Our Big Democrat-In-Chief Has Some Goodies For You
George Bush calls for welfare for regular people, in the form of a tax rebate (and other measures), in hopes of propping up the nosediving economy -- the economy sent into a nosedive by all the sleazebag loans given to poor people who could never dream of paying them off, bank credit default swaps, and the one-or-two-trillion-dollar debt for Iraq, to name a few. From a Maura Reynolds story in the LA Times:
Stepping out as the standard-bearer for an economic rescue, President Bush called Friday for about $150 billion in tax rebates and other measures designed to be a "shot in the arm" for the flagging economy.The president, who was out of the country for much of the last two weeks as bad news on the economy piled up, returned to the policy forefront by calling for an even larger plan than the $100-billion initiative being discussed in Congress.
"This growth package must be big enough to make a difference in an economy as large and dynamic as ours," the president said at the White House, flanked by his top economic advisors and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Bush provided few details of what he thought the package should contain. Instead, he laid out "principles" that included an emphasis on tax incentives for businesses, which congressional Democrats have already said they would accept, and opposition to tax increases, which Democrats have indicated are off the table.
The centerpiece of the emerging plan appears to be a one-time tax cut -- paid as a cash rebate this year -- of $800 per taxpayer, or $1,600 for a couple filing jointly. Rebates of that size would total about $100 billion. Officials hope they would spur consumer spending and economic growth.
The remaining measures are likely to be a mix of tax incentives designed to encourage business expansion along with cash relief for the unemployed and needy, who would be likely to spend the money immediately, stimulating growth.
My problem with the nutter party (the Republicans) is that few of them seem to be actual conservatives -- fiscal conservatives like me -- they just label themselves that because of their retrograde way of looking at the world through Jesus-colored glasses.
I was listening to Tammy Bruce taking over for Al Rantel on the radio last night on my way to a party and I heard her say, to my surprise (but earning my respect), that she's "a Reagan Democrat." She explained that she could never call herself a Republican as long as the Republicans are the party that wants to tell a woman she can't have autonomy over her own body. I'm with you, sistah.
As I keep asking, whatever happened to the real conservatives? Classical liberals, I mean. Yoohooo, you guys all sleeping? Because we could use some solid fiscal policy and the Republicans only pretend to be against the handouts-as-government the Democrats are openly for, which is part of what got us into this economic mess in the first place.
If somebody with great hair didn't tell you, how would you know "the economy is in a nosedive"?
Is it really because you and your neighbors don't drive your full-size trucks everywhere now - and don't buy the new one?
Radwaste at January 20, 2008 4:51 AM
You are so right on, Amy.
What is wrong with capable people going out and finding a way to earn another $800, if that's what it takes for economic happiness?
I see more and more people hoping for a winning lottery ticket, a payment from the government, an insurance payout, a lawsuit windfall, etc. At some point we need to value productive work.
doombuggy at January 20, 2008 5:43 AM
This may be a case of don't cut off your nose to spite your face. I didn't buy a house, but if the economy tanks, it may be my job and many others that didn't profit whose jobs are lost. A recession will screw many many people who didn't deserve it.
That said, I think what Bush is proposing is more like Operation Keep The Whitehouse than Operation Prop Up The Economy.
jerry at January 20, 2008 5:54 AM
My understanding is that Congress wants to give $100 Billion, or 20 weeks of the Iraq War to the taxpayer while Bush wants to give $150 Billion or 30 weeks of the Iraq War to the taxpayer. In the meantime, the war itself is about 245 weeks old.
Regarding the mortgage crisis, I am most concerned that the executives and the shareholders are the people that should not be bailed out. The top executives are bailing out with golden parachutes -- how about a windfall profits tax? Or better, actual charges and jail time for fraudulent lending practices? Many of the remedies propose to bail out Wall Street and shareholders -- the informed investors that sought hire returns because they were supposedly WILLING to take a large RISK.
If someone can propose a test that determines which homebuyers were abusive of the process and took out loans they knowingly shouldn't have I am more than willing to listen.
I am mainly convinced that the ones who are easy to see got away with murder are the lenders.
There is a candidate who thinks we should do nothing about the economy at this time. That's Thompson who was terrific in the Hunt for Red October, and then not so terrific as a politician.
jerry at January 20, 2008 6:06 AM
Speaking of candidates, here's Mitt Romney, promising the car companies $20 million:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/01/whoring_101_by.html
Amy Alkon at January 20, 2008 6:10 AM
The economy is not tanking. The media needs it to tank, because they need something to hang around Bush's neck, seeing as they couldn't force a loss in Iraq.
