The administrations Stimulous Plan

I'll bite, au.

Didn't look at the link, as I don't give out my e-mail very often.

Where alot of these criticisms fail is they are general. I've looked at Bush's proposed budget at the WH site. What, specifically, can you point to in his budget that supports some of the general criticisms you state in the thread opener?

Lash -- giving your email address to the New York Times (so that you can read it daily and online) is a small price to pay for some excellent journalism. Here's a cut and paste to get this conversation going:

All a sensible plan must do is focus on the present, not the distant future; on those who are suffering, not on those doing well; and on those who are most likely to spend additional money.

Right now a sensible plan would rush help to the long-term unemployed, whose benefits -- in an act of incredible callousness -- were allowed to lapse last month. It would provide immediate, large-scale aid to beleaguered state governments, which have been burdened with expensive homeland security mandates even as their revenues have plunged. Given our long-run budget problems, any tax relief would be temporary, and go largely to low- and middle-income families.

Yesterday House Democrats released a plan right out of the textbook: aid to states and the jobless, rebates to everyone. But the centerpiece of the administration's proposal is, of all things, the permanent elimination of taxes on dividends.

So instead of a temporary measure, we get a permanent tax cut. The price tag of the overall plan is a whopping $600 billion, yet less than $100 billion will arrive in the first year. The Democratic plan, with an overall price tag of only $136 billion, actually provides more short-run stimulus.

And instead of helping the needy, the Bush plan is almost ludicrously tilted toward the very, very well off. If you have stocks in a 401(k), your dividends are already tax-sheltered; this proposal gives big breaks only to people who have lots of stock outside their retirement accounts. More than half the benefits would go to people making more than $200,000 per year, a quarter to people making more than $1 million per year. ("Class warfare!" shouted the claque.)

Even the administration's economists barely pretend that this proposal has anything to do with short-run stimulus. Instead they sell it as the answer to various other problems. (It slices! It dices! It purées!) Above all, it's supposed to end the evil of "double taxation."

Now lots of income faces double taxation, in the sense that the same dollar gets taxed more than once along the way. For example, most of us pay income and payroll taxes when we earn our salary, then pay sales taxes when we spend it. So why has it suddenly become urgent to ensure that dividends, in particular, never be taxed more than once?

That is, if they're taxed at all. In practice, the Bush plan would exempt a lot of income -- rich people's income -- from all taxes. Thanks to the efforts of lobbyists, today's corporate tax code has as many holes in it as a piece of Swiss cheese, and today's corporations take full advantage. Case in point: Between 1998 and 2001 CSX Corporation, the company run by the incoming Treasury secretary, John Snow, made $900 million in profits, but paid no net taxes; in fact, it received $164 million in rebates. This wasn't exceptional; the average tax rate on profits has fallen to a nearly 60-year low.

Anyway, even to debate the pros and cons of dividend taxation is to play the administration's game, which is to change the subject. Weren't we supposed to be talking about emergency economic stimulus?

My biggest concern may be that so many of the states, mine included, are going broke trying to cover all the bases that have been given them.

Lash Goth



What giving out e-mail has to do with looking up a link is beyond me. I will post the remainder of the article for you.
Boosting a stumbling economy ("It's Clinton's fault!" shouted the claque) isn't rocket science. All a sensible plan must do is focus on the present, not the distant future; on those who are suffering, not on those doing well; and on those who are most likely to spend additional money. Right now a sensible plan would rush help to the long-term unemployed, whose benefits — in an act of incredible callousness — were allowed to lapse last month. It would provide immediate, large-scale aid to beleaguered state governments, which have been burdened with expensive homeland security mandates even as their revenues have plunged. Given our long-run budget problems, any tax relief would be temporary, and go largely to low- and middle-income families.Yesterday House Democrats released a plan right out of the textbook: aid to states and the jobless, rebates to everyone. But the centerpiece of the administration's proposal is, of all things, the permanent elimination of taxes on dividends.So instead of a temporary measure, we get a permanent tax cut. The price tag of the overall plan is a whopping $600 billion, yet less than $100 billion will arrive in the first year. The Democratic plan, with an overall price tag of only $136 billion, actually provides more short-run stimulus. And instead of helping the needy, the Bush plan is almost ludicrously tilted toward the very, very well off. If you have stocks in a 401(k), your dividends are already tax-sheltered; this proposal gives big breaks only to people who have lots of stock outside their retirement accounts. More than half the benefits would go to people making more than $200,000 per year, a quarter to people making more than $1 million per year. ("Class warfare!" shouted the claque.) Even the administration's economists barely pretend that this proposal has anything to do with short-run stimulus. Instead they sell it as the answer to various other problems. (It slices! It dices! It purées!) Above all, it's supposed to end the evil of "double taxation."Now lots of income faces double taxation, in the sense that the same dollar gets taxed more than once along the way. For example, most of us pay income and payroll taxes when we earn our salary, then pay sales taxes when we spend it. So why has it suddenly become urgent to ensure that dividends, in particular, never be taxed more than once? That is, if they're taxed at all. In practice, the Bush plan would exempt a lot of income — rich people's income — from all taxes. Thanks to the efforts of lobbyists, today's corporate tax code has as many holes in it as a piece of Swiss cheese, and today's corporations take full advantage. Case in point: Between 1998 and 2001 CSX Corporation, the company run by the incoming Treasury secretary, John Snow, made $900 million in profits, but paid no net taxes — in fact, it received $164 million in rebates. This wasn't exceptional; the average tax rate on profits has fallen to a nearly 60-year low.Anyway, even to debate the pros and cons of dividend taxation is to play the administration's game, which is to change the subject. Weren't we supposed to be talking about emergency economic stimulus? No doubt the final version of the "stimulus" plan will contain a few genuine recession-fighting measures — a child credit here, an unemployment benefit there, a few crumbs for the states — for which the administration will expect immense gratitude. But the man in charge — that is, Karl Rove — is clearly betting that the economy will recover on its own, and intends to use the pretense of stimulus mainly as an opportunity to get more tax cuts for the rich.Ideology aside, will these guys ever decide that their job includes solving problems, not just using them?

