$1.86 a day? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

jimmyjambam · 02-16-2009, 12:40 PM

So I guess anyone making under 75K will get $13 a week in extra take home pay.
Wooo!
I was looking forward to tax cuts, but I didn't know they would be so generous.

Someone has already come up with 186aday.com as a place to spend your stimulus money.

I feel like all the good stuff was taken out.. and of course the average person just gets screwed again.

Martian · 02-16-2009, 12:53 PM

I feel obliged to point out that $1.86/day is almost $700 per year. Multiply that by the number of US citizens who qualify, and you get a big number. How many qualifying US workers are there? 150 million? It's not a statistic I have out of hand. Even if we drastically low-ball it and say 100 million, we still end up with something like $68 billion in lost revenue for your government.

Seriously, what did you expect?

I'd be quite pleased if my government gave me back an extra $700 of my tax money.

Actually, no I wouldn't. That would probably result in a major deficit, which is worse. My taxes buy me the conveniences of civilized life.

jimmyjambam · 02-16-2009, 01:09 PM

Except the tax cut is only good for 2009..
it gets smaller in 2010.

I realize it adds up to billions, but it is not significant enough. We just got $600 last year. All it did was help people out for a couple months.
If they want to get the economy moving they either need to make significant middle class tax cuts, or invest a significant amount in big projects that will truly create jobs.
Not just a bunch of little projects with no analysis on their potential impact.

guyy · 02-16-2009, 04:22 PM

I got 300 last year. That works out to something like .82 a day.

Tully Mars · 02-16-2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Actually, no I wouldn't. That would probably result in a major deficit, which is worse. My taxes buy me the conveniences of civilized life.

Ding! We have a winner. Seriously why the hell have a tax cut at all? The US is so deep in debt and in such a economic tailspin the only deficit spending that makes sense is spending that will put people to work. How the hell is 1.86 per person going to help the economy? Or for that matter have any real effect on anyone personally?

But your main point that the government gives you civilization is solid. Almost everyone bitches about taxes yet at the same time are all for the things government buys them. Hell the right was solidly behind the Iraq war and seemed interested in supporting the troops. Got any idea what a military like the US' cost? The left wants health care, mass transit, better schools- that's going to cost. I think both sides are pretty pro fire department. I know I'd like a fireman to show up if my house were on fire. Governments do all kind of shit, right down to getting rid of your shit.

Martian · 02-16-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

But your main point that the government gives you civilization is solid. Almost everyone bitches about taxes yet at the same time are all for the things government buys them. Hell the right was solidly behind the Iraq war and seemed interested in supporting the troops. Got any idea what a military like the US' cost? The left wants health care, mass transit, better schools- that's going to cost. I think both sides are pretty pro fire department. I know I'd like a fireman to show up if my house were on fire. Governments do all kind of shit, right down to getting rid of your shit.

And that's just it.

I'm trying very hard not to go full-fledged curmudgeon here. It's gotta be, what? 80% or more of our user base on this site that hails from the US of A and you guys can run your country however you deem fit. It sort of breaks my mind a bit, though, that the US is running a deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars annually, and that a candidate still has to wave the tax-cut carrot to have any reasonable chance of election. It's not like Obama's suggesting an increase in taxes here (even though such a thing probably wouldn't be a terrible idea). Let's put this in perspective, here: your country owes over $10 trillion dollars in debt, with over $2 trillion going to China. That number is increasing, and when the baby boomers start retiring en masse it's expected to freefall. In light of these dire economic circumstances, you're complaining because you didn't get a big enough tax cut? What's that about?

Baraka_Guru · 02-16-2009, 08:39 PM

This looks like a hangover from Reganomics...or are you calling it voodoo economics these days?

I'm assuming this was put in there to appease the Republicans.

I'm in Martian's camp.

aceventura3 · 02-17-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Seriously, what did you expect?

$800,000,000,000/300,000,000=$2,666.67

Stimulus package divided by the US population.

I guess the other way to look at it is that is what the package is going to cost every US citizen, not including interest. I hoe the money is being spent wisely if not the next generation is going to have a big bill to pay.

guyy · 02-17-2009, 08:16 AM

Deficits? Big Fucking Deal. You have falling output, rising unemployment, a threat of deflation and you're worried about deficits? Reaganism is over. Done.

Baraka_Guru · 02-17-2009, 08:31 AM

The U.S. has a long history of deficits, so I don't see why now would be a good time to avoid running one. But the problem remains: a long history of deficits slowly cripples you in the long-term.

A comparison:

U.S.: Budget

Canada: Budget

Canada cleaned up its act mainly because of "balanced budget" legislation. However, I feel deficits are sometimes necessary, even in Canada. (Possibly now.)

The problem with U.S. budgets is that they overspend (undertax?) during high economic times, when they should be balancing budgets and paying down debt.

I guess this hasn't been done due to the American penchant for perpetual crisis.

I generally see tax cuts as means of appeasing opposition or winning votes.

aceventura3 · 02-17-2009, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

Deficits? Big Fucking Deal. You have falling output, rising unemployment, a threat of deflation and you're worried about deficits? Reaganism is over. Done.

Just let us stop the pretense thinking deficit spending will have a lasting stimulus affect on the economy. People, working, saving, spending and investing in the future is the best way to grow an economy. that equates to the government letting people keep more of the fruits of their labor. Government spending leads to higher taxes or inflation at some point, both would have a negative impact on economic growth.

braisler · 02-17-2009, 08:39 AM

US taxpayer here. I agree that any tax cut is just going to increase the federal deficit further, which is a terrible thing to do. I think that most people are frustrated with the tax system not because they don't realize that taxes pay for legitimate "conveniences of civilized life", but that SOOOOOO much of our taxes are spent wastefully on programs that are not in the interests of the people of the United States. Some politicians convinced some Americans that the Iraq war was a good idea and an important enough cause to spend our money and more importantly the lives of our young men and women on, but most of us knew that it was a bloated, bullshit war from the beginning.

