Jump to content

Further proof that this joke of a stimulas package will not work


Recommended Posts

As if Bush had not earned his Liberal wings long ago after abandoning all sense of the Conservative that he claimed to be, he offers up $168 Billion more of the "Free Money" that WE DO NOT HAVE. Thats not the only good news, it turns out that only 19 percent of the populace is actually stupid enough to go out buy Air Jordan 23's and Plasma Screens. 45 percent said they would pay bills, while 32 percent said they planned to invest the money.

What this means is, this will not stimulate the economy at all. 19 percent will barely register as a blip on the radar of this clusterf*ck that our economy has become. Just $168 Billion more flushed down the toilet, but in Bush's world and that of his Liberal brethren its not our money, China gave it to us, let our children pay it back (plus interest of course). Worrying about the economy is for losers, we have the "Audacity to Hope" who cares if we cannot afford free healthcare and other such redistribution bs, its free money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
silentbob1272 (2/14/2008)
As if Bush had not earned his Liberal wings long ago after abandoning all sense of the Conservative that he claimed to be, he offers up $168 Billion more of the "Free Money" that WE DO NOT HAVE. Thats not the only good news, it turns out that only 19 percent of the populace is actually stupid enough to go out buy Air Jordan 23's and Plasma Screens. 45 percent said they would pay bills, while 32 percent said they planned to invest the money.

What this means is, this will not stimulate the economy at all. 19 percent will barely register as a blip on the radar of this clusterf*ck that our economy has become. Just $168 Billion more flushed down the toilet, but in Bush's world and that of his Liberal brethren its not our money, China gave it to us, let our children pay it back (plus interest of course). Worrying about the economy is for losers, we have the "Audacity to Hope" who cares if we cannot afford free healthcare and other such redistribution bs, its free money.

Amen..

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I take it that you two now oppose Bush's tax cuts, which we couldn't afford and which cost WAY more than the current stimulus bill, and which went to upper income people who simply put it in their savings instead of spending it on food and clothes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ramen (2/14/2008)
So I take it that you two now oppose Bush's tax cuts, which we couldn't afford and which cost WAY more than the current stimulus bill, and which went to upper income people who simply put it in their savings instead of spending it on food and clothes.

No I oppose out of control spending..

Link to post
Share on other sites
savwboy savwboy (2/14/2008)
Ramen (2/14/2008)
So I take it that you two now oppose Bush's tax cuts, which we couldn't afford and which cost WAY more than the current stimulus bill, and which went to upper income people who simply put it in their savings instead of spending it on food and clothes.

No I oppose out of control spending..

So you only oppose tax cuts when they go to working families?

Help me understand your concern here. These are TAX CUTS. I thought conservatives supported those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ramen (2/14/2008)
So I take it that you two now oppose Bush's tax cuts, which we couldn't afford and which cost WAY more than the current stimulus bill, and which went to upper income people who simply put it in their savings instead of spending it on food and clothes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html

Gotta disagree with your portrayal of the tax cuts.

The charts at the very, very bottom of the link say otherwise.

Those making 27,000 and less got the best tax cut out of all groups. I'm a working person who was lowered from 28% to 25% and was making in the mid-40's. That's not even close to being "upper income"...

Link to post
Share on other sites
capologist (2/14/2008)
Ramen (2/14/2008)
So I take it that you two now oppose Bush's tax cuts, which we couldn't afford and which cost WAY more than the current stimulus bill, and which went to upper income people who simply put it in their savings instead of spending it on food and clothes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html

Gotta disagree with your portrayal of the tax cuts.

The charts at the very, very bottom of the link say otherwise.

Those making 27,000 and less got the best tax cut out of all groups. I'm a working person who was lowered from 28% to 25% and was making in the mid-40's. That's not even close to being "upper income"...

All independent analyses of the Bush tax cuts showed that the overwhelming chunk of the tax cut went to upper-income earners. Try citing something other than White House propaganda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ramen (2/14/2008)
savwboy savwboy (2/14/2008)
Ramen (2/14/2008)
So I take it that you two now oppose Bush's tax cuts, which we couldn't afford and which cost WAY more than the current stimulus bill, and which went to upper income people who simply put it in their savings instead of spending it on food and clothes.

No I oppose out of control spending..

So you only oppose tax cuts when they go to working families?

Help me understand your concern here. These are TAX CUTS. I thought conservatives supported those.

What?

How did you spin that out of what I said?

I am clearly saying Washington needs to cut spending so we can afford to give tax cuts..

Not just to the people who do not pay federal income tax to begin with..

Link to post
Share on other sites
savwboy savwboy (2/14/2008)
What?

How did you spin that out of what I said?

I am clearly saying Washington needs to cut spending so we can afford to give tax cuts..

Not just to the people who do not pay federal income tax to begin with..

Wait, do you support or oppose these tax cuts? Why does it matter if a person's income taxes are getting cut versus other taxes that they pay? [incidentally, only a very small number of people who paid NO taxes last year will get a rebate.] It's still a reduction in their tax burden. Why would you be opposed to that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ramen (2/14/2008)
savwboy savwboy (2/14/2008)
Ramen (2/14/2008)
So I take it that you two now oppose Bush's tax cuts, which we couldn't afford and which cost WAY more than the current stimulus bill, and which went to upper income people who simply put it in their savings instead of spending it on food and clothes.

No I oppose out of control spending..

So you only oppose tax cuts when they go to working families?

Help me understand your concern here. These are TAX CUTS. I thought conservatives supported those.

