the rest later.
I am kind of looking forward to it though, I need it for my dental surgery...
I wish J.G.Wentworth would help me get my Social Security early so I could get my surgery done quick, and my tax refund quick...After all, it's MY MONEY and I NEED IT NOW!!!
RagingServer.com
Poor people do pay taxes. Perhaps not income tax, if they're just plain not earning enough, but sales tax and other indirect taxes.
The point is to get money circulating again. It doesn't matter, economically speaking, even if it all goes on beer and cigarettes, since the storekeeper will have to resupply, and those supplies will have to be driven, and so people are being employed and the money goes round and in theory, recession is staved off a little longer.
That's why the rebates, to put it among exactly that section of the population that will spend it and won't hoard it in the bank. Give the rebate to someone who already has money and they'll save it. Leave it as a lowering of taxes and people will save it. Give it to those on the bottom, and yes, those with children, and they'll spend it right away, and that's the whole point of dropping the money back in there. The last thing they will want is for people to save it or invest it.
I personally think it's a finger to plug a dam, but I do at least understand what they're trying for.
Book of Matthew 25:41-46
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
anon 9:28,
That was a discourse of Jesus regarding INDIVIDUALS, not government. He never advocated that Christians go rob the rich to fulfill Christian duty. He did advocate that people change their behavior, use your talents, work hard and prosper.
You really have this thing all twisted up.
Isn't this supposed to be a democracy, where the government represents the will of the people? It always astounds me that people who have their sense of personal identity all tied up with how much money they have, and who are so scornful of those who don't have money, consider themselves to be Christians.
If a politician tries to ease the hardship of the poor by raising taxes, you consider it to be "robbing you" and you fight tooth and nail against that happening. In so doing, you make the difference between life and death for some people living on the edge of survival - and there are more like that in the U.S. today then there have been for a long time - yet somehow you have no individual responsibility. There is something else in the Bible about the type of person whose identity is all tied up with their wealth - something about the relative ease of a camel going through the eye of a needle.
Charity is a wonderful concept of which I wholeheartedly approve. Unreasonable taxation is not.
I don't consider myself a Christian, btw. I'm agnostic.
You might recall the last time the Goment sent out $600.00 "economic stimulus" checks - they were merely an advance on tax refunds. Since I never manage a refund (I make too much and have little in the way of deductions) I had to give it back 3 months later. I would have preferred nothing at all.
I saw one awesome political cartoon about this very topic. The caption? Irresponsible spending got us into this mess, irresponsibel spending will get us OUT of it, too!
Post a Comment
<< Home