More Tax, Less Iraq, China Pressure

I didn't jump on the deficit reduction story in Washington post story. Why I just have a hard time believing Obama is that stupid. I should just get used to it.

"Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011. That means the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent. "

Economic Freedom? Less money to grow the economy? Why work if they take it all? Pic your poison.

Obama plans “soak the rich” class-warfare economics

"Raising taxes in a recession is about the surest way to ensure its continuance. We’ve seen this over and over again in American history, including the Great Depression. With the budget deficits where they are, permanent tax cuts are almost certainly political suicide, but better to do nothing than to take capital out of the market."(cont.)

"However, the capital-gains tax is crucial to the economy. Bush lowered it in the midst of the last recession and economic upheaval after 9/11 to prompt investors to put their money at risk. Raising the tax on investment gains will ensure that we see less investment at the moment we need more of it. Jobs get created by investors taking risks, and if the reward on risk taking becomes low enough, they’ll sink their money into safer havens instead of building job-creating businesses."

Cont. From Wash. Post

"To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from "winding down the war" in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes continued spending on "overseas military contingency operations" throughout Obama's presidency, the official said, but that number is lower than the nearly $190 billion budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year. "

Saving money from the war? It is mostly off budget spending. There is nothing there to save. Are you going to keep borrowing that money too and spend it else where? Military cuts now are the same mistake Bush 41 and Clinton made. Funny Obama as Bush redux.

Can You Spell D-e-p-r-e-s-s-i-o-n?... Obama Promises to Raise Taxes On Businesses & Wealthy

"The stock market ought to love that.
Obama must really want to kill off the remaining American businesses.
His second month is shaping up to be another thriller already."

My question is why talk about the deficit now. The tidal wave has been to ignore it "we must spend" Anything to do with China?

China: We hate you, but we hate everyone else more

"China still could dump US debt, but they’d lose their shirts, and nothing else in the market looks better. Beijing has become a little too capitalist to pull a cut-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face ploy with its main assets. They need the stability to stay in power. Right now, that means they need to ensure that US debt doesn’t tank."

Chinese Pressure? That's just what we need with a pup in the Withe House. The question is it all just rhetoric? I think so. It is more likely an excuse to raise taxes and push through health care and the like.

Looking Around, Where Are The Libertarian Going?

Feeling boxed in to a conservative label by the stimulus arguments I went looking again. I am trying to find constructive disarming and well place with more traffic to link to. The first is is nearly impossible the second is nearly impossible not to find. So in my travels there is this: Econlog. Right at the top is an outtake from a libetrarian disscution an this:

"I confess to being an intellectual snob, but by the same token I claim to be able to differentiate between knowledge and educational pedigree. I respect a well-read self-taught individual more than a Harvard-educated narrow-minded one.

To put it another way, I see a difference between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. To the average lefty, both of them are morons. I think Reagan was genuinely engaged with profound ideas. Palin may have talent and charisma, but I do not think she could explain Hayek."

Great! I can explain Hayek either but I can learn. Parts of the back and forth are just about over my head as well as other parts of this blog. That's a good thing as long as I don't drown.

There has been an ongoing debate about where the Republicans should go after the election. It is largely settled now. Some of the fall out is discussions on libertarian ideas. I admit that I am a novice when it comes to the detailed intellectual (in the weeds) knowledge of libertarianism. The definition changes? Some times it is for anarchy and at time it takes more of a socialist bent?

It is still murky. Most of this discussion (I didn't read every word) is about who the libertarians will embrace now or who will embrace them. I would in a novice way that they should go there own way. Throw some of the craziness overboard and take power. Many cases have been make both way if RINOs could run on their own. Libertarians falls into same kind of place. I do believe the answer to both is yes.
I am not trying following their points exactly. This back and forth started in 06 with:

Brink Lindsey and:

"Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that capitalism's relentless dynamism and wealth-creation--the institutional safeguarding of which lies at the heart of libertarian concerns--have been pushing U.S. society in a decidedly progressive direction. The civil rights movement was made possible by the mechanization of agriculture, which pushed blacks off the farm and out of the South with immense consequences. Likewise, feminism was encouraged by the mechanization of housework. Greater sexual openness, as well as heightened interest in the natural environment, are among the luxury goods that mass affluence has purchased. So, too, are secularization and the general decline in reverence for authority, as rising education levels (prompted by the economy's growing demand for knowledge workers) have promoted increasing independence of mind."(cont.)