I'm not as concerned with the stimulus plan as I am with rewarding financial institutions for being bad at their business. It is like taking a gambler who is $50000 down at the roulette table and handing him another $50K. I'm sure your luck will turn soon! As has been said before, if you our I run our business into the ground, we are out of business, but the big banks get a bailout?!?!

This is another thing that bugs me about the Conservative political movement holding up Ronald Reagan as a paragon of their ideology. His economic policies were a total failure. He reversed significant progress toward energy independence. He had almost nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union (predicated more on the collapse of the price of oil than on any political posturing). And he was almost certainly affected by dementia/Alzheimer's in his last 2 years in office. Yet he is held in such high regard by the Republican party. I just don't get it. Other than just saying that he is one of the greatest presidents and naming airports and roads after him, I've never heard anything that would support the level of praise that Reagan seems to engender.

Lasereth · 02-17-2009, 08:41 AM

I would settle for not having to pay back the stimulus check we got last year on our taxes right now.

roachboy · 02-17-2009, 09:07 AM

i cited this in another thread, but this paragraph seems germaine here:

Quote:

Having carefully established the long-running and generally beneficial effects of "big" government, Madrick turns to the intellectual claims of figures such as Milton Friedman, whose work was central to creating the new "small government is better government" consensus. In fact, Madrick writes, the Chicago economist "offered much ideology but little evidence" that big government undermined economic growth. Friedman claimed in the 1970s that the corrosive rate of inflation at the time was caused by rising public spending and the growth of the money supply. In reality, however, the government's share of GDP didn't rise during this time, and far larger budget deficits under later Republican presidents produced no noticeable increase in inflation. International comparisons likewise have shown that big government does not undermine a nation's ability to produce more efficiently. Citing the economist Peter Lindert, who spent years compiling his data on the effects of the welfare state on economic growth, Madrick writes that there is a stark "conflict between intuition and evidence" on this topic. As Lindert wryly observed, "It is well-known that higher taxes and transfers reduce productivity. Well-known—but unsupported by statistics and history."

Government Beyond Obama? - The New York Review of Books

there are thousands of sources out there which could be pulled in here, but this one happens to be at hand.
fact is that
neoliberal ideology has never had history or data about the contemporary world to support it.
it has never been based on anything like an accurate assessment of reality.
never.
not even for a minute.

set it on fire. it's worthless. particularly now.

Xerxys · 02-17-2009, 10:22 AM

US taxpayer here, know absolutely nothing about the economy and it's works except the ignorant "Gotta get that check BOIIII!!" but I gotta ask. Someone with relevant info on hand please explain to me why everyone is complaining about the banks being bailed out. Had they have gone down, wouldn't it have hurt the people who actually banked there?? I dont think that the govt. (of course I know nothing about what I'm saying) bailed them out simply to keep the big corps support .... that's just ignorant and unethical. There has to have been a relevant reason.

Ohh and also, I have 34% taken out of my check so I am really looking forward to this package like a motherf&%$%^!!!

dippin · 02-17-2009, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth

I would settle for not having to pay back the stimulus check we got last year on our taxes right now.

You are not having to pay back last years check. The reason the amount you owe or will be refunded changes when you state that you received a check last year is because people who did not qualify for a check last year can get one now, but the amount you are paying in taxes/getting back through refund is still about the same.

guyy · 02-19-2009, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Just let us stop the pretense thinking deficit spending will have a lasting stimulus affect on the economy. People, working, saving, spending and investing in the future is the best way to grow an economy. that equates to the government letting people keep more of the fruits of their labor. Government spending leads to higher taxes or inflation at some point, both would have a negative impact on economic growth.

Where you have been the past few months? People aren't working, saving, or spending, and investments went poof as speculative bubbles popped and the Stanfords and Madoffs scurried into their ratholes.

So what do you do? You have the Mellon/Hoover course of action, hugely successful in the past as we all know, of doing as little as politically feasible. You can sleep well at night knowing that your policy conforms to invisible hands dogma. Or, you can try to apply human knowledge to the situation through the institutions that we have created and reproduced. It comes down to a passive, crypto-religiosity vs. purposive human action.

Future inflation? You'd be better off worrying about the problems in the here and now. Foresight and planning are important, but if this crisis isn't dealt with adequately, you'll be trading in tins of tuna fish.

aceventura3 · 02-19-2009, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

Where you have been the past few months? People aren't working, saving, or spending, and investments went poof as speculative bubbles popped and the Stanfords and Madoffs scurried into their ratholes.

About 93% of American workers are employed. Americans during this recession are saving at a higher rate than in the recent past :

Personally my investments have been sh*t, but you can't win them all.

Quote:

So what do you do? You have the Mellon/Hoover course of action, hugely successful in the past as we all know, of doing as little as politically feasible. You can sleep well at night knowing that your policy conforms to invisible hands dogma. Or, you can try to apply human knowledge to the situation through the institutions that we have created and reproduced. It comes down to a passive, crypto-religiosity vs. purposive human action.

Future inflation? You'd be better off worrying about the problems in the here and now. Foresight and planning are important, but if this crisis isn't dealt with adequately, you'll be trading in tins of tuna fish.

And as Washington continues on their spending binge, the Fed is preparing for the on coming inflationary impact. So what we will have is one set of geniuses trying to stimulate the economy and another set slowing it down. You got to love Washington.

Quote:

Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve policy makers signaled their determination to prevent any spiraling of inflation as a consequence of unprecedented U.S. fiscal stimulus and record growth in the central bank’s balance sheet.

