It’s Fix the Tax Code Friday!
As the economy continues to sour, Congress and the White House both agree that some measure of economic stimulus is needed. The problem? They can’t agree on what would work best.
So, I’m taking it to you, the taxpayers…
Which of the following scenarios currently being contemplated by Congress would most help the US out of its current economic mess?
1, Temporarily suspending capital gains on sales of securities
2, A second round of tax rebate checks
3, Extending jobless benefits
4, Expanding capital gains exemptions for homeowners to include multiple residences
5, Additional funds for food stamps
6, Allowing offshore drilling
7, Cutting taxes for US corporations with foreign subsidiaries
Or do you vote “none of the above”?
Sound off!
Gosh…I must be getting very liberal…but I vote Extending jobless benefits
Not sure how any of those will stimulate the economy. None of these options, unless people actually decide to spend a 2nd stimulus check (most people I know saved or payed down debt with rebate check #1), will actually stimulate the economy… will they?
I would extend jobless benefits, revamp the food stamp earning range and increse food stamp funding, 2nd stimulus checks to those that made under 50,000.
None of the above. How can the government help the economy in any manner when they can’t pay their own bills without borrowing from China themselves? As far as I’m concerned, the government is the root of our problems. Hey, I have an idea. Since both political parties claim we need change in America, let’s clean the house and senate and give the Libertarians a shot.
Nothing will stimulate the economy as long as there as there is a danger that Obama will be president.
The odds of a recession have grown this year. Still, Fed officials and many other economists remain hopeful the country will weather the financial storm without falling into recession.
Do you remember the Great Depression from learning American History? In 1932, the Great Depression was sending the world economy into a deep recession, and in the United States, a popular candidate was running for President on the platform that he and government were going to come in and fix things with his “New Deal.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt made good on those promises, and expanded governments’ role in the economy on an unprecedented scale. It worked, in the short term, but long term effects were far reaching and damaging. Paul Rubin outlines in this Wall Street Journal article that whilst the economy has not reached the state of 1932, many parallels exist. The stock market is hovering near the bottom, credit is virtually nonexistent, and a popular Democratic challenger is running on a platform of government spearheaded change in the economic system. Barack Obama, if he wins the presidency will also have a 60 seat Democratic majority in the Senate, which would be safe from filibuster and put the US closer than it ever has been to a purely liberal government. Free market economists are deeply concerned with his policy of “hands on” involvement, as they believe it would not correct the economy’s problems in the long term. They would probably not tell you that we’re as bad off as we were in 1932, but they would probably say that we’re about to get the same thing – a “New, New Deal.”
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
I would have to agree with Clayton. A lot of the nervousness stems from the expectation that Obama will be elected. People who invest in securities are afraid that once Obama is in office with a democrat congress in firm control, anyone who invests will see their assets seized in order to punish the rich (i.e., anyone with a job).
But I do like what Keith said. Let’s throw them all out and put the libertarians in. With congress having a 15% approval rating, they all need to go. Problem is that no one is will to vote out their own congressman.
As I am currently in need of many Social Services benefits for my family it would make sense for me to say that they need to be expanded but…seeing so many abuse the system by simply not looking to get out of the situation they are in or having multiple children to raise benefits, ( this is a really big problem in small town America) I can’t say any of the proposed options are a good idea. If we expand benefits for Food Stamps or Unemployment we seriously run the risk of people choosing to stay on them rather than find a job and pay taxes. I am not a lover of taxes but our country is drowning in self created debt and if we just keep sucking up the benefits they will eventually run out. I think they need to be reworked, to be honest I would rather see a reasonable time limit placed on them rather than raising the benefit amounts. The people who use these services need to be held accountable. My self included.
I can not see how any of the other options would help either.
Possibly another stimulus check to people who need it, say … no one who makes over 50-60,000 yr.
BTW I never expected to be so interested in what a “tax person” had to say, however I find your blog very informative and look forward to checking it out everyday!
I have to agree with William, let the corporations who made this mess lining their pockets deal with it. Help the small guy making under 50k, they are the ones suffering the most.
Nothing is going to help until we get a democrat in office, Bush had his chance and look what happened.