"Hence today's reactionary politics. Here, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the rival ideologies of left and right are both pining for the '50s. The only difference is that liberals want to work there, while conservatives want to go home there."

It goes on to link changes in tax policy on the liberal side to what I consider conservative ideas in order to move the libertarians there direction. FASCinating.

Wilkinson

"Many bloggers seem to be fixated on the immediate political feasibility of libertarian/liberal fusionism. But I think this misses the point. Feasibility is in part a function of the availability of a well-developed and broadly understood position, and a grasp of the kind of policy that follows from it. Fixating on the status quo balance of interest groups is a great way to go nowhere, or just to drift with the waxing and waning of constituencies wedded to superannuated ideas. I think Brink has opened an important conversation for liberals of all stripes genuinely concerned with helping people successfully exercise their autonomy and lead satisfying, dignified lives"

Jonah Goldberg responds:

"The first principles simply aren't aligned. The theoretical arguments in favor of the stimulus amount to rubbing the libertarian cat's fur backwards. And the so-called "libertarian center" hardly seems to be decisive or even relevant to the public debate. In the most important and fundamental debate about the role of government in a generation, the libertarians are lining-up with, and even marching out in front of, the conservatives."

John Hood follows:

"But that's not the same as suggesting that there is at least as much of a natural affinity between libertarians and modern-day liberals as there is between libertarians and modern-day conservatives, if not more. This statement just isn't true. The principles of liberty and virtue are certainly in tension within the broadly construed Right, but the principles of liberty and egalitarianism would be perpetually at war within a reconstructed Left."

Will Wilkinson's response:

"I think Obama and the Democrats are already in the process of screwing it up. The romance of transformative hope is going to wear off pretty quick as all-but-uncontested Democratic policy deepens and lengthens the recession. There’s a lot of culturally and psychologically liberal people out there who are, and are going to be, interested in a liberalism that actually works. I want to use this time of ferment to work on developing the missing option in American politics: an authentically liberal governing philosophy that understands that limited government, free markets, a culture of tolerance, and a sound social safety net are the best means to better lives.

So “whatever happened to liberaltarianism” is that it’s an ongoing project to change who talks to whom, to freshen the stale dialectic of American politics, and to create new possibilities for American political identity."

"sound social saftey net"? Private sector or governmental?

Then two posts: The Future of Liberaltarianism and The Future of Liberaltarianism (II)

"This is obviously a political gloss on what is essentially an intellectual project, and I know Will, like many libertarians I admire, prides himself on not thinking in terms of partisanship. But for anyone who cares about political outcomes, I think it's important to consider the correlation of forces when you set out on ideological projects - especially in a country where the two-party structure has been as durable as it's been in ours. I understand the impulse for smart, independent-minded libertarians to flee what seems like an increasingly anti-intellectual American Right and seek conversations and alliances with the friendlier parts of the left-of-center. But the vacuum on the Right also militates in favor of smart, idiosyncratic thinkers trying to fill it, instead of fighting for a seat at the crowded liberal table. "

As fun as all this is I still think you need a leader that would clarify libertarian positions for the party and run with it. Drag who you can from the two parties and go. With some wins those who are not wedded to the parties will leave for something more in their wheel house.

Do Not Be Fooled By Stimulus Bills False Hope

I missed the lack of verification of workers not being included and the repeal of the E-verify out right.

That aside. You can not be fooled by this bill. It may work in the short term. I don't think it has much of a chance but may be. It will in the end require another stimulus bill. The US government becomes a massive consumer. When it stops spending the economy tanks again. Even if it doesn't completely tank and recovers some we have hyper inflation pressure that can't be avoided.

This bill may look like its working it will cause massively more harm than good. I not even including the massive spending on welfare programs that are now in the law. They would have to be repealed after the recovery. Is that Going to happen No.

The Real Stimulus Burden

"Far more plausibly, Democrats will take the stimulus increases and make them part of a new, higher baseline for future spending growth. Anyone who proposes to cut from that amount will be denounced as "heartless" and Draconian."

