Bush and Congress want to give American Economy a shot of Crack

[nickcopernicus]

WASHINGTON - With recession fears rising and the stock market tumbling, President Bush on Friday called for up to $150 billion in tax relief for consumers and business — and said there was no time to waste.
Bush's urgent remarks gave fresh impetus to congressional leaders already hard at work on an economic rescue package that would include extra money for food stamps and jobless benefits in addition to tax rebates of hundreds of dollars each for millions of Americans. The hope is that people would immediately spend those rebates and give the economy a badly needed boost....<story continues> By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/economy_stimulus;_ylt=AlvGIeXq.P1_C39ND3IJ.6Ss0NUE)

Am I the only one that sees the ridiculous proposal that both liberals and conservatives are trying here?

It seems to me that one major underlying reasons for American economic woes besides consumer indescresion (wasteful spending and buying stuff we can't afford) is the national debt that helps drive inflation.

The last thing the government needs to do is increase the national debt by giving Americans a whopping $800. Sure. I've no doubt that there are plenty of Americans that can use the money, but Americans don't need a shot of crack. They need their jobs not to be taken by illegal immigrants. They need their government to stop wasting so much of their tax dollars and making their money worthless. After WWI, German currency was practically worthless. I see this happening to America if someone does not put a stop to hilariously shortsighted "fixes" such as this. I don't see a single viable candidate for the presidency that is serious about fixing the national debt. I find this very disturbing.


I am going to do my part. If we get this ridiculous tax rebate, I am going to send it back to the US treasury with the following notice and request.


Dear Mr. or Ms. taxpayermoney waster,

I think that you all [the American government as a whole] either don't give a crap about American taxpayermoney management, or you all just don't understand basic economic prinicpals. The answer to the problem of reaching the national debt credit limit is not to raise the limit. it is not to spend more money, it's not to print more money. It's to stop wasting so much money. There are only 300 million Americans in America. How we wen't from 5 trillion to 9 trillion in national debt is simpy unreasonable. That being said. Please take this pathetic $800 and put it directly twoards the national debt. While it's a laughable ammount given the national debt. It is a token that there is at least one person who understands the meaning of the word "borrow."

-Yours,

The concerned taxpayer

[Pilgrim]

800 dollars for most people isn't going to come near to making a difference. And if the last credit snafu is any indication this one won't stimulate anything either. The last time around, 2001 iirc, most people paid off existing debt rather than engage in new spending.

You're right Nick, our government has no understanding of what it means to borrow. To offer this rebate with out even thinking of cutting spending? Meh.

And I have to be honest, they give us 1600 dollars we're not going to buy something nice we're going to either put in our kids 529 college savings account or my IRA. No new spending for stimulating the economy there. And that's what most people will do, they'll either save it or pay of old debt with it.

[Timothy Leary]

I'm equally pesemistic and optimistic about this.
If it works, then it could be the 'jolt' we needed.
If not, we've just tacked on another 140$ billion to our national debt.

But, if it's just a one-time measure (seriously. only this time. no permanent tax cut here, etc.) then it might help. But we're walking a fine line.

[Sheepdog]

It seems to follow the Keynesian economic model that worsened the Great Depression and gave us Carter's stagflation. you can't spend your way out of a recession. you can, however, make that recession worse.

if the government wants to do something, they should cut the corporate tax rate and adjust spending to that revenue level. while they are at it maybe we can do away with some of the excessive regulation which drives down the GDP by a significant percentage. if companies cannot turn a profit in the US, they won't generate new hires, and are more likely than not going to outsource to other countries.

[Ryokan]

800 dollars for most people isn't going to come near to making a difference. And if the last credit snafu is any indication this one won't stimulate anything either. The last time around, 2001 iirc, most people paid off existing debt rather than engage in new spending. That's what I'll do. I have to pay off the new baby.

You're right Nick, our government has no understanding of what it means to borrow. To offer this rebate with out even thinking of cutting spending? Meh. See, if you believe in the idea of a stimulus, you hold a Keynesian view of economics, or at least of this current crisis. The only thing I can imagine stupider than offering a rebate is offerring a rebate and cutting spending. Its Keanu Reeves shooting in the air in pointe break (I think that's the one) EIther you think the big problem here is investor confidence, in which case a cash influx will assuage their concern and get things moving, or don't. But if you cut taxes but reduce spending there is a net zero flow of dollars into the economy, so you are wasting your time as a stimulus. Or buying votes from people who don't know better. Neither seem good to me.

And I have to be honest, they give us 1600 dollars we're not going to buy something nice we're going to either put in our kids 529 college savings account or my IRA. No new spending for stimulating the economy there. And that's what most people will do, they'll either save it or pay of old debt with it.

Recession happen. They happen and its no one and no things fault. People need to get out of the mindset the government causes them or can prevent them.

[Philosophickle]

Recession happen. They happen and its no one and no things fault. People need to get out of the mindset the government causes them or can prevent them.

From what I understand of Mises' economics, even he, a hardcore libertarian, predicted that recession must necessarily follow from an economic boom as consumer stretches into his new economic mold. This recession doesn't scare me. The dollar does.

[Ryokan]

From what I understand of Mises' economics, even he, a hardcore libertarian, predicted that recession must necessarily follow from an economic boom as consumer stretches into his new economic mold. This recession doesn't scare me. The dollar does.

I would like to see the dollar lose some value, honestly. As long as it does it slowly it is a much needed correction.

[Timothy Leary]

I guess that I'm lucky that I'll be buying furniture for a new apt a few months after I should be getting my tax rebates :hehe:
That money will go directly to the economy! :smile:

[$cirisme]

This isn't about stimulating the economy, it's about posturing for the election that's coming up.

Why do y'all think it has such wide bipartisan support? :hrm:

[nickcopernicus]

I would like to see the dollar lose some value, honestly. As long as it does it slowly it is a much needed correction.
Nick:

1. You proably don't vacation in Europe like I do.

2. If the dollar weakens enough, then perhaps OPEC will decide to use Euro to price oil. If the Price of oil was 100 euro a barrel, how do you think that would bode for gas prices in the US? How much more then, would prices raise becuase it would then cost twice as much to transport food and goods?


Cheers,

Nick

[Ryokan]

Nick:

1. You proably don't vacation in Europe like I do.
Nope. But I do live in the rust belt, where the strong dollar helped give us our lovely far above national average unemployment rate.
2. If the dollar weakens enough, then perhaps OPEC will decide to use Euro to price oil. If the Price of oil was 100 euro a barrel, how do you think that would bode for gas prices in the US? How much more then, would prices raise becuase it would then cost twice as much to transport food and goods?


