View Single Post
Old 09-21-2010, 03:50 PM   #42 (permalink)
dogzilla
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Have a look at the excerpt below from an op-ed piece regarding support for stimulus spending:
Why America must have a fiscal stimulus - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
I can find articles from economists who oppose the stimulus spending as well. I look at any article on the economy or other social issues coming out of Harvard as having a liberal bias unless definitively proven otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
The idea that all stimulus spending (deficit spending) is bad is itself a bad idea. I'm not saying this is your absolute position, but you did suggest repealing all stimulus spending. The issue isn't whether stimulus spending should be repealed; I think it should be whether it's being done for the greatest benefit/impact. The points above should be what people pressure the Obama administration about, not the fact he's using stimulus spending at all.
The government should not be meddling in the economy at all. Let supply and demand drive the market. Obama's meddling in the auto market and the housing market illustrate this. All Obama did was succeed in borrowing against future sales at taxpayer expense. As soon as cash for clunkers ended, sales of new cars dropped. As soon as Obama's homebuyer's tax credit ended, housing sales dropped.

One other thing Obama did accomplish with his cash for clunkers program was to increase the price of used cars, and increase the expenses for lower income people who needed to buy cars, thanks to his idiotic requirement that the clunkers turned in be destroyed.

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
I'm not a tax expert or anything, but doesn't the progressive tax system work in way that means everyone pays the same rate for the first $20,000 they make, and the same rate for the next $20,000 (or whatever the bracket is), etc.? Isn't that fair enough in that the guy who makes $250,000 paid the same rate for his first $20,000 as the guy who only made $20,000 the whole year? (Assuming I'm correct about how this works; please someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
I think the rates are actually somewhat variable based on what deductions a person can claim to lower his adjusted gross income, which is the income used in calculating taxes, and by tax credits which generally are only given to lower income people.

But that aside, there is no justification for taxing someones second $20,000 in income at a higher rate than his first $20,000 in income other than the liberal's insistence on wealth redistribution by taxation. A person works at least as hard to get to a $40,000 income as they do to get to a $20,000 income level.

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy View Post
so let me see if i understand this. the republicans are willing to make "fiscal responsibility" mean destroying what the obama administration has tried to do in order to deal with the economic wreckage that republican-inspired economic policy caused rather than allow the ineffectual bush-cuts to expire..
You should note that I wrote that if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire because reducing the debt is so important (which it is) then Obama's stimulus and health care plans should be rescinded for the same reason.

Besides, the Democrats also had a hand in the economic crash with their insistence that loan requirements be relaxed so that people of lower income, who really had no business obtaining a mortgage could obtain one. That also played a part in the housing bubble with more buyers available to buy a limited resource (housing) and pushing home prices up. The logical outcome of that fiasco was that of course the lower income people didn't have the income to afford their mortgage and they ended up in foreclosure.
dogzilla is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360