"We aren't deficit scolds, but these levels are uncharted territory, especially if any economic recovery is weak because the spending doesn't stimulate. The new spending means new federal debt in the trillions of dollars over the next few years, which will test the limits of America's credit-worthiness. To the extent that taxes rise to pay for it all, the U.S. will become less desirable as a destination for the world's capital. Perhaps the Federal Reserve will try to inflate away this growing debt, but the world's bond vigilantes will get a vote on that."

Deficit spending as a percentage of what we produce(GDP)? If its Over 100% we will literally spend more than the entire country makes.

Obama Makes History... Breaks US Debt Record In Just 30 Days

We will be at more than twice the debt/GDP level than at any time in our history.


Hyper Inflation - so much money on the system that the money it self is worth much much less. $10, $20, $50, $100, $1000 milk?

It may look good for a while but DO NOT BE FOOLED.

Media Matters Problems With the Media

I need to stop looking around the web so much. I get into trouble. I am looking to build traffic so in one of those little blog pool, hope to find things I could comment on. Well with out going into half a novel. Even more myths and falsehoods surrounding the economic recovery plan
Media Matter No. Weellll. Let's see how bad it is. And here we are.

1. The bill will not stimulate the economy
It will but not that much.. if any. And not mostly in the first years

2. Government spending in the bill is not stimulus
Some is, some is pretty iffy, and some is regulation(not stimulus)

3. There is no reason for stimulus after a turnaround begins
For a while but exactly how long? The end of time? McCain sunset?

(Just to be clear I only half heartedly read some of this. You know where some of it goes.)
4. Corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts would provide substantial stimulus
Almost got me. ( quote of a quote)

"Cutting corporate tax rates on a temporary basis, as some have suggested, could even discourage investment. Cutting tax rates reduces the value of deductions that companies claim when they invest, make other purchases, pay wages, or depreciate equipment; for example, a $1,000 deduction is worth $350 at the current 35 percent corporate tax rate but would be worth only $250 at a 25 percent rate. If tax rates were cut on a temporary basis, companies would have an incentive to delay investments until the rate returned to 35 percent and deductions regained their lost value."

This may be true. It is however ass backward. It is about giving the company more money to spend. Company made $100,000 after cost. Takes 30,000 in deductions. 70,000 left. At 35% gives 24500. at 25% gives 17500. A 7000 dollar difference? Is that right? I guess your really taking about the costs to begin with. Your giving the company more money. If they have more money they can spend how they wish, make more money. Advertising, new equipment, more employees and invest. They can make more money than they supposedly "save" by waiting for higher tax right offs? They are not going to try to make money with extra money? Almost got me.

"Any windfall that taxpayers receive from a capital gains tax cut is unlikely to be spent quickly. The main beneficiaries of capital gains tax cuts would be high-income taxpayers, who own the vast majority of assets."

Fine. I don't disagree. The point however is that people like to make money. If money, especially large chunks of money, that are in gold, in bonds or under the mattress go back into the market (because "high-income taxpayers"like to make money) companies have more money to make more money and grow the economy. Some people might make enough in a good economy to have to worry about capital gains. Wouldn't that be horrible.

5. Undocumented immigrants without Social Security numbers would be eligible for the "Making Work Pay" tax credit

"No credit shall be allowed under this section to an eligible individual who does not include on the return of tax for the taxable year --

(i) such individual's taxpayer identification number, and(cont.)"

We got a "taxpayer identification number" for my dead grandmother's estate? I think? Does she get a tax credit? And how do "undocumented works" pay taxes? With a "taxpayer identification number"? I don't know. Really I don't have a clear answer.
6. CBO analysis found the majority of stimulus won't take effect for a year and a half
Shifting sand, but it all should be in the next 18-24 months.

7. Food stamps, unemployment payments are not stimulus
They are but how much? And when does the increase end?

8. The New Deal did not lower unemployment
Don't know. I think though a 10 year depression? They did something wrong at the very least.

"Paul Krugman has written that the New Deal produced "long-run achievements" that "remain the bedrock of our nation's economic stability" and that Roosevelt's short-term successes were constrained because "he was eager to return to conservative budget principles."'

Don't buy that. The social safety net? Its been a long running debate that is beginning to lose.

9. Fiscal stimulus in Japan failed during the "lost decade" of the 1990s
( are there any documents that don't link to their site?)