Cheers,

Nick
Cold hard truth Nick is weak or strong dollar, 100 Euro barrels of oil are coming real soon. Refinery shortages, less growth in proven reserves, and ever increasing demand in East Asia and the Indian subcontinent assure that. As far as the Middle East using Euro's to price oil... they may they may not. Thanks to our huge military budget and many of the antions in the ME's desire to use us as a counter weight against Iran it seems unlikely to me right now.
The dollar is as strong as it is (or was) for a convergence of reasons that benefited US consumers at the expense of US producers. Given our trade deficits size a correction is inevitable, especially as capital markets effected in the 1997 Asian crisis correct themselves. We can't fight the weakening, jsut try to manage it.

[Jimmy Higgins]

It seems to follow the Keynesian economic model that worsened the Great Depression and gave us Carter's stagflation. you can't spend your way out of a recession. you can, however, make that recession worse. *strangles Sheepdog* Carter's "stagflation"? As in, Nixon had nothing to do with the economy that Carter clearly inherited?

if the government wants to do something, they should cut the corporate tax rate and adjust spending to that revenue level.Huge real estate companies helped catalyze the US mortgage crisis by helping to sell homes for values way above normal so they could get their fees and 8%. Large banks made loans to people that they couldn't afford, perhaps even messing the loans to make it pretend affordable using extrapolated future property price increases that made no logical sense in order to back up the deal. These huge corps then sold off these mortgages as high quality bonds, when in fact barring a booming economy (something we were never in) were really junk bonds to Hedge Fund managers (who manage insanely large quantities of stock and money). These Hedge Fund managers took their profit and when things went south, began selling off huge quantities of stock to make up for the losses.

Yeah, this current economic crisis... we should cut all of these companies tax rates. They earned it by helping propel the US into what may be a recession!

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn't about stimulating the economy, it's about posturing for the election that's coming up.

Why do y'all think it has such wide bipartisan support? :hrm:From what I've heard, it also has to deal with "consumer confidence". Based on the reality that the US's GDP is a large part consumer spending based, the consumer needs to keep buying to keep the economy going. By the US government handing out money, it is hoping to create the image that the Government will help ease (prevent?) a recession so that consumer confidence doesn't drop and US citizens keep spending.

Once Americans stop spending, that's when things get ugly. As to a credit not working, that can be argued. Certainly, the poor would send the money right back into the economy. Middle class, however, may not be as quick to do so.

[Ryokan]

From what I've heard, it also has to deal with "consumer confidence". Based on the reality that the US's GDP is a large part consumer spending based, the consumer needs to keep buying to keep the economy going. By the US government handing out money, it is hoping to create the image that the Government will help ease (prevent?) a recession so that consumer confidence doesn't drop and US citizens keep spending.


Exactly. Its essentially the Keynesian arguement. The question comes down to do you believe that the problem with this recession, or more generally all or most, is consumer or more importantly investor confidence?

[Ryokan]

Huge real estate companies helped catalyze the US mortgage crisis by helping to sell homes for values way above normal so they could get their fees and 8%. Large banks made loans to people that they couldn't afford, perhaps even messing the loans to make it pretend affordable using extrapolated future property price increases that made no logical sense in order to back up the deal. These huge corps then sold off these mortgages as high quality bonds, when in fact barring a booming economy (something we were never in) were really junk bonds to Hedge Fund managers (who manage insanely large quantities of stock and money). These Hedge Fund managers took their profit and when things went south, began selling off huge quantities of stock to make up for the losses.

Yeah, this current economic crisis... we should cut all of these companies tax rates. They earned it by helping propel the US into what may be a recession!
I think we should cut corporate tax rates because they are among the highest in the world and quite possibly on the wrong side of the Laffer curve on this one. And I am not sure most of these corporations knew what they were in for. Many of the largest banking firms in this country are literally staring at the abyss, and they have no idea how many bad loans they have. ANd while a few hedge funds got lucky most have taken a bath on this too. The combination of deregulation and screwed up incentives packages created a situation where at the lowest, not highest, levels of the banks there was tremendous incentive to give out any loan whatsoever, regardless of risk, and no legal ramifications for making it happen. So each of these loan officers on the lowest level responded to incentives and sold bad loans the banks had no way of tracking. That is what has made the crisis so damaging. The banks are sitting on bombs and they themselves have troubling knowing what is a bomb and what is going to shield them.

[Sheepdog]

*strangles Sheepdog* Carter's "stagflation"? As in, Nixon had nothing to do with the economy that Carter clearly inherited?

:rock: no one disputes that Carter inherited the oil crisis under Nixon. But no one can dispute that the term "stagflation" was coined under the Carter administration and for good reason.

Huge real estate companies helped catalyze the US mortgage crisis by helping to sell homes for values way above normal so they could get their fees and 8%. Large banks made loans to people that they couldn't afford, perhaps even messing the loans to make it pretend affordable using extrapolated future property price increases that made no logical sense in order to back up the deal. These huge corps then sold off these mortgages as high quality bonds, when in fact barring a booming economy (something we were never in) were really junk bonds to Hedge Fund managers (who manage insanely large quantities of stock and money). These Hedge Fund managers took their profit and when things went south, began selling off huge quantities of stock to make up for the losses.

Yeah, this current economic crisis... we should cut all of these companies tax rates. They earned it by helping propel the US into what may be a recession!

I'm talking the big picture Jimmy Wimmy. If we dropped the corporate tax rate across the board, we might actually have a vestige of a chance of competing against foreign companies. Why the heck do we have the highest corporate tax rate of any developed society?

Now, if you want to punish the banks and real estate for participating in such shady deals, so be it. No reason to cut off your face to spite your nose.

[nickcopernicus]

Nope. But I do live in the rust belt, where the strong dollar helped give us our lovely far above national average unemployment rate.
Nick:
You aren't talking about Michigan are you? If so, then I'd coin the big car companies like Ford, Chrysler, and GM for continuing to make large SUV's whilst the gas prices have been rising.
Perhaps these care companies should get with the rest of the world program and start building diesel and smaller cars and trucks?
Ryokan:
Cold hard truth Nick is weak or strong dollar, 100 Euro barrels of oil are coming real soon. Refinery shortages, less growth in proven reserves, and ever increasing demand in East Asia and the Indian subcontinent assure that. As far as the Middle East using Euro's to price oil... they may they may not. Thanks to our huge military budget and many of the antions in the ME's desire to use us as a counter weight against Iran it seems unlikely to me right now.
Nick:
Well, we will just have to wait and see. Have you checked the doomsday predictions that Glenn Morton has been making over in Natural Science? If what he says is true (a coming oil crisis in the decade) then the US's, and yes, GW's decision to invade and remain in Iraq may turn out to have been a good decision.
Ryokan:
The dollar is as strong as it is (or was) for a convergence of reasons that benefited US consumers at the expense of US producers. Given our trade deficits size a correction is inevitable, especially as capital markets effected in the 1997 Asian crisis correct themselves. We can't fight the weakening, jsut try to manage it.
Nick:
With a stronger dollar, companies could move their factories overseas and pay in Rupees or whatever, and sell in dollars. Perhaps it was the expense of Us producer's employees.

