and HRC's package?
get over your fucking self.
It doesn't fuck people at the bottom of the economic ladder; it just unfucks people in the upper middle more. There IS a difference. Since it's a rebate of income tax, in theory (in fact it's no such thing), it, in theory, should go to the people who PAY income tax. Poor people don't pay income tax.
The notion that people will somehow "sock it away" is also suspect, seeing as how they don't sock anything away now. Americans consume more than they produce. Our net savings rate hovers around zero, sometimes below. That's part of the reason the economy's in the pickle it's in in the first place.
And whatEVER gave you the notion that anyone in America gives a shit about "salvaging the planet"? We're giving up our free plastic bags at the store -- WHAT MORE DO YOU BLOODSUCKERS WANT?
But if we stop having kids, how will we keep pace with the brown people? Sheesh.
Jeez, Erica, any excuse to bash the breeders, eh?
I don't like people with kids and I love progressive tax. I just wanted to say that. As you were.
There's plenty to scream about with this plan, and yet, as always, ECB manages to get it completely, utterly wrong.
The rebates will amount to $600 for struggling single workers like me—and $2,400 for a couple in which the man makes $150,000 and the woman stays at home with four kids.
Believe it or not, ECB, there are many couples out there with four kids who don't make anywhere near $150,000 - in fact, they struggle far worse than you do, having more mouths to fill. You're basically arguing, with this point of yours, that your single-person household deserves an equal amount of assistance as theirs. You know, liberals usually are of the opinion that society does have a responsibility to its young. Why do you call yourself a liberal, exactly?
Obama’s economic stimulus plan relies heavily on similar tax rebates.
And this is what we speak of when we call you a dishonest hack when you shill for Clinton. From one of Clinton's own press releases:
Clinton also called on Congress to stand ready to provide an additional $40 billion in direct tax rebates to working and middle class families if the economy continues to worsen.
But we're not having that many kids. Mexicans are, however, and they're sending their surplus over here. They move from third-world consumption levels and carbon footprints to American levels in no time. Why don't you start railing about immigration, huh?
Wow - you're getting unbelievable. You can have Hillary and you can watch another Republican win the White House in November when liberals like me stay home on election day, with the independents who aren't busy voting for McCain, to reject her politics of Democratic Party destruction. At this point I'm so sick of the Clinton's that I could spit.
Yeah, this whole stimulus plan seems pretty suspect to me. Why not just give us all Target giftcards or something while their at it, if the goal is that we go out and spend it.
Erica is right. Unfortunately, this should come as no surprise. This country LOVES the Ozzie & Harriet family ideal, especially the dumbshit in office now...
Whatever. I'm blowing my rebate check on ganja (assuming I can find some in this godforesaken town).
I'll be blowing my check at Banana Republic. Where I blow all of my checks.
Only suckers pay for weed.
We don't need a stimulus package. The economy is great, it just has to be because Bush's tax cuts combined with trickle down economics are just so awesome.
Since it's only an advance on your next year's refund (or a deferral of payment), I would guess that people with kids get more because that's how our tax code is currently written (deductions for dependents mean a higher rebate for people with kids).
If you have issues with the refund policy, I would say take it up with the current tax code.
I'm going to spend mine on an "I hate your kids" t-shirt.
It's not the only thing you blow at Banana Republic, Mr. Poe.
COMMENT DELETED: Assholery
We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.
The biggest crock is the corporate tax breaks. The aim of those breaks is simply to shore up stock values and wealth. They have little to do with avoiding a recession and a lot to do with trying to immunize the haves from its consequences.
To avoid a recession pull out of Iraq and spend that money in places where the money gets turned back into the economy more quickly. The social security net has a very large multiplier (the money is spent quickly by folks who in turn spend it quickly). Military spending has a very small multiplier (the money becomes corporate profits which get invested and spent much more slowly and much later).
Another, somewhat unrelated point:
Given that we need to stop having so goddamn many kids if we’re going to salvage the planet
The fertility rate in the US is slightly over two children per woman - basically equilibrium level. Our population is, at least in that regard, sustainable. Most developed nations have even lower levels and face potential population decline. If you're looking to control population, focus your concerns on developing nations, not here.