The economy is taking a hit from the bad lending practices encouraged by the race pimps. One of the talking heads on one of Fox News' financial shows said it best: "what we need are foreclosures and bankruptcies".
What Bush wants to do is a transparent ploy to keep Hillary! out of the White House. I disagree with it completely. Keynes is dead. It's best to leave him that way.
brian at January 20, 2008 6:47 AM
If the economy isn't about to tank, why the need for the tax rebate? I mean, notice the national debt?
Amy Alkon at January 20, 2008 6:54 AM
The national debt is related to the economy the way I am related to trees - only incidentally.
The need for the tax rebate is to satisfy the political need to be seen to be "Doing Something" about a problem that is largely a figment of the media's imagination.
The media are talking the economy down in the run-up to an election, just like they did in 1992. In the weeks and months prior to the election in 1992, all we heard about was "the worst economy in 50 years". Two weeks after Clinton was inaugurated, the economy was great. He hadn't had the time to do anything, and I seriously doubt in the 60 days between election and inauguration the entire economy went from bust to boom out of sheer joy that the Saviour Clinton had been given unto us.
I'm sorry, there's just way to many parallels between now and the last time a Clinton wanted to replace a Bush.
brian at January 20, 2008 7:15 AM
And another thing - if unemployment is so bad in this country, then why don't we kick all the illegals out so that our unemployed citizens can get jobs?
Or am I missing something here? Because you can't have massive unemployment on one hand and massive labor demands on the other. The two kinda cancel each other out.
brian at January 20, 2008 7:17 AM
The need for the rebate (or stimulus) arises for two reasons. First, Congress created the problem by requiring that financial institutions lend money to individuals who had a demonstrated inability to repay the loan. It simply wasn't "fair" to exclude those who couldn't repay loans from the American Dream of homeownership. Second, it's an election year and the Congress Critters want to demonstrate that they care by spending more of our money. It's an effective way of taking credit for "solving" the problem while shifting the blame for creating the problem.
The stimulus plans in discussion are dreadful ideas. The most effective plan would be to make permanent the Bush Tax Cuts and to further reduce taxes with a concomitant reduction in spending. Tax Freedom Day will occur in early May this year. In 1940, at the end of The Great Depression, Tax Freedom Day was March 7th with an overall tax rate of 18%. The overall tax rate is now 33%... what are we getting for the additional taxation? How much freedom are we giving up? (Tax Freedom Day)
Curly Smith at January 20, 2008 7:36 AM
I live in Los Angeles, and can't afford to buy a home here (except maybe squarely in the crossfire of a gangland gunbattle), so I rent. Living within one's means, whatta concept. Why should I bail out people -- and companies -- who aren't so responsible?
Amy Alkon at January 20, 2008 7:51 AM
I'm with you, Amy. But you're letting the media get away with saying "people can't live beyond their means, therefore we have a pending economic calamity".
I'm against government bailouts for all but the most extreme cases, and there are precious few of those.
This isn't a bailout, so much as it is a vote-buy.
brian at January 20, 2008 7:55 AM
> why don't we kick all
> the illegals out so that
> our unemployed citizens
> can get jobs?
In an Atlantic Monthly piece in October 1992 after the riots, Jack Miles of the LA Times wrote a piece explaining that it's simplistic to say that latinos have displaced blacks in the workplace: Latins are doing work that blacks don't want to do anyway, including harvesting strawberries and cleaning hotel rooms. The Atlantic piece is worth a visit to the library to read (I've never found it online.)
Crid at January 20, 2008 8:28 AM
Title: "Blacks vs. Browns: Immigration and the New American Dilemma," The Atlantic Monthly, October, 41-68. by Jack Miles.
It is from 1992, and their archives only go back to 1995. Great issue this month, by the way. I'm midway through the piece on the Kurds.
Amy Alkon at January 20, 2008 8:39 AM
Crid - are you arguing that without illegal immigrant laborers those jobs would simply go undone?
I've never understood the "jobs Americans won't do" argument. There was a meat-packing plant in the midwest somewhere that got raided, all the illegals rounded up and sent home. They knew it was coming, and raised the wage they were offering, and as a result had Americans lined up around the block to take the jobs.