"that "the 1995 stimulus package ... did result in solid growth in 1996, demonstrating that fiscal policy does work when it is tried. As on earlier occasions in the 1990s, however, the positive response to fiscal stimulus was undercut by fiscal contraction in 1996 and 1997.""

If the uber-consumer stops spend that happens. The uber-consumer should never become existed in the first place. "You just have to spend more"? Just keep the economy propped up by deficit spending forever. That's Healthy. Wait. There's a problem. You need lots of little consumers. They harder to control but the system is much more stable.

10. The economic recovery bill would amount to spending more than $200K per job created



Done.
11. $4.19 billion of stimulus "would go to" ACORN
ACORN gives and gets money from all kinds of place. If the bill doesn't say ACORN that doesn't mean they won't. I haven't looked into this.

12. Robert Reich proposed excluding white males from recovery plan
I posted this socialist nonsense video before. See it for yourself.

They seem to look at the issues from weird angles. It never quite makes sense to me. I am willing to listen. I haven't heard anything yet.

Sharpen Your Tax Cut Argument

Looking though some old bookmarks, a blog and a post title. Tax Breaks will not Stimulate the Economy(also Nationalize the Banks NOW). There has to be some reason I saved the blog? The post links to a Democracy Now transcript. I must have been sleep book marking? may-be? It was a long time ago. I was juusst aah kid? Young and stupid? I am still trying to understand that thinking so again I am sucked in.

David Cay Johnston is the guest. I had some comments on his book Free Lunch. Good Book. I am willing to listen to him with some very large concerns about where his true ideology is. The whole interview is there. No out of context crap go listen to the whole thing.

DCJ:"They need to focus on those things that will increase demand. We’ve had twenty-eight years of supply-side economics. The data is eminently clear: it was an experiment, a radical idea, that did not work, in general. A few successes, but overall it was an utter failure that put us in this mess."

Could the expanding size of government be the problem? FDR?

DCJ:"One is, you and I are allowed to save, if we have a 401(k) plan, up to $22,000 a year without paying taxes; if we don’t have one, up to six, if you’re an older American. But executives, movie stars, athletes are allowed to save unlimited amounts of money. Hedge fund managers, unlimited amounts of money, without paying taxes. We should end those deferrals. It will bring in hundreds of billions of dollars.
Secondly, the Cayman Islands and other little parasitic operations like it are causing enormous damage to the state of our government’s finances. In 1990, about ten percent of corporate profits were taken in tax havens like the Cayman Islands. Today, it’s roughly one-quarter of all corporate profits. The only purpose served by these operations is to reduce the financial viability of the United States of America government."

DCJ:"Well, the congressman was exactly right: spending—tax cuts have not worked. The Bush tax cuts, all of them were financed with borrowed money. And where did we end up at the end of the Bush administration?"

Bush Administration made mistakes. IT WAS NOT the tax cuts.

DCJ:She’s moving to France. She’s not fully into the French system yet. She went to her neighborhood clinic, because under their system you do have to go to the neighborhood clinic. They saw her in a matter of minutes. They quickly determined that all she had was a cyst. They treated her. And she was out the door after paying a hundred-euro fee. She would have paid no fee whatsoever if she had been fully in their system."

If there was a problem how long would it have taken? And was this a private doctor? Okay the part I was waiting for.

DCJ:"One of the major reasons that we are in so much trouble in this country is that what Reaganism has brought us is spending without taxing, spending that money in ways that are totally unproductive and counterproductive and impose huge costs on the future. And this huge national debt, which is going to get worse with the stimulus, no question, and put us in danger down the road of a big inflation—but what the national debt does, what “borrow and spend” does, is it takes taxes from people who work—because that’s about 85 percent of all income tax money, from people who work—and it transfers it to capital, people who own the national debt."

85%!? what? Who are these people that work. OH he doesn't mean so called working class he means people that pay income taxes. That is not the people at bottom.

DCJ:"And who owns the national debt? Banks, insurance companies—oh, those are businesses we’re having to bail out—the thugs in China who shoot independent union organizers, and some older wealthy Americans. It’s a redistribution scheme to take money from working people and redistribute it to capital through the tax system. I’m curious, by the way, why the Republicans don’t see this, since they oppose redistribution down. You would think they should be out there actively opposing redistribution up. And a few of them have been."

I have to think about this. Why not not borrow money? If you redistribute down you have to take more out of the private sector. UP your putting it in? Okay the good part?