The U.S. government has strayed away from being public service to self service. Republican and dems alike. The constitution has been shredded, and the whole “of the people for the people” has become what’s in it for me? Any president trying to fix this mess will be voted out of office after the first term and the next one will “change” everything and we will spin our wheels for a while. Where is the fair taxation in corporate America? Even Warren Buffet said that his secretary pays more in taxes than he does. This massive eight year transfer of wealth has got to stop. RESPONSIBILITY of the self, the family, AND the government, is the only way out.
I believe persons making 50.000 dollars & below should recieve a second check & people in need of food stamps & unemployment need the most help.
Kelly-
We must send a message to Congress – NO MORE REBATES!!!
They cost the government much, much more than any small potential benefit they may provide, take too much time away from the real jobs of the IRS, create mass confusion among taxpayers, cause millions of errors on tax returns, and are just an overall mucking fess.
None of the other suggestions strike me as being the way to go. So I choose “none of the above”.
TWTP
Just keep the government out of it, history tells us that they can, and will do little more thn make the situation far worse.
We need to switch to a green energy and economic base. This will create jobs and we won’t need to borrow from China to buy oil from the Middle East. And the Middle East won’t be able to use money we pay for oil to make donations to our enemies.
Agree none of the above. We’re (US Govt.) way overextended at this time to reduce tax base. Too much debt owed to foreign countries that don’t care for us,look out!… Drilling won’t reduce the cost of fuel, after election will soar again. In case you havn’t noticed the last 2 decades,companies seek highest costs consumers will bear, not the lowest price point to ace out the compitition. And so it seems to be………Greed.
,
I would like to have a second round of stimulus pass through.
TO HELP THE ECONOMY WOULD BE, TO GIVE PEOPLE WHO MADE UNDER 50,000 A SECOND STIMULUS CHECK.STOP MAKING IT SO EASY FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WORK TO RECEIVE BENEFITS AND SIT HOME,TO COLLECT WITHOUT EVER MAKING AN EFFORT TO WORK.STOP PUTTING DOWN THE PEOPLE WHO DO WORK AND ASK FOR BENEFITS. THE WORKING CLASS NEED A LITTLE HELP ALSO.
INDEED.. Never got the first one ,so why do I think I’ll get the second one. I have a disabled husband and are barely able to amke our payments. The Government doesn’t care, as long as their wallets are FAT !
none of the above. The way to stimulate the economy is to reduce government spending and taxes across the board while also assuring free and fair international trade. The government should also take the opportunity to enforce standards in order to reduce transaction costs where feasible (for example, eliminate credit card transaction fees and require insurance companies to clear payments in 24 hours, much as we do with banks).
I think second round of stimulus would help people to pay some of mortgage payment past due to avoid forclosures of their homes & some necessary past due bills but,$600.00 is not gonna help anyone. Extending the jobless benefits & food stamp is not necessary because than a lot people would rely on it & choose not to get a job or work anymore & it would make the economy even worse.
I really don’t see an answer in any of the options above. Yet if the new administration (whom ever it may be) does choose to offer the average working man assistance that would be a great start. The average worker nowadays is living from paycheck to paycheck. Its just the cold truth that we can not stimulate the economy
if we can barely afford to eat. I think the government officials need to be reminded they work for us not the other way around.
None of these ideas really work.. our Government is a reflection (unfortunately) of ourselves. We need to end continual reelections..bought by foolish give aways..and increased debt. Congress should go..and any new Congress should be term limited (even though an imperfect solution)… then, we might get honest governmental management. Our tax code is divisive in it’s very core….we need a “fair tax” that would do away with the IRS.. a consumption tax..then all Americans would pay taxes..but only to the extent of their participation in the spending. We’d all be pulling together..and these miscreants that run Congress wouldn’t be able to “pit one group against another”!
There are plenty of people who work and are on food stamps. But, there are also disabled people like myself who rely on the program to survive. That’s right survive. No matter how much I try to stretch them out, I never make it to the end of the month. I have two children to feed as well, all on $693 a month SSD. Food stamps are my only source to buy food, and I get sick of being told to cut back.
Where should I cut back?
On my utility bill so I get shut off?
My medications so I get even more ill?
My physical therapy so I end up bedridden all over again?
on and on…..
My girls medications? (their state insurance is a joke)
There is nothing left when the bills are paid. Before people question if I smoke or drink…no.
If I could work I absolutely would. I worked 50 hours a week before becoming disabled and I lost everything I owned. Voc Rehab said I was not qualified to participate in their program because they determined my health would not be conducive to have an employer hire me. Are they kidding? I have brain and I consider myself to be intelligent.