In any case, I was under the impression that our ridiculously absurd national debt, and the government's solution of printing more money or raising the credit limit played a significant role in the weakening of the US dollar.

[Jimmy Higgins]

:rock: no one disputes that Carter inherited the oil crisis under Nixon. But no one can dispute that the term "stagflation" was coined under the Carter administration and for good reason.Inflation started well before Carter took office.

I'm talking the big picture Jimmy Wimmy. Gosh, what is it with being a moderator or higher here that requires people to be so childish?

If we dropped the corporate tax rate across the board, we might actually have a vestige of a chance of competing against foreign companies. Why the heck do we have the highest corporate tax rate of any developed society?This isn't the problem we are suffering. The economy is hurting because of all the fake growth and terrible loans (apparently in the tens of billions) made by banks and sold to Hedge Fund managers. Also, inflation is hurting as energy prices continue to rise and rise. Why corporate tax rates get brought up when that isn't even near the problem we are suffering. "Honey, I'm going to buy a new HDTV, our blender stopped working."

[Jimmy Higgins]

The combination of deregulation and screwed up incentives packages created a situation where at the lowest, not highest, levels of the banks there was tremendous incentive to give out any loan whatsoever, regardless of risk, and no legal ramifications for making it happen. I don't buy that. This is a top to down scandal, and each level has their own part in this. This country is addicted to growth. If a company isn't growing, it must mean they are weak. So we got our growth, which included loans that should never of been made. And now we are seeing the results.

So each of these loan officers on the lowest level responded to incentives and sold bad loans the banks had no way of tracking. That is what has made the crisis so damaging. The banks are sitting on bombs and they themselves have troubling knowing what is a bomb and what is going to shield them.That's incompetence, not just being unfortunate. They created the atmosphere for this... and even when people must of known this would be an issue (we were talking real estate bubble for over 5 years and still the loans kept coming....

[Ryokan]

I don't buy that. This is a top to down scandal, and each level has their own part in this. Yes, but msot of it was structural stupidity stemming from crummy Bush admin deregulation. This country is addicted to growth. I hope so. The coutnries that aren't are vicious police states. Communist, socialist, capitalsit, any country serious about improving the lives of its citizens is going to be addicted to growth. The only people who aren't are criminals or those deep ecology nuts. If a company isn't growing, it must mean they are weak. /QUOTE] If its not growing it likely IS weak Jimmy. [QUOTE] So we got our growth, which included loans that should never of been made. And now we are seeing the results. /QUOTE] That's why we need smart regulation, not championing no growth. That's suicidal.
[QUOTE]
That's incompetence, not just being unfortunate. They created the atmosphere for this... and even when people must of known this would be an issue (we were talking real estate bubble for over 5 years and still the loans kept coming....I agree. Bubbles happen, but this one needn't have been as bad.

[Sparko]

can I have all of you whiner's $800? I promise to invest it wisely in the stock market.

Thank you.

[Bill the Cat]

Mine's going towards my youngest daughter's trip to England and Scotland this summer... :smile:

[Ryokan]

Nick:
You aren't talking about Michigan are you? If so, then I'd coin the big car companies like Ford, Chrysler, and GM for continuing to make large SUV's whilst the gas prices have been rising.
Perhaps these care companies should get with the rest of the world program and start building diesel and smaller cars and trucks? Nice try, but its Ohio.

Nick:
Well, we will just have to wait and see. Have you checked the doomsday predictions that Glenn Morton has been making over in Natural Science? If what he says is true (a coming oil crisis in the decade) then the US's, and yes, GW's decision to invade and remain in Iraq may turn out to have been a good decision. I think Glenn is a good geologist but he is a crummy economist. He has posted things about oil prices that, even given the matching numbers, could not possibly be accurate.

Nick:
With a stronger dollar, companies could move their factories overseas and pay in Rupees or whatever, and sell in dollars. Perhaps it was the expense of Us producer's employees.
It mostly US labor prices, but it was definitely exacerbated by the strong dollar.
In any case, I was under the impression that our ridiculously absurd national debt, and the government's solution of printing more money or raising the credit limit played a significant role in the weakening of the US dollar.The biggest issues are the recovery or strengthening of foriegn financial markets, especially in Asia, the trade deficit, the expected Medicare/SS crisis (not the current deficits) and our fiscal policy. That is driving a weaker dollar.

[Jimmy Higgins]

can I have all of you whiner's $800?:ahem:

[Sparko]

:ahem:

is that a "yes?"

:pirates:

[Tickle Me Mercury]

This isn't about stimulating the economy, it's about posturing for the election that's coming up.

Why do y'all think it has such wide bipartisan support? :hrm:

Whichever candidate signs my particular check gets my vote.

[Zeluvia]

What happened to "trickle down" economics?

Why give the American people money to spend, when Reagan proved its better to give money to the top, and let it flow down? = p

[Bill the Cat]

What happened to "trickle down" economics?

Why give the American people money to spend, when Reagan proved its better to give money to the top, and let it flow down? = p

Isn't that what the Dems are griping about already? THey HATE when the rich get any tax breaks, so they would never vote for anything that even let the rich sniff an extra dollar from the gov't.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Isn't that what the Dems are griping about already? THey HATE when the rich get any tax breaks, so they would never vote for anything that even let the rich sniff an extra dollar from the gov't.I'm amazed how people never tire of making this stupid claim. "The Democrats hate the rich." "The Democrats want to eat the rich." Last time I checked, the Democratic Party is rich. How many poor Democratic Senators are there?

[Jimmy Higgins]

is that a "yes?"

:pirates:Actually this rebate check will be spent where it was last time... in Bruce Pennisula.

[themuzicman]

I'm amazed how people never tire of making this stupid claim. "The Democrats hate the rich." "The Democrats want to eat the rich." Last time I checked, the Democratic Party is rich. How many poor Democratic Senators are there?