Since nobody else gets what you are trying to say here, Erica, let me be the one to say thank you for not reproducing.
why should anyone care about the candidates' stimulus plans? i know it's nice to pretend bush isn't the president anymore, but he's still the one calling the shots. a theoretical stimulus plan from a theoretical president isn't going to do shit for the economy right now.
Barack Obama: A-minus. I criticized his previous tax plan, but Obama is at the head of the class with an intelligently designed, $120 billion stimulus plan. He would speed a $250 tax credit to most workers, followed by another $250, triggered automatically, if the economy continues on its sour path. Obama would direct a similar rebate to low- and middle-income seniors, who are also apt to spend and could get checks quickly. One demerit: Obama omits any increase in food stamp benefits, which Moody's estimates would have the greatest bang for the buck, $1.73 for every dollar spent.
Hillary Clinton: C-plus. Clinton, too, raised the issue early, then turned in a faulty first draft with a $70 billion stimulus plan that didn't provide much immediate stimulation. It included a $25 billion increase in the program to help low-income Americans with heating costs -- an excessive amount (the current program is under $3 billion) that probably wouldn't kick in until next winter. Even worse was her housing plan, including a five-year freeze on subprime mortgage rates that could produce higher interest rates and reduce liquidity.
Four days later, Clinton said she would immediately implement a $40 billion tax rebate plan she had put in reserve in her first draft. Fine, but overall, the Obama plan devotes a far greater percentage to spending that is more likely to jump-start the economy.
@7 - Yeah, the Mexicans are the cause of all of our problems. Sure. Right. The two biggest families I personally know (9 and 12 kids) are white Catholic suburbanites. Oh, and it's not like people from other 3rd world countries ever emigrate here - no, it's just those damn Mexicans. It's their coordinated plan to "send their surplus" to the U.S., with the express intention of having their own bloated American carbon footprint. Listen to yourself, you racist shitbag, you sound like an ignorant asshole.
Of course, the absolute bottom-feeders, the old on social security, those who are on disability, and those who do not earn enough to file an income tax return are
Maybe we can starve these useless eaters to death, saving more of the pie for ourselves.
And of course, our progeny.
Of course, those who are ignored are the ones most likely to do what is intended with the money, i.e., spend it, but....
who give a shit.
Me first, where's mine, up yours.
It's the American way.
Anyone else amused that Erica deleted ecce's comment about her needing a dick, but left this one alone?
Americans use more resources per capita than any other group on the planet. Developing countries need to bring their populations to equilibrium. We need to see some population decline, or a diminishing quality of life from a decreased consumption of resources (I'd actually prefer both).
The theory goes: if you inject enough liquid money into an economy, you can shock the economy out of a recession.
We're just arguing over who gets the cash injection.
The interesting point: It doesn't matter if the theory is correct. All that matters is enough people believe the theory is correct.
For example: It is possible people are more willing to spend coined money than paper money. If this theory gained enough credence with a lot of people (or with a few people with a lot of liquid money), the Federal Reserve could stimulate the economy by announcing it was issuing more coins than bills. So long as enough people believe this plan will increase consumer spending, they will spend, invest and borrow accordingly.
See, all we have to do is believe in them enough, and our dreams will come true!
I'm sorry, could you please cite the part of the bill that specifies the gender of the single earner in this hypothetical six person family? I think probably you can't, because I think probably you're full of shit. But I'm ready to be proven wrong.
The spectacular growth of the Hispanic population through immigration and higher birth rates are noted as a partial factor for the US’ population gains in the last quarter-century. The Bureau of the Census projects that by 2050 one-quarter of the population will be Hispanic. Bureau figures show the U.S. population grew by 2.8 million between July 1, 2004, and July 1, 2005. Hispanics accounted for 1.3 million of that increase.
So the (largely Catholic) Hispanic population, which makes up about 12.5% of the population, was responsible for almost 50% of our population growth between 2004 and 2005. I don't really have a problem with it, but you'd have to be some kind of asshole to pretend it's not a factor. Therefore, you are cordially invited to shut your fucking pie hole.
OK.. So I am already married, but have no kids. Could you please tell me how much I stand to make if I sign up for the website that Charles mentions below, get married to lots of lovely convicts and sire multiple children? Could I somehow turn this into a growth business AND get corporate tax breaks?