DCJ:"it’s ridiculous to think that business tax cuts will result in hiring people. I happen to also be the chairman of the board of a little company that I formed with one of my sons. We hire people. We hire people because we have more business. We don’t hire people to get a tax cut. That’s just the most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard. Business decisions are made on the basis of demand. We need to be spending this money to increase demand."

I might get it. It is a fine line. If your company has more money (from tax cuts) can you generate more business?

Does the company get more money from a hundred dollar tax cut or someone spending a hundred dollars on their products. Tax, you have a hundred more dollars? Spending, a hundred minus your cost, just the profit? Oh minus the tax.

And again what happens when the stimulus money is gone? Does the demand disappear with straight stimulus? Does the demand disappear generated by what the company did with a tax cut?

These thing can sharpen your arguments and belief. I am more in the tax cut camp than ever.

AMY GOODMAN: The former mayor, Giuliani, has said that that $18 billion in bonuses will be very important for New York tax revenue.

It's nice to have people agree with you. I had to. I don't know the tax code the comments on loop hole 382 of the tax code? Seems very odd. If so Fix it. Flat tax?
There is a lot in the interview I didn't get into (and don't care about) but I got what I wanted. And i didn't mention the site that started this.

Maybe I should. Know thy Enemy and all. ratboys_anvil_2 There.

No One Knows What to Do Crazyness

I may of had a vision late last night or i just watch what everyone else does. Posted last night.

"Oh and next commentator that says "we have to so something"(free market?,Hover?) or "no one knows what to do"(Great Depression. S&L, 1990's Japan) well I will just yell at them. I would threaten they with me sending them some books but I am not going to waste the time."

Then to day via Gateway Pundit- 200 Top Economists Say "Stimulus" Bill Won't Work
People with "degrees and stuff"say about the same.

"With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today."

Congreesss? Oh Congreesss. It is possible that the fix for the economy is not crystal clear but what won't work is pretty freaking crystal clear. I am desperately hoping that the public support for this keeps crumbling. I also hope the friction from the newspeak of Pelosi saying thing like 'most Republican voters want this package too' causes her to burst into flames.

There is always the more entertaining take.
Overnight Open Thread. Now with more Stimulus Package

Speak Not of Any Thing Vaguely Resembling the Truth

Exactly how are the policies of the Bush administration at fault for the economic crisis?

Did he push to have more people in homes? Yes and so did every administration for at least the past twenty years.

Fannie and Freddy became the problem under Bush. Their existence is the problem and Congress people of all stripes are to blame for that mess. Frankly Dems blocked the reforms from coming out of committee. We all know that just because your in the minority doesn't mean you don't have any power Mr. Franks.

Deregulation caused all this. Was it deregulation or pitifully oversight, CONgress? The revolving door of supposed economic magicians that us little people just don't understand.

Greedy Wall street? Their job is to make money for the share holder. Share holders? US? Should some of them be in jail? Yes. Should we destroy any drive to make money? NO.

So....
From Fox via Gateway Pundit

'"If there is somebody who is disgruntled, so be it. But we will have an overwhelming vote," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. She and more than a half-dozen other Democrats touted the bill and chided Republicans for pushing what they called the kind of failed policies that led to the economic crisis.'

I am waiting for Pelosi to break into song and dance at any moment. Gloating? You are, very unfortunately, one of the leaders of the free world and are acting this way? Let me know when she put her fingers in her ears, starts stomping her feet and humming to herself. Grow the hell up.

Children running the country we can save. The failed policies they seem to mean are the tax cuts. Pleeease explain to me what they have to do with the current crisis? How did the tax cuts lead to any of the problems that lead to this. They aren't the only reason for the deficit spending. If you say deficit spending then what the hell are we doing now? The truth. The government is at fault. Congress first and mainly Dems in my mind. We always get some spin from all side. However the collectivists in Washington are now about half a temper tantrum away Orwellian newspeak.

Oh and next commentator that says "we have to so something"(free market?,Hover?) or "no one knows what to do"(Great Depression. S&L, 1990's Japan) well I will just yell at them. I would threaten they with me sending them some books but I am not going to waste the time.

Nut and Bolts Problems

In all the confusion I am going to start reposting others that make good points and I mostly agree with with little comment. There is a tidal wave of horrible ideas veiled and not it will be difficult to keep up.