Piffka said:

Lash -- giving your email address to the New York Times (so that you can read it daily and online) is a small price to pay for some excellent journalism. Here's a cut and paste to get this conversation going:

I reserve the right to decide what is a small price to pay. When I clicked on to the link, au, I was required to give my e-mail address to access your article. I chose not to do this.
I have the Times accessed on my Home Page, as well as Reuters, AP, the Wash and NY Posts, and others. I was hoping you would tell me your specific complaints, instead of printing an article. I could have navigated around the Times, looking for the article, but again, I prefer to speak to a person and their specific complaints, rather than address an entire article.

I read your excerpts, and am printing out the Bush and Dem budgets, to aid in factual responses.

Due to printer probs, I won't be printing anything today (and probably the next week.).
I thought I had joined in a very similar discussion, and see now this is a redundant thread.
Might want to review and join in the other one, as it is going pretty well.
That's where I will be posting on this subject.

In a way the critisim of the Administration plan is a bit funny. When Bush pushed through rebates last time the Demomcrats all laughed about how they meant nmothing and wouldn't be enough to do anything. Now the Democrats in Congress propose rebates as their cure. ????

Both plans address unemployement and both address the Federal mandates to the states on Homeland securrity at the exact same dollar amount ($10 Billion). Those two issues, contrary to Freidman's assertions are a wash between the plans.

The Democrats plan does provide more short term money to the states but I don't know that I'd call that "stimulus". "Relief" is a better term IMO. Their plan isn't going to get the economy back on track or get business investing again so what happens next year? Do they expect to come up with another relief plan then? Hard to say...

The Bush plans DOES include a faster elimination of the marriage penalty and added credits for child care which would help working families and single parents right now. It would reduce the amount withheld from their paychecks every week. His plan also calls for additional tax credats/deductions for businesses that make capital equipment purchases which, if it take hold, coud get businesses buying again and halt the layoffs around the country and possibly spur some hiring of those who were alreday laid off. It is usually better to maintain existing jobs than provide unemployemnt benifits..

I understand Bush's idea on the dividend issue (he thinks it will encourage people to invest which would give businesses more cash to make those capital purchaes with..) but I think it's just a bad idea right now. I would rather see an elimination of interst/dividend income on personal tax returns.

Bush proposes elimination of the marriage penalty.

What result?

More couples will marry?

I believe it was Lieberman and the Democrats who pushed on the immediate rebates last time, fishin'.

I agree on the method to stoke up the stock market which is now at a realistic value and should rise naturally on it's own. What money the middle and lower class taxpaper will put into the market is really erroneous thinking -- they aren't about to put any more money into the market right now unless it is in a tax free account.
This is truly a burnt offering.

Tying the unemployment extension also shows a lack of compassion as it's quite obvious this bill is going to be tied up in both houses for months.

Lash,

I use an email account soley for the purpose of signing up for things and the NYT is probably the best online paper that's free.

But I'm with you on not wanting to use your email. If I remembered my log in to the times I'd post it so you can use it but as it stands I'll have to sign up again.

Craven--
Thanks. You're very kind and helpful.

I already have the Times and several very good newspapers tied into my Home page. I get the top five headlines of about seven top papers every morning.

I was just too lazy to go to my Home Page and sift through the Times, looking for the article mentioned here.

I would have gone into the link had they not asked for my e-mail. I hate it when I get a new, blistering attack of pop-ups and an overload of unwanted e-mail.

But, your gesture is so appreciated.

Are you stimulated with The corporate dancer pary's achievement?
Which dancer you had decided to stimulate further ?

After all these nonsensical barbaric torture episold and highly projected billion dollar election let us hope the holy CHRISTIAN POWER whic IS THE ONLY ONE AFTER !!TH SEPTEMBER come down to uphold a jew whose name is Jesus

BugMeNot (http://www.bugmenot.com/) is a great resource for these types of passwords.

D D
are you trying to stimulate the poor citizens?