Government By The Stupid, For The Stupid
The retards in charge in Washington just spent my money to send me a note to tell me something I already know (as does anybody not in a coma): that, very soon, we'll all effectively be getting a cash advance on a credit card -- one of the stupider financial moves a person can make.
Of course, it looked like one of those scam junk mail pieces. And it is a scam. As for all the people who are reacting with glee at the prospect of getting a $300 or $600 tax "rebate" -- as if it's free money -- they've failed to process where, exactly, that money is coming from.
This is...our money! Taxpayer dollars. They're throwing them back at us -- word has it, because it's supposed to stimulate the economy, keep us from going into a recession.
The problem is, we already have a ginormous national debt. I read that it grows $5,000 a second just in dollars to the Iraq war alone. And then there was the prescription drug bill Bush signed, and a bazillion other entitlements, past and new.
Hey, all you people who are so thrilled about the check soon to be in the mail: we're going to have to pay this money back, and with piles of interest.
Can we please get a few people who can do basic math in government?
Now, it's possible I'm just not a sophisticated enough thinker on economic issues, and this is a deceptively wise course of action.
But, on a personal level, if I had some vast pile of credit card debt, the last thing I'd be doing is taking out a cash advance on the ole Visa, hitting Vegas and trying to gamble my way out of it. Then again, I do call myself a fiscal conservative -- a creature rarer than the dodo these days.
Oh, and what's next? The goverment will tell us that the patriotic thing to do is to spend that money. Go out and buy a $600 handbag, or a Louis Vuitton car bra for the Lincoln Navigator you can't afford to gas up. Do it or...the terrorists win. Whoops, sorry...wrong message.
To me, this makes about as much economic sense as rewarding people who make risky investments by bailing them out when those investments fail.
The way I see it, if the government's going to give out cash prizes, it should be to people like me who pay off their credit card in full every month and save money by buying off-brand toner on eBay, and getting their clothes there, too -- "like new" instead of "new." That won't help Macy's...but, why is the fate of Macy's, or Bear Stearns, or any other business the problem of anybody but those who gambled on it, hoping it would pay off handsomely as an investment?
Sorry, I warned you I was kind of dim on the economics thingie.
yeah this "rebate" is probably one of the stupider things this government has done.
but i sure as hell ain't giving the money back.
yet. of course. i do realize that in the - probably near - future my taxes will go way up to pay off the stupidity of gw et al, but in the immediate future, i wouldn't mind using it to pay off some of my home improvements. (which, by the way, were ridiculously cheap since we did the work ourselves, but still couldn't afford to pay it off each month like i do my visa)
kt at March 24, 2008 12:01 AM
Ever wonder just how far the ecomony will have to sink before you start having riots in the streets?
Think we will ever hit that point where the economy collapses completly and the government is superceeded and vast swaths of the country fall under local depostic regimes?
lujlp at March 24, 2008 12:11 AM
I wonder... since I'm going to use mine to pay off a credit card balance (probably partially), how many others will do that, and will it actually have the desired stimulating effect? Superficially, I say, "No. Payment of existing debt produces no stimulus, even though mood may be lightened."
I would rather Congress actually do its job, controlling spending, though.
Radwaste at March 24, 2008 3:03 AM
luljp - yes. i believe we will hit that point and i don't think it will be all that much longer. actually, my brother and i used to talk about it all the time - what we would do when the country fell apart, but that was when we were small children and had nothing whatsoever to base it on other than the fact that rome fell, we figured all governments come to an end at some point. ironically, we pretty much thought it would fall apart because it would go broke. i think i was 8 and he was 5. mind you we were just pretending to have a clue, making it up as we went along. funny. maybe we were right. i don't know if i would laugh or cry. probably both. (by the way - we were going to move to new zealand. it sounded exotic to us at the time. he was going to teach US history and i was going to be a doctor. don't know why it never occurred to us, ever, that we wouldn't do absolutely everything together forever. silly children.)
kt at March 24, 2008 3:19 AM
Lujlp, kt - what are you using as evidence that the economy has fallen?
This "rebate" is dumb for one reason, and one reason only - it is Bush buying into the media's attempt to CREATE a recession where no evidence for one exists.
If everyone wasn't so worried that a bunch of MORONS were losing the risky bets they made on houses they can't afford (like the idiots getting cash-out refi's on their houses to buy Lincolns, for instance) it wouldn't be an issue.