This could be my big score!
@25: I stopped reading that thread, and so I didn't see that comment. Of course I would have deleted it. Sometimes the abusive comments do make even the most thick-skinned among us stop reading.
You'd think Obama ran over ECB's dog or something.
@ 19 LMFAO
I couldn't have said it any better Elenchos!
you say ECB lies but I don't think her point was all tax rebates are bad (such that it would be unfair for her to ding Obama on this, because hey look -- Clinton has tax rebates, too).
I think her point is that tax rebates are bad when tied more to no. of kids than to income level of the household.
So we'd need to know, does Obama's plan do the same thing? And does Clinton's?
Before we know if ECB was unfair and you are right to call her on it.
Are Clinton and Obama are different on this (tying it more to kids than income level) or the same?
Your definition of abusive is quite shallow.
Grow a thicker skin.
I go back and forth between thinking that people are consistently and unjustifiably such incredible assholes to ECB, and then feeling a certain grudging understanding for this given her penchant for removing posts- she does it more than any of the other staffers. It just encourages the taunters. I mean, my god- if Chaz and annie don't pull comments...
Be that as it may. ECB, your anti-breeding argument is outmoded.
Europe is experiencing economic problems due to falling populations. The second and third worlds' populations are stabilizing and soon even Brazil will be facing an aging population. Turns out that even in desperately poor countries, if you give women birth control they use it.
The only things keeping America from having the same problems as Europe right now are immigration (yay!) and fundies (booooo!)
Look, it's a stupid plan. It doesn't go to the very poor - who spend all the money you give them, the retired poor - who do too, and it's got money going to the ultra-rich and corporations who will spend it overseas and make the US economy even worse.
But blaming Obama for it is nutso - this was a deal worked out by the House and the White House, and we're sinking BILLIONS of US taxes into Iraq each and every day while we stay there, so the economy will keep bleeding red ink ...
Since you deleted my comment, I'll ask again:
Are you the type who think that the human species should be extinguished for the good of the planet.
A simple yes or no will suffice.
I go back and forth between thinking that people are consistently and unjustifiably such incredible assholes to ECB, and then feeling a certain grudging understanding for this given her penchant for removing posts- she does it more than any of the other staffers.
Why the hell didn't they give me the power to remove comments a few weeks ago?
So ... I haven't been paying attention to this and have no idea what any of it is all about. So, they want to give us this blanket refund ... on top of our 2007 refund ... or in addition to, and then we pay it back with our '08 refund ...
Someone help a tardy understand here!
Does anyone remember when the Commandant of the Marine Corps began to go forward with a plan to pay about $10k to any Marine who completed a term of service unmarried and childless? It was a small slice of the amount of money the government saves when troops don't have dependents, so it seemed like a reasonable incentive.
As soon as President and Co-President Clinton got wind of it, that was the end of that, as you can imagine. The polls said it was anti-family.
Anyway, if you can't figure out why old people and parents are given such good deals, and young, single people are ignored and neglected, the reason is very, very simple: young, single people do not vote. Never have, never will, and so they get the shaft.
"The rebates will amount to $600 for struggling single workers like me"
I didn't know the new definition of "struggling" included trips to Barcelona with the Euro at an all-time high.
Anyway, our entire system of old-age benefits is dependent on an ever-growing population to keep the ratio of workers to retirees high. To favor a reduction of the future workforce without also figuring out a way to pay for it by reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits is ignorant.
I don't imagine any stimulus plan will hurt much, no matter how it's laid out. It's not expensive compared to what's being lost.
But I hope nobody gets their hopes up that any stimulus package will have a meaningful effect on the sliding economy. It's political posturing at this point.
@33 - Eh, it's not that she "lies". It's that when she puts on the Clinton advocacy hat there tends to be far less concern with accurate depiction of policy differences. I'd agree that something like "income/household size ratio" is probably a better measure, but I don't see that in what she posted.
@26 - Sure, well-off nations need to consume less. The thing is, though, that less breeding in rich nations, with little change in poor nations, is basically a recipe for (even more) income inequality - you eventually have even more resources in the hands of even fewer people. A Bad Thing, IMHO.