It's not "jobs Americans won't do", it's "jobs Americans won't do for $5.00 an hour".
brian at January 20, 2008 8:52 AM
I agree with you Brian that the idea of jobs 'Americans won't do' is rubbish Brian. I was just recently in Tucson and actually saw white and black teenagers washing cars. But I do think there is an economic problem out there looming. If the dollar keeps tanking and inflations is going up, we could see stagflation like we had with Carter in the seventies. Do you remember that? Also, we are having major financial institutions fail, that tends to have a domino effect. I think there is a real fear of economic collapse.
Out here in Cali, our economy is the 8th largest in the world. We are running about a 14 billion dollar deficit and what does our RINO governor come up with to fix it? Let 22000 felons out of prison so we can lay off some guards and close prisons, cut 10% across the board in spending, (which will NEVER happen) and then give free healthcare to everybody, including illegals, in the state. Clearly, you don't have to be smart to be an actor.
Bikerken at January 20, 2008 12:06 PM
My suspicion is that the dollar is dropping due to speculation by currency traders outside the US. It, too, bears no relation to reality, but it unfortunately CREATES its own reality.
I don't know what to do about it, but if the media are successful in creating the recession they so clearly desire, then the currency traders will have been proven right.
brian at January 20, 2008 12:52 PM
> it's "jobs Americans won't do
> for $5.00 an hour"
So you're saying there's a market for cheap / slace labor, right? The Miles piece makes a convincing case that inner-city blacks don't want to be hotel maids, period.
Crid at January 20, 2008 1:16 PM
There's always a market for cheap/slave labor, Crid. But we have, as a society, outlawed such things.
We have minimum wage laws, we have working hours standards, etc. And if we're willing to turn a blind eye to those things, then I don't want to hear anyone complain about unemployment.
If there are jobs out there that just aren't worth paying the minimum wage for, I don't know what to tell you. But hearing the left complain about living wages and unemployment and still pushing for a general amnesty for illegals strikes me as a bit bipolar.
brian at January 20, 2008 1:29 PM
The proposed tax rebate isn’t about boosting the economy it’s about voting Republican in November. Just like Tricky Dicky’s promise to end the war in ’72 if re-elected, King George is going to save us from economic doom. Hopefully, that will get his buddies re-elected and keep the White House for the GOP. What we have here is one last hurrah from W.
God save the King.
Roger at January 20, 2008 1:47 PM
There's something a bit bizarre about the effort to bolster a sagging economy by throwing cash at the population and encouraging them to go out and buy things.
And it is just that. Once money is paid to the government in the form of taxes, the money is government property. So, basically, they're handing out money and telling people to go spend it.
Patrick at January 20, 2008 5:04 PM
How about this: cut government spending!
We can start by reducing or eliminating entitlements, starting with corporate entitlements and subsidies.
I don't agree. They're giving back private wealth that the government shouldn't have taken in the first place.
Jeff at January 20, 2008 6:46 PM
What is it republicans like to say?
"the economy can regulate itself"
Funny how everytime the economy drops they scramble every which way to fix it
I have a few simple ideas to fix the economy
1. end the war - we've won it how many times now?
and given its just s police action now I say the republicans supporting it need to apply the same mentality to the war that they do to welfare.
"IF they wont work for it themselves then giving it to them will just encorage them never to work for it themselves"
2. stop all earmarks - no federal funds spent on state projects. Unless the project benifits mulitpule states like hwys and dam
lujlp at January 20, 2008 7:13 PM
Hit the wrong button
3. make lobbying punishable by death
seriously why the fuck should a mulitmillion dollar company get to ply legislators with booze hookers and worldwide treks to bribe them for some stupid piece of shit legislation that hurts the american public
4. Institute a poll test - if you cant answer a few simple civics questions, a few politically historical question, and are unable to figure out anything beyond the party of the politician you are voting for the you are to fucking stupid to have any input into who is put incharge of the government
5. if you cant afford it dont get it
I prefer tax and spend dems over borrow and spend rep, and while I dont have any kids who will grow up in what will become the United Corperat Owned and Operated States of America, my sister does and I wouldnt wish that hell on anyone let alone my familly
lujlp at January 20, 2008 7:21 PM
The real conservatives - classical liberals, you mean - are voting for Ron Paul.
WolfmanMac at January 20, 2008 8:07 PM
In the first six years of the Clinton administration, 13.7 million jobs were created. In the same period, under Bush, only 3.7 million jobs were created. Barely keeping up with population growth. (Source: Fox News)
Shitty.
flighty at January 20, 2008 8:57 PM
Heh. Since Congress has the Constitutional duty to a) declare war, b) control spending, just how does the President cause either? You're just fixated on one man, something easier to do than identify Congresspeople. You want a real shock? Go to Thomas.loc.gov and read the actual bills submitted by your "representative" or candidate, rather than the People magazine articles about their family, or the endlessly breathless "Who Will Win" fluff of mass media.
