Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Economic Stimulus
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 471788" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>I think President Obama and the democrats are missing a golden opportunity in some sense to build on democrat Congressional numbers in the 2010' mid term elections. Here's how.</p><p> </p><p>Just looking from afar, the federal budget will come in at around $1 trillion dollar mark not including the current stimlus answer to our economic problems. It would appear that the nearly and most likely $1 trillion price for the stimlus will be completely borrowed monies. That being the case and if they want to stimulate the consumer economy as well as help people paydown debt which is sitting on the bank books as toxic, why not say a worker working a 40 hour week only pays tax on the first 20 hours and the 2nd 20 is completely tax free, social security, the works. Employers also are off the hook for the equally matching excise taxes. Also all OT hours are also completely tax free as well. Now I'm for ending all taxes at the federal level but in this age of compromise and bi-partisanship, this is my effort to reach across 2 isles at the same time although most of the time it looks to me like there's only one isle to begin with.</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>I don't know the exact numbers mind you but the difference in either the Bush corp. welfare plan and the current plan on the hill, don't be fooled as President Obama's plan is also loaded with lots of corp. welfare to boot is in the end not that much as it relates to the cost of giving the American workers and American employers as break on their taxes. My guess is the actual cost would equal and if you take both the Bsuh TARP and the current Obama plan, my proposal I do believe would be cheaper. </p><p> </p><p>With some employers like say a UPS, the saving could be used for capital investment or at worst (if you tend to see it that way) a dividend payout to shareholders who in turn re-invest or maybe spend that money to pay down debt or buy a new car or whatever.</p><p> </p><p>I guess my point is why is it that gov't can take from me or any of us for that matter and say give it to Bank of America for a new plush office, or to a cable company in federal dollars so they can build a large broadband network and infrastructure that benefits their bottomline and investors. Why does the gov't determine who gets our money when it's possible we could put it to just as good if not better use? Why does our gov't insist on taking money from productive segments of our economy and whether corp or public welfare, transfer that producutive money to unproductive segments of society?</p><p> </p><p>Intervention is the reason why and here's something so-called Republican conservatives need to let sink in. Gov't is brute force, it defies reason and logic and is like a bull set loose in a china shop. When you defend and justify intervention in one area, gov't sees this as a green light to intervene in all areas. Same is true for you of liberal democrat belief. You guys (both sides) want to pick and choose your intervention but the history of gov't doesn't and never has worked this way. It's all or nothing.</p><p> </p><p>It just boils down to the simple fact that you can never have your cake and eat it too when it comes to gov't!</p><p> </p><p>We are seeing proof again that both warfare and welfare are the health of the State!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 471788, member: 2189"] I think President Obama and the democrats are missing a golden opportunity in some sense to build on democrat Congressional numbers in the 2010' mid term elections. Here's how. Just looking from afar, the federal budget will come in at around $1 trillion dollar mark not including the current stimlus answer to our economic problems. It would appear that the nearly and most likely $1 trillion price for the stimlus will be completely borrowed monies. That being the case and if they want to stimulate the consumer economy as well as help people paydown debt which is sitting on the bank books as toxic, why not say a worker working a 40 hour week only pays tax on the first 20 hours and the 2nd 20 is completely tax free, social security, the works. Employers also are off the hook for the equally matching excise taxes. Also all OT hours are also completely tax free as well. Now I'm for ending all taxes at the federal level but in this age of compromise and bi-partisanship, this is my effort to reach across 2 isles at the same time although most of the time it looks to me like there's only one isle to begin with. :happy-very: I don't know the exact numbers mind you but the difference in either the Bush corp. welfare plan and the current plan on the hill, don't be fooled as President Obama's plan is also loaded with lots of corp. welfare to boot is in the end not that much as it relates to the cost of giving the American workers and American employers as break on their taxes. My guess is the actual cost would equal and if you take both the Bsuh TARP and the current Obama plan, my proposal I do believe would be cheaper. With some employers like say a UPS, the saving could be used for capital investment or at worst (if you tend to see it that way) a dividend payout to shareholders who in turn re-invest or maybe spend that money to pay down debt or buy a new car or whatever. I guess my point is why is it that gov't can take from me or any of us for that matter and say give it to Bank of America for a new plush office, or to a cable company in federal dollars so they can build a large broadband network and infrastructure that benefits their bottomline and investors. Why does the gov't determine who gets our money when it's possible we could put it to just as good if not better use? Why does our gov't insist on taking money from productive segments of our economy and whether corp or public welfare, transfer that producutive money to unproductive segments of society? Intervention is the reason why and here's something so-called Republican conservatives need to let sink in. Gov't is brute force, it defies reason and logic and is like a bull set loose in a china shop. When you defend and justify intervention in one area, gov't sees this as a green light to intervene in all areas. Same is true for you of liberal democrat belief. You guys (both sides) want to pick and choose your intervention but the history of gov't doesn't and never has worked this way. It's all or nothing. It just boils down to the simple fact that you can never have your cake and eat it too when it comes to gov't! We are seeing proof again that both warfare and welfare are the health of the State! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Economic Stimulus
Top