even on his way out, blago in front of his house, still talking about how he's for the 'little guy' and even took a shot at GW Bush. Truly an archetype Democrat. I salute you, Rod Blagojevich.

Edited January 30, 200917 yr by mr_genius

i heard something about lowering the 10% tax bracket to 5% and the 15% to 10%. that could push the bill into bipartisan landslide territory.

 

 

as far as cloture, i still think it would be a mistake to drag this out to a neccesary 60 vote. give the dems this bill if they want it IMO.

 

That's a joke because no one in those two tax brackets actually pays any taxes. They get it all back with the deductions and the credits that fall into those brackets.

That's a joke because no one in those two tax brackets actually pays any taxes. They get it all back with the deductions and the credits that fall into those brackets.

 

hmm, i just looked at the tax bracket breakdown and thats probably true for most cases. i suppose it might help someone at the high end of the 15%

 

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Edited January 30, 200917 yr by mr_genius

Ive seen people $5,000 total (state-fed etc) in taxes on $30,000 income.

 

If you are single with no dependents and are an independent contractor who has almost $0 expenses, you are not going to get many deductions or rebates.

 

No one thinks about the single earners who have basically no write offs or deductions.

 

Granted this is a small part of the population, but you cant just say no one does.

 

But the maximum savings for the person could only be what $250?

 

Oh and the tax system is graduated, so all of us would actually benefit.

 

Basically saying that everyone who makes over 15% would be getting a $250 rebate.

Ive seen people $5,000 total (state-fed etc) in taxes on $30,000 income.

 

If you are single with no dependents and are an independent contractor who has almost $0 expenses, you are not going to get many deductions or rebates.

No one thinks about the single earners who have basically no write offs or deductions.

 

Granted this is a small part of the population, but you cant just say no one does.

 

But the maximum savings for the person could only be what $250?

 

Oh and the tax system is graduated, so all of us would actually benefit.

 

Basically saying that everyone who makes over 15% would be getting a $250 rebate.

Then you're a stupid independant contractor.

 

Im not an accountant, Ive just seen the statements.

 

 

Im not an accountant, Ive just seen the statements.

 

That's a fair answer.

 

Then you're a stupid independant contractor.

Hey man, some independent contractors don't need an office or many supplies. Prostitutes, for example.

 

As Banyan would say...this is gold Jerry....gold!!

 

Pelosi tries to explain how $330 million dollars allocated for STD prevention will stimulate the economy. I'm all for preventing STD's but come on.

 

As Banyan would say...this is gold Jerry....gold!!

 

Pelosi tries to explain how $330 million dollars allocated for STD prevention will stimulate the economy. I'm all for preventing STD's but come on.

 

Yea, she wants "stimulus" all right. Dumb b****. I seriously hate her just about as bad as anyone in Washington. And before someone says I'm being sexist, Harry Reid is a dumb b**** too. Seriously, the Dems can't do any better for leaders of their parties? Obama's ok, I disagree with him, but at least he's intelligent.

 

Yea, she wants "stimulus" all right. Dumb b****. I seriously hate her just about as bad as anyone in Washington. And before someone says I'm being sexist, Harry Reid is a dumb b**** too. Seriously, the Dems can't do any better for leaders of their parties? Obama's ok, I disagree with him, but at least he's intelligent.

I said that at the time they were chosen. The Dems shot themselves in both feet when they chose those two to run things in Congress, particularly Reid. There were better choices available. Heck, most of the caucus in both chambers would have been better choices. Reid is as scuzzy and dishonest as can be.

 

I don't think Pelosi is stupid, but she is hyperpartisan. She can't say or do anything without pointing fingers at or attempting to call out some Republican, somewhere.

I don't think Pelosi is stupid, but she is hyperpartisan. She can't say or do anything without pointing fingers at or attempting to call out some Republican, somewhere.

I don't think I said she was stupid (if I did, I misspoke), I said the CHOICE of her for that role was stupid.

 

I don't think I said she was stupid (if I did, I misspoke), I said the CHOICE of her for that role was stupid.

