We absolutely NEED a bearded President.

I'm talking NHL Playoff Beard level bearded here...

Dr Fever: We absolutely NEED a bearded President.
I'm talking NHL Playoff Beard level bearded here...

I promise to not shave my beard til the stock market climbs back over 10,000.

bulldg4life: Dr Fever: We absolutely NEED a bearded President.
I'm talking NHL Playoff Beard level bearded here...

I promise to not shave my beard til the stock market climbs back over 10,000.

Step 1)Create blog on Blogger
Step 2)Take pictures daily to document progress
Step 3)Became internet phenom
Step 4)Profit(?)

Facially behaired smoker of a president? That's change I can believe in.

Just wait til that site gets more hits than whitehouse.gov

Boy will that be embarrassing

Coronach: Facially behaired smoker of a president? That's change I can believe in.

Add in "Blackberry using, pick-up basketball playing.." and you've got about 40% of why I love the man oh so much.

Don't cry, emo kids. Capitalism is not dead, even though you tried everything under the sun to kill it. Even the guy you love to hate so much understands that we need people to take risks, start businesses and create jobs.

Gordon Gekko killed the credit market, the system you want can't work right now. Relax, he's trying to fix it.

NewportBarGuy: Even the guy you love to hate so much understands that we need people to take risks, start businesses and create jobs.

So let's start by declaring a 6 month tax holiday instead of coming up with some cockamamie spending bill filled with thank yous to various Congressional donors on both sides of the aisle...That would be a beautiful stroke of Capitalism...

He wouldn't do it in a brazillion years but, hey, a guy can dream.

"The $800 billion plan largely ignores the fact that we cannot keep borrowing and spending our way back to prosperity," said McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington.

How the hell can they say that with a straight face?? Honestly, how???

Dancin_In_Anson: 6 month tax holiday....cockamamie

Yes it is.

Dancin_In_Anson: 6 month tax holiday

Great idea! I assume that we'll also shut down the military, transportation infrastructure, food inspections, banking oversight, law enforcement, inmate incarceration, and all of those other ways that our government just throws our hard-earned dollars down the toilet....

Dr. Rosenrosen: Great idea! I assume that we'll also shut down the military, transportation infrastructure, food inspections, banking oversight, law enforcement, inmate incarceration, and all of those other ways that our government just throws our hard-earned dollars down the toilet....

How do you figure?

Dancin_In_Anson: So let's start by declaring a 6 month tax holiday

People are picking on you now, so let's clarify: Do you mean a six month SALES tax holiday?

Canons? You mean like Canon cameras and printers?

Dancin_In_Anson: How do you figure?

Do you really see no problems with just tossing taxes for six months?

Dancin_In_Anson: How do you figure?

I didn't think I'd need to explain at this level, but I'm game:

-You see, government services cost money.
-That money is provided through taxes.
-If we stop paying taxes for six months, the government will have less money.
-That means that the government won't be able to provide services, such as those cited in my original post.

How was that? Still too complicated?

what_now: People are picking on you now, so let's clarify: Do you mean a six month SALES tax holiday?

Nope. Federal income, SS and Medicare taxes.

GAT_00: Do you really see no problems with just tossing taxes for six months?

Dr. Rosenrosen: I didn't think I'd need to explain at this level, but I'm game:

Either way it's going to cost the treasury almost 1 Trillion dollars. That money can either be spent by 535 select individuals or you and I.

I think you and I can make better use of it.

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: People are picking on you now, so let's clarify: Do you mean a six month SALES tax holiday?

Nope. Federal income, SS and Medicare taxes.

......how will soldiers eat? Or old people buy viagra?

Dancin_In_Anson: I think you and I can make better use of it.

I think you are forgetting that some things are directly financed by taxes, like road budgets. Six months of no road repairs, plus basically cutting the workforces of all state DoTs doesn't seem like a good idea. For your idea, the government would have to cover all areas that are directly tax funded. That is the problem I see with your idea.

It seems so simple. I wonder if there are tons of people with economics degrees that have thought such an idea up. And, if they haven't, why they haven't.

Dr. Rosenrosen: That means that the government won't be able to provide services, such as those cited in my original post.

You really are a moron, aren't you?

It seems so simple. I wonder if there are tons of people with economics degrees that have thought such an idea up. And, if they haven't, why they haven't.

