King Banaian may blanche, but I suggest that 99% of economics is political.
And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that that’s what’s behind the administration’s “Fiscal Stimulus” package aimed at jump-starting growth:
Bush planned to lay out his position Friday, but he wasn’t expected to go into specifics. Press secretary Dana Perino said Bush would demand that any package be effective, simple and temporary _ mirroring calls by Democratic lawmakers for a “timely, targeted and temporary” stimulus measure.
Well, it’s not really an echo; when Tics say “targeted”, it means “targeted at their constituents”. And if I were a Tic, I’d be just a little insulted.
But more on that later.
Taxpayers could receive rebates of up to $800 for individuals and $1,600 for married couples under a White House plan. Although lawmakers were considering smaller rebate checks and more money for food stamp recipients and the unemployed, Bush told congressional leaders that he favors income tax rebates for people and tax breaks for business investment.
In other words; Republicans favor handing out sandbags to fight the flood; Tics want to give out Handi-wipes to people who are in water up to the waist.
Naturally, due to the politics we’re stuck with, the real solution – shutting off the water – seems to be off the table.
The president did not push for a permanent extension of his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, many of which are due to expire in 2010, officials said.
To paraphrase Stone and Parker: “Dum dum dum dum dummmm”.
Throwing a couple of bucks to the yokels so’ll they’ll take an extra trip to Wal-Mart is like putting a bandaid on a chest wound. The real problem is that zillions of dollars in middle-class wealth, in the form of declining home values, has disappeared. The residential real estate bubble has popped. Along with it, for the next year or two, will go the economy and the electoral fortunes of Repubicans. More tax cuts should do it, eh President Hoover?
AC, if I recall my history correctly, Hoover, Roosevelt and the rest of the economically illiterates had high taxes. They thought that a balanced budget was more important then the people having money (of course until WWII when Roosevelt spent huge). They also were against globalization. The lack of free trade was lethal. As was the over-regulation of business.
Gee, it sounds like the Democrats plans today.
But, but but.. Mitch, why aren’t the tax cuts enacted in 2003 still driving the economy forward, they haven’t yet expired, so seemingly, the water hasn’t been turned on yet.
The point, Mitch, is that taxes have very little to do with the success or failure of the economy. It boomed in the 90’s, was fostered on debt in the 80’s, and is floundering now AFTER you said the 2003 tax cuts were ‘working’. The more likely plan, of $300 per person or $600 per family, both are meaningless gestures, and you and I both know it, it won’t amount to a hill of beans. If giving the average person some money was a goal to ‘drive the economy’ then we’d actually CARE about the fact that wages have flatlined as we dumped/shipped jobs overseas or imported cheap labor, and we don’t care, it’s all about profits at the top. Sure am glad that’s trickled down.
Yes Chuck, our taxes and regulatory environment are stiffling, which is why Europe and Canada are profoundly more healthy economically, environmentally, and physically. Yepper.
is floundering now
Er, not so much.
Europe and Canada are profoundly more healthy economically, environmentally, and physically
It’s a lefty talking point these days, but it’s really not very true. And to the extent that all of those places have improved, it’s because so many of them have moved to start rolling back the worst of the excesses of their socialist past. (Their “physical” health is a bit of a non-sequitur, in any case).
Europe has that little matter of being a demographic time bomb, of course.
The more likely plan, of $300 per person or $600 per family
Ah. You read the future, too?
you and I both know it
AND clairvoyant?
The point, Mitch, is that taxes have very little to do with the success or failure of the economy
Trying to wrap my head around that one. So if the tax rate was 100%, there’d be no effect on the economy?
OK, now you’ve done it Jeff.
Hugo Chavez will now be contacting everyone on your street with offers of free gasoline and you my friend will rue the day you published that anti-Communist sentiment.
Of course I meant to say everyone on your street *except you*.
Viva Che! Viva Castro! Viva Pelosi!
Kouba Si! Castro No!
Europe is profoundly more economically healthy than us? Double digit unemployment is a good thing?
What economics professor did you have? I sure want to steer my kids clear of that person. Might as well be learning brain surgery from a box of cracker jacks.
wtf? So good economic stimulus is to give tax rebates?
So while we are running a major deficit, the answer is to force the tax payers to essentially take out a big loan to stimulate the economy? Egads.
I asked the same question over at Anti-Strib today. There seems to be complete agreement that one-time rebates are a bad idea.
Typical borrow-and-spend Repubicans.
We have two political parties in the US today — borrow & spend and tax & spend.