They hate the rich just as they hate themselves. They feel all kinds of guilt about being rich, and thus want to make sure that all the rich pay for being rich.

Surely you've heard the rhetoric about "winning life's lottery" and "evil corporations" and "paying their fair share" and the concept "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", haven't you?

That's all rich hate-speech. And it's the kind of thing that has caused a huge amount of misery in the US in the past on multiple occasions.


This is one of the few times when I wish we had elected a real conservative.

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

I'm amazed how people never tire of making this stupid claim. "The Democrats hate the rich." "The Democrats want to eat the rich." Last time I checked, the Democratic Party is rich. How many poor Democratic Senators are there?

Are you serious? Have you even turned the TV on? Read ANY thread here that pits the "tax the rich" liberals here against the "tax evenly" conservatives. You trip me out Jimmy... :ahem:

[Jimmy Higgins]

They hate the rich just as they hate themselves. They feel all kinds of guilt about being rich, and thus want to make sure that all the rich pay for being rich.You really bought into that bull didn't you.

Surely you've heard the rhetoric about "winning life's lottery" and "evil corporations" and "paying their fair share" and the concept "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", haven't you?

That's all rich hate-speech. And it's the kind of thing that has caused a huge amount of misery in the US in the past on multiple occasions.Whatever! You claim that all you want. It's typical AM Radio buzz talk. This propaganda has never been backed up.

This is one of the few times when I wish we had elected a real conservative.

MichaelYeah, but you voted for him, so you have little to complain about, especially after the second time.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you serious? Have you even turned the TV on? Read ANY thread here that pits the "tax the rich" liberals here against the "tax evenly" conservatives. You trip me out Jimmy... :ahem:I don't think many people in here, who aren't trolls, actually stand on a "tax the rich" platform as you allude to.

[themuzicman]

You really bought into that bull didn't you.

I don't have to buy into anything.

Whatever! You claim that all you want. It's typical AM Radio buzz talk. This propaganda has never been backed up.

LOL... Other than every time it's tried.....

Yeah, but you voted for him, so you have little to complain about, especially after the second time.

Unfortunately, the alternatives were worse.

Michael

[micah4]

I'm amazed how people never tire of making this stupid claim. "The Democrats hate the rich." "The Democrats want to eat the rich." Last time I checked, the Democratic Party is rich. How many poor Democratic Senators are there?

I don't believe the democratic politicians "hate" the rich, they just peddle that hatred because they know that they can count on the support of paul to rob peter. And as long as the pauls outnumber the peters, peddling that line gets them elected, which is what they see as they way to make themselves rich, since they generally seem incapable of acheiving that goal in a productive endeavor (not politics). So they don't hate the rich categorically, they just like being rich themselves, and hate anybody who's convenient to hate in order to enrich themselves through unscruplous use of the political machinery. I think sometimes that Neal Boortz's proposal that every person should get a number of votes proportional to the amount of taxes you pay. Some variation of that at least might mitigate the incessant wealth warfare that dominates politics today.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't believe the democratic politicians "hate" the rich, they just peddle that hatred because they know that they can count on the support of paul to rob peter. And as long as the pauls outnumber the peters, peddling that line gets them elected, which is what they see as they way to make themselves rich, since they generally seem incapable of acheiving that goal in a productive endeavor (not politics). So they don't hate the rich categorically, they just like being rich themselves, and hate anybody who's convenient to hate in order to enrich themselves through unscruplous use of the political machinery. I think sometimes that Neal Boortz's proposal that every person should get a number of votes proportional to the amount of taxes you pay. Some variation of that at least might mitigate the incessant wealth warfare that dominates politics today.Except that the rich don't pay a terribly high amount in taxes. They pay more than everyone else, but when all is said and done, their total effective tax rate is well below what people on the right claim.

In fact, did you know that the top 1% of the nation paid a decreasing effective tax rate every year during the Clinton Administration? Between 1995 and 2001, it went from 36.1% to 32.9%.

All this talk of hatred, mooching off the rich's taxes etc... is just bull that tossed around so that people won't actually try to talk about the realities of the tax system and the benefits that the rich do actually receive from their taxation.

[Philosophickle]

All this talk of hatred, mooching off the rich's taxes etc... is just bull that tossed around so that people won't actually try to talk about the realities of the tax system and the benefits that the rich do actually receive from their taxation.

How does our tax system benefit the rich?

[themuzicman]

Except that the rich don't pay a terribly high amount in taxes. They pay more than everyone else, but when all is said and done, their total effective tax rate is well below what people on the right claim.

I don't recall anyone claiming an effective tax rate for the rich as a reason that the rich pay enough. The number that is usually cited is the percentage of the taxes that are paid by the rich, as you cite here:

In fact, did you know that the top 1% of the nation paid a decreasing effective tax rate every year during the Clinton Administration? Between 1995 and 2001, it went from 36.1% to 32.9%.

And that was because the other 99% were doing a little better during the .com bubble. You'll not that there were ZERO tax cuts during that time.


All this talk of hatred, mooching off the rich's taxes etc... is just bull that tossed around so that people won't actually try to talk about the realities of the tax system and the benefits that the rich do actually receive from their taxation.

It's called the redistribution of wealth, where the rich pay the vast majority of taxes, and the poor get the vast majority of the benefits.

MIchael

[Jimmy Higgins]

How does our tax system benefit the rich?You mean other than what they get from the government for their tax dollar?
Except that the rich don't pay a terribly high amount in taxes. They pay more than everyone else, but when all is said and done, their total effective tax rate is well below what people on the right claim. I don't recall anyone claiming an effective tax rate for the rich as a reason that the rich pay enough. The number that is usually cited is the percentage of the taxes that are paid by the rich, as you cite here:

And that was because the other 99% were doing a little better during the .com bubble. You'll not that there were ZERO tax cuts during that time.No, that wasn't the number I cited. The number I cited was the percentage of income that the top 1% paid in taxes over that stretch. Your point above is wrong for the reason I noted. Though, now I noticed that I didn't properly cite my statistic, hence the confusion over that matter. Here is the link (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/61xx/doc6133/03-01-EffectiveTaxRates.pdf). My stats refer to page 7, first table. The statistics you are referring to can be found on page 10. And your claim that everyone else was doing well during the dot.com bubble would not be supported by the numbers on page 9. Most importantly, I've already gone into the numbers and shown why the rich are paying a higher percentage of federal taxes now than 30 years ago. And the reason... as can be seen on page 11. The income for the wealthy has increased substantially in the past 30 years, unlike the commoners income, which has seen rather paltry increases.