The government says to save money. What shall I save? The 20 or so cents I have left in my checkbook each month?
Bring on the increase because I am sick of going through the last week of the month with hardly any food and into the next month until they come in again.
None of the above. Those are handouts from my left pocket into my right pocket. I have another idea. It strikes me as very odd that in these times when companies are laying off, forcing retirements and so forth to adjust to economic realities (thus affecting the output of the working class) that the government is not doing the same? I’m not seeing it in the newspapers. If the government reduced it’s ranks to save, say $300 billion, wouldn’t that help instead? It wouldn’t immediately help the taxpayer to pay their medical bills but then we wouldn’t have to pay in so much into the coffer on a month to month basis either. Same effect but everyone (that pays in) benefits in someway. Why does the government get to vote for more money (as in printing more) to keep running when in fact they should look at thinning out? And I’m not talking about the Federal employees that deliver the mail or run the local offices to serve our needs; I’m talking about those in the administrative positions and those jobs that are there to manage the complexity of our governmental system. It goes like this: Sales are down (tax payments from us – if we lose our job then we make less ergo less tax revenue) so as a company (the government) it reduces headcount (the spenders of the revenues coming in) because some of the assets (government commitments, national programs, security needs, global involvment, etc) are somewhat fixed, but the variable costs (vehicles, travel expenses, high wages, etc) can be reduced. Then as the thinning out occurs, the company employees begin to think about how things can get done cheaper, and more efficiently, or even dropping “the wants” in favor of “the needs” relative to getting the job done. Just a thought.
A second stimulus check for individuals earning under $40,000 (married: under $80,000) sounds good, increase income limits for receiving food stamps and extend unemployment benefits. And, maybe, throw in allowing offshore drilling if it’s more than 50 miles offshore. Suspending capital gains tax won’t accomplish much as there aren’t much cap gains being made now. And cutting taxes on corporations is just rewarding those who helped create the mess in the first place.
Enough with the “Obama will tax us into the poorhouse” nonsense. That is exactly what the righties said when Clinton won, and what happened? Very little change in tax rates, the biggest boom in our lifetime, and — just to give one data point — my income tripled while he was in office.
Oh — and I forgot to mention the budget surplus.
Ya, my favorite combination is Democrat in White House with GOP Congress, and we’re obviously not going to get that — but bag the “Obama will tax us to death” canard. He may increase capital-gains rates, and marginal income tax for you $250K+ guys, but I’m not worried about paying more myself.
Urb (who has not, by the way, voted for a Democrat since Clinton)
DON’T FALL FOR THE SWEET TALK!!!
TEN COMPELLING REASONS TO VOTE MCCAIN
1. CHECK ON LIBERAL CONGRESS. The only way the liberal Congress will be checked at all is if McCain gets elected. Otherwise Pelosi, Dodd, and Frank(the very same people who contributed greatly to the current crisis through resisting reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and pushing “affordable housing” to those who weren’t credit worthy) will have unchecked freedom to cause further economic havoc and impose irresponsible, unaffordable spending programs on this country(we’ve had a Democratic Congress for the last two years and frankly they’ve done a terrible job—-the last thing we need to do is to give them unchecked power)
2. OBAMA TAX POLICIES WILL TURN CRISIS INTO CATASTROPHE Obama, despite his promises, will turn a crisis into a catastrophe if his economic policies are implemented. This will not help the average “Joe”. Raising taxes in a weak economy is the worst possible economic policy one can do. In 1932, for example,(in an effort eerily similar to the rationale Obama is using) Congress raised taxes on the wealthy and the result was an 8 point jump in unemployment. Moreover, taking money from the pool of funds job creators have means less money to pay wages, less money to pay health care and other benefits, and less jobs. What good is a $500.00 government check if the tax punishment meted out by Obama on your boss forces your boss to cut salaries, health care benefits, raise prices on consumers or, in the worst case scenario, close the business?