But the media couldn't get us to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they need to do something to get people to vote Democratic because nobody would vote for Hillary! or The Messiah otherwise.
Unemployment is still low, and we haven't had one quarter of negative growth, much less two consecutive (the actual definition of a recession) ones, so I don't know why everyone's screaming recession.
But I'd bet real money that if a Democrat wins in November that the economy is miraculously fine before they even take office. Just like in 1992!
brian at March 24, 2008 5:11 AM
I like the government's blanket mailing of this letter saying I "may" be getting a refund. That wouldn't be useful if it happened to be true, but I'm not a complete moron. I know I won't receive this "free money" because I know the figures on my taxes for last year and how the rules exclude me from this welfare.
This just demonstrates, while not reassuring, that the government can always think of new ways to waste money when I think it's reached the pinnacle of stupid.
Tony at March 24, 2008 6:47 AM
Economics is one of those tricky subjects that only people devoted to it can really predict with any degree of accuracy, and that accuracy is never 100%.
On the one hand the stimulus MAY actually help, when people spend money, demand goes up, people get employed, driving demand up again, which drives further employment, and as a result pay goes up because good workers are harder to find, meaning those people spend MORE money, driving demand up again...positive circle going upwards until something goes wrong. In this case, what went wrong was the predatory and dishonest lending practices.
There has been alot of criticism of common citizens who fell into the lending trap, some of it right, but it bears mentioning that the lending institutions bore some responsibility for it as well. After all they probably knew the credit rating of the borrower better than the borrower did, as well as all related expenses, taxes, fees, etc. and knew full well the borrower probably wouldn't be able to meet the obligation.
Moreover, entities of that nature are a helluva lot better at getting people to hand over money, than people are at protecting it. The common citizen is not likely to be an expert on all the mumbo jumbo involved, but more importantly not likely to realize he or she NEEDS to be an expert to understand a fair part of it, and will misunderstand the nature of the commitment and the cost he'll have to bear.
Maybe that will change as regulations tighten, maybe the stimulus package will work. (I have my doubts about the latter, its not employment that we're worried about) Our concern isn't for recession, despite what the news says, lets face it they're assuming people are idiots so they use a term people understand, even if its not accurate. No, our problem is that poor fiscal practices from both citizens and financial institutions, as well as the government itself; have shaken global confidence in the dollar at home and abroad. To reform that we do not need a stimulus package to stimulate spending (since when is THAT an American problem? Anybody gone by a mall and seen an empty parking lot on a weekend?)
To solve the problem we need comprehensive financial reform on every level from the private citizen to the state & federal governments. We need to tighten regulations on lending institutions to limit the risks they can take, so that they don't go bust by gambling on loans to people who will probably default. We need to adjust real estate laws so that would be buyers are told just how much monthly & yearly they will have to pay, as well as the probability of increase, and to restrict sales to people who will clearly not be able to afford it.
We need to institute mandatory financial training from elementary school on up to high school, and institute mandatory worker savings plans, and tax only the part that is not saved. (And ensure that the FDIC insures those savings against loss) so that as people age they have their own resources to live on.
We need all 50 states to include ammendments prohibiting debtor spending, and a constitutional ammendment mandating taxpayer approval for an unbalanced budget. We need a limitation on "pork" spending, items added to a bill that have nothing to do WITH the bill, and everything to do with senators bringing home the bacon to buy votes.
We need alot of financial reform that is as hard to do as it is responsible...maybe the stimulus package will help...but it is a bandaid and a punctured artery. A start, but NOT the finish.
Robert H. Butler at March 24, 2008 7:03 AM
Tony - spot on.
RHB - The unfortunate thing is you are asking the very people with the spending problem to vote their wallets away. That's like asking a coke addict to leave the blow on the mirror alone. Wishful thinking at best.
We need change from the bottom up, not from the top down. It starts with the voters ALWAYS voting against the incumbent, every term. Once "politician" is regarded as a civil service and not a career, then maybe we can get meaningful change. The idea here is to get the politicians out of the "continuous campaign" mindset that they are locked in to now.
But then again, that's asking those addicted to public largesse to just put the pipe down.
brian at March 24, 2008 8:00 AM
You won't stop Progressivism. The agency system run the government, not elected officials. The Civil Service Act ensures that agency employees are not accountable to members of government.
If you want to fix the problem, you must tear down the entire edifice of the administrative state, returning us to government before the arrival of the European socialist movement in America.