All this talk of hatred, mooching off the rich's taxes etc... is just bull that tossed around so that people won't actually try to talk about the realities of the tax system and the benefits that the rich do actually receive from their taxation. It's called the redistribution of wealth, where the rich pay the vast majority of taxes, and the poor get the vast majority of the benefits.Please, for the first time in the history of the world, could a "conservative" like yourself back up that claim? Based on every dollar spent by the Federal Government, please show that the poor get the "vast majority" (your words) of the benefits.

[Pilgrim]

Not only that, but I would also like to see the amounts that the rich give in taxes as opposed to the poor and also adjusted for percent of income as well. Anyone have a chart like that?

I guess I'm not convinced that the rich actually pay that much more because in my experience, and this is just anecdotal, the richer folks tent to have more resources for avoiding tax.

[themuzicman]

Not only that, but I would also like to see the amounts that the rich give in taxes as opposed to the poor and also adjusted for percent of income as well. Anyone have a chart like that?

Well, the standard deduction for married couples is right near the poverty line, and the low end tax rate is only 12 percent (I think it's 12). Then again, the top rate is 39%, so when you get into the upper levels of income, that strata is taxed at 3x the rate of the lower strata.

I guess I'm not convinced that the rich actually pay that much more because in my experience, and this is just anecdotal, the richer folks tent to have more resources for avoiding tax.

That's the thing with raising taxes on the rich: You get LESS money from them because it behooves them to spend money to avoid paying taxes. If you lower taxes on the rich, then the incentive to avoid paying taxes goes away, and they just pay them, rather than paying the accountants and lawyers to do their tricks.

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not only that, but I would also like to see the amounts that the rich give in taxes as opposed to the poor and also adjusted for percent of income as well. Anyone have a chart like that?

I guess I'm not convinced that the rich actually pay that much more because in my experience, and this is just anecdotal, the richer folks tent to have more resources for avoiding tax.
Pilgrim, everything you want from 1978 to 2002 is in my link. It's from the CBO, so the source is quite satisfactory. However, if you are wondering a percentage of tax per unit of wealth owned, that won't be in the link.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, the standard deduction for married couples is right near the poverty line, and the low end tax rate is only 12 percent (I think it's 12). Then again, the top rate is 39%, so when you get into the upper levels of income, that strata is taxed at 3x the rate of the lower strata.That's garbage though. Because we don't pay our final bill at those rates. According to my link, via the CBO, the top 1%'s average effective Federal Income Tax rate is 23.8%. Granted, they pay a bunch more in Federal Income Tax, but you need to look at all taxes, instead of cherry picking.

That's the thing with raising taxes on the rich: You get LESS money from them because it behooves them to spend money to avoid paying taxes. If you lower taxes on the rich, then the incentive to avoid paying taxes goes away, and they just pay them, rather than paying the accountants and lawyers to do their tricks.

MichaelIf you lower taxes, they'll still pay lawyers and accountants to play with the numbers because if you made $100 million, regardless of a drop in income tax rates, it behooves them to find places to cut their tax liability because they are starting with such a large number.

[themuzicman]

That's garbage though. Because we don't pay our final bill at those rates. According to my link, via the CBO, the top 1%'s average effective Federal Income Tax rate is 23.8%. Granted, they pay a bunch more in Federal Income Tax, but you need to look at all taxes, instead of cherry picking.

OK, the bottom two tax brackets, if they didn't even have a standard deduction would pay 12 and 15 percent respectively (again going from memory, here, but I believe they are correct), so the rich pay a MUCH higher percentage than the poor, given that the poor get the same $10K (married) standard deduction before they pay ANY tax.

So, I think the point is clearly demonstrated: The rich pay a higher percentage of their income than the poor do. Thanks for the stat.

If you lower taxes, they'll still pay lawyers and accountants to play with the numbers because if you made $100 million, regardless of a drop in income tax rates, it behooves them to find places to cut their tax liability because they are starting with such a large number.

Well, that depends. If the rate is 39%, thus meaning $39M, and they could save $5M by paying someone $1M, it makes sense. If the rate is 25%, paying $25M and they could save $500K by paying someone $1M, then it wouldn't make sense.

Lowering taxes always puts some part of the "Rich" in the income tax bracket in a position that it costs more to try to avoid taxes than paying them, such that they pay their taxes. Obviously the curve ends at some point, but we aren't even close to it.

You also have to consider the inconvenience of some tax avoidance, which has a cost, even if it's not monetary.

Michael

[micah4]

In fact, did you know that the top 1% of the nation paid a decreasing effective tax rate every year during the Clinton Administration? Between 1995 and 2001, it went from 36.1% to 32.9%.


Oh my goodness, I didn't know that! Break out the pitchforks! It's just not fair that these people are only paying 33% of their income, when less fortunate people are paying 10% or 15%!

:ahem:



All this talk of hatred, mooching off the rich's taxes etc... is just bull that tossed around so that people won't actually try to talk about the realities of the tax system and the benefits that the rich do actually receive from their taxation.

Right, it's just bull... never mind the fact that we're about to pass a "stimulus" package that will take probably 50 billion dollars, the majority of which is mooched from the rich's taxes, and send it out as a "rebate" to people who didn't actually pay any income tax- and deny any rebates to the people who paid the most income tax. No, there's no blatant wealth redistribution program going on here. And the only "rich" people who benefit from that kind of nonsense are sleazebags who are in bed with the politicians using the force of government to appropriate special benefits to themselves- not the vast majority of those who are in the 33% bracket by the combination of hard work and inflationary monetary policy. In this particular case I suppose the largest benefits go to the politician's cronies who run the state protected lottery monopolies; but that sort of benefit to "the rich" is only an argument to keep as much money as possible out of the political machine in the first place.

[Pilgrim]

So can I assume you're going to send your check back then?

[Ryokan]

I just feel like people emphasize taxes too much. The rich aren't really hurting between a 30-40% income tax, and raise tax on the rich isn't going significantly improve lower income peoples income. The real meat of the bread and butter issues are outside tax policy or fiscal policy in general.

[micah4]

So can I assume you're going to send your check back then?

Oh, that's brilliant. "Here, take this money back and use it to buy somebody else's vote, please. In fact, here's an additional check for $10,000, because really, y'all do a much better job than I could of allocating resources in a manner which glorifies God."

The proper thing to do would probably be to save it for my child or grandchild to pay the taxes that come due when the government has to pay off the loans that are being taken out in order to fund the rebate checks.