So, The problem with the stimulus package is not just a tax cut vs. spending issue. It is a very big grab bag and what is in it is very unclear.

Only on the stimulus:
Read the Stimulus

ACE
Obama Spins And Lies About So-Called "Stimulus" Plan
Republicans Take Tentative First Steps Towards Republicanism

Gateway Pundit
20 Points On the Democrat's $1.1 Trillion Drunken Spending Binge

links from the article:
10 Reasons to Whack Obama's Stimulus Plan
A 40-Year Wish List

Write Congress Person, Opinion on the Stimulus Package

I haven't written my congressman before but I had to last night. It gives me a good excuse to post again. There has been to much for me to try to boil down lately so i bailed on writing. The content of the email is as follows, cleaned up and some what more coherent. You try to keep it short if you want someone to read it.

The stimulus package at best will stop the economic slide in a few months and at worst is inadvertent(hopefully) long term social engineering. Fiscal conservative should vote no and hang this package that will fail around the necks of the left/collectivist wing of the Democratic party. Ask for an amendment affirming the goals and principles of a free market and a clear path for banks to buy back their stock. It should be along the lines of what Morris suggested late last week. Let them vote it down. Let them explain what their true beliefs are.

The individual welfare\tax credits\tax cut have been tried and are too small and two short term. We have tried it. The business cuts are just a gimmick. It is taking money that business will save in taxes in the future and gives it to them now. What does that do to the business two years from now. The infrastructure spending is far to little of the package and is I believe just short of useless. Any jobs that are created by this appear to be relatively short term. What happens to those workers when the work is done in the next 2-3 years?

My biggest concern is how long are the social service additions going to last? Will the extension of unemployment insurance and other social program increases be permanent and if so what does this do with concern to increasing dependence on government? Is this a veil attempted to engineer a larger welfare state? A more collectivist/socialist society?

My preference would be for a monetary fix. Revert the mark to market and up tick rules to that of two years ago, make clear that a strong dollar is imperative and the top priority, stabilize the tax rates for at least the next 2 years(the uncertainty is killing us), cut cooperate and capital gains taxes to leverage off shore money coming in to the US, put in place clear path for stock buy back from the government, enforce the rule on the books( call the credit default swaps what they are insurance) and buy up or trade stock for the toxic assets they are still gumming up the works. Japan 1990? FDR? Does history mean nothing?

Trickle Up of Down, What is the Growth?

I have not brought this up before i keep meaning to.

Obama on low taxes: “Selfishness”

"This reveals the basic underlying philosophy of the Left - that one cannot possibly be charitable unless they use the government to redirect their funds. Obama assumes that people who don’t want to pay higher taxes are somehow “selfish”, but that’s only true if one assumes that the so-called rich won’t do anything else with their money except sit around like Scrooge McDuck, counting it constantly. Most people today invest it, which creates jobs, or spend it, which creates even more jobs, or donate it to charity — which works much more effectively and with much less overhead than filtering it through government bureaucracy."

This is an example of a more basic problem with not just the left but every day people. Just for a minute set the morals aside and the necessary taxation for military and roads.

The goal is to have a basic safety net and help those at the bottom up. Both sides are talking about the same pool of money. The money from the rich and business. Do we give the money to government to give to those they deem need it? Or do we leave it with the citizens or businesses.

Remember the goal. It goes to government. The talk it over and come up with a plan that is pieces of this idea and that. They take into account disability(real disability), age, income and the other things they should. They use some things they shouldn't like economic state in the area or ignoring the willingness to work. Moral judgments in effect. That aside what is the efficiency? The cost of mailing checks alone wastes millions not to mention the 30% or so fraud in Medicaid.

So lets say overall 20% is wasted in overhead of the agency set up for this and fraud. If we have an imaginary $100, easy to work with. At this point our citizen, imaginary, gets $80. That is spent into the economy. (Citizen $80, government 0)

I will assume nothing for savings or paying dept. If your going to do either you will do it much the same no matter where it comes from

The other side. I am assuming that our $100 is taken from profits and that this $100 is above the taxes taken for the necessary. The overhead of the business is already covered by the ongoing business.

