Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
|
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
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 The issue isn't whether stimulus spending should be repealed; I think it should be whether it's being done for the greatest benefit/impact.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
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
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.