$825 Billion Stimulus Plan
- Thread starter trrenter_IHB
- Start date
[quote author="skek" date=1234248380]One alternative plan that would actually stimulate the economy:
<blockquote><strong>Thune Introduces Middle Class Tax Relief Amendment to the Stimulus Bill</strong>
Middle Class Couples Would Receive up to $10,286
WASHINGTON, DC ? Senator John Thune today introduced an across-the-board middle class tax rebate amendment (S. AMDT #538) to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Senator Thune?s amendment would strike the entire $936 billion Senate stimulus bill and replace it with a $936 billion across-the-board-middle-class tax rebate for 182 million Americans. The amendment would result in a tax rebate of $5,143 for single filers and $10,286 for married couples who file jointly. Eligibility is capped for all tax filers at 2007 adjusted gross income of $250,000.
?There seems to be a great deal of discussion over how to spend American taxpayers? money and future earnings. Instead of investing billions in wasteful government programs that won't provide immediate help to our troubled economy, my amendment invests in the American people,? said Thune. ?I think most Americans believe they know how to best spend their own money and would rather have control over it than have the government create new federal programs, or waste it on pet pork projects that will not stimulate the economy. My amendment is an equitable way to ensure that virtually all working Americans benefit from this economic stimulus plan. This is substantial tax relief for middle class families.
In 2007, roughly 53 million joint and 76 million single tax returns were filed with an adjusted gross income of less than $250,000.
?If people are serious about the need for this stimulus bill to be timely, the fastest way to inject money into our economy is through tax returns. We could have $936 billion into the economy by the end of the year. Taxpayers want help and they don?t want us wasting their hard-earned tax dollars on programs that won?t benefit anyone in the near future. This amendment addresses all of the nation?s leading economists who have said that any stimulus bill needs to be timely, targeted, and temporary.?
Senator Thune explained his amendment on the floor of the U.S. Senate today. Video of his floor speech can be viewed here. The Senate is expected to vote on Senator Thune?s amendment later this afternoon.</blockquote></blockquote>
While that plan is certainly preferable to what is going through Congress, it still misses the mark. Supply side economics stimulates the economy by making people willing to work harder because they can keep more of THEIR OWN money. While having more money in pocket is beneficial, any tax rebate is limited in effectiveness because you can't change behavior in the past.
A tax cut can change economic behavior.
A tax rebate can't.
If you want the impact of a tax cut to filter through the economy faster, simply reduce (or eliminate) payroll taxes.
<blockquote><strong>Thune Introduces Middle Class Tax Relief Amendment to the Stimulus Bill</strong>
Middle Class Couples Would Receive up to $10,286
WASHINGTON, DC ? Senator John Thune today introduced an across-the-board middle class tax rebate amendment (S. AMDT #538) to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Senator Thune?s amendment would strike the entire $936 billion Senate stimulus bill and replace it with a $936 billion across-the-board-middle-class tax rebate for 182 million Americans. The amendment would result in a tax rebate of $5,143 for single filers and $10,286 for married couples who file jointly. Eligibility is capped for all tax filers at 2007 adjusted gross income of $250,000.
?There seems to be a great deal of discussion over how to spend American taxpayers? money and future earnings. Instead of investing billions in wasteful government programs that won't provide immediate help to our troubled economy, my amendment invests in the American people,? said Thune. ?I think most Americans believe they know how to best spend their own money and would rather have control over it than have the government create new federal programs, or waste it on pet pork projects that will not stimulate the economy. My amendment is an equitable way to ensure that virtually all working Americans benefit from this economic stimulus plan. This is substantial tax relief for middle class families.
In 2007, roughly 53 million joint and 76 million single tax returns were filed with an adjusted gross income of less than $250,000.
?If people are serious about the need for this stimulus bill to be timely, the fastest way to inject money into our economy is through tax returns. We could have $936 billion into the economy by the end of the year. Taxpayers want help and they don?t want us wasting their hard-earned tax dollars on programs that won?t benefit anyone in the near future. This amendment addresses all of the nation?s leading economists who have said that any stimulus bill needs to be timely, targeted, and temporary.?
Senator Thune explained his amendment on the floor of the U.S. Senate today. Video of his floor speech can be viewed here. The Senate is expected to vote on Senator Thune?s amendment later this afternoon.</blockquote></blockquote>
While that plan is certainly preferable to what is going through Congress, it still misses the mark. Supply side economics stimulates the economy by making people willing to work harder because they can keep more of THEIR OWN money. While having more money in pocket is beneficial, any tax rebate is limited in effectiveness because you can't change behavior in the past.
A tax cut can change economic behavior.
A tax rebate can't.
If you want the impact of a tax cut to filter through the economy faster, simply reduce (or eliminate) payroll taxes.