Because people with economics degrees are elitist ivory tower muslim gay married culture of victim agenda pro-abortion godless intellectuals.

That or it's a bad idea.

Whichever of these sounds more reasonable.

bulldg4life: I wonder if there are tons of people with economics degrees that have thought such an idea up. And, if they haven't, why they haven't.

They're not the wacky kind of free thinkers that DIA is.

tchamber: Dr. Rosenrosen: That means that the government won't be able to provide services, such as those cited in my original post.

You really are a moron, aren't you?

Sorry, that was directed at DIA.

bulldg4life: It seems so simple.

It is very simple.

GAT_00: I think you are forgetting that some things are directly financed by taxes, like road budgets. Six months of no road repairs, plus basically cutting the workforces of all state DoTs doesn't seem like a good idea. For your idea, the government would have to cover all areas that are directly tax funded.



Can you tell me the difference between taking a Trillion dollars out of the treasury and taking a Trillion dollars out of the treasury? It's a Trillion that isn't there to begin with regardless. As I said before, you can let 535 people decide how to spend that "line of credit" or you can decide how to spend it.

Dancin_In_Anson: It is very simple.

You mean other than the part about actually stimulating the economy, right?

I mean, if you're going to rail on a supply-side/top-down solution...then you can surely explain why giving tons of money to rich people wouldn't really help the economy at all.

You keep talking about people like you and I getting all this money, yet that isn't really the case. The top 10% of the population already takes care of 70% of the taxes in this country and, amazingly, if they got a tax break...they wouldn't spend the f*cking money.

I know it's a crazy thing to understand, but I'm sure there's an economics degree sitting around somewhere that you could use.

Tigger: Because people with economics degrees are elitist ivory tower muslim gay married culture of victim agenda pro-abortion godless intellectuals.

The funny thing is that as much as economists disagree about stuff like tax breaks and spending and debt during good economic periods...damn near every single one of them agrees that a large stimulus package focused at rebuilding the infrastructure is a great way to help an economy in bad periods.

Maybe they're all in on the liberal conspiracy to raid the treasury.

Dancin_In_Anson: Either way it's going to cost the treasury almost 1 Trillion dollars. That money can either be spent by 535 select individuals or you and I.

I think you and I can make better use of it.

If by you and I, you mean the 10% of the population which controls 70% of the wealth? Sure, they stand to benefit greatly from such a plan. And considering how horribly they were soaked when the market went tits-up, I expect they'll reinvest every penny in taxes they avoid.

Unemployed, Fired Internet Spock says that's not CANON.

DIA:

I'm currently working on a similar proposal. So similar in fact, that mine won't go anywhere, either.

I call it The 100% Tax Refund Act of 2009.

Basically we need to draw a line in the sand, and I'm working on those numbers right now. For the purpose of this conversation let's say that the line in the sand is $500,000.

Every individual and corporation who reported a gross income of $499,999 or less will receive a 100% refund of all income tax they paid in 2008.

If the government chooses to continue to dole out cash for various bail-outs and rescues, they can borrow it. But in the meantime, everyone but the super-rich will have a very nice chunk of change back in their wallets.

bulldg4life: You mean other than the part about actually stimulating the economy, right?

Like we did when we gave Wall Street 700 billion? Hell of a lot of good that did.

You keep talking about people like you and I getting all this money, yet that isn't really the case.

Especially when Congress decides whom to dole it out to. If they don't take it from us to begin with we get to keep it and spend it as we see fit. I'm not rich...I'm excruciatingly middle class yet I have a a sizable chunk taken from every single check and it's all Federal (no state income tax in Tx)...Imagine if you, me and millions of others like us suddenly have $500, $1,000 or more every month to spend instead of waiting for it to "trickle down" from the corporations, the financiers and other entities that say they need it to survive. Why not let it trickle up from the people?

Why is that a bad idea?

Occam's Chainsaw: If by you and I, you mean the 10% of the population which controls 70% of the wealth?

I am to assume that you pay nothing in federal income and payroll taxes.

And as for why this won't ever happen, there are a couple of reasons. First of all, it would take the power of spending out of the hands of Congress and place it back in the hands of the people. Only the most naive would believe that Congress would ever allow that.

Secondly, it's my firm belief that if you did this only once, truly handed half of America back every dollar they paid in income tax that year, there'd be a tax-based revolution in this country. Sure we all know we pay income tax, and we even see the numbers on paper. But having it in the bank would put the IRS very much into perspective.