Fed officials introduced long-term inflation projections yesterday, with most favoring a 2 percent rate. The forecasts will help moor the public’s expectations, Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said.

The step shows that Fed officials are intent on fulfilling their mandate to ensure price stability after the stock of money known as the monetary base soared 80 percent in the past six months. With long-term inflation expectations in household surveys hovering at 3 percent in that period, the surge in cash could threaten to send up bond yields, hindering efforts to generate an economic recovery by year-end.

Bloomberg.com: Economy

roachboy · 02-19-2009, 09:15 AM

ace--what's obvious from your posts is that you haven't been able to wrap your mind around what's happening. so rather than deal with the present situation, you consistently flatten it into what you laughingly (i assume) consider "the normal" in order to maintain some sense of coherence for your ideological position--and your "analyses" of the present situation are entirely about this combination of premises.

so why pretend that you're talking about the present then?

for example, the prevalent variants of just-in-time production are both new (they didn't exist before the 1980s, and are just one of a host of changes that wreck your reccurent efforts to flatten the current crisis into the past) are showing themselves to be more fragile in the face of contextual problems than were the older, "less efficient" factories.

Quote:

The collapse of manufacturing
Feb 19th 2009
From The Economist print edition

The financial crisis has created an industrial crisis. What should governments do about it?

$0.00, not counting fuel and handling: that is the cheapest quote right now if you want to ship a container from southern China to Europe. Back in the summer of 2007 the shipper would have charged $1,400. Half-empty freighters are just one sign of a worldwide collapse in manufacturing. In Germany December’s machine-tool orders were 40% lower than a year earlier. Half of China’s 9,000 or so toy exporters have gone bust. Taiwan’s shipments of notebook computers fell by a third in the month of January. The number of cars being assembled in America was 60% below January 2008.

The destructive global power of the financial crisis became clear last year. The immensity of the manufacturing crisis is still sinking in, largely because it is seen in national terms—indeed, often nationalistic ones. In fact manufacturing is also caught up in a global whirlwind.

Industrial production fell in the latest three months by 3.6% and 4.4% respectively in America and Britain (equivalent to annual declines of 13.8% and 16.4%). Some locals blame that on Wall Street and the City. But the collapse is much worse in countries more dependent on manufacturing exports, which have come to rely on consumers in debtor countries. Germany’s industrial production in the fourth quarter fell by 6.8%; Taiwan’s by 21.7%; Japan’s by 12%—which helps to explain why GDP is falling even faster there than it did in the early 1990s (see article). Industrial production is volatile, but the world has not seen a contraction like this since the first oil shock in the 1970s—and even that was not so widespread. Industry is collapsing in eastern Europe, as it is in Brazil, Malaysia and Turkey. Thousands of factories in southern China are now abandoned. Their workers went home to the countryside for the new year in January. Millions never came back (see article).

Factories floored

Having bailed out the financial system, governments are now being called on to save industry, too. Next to scheming bankers, factory workers look positively deserving. Manufacturing is still a big employer and it tends to be a very visible one, concentrated in places like Detroit, Stuttgart and Guangzhou. The failure of a famous manufacturer like General Motors (GM) would be a severe blow to people’s faith in their own prospects when a lack of confidence is already dragging down the economy. So surely it is right to give industry special support?

Despite manufacturing’s woes, the answer is no. There are no painless choices, but industrial aid suffers from two big drawbacks. One is that government programmes, which are slow to design and amend, are too cumbersome to deal with the varied, constantly changing difficulties of the world’s manufacturing industries. Part of the problem has been a drying-up of trade finance. Nobody knows how long that will last. Another part has come as firms have run down their inventories (in China some of these were stockpiles amassed before the Beijing Olympics). The inventory effect should be temporary, but, again, nobody knows how big or lasting it will be.

The other drawback is that sectoral aid does not address the underlying cause of the crisis—a fall in demand, not just for manufactured goods, but for everything. Because there is too much capacity (far too much in the car industry), some businesses must close however much aid the government pumps in. How can governments know which firms to save or the “right” size of any industry? That is for consumers to decide. Giving money to the industries with the loudest voices and cleverest lobbyists would be unjust and wasteful. Shifting demand to the fortunate sector that has won aid from the unfortunate one that has not will only exacerbate the upheaval. One country’s preference for a given industry risks provoking a protectionist backlash abroad and will slow the long-run growth rate at home by locking up resources in inefficient firms.

Nothing to lose but their supply chains

Some say that manufacturing is special, because the rest of the economy depends on it. In fact, the economy is more like a network in which everything is connected to everything else, and in which every producer is also a consumer. The important distinction is not between manufacturing and services, but between productive and unproductive jobs.

Some manufacturers accept that, but proceed immediately to another argument: that the current crisis is needlessly endangering productive, highly skilled manufacturing jobs. Nowadays each link in the supply chain depends on all the others. Carmakers cite GM’s new Camaro, threatened after a firm that makes moulded-plastic parts went bankrupt. The car industry argues that the loss of GM itself would permanently wreck the North American supply chain (see article). Aid, they say, can save good firms to fight another day.

Although some supply chains have choke points, that is a weak general argument for sectoral aid. As a rule, suppliers with several customers, and customers with several suppliers, should be more resilient than if they were a dependent captive of a large group. The evidence from China is that today’s lack of demand creates the spare capacity that allows customers to find a new supplier quickly if theirs goes out of business. When that is hard, because a parts supplier is highly specialised, say, good management is likely to be more effective than state aid. The best firms monitor their vital suppliers closely and buy parts from more than one source, even if it costs money. In the extreme, firms can support vulnerable suppliers by helping them raise cash or by investing in them.