3. REAL OBAMA VIEWS MIDDLE CLASS AS “BITTER CLINGERS” AND OBAMA’S JOE THE PLUMBER ENCOUNTER SHOWS HIS DISDAIN FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS We’ve seen evidence of what Obama really thinks about the average “Joe” and it isn’t encouraging or pretty. Remember Obama’s remarks that Pennsylvanians were “bitter clingers to guns and religion”. These remarks were made when Obama wasn’t expecting them to be recopied(they thus represent the real Obama). And why should we be surprised at this elitist worldview given the fact Obama is a Ivy League lawyer who spent 20 years in the hate filled church of Jeremiah Wright? Further, look at Obama’s appalling treatment of “Joe” the Plumber. “Joe” is an average guy who wants to buy a business but his dreams can not happen under the Obama tax plan because Obama takes away any incentive to gross more than $250,000.00 in income. And both Obama and Biden essentially mocked “Joe the Plumber” once they learned he was probably a McCain supporter. They and the media made sure(within a days time) that this average “Joe” would have numerous embarrassing details about his life exposed worldwide in an effort to discredit him. And why, all because(when Obama came to his house—he didn’t seek out Obama—Obama sought him out) he dared to ask a reasonable straightforward question that any private citizen should be able to ask their President? Vote for other Democrats if you like(except Murtha who in my view shares the same elitist worldview as demonstrated by his comments Pennsylvanians are “racists” and “rednecks”) but we don’t need more elitists like Obama in leadership positions.
4. DEMOCRATIC PARTY LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CURRENT CRISIS. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Barney Frank, and ACORN have pushed for the “affordable housing” policies that have encouraged or pressured banks into making loans to poor minorities and whites who weren’t credit worthy. These bad loans are at the root of the current crisis(not “deregulation” as Obama demogogically claims—there was little to no financial “deregulation” under Bush—in fact even more financial regulation in the form of Sarbanes Oxley—and Gramm Leach Bliley was under Clinton and may have helped the current crisis by making mergers between commercial and investment banks easier). Obama and Dodd were the top two recipients of Fannie Mae campaign contributions. Obama also picked Jim Johnson(former Fannie Mae executive) to lead his vice presidential team. According to the Washington Post, one of Obama’s economic advisers is Franklin Raines(another Fannie Mae executive who in Raines’ case raked in 90 million dollars from Fannie Mae). Obama represented ACORN, trained ACORN workers, he and Ayers gave $200,000 to ACORN, Obama’s campaign gave $800,000.00 to ACORN, the Democrats included a grant for ACORN in the original bailout bill and ACORN intimidated many banks into giving bad loans to minorities with discrimination lawsuits. John McCain, in contrast, called for reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, and Dodd, resisted those reforms. Bush called for numerous reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Democrats also opposed these reforms. So why in the world, given the fact the Democrats largely caused this crisis, would we want to put Obama, Dodd, Reid, Pelosi, and Frank in total unchecked command of the country?
5. HEALTH CARE PLAN DISASTROUS On health care, Obama’s plan is unaffordable and will lead to a total collapse of the system ultimately. Obama wants a single payer system(he doesn’t say that now outwardly but that’s what he wants—-in 2003 in a speech before the AFL-CIO he said he favored a single payer system—-further his plan will ultimately lead to single payer because private insurers will be crowded out of the market—-they will be subject to costly new mandates and won’t be able to compete with Obama’s government subsidized plan) And single payer is an abject disaster and the the worst possible choice for health care. Why? For one thing, if you have single payer, you never get rid of it and you have no other option if you don’t like the way the single payer treats you. Further, in single payer countries like Canada, you have enormous wait lines(many Canadians flock to the US for care because of these wait lines), health care gets rationed(the government covers less because they have to in order to cut costs), and quality doctors leave the system(because they are paid low wages under single payer systems or less than they could make elsewhere). So Obama’s health care plan will not only not help the average “Joe”, his single payer dream will only lead to further hardship for the average “Joe” and a collapse of the system.
6. OBAMA ENERGY PLAN LEADS TO GREATER, NOT LESS DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL On energy, Obama’s energy policies will do next to nothing to help this country achieve “energy indepedence”. The last time a “windfall profits tax” was imposed(under Carter) our dependence on foreign oil grew and this happened because the windfall profits tax kills innovation on the part of oil companies(why should they drill more if they can’t make any profits from more drilling because Obama will take the money away) Moreover, Obama and the Democrats have historically railed against more drilling(Obama even scoffed we could save more energy by inflating our tires than we could gain from drilling for more oil) and nuclear power(two energy sources which are critical to helping us lessen dependence on foreign oil) so McCain and Palin are much more reliable in terms of drilling for more oil and building more nuclear power plants. Biden also said he and Obama wouldn’t build any “clean coal” plants. You should also note Obama wants to keep gas prices high(in fact he said he wasn’t upset about the fact gas prices rose, only that they rose too fast). Keeping gas prices high certainly doesn’t help the average “Joe”. And Obama also favors keeping gas taxes high while McCain has favored suspending the gas tax in the summer. The gas tax clearly hurts the average “Joe” because everyone has to buy gas(regardless of income level) yet it is McCain, not Obama, who is willing to give the average “Joe” the tax relief.