Will in Seattle:
How exactly does spending money overseas make the US economy worse?
Is this something obvious I'm missing?
On another note: Does it matter if people use this money to pay down their debt, save, invest or spend? Isn't the fed only trying to increase the amount of liquid assets in the economy?
As much as I like arguing (especially about stuff I know nothing about), these are non-rhetorical questions.
Because you didn't deserve it.
@35: That's patently untrue. I can't remember the last post I removed (except Ecce's today and the racist one that a commenter in this thread pointed out--while implying that I was racist, a claim I didn't delete, although it would have been well within my right to do so). Slog's comments policy is the most liberal of any blog I can think of; if you're going to tell me that I need to get laid, however, that meets the off-topic standard for deletion.
This statement is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Wouldn't the same couple with 4 kids get $2,400 back even if they made $30,000 per year? It's driven by the number of dependents, not the income level.
In other news, isn't the idea of a tax rebate in the face of a $9 trillion deficit and a TRILLION DOLLAR IRAQ WAR completely fucking ridiculous?
Sock them away? Are you drunk? We have a negative saving rate in this country. Do you understand what the means? It means we spend more than we make, on average.
Sock them away? Give me a break.
As someone who needs to get laid, I say we should all vow to leave ECB's personal life out of these discussions for at least one day.
It's only funny when you're laughing with someone.
@48 - No doubt. A tax rebate = a new jet ski in some yay-hoo's garage.
"Europe is experiencing economic problems due to falling populations."
Yawn. Of course they are; EVERYONE is ALWAYS having economic problems. But what you're suggesting here, that Europe's problems are so severe they can't possibly go on, is ridiculous. It's not a crisis; it's just part of life, having problems. As problems go, it's a good one to have. And Europe's economy, insofar as such a thing exists (are you comparing Germany to Belorussia? The UK to Albania?) is overall doing pretty damn well -- better than ours in many respects.
ECB, you're being incredibly disingenuous. HRC actually added promises of a tax rebate four days after Obama released his plan. Moreover, her "contingent" rebates would exacerbate the problem you've already acknowledged of rebates coming too late: Hers would be guaranteed to come later than Obama's. (And that's leaving out the fact that her pandering foreclosure freeze would probably hurt the economy, not help it. Oh, and speaking of pandering, her home heating grants that wouldn't arrive till next winter?) Re: "sock them away." The real problem is that last time people used their rebates to pay down debt, not that they put that money in a savings account or something.
Footnote 3: Hillary Clinton's plan also relies heavily on similar tax rebates.
elenchos - have you not been paying attention to annie's posts? It is clear that the young (not babies) will be carrying the day this year.
ECB - you rarely delete posts that was a bum rap.
But you really should stop those yearly airplane trips to Europe and flights around the US to have a high ground on CC.
Vacation closer to home. Air travel is growing in popularity and jet fuel combustion is a major contributor to climate change. Carbon dioxide savings from not taking one round-trip flight of 1,600 miles: 720 pounds.
In non-reported related news, both the economicist analysis at the WaPo and the NY Times shows that Sen Obama's plan is better (getting an A-) than Sen Clinton's (a B-), both being better than any of the Republicants plans (generally C's or F's).
Of course, Edwards did pull off a B+ response. But you MSM types at the Stranger don't want to talk about him, because it's an inconvenient truth that more than two people are in the race.
Tax rebates are a short-term fix, and usually come too late to even help much in the short term. What we need instead are 1) regulatory changes so the fraudulent lending that started this mess doesn't happen again, 2) investment in our failing infrastructure, paid for by ending the Iraq War and rolling back Bush's tax cuts, and 3) changes to the tax code to shift the burden to upper income taxpayers, which provides a continuing stimulus for the bulk of taxpayers while still raising sufficient revenue to run the government.
Edwards is the only one who's talking in these terms. If you want good economic management that helps middle class and working class Americans, you need to get over the Clinton-Obama spat and vote for Edwards.
erica, weren't you complaining that the media keeps ignoring HRC a few days ago?
so... why are you ignoring her now?