If sectoral aid is wasteful, why then save the banking system? Not for the sake of the bankers, certainly; nor because state aid will create an efficient financial industry. Even flawed bank rescues and stimulus plans, like the one Barack Obama signed into law this week, are aimed at the roots of the economy’s problems: saving the banks, no matter how undeserving they are, is supposed to keep finance flowing to all firms; fiscal stimulus is supposed to lift demand across the board. As manufacturing collapses, governments should not fiddle with sectoral plans. Their proper task is broader but no less urgent: to get on with spending and with freeing up finance.

The collapse of manufacturing | The Economist

la la la, just a cyclical downturn. la la la.

guyy's right.

aceventura3 · 02-19-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace--what's obvious from your posts is that you haven't been able to wrap your mind around what's happening. so rather than deal with the present situation, you consistently flatten it into what you laughingly (i assume) consider "the normal" in order to maintain some sense of coherence for your ideological position--and your "analyses" of the present situation are entirely about this combination of premises.

so why pretend that you're talking about the present then?

la la la, just a cyclical downturn. la la la.

guyy's right.

I would like your explanation of the LEI;

Quote:

Feb. 19, 2009…The Conference Board Leading Economic Index™ (LEI) for the U.S. increased 0.4 percent in January, following a 0.2 percent increase in December and a 0.7 percent decline in November. Says Ken Goldstein, Economist at The conference Board: “The economy has been in recession for over a year, but the level of intensity may begin to ease over the next few months. The second half of 2009 may see a period of anemic growth. In fact, a return to robust growth may not occur until well into 2010, even if the long climb starts a few months from now.”

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...nts/bblead.pdf

or Industrial Production;

Quote:

Industrial production fell 1.8 percent in January. At 101.3 percent of its 2002 average, output in January was 10.0 percent below its year-earlier level. Production in the manufacturing sector dropped 2.5 percent with broad-based declines among its components.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...nts/bbprod.pdf

The december 2008 drop was 2.4% compared to the 1.8% January drop.

or manufactured goods orders;

Quote:

New orders for manufactured goods in December, down five consecutive months, decreased $14.8 billion or 3.9 percent to $362.4 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today. This was the longest streak of consecutive monthly decreases since the series was first published on a NAICS basis in 1992 and followed a 6.5
percent November decrease. Excluding transportation, new orders decreased 4.4 percent.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...ents/bbfac.pdf

There are clear indicators that the most sever drops may be behind us and we may start seeing trend reversals. And when we consider a 10% year over year decline in industrial production it is far from the doom and gloom scenario you and others want us to believe and supports my claim of a cyclical downturn.

I have a sister 7 years my junior, when we were kids she used to do the "la, la, la" crap too. Now she just changes the subject when she is having difficulty communicating with me. I am not saying that you should, but be advised, I am relentless.

Bill O'Rights · 02-19-2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

About 93% of American workers are employed.

I question that. And, even if it's true, which I doubt, I am amongst that 7% that's not working since last November. I'm here to tell you...this job market is a bitch.

aceventura3 · 02-20-2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I question that. And, even if it's true, which I doubt, I am amongst that 7% that's not working since last November. I'm here to tell you...this job market is a bitch.

I know its a bitch.

I just think the economy can be made worse by all the negativity. If people fear losing their jobs they stop spending and begin to save more (savings can be affected by other factors but in this environment it is clear what is happening). I showed a chart indicating a sudden change in savings rates. In one respect savings is good, but when savings increases at the same time employment shrinks and the economy slows, the increase in savings compounds the problem. So, what we need is leadership in Washington that can reassure people that we are not going to experience the next great depression. If spending increases the recession will be shorter and the labor market will improve.

Send an email to Obama and tell his to stop talking or to say something positive about our economy.

dippin · 02-20-2009, 08:53 AM

Ace,
I think you are severely mistaken in your interpretation of the economic data.

A 7% unemployment rate does not mean that 93% of the workers are employed. It means that 93% of the population who is economically active is employed. People who have not sought work in the reference period are not considered unemployed, and those who have worked 15 hours in exchange for money are considered employed, so 7% is not a small number necessarily.

And industrial production figures are very poor indicators of economic performance. Industry makes up under 1/5 of the US economy, with almost 80% coming from services.

The idea that everything will be all right if we are only more optimistic about it is nonsense.

roachboy · 02-20-2009, 09:09 AM

the unemployment numbers count only people unemployed for less than 6 months.
that's how the united states manages structural unemployment, by not counting it.
reports emanating from the fed, for example, particularly on the revised periodicity that bernake announced the other night, are as much advertisng materials as anything else---their primary function is to provide a sense of directedness by imposing a sense of directedness as a function of data-framing.

like it or not, ace, the world has changed. what dippin notes above is a **problem**---previous social-democratic models, for example, develop modalities of state action in the context of highly industrialized economies--which are not relevant for a deindustrialized economy like that of the united states in 2009. this means that previous strategies are probably not terribly helpful. the main problem this poses has been repeated and repeated in the face of your total pollyanna school pronouncements concerning the economy...that things are unravelling quickly at a point where there aren't alot of available templates to guide action by the state available (see above)...this is compounded by the ideological paralysis engendered by the sudden end of an ideological regime. economic crisis intertwines with cognitive crisis, which in turn feeds back into the economic crisis.

we're not in kansas any more, ace.

dippin · 02-20-2009, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the unemployment numbers count only people unemployed for less than 6 months.
that's how the united states manages structural unemployment, by not counting it.

More than that, if the person unemployed did not look for jobs recently, they are not unemployed. And if they received some sort of compensation for work during the past week, they are employed. So the person who gave up on looking for jobs, or simply couldn't, is not counted as unemployed. And the person who, say, mowed their neighbor's lawn to make a few bucks, or baby sat, or sold cakes out of their home after they lost their full time job is considered still employed.

guyy · 02-20-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Send an email to Obama and tell his to stop talking or to say something positive about our economy.