7. OBAMA FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE There is also no reason to believe Obama will be more fiscally responsible than McCain. McCain has proposed a spending freeze while Obama propses a trillion dollars in new spending. The resulting debt burden created by these spending programs will place an incredible burden and yoke on future generations. McCain is much more likely to keep spending in check.
8. MCCAIN MORE EXPERIENCED. OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY DISASTROUS In terms of foreign affairs, McCain has 26 years experience, Obama has 2. And Biden’s experience shows he has made the wrong judgment numerous times so he can’t be counted on to offer much help to Obama(after 9/11 Biden proposed giving $200 million to Iran—-a ridiculous idea, Biden also proposed partitioning Iraq—an idea Iraqis almost unanimously rejected, Biden and Obama opposed the surge while McCain’s judgment was vindicated on the surge). In terms of an unsteady hand, Obama has certainly shown an unsteady hand with his foreign policy gaffes already(e.g. wrong on the surge, 3 different answers on the Georgia situation, talking with dictators “without preconditions”, invading Pakistan). And, more recently, Biden said Obama would experience an international crisis if elected because he’s so inexperienced and that “America hang with us because our response won’t seem to be the right one”. There’s no evidence therefore Obama is capable of handling foreign policy crises better than McCain.
9. PALIN MOST EXPERIENCED ON ENERGY ISSUES, PALIN AT LEAST AS EXPERIENCED AS OBAMA In terms of Palin, Palin has at least as much experience than Obama. And on the critical energy issues, it is Palin who arguably has the most experience and knowledge of ALL the candidates on energy issues(because Palin was an oil and gas regulator, her husband has worked in the oil business, Palin negotiated the natural gas pipeline deal in Alaska, and Palin has lectured and given speeches on energy issues). Palin also hasn’t been given a fair shake by the media so if you’re relying on CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or the New York Times for your information on Palin, you are not, in my view, getting a fair picture of her. You should know that in the ABC interview Palin had, portions of it were edited out and were not shown to the public(these edited out portions would have made her answers appear more complete).
10. OBAMA’S ALLIANCES RAISE CRITICAL DOUBTS ABOUT HIS JUDGMENT AND SHOW HE LIKELY HAS RADICAL POLITICAL LEANINGS. And I haven’t even discussed Obama’s numerous alliances with radicals, party hacks or corrupt individuals such as
a) Reverend Wright
b) Bill Ayers/ACORN
c) Tony Rezko
d) Rashid Khalidi
e) Khalid al Monsour
f) Stroger
g) Richard Daley
h) Father Pfleger
Ten compelling reasons to vote McCain over Obama.
I vote – A second round of tax rebate checks
MARSHA,I WASN’T TALKING ABOUT THE DISABLED.I’M TALKING ABOUT YOUNG PEOPLE THAT SIT AROUND HAVING CHILDREN THAT RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS AND TANF,THAT DON’T BOTHER GETTIN A JOB.WHY?THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT THEY HAVE,SO WHY BOTHER WITH A JOB.WHILE,THE WORKING YOUNG PEOPLE GET ALOT OF GRIEF TRYING TO GET FOOD STAMPS,TO FEED THEIR KIDS.THEY DON’T WANT TO HELP THE ONES WHO HELP THEMSELVES.
A SECOND TAX REBATE CHECK WOULD HELP SOMEWHAT,BUT NOT FIX PROBLEM
I SO SO AGREE WITH CHOOK!!!!!!!
To fix our(USA) economic problem we should strike at the root of the problem first. Penalize all of the corporations that got fat(profits) off the housing and oil markets and we would be able to actually pay off our national debt. Bush asked the taxpayers to foot the bill, but why can’t we go dutch and have him contribute to the mess he helped make. BRING our TROOPS home already.
I am all in favor of a second stimulus check. I could really use the money for extra food and get current on some bills.