O
Oscar_IHB
Guest
I'm watching the Obama press conference. It is ugly.
<img src="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ugly3_lg.gif" alt="" />
<img src="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ugly3_lg.gif" alt="" />
graphrix_IHB
New member
[quote author="Oscar" date=1234258532]I'm watching the Obama press conference. It is ugly.
<img src="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ugly3_lg.gif" alt="" /></blockquote>
Is that a Turtle Ridge house in the background, or is it Quail Hill?
<img src="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ugly3_lg.gif" alt="" /></blockquote>
Is that a Turtle Ridge house in the background, or is it Quail Hill?
O
Oscar_IHB
Guest
[quote author="graphrix" date=1234260236]Is that a Turtle Ridge house in the background, or is it Quail Hill?</blockquote>
I don't know, I stole it from the main blog.
I don't know, I stole it from the main blog.
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
What was ugly? The hypocrisy? The pride in having a pork free bill and them bragging about the earmarks?
graphrix_IHB
New member
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1234265860]What was ugly? The hypocrisy? The pride in having a pork free bill and them bragging about the earmarks?</blockquote>
The house is ugly. Just another Irvine stucco box.
The house is ugly. Just another Irvine stucco box.
O
Oscar_IHB
Guest
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1234265860]What was ugly? The hypocrisy? The pride in having a pork free bill and them bragging about the earmarks?</blockquote>
That was part of it. Other parts included that meandering answers that seemed to drift for minutes at a time while not actually answering anything, the blatant lies about the content and intentions of the bills coming from Congress, the ham-handed way he handled the Grande Dame of the Press Corps... Helen Thomas, the calls for an end to partisan bickering while indulging in partisanship by accusing the Republicans of being partisans, ad infinitum.
I'd give him a pass on the 235,982 times he said "uh" and his clumsy manner in asking for the next question, but this isn't his first press conference. Having spoken publically to large crowds, both at a podium and in a Q&A format, I can tell when someone is trying to pitch something they know isn't true. When you contrast his responses to questions on the stimulus bill with his responses on Iran, Iraq, & Afghanistan, the difference is night and day; he's convinced that his foreign policy is right and he's confident... but he's trying to baffle us with BS on the stimulus <em>and he knows it</em>. The only performance uglier than his was that of the White House Press Corps. Every one of those incompetent jerks should lose their jobs, starting with the tool that asked him about A-Rod. the rest of them either haven't bothered to read the bills in question or are content to buy the Administration's brand of BS and call it gospel. It should have been blatantly obvious to them that he wasn't being forthright and upfront, and anyone of them could have followed up one of the other's questions to force him to confront his own hypocrisy. They never would have laid down for Bush like that.
That was part of it. Other parts included that meandering answers that seemed to drift for minutes at a time while not actually answering anything, the blatant lies about the content and intentions of the bills coming from Congress, the ham-handed way he handled the Grande Dame of the Press Corps... Helen Thomas, the calls for an end to partisan bickering while indulging in partisanship by accusing the Republicans of being partisans, ad infinitum.
I'd give him a pass on the 235,982 times he said "uh" and his clumsy manner in asking for the next question, but this isn't his first press conference. Having spoken publically to large crowds, both at a podium and in a Q&A format, I can tell when someone is trying to pitch something they know isn't true. When you contrast his responses to questions on the stimulus bill with his responses on Iran, Iraq, & Afghanistan, the difference is night and day; he's convinced that his foreign policy is right and he's confident... but he's trying to baffle us with BS on the stimulus <em>and he knows it</em>. The only performance uglier than his was that of the White House Press Corps. Every one of those incompetent jerks should lose their jobs, starting with the tool that asked him about A-Rod. the rest of them either haven't bothered to read the bills in question or are content to buy the Administration's brand of BS and call it gospel. It should have been blatantly obvious to them that he wasn't being forthright and upfront, and anyone of them could have followed up one of the other's questions to force him to confront his own hypocrisy. They never would have laid down for Bush like that.
awgee_IHB
New member
U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes
By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry
<em>Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) ? The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government?s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation?s home mortgages.
The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged to provide up to $5.7 trillion more if needed. The total already tapped has decreased about 1 percent since November, mostly because foreign central banks are using fewer dollars in currency-exchange agreements called swaps. The Senate is to vote early this week on a stimulus package totaling at least $780 billion that President Barack Obama says is needed to avert a deeper recession. That measure would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.
Only the stimulus package to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates approved in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion in commitments are lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the authority of the Fed and the FDIC. The recipients? names have not been disclosed.
</em>
By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry
<em>Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) ? The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government?s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation?s home mortgages.
The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged to provide up to $5.7 trillion more if needed. The total already tapped has decreased about 1 percent since November, mostly because foreign central banks are using fewer dollars in currency-exchange agreements called swaps. The Senate is to vote early this week on a stimulus package totaling at least $780 billion that President Barack Obama says is needed to avert a deeper recession. That measure would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.