Worked for Hoover, right Ace?

pan6467 · 03-01-2009, 01:28 AM

It doesn't matter what the "stimulus" is we get taxed on the money... for some it won't matter for others it will raise them into a new bracket and may end up costing them more money than the "stimulus" gave them.

ASU2003 · 03-01-2009, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

It doesn't matter what the "stimulus" is we get taxed on the money... for some it won't matter for others it will raise them into a new bracket and may end up costing them more money than the "stimulus" gave them.

I'm sure someone would rather still have a job and be paying the higher tax rate then be unemployed or working at whatever minimum wage job they can find.

The whole goal of the "stimulus" is to have money flow around in our economy. The issue is that since we import so much from a large asian country, and we import so much oil from OPEC, that we will never see the stimulus money again. I know that I gave my stimulus money last year to the oil companies, as did millions of others. The whole oil price thing was a pretty good scam for them to siphon off the extra money people had.

pan6467 · 03-01-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I'm sure someone would rather still have a job and be paying the higher tax rate then be unemployed or working at whatever minimum wage job they can find.

The whole goal of the "stimulus" is to have money flow around in our economy. The issue is that since we import so much from a large asian country, and we import so much oil from OPEC, that we will never see the stimulus money again. I know that I gave my stimulus money last year to the oil companies, as did millions of others. The whole oil price thing was a pretty good scam for them to siphon off the extra money people had.

Then obviously the stimulus package they are giving isn't going to work.

Perhaps, government needs to focus on what it's true purpose is, protecting the people and ensuring the next generation has better opportunities. You do this by pumping money into infrastructure (you know bridges that are falling, helping companies large and small meet EPA,FDA, etc. standards, giving out very low interest loans to SMALL businesses, raising tariffs or at the very least negotiating trade treaties that are not one sided, giving grants and tax credits to people and companies that want to develop feasible fuel alternatives).... you do this by raising educational standards and lowering tuition rates, while giving low interest loans to students.

NO stimulus package that continues to bail out banks and the rich will work long term, because the people paying for it are the hard working middle class that is shrinking. You continue to take what disposable income they may have and soon everyone goes out of business.

The very rich have had 20 years of accumulating massive wealth on the backs of the middle class and no one stopped them. Now, they need to either voluntarily help the middle class they destroyed through mergers, layoffs, outsourcing, hiring temp workers, etc. or government needs to start setting pay limits and regulations... one regulation, if the CEO is making over $10 million dollars (salary and bonus) then the company needs to produce. If not the CEO loses salary and bonuses before he starts to lay people off. This should have been done without having to have government step in, but as is so apparent the last 20 years, it wasn't. Hell, some CEO's got bonuses laying people off and outsourcing jobs.

The biggest thing I am trying to say is you cannot keep hitting the hard working middle class that is the backbone of this country. But, government and the ultra rich don't care about these people, they don't care if unemployment hits 20%, they don't care if the "Big 3" go bankrupt (in fact that would benefit them, less pay, fewer benefits for the middle class hard worker and more money for them), they don't care if houses get foreclosed on (better for them, they buy more property and rent those houses out), they don't care if taxes go up, they'll just sacrifice citizenship and declare citizenship in a country with a better tax rate.

The rich have been parasitic for the last 20 years and the sad part is they sold the people the dream they could make it there, all the while stealing all they could. Now, people are just trying to save what little they have and the ultra rich are laughing all the way to the banks we are bailing out.

The ultra rich love to complain how they pay so much in taxes, but if they had spread the wealth instead of accumulating it all the past 20 years, the tax base would be stronger and more stable and fair. But if you own all the wealth, eventually only you can pay the taxes. The ultra rich did this to us all. And the weirdest part, some of us keep making excuses for them.

kutulu · 03-01-2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

It doesn't matter what the "stimulus" is we get taxed on the money... for some it won't matter for others it will raise them into a new bracket and may end up costing them more money than the "stimulus" gave them.

That's not how taxation works. When you move into a higher bracket only the money above the transition point gets taxed at the higher rate.

Sue · 03-01-2009, 05:48 PM

I'll look forward to this. Will definitely help me while I'm in school for the next three years.

pan6467 · 03-01-2009, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

That's not how taxation works. When you move into a higher bracket only the money above the transition point gets taxed at the higher rate.

Which would be the "stimulus"money.

If say 29,999 and below pays one thing and you made 29500, that stimulus puts you over into a different bracket where a greater percentage of your money comes out.

It's like overtime or holiday pay..... the money I make there gets taxed more and I barely see any difference. I have to work at least 13 hours overtime to see a true difference (enough to fill my tank and give me an extra case of soda or pack of cigarettes). The state, city, FICA and so on take more, almost the entirety of the OT or holiday pay. They will do the same to your "stimulus" money.

Nowhere does it say that money will not be taxed, it will, and if it puts you into a new bracket where a greater percentage is to come out, it will cost you money.

dippin · 03-01-2009, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Which would be the "stimulus"money.

If say 29,999 and below pays one thing and you made 29500, that stimulus puts you over into a different bracket where a greater percentage of your money comes out.

It's like overtime or holiday pay..... the money I make there gets taxed more and I barely see any difference. I have to work at least 13 hours overtime to see a true difference (enough to fill my tank and give me an extra case of soda or pack of cigarettes). The state, city, FICA and so on take more, almost the entirety of the OT or holiday pay. They will do the same to your "stimulus" money.

Nowhere does it say that money will not be taxed, it will, and if it puts you into a new bracket where a greater percentage is to come out, it will cost you money.

I dont think you got what he was saying. Only the money that goes above that bracket is taxed at a higher rate. It is impossible for someone to make more money and take less of it home because they went above a certain bracket. Using your numbers, the person will pay the lower bracket of taxes on 29,999 and the higher only whatever amount went over 29,999.

pan6467 · 03-02-2009, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

I dont think you got what he was saying. Only the money that goes above that bracket is taxed at a higher rate. It is impossible for someone to make more money and take less of it home because they went above a certain bracket. Using your numbers, the person will pay the lower bracket of taxes on 29,999 and the higher only whatever amount went over 29,999.

Let's say you made $32,500, on salary (make it easy), that is at the 15% tax bracket. Meaning they take roughly 15% of your pay for taxes.

Now, you get the "stimulus" and that $700 goes to your income. You now show that you made $33,200. That puts you into the 25% tax bracket, thus you are now paying 10% more in taxes and making less than 2% more from the "stimulus" package.

And that is just federal, you will be taxed on that money by state, local, and so on also.

Therefore, in the end, if this happens to you, you will be paying much more in taxes for that "stimulus".

here's a link to the fed. tax bracket:

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2008 and 2009

If you use the calculator and type in the numbers I gave you, before at 32500 you pay 4458 for a rate of 13.72%.

For 33200 you pay 4563 ($105) more at a rate of 13.74%. So your $700 is now $595 and that doesn't include state, local, and all those nice other taxes they take out.

595/52 = $11.44 a week - all the other taxes. So you may be able to buy half a tank of gas a week, provided gas doesn't go up.

That stimulus is a joke and misleading the people. They fail to mention the taxes you will pay on it. No, you won't lose money, but you won't be gaining enough to make any difference in your lifestyle.

If you make 22,000 a year and add that 700 you went from 2883 in taxes and 13.1% to 2988 and 13.16%. That's $105 more taking you to $595 minus all the other taxes. So someone barely making a living wage gets slammed on this.

595/52 = 11.44 before every other tax comes out.

If you give a stimulus why tax it?

I must say it is somewhat better than getting a check for 300/600 and filing you taxes and finding out not enough was withheld and you owe money because of that "stimulus". I'm just trying to warn people before it happens to them next year.

Why not just cut a check for $700 tax free dollars?

dippin · 03-02-2009, 08:41 AM

So, yeah, you won't make less money, which was the point.

And then there are a few other problems here. Do I think the stimulus should be much bigger, yes I do. But the stimulus as it currently is is not an increase in income, but a reduction in taxes, so that case is meaningless. The bump to another tax bracket will only happen to those actually get a job through the stimulus, which I would guess would bump their income more than that.

aceventura3 · 03-02-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Ace,
I think you are severely mistaken in your interpretation of the economic data.

A 7% unemployment rate does not mean that 93% of the workers are employed. It means that 93% of the population who is economically active is employed. People who have not sought work in the reference period are not considered unemployed, and those who have worked 15 hours in exchange for money are considered employed, so 7% is not a small number necessarily.

I think most recognize the the problems with the published unemployment rate. I agree, the point I was making was being made overly simplistic, but my intent was to illustrate one way or the other there are those who are legitimately unemployed, and there are those who are employed. I don't know if the exact ratio is 93 employed to 7 unemployed due to the problems with the published measurement - but there is some actual ratio and I think the ratio is weaker than it has been, trending in the wrong direction but not near crisis level.

Quote:

And industrial production figures are very poor indicators of economic performance. Industry makes up under 1/5 of the US economy, with almost 80% coming from services.

There are many economic indicators, some will start to turn positive before the economy technically recovers. Understanding what these indicators tell us about more general trends is a work in progress. If I perfect it, I would definitely be in a higher tax bracket and at some point I will publish my work in a book. I will give a shout-out to TFP so you will know its me.

Quote:

The idea that everything will be all right if we are only more optimistic about it is nonsense.

Why take my point out of context? I never wrote "everything will be all right if we are only ,,,", I did say it has an impact. I think our economy would be subject to normal business cycles regardless of what we try to do to stop them. I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the Obama administration is over-promising and is basically clueless regarding the long term impact of their efforts to manage the economy through spending and bailouts.

---------- Post added at 06:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the unemployment numbers count only people unemployed for less than 6 months.
that's how the united states manages structural unemployment, by not counting it.
reports emanating from the fed, for example, particularly on the revised periodicity that bernake announced the other night, are as much advertisng materials as anything else---their primary function is to provide a sense of directedness by imposing a sense of directedness as a function of data-framing.

That is one reason to look at actual employment numbers and the trends. The trends are generally up.

Here is a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

Worked for Hoover, right Ace?

FDR was the President during the majority of the Depression. His spending either was not effective or it took about a decade along with a world war to actually get us out of the depression. If that is the Obama plan...

Tully Mars · 03-04-2009, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

FDR was the President during the majority of the Depression. His spending either was not effective or it took about a decade along with a world war to actually get us out of the depression. If that is the Obama plan...

Not effective and didn't turn around until WWII?

Graph of the United State's industrial production from 1928-1939-

US GDP 1920-1940

So do you think WWII began in the early 30's? Or do you simply not understand basic economics?

You should really look into a US history and/or a beginning economics course. Seriously any local community college could help you understand this better.

aceventura3 · 03-04-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

So do you think WWII began in the early 30's? Or do you simply not understand basic economics?

You should really look into a US history and/or a beginning economics course. Seriously any local community college could help you understand this better.

Let us take a look:

I did a Google search there are about 6 million results for "WWII Start", here is one:

Quote:

The year generally given is 1939

However, one can make out a case for other dates for the start of WW2.

One can say that the war started at different times, for different countries.

Most historians agree the "world war" started in 1937 or in 1939. The most commonly accepted date is either September 1st or 3rd, 1939.

The date is debated, as the following events are cited as possible starting points:

* 1 September 1939: The German invasion of Poland.