That isn't going to happen. If it were to happen, the most effective way to start would be by repealing the 17th Amendment. By returning states to their rightful place in the federal government you'd at least end unfunded mandates and the like. But like I said, this isn't going to happen.
In effect, you have to find a way to live within a system that confiscates private wealth on a mass scale. Citizens come to believe that following the rules is a sucker's game (which it is). As in all socialist systems, the bedrock of social order crumbles as people become more duplicitous in their every day dealings, as plain dealing becomes a crime.
Then there's the issue of what citizenship even means anymore. If you are an illegal alien from Mexico and you defraud the government of taxes for years, you get sent home with a stern warning. If you are a citizen you get ten years in a federal prison. Yet there are many, many idiots that take the side of the illegal alien. Many of them work at Reason Magazine.
Given the insane socialism of the left, the crypto-socialism of conservatives, and the anarchism of the libertarians --- I'm pessimistic. Whence ordered liberty?
Jeff at March 24, 2008 8:48 AM
I swear you are the long-lost sister of my wife. When that stupid notice showed up in the mail the other day, she had the same reaction - almost word-for-word.
COOP at March 24, 2008 8:48 AM
Yet there are many, many idiots that take the side of the illegal alien. Many of them work at Reason Magazine.
This is why I sort of reservedly call myself a libertarian, but, as somebody wrote in a letter to the ed (about an otherwise good op-ed by my pals Welch and Gillespie), Milton Friedman pointed out that you can't have open borders in a welfare state. Also, yoohoo, anybody remember terrorism? "Achmed, Osama, pile on in!" Uh, don't think so.
Amy Alkon at March 24, 2008 8:56 AM
How about the "statement" you get semi-quarterly from Social Security. Somehow I think they have better things to do with the 13% of my income they confiscate then tell me how much I'll get if they don't go bankrupt.
It's all about buying votes. Nothing more.
And in that respect, it will be a runaway success. I guess we have an answer to the question of what a vote's worth.
brian at March 24, 2008 9:55 AM
I betcha there isn't even one rep in congress who believes this tax rebate is actually going to help the economy.
The Republicans are just hoping they can use it to dodge acusations in November that they "haven't done anything" and the Democrats are trying to use it as a battering ram to run through even more far-reaching legislation in the future.
Frank Zappa said it best:
We are millions 'n' millions
We're coming to get you
We're protected by unions
So don't let it upset you
Can't escape the conclusion
It's probably God's Will
That civilization
Will grind to a standstill
And we are the people
Who will make it all happen
While yer children is sleepin',
Yer puppy is crappin'
You might call us Flakes
Or something else you might coin us
But we know you're so greedy
That you'll probably join us
Naif Mabat at March 24, 2008 10:28 AM
I think that the easiest way to control spending and promote saving is pull income tax and replace with sales tax. The more stupid spending you do the more money you put into the government that's going to bail you out when the shit hits the fan, due to your own foolishness. I'd even be ok with them keeping the Social Security tax for salary. Keep the politicians from loosing to many votes to get this through.
vlad at March 24, 2008 10:38 AM
Does anyone here realize how stupid the average American is? Half the country is even worse off in the "Brains Department".
I hope the USA never "gets the government it deserves"...we might have that right now though...
When the revolution happens I think I'll sit that war out.
Blackjack at March 24, 2008 1:15 PM
If they had just not taken that $600 from me in the first place (let's say over working year 2006) I could have earned $60 (before tax-rapage '06 in April 2007 and inflation adj.) if I shoved it into the market. That would have had the buying power of $674 today.
(I love the CPI inflation calculator! :-})
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
Gretchen at March 24, 2008 2:11 PM
Good article in TIME:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725094,00.html
There is, simply put, no way out of this situation for America. If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe Warren Buffett. The Sage of Omaha predicted this very scenario in 2003 in an article in Fortune. He tells the story of two fictional islands, Thriftville and Squanderville. In Squanderville, the residents live beyond their means by importing from Thriftville in return for IOUs. Eventually, Thriftville converts this debt into Squanderville assets until Thriftville owns all of Squanderville. America, Buffett warned, was facing the same fate. "Our trade deficit has greatly worsened, to the point that our country's 'net worth,' so to speak, is now being transferred abroad at an alarming rate," Buffett wrote.
Americans, meet Squanderville
The Mad Hungarian at March 24, 2008 5:17 PM
This isn't your money, it's China's money.
They loaned it to us and now we'll go out and spend it on their artificially-cheap products, and it will all go straight back to them.
