Just say No to stimulus package?!!!
Find a Conversation
Just say No to stimulus package?!!!
| Tue, 01-27-2009 - 1:44pm |
I see that Republican leaders in the House have urged their members to say No to the Obama economic stimulus package. But, this is no big surprise. The Republican idea of helping the economy is always to give a big tax break to the rich people. The so-called trickle down effect. But Republican economics have put us in the mess we are in right now. It is time to try something different. I urge everyone to contact their representatives and senators to pass the stimulus package. Average Americans are losing their homes, their jobs, and any hope for the future. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
Our country is headed for the second Great Depression in US history. Coincidentally, the Republicans brought on the first Depression back then. Many people suffered a long while before FDR’s programs slowly began to kick start the economy once again.
Tax cuts for the rich will not stimulate our economy. Even tax cuts for average Americans will not help us, if we do not have a job to put food on the table.
Our country is headed for the second Great Depression in US history. Coincidentally, the Republicans brought on the first Depression back then. Many people suffered a long while before FDR’s programs slowly began to kick start the economy once again.
Tax cuts for the rich will not stimulate our economy. Even tax cuts for average Americans will not help us, if we do not have a job to put food on the table.

Pages
I don't know about that fryingpan.
Thanks for posting that.
"![]()
Here's what Larry Lindsey, the Bush economic czar had to say about the surplus - not projected surplus - not Social Security - just surplus in 2001.
AUGUST 27, 2001
AMERICA'S FUTURE -- THE NEW ECONOMY
Q&A: Lawrence Lindsey on the Future
"Everyone's now gone from saying the money is endless to saying the money is ended....The fact is, the U.S. has an extremely healthy fiscal position."
"![]()
(((Do you mind if I ask what state you live in? I'm just curious to know where it is that it's apparently so easy to get a job with a police department.)))
Where did I state that it was so easy to get a job as a police officer?
http://www.forbes.com/2001/08/23/0823topnews.html
In Search Of Surplus
Dan Ackman, 08.23.01, 7:39 AM ET
NEW YORK - The federal budget surplus is like Elvis. It has left the building--not completely, but almost.
The White House yesterday announced that the surplus for fiscal year 2001 would be $158 billion, but $157 billion was from excess Social Security tax receipts. The surplus now looks to be $123 billion less than the $281 billion the Bush Administration projected as recently as four months ago.
William Daniels, the White House budget director, said, "The government's finances are in extraordinarily strong shape." This may be true, but not in comparison to last year or six months ago.
For the next few years, the surpluses apart from Social Security are now projected to be gone also: The administration estimated a $1 billion non-Social Security surplus in 2002, $2 billion in 2003 and $6 billion in 2004. These surpluses, if they materialize, would still be less than one-half of one percent of the $2 trillion federal budget.
While Social Security revenues still promise to provide a substantial excess of government receipts over expenditures, both parties have agreed over the last several years that the Social Security surplus should be off limits for tax cuts or general spending. These funds have already been earmarked, at least politically, for paying down the $5.78 trillion national debt.
As it stands, the so-called Social Security Trust fund is the only pot from which new spending can come, unless the government raises taxes.
Daniels called the $158 billion figure the second largest surplus in the nation's history. But it is also dramatically less than the surplus the administration projected in April, when it said the non-Social Security surplus would be $125 billion for fiscal 2001. The fiscal year ends on September 30, so at the time of that projection, the year was already half over.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee blamed the administrations tax cut for wreaking havoc with the nation's finances. "I think President Bush's campaign promises are unraveling," Conrad said. The president promised his tax cut was affordable while at the same time providing for increases in defense and education, Conrad added. "He was wrong."
Conrad also noted that the administration projected no substantial surplus for 2002 despite the fact that administration estimates 3.2% growth in 2002. The consensus estimate of other economists is 2.8% growth for next year.
How could the projections have gotten out of whack so fast?
The administration blamed the $123 billion error in projection mostly on reduced revenues caused by the economic slowdown ($46 billion) and the recent tax rebate ($40 billion). A corporate tax-timing shift accounted for another $28 billion. The remaining $9 billion was from new defense and farm spending.
But the real question is the future. Until midway through the Clinton Administration, federal budget deficits were taken for granted. But now politicians of both parties want to preserve the surpluses, which are now in doubt.
Can those surpluses be preserved?
Government spending has already been squeezed to 18.7% of gross domestic product, its lowest level in relative terms since 1966, according to Office of Management and Budget data. In 1992, by comparison, spending was at 22.2% of GDP. During the same period, federal tax receipts climbed to 20.1% of GDP from 17.5%.
The Bush Administration has proposed a 5.8% increase in spending for 2002, mostly from increases in defense spending, according to the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities (CBPP), a non-profit group in Washington DC. It would be difficult to preserve this level of spending and maintain a surplus without new revenues, which President Bush is against, having just passed a tax cut plan that plays out over ten years.
The CBPP says the administration's current projection excludes a variety of costs and revenue reductions that are virtually certain to be incurred over the next decade. These items include the loss of tax receipts from the likely extension of tax credits. It also says the cost of a prescription drug benefit for seniors and the administration's plans for a missile-defense system have not been factored in.
The Administration projects that the surplus apart from the Social Security trust fund will amount to $575 billion between 2002 and 2011. Most of this total is from the surplus in the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund, according to Administration estimates. But some of these surpluses may not materialize. Economic projections may be wrong or the new tax laws could have an unanticipated effect. If a four-month-ago projection can be so wrong, how accurate will a ten-year projection be?
The uncertainty ensures budget and tax fights for years to come.
Also,
(((LOL---You think economic decisions
<<Again, please show me where I said or implied that being hired as a police officer is easy.
Guild Member since 2009
Pages