These are not tax cuts, they are a political bribe aimed at people who know no better in an election year.

This travesty in no way compares to the 2001 tax cuts. I paid several hundred dollars each year under Clinton (and I made next to nothing back then), with the Bush Tax Cuts I am refunded a couple thousands dollars each year. That is accounting for my changes in position and deductions. I am not to be considered rich, but I have felt the difference in the cuts significantly. To say that they are just cuts for the rich is also far too simplistic, that infers that these do not benefit us all as well. With few exceptions on these boards, we work for and therefore are beholden to a rich person(s) and/or a corporation. I essence, what is good for them is good for us. They are going to make their profits regardless, I would much rather a tax cut contribute to their bottom line than my position, bonus, or raise for the year, I have never understood how and why liberals cannot grasp that point. Not to mention that the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the overall tax, while the top 1% pays 39% so I should think a tax cut would and should benefit them.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ramen (2/14/2008)

All independent analyses of the Bush tax cuts showed that the overwhelming chunk of the tax cut went to upper-income earners. Try citing something other than White House propaganda.

If you go by dollar amount, of course they did. 3% of their money is a lot more than 3% of my money.

If you go strictly by the percentages though, lower incomes percentages changed drastically in their favor...

Link to post
Share on other sites
capologist (2/15/2008)
Ramen (2/14/2008)
Cappy, you also conveniently ignored the large tax cuts on estate taxes and investment income, both of which disproportionately benefited upper income earners.

Only "upper income earners" have inheritance and investments? I didn't know that...

Upper income earners DO make more of their income from investments, and a tax cut on the estate tax primarily benefits those inheriting large estates. You left those out and tried to cast the tax cuts as only income tax cuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
capologist (2/15/2008)
Ramen (2/14/2008)

All independent analyses of the Bush tax cuts showed that the overwhelming chunk of the tax cut went to upper-income earners. Try citing something other than White House propaganda.

If you go by dollar amount, of course they did. 3% of their money is a lot more than 3% of my money.

If you go strictly by the percentages though, lower incomes percentages changed drastically in their favor...

Right. And since we have a national debt and high deficits, I believe we should look at the dollar amount of the tax cuts. Whatever tax cuts we can afford should benefit the middle and lower class primarily.

A 5% rate reduction for lower income workers may equate to $75 per year. That is not a huge hit on the deficit or the national debt. A 3% rate cut for upper income workers may equate to thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per year. That puts a larger strain on the budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ramen (2/15/2008)

Right. And since we have a national debt and high deficits, I believe we should look at the dollar amount of the tax cuts. Whatever tax cuts we can afford should benefit the middle and lower class primarily.

A 5% rate reduction for lower income workers may equate to $75 per year. That is not a huge hit on the deficit or the national debt. A 3% rate cut for upper income workers may equate to thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per year. That puts a larger strain on the budget.

Instead of penalizing the highly successful that ensures the working person (and again, I'm smack dab in the middle of that classification), I'd rather downsize government before handing those that actually pay the overwhelming majority of taxes already their collective butts...

Link to post
Share on other sites
capologist (2/15/2008)
Ramen (2/15/2008)

Right. And since we have a national debt and high deficits, I believe we should look at the dollar amount of the tax cuts. Whatever tax cuts we can afford should benefit the middle and lower class primarily.

A 5% rate reduction for lower income workers may equate to $75 per year. That is not a huge hit on the deficit or the national debt. A 3% rate cut for upper income workers may equate to thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per year. That puts a larger strain on the budget.

Instead of penalizing the highly successful that ensures the working person (and again, I'm smack dab in the middle of that classification), I'd rather downsize government before handing those that actually pay the overwhelming majority of taxes already their collective butts...

it's unreasonable to demand that our politicians make our government more streamlined and efficient, thereby freeing up the money we need. It's better for us to bicker and argue over who should pay more. Makes sense to me

/sarcasm off

Link to post
Share on other sites
savwboy savwboy (2/14/2008)
Ramen (2/14/2008)
So I take it that you two now oppose Bush's tax cuts, which we couldn't afford and which cost WAY more than the current stimulus bill, and which went to upper income people who simply put it in their savings instead of spending it on food and clothes.

No I oppose out of control spending..

decreasing your income is the same result as spending

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ramen (2/14/2008)
savwboy savwboy (2/14/2008)
What?

How did you spin that out of what I said?

I am clearly saying Washington needs to cut spending so we can afford to give tax cuts..

Not just to the people who do not pay federal income tax to begin with..

Wait, do you support or oppose these tax cuts? Why does it matter if a person's income taxes are getting cut versus other taxes that they pay? [incidentally, only a very small number of people who paid NO taxes last year will get a rebate.] It's still a reduction in their tax burden. Why would you be opposed to that?

I was under the impression that people who made more than $3k will get a rebate regardless of how much they paid or didn't pay in taxes. Is this untrue?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathis81WR (2/16/2008)
I heard that these checks aren't "free money" but merely advances on next years tax returns and will be deducted from the amount we would be getting next year on our returns. Is this true?

No, but it will impact your 2008 taxes.

While the rebate depends on your 2007 income, it is actually a rebate toward your 2008 taxes. According to the plan, in 2008, taxes would be cut from 10 percent to zero percent on the first $6,000 dollars of taxable income for individual taxpayers.

It's like a one time tax cut for 2008, but you get the rebate now instead of waiting to file your 2008 taxes. Because this is an advance payment on your 2008 taxes, your refund next year could be more (or less) depending on your 2008 income.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...