[Sparko]

Oh, that's brilliant. "Here, take this money back and use it to buy somebody else's vote, please. In fact, here's an additional check for $10,000, because really, y'all do a much better job than I could of allocating resources in a manner which glorifies God."

The proper thing to do would probably be to save it for my child or grandchild to pay the taxes that come due when the government has to pay off the loans that are being taken out in order to fund the rebate checks.


in that case the proper thing to do is not complain if the government decides to give you back some of your own money. Just say "thanks"

[micah4]

in that case the proper thing to do is not complain if the government decides to give you back some of your own money. Just say "thanks"

Forgive me if I don't thank the government for taking out a loan to send me a check. At best I'm being forced to pay the federal reserve interest on funds which were mine free and clear before the government came into the picture. Government expenditures remain unaltered either way; so instead of those funds going to finance current spending, we'll be paying for our current spending later - plus interest on an extra $150 billion. Ben Bernanke might say "thanks", but not me.

[Timothy Leary]

That's the thing with raising taxes on the rich: You get LESS money from them because it behooves them to spend money to avoid paying taxes. If you lower taxes on the rich, then the incentive to avoid paying taxes goes away, and they just pay them, rather than paying the accountants and lawyers to do their tricks.

Sounds like a reason to close up loopholes in the system and step up enforcement to me.




(I think I've been listening to Teallaura too much lately)

[Zeluvia]

Lowering taxes on the wealthy is kinda a misnomer.

Lowering taxes on investments BENEFITS the wealthy, and it's purpose is to increase investment, thus stimulating the economy. The problem I see here is that there is no difference between capital gains from investments in other countries and capital gains from investing in the US. In fact, you get a tax CREDIT for paying Foreign taxes on foreign investments. So, while you may pay taxes to other countries for your investment earnings, there is no penalty in the US for investing money out of the country.

The other rules that benefit the wealthy have to do mostly with inheritance, and Social Security income limits.

But the real divergence of the two attitudes as far as I can tell is this:

Is the economy better served by favoring top down or bottom up cash flow?

Bottom up, then people have the ability to increase consumption, which should also create jobs, and demand, but that ALSO means consumption of foreign goods, which increases trade deficits.

Top down, or supply side, with investment tax breaks, while it may produce jobs here, it can also move money out of the US, and create jobs elsewhere instead, and if there isn't enough purchasing power for the new products/services, this just won't work.

If you ask me, it is not either the wealthy nor the poor individuals that are the problems.

It is the corporations. New companies are true investments, they create jobs, markets, they are at high risk. But when you have international corporations that do business in multiple countries, and benefit from moving investment offshore, and can hire the big lawyers and accounting firms to deal with taxes, that is where the largest abuses probably exist.

[micah4]

The other rules that benefit the wealthy have to do mostly with inheritance, and Social Security income limits.


I don't see how SS income limits benefit the wealthy; it's not as if people receive benefits proportionate to their pre-cap income. SS disproportionately benefits caucasian females, but that has nothing to do with income caps.

I'm not sure what rules on inheritance benefit the wealthy. In the complete absence of rules, a man would be able to pass on everything he owns to his children. Any rule that exists can only limit a man's ability to bequeath his property, so I would think that any rule respecting inheritance would burden, not benefit, those with more assets.

[Pilgrim]

Oh, that's brilliant. "Here, take this money back and use it to buy somebody else's vote, please. In fact, here's an additional check for $10,000, because really, y'all do a much better job than I could of allocating resources in a manner which glorifies God."

The proper thing to do would probably be to save it for my child or grandchild to pay the taxes that come due when the government has to pay off the loans that are being taken out in order to fund the rebate checks.

If you had true integrity you'd send the check back. Your big complaint is that the money is being forcefully taken from the rich. If you really believed that, and weren't just interested in getting more money just like everyone else, you'd decline their offer.

[micah4]

If you had true integrity you'd send the check back. Your big complaint is that the money is being forcefully taken from the rich. If you really believed that, and weren't just interested in getting more money just like everyone else, you'd decline their offer.

I'm sorry, but did you somehow get a copy of my W-2's that I wasn't aware of?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh my goodness, I didn't know that! Break out the pitchforks! It's just not fair that these people are only paying 33% of their income, when less fortunate people are paying 10% or 15%!

:ahem:Thanks for totally missing the point that I was raising about how the total Effective Tax rate the rich paid during the Clinton Administration actually dropped. Thanks for trying to spin what I said into something else.

Right, it's just bull... never mind the fact that we're about to pass a "stimulus" package that will take probably 50 billion dollars, the majority of which is mooched from the rich's taxes, and send it out as a "rebate" to people who didn't actually pay any income tax- and deny any rebates to the people who paid the most income tax.Umm... how in the world is giving a millionaire a $600 check going to help the economy? The whole point of these checks is to put money directly back into the economy to keep it moving ahead and not stalling. A millionaire can spend now as he could before. He doesn't need a rebate check to spend to keep the economy going. A family making $50,000 could easily find uses for the check they'd receive... such as clothes (which was the #1 thing people bought with the last rebate check in 2001). This rebate program isn't about making the tax code "more fair" in the eyes of people ignorant of what people are actually paying, but it is about stimulating the economy, of which if the economy doesn't pick up (0.6% GDP growth this last quarter), everyone, especially the rich, lose.

No, there's no blatant wealth redistribution program going on here. And the only "rich" people who benefit from that kind of nonsense are sleazebags who are in bed with the politicians using the force of government to appropriate special benefits to themselves- not the vast majority of those who are in the 33% bracket by the combination of hard work and inflationary monetary policy. In this particular case I suppose the largest benefits go to the politician's cronies who run the state protected lottery monopolies; but that sort of benefit to "the rich" is only an argument to keep as much money as possible out of the political machine in the first place.
What does this have to do with anything?

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you had true integrity you'd send the check back. Your big complaint is that the money is being forcefully taken from the rich. If you really believed that, and weren't just interested in getting more money just like everyone else, you'd decline their offer.
Better yet, he'd find a local "rich man" and give him his check.

[micah4]

Thanks for totally missing the point that I was raising about how the total Effective Tax rate the rich paid during the Clinton Administration actually dropped. Thanks for trying to spin what I said into something else.


I got your point fine, it's just irrelevant. The effective tax rate dropping by 3% does effectively nothing to change the distribution of which individuals pay the bulk of taxes collected.


Umm... how in the world is giving a millionaire a $600 check going to help the economy? The whole point of these checks is to put money directly back into the economy to keep it moving ahead and not stalling.