Oh I know. I was just throwing my personal opinion out there as to my main reason for thinking she's ineffective.

As Banyan would say...this is gold Jerry....gold!!

 

Pelosi tries to explain how $330 million dollars allocated for STD prevention will stimulate the economy. I'm all for preventing STD's but come on.

 

The government spends roughly what, $12 billion per year on health care fighting AIDS? That is money that could be easily employed elsewhere. There were some 56,000 or so new cases of AIDS reported in the country last year.. Current estimates say that new infections, not pre-existing ones, cost the country on an annual basis on the order of $50 billion dollars per year, in particular in lost productivity, which makes up about 75% of that total. Disease prevention = enhanced business productivity.

 

Plus, it produces a much better gain than having the government pay people to dig holes and then fill them in again.

 

 

The government spends roughly what, $12 billion per year on health care fighting AIDS? That is money that could be easily employed elsewhere. There were some 56,000 or so new cases of AIDS reported in the country last year.. Current estimates say that new infections, not pre-existing ones, cost the country on an annual basis on the order of $50 billion dollars per year, in particular in lost productivity, which makes up about 75% of that total. Disease prevention = enhanced business productivity.

 

Plus, it produces a much better gain than having the government pay people to dig holes and then fill them in again.

I agree with some of your points, but, you could stretch almost any spending into something that could pay off in some way later. That doesn't make it a true economic stimulus.

 

What you are actually encouraging, and which I at least partially agree with, is making changes to health care to make us more efficient.

 

I agree with some of your points, but, you could stretch almost any spending into something that could pay off in some way later. That doesn't make it a true economic stimulus.

 

If you believe Keynes...what makes it a true economic stimulus is that the government is going in to debt to pay for it. In a deflationary, recessionary environment, that's the key. That's where the Keynes quote that in this specific environment, the government should pay people to dig holes one day and fill them up the next day makes sense. Even very inefficient stimulii, like say, corporate tax cuts still provide a stimulus effect if they're employed through government spending in that specific environment. The question is then how effective each variety of stimulus is per dollar spent. That's a different question. Things that provide employment and increase efficiency in other ways can be particularly effective if they drive multiplication of the dollars spent through either people respending the money or other efficiencies that are created, which is the whole concept I was hitting on in the dem thread.

If you believe Keynes...what makes it a true economic stimulus is that the government is going in to debt to pay for it. In a deflationary, recessionary environment, that's the key. That's where the Keynes quote that in this specific environment, the government should pay people to dig holes one day and fill them up the next day makes sense. Even very inefficient stimulii, like say, corporate tax cuts still provide a stimulus effect if they're employed through government spending in that specific environment. The question is then how effective each variety of stimulus is per dollar spent. That's a different question. Things that provide employment and increase efficiency in other ways can be particularly effective if they drive multiplication of the dollars spent through either people respending the money or other efficiencies that are created, which is the whole concept I was hitting on in the dem thread.

 

 

Well, there's an awful lot of economists who don't...

Well, there's an awful lot of economists who don't...

"There are no atheists in foxholes and there are no libertarians in financial crises."

 

-Last year's Nobel Prize winning economist.

Wow. the RNC has NO idea who the want to chair the RNC.

It's a neck and neck race between Michael Steele (a black man) and Katon Dawson (traces his political coming of age to the civil rights movement -- that is, opposition to 1960's busing policies).

Steele would be a good choice IMO.

Steele would be a good choice IMO.

Blackwell just dropped out and endorsed Steele. Saul still has 31 votes and Leslie Sanchez seems to think Dawson has the inside edge if/when Saul drops out.

R5: Steele 79, Dawson 69, Saul Anuzis 20

 

Saul Anuzis bows out... no endorsement.

Edited January 30, 200917 yr by Athomeboy_2000

I hope Steele wins. Best person for the job IMO

I hope Steele wins. Best person for the job IMO

Steele just won 91-77.

Edited January 30, 200917 yr by Athomeboy_2000