Sure, we're stimulating the country's economy, but the country is China.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 24, 2008 5:34 PM
And the second China does anything wrong, they're toast. They need us more than we need them.
Which is why they executed the minister of quality after the poisoned dog food and leaded toy fiascos.
That cash stops flowing in there, and they are screwed.
And if they invade Taiwan, all we do is default on the debt, and their economy stops existing.
If we actually had something to lose, it would be a perfect Mexican standoff. But other than it taking us a few years to re-tool to make consumer goods, we'd be alright if China's economy went bye-bye.
They wouldn't survive a crash of the US economy.
brian at March 24, 2008 5:47 PM
*They wouldn't survive a crash of the US economy.*
Brilliant.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 24, 2008 5:55 PM
"their economy stops existing"
The workers making the stuff for export wonder why anyone buys such crap. Meantime their environment is world class awful thanks to pollution from 'industrialization'. Ain't progress wonderful ?
Think of all those lovely dollars they get for their sacrifice. Why is that again ? That the same stuff that was worthless to North Korea and Iran because the U.S. defaults on its endless supply of $$$
Think of the irony. You can't spend something because the issuer of a note good for....hmmm....is having PMS. Lovely international "medium of exchange". Not so much.
opit at March 24, 2008 9:51 PM
My dad sends me the strangest things:
This is too true to be funny
The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money. A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.
A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans. It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D), is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number, but what does it really mean?
A. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you each get $516,528.
B. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, your home gets $1,329,787.
C. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.
Washington, D.C... HELLO!... Are all your calculators broken??
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
Liquor Tax,
Luxury Tax,
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax,
Property Tax,
Real Estate Tax,
Service charge taxes,
Social Security Tax,
Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
Sales Taxes,
School Tax,
State Income Tax,
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax,
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,
Telephone State and Local Tax,
Telephone Usage Charge Tax,
Utility Tax,
Vehicle License Registration Tax,
Vehicle Sales Tax,
Watercraft Registration Tax,
Well Permit Tax,
Workers Compensation Tax.
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened? Can you spell 'politicians'?
And I still have to 'press 1' for English."
Flynne at March 25, 2008 9:33 AM
Surprised more of you didn't mention the obvious reason for passage of this welfare "rebate" in an election year. Congress looked at all the media scare about "recession", then looked at its microscopic approval rating, and figured it better pass an Incumbent Protection Act. Else the help might get uppity and vote a few of them out.
This is nothing but giving us some of our money back to buy our votes -- the exact same idea as with every grease-laden earmark of pork they pass. The concept of giving the addicts some stuff to snort is almost secondary to the imperative of Incumbent Protection. Apparently it is not enough any more to merely monopolize the ballot and gerrymander every House district to achieve a preset result -- now it's time to break out the direct monetary bribes.
Congress is in a truly sad state, and we're collectively too stupid and self-absorbed to do what we should and put them all out of our misery.
cpabroker at March 25, 2008 9:41 AM
No, cpabroker, we're too comfortable making an honest living to run for office ourselves. Which leaves only the scoundrels, crooks, and ne'er do wells to run in our stead.
brian at March 25, 2008 11:29 AM
I agree with the credit card analogy made by the Advice Goddess - I will however use whatever I get for the Economic Stimulus to *pay off* my credit card bill. Thereby lowerering my interest rate. :)
Leyahn at March 25, 2008 5:47 PM
interesting, flynne. sure is a different way of looking at it, i like it. except for the mom stayed at home thing, sure if she wants to, but i don't think it's necessary. i thought, as a kid, the fact that my mom had a job meant she was smarter than anyone else's mom. (i'm not entirely sure i was wrong)
i didn't say i thought the economy had fallen at this point. but it's not in good shape. the rich are getting richer. the poor are getting poorer. the middle class is shrinking, and not in the direction of richer. that's not good. what is it - 47 million without health insurance? it's not just because those 47 million people are stupid. whatever the reason, it's going to and is affecting everyone. so are all those bad loans on houses - yes, the people who took them out were ridiculously stupid, and yes, the banks that gave them out were worse, but do you really think it's not going to affect anyone else? it will. bad trends, not promising.
not that long ago, $70K salary per year was a decent chunk. that's what we make in my house, and we're just squeaking by. and neither of us has a "normal" amount of debt, either, or a mortgage outside our means. i have no idea where i was going with that.
kt at March 26, 2008 2:08 AM
Leave a comment