As if consumption is healthier for the economy than investment in production capacity. Encouraging consumption may give the economy a short term boost, but consumption is an economic negative by definition. If you want to keep the economy from stalling, then fix the underlying system which makes the economy dependent on perpetually increasing levels of debt.


This rebate program isn't about making the tax code "more fair" in the eyes of people ignorant of what people are actually paying


Of course not, it's about buying votes from people who are ignorant of how deficit spending works.

What does this have to do with anything?

It has to do with the claim that "talk of mooching off the rich's taxes is bull". Obviously it isn't, it's a very present reality.

[micah4]

Better yet, he'd find a local "rich man" and give him his check.

It's marvelous how both of you seem to know which end of the benefit stick I'm on. Nevertheless, this suggestion (if your assumptions were correct) would certainly be more sensible then Pilgrim's suggestion which approaches a level of idiocy that is sadly congruent with what I'd expect coming out of the PCUSA's clergy.

But I guess if I really wanted to do something positive for "the economy", I'd give it to somebody who'll run out and spend it immediately on cigarettes and lottery tickets, which any Ph.D. certified economist should be able to tell you is the most effective use of capital by far.

[Jimmy Higgins]

As if consumption is healthier for the economy than investment in production capacity. Encouraging consumption may give the economy a short term boost, but consumption is an economic negative by definition.Our economy is 1/2 to 2/3's consumer consumption based... hence the rebate checks to instill the idea of consumer confidence.
If you want to keep the economy from stalling, then fix the underlying system which makes the economy dependent on perpetually increasing levels of debt.That would take too much time, heck these rebate checks may be out after the cow is out of the barn and has come back. Kinda why Democrats wanted to extend unemployment benefits, food stamps, stuff that could be put into the system almost immediately.

Of course not, it's about buying votes from people who are ignorant of how deficit spending works.Who exactly is vying for votes? Bush is a lame duck and those in Congress already have their seats which typically means re-election anyway. Incumbency is a huge re-election power, not giving rebate checks.

It has to do with the claim that "talk of mooching off the rich's taxes is bull". Obviously it isn't, it's a very present reality.Fact is, as a percentage of wealth held in the US, the rich pay a slightly higher percentage of taxes than the rest.

[Sparko]

Forgive me if I don't thank the government for taking out a loan to send me a check. At best I'm being forced to pay the federal reserve interest on funds which were mine free and clear before the government came into the picture. Government expenditures remain unaltered either way; so instead of those funds going to finance current spending, we'll be paying for our current spending later - plus interest on an extra $150 billion. Ben Bernanke might say "thanks", but not me.

Then don't take the check. send it back. give it to me. but if you accept the check and cash it, then you have no right to complain about it.

[Pilgrim]

It's marvelous how both of you seem to know which end of the benefit stick I'm on. Nevertheless, this suggestion (if your assumptions were correct) would certainly be more sensible then Pilgrim's suggestion which approaches a level of idiocy that is sadly congruent with what I'd expect coming out of the PCUSA's clergy.

But I guess if I really wanted to do something positive for "the economy", I'd give it to somebody who'll run out and spend it immediately on cigarettes and lottery tickets, which any Ph.D. certified economist should be able to tell you is the most effective use of capital by far.

I guess I mis read you. You said that the tax rebate proposed was essentially theft from the rich. I guess is you're the rich then you can just say, hey, I got some of my money back and be content. But if you're not, and you really think the money was unfairly taken from the rich, why would you want to hang on to it? There was one poster here who already voiced his intention to just give the money back. So it's not as if the suggestion is unheard of.

By the way, thanks for the nice ad hom.

[micah4]

Then don't take the check. send it back. give it to me. but if you accept the check and cash it, then you have no right to complain about it.

1) Whether I'm in the position of Peter or Paul here is dependent on my level of taxation-- something even a well-conned PCUSA seminarian was able to grasp, which should make you feel really embarrassed. (BTW Pilgrim, you're welcome).

2) The "right to complain" is an inalienable right granted to me by my creator, and is not contingent upon the degree to which I allow governments to subject me to abuse.

3) According to your theory, if an armed man walks into my house and tells me that he took out a loan on my behalf, hands me a check for 300 dollars, and tells me that he'll be back again tomorrow with his guns to collect 400 dollars to repay the loan, then I should tell him, "sorry, but I object to this, so you can keep this check". So in order to obtain this alleged "right to complain", I have to let the robber take me for $400 rather than merely $100. That is well nigh the stupidest claim I've heard in 10 years, and it's remarkable to me that more than one person actually thinks it's somehow poignant.

4) With all due respect to the O.P., it's a noble intention to protest the stupidity of the rebates, but it's incredibly naive to think that anybody in government is going to pay attention to a letter directing them to "put this money directly to paying X"; there's simply no process for that. He might as well send the letter of protest, but if he wants any control whatsoever over how the money gets spent, he should keep it under his own control rather than ceding the money back to a political machine over which he has essentially no control and which has already demonstrated an inability to allocate it's available (and/or non-available) funds wisely.

[Sparko]

1) Whether I'm in the position of Peter or Paul here is dependent on my level of taxation-- something even a well-conned PCUSA seminarian was able to grasp, which should make you feel really embarrassed. (BTW Pilgrim, you're welcome).

2) The "right to complain" is an inalienable right granted to me by my creator, and is not contingent upon the degree to which I allow governments to subject me to abuse.

3) According to your theory, if an armed man walks into my house and tells me that he took out a loan on my behalf, hands me a check for 300 dollars, and tells me that he'll be back again tomorrow with his guns to collect 400 dollars to repay the loan, then I should tell him, "sorry, but I object to this, so you can keep this check". So in order to obtain this alleged "right to complain", I have to let the robber take me for $400 rather than merely $100. That is well nigh the stupidest claim I've heard in 10 years, and it's remarkable to me that more than one person actually thinks it's somehow poignant.

4) With all due respect to the O.P., it's a noble intention to protest the stupidity of the rebates, but it's incredibly naive to think that anybody in government is going to pay attention to a letter directing them to "put this money directly to paying X"; there's simply no process for that. He might as well send the letter of protest, but if he wants any control whatsoever over how the money gets spent, he should keep it under his own control rather than ceding the money back to a political machine over which he has essentially no control and which has already demonstrated an inability to allocate it's available (and/or non-available) funds wisely.

right. you just want to whine all the way to the bank. :thumb:

[micah4]

right. you just want to whine all the way to the bank. :thumb:

Shame on me I guess, for being foolish enough to believe that somebody who thought "you should return the check or shut up" was pithy would actually be able to grasp any exposition of why it actually is not.