JacksBlack: And as for why this won't ever happen, there are a couple of reasons. First of all, it would take the power of spending out of the hands of Congress and place it back in the hands of the people.

A change we can believe in?

Dancin_In_Anson: Especially when Congress decides whom to dole it out to

If we spend it, we're not going to be improve the country. We're going to buy a bigger TV.

Sometimes (and I know this is hard concept for you to grasp) its better for someone else to spend your money on a public good.

Dancin_In_Anson: Why not let it trickle up from the people?

Who the hell do you think would gain the most from this idea?

GAT_00: Do you really see no problems with just tossing taxes for six months?

He's a Fair Tax supporter.Dancin_In_Anson: Why is that a bad idea?

Do you think it would be a bad idea to not only do zero tax, but to actively give everybody in the country $5,000?

JacksBlack: If the government chooses to continue to dole out cash for various bail-outs and rescues, they can borrow it. But in the meantime, everyone but the super-rich will have a very nice chunk of change back in their wallets.

You know, there was a guy working on a proposal to help the middle-lower class and swing the balance of tax payments back towards the super-rich like it was in the 1990s. Do you know who that guy is?

bulldg4life: JacksBlack: If the government chooses to continue to dole out cash for various bail-outs and rescues, they can borrow it. But in the meantime, everyone but the super-rich will have a very nice chunk of change back in their wallets.

You know, there was a guy working on a proposal to help the middle-lower class and swing the balance of tax payments back towards the super-rich like it was in the 1990s. Do you know who that guy is?

Yes I do, smartass. And given my drothers, I would not seek to give out cash to ANY "class." But the fact of the matter is that our current government has a stated desire to "spend" One Trillion Dollars. I'm simply suggesting a better way to "spend" it.

Dancin_In_Anson: Can you tell me the difference between taking a Trillion dollars out of the treasury and taking a Trillion dollars out of the treasury? It's a Trillion that isn't there to begin with regardless. As I said before, you can let 535 people decide how to spend that "line of credit" or you can decide how to spend it.

Except your proposal will actually take money from the government twice, once is tax loss and the second time to cover tax-funded agencies. Your idea is horrible and you didn't think it through. The fact that you're defending it is baffling.

Dancin_In_Anson: NewportBarGuy: Even the guy you love to hate so much understands that we need people to take risks, start businesses and create jobs.

So let's start by declaring a 6 month tax holiday


That would be awesome! Except for the part where it wouldn't do shiat for the unemployed, or the people who don't make enough to pay taxes to start with. And the part where it wouldn't fix the credit market. Or, uh, any other market. Or ANYTHING AT ALL.

GAT_00: Except your proposal will actually take money from the government twice, once is tax loss and the second time to cover tax-funded agencies. Your idea is horrible and you didn't think it through. The fact that you're defending it is baffling.

Wow. It's precisely this sort of logic that got us where we are now. Baffling indeed, friend.

JacksBlack: I'm simply suggesting a better way to "spend" it.

A better way? Since when is canceling all tax revenue except from the super-rich as a means to threaten them in to not accepting bailouts a better way to help our economy?

bulldg4life: JacksBlack: I'm simply suggesting a better way to "spend" it.

A better way? Since when is canceling all tax revenue except from the super-rich as a means to threaten them in to not accepting bailouts a better way to help our economy?

Yeah, and here I was thinking "trickle-down economics" had been fully debunked. I guess you're right, give the entire trillion to corporations.

JacksBlack: Yeah, and here I was thinking "trickle-down economics" had been fully debunked. I guess you're right, give the entire trillion to corporations.

I know of no plan that suggests giving a trillion dollars to corporations. Perhaps you know something I do not.

As for the debunking of one strategy or another...doing all of one form is ridiculous and doomed to fail.

If some sort of stimulus is our only option, which I believe it to be since I am unsure of what would happen should be sit on our thumbs...I would prefer a combination of tax breaks and spending on infrastructure. It would be good to spend some money on our own country to do any number of things that have been pushed to the side in recent decades.

I don't like the idea of giving everybody rebate checks nor do I like the idea of giving 5 banks all of the money.

absoluteparanoia: Sometimes (and I know this is hard concept for you to grasp) its better for someone else to spend your money on a public good.

Do explain how dumping a Trillion on various pet projects is going to "help the country".


bulldg4life: Who the hell do you think would gain the most from this idