120 Days to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in US History

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

You want the government to stay the hell out of big business, but you also lament the fact that the government didn't place enough controls on the GM bailout.

Actually, I have said from the start that I didn't agree with the GM bailout at all. I think they should have been left to go bankrupt.

You want the government to create jobs and improve the economy, but don't want them to be a substantial employer.

No, I do not want the 'government' to create jobs. I want the private side to create jobs. I want the government to quit interfering.

You say you want the government to cut spending, but continue the military missions abroad.

There you go again putting words in my mouth. I have MANY times stated that the DoD budget should be cut. But not at the expense of just pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the US decided to go in and blow the place up, they should at least try to clean it up.

You sound like the archetype American conservative who demands services but wants them without cost.

???

The trillion dollars pumped into the economy could have been more effective, except the enterprises that received the money turned around and took it as profit, banking it or investing it offshore. The only way the government could have prevented this was by putting in place huge restrictions on how the money could be used, but if they did that you would have complained the government was overstepping its boundaries and it was acting in a socialist manner.

Uhh, no. The trillion dollars that was spent hasn't even 100% allocated to the various places it was designated to go. A huge portion of the stimulus was put towards 'green power', and it will take years upon years to see the results. In terms of where the money will go, and what it will do, I think the stimulus can work. But it will take a LONG time, and its money the US government/taxpayer does not have. Plus, because of how long it will take to create results, it won't help the economy is the immediate future.

The left-leaning Time Magazine ran a great article on the stimulus bill a while back. Once you got past the drooling over Obama it was actually interesting where the money from the stimulus fund was going, and what kind of results will be expected. Still, it will take years, perhaps even more than a decade.

Is it cost justifiable? Remains to be seen. It doesn't do anything to jumpstart the economy though, which is what a lot of people, apparently including Obama thought it would do.

[SeeBass]

I just heard on the radio "Young Turks" on America Left, they had quoted the CBO
and they claimed the stimulus created 3.3 million jobs and over $200 billion in consumer spending.

I do trust the CBO's numbers(even if it is for or against my views) but I have not confirmed that the quote was correct.


UpdateFrom the Bureau of Labor And Statistics:

From December 2007 to July 2009 - the last year of the Bush second term and the first six months of the Obama presidency, before his policies could affect the economy - private sector employment crashed from 115,574,000 jobs to 107,778,000 jobs. Employment continued to fall, however, for the next six months, reaching a low of 107,107,000 jobs in December of 2009. So, out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle, 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republicans' watch or under the sway of their policies. Some 671,000 additional jobs were lost as the stimulus and other moves by the administration kicked in, but 630,000 jobs then came back in the following six months. The tally, to date: Mr. Obama can be held accountable for the net loss of 41,000 jobs (671,000 - 630,000), while the Republicans should be held responsible for the net losses of 7,796,000 jobs.

[Azure]

How long have the Democrats been in charge of Congress?

I fail to see how you can blame this problem on one party, and let the other party off the hook. The loss of jobs may be the result of the natural cycle of the market, or, because of inadequate banking regulations, the result of problems going back to the Carter years.

Obama isn't even at fault for the 41,000 jobs. Hell, he isn't even at fault that the economy crashed. He inherited a horrid situation that was created by years upon years of stupidity and incompetence by EVERYONE on Capital Hill.

His 'responsibility' began with the stimulus bill, the recovering of the economy, AFTER it crashed.

As for the jobs the stimulus created, because of the money invested into infrastructure and other type of upgrades, certainly it created jobs. The government also created a lot of jobs with IRS hiring, and temporary census workers.

Did that solve the unemployment problem? No it didn't. The private side needs to start hiring. The public side can't power the economy. It can help to a SMALL degree, but it can't power it. And I think Obama, and a lot of his supporters were so caught up in the 'hype' that they didn't even realize that his policies weren't going to make things better overnight like a lot of them expected. I think even he expected it.

End of the day, private side has to start hiring people, start spending the money they're sitting on. The stimulus is going to do what it was set out to do, plus waste a lot of taxpayer money in the process as this is the same government that magically 'lost' billions in Iraq. But, I still think it will take at least a decade for those changes to be seen. Hell, it'll take a long time for the changes of Obamacare to really start being shown. Negative or positive.

Problem is that that is a trillion here, a trillion there....money that is just making the debt keep going up. You can't sustain that forever, and it goes without saying that the US will have to cut and suffer to get back on track. And I don't think they're willing to do that. Hell, there are people on CP that actually think that the US just needs to spend MORE on health care, MORE on this, MORE on that when they're already spending MORE on health care than a lot of different countries who have a FAR better system.

There was a post earlier that talked about the US consumer not living within his means. Credit card spending and paying the minimum amount possible to just get by. Buying a house you can't afford, a car you want but don't have the money for. This attitude is exactly the same attitude the US government has, and until that changes the US is going to continue going down.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by Azure

Actually, I have said from the start that I didn't agree with the GM bailout at all. I think they should have been left to go bankrupt.

And a loss of another 250,000 jobs that pay slightly more than a living wage.

No, I do not want the 'government' to create jobs. I want the private side to create jobs. I want the government to quit interfering.

How is the government interfering? That's a pretty good talking point but quite contrary to reality. The government has given big business money, insured loans, reduced interest rates, stalled regulatory legislation or ignored the responsibility to regulate what caused the problem in the first place. Where is this mythical government interference?

This is a bugaboo the American right has been very skilled at manufacturing over the years. Americans have been taught to fear their government, which is ridiculous. The government is of the people and for the people, or at least it was until the corporations were granted more rights than the individual. The government must abide by the framework of the constitution and the oversight and balance which the the three branches of government provide to each other.

Conversely, corporations and private enterprise have no such oversight or control through a common public means. There is no constitutional protections from these agencies. These companies can do what they want and then wage their battles in court. Exxon can destroy the Prince William Sound, and then 20 years later still be appealing the penalties imposed against them. Government does not have this latitude. But we should turn over all control of our economy to these entities whose only ethical concern is to turn a profit for the shareholder?

There you go again putting words in my mouth. I have MANY times stated that the DoD budget should be cut. But not at the expense of just pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the US decided to go in and blow the place up, they should at least try to clean it up.

The country can't afford to remain in these conflicts. It is well past time to cut bait and head home. You can't win a culture war with tanks and planes.

Uhh, no. The trillion dollars that was spent hasn't even 100% allocated to the various places it was designated to go. A huge portion of the stimulus was put towards 'green power', and it will take years upon years to see the results. In terms of where the money will go, and what it will do, I think the stimulus can work. But it will take a LONG time, and its money the US government/taxpayer does not have. Plus, because of how long it will take to create results, it won't help the economy is the immediate future.

Economic recovery is supposed to happen overnight? It took Bush eight years to destroy the economy and empty the treasury, but Obama should be able to fix that mess overnight? This has become a generational problem. It is going to take a generation or two to solve the problems created by two or three generations of Friedman and Reaganomics. Trickle down doesn't work. Ignoring or selling off the infrastructure of your nation doesn't work. Only investment in the infrastructure and the systems that support business will bring back the foreign investment needed to restart the economy.

The left-leaning Time Magazine ...

Left leaning? Compared to what? Glenn Back, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News? Time is as centerist as you can get in today's corporate owned and controlled infotainment media spectrum. Time actually used to be considered rightist because of their pro-business position on almost everything. There also is no left in the United States. The extreme left is considered liberalism, which is pretty centerist as an ideology goes. The left has been removed from the public consciousness. The communist and socialist ideologies now have no place in the discourse to balance off the extreme rhetoric from the right. The center line has shifted further and further to the right, making those in the center appear on the left, but the reality is that the whole discussion now comes from a rightist perspective. Left leaning, that's a good one.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

Economic recovery is supposed to happen overnight? It took Bush eight years to destroy the economy and empty the treasury, but Obama should be able to fix that mess overnight?

Ah, your bias is quite obvious.

Have a nice day.

[CaptainCrunch]

The causes of this economic freefall can be blamed on the presidential regimes going back to the Carter administration. While its couture to blame the whole thing on bush, and you can blame the wars for a big chunk of this. the economic collapse was a long time coming and was created by a perfect storm of factors both global and national.

Its kind of simplistic to blame one president.

And while Obama can't be blamed for the slow or lack of recovery one has to admit that his policies in terms of kickstarting the U.S. economy haven't been amazingly sound.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The causes of this economic freefall can be blamed on the presidential regimes going back to the Carter administration. While its couture to blame the whole thing on bush, and you can blame the wars for a big chunk of this. the economic collapse was a long time coming and was created by a perfect storm of factors both global and national.