[Sparko]

Shame on me I guess, for being foolish enough to believe that somebody who thought "you should return the check or shut up" was pithy would actually be able to grasp any exposition of why it actually is not.

the problem is that we DO grasp what you are doing, despite your attempts at exposition to hide the fact.

[micah4]

the problem is that we DO grasp what you are doing, despite your attempts at exposition to hide the fact.

Well there's clearly no hiding the fact that you're a moron. The amount the government "rebates" to me will be less than they took from me to fund the "rebates", so what exactly am I trying to hide?

[Sparko]

Well there's clearly no hiding the fact that you're a moron. The amount the government "rebates" to me will be less than they took from me to fund the "rebates", so what exactly am I trying to hide?

you expect them to give you back MORE than you gave them? now who's a moron?

I think it is two-faced to whine about the government giving back some of your hard earned cash and turn around and cash the check.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well there's clearly no hiding the fact that you're a moron. The amount the government "rebates" to me will be less than they took from me to fund the "rebates", so what exactly am I trying to hide?Technically, they haven't taken any money from you... regardless of your income, seeing this is deficit spending... hence the taxes to fund this haven't been paid yet.

[Pilgrim]

1) Whether I'm in the position of Peter or Paul here is dependent on my level of taxation-- something even a well-conned PCUSA seminarian was able to grasp, which should make you feel really embarrassed. (BTW Pilgrim, you're welcome).

Well I figure that's about all you really have to offer the conversation so I'll take it in a kindly spirit.

[micah4]

Technically, they haven't taken any money from you... regardless of your income, seeing this is deficit spending... hence the taxes to fund this haven't been paid yet.

That's a technicality without distinction, really, unless anybody actually believes they're never going to collect the taxes + interest to pay for the deficit, which is at least partly the basis for the objection here if you've forgotten. And "technically" there's no way to distinguish which disbursements are being funded from taxes collected and which are being funded from borrowed monies; but even allocating my taxes paid proportionately across all spending, I would already have paid more than I would be rebated, and that's not including the taxes I will pay in the future to pay off the additional deficits that are being incurred.

[micah4]

you expect them to give you back MORE than you gave them? now who's a moron?

Hasn't changed AFAICT, it's still the same person who now doesn't recognize that this is exactly what they are doing for more than 30% of the people they're sending the so-called "rebates" to.


I think it is two-faced to whine about the government giving back some of your hard earned cash and turn around and cash the check.

Riiiight.

So now, what was it that you were vaguely trying to claim that I was trying to hide? Because I've been entirely up front about that from the get-go.

[Timothy Leary]

Sparko, think of it this way. The government is giving you 300$ or so, but we're going to be paying like 350$ for it. It's a net loss. Lets just hope taking this additional loss will give the economy the crack it'll need to jump back on track until Congress starts taking real steps towards improving our economy, like ending sugar tariffs so that the price of fuel doesn't hurt american workers as much.

If they don't, if this doesn't work, then this is really the ultimate form of political corruption: the government would be very literally buying off your vote and then stealing a larger amount of money from you. You wouldn't be grateful if someone else did that to you, would you?

[Sparko]

Sparko, think of it this way. The government is giving you 300$ or so, but we're going to be paying like 350$ for it. It's a net loss. Lets just hope taking this additional loss will give the economy the crack it'll need to jump back on track until Congress starts taking real steps towards improving our economy, like ending sugar tariffs so that the price of fuel doesn't hurt american workers as much.

If they don't, if this doesn't work, then this is really the ultimate form of political corruption: the government would be very literally buying off your vote and then stealing a larger amount of money from you. You wouldn't be grateful if someone else did that to you, would you?

No look at it like this:

the government is taking 25% of your money as taxes. Now they can just keep that money and spend it on junkets, or they can give you $300 of it back.

they are taking the money from you whether or not the decide to give you any back. They are not taking "more" from you to pay for it. They are already taking it.

[micah4]

Money is taken from us to pay for each and every spending program. For each additional spending program, additional taxes have to be collected.

The rebates are a spending program that doesn't exist until the "stimulus" package is signed. You cant add a new spending program without taking additional funds to pay for that program- whether you take them now or borrow now and take them later.

The rebates are not being sent in place of any other spending program, they are in addition to every other spending program. Whatever junkets or other spending has already been budgeted will still be spent where it has been budgeted. It might be different if we had a budget surplus to start with, because lawmakers might be inclined to come up with other new spending programs because "hey, there's a surplus! we can afford X!" which they couldn't say if that surplus was returned as rebates - which was the actually the case with the original Bush rebates.

But since we're already running deficits, it's more likely that spending on X (rebates) simply adds to the total spending rather than taking the place of some other glee happy surplus elimination spending.

Ironically, if everybody returned their rebate checks as has been suggested must be the "honorable" thing to do if one disagrees with the plan, then there would be a surplus, because the funds will have already been allocated and the debt to pay for them will have already been sold, so there would now be a surplus which would likely result in spending the money on junkets or some other wasteful program (hey! there's a surplus! we can afford X!). Which is of course yet another reason why returning the check is a self-defeating plan. Not that I expect anybody who's been advocating that action to grasp this point, but nevertheless that's the way it is.

[nickcopernicus]

Micah
4) With all due respect to the O.P., it's a noble intention to protest the stupidity of the rebates, but it's incredibly naive to think that anybody in government is going to pay attention to a letter directing them to "put this money directly to paying X"; there's simply no process for that. He might as well send the letter of protest, but if he wants any control whatsoever over how the money gets spent, he should keep it under his own control rather than ceding the money back to a political machine over which he has essentially no control and which has already demonstrated an inability to allocate it's available (and/or non-available) funds wisely.
Nick:
I don't give a crap if there's no process for doing what I request they do. It's really not all that difficult. It's not my fault that there's all kinds of bureaucratic bullcrap that the process involves.

As it turns out, I make too much money to get a refund back anyway so I won't be getting a walfare check...I'm so devistated :ahem:.

In any case, what do you all think of GW's 3 trillion dollar pipedream of a budget proposal?

Cheers,

Nick

[micah4]

Nick:
I don't give a crap if there's no process for doing what I request they do. It's really not all that difficult. It's not my fault that there's all kinds of bureaucratic bullcrap that the process involves.


No, it's not your fault, but a letter of protest would probably have more impact if you sent it to your representative congressman and senators; I doubt the Treasury department would take any notice of it at all.