Actually if you have a family of about 3 or 4 and are only one income earner who earns about 50,000 a year gross, you end up paying only about 5 percent in income taxes or less, once you factor in the child tax credits of lets say 4,000 dollars for 4 kids plus mortgage interest deduction if you own a house plus student loan interest deduction,etc.
hillary fails any test with a 90 day freez on forclosure
Some would say 50,000 is rich, some would say its poor,some would say its middle class although once a person makes over 75,000 a year (Or about 36 dollars an hour) they are already in the top 10 percent of all earners in the country. Its just that top one percent that make so much more money than 75,000 a year.
edwards is all bread and circuses; populist scum
in reply to @44 - "How exactly does spending money overseas make the US economy worse?"
Very simple. The money is removed as taxes (SS tax) from US workers who tend to spend it (they make less than $102,000) in the US and then given to CEOs who tend to spend it in another country. Very little gets used to buy US goods and services. If spent by US poor people, most gets recirculated in the US economy, creating more jobs and GDP thru the multiplier effect. ECON 102.
"On another note: Does it matter if people use this money to pay down their debt, save, invest or spend? Isn't the fed only trying to increase the amount of liquid assets in the economy?"
Yes, as the intention is that the money be spent in the US economy, to create multiplier effects.
Saving used to result in money being lent out, but now is shipped overseas (exception: credit unions and small regional banks).
Investing in a small local business is a good idea, but usually investing is in large firms and most leaves the country.
However, if you are someone about to not pay off a home mortgage or car loan, and you use it to do that, you then stop contributing to the underlying problem, so it's not a bad choice at all.
It depends on exactly where the money goes and where it was taken from.
I've already increased my retirement from 12.5 percent (7.5 percent match) to 13.5 percent (same match) this year, so I'm just going to pay off credit cards. But I'm one of those people, so it's best to ignore what I do when considering the general population.
@22: If, as ECB says, for the good of the planet we shouldn't encourage adding American babies, then we should discourage adding grown Americans as well. You can't deny Mexico has used the US as a safety valve for its young people for generations. Although we do admit a few Irish and Poles, not to mention Indian and Chinese PhDs, Mexico supplies us with the vast bulk of our immigrants because life is so much better over here, and because the US is within easy walking distance. If Canada was as screwed up as Mexico, we'd be filling up with Canadians for the same reason. Finally, if the US ever treated our immigrants the way Mexico treats those Central and South Americans who enter Mexico, you'd be right to complain.
I want a new jet ski.
Well, just think folks if all you (supposedly) smart, sexy, sassy, intelligent, liberal people DID have kids...hey that would be pretty cool. It would certainly beat the hell out of a the current bunch of religious, close minded, bigoted, freaks that you seem to think are doing all this baby making. Then again, maybe you'd just rather roll over and let the religious baby making nuts take over the country for good.
Eh, whatever, of course I want to believe that this will finally be the year that young people vote. Who doesn't want to believe that? But come on. You just can't rely on the young. It's biological: their brains haven't yet developed empathy. They think only of themselves, of instant gratification.
It's too bad, because Obama would be a shoe in, instead of having to beat back the millions of well-meaning, middle-aged women in Crocs and poly fleece who made the Democratic party what it is today.
You know, this crappy plan isn't the fault of the candidates. It's the fault of the Democratic establishment. And who is the anointed candidate of the Democratic establishment?
Okay, the tax rebate is a stupid fucking idea, but Erica, who's going to pay for your old age? You don't think you're going to have any money socked away, do you? Are you going to make my kids pay for you, too? Or are you going to off yourself as soon as you're a net loss to society? Just wondering.
@43 (ref. 33, 6):
You said ECB was "dishonest." (@6). I explained why you seemed to misread ECB, and asked you to back up your claim she was dishonest (@33). In response (@43) you do not answer.
So ...are we to assume you don't got the facts??
If Obama's plan is more or less the same as Clinton's (in tying rebates to no. of kids, more than income) -- then ECB was wrong to ding Obama and you are right to ding ECB. If Clinton's plan is different and better than Obama's in this regard -- then ECB was right and you were wrong.
If you don't provide the facts, what are we supposed to think? that you've got them and are just hoarding them, when you could back up your accusation if you so chose?
"If you don't provide the facts, what are we supposed to think? that you've got them and are just hoarding them, when you could back up your accusation if you so chose?"
is that directed at tsm or ECB?