Only the stimulus package to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates approved in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion in commitments are lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the authority of the Fed and the FDIC. The recipients? names have not been disclosed.
</em>
awgee_IHB
New member
General Motors to Invest $1 Billion in Brazil Operations ? Money to Come from U.S. Rescue Program
By Russ Dallen
<em>SAO PAULO ? General Motors plans to invest $1 billion in Brazil to avoid the kind of problems the U.S. automaker is facing in its home market, said the beleaguered car maker.
According to the president of GM Brazil-Mercosur, Jaime Ardila, the funding will come from the package of financial aid that the manufacturer will receive from the U.S. government and will be used to "complete the renovation of the line of products up to 2012."
"It wouldn?t be logical to withdraw the investment from where we?re growing, and our goal is to protect investments in emerging markets," he said in a statement published by the business daily Gazeta Mercantil.
</em>
By Russ Dallen
<em>SAO PAULO ? General Motors plans to invest $1 billion in Brazil to avoid the kind of problems the U.S. automaker is facing in its home market, said the beleaguered car maker.
According to the president of GM Brazil-Mercosur, Jaime Ardila, the funding will come from the package of financial aid that the manufacturer will receive from the U.S. government and will be used to "complete the renovation of the line of products up to 2012."
"It wouldn?t be logical to withdraw the investment from where we?re growing, and our goal is to protect investments in emerging markets," he said in a statement published by the business daily Gazeta Mercantil.
</em>
no_vaseline_IHB
New member
[quote author="graphrix" date=1234275249][quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1234265860]What was ugly? The hypocrisy? The pride in having a pork free bill and them bragging about the earmarks?</blockquote>
The house is ugly. Just another Irvine stucco box.</blockquote>
Actually, that's for real Santa Barbara style, and the dog in question is a Chinese Crested named Sam.
<a href="http://www.samugliestdog.com/theugliestdog.html">http://www.samugliestdog.com/theugliestdog.html</a>
<blockquote>Probably the most famous and well-publicized Worlds Ugliest Dog was the 2003-2005 winner Sam. Sam was a purebred hairless Chinese Crested owned by Susie Lockheed of Santa Barbara, CA. He was taken in initially as a temporary rescue and was considered un-adoptable by most standards due to his age, looks and temperment. However after several days in a cage and being somewhat re-socialized, Sam was released from his cage and became on of the pack of other hairless dogs that Susie Lockheed owned. Unfortunately, Sam was euthanized in November 2005 at nearly 15 years of age due to heart failure. Sam was unofficially dubbed as the ?Ugliest Dog Ever?.
</blockquote>
This one's even more choice.
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10152429/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10152429/</a>
<blockquote>Lockheed said she initially was terrified of Sam when she agreed to take him in as a rescue dog six years ago on a 48-hour trial basis. Although she fell in love with him, his appearance repulsed her then-boyfriend and prompted the man to break up with her.
</blockquote>
That poor baby. He was just misunderstood!
The house is ugly. Just another Irvine stucco box.</blockquote>
Actually, that's for real Santa Barbara style, and the dog in question is a Chinese Crested named Sam.
<a href="http://www.samugliestdog.com/theugliestdog.html">http://www.samugliestdog.com/theugliestdog.html</a>
<blockquote>Probably the most famous and well-publicized Worlds Ugliest Dog was the 2003-2005 winner Sam. Sam was a purebred hairless Chinese Crested owned by Susie Lockheed of Santa Barbara, CA. He was taken in initially as a temporary rescue and was considered un-adoptable by most standards due to his age, looks and temperment. However after several days in a cage and being somewhat re-socialized, Sam was released from his cage and became on of the pack of other hairless dogs that Susie Lockheed owned. Unfortunately, Sam was euthanized in November 2005 at nearly 15 years of age due to heart failure. Sam was unofficially dubbed as the ?Ugliest Dog Ever?.
</blockquote>
This one's even more choice.
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10152429/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10152429/</a>
<blockquote>Lockheed said she initially was terrified of Sam when she agreed to take him in as a rescue dog six years ago on a 48-hour trial basis. Although she fell in love with him, his appearance repulsed her then-boyfriend and prompted the man to break up with her.
</blockquote>
That poor baby. He was just misunderstood!
[quote author="skek" date=1234316629]Forgive me for getting the name wrong, but I think it was Chuck Todd who asked him how we can solve a problem caused by consumer spending by encouraging more consumer spending. It was an awkwardly worded question, and I think he meant "how can we solve a problem caused by consumer spending fueled by cheap debt and easy credit by providing more cheap debt and easy credit." Nevertheless, Pres. Obama's response was to tell him he was wrong, that the problem was caused by "bank leverage" and proceeded to ramble about nothing coherent for several minutes. It was painfully obvious to me at that time that Pres. Obama does not understand the economic crisis well enough to either explain the problem or lie convincingly about it.