Mr. Clinton was responsible for the Internet boom in what way? When he claimed he cut 270,000 "government" jobs, did you realize those were all military? Are you complaining about a small military, being "stretched" today?
The American public is inherently and inadvertently bipolar, because they failed Civics in school.
Radwaste at January 21, 2008 6:45 AM
The American public is inherently and inadvertently bipolar, because they failed Civics in school. >>Radwaste
Personally Rad I think it is deliberate
lujlp at January 21, 2008 8:07 AM
Come on Amy. You say you and Bruce are Reagan Demoracts because the repubs do not believe you have total autonamy over your body?
I may not have this correct but didnt California charge that guy who killed his pregnant wife with 2 counts of murder? When a pregnant woman is killed and her late term child is killed as well, are we not seeing more charges of double murder?
Yet women are immune.
Hypocrite.
And when women lie to men about birth control, in order to get pregnant, I bet you have no problem with the courts making men slaves for the next 18 years. Where they have no problem giving women the right to end their pregnancy, but men have no such right.
And you like men right? Or just certain parts of men?
Jim Doherty at January 21, 2008 8:15 AM
I didn't say I'm a Reagan Democrat, I said I'm with Tammy on not having people's belief, sans evidence, that there's a big man in the sky, and all their ensuing evidence-free beliefs, guide us in government.
FYI, I'm not personally responsible for California law.
Personally, I don't believe a person is a person until they emerge from the womb and breathe on their own. Your mileage may vary. There's no definitive answer on this.
I wrote about this for Pajamas Media. And also about men's rights in children that result from casual sex. And about unwanted children women force on men in relationships -- a bit harder to parse the wanting thing there, unfortunately.
Assumption-maker. Which you are, about what I think.
Why don't you let your lazy little fingers look this stuff up -- right in that search window there, instead of making yourself look like an asshole for accusing me of stuff I never said and don't believe?
Jeez, only Monday, and they're burrowing out of the woodwork.
Amy Alkon at January 21, 2008 8:42 AM
Feel free to apologize in the form of Paypal. Just above.
Amy Alkon at January 21, 2008 8:43 AM
Here, I'll help you.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2006/05/making_men_pay_1.html
You find the other.
Do you live the rest of your life like this, throwing wild assumptions around? If so, feel free to write me for advice about your fucked up friendships and relationships.
Amy Alkon at January 21, 2008 8:47 AM
Ok I should have stopped at Hypocrite.
The abortion rights for men etc is something you have touched on, my bad.
And it is a straw man to say you are not responsible for Ca Law. We know you are not.
Republicans do not think as a party that we have a right to your or any womans internal bodily functions. Some may, but there are some Catholic Democrats as well, who would like to butt in.
At a time when the republican party is being force fed "frontrunners" who are less concervative then you and other "reagan democrats", I just blew a gasket. Now not only are we supposed to rally around a left of center moderate chosen by the media, we have reagan democrat feminists telling us we as a party are just too darn condervative.
And why? because one of those so called frontrunners is a evangelical preacher to the left of every other republican on every issue but abortion.
Duh Amy, Huckafool will not and can not win the republican nomination. So give me that point for arguments sake.
Then who is left in the republican race that you and Tammy Bruce can point to, that want to invade your autonomy?
None that I can see.
Jim Doherty at January 21, 2008 11:16 AM
Uh, you still owe me an apology.
And it's not a straw man to say I'm not responsible for California law -- you came at me like it was my fault and my belief. Same with the rest.
Have you been asleep the past eight years and noticed who's in office, and "faith-based" initiatives getting public money, and all that? I'm on deadline now, so I can't write back in substance. Hoping somebody else will pick up the slack.
Amy Alkon at January 21, 2008 12:12 PM
In other good news, Jim Walsh (RINO, NY) will not seek reelection to the public trough.
He won't be missed, and maybe it'll take the new guy a few years to figure out how to waste as much money and avoid making any hard decisions.
He too was for the war until we started winning, then he was against it. Drill in ANWR? Heck no, his constituents can freeze in the dark and buy $3 gas instead. He's up with pork, as long as he gets his share.
Good bye, good wishes, begone. May the other pigs follow him.
MarkD at January 25, 2008 8:10 AM
Leave a comment