Are rich CEOs buying consumer goods and services in other countries instead of the US?
Or, are their companies are buying products manufactured in other countries for sale in other countries?
Multiplier Effect seems to state that the change in GDP is directly related to the change in Investment or Spending. I tried, but I can't see anywhere in that article that requires domestic spending on domestically produced goods and services to work.
Are there three? arguments going at once here?
1. The tax rebate won't work because it comes too late.
2. The tax rebate won't work because it goes to the wrong people.
3. The tax rebate won't work because it is too small.
Oh, I found another:
Tax rebates don't work at all.
unPC, neither Obama's nor Clinton's plan explicitly mentions tying rebates to number of kids, as far as I can tell, so I don't know what you're talking about here. That issue was in reference to the totally different plan that actually just passed Congress. Read the links already provided in the post.
If I were running things, I'd require a person to go through a free 3-hour finance class before they get the rebate.
@35: That's patently untrue. I can't remember the last post I removed
Right before the election, didn't you publish something about you and Josh going to a bar and having some drinks and driving home, and didn't you pull some stuff that (from other peoples' comments later in the thread) appeared to offer some uneducated speculation on your and Josh's relationship?
I remembered it, because it was the first time I had ever seen comments removed (I've only been on the SLOG for about six months.)
...a commenter in this thread pointed out--while implying that I was racist, a claim I didn't delete, although it would have been well within my right to do so...
Someone calling you racist is grounds for removing their comment? What if they're right? Chaz gets called a racist about every fifteen minutes. Isn't that just someone disagreeing with you?
Slog's comments policy is the most liberal of any blog I can think of
W'ev. Sure, most comments don't get cut. Unless they are ad hominems about your sex life and/or alleged biases, evidently.
if you're going to tell me that I need to get laid, however, that meets the off-topic standard for deletion.
Of course *I* said nothing of the sort, you're just speaking generally I assume.
But even if someone did say that, I can't say I understand why that warrants removal. Don't people say that about each other around here *all* the time?
Ms. Barnett, I think you are a good writer and I think that for some reason people think it's o.k. to dump on you in way that they would never *dream* of doing to Dan or Josh or annie or Dominic. And that's a shame. And it must get tiring. And you don't deserve it- which I said in my comment.
But if you think somebody saying "that person needs to get laid" is a deeply personal attack worthy of censoring, then I think you are never going to get out from under this incessant teasing (to use a benign word for what is, I'm sure, not a benign experience.)
I'm not trying to be Dr. Phil. Do whatcha got to do. But I bet that if you fired back (as Dan and annie do) instead of wielding your editorial pen, you'd see 10x less of it.
I think annie had it best @22.
But, to answer @71, "Are rich CEOs buying consumer goods and services in other countries instead of the US? Or, are their companies are buying products manufactured in other countries for sale in other countries?"
Both. CEOs as people do that. Their corporations also accelerate the outshipment of money to other countries, so giving them a tax break doesn't help.
"Multiplier Effect seems to state that the change in GDP is directly related to the change in Investment or Spending. I tried, but I can't see anywhere in that article that requires domestic spending on domestically produced goods and services to work."
Look at the underlying assumptions. Not all models work in all circumstances, and you need to choose the right model for the actual circumstances. Right now, paying off debt indirectly causes an outflow of cash to China and Europe, whereas the classic definition assumes no transnational movement of money. Again, the only good debt to pay off is that from credit unions and small regional banks, which tend to loan it locally in the US.
I just have to chime in about married couples getting more tax-breaks and whatnot.
My husband and I got married December before last. When I went to file my taxes in March of last year, I found that even though I had been married for less than a month that tax year, I was required to file as "Married." I went ahead and ran the tax-software both ways, married-filing-separately and single, out of curiosity. The difference was $600- it was more expensive to say I was married. I filed as single. After all, I was single more than eleven months that year. I'm going to run it both ways again this year, just out of curiosity. But whatever it says, I will filed as married.
jenn@77: you owe us $600, plus penalties and interest. If you're married on Dec 31, you're married for the whole year, Sorry. Maybe we won't prosecute you for fraud, maybe we will. Your signature on the 1040 form means something; you could look it up.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).