* 3 September 1939: France and Britain declared war on Germany. (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa followed by 10 September).
The Soviet Union: 22 June 1941 (German attack on the USSR).

* 7 July 1937: The Japanese invasion of China (the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War).

* 1931: The Japanese invasion of Manchuria

WikiAnswers - When did World War 2 start

There was a building anticipation for war, even FDR recognized this. Here are a few bits of information to be considered.

Quote:

Eve of War 1939

Jan. 12 - FDR speech asked $525m more for defense, especially more airplanes

Jan. 28 - Enrico Fermi reported at a meeting of physicists in Washington DC that the German scientist Otto Hahn had split a synthetic ekauranium atom to release enormous energy, a vital step in the development of an atomic bomb.

Apr. 26 - FDR signed the appropriation bill that began construction of a 6000-plane Army Air Force

Mar. 15 - Hitler arrived in Prague and completed the occupation of the German-speaking regions (Bohemia, Moravia) of Czechoslovakia

Mar. 23 - Hitler occupied Memelland (NE Prussia ceded to Lithuania) & demanded Danzig - map

Mar. 31 - Chamberlain made an official pledge of British defense of Poland, marking the end of appeasement.

Aug. 2 - Einstein letter to FDR suggesting construction of the atomic bomb.

Eve of War 1939

In 1930 the US was spending 1.5 billion on defense by 1941 the amount was $7.2 billion. According to your chart industrial production reached a peaked in about 1930, reached another in about 1937 and then dropped below the 1930 peak. We did not permanently pass the 1930 peak until late in 1939. That is pretty close to a decade, and that decade concluded with a global build up and the start of WWII.

We clearly can look at the same data and come to very different conclusions. However, I think those mythical "most historians" and "most economists" agree with me.

dippin · 03-04-2009, 08:28 AM

Once again, I am always amazed at the idea that government intervention didnt get the US out of the depression, but WWII did. WWII was nothing if not a major govt. program from an economic standpoint.

Regardless, you are still wrong, Ace. That FDR was president during most of the depression is misleading at best, since the worst point in terms of unemployment was 32-early 33, and it rebounded pretty nicely after that. We've shown you graph after graph showing the economy taking off on 34, but you still stick to a non-sense position.

aceventura3 · 03-04-2009, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Once again, I am always amazed at the idea that government intervention didnt get the US out of the depression, but WWII did. WWII was nothing if not a major govt. program from an economic standpoint.

A number of things happened because of the war. On the positive side industrial production became much more efficient and there was a great deal of innovation. These innovations were in the private sector as they generated the goods and equipment needed for war. These gains were easily transferred to consumer production after the war.

On a negative note, they war resulted in a involuntary draft and the deaths of many young men who otherwise would have entered the workforce.

Quote:

The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, also known as the Burke-Wadsworth Act, 54 Stat. 885 was passed by the Congress of the United States on September 14, 1940,[1] becoming the first peacetime conscription in United States history when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it into law two days later. This Selective Service Act required that men between the ages of 21 and 30 register with local draft boards. Later, when the U.S. entered World War II, all men aged 18 to 45 were made liable for military service, and all men aged 18 to 65 were required to register.

Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Regardless, you are still wrong, Ace.

Am I married to you.... Are you sure....You sure sound like my wife?

Quote:

That FDR was president during most of the depression is misleading at best, since the worst point in terms of unemployment was 32-early 33, and it rebounded pretty nicely after that. We've shown you graph after graph showing the economy taking off on 34, but you still stick to a non-sense position.

I tend to agree with the recent Presidential rankings concerning FDR, I do think he was one of our better Presidents, so I am not critical of him, I just try to understand what really happened. I think FDR's leadership was exceptional given the circumstances, but it is clear that some of his policy positions did not have the lasting impact intended. And, as was pointed out, he understood the consequences of continued excessive government spending and tried to restrict the growth of budget deficits towards the end of the decade.

02-16-2009, 12:40 PM	#1 (permalink)
jimmyjambam Upright	$1.86 a day? So I guess anyone making under 75K will get $13 a week in extra take home pay. Wooo! I was looking forward to tax cuts, but I didn't know they would be so generous. Someone has already come up with 186aday.com as a place to spend your stimulus money. I feel like all the good stuff was taken out.. and of course the average person just gets screwed again.

02-16-2009, 12:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	I feel obliged to point out that $1.86/day is almost $700 per year. Multiply that by the number of US citizens who qualify, and you get a big number. How many qualifying US workers are there? 150 million? It's not a statistic I have out of hand. Even if we drastically low-ball it and say 100 million, we still end up with something like $68 billion in lost revenue for your government. Seriously, what did you expect? I'd be quite pleased if my government gave me back an extra $700 of my tax money. Actually, no I wouldn't. That would probably result in a major deficit, which is worse. My taxes buy me the conveniences of civilized life. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