Oscar's other criticisms are of course, dead on correct.</blockquote>
<sarcasm>Haven't you heard of hair of the dog that bit you? </sarcasm>
Oscar's other criticisms are of course, dead on correct.</blockquote>
<sarcasm>Haven't you heard of hair of the dog that bit you? </sarcasm>
green_cactus_IHB
New member
[quote author="skek" date=1234316629]Forgive me for getting the name wrong, but I think it was Chuck Todd who asked him how we can solve a problem caused by consumer spending by encouraging more consumer spending. It was an awkwardly worded question, and I think he meant "how can we solve a problem caused by consumer spending fueled by cheap debt and easy credit by providing more cheap debt and easy credit." Nevertheless, Pres. Obama's response was to tell him he was wrong, that the problem was caused by "bank leverage" and proceeded to ramble about nothing coherent for several minutes. It was painfully obvious to me at that time that Pres. Obama does not understand the economic crisis well enough to either explain the problem or lie convincingly about it.
Oscar's other criticisms are of course, dead on correct.</blockquote>
What is your take on why the financial collapse happened?
Oscar's other criticisms are of course, dead on correct.</blockquote>
What is your take on why the financial collapse happened?
jbenko_IHB
New member
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1234319900][quote author="skek" date=1234316629]Forgive me for getting the name wrong, but I think it was Chuck Todd who asked him how we can solve a problem caused by consumer spending by encouraging more consumer spending. It was an awkwardly worded question, and I think he meant "how can we solve a problem caused by consumer spending fueled by cheap debt and easy credit by providing more cheap debt and easy credit." Nevertheless, Pres. Obama's response was to tell him he was wrong, that the problem was caused by "bank leverage" and proceeded to ramble about nothing coherent for several minutes. It was painfully obvious to me at that time that Pres. Obama does not understand the economic crisis well enough to either explain the problem or lie convincingly about it.
Oscar's other criticisms are of course, dead on correct.</blockquote>
What is your take on why the financial collapse happened?</blockquote>
Easing restrictions on home mortgage loans and low interest rates. Housing bubble wouldn't have happened if banks didn't give money out to everybody that breathes air. Home values soared, people used homes as ATM machines to buy toys. That gave profits to companies and the DOW went to 14K. All it did was create a "fake" economy. After the 2001 crash, we should have never went to 14K DOW. We created a bubble within a much bigger bubble.
Oscar's other criticisms are of course, dead on correct.</blockquote>
What is your take on why the financial collapse happened?</blockquote>
Easing restrictions on home mortgage loans and low interest rates. Housing bubble wouldn't have happened if banks didn't give money out to everybody that breathes air. Home values soared, people used homes as ATM machines to buy toys. That gave profits to companies and the DOW went to 14K. All it did was create a "fake" economy. After the 2001 crash, we should have never went to 14K DOW. We created a bubble within a much bigger bubble.
[quote author="BlackVault CM" date=1234320993][quote author="green_cactus" date=1234319900][quote author="skek" date=1234316629]Forgive me for getting the name wrong, but I think it was Chuck Todd who asked him how we can solve a problem caused by consumer spending by encouraging more consumer spending. It was an awkwardly worded question, and I think he meant "how can we solve a problem caused by consumer spending fueled by cheap debt and easy credit by providing more cheap debt and easy credit." Nevertheless, Pres. Obama's response was to tell him he was wrong, that the problem was caused by "bank leverage" and proceeded to ramble about nothing coherent for several minutes. It was painfully obvious to me at that time that Pres. Obama does not understand the economic crisis well enough to either explain the problem or lie convincingly about it.
Oscar's other criticisms are of course, dead on correct.</blockquote>
What is your take on why the financial collapse happened?</blockquote>
Easing restrictions on home mortgage loans. That is what created this whole mess.</blockquote>
That's a symptom of the problem, not the cause.
The true problem is trying to use financial engineering to "outsmart" the business cycle. Creative destruction is part of capitalism. If we don't remove the stupid players and weak hands from the market, they eventually crowd out the smart money.
Oscar's other criticisms are of course, dead on correct.</blockquote>
What is your take on why the financial collapse happened?</blockquote>
Easing restrictions on home mortgage loans. That is what created this whole mess.</blockquote>
That's a symptom of the problem, not the cause.
The true problem is trying to use financial engineering to "outsmart" the business cycle. Creative destruction is part of capitalism. If we don't remove the stupid players and weak hands from the market, they eventually crowd out the smart money.
jbenko_IHB
New member
Well I was going to just say "Greed" and "Corruption". But I didn't want to use those words.