Its kind of simplistic to blame one president.

And while Obama can't be blamed for the slow or lack of recovery one has to admit that his policies in terms of kickstarting the U.S. economy haven't been amazingly sound.

In the same way that one would have to admit that, given the fact that the presidents since Carter have created the mess, the policies any president right now would fall short of the perfection some people in this thread are calling for (or claiming).

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Azure

His 'responsibility' began with the stimulus bill, the recovering of the economy, AFTER it crashed.

As for the jobs the stimulus created, because of the money invested into infrastructure and other type of upgrades, certainly it created jobs. The government also created a lot of jobs with IRS hiring, and temporary census workers.

Did that solve the unemployment problem? No it didn't. The private side needs to start hiring. The public side can't power the economy. It can help to a SMALL degree, but it can't power it. And I think Obama, and a lot of his supporters were so caught up in the 'hype' that they didn't even realize that his policies weren't going to make things better overnight like a lot of them expected. I think even he expected it.

End of the day, private side has to start hiring people, start spending the money they're sitting on. The stimulus is going to do what it was set out to do, plus waste a lot of taxpayer money in the process as this is the same government that magically 'lost' billions in Iraq. But, I still think it will take at least a decade for those changes to be seen. Hell, it'll take a long time for the changes of Obamacare to really start being shown. Negative or positive.

Problem is that that is a trillion here, a trillion there....money that is just making the debt keep going up. You can't sustain that forever, and it goes without saying that the US will have to cut and suffer to get back on track. And I don't think they're willing to do that. Hell, there are people on CP that actually think that the US just needs to spend MORE on health care, MORE on this, MORE on that when they're already spending MORE on health care than a lot of different countries who have a FAR better system.

There was a post earlier that talked about the US consumer not living within his means. Credit card spending and paying the minimum amount possible to just get by. Buying a house you can't afford, a car you want but don't have the money for. This attitude is exactly the same attitude the US government has, and until that changes the US is going to continue going down.

So what exactly do you think the US gov't should have done instead of the stimulus? Nothing, and just waited for "the private side" to fix things? From what I recall, "the private side" responded to the bubble bursting by freezing credit and sitting on their money. Were they all of a sudden going to reverse course and start spending after things got even worse? That's not the lesson of the Great Depression.

Again, in your opinion, what was the right response if not government spending?

Some food for thought: an interview with Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, who argues for more spending shot term, argues against austerity, and holds Japan up as an example of what happens when a gov't does too little.

I'd be interested in any links you could provide to economists arguing that the stimulus was the wrong move.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mike F

So what exactly do you think the US gov't should have done instead of the stimulus? Nothing, and just waited for "the private side" to fix things?

CBO projections when the stimulus bill came out said that less than half of the money allocated to infrastructure and various other 'job created programs' would be spent by Oct 1, 2010. The Washington Post reported that out of the $30 billion allocated to highway renewal, $4 billion will be spent in the first 2 years. Less than $3 billion of the $18.5 billion for renewable energy and less than half the financing for school construction will be spent by 2011.
So like I said before, it'll take years, perhaps decades before you see any kind of significant change from the stimulus bill. Of course, that didn't stop Obama and his administration from hyping up the bill, especially in regards to how it was going to create jobs, and now they're all scrambling to put together a jobs bill, and perhaps even extend the tax cuts, which were leveraged the wrong way from the start.

Secondly, they passed a $825 billion dollar bill in a few weeks. It seems to be a habit with Congress to just throw together a plan and pass it without any vision of what it will actually do. You can go back and find many examples where something like that happened. There is no new approach, no 'out of the box' thinking. Countries like Germany and Britain devised plans to fix their spending problems, and find a way to decrease future deficit problems, as well as introduced innovative policies to help create jobs, and by all accounts they seem to be recovering. Especially Germany.

Thirdly, a lot of people, including numerous economists have argued that the bill will have a modest short term impact, i.e next 5 years, because of the way the money is allocated. In terms of a way to jump-start the economy, its a crap-shoot. Some of the stimulus money wasn't even allocated to be stimulus funds at all. Congress is known for putting a lot of pork into these bills, and you can be assured that they did the same here.

Again, in your opinion, what was the right response if not government spending?

An interesting article from the LA Times, with points for and against the stimulus.

A well-designed stimulus package would not prevent the needed adjustment but minimize the pain. With the typical number of new housing units built in a year at 1.5 million, we didn't need to wait for the number to hit 500,000 to correct for overbuilding. With normal sales of autos at about 15 million to 16 million units, we didn't need to let auto sales plummet to 9 million. Though we need to get the personal savings rate back up to 6% or more, we don't need to do that in just a few months.

A properly designed stimulus package would have slowed the adjustment. It would have short-circuited the negative feedback from job losses by concentrating spending where the job losses were occurring. It would have made the recession not so deep but would have made the adjustment longer lasting. It could have been done, but it wasn't even tried. Instead, we adopted a simple-minded Keynesian idea that it doesn't matter how the money is spent and it doesn't matter what taxes are lowered. So the Democrats got their favorite spending opportunities and the Republicans got their favorite tax cuts.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5376420.story

Point? Like I said earlier, the bill was thrown together in a few short weeks, and it reeks of politicians blindly throwing money at problems thinking it would help solve them. Was I against the stimulus? Well, I do believe there is a point to deficit spending in a time of recession, but you have to have a vision and some foresight on how you're going to pay for it, especially a trillion dollar plan, and you need to make sure the money is properly leveraged to go towards things that will actually help stimulate the economy. Also, you need aggressive short-term impact. Setting aside $30 billion for highway renewal and spending less than 25% in the first crucial years of the recession makes absolutely no sense.

There is a reason that a stimulus designed to keep unemployment at 7-8% was ineffective, and unemployment has since shot up to 10%.

Some food for thought: an interview with Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, who argues for more spending shot term, argues against austerity, and holds Japan up as an example of what happens when a gov't does too little.

Anti-cyclical government policies don't help much when you're borrowing money from your children and spending it to fix immediate problems. Especially when in the long-term those problems won't be fixed. Nor do they work when you're not actually spending the money you allocated to the various different 'programs,;

Drafting a bill to spend more, when 75% of the money already legislated to be spent as a stimulant hasn't even been used yet, and won't be used for years seems short-sighted. Again, there is absolutely no long-term plan here. Krugman isn't considering how Congress allocates money in the first place.

Borrowing money beyond of the point of the US' aggregate capacity to produce goods and services sufficient to service the debt are they objectively overextended to the point of no return. Now, its obviously still debatable whether or not that is happening, considering we are talking about a $12 trillion dollar economy. But, the point of no return isn't something the US government is thinking about. Spend, spend, spend, and cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes, mixed and matched does not work in any economy. Nor does raise taxes, and still spend more work either. There has to be a balance.

Like any individual business that wants to manage their debt, the US must now find a way, as a cohesive society to increase its production to a level where its sufficient enough to make the debt manageable. This should be the designed outcome everytime someone borrows money. Whether its a business, or whether its the government, and in the end, as individual businesses find new productive enterprises, the debt load should be shifted from the government sector to the private sector. This is the only way it can be managed properly. Of course, in order to do this the US will require some serious innovative and diligent work and policies over MANY years. I doubt this will happen with anyone currently employed on Capital Hill. The quick and shortsighted approach to the stimulus bill proves this.

And when you start considering how many of the 'money-making' industries in the US have been shifted to other countries, one has to wonder how exactly the US will be able to increase production to a point where it can sufficiently manage the debt-load.

The whole point of the stimulus bill, like you said, was to deal with the problem of insufficient aggregate demand: the private sector has resources that it is not mobilizing. Krugman would argue that you need to spend more in order to get the desired result. I would argue that the money allocated wasn't even spent properly, nor will it be in the future. We are talking about a government that magically loses billions on reconstruction funds in Iraq.

Right now there are a lot of US businesses that aren't spending money because of a lot of uncertainty in the economy. The stimulus bill, according to the original purpose was supposed to quell this, and leverage the economy superficially to the point where the people sitting on the $1.5 trillion dollars in cash would start spending it. This would create growth and production, and the debt created by the stimulus bill would be offset by the growth in the economy and therefore could be managed. Of course, nobody considered that the US already has a $10 trillion dollar debt to begin with, and simply adding to it without a plan on how to manage the resulting 'chaos' isn't going to fix anything at all.

Creating 'jobs' doesn't help if the jobs are public, temporary, and not designed in a way where you're only serving in effect, the financial industry. The US needs to go back to manufacturing in order to fuel the growth of the GDP. Like I said before, I doubt this will happen anytime soon with the idiots in charge of Capitol Hill.

Of course, that is my opinion, and I have been wrong before.

I'd be interested in any links you could provide to economists arguing that the stimulus was the wrong move.

There are a lot of economists all over the world who have disagreed with stimulus spending for a variety of reasons. Contrary to popular opinion, not every single economist believes in Keynesian policies.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Azure

snip

If I got the jist of that, you're arguing that a different stimulus would have worked better, not that gov't shouldn't have stepped in and left it to the private sector to create jobs and pull itself out, which seemed to be your earlier stance.

You appear to be saying that more spending should have been implemented immediately, and that likely was true and is true today. The original bill relied on the economy turning around in order to be paid for over time. The economy isn't turning, as too much was allocated to future spending, to make the turn stick, and not enough to make the turn happen in the first place.

So what do you do today, in the face of that? Implement austerity and hope that things will turn on their own because private investors will open new plants now, despite no demand, because things won't be as bad in the future? Or, as Krugman advocates, do you fix what was wrong in the first place, and try to create the jobs and demand now?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mike F

If I got the jist of that, you're arguing that a different stimulus would have worked better, not that gov't shouldn't have stepped in and left it to the private sector to create jobs and pull itself out, which seemed to be your earlier stance.

More or less. But, I don't think it would have worked to just pour money into a stimulus program, even one created to just improve infrastructure and things like that. I think that like Germany and many other European countries, the US should have taken an approach that was focused around reducing spending in the coming years, managing the debt/deficit, while at the same time pouring a little money into different types of projects.

And certainly not $825 billion.

You appear to be saying that more spending should have been implemented immediately, and that likely was true and is true today. The original bill relied on the economy turning around in order to be paid for over time. The economy isn't turning, as too much was allocated to future spending, to make the turn stick, and not enough to make the turn happen in the first place.

Exactly. Even if the stimulus was clobbered together in short time, it still wasn't effective enough for those reasons. It wasn't fast enough, and it didn't provide enough short term help. In the end it seemed like the government had been given mandate to blow a trillion bucks on whatever they wanted, so they sat down and in a few weeks decided to fund literally everything under the sun. And what did it do to sustain the economy? Absolutely nothing. The economy and unemployment got worse. But had they taken maybe $100 billion, which is certainly manageable in the long-run, and invested it into projects that would instantly be started on, and projects that would create jobs, generate business, and improve things in the long-run, it would have been much more effective.

So what do you do today, in the face of that? Implement austerity and hope that things will turn on their own because private investors will open new plants now, despite no demand, because things won't be as bad in the future? Or, as Krugman advocates, do you fix what was wrong in the first place, and try to create the jobs and demand now?

I'm not even sure. Long-term goal should still be to manage the debt. Doing that will require economic growth, and I have no idea how one would go about getting businesses to start using their billions in cash. I think over-regulation and complicated tax codes have contributed to the problem, but not to the point where a company won't see the incentive to go out and generate growth.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thirdly, a lot of people, including numerous economists have argued that the bill will have a modest short term impact, i.e next 5 years, because of the way the money is allocated. In terms of a way to jump-start the economy, its a crap-shoot.

...

Also, you need aggressive short-term impact.

...

Drafting a bill to spend more, when 75% of the money already legislated to be spent as a stimulant hasn't even been used yet, and won't be used for years seems short-sighted.

Having read your previous posts and reading the theme in this one as well, I think it is fair to emphasize that 1/3rd of the stimulus bill was tax cuts.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Having read your previous posts and reading the theme in this one as well, I think it is fair to emphasize that 1/3rd of the stimulus bill was tax cuts.

Closer to 42% actually.

Tax cuts are a different story though. I'm strictly talking about government investment in a variety of different projects designed to directly create jobs.

I'm not even sure that tax cuts were the right move. During a time of recession people are notorious for saving money. Companies do it even more, i.e. the $1.3 trillion in cash that they're sitting on.

Sure, it gives consumers in a break, and in theory I like the idea of a tax cut to power the economy, but I don't think a stimulant planned designed around cutting taxes to 'repower' the American economy would work.

The US tax laws need readjusting, not constant cutting/adding.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Azure

Closer to 42% actually.

Tax cuts are a different story though. I'm strictly talking about government investment in a variety of different projects designed to directly create jobs.

I'm not even sure that tax cuts were the right move. During a time of recession people are notorious for saving money. Companies do it even more, i.e. the $1.3 trillion in cash that they're sitting on.

Sure, it gives consumers in a break, and in theory I like the idea of a tax cut to power the economy, but I don't think a stimulant planned designed around cutting taxes to 'repower' the American economy would work.

The US tax laws need readjusting, not constant cutting/adding.

I guess that after reading your many posts I'm still confused what you would do, specifically.

[Azure]

Interesting article from the Washington Post about taxes, small businesses, and Obama's policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...305391_pf.html

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I guess that after reading your many posts I'm still confused what you would do, specifically.

The opposite of everything Obama does?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I guess that after reading your many posts I'm still confused what you would do, specifically.

I honestly have no idea what I would do at this point.

Even beyond the recession you need to make the debt sustainable. Either by cutting spending, or by growing the economy. And I don't think either will happen anytime soon.

I often look at what Canada did during the Martin years as financial minister, and try to perhaps imagine similarities in the US as well, but I don't think anyone has the balls to do that.

We experienced a lot of cuts to public programs to the point where some people feel they were much to severe, but the end result was we balanced the budget, and ran a surplus.

http://ipezone.blogspot.com/2010/06/...nomically.html

In the meantime, they (and we) can reflect on the Canadian example of enlightened politics. Unlike the primitive American scene where Democrats are unwilling to make cuts to social expenditures and bicker endlessly with Republicans who are averse to raising revenues, Canada's leaders patiently explained to key constituencies why cuts were required for the sake of all. If you are reasonable and adopt an understanding, patient attitude towards your constituents instead of engaging in the brainless brand of combative American politics, people are more likely to listen.

Oh Canada, you put America to shame. Then again, it's not so difficult to do nowadays, is it?

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ah, your bias is quite obvious.

Have a nice day.

So is yours. What is your point?

Have a nice evening.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by flameswin

The opposite of everything Obama does?

Clearly that is exactly what I am suggesting. Considering Obama and his administration quite obviously have no long-term plan at the moment, and hyped up their 'repowering of the American economy' into an $825 billion dollar taxpayer slush fund, which hasn't done anything it was designed to do, i.e. short term and immediate impact on the economy and jobs, yes, much of the little I understand enough about the economy has provided me an opinion where I would do pretty much the opposite of anything Obama has proposed.

Look at how they now have to 'fix' their $825 billion dollar mistake by spending more money on more immediate stuff.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vowing to find new ways to stimulate the sputtering economy, President Barack Obama will call for long-term investments in the nation's roads, railways and runways that would cost at least $50 billion.
The infrastructure investments are one part of a package of targeted proposals the White House is expected to announce in hopes of jump-starting the economy ahead of the November election. Obama will outline the infrastructure proposal Monday at a Labor Day event in Milwaukee.

While the proposal calls for investments over six years, the White House said spending would be front-loaded with an initial $50 billion to help create jobs in the near future.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100906/D9I2DUV01.html

So much for the $825 billion. But hey, who cares, long-term at least. Taking from Peter to give to Paul is sound fiscal policy, right?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Azure

Interesting article from the Washington Post about taxes, small businesses, and Obama's policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...305391_pf.html

The transition has been interesting to read over the last 5 years, but it's come to the point where The Washington Post can no longer hide it's contempt for the left. But it's a free world, so Fred Hiatt can continue to forward his agenda on the back of the newspaper's reputation.

Consider one of these claims in the article:

Mr. Upham notes that his taxes have increased 7 fold.

Well, that means that his maximum tax rate prior to the 7 fold increase was 14.3% (since 7 x 14.3 = 100).

Now we now that his taxes could not have gone up to 100%. That means that his taxes were significantly lower than 14.3% prior to the 7 fold increase. If his effective tax rate was 7% prior to the sevenfold increase, he'd be at 50% now which is highly unlikely because it would mean *all* his income is magically taxed at 36% and we tack on FICA + Medicare on top of it. That's not how marginal taxes work.

So basically Mr. Upham paid a very, very low rate of effective tax to begin with, but this quality article is out here to foster the impression that taxes are rising uncontrollably. Sevenfold!

Here's hoping Mr. Upham gets the 0% effective tax rate that he's clearly yearning for; but my condolences in advance to the future President that raises his effective tax rate from 0% to 1%. Hell hath no fury like a Mr. Upham who has just had his taxes raised an infinite-fold.