Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Tuesday, February 17. 2009Why not?I have a simple question. Instead of a near-trillion dollar spending bill (which I doubt will do much for the big picture anyway, and put us and our kids in hock to the Chinese for a couple of generations), why didn't Washington simply propose a time-limited tax credit or tax reduction of the same amount, and let the people invest or spend that money into the economy as they saw fit? It would have had an immediate effect - and no different budgetary effect. Why not? (I know - it's a naive, dumb question. Nevertheless, I think biz and individual tax cuts is the way to go.) Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Why? because there is no payoff to constituency that pay no taxes anyway for one. There would be no payoff to unions which contribute to his campaign for two. An the whole package of "stimulus" is pure graft to buy future votes and keep him (his party) in power. Here I am preaching mainly to Maggie's choir and most of my friends believe the same way....this bill is pure payoff/graft/vote buying period.
The answer is that Congress fears that if they give the citizens a taste of freedom (tax cuts that they can spend as they please) they'll want more. That shifts power away from the spenders, and we can't have that.
I agree with JoeC, but the only other logical reason is to fight deflation. Cutting taxes would not increase the money supply. This action likely will. Especially if they have to print money to fund it.
Inflation as a cure. Yes, I know. But they would have to print $ anyway to pay their gummint bills and debts.
We all do, de Havilland, but as your name shows, we all have to be fighters (as were your plywood namesakes).
Look it up, young'uns. De Havilland Mosquito. Thanks. Most folks don't recognize the significance of my handle. My favorite was the PR.XVI, the photo-reconnaissance variant. Nice painting of one by renowned artist Koike Shigeo at http://www.ne.jp/asahi/airplane/museum/cl-pln4/400MOSQUT.html . Tell me that isn't the prettiest aircraft that ever flew. And yup, it was a "wooden wonder". Cheers, my friend!
Damn fine painting. And yep... beautiful aircraft.
Makes all the sense in the world except...it would mean those in D.C. would not be able to reward their friends and punish their foes. And, with the current package, the wield the power! (I'm not sure which is more important in their walnut sized brains.)
Having the power and reward/punishment are entangled items -- it's an "and" rather than an "or".
I agree, Barrister. If we are going to run these deficits, why not repeal the corporate income tax, the individual income tax and the capital gains tax for a year or two? My thinking is the economy would come rocketing back. But imagine the public outcry when tax garnishment returned to everyone's paycheck.
Let's step back folks.
There's no one in control who has the slightest idea of what the hell they're doing. Short term gain rules them all. As it did our financial edifices. The ideal, of an American Republic, into to the future. Not so much. It ain't that complicated.
You pay the vigourish to the guys that deliver--you don't go throwing off of roof tops. "Why not" you ask?.....maybe it makes some cents!....sorry....sense......?
Because you can't be trusted to invest properly. It is to be left to those who know better. Considering the vast financial experience of the leadership of the Congress and the President, individuals are simply too dumb to invest properly. So sayeth John Kerry (born rich, married richer twice, never worked in private sector as far as I know).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zISKoQegbxM If you keep your money, how can they spend it for you? It all started back when the very first "guy we share our food with because he does the stuff the other guys here hate doing but which has to get done for everybody's sake" - maybe, say, the dragging of the deer intestines way back into the woods before the smell gets too ripe - it started when he walked back out of the woods, and, spotting the cute woman whose yurt was right next to the spot on which the intestines had lain for several days before he moved them, said to her "I moved those intestines far away for you", thereby taking personal credit for an effort that was, in actuality, funded by the entire community.
Soon, as groups got bigger and the group efforts became more significant, that same weenie little guy would walk up to cute women, point back over his shoulder, and say "do you like the pyramid I put there for you?" It made him something more than he actually was in the eyes of that woman, and eventually in his own eyes. Now, that weenie little guy has sired an entire class of weenie little people who, lacking significance themselves, gather together the tithed money of the entire nation and erect monuments to themselves, explaining to the cute woman, of course, that the monuments are really in her honor. And the weenie little guys have just marched right through from the beginning of history to now, screwing us all as they see fit. "It all started back when the very first guy"
It goes back even further, it all started when the first Slave Trade ship entered U.S. waters. then it was only a matter of time There you go, blaming the blacks in Africa that captured the folks and sold them to the slave traders.
That plan would not fund/payback ACORN the $2 billion as allocated yesterday. These funds are desperately needed to "organize" for the 2010 and 12 elections.
I’d set aside some money for Jatropha development/domestication. If the "$43 cost per barrel of biofuel" is true, and it can fuel jets, and it really is easily grown in areas where normal food products struggle, why not? Who’s got a chemistry set? Any Arizona gardeners out there?
|