Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q
Visbek;1063449300]Yes, they fund Social Security. And a payroll tax cut is still a tax cut.
Why is SS on budget and used for anything other than SS? Cutting in funding for SS is a good thing in your world? Is that what you expect when you put money into your own retirement plan?
a) Yes, of course I understand what a rebate is.
b) It helped cushion the blow when the economy was at a particularly rough patch, by getting people to spend, and via mechanisms with high multipliers. You DO know what a multiplier is, right? And why something like unemployment benefits, or a $400 break on your paycheck, tends to have a higher multiplier...?
c) The payroll tax cut was never intended as a long-term stimulus. It was always meant to be temporary, which is why it expired already.
It did nothing but cushion support for Obama and that seems to be what you want. The payroll tax cut actually cut what people are putting into a retirement account that has been raided. You don't seem to understand that
Where are you getting this "long term" requirement from? These tax cuts were always intended to be short-term, as was the spending. The long-term effects are indirect, namely they helped cushion the economy a little bit in the worst periods.
Tax cuts allow people to keep more of what they earn. You have a problem with that concept, move to another one with higher taxes since obviously you believe the govt. needs the money more than you do if you even work
So... in your opinion, a tax cut isn't a tax cut if it only applies to some people?
Every income earning American got a tax cut meaning they kept more of what they earn. You have a problem with that since you believe all money belongs to the govt. and thus it is an expense to allow people to keep more of it.
Uh, no. Not even close. It was a big tax rebate ($8000 at its peak), which you'd lose if you sold the home in less than 3 years. By the time the rebate was in place, banks had already increased lending standards because of the excesses during the real estate bubble. It also was a big boost for real estate, as noticed when people were basically trying to buy before the credit expired.
Homes are long term investments, I have lost nothing if the value of my home goes down and I don't sell. A tax rebate for first time homeowners still require those people to make monthly payments and they have to have a job to do that
Your opinion noted but you have shown no evidence that you understand what you are posting but rather posting what you are told
I've studied quite a bit of economics, including how and why a stimulus is supposed to work, why it's patently ridiculous to insist that a tax cut must be long-term in order to have any affect, how government budgets work, how bubbles form and perpetuate, how a lack of regulation in many key areas caused the last recession, and how limited governments are in terms of creating private sector jobs.
Depends on where you believe the money belongs. You think with your heart instead of your brain. Who do you think the housing bubble helped, Democrats or Republicans? It was Clinton who created the sub prime loans.
OBVIOUSLY. In that case, it meant a one-year break for anyone bumping into AMT territory.
So what good did it do?
Your attempts to deflect are failing.
Facts always get in the way of liberal rhetoric
You are the one claiming that GDP growth of $1.7 trillion in recent years is due to an $850 billion stimulus, 1/3 of which is *cough* short-term tax cuts. You should explain your claim in more detail.
No I am not, the growth in GDP is anemic and only people with low expectations believe that anemic growth is a good thing. In 8 years Bush generated 4.5 trillion in GDP growth and that wasn't good enough enough for liberals
What the...?
I do like this country. I really don't see why "keeping offspring on parent's insurance" indicates that anyone "hates America" or is a disincentive to get a job. Rather, it's an expedient method to expand insurance coverage.
Greatest country on the face of the earth and you are trying to destroy it. Political correctness run amuck and wealth redistribution has our Fore Fathers turning over in their graves.
I think that there really isn't much that a government can do to encourage hiring. An employer isn't going to take on an employee who will cost him $50,000 a year just to get a $2,500 tax cut. We can't force companies to keep employees in the US. We can't force companies not to automate jobs.
You have no idea what it costs to hire, train, and provide full benefits to an employee. What exactly does it cost an employer to hire someone under Obama policies? If you don't know then you know why employers aren't hiring.
The VA actually did a pretty good job overall until the last ~10 years. For decades, they had one of the best hospital systems in the US. The root of their problems extend across multiple administrations.
Yes, and Obama said he would solve the problem, another promise broken.
As to the tasks, I'd say they include: Defense, police, courts, oversight of industries, education, managing roads, handling parks, providing services for the poor, doing R&D. They actually do a pretty good job of it -- in many cases, better than the private sector. I might add that lots of governments do a good job of providing health care for their citizens.
Do you have any idea what your taxes fund? When you get a job you will. When you buy gasoline what part of that is taxes and what do they fund? What exactly does your state and local community do and why does a bureaucrat in D.C. know better than a local bureaucrat on how to handle a local problem?
Do you understand that in 1790, the total US population was less than 4 million people? About half of US states have a larger population today than the entire US in 1790.
Do you realize that in 1965 we had a budget of about 250 billion dollars for a population of 175 million people and today Obama wants a 3.9 TRILLION budget for 312 million?
Well, one reason is that people want benefits and services, and don't want to pay for them. Both Democrats and Republicans are willing to borrow to meet those demands. Republicans don't even want to collect taxes for those services.
Why should tax dollars go to fund programs that the people don't want to pay for? Republicans don't want a massive central govt. neither did our forefathers.
Actually, it's both. Small businesses are responsible for about half of all US employees.
It is those 50% that are the ones hurting and the ones Obama and people like you are destroying
Uh, no, they're counted. BLS uses the Current Population Survey to determine unemployment. There's a separate statistic for people who are collecting unemployment benefits.
Wrong, small businesses and contract employees aren't counted