02-16-2009, 08:39 PM	#7 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	This looks like a hangover from Reganomics...or are you calling it voodoo economics these days? I'm assuming this was put in there to appease the Republicans. I'm in Martian's camp. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-17-2009, 08:31 AM	#10 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	The U.S. has a long history of deficits, so I don't see why now would be a good time to avoid running one. But the problem remains: a long history of deficits slowly cripples you in the long-term. A comparison: U.S.: Budget Canada: Budget Canada cleaned up its act mainly because of "balanced budget" legislation. However, I feel deficits are sometimes necessary, even in Canada. (Possibly now.) The problem with U.S. budgets is that they overspend (undertax?) during high economic times, when they should be balancing budgets and paying down debt. I guess this hasn't been done due to the American penchant for perpetual crisis. I generally see tax cuts as means of appeasing opposition or winning votes. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-17-2009, 08:39 AM	#12 (permalink)
braisler Addict Location: Midway, KY	US taxpayer here. I agree that any tax cut is just going to increase the federal deficit further, which is a terrible thing to do. I think that most people are frustrated with the tax system not because they don't realize that taxes pay for legitimate "conveniences of civilized life", but that SOOOOOO much of our taxes are spent wastefully on programs that are not in the interests of the people of the United States. Some politicians convinced some Americans that the Iraq war was a good idea and an important enough cause to spend our money and more importantly the lives of our young men and women on, but most of us knew that it was a bloated, bullshit war from the beginning. I'm not as concerned with the stimulus plan as I am with rewarding financial institutions for being bad at their business. It is like taking a gambler who is $50000 down at the roulette table and handing him another $50K. I'm sure your luck will turn soon! As has been said before, if you our I run our business into the ground, we are out of business, but the big banks get a bailout?!?! This is another thing that bugs me about the Conservative political movement holding up Ronald Reagan as a paragon of their ideology. His economic policies were a total failure. He reversed significant progress toward energy independence. He had almost nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union (predicated more on the collapse of the price of oil than on any political posturing). And he was almost certainly affected by dementia/Alzheimer's in his last 2 years in office. Yet he is held in such high regard by the Republican party. I just don't get it. Other than just saying that he is one of the greatest presidents and naming airports and roads after him, I've never heard anything that would support the level of praise that Reagan seems to engender. __________________ --- You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. - Albert Einstein ---

02-16-2009, 01:09 PM	#3 (permalink)
jimmyjambam Upright	Except the tax cut is only good for 2009.. it gets smaller in 2010. I realize it adds up to billions, but it is not significant enough. We just got $600 last year. All it did was help people out for a couple months. If they want to get the economy moving they either need to make significant middle class tax cuts, or invest a significant amount in big projects that will truly create jobs. Not just a bunch of little projects with no analysis on their potential impact.

02-16-2009, 04:22 PM	#4 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	I got 300 last year. That works out to something like .82 a day.

02-17-2009, 08:16 AM	#9 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	Deficits? Big Fucking Deal. You have falling output, rising unemployment, a threat of deflation and you're worried about deficits? Reaganism is over. Done.

02-17-2009, 08:41 AM	#13 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	I would settle for not having to pay back the stimulus check we got last year on our taxes right now. __________________ "A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

02-17-2009, 10:22 AM	#15 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	US taxpayer here, know absolutely nothing about the economy and it's works except the ignorant "Gotta get that check BOIIII!!" but I gotta ask. Someone with relevant info on hand please explain to me why everyone is complaining about the banks being bailed out. Had they have gone down, wouldn't it have hurt the people who actually banked there?? I dont think that the govt. (of course I know nothing about what I'm saying) bailed them out simply to keep the big corps support .... that's just ignorant and unethical. There has to have been a relevant reason. Ohh and also, I have 34% taken out of my check so I am really looking forward to this package like a motherf&%$%^!!!

02-20-2009, 08:53 AM	#23 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Ace, I think you are severely mistaken in your interpretation of the economic data. A 7% unemployment rate does not mean that 93% of the workers are employed. It means that 93% of the population who is economically active is employed. People who have not sought work in the reference period are not considered unemployed, and those who have worked 15 hours in exchange for money are considered employed, so 7% is not a small number necessarily. And industrial production figures are very poor indicators of economic performance. Industry makes up under 1/5 of the US economy, with almost 80% coming from services. The idea that everything will be all right if we are only more optimistic about it is nonsense.

02-20-2009, 09:09 AM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the unemployment numbers count only people unemployed for less than 6 months. that's how the united states manages structural unemployment, by not counting it. reports emanating from the fed, for example, particularly on the revised periodicity that bernake announced the other night, are as much advertisng materials as anything else---their primary function is to provide a sense of directedness by imposing a sense of directedness as a function of data-framing. like it or not, ace, the world has changed. what dippin notes above is a problem---previous social-democratic models, for example, develop modalities of state action in the context of highly industrialized economies--which are not relevant for a deindustrialized economy like that of the united states in 2009. this means that previous strategies are probably not terribly helpful. the main problem this poses has been repeated and repeated in the face of your total pollyanna school pronouncements concerning the economy...that things are unravelling quickly at a point where there aren't alot of available templates to guide action by the state available (see above)...this is compounded by the ideological paralysis engendered by the sudden end of an ideological regime. economic crisis intertwines with cognitive crisis, which in turn feeds back into the economic crisis. we're not in kansas any more, ace. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-01-2009, 01:28 AM	#27 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	It doesn't matter what the "stimulus" is we get taxed on the money... for some it won't matter for others it will raise them into a new bracket and may end up costing them more money than the "stimulus" gave them. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

03-01-2009, 05:48 PM	#31 (permalink)
Sue Teufel Hunden's Freundin Location: Westminster, CO	I'll look forward to this. Will definitely help me while I'm in school for the next three years. __________________ Teg yw edrych tuag adref.

03-02-2009, 08:41 AM	#35 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	So, yeah, you won't make less money, which was the point. And then there are a few other problems here. Do I think the stimulus should be much bigger, yes I do. But the stimulus as it currently is is not an increase in income, but a reduction in taxes, so that case is meaningless. The bump to another tax bracket will only happen to those actually get a job through the stimulus, which I would guess would bump their income more than that.

03-04-2009, 08:28 AM	#39 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Once again, I am always amazed at the idea that government intervention didnt get the US out of the depression, but WWII did. WWII was nothing if not a major govt. program from an economic standpoint. Regardless, you are still wrong, Ace. That FDR was president during most of the depression is misleading at best, since the worst point in terms of unemployment was 32-early 33, and it rebounded pretty nicely after that. We've shown you graph after graph showing the economy taking off on 34, but you still stick to a non-sense position.