If invested it gives a company about $100 and makes a little money. So it makes 3% or$3 (easy math)and the government takes 4.5 cents year in and year out at 15% cap gains tax. Really it will be more year over year long term as that $3 are added to the investment. (citizen 0, government 4.5 cents and a company has an extra $100)

If they hire someone nearly all of the $100 goes to the our citizen, that gets spent back into the economy. Oh and something like 5-8% profit is made by the company, 35% or (5$*.35) $1.75 t0 taxes. (citizen$98, Government get $1.75 and company growth)

If it is spent on supplies or equipment for the company it goes back into the economy. Yes 5-8% profit is made by the company 35% or (5$*.35) $1.75 t0 taxes. ( citizen 0, government get $1.75 and company growth)

Mostly it ends up in the economy in general plus grows the business that spent it. The economy grows that much faster creating more jobs and more money for our citizen. The government still gets a little and more as the economy grows.

And charity, good charities keep overhead to around 10%, so $90 to our citizen and it goes back into the economy. Or better yet you buy $100 worth food or clothes and take it to the charity. Better yet give it directly to the people that you know that could use that little bit of help. 100% to a citizen and you know it is getting to where it can help the most.

I meant to go with a individual self-reliant comment but you got this instead. It is a little harder to argue with this way.

The Explotion of the US Economy and Freedom Bubble

I am listening to CNN and they are talking about where the poles are from state to state. A couple states are moving to Obama. The map looks better and better for him. What are you people thinking?! Not that McCain is much better.

Where the talk about the deficit and a freaking fix. The war's course is pretty set no matter what they say or who is in office move the freak on. Where is the talk on Social Security. A fix Not just moving it down the road! DO something about gas, do anything! I don't care if everyone thinks it will work, make a bold mistake I don't care, try try again, just do something.

On top of all that i am coming to the conclusion that our economy is so distorted by subsidies, the weird ways the US reports and figurers it economic reports and the difference in value of the goods we trade that no one knows what the hell is going on. Compare milk now to 2 and five year ago but do it in how much gold, silver or copper.

I feel that the whole economy is vastly over valued or is based far to much on just service, no real things, of a slowly worsening value. The quality of services has taken a dive just as the quality of a lot of people has. The bubble will burst under enough pressure, co2 cap and trade anyone?

When that happens the freedom follows. There not going to close papers or lock you up for speaking against the government. You will just get laughed down, call racist or what ever fits and you will not be heard.

There will be nothing you can do, why because you will be boxed in by the intrusive and oppressive government polices on all types of economic issues. heath care taxes of all types aide to all education for all subsidized house for all The list roles on. I like Animal Farm as a book not a way of life.

I am going to put he pitch fork down. i have to get gas to cut the lawn so the county doesn't come and fine me for bringing down values and cutting into the tax I pay them. What. Deep breath pitch fork down.

Gas Tax Holiday, More gifts for us, Big Oil, or China?

At first it was just another distraction from real problems but it might help some so no real harm. No one will be against it and the issue will go away.

So now we have another issue of little consequence eating up time. Obama's statement that it would just give the oil companies more money and not help anyone i thought was just silly and now i realize that it is at least a serious distortion. Some pundit explained it and it made a little more sense. Supply and demand. You lower prices, 18 cents tax gone, demand goes up and prices go up eating up 6-8 cents of the price drop. I understand that. The question i have is does directly apply now. If gas was 21.18 would dropping it to 21.00 increase demand? Could it be mitigated by tying the cut to the price, .18 at $4, .17 at $3.90 and so on. That aside the effect is a 10-12 cent drop and the oil companies make 6-8 cents more. I will accept that that won't directly help most directly. The question is how much will it effect transport costs of the things we buy. Can it have a snowball effect down on prices like it when gas went up?

The flip side is were that tax won't be going. The logic would be to push some road construction projects off, tighten the belt and for goodness sake stop building bike paths, hiking trails and parks with transport funds. Make any sense? In all likelihood the money will just be borrowed from overseas with interest. China? More dept not really worth it. As with increasingly more ideas i don't trust D.C. to do it reasonably, so I am not for it.

Let's just fix the problem. The mass number of miracle cars we need aren't around the corner as much as i would like them to be so more oil for the time. Alaska and continental shelf drilling, close the Enron loophole, regulate speculators just a little, build refineries even if the government has to do it, and allow or encourage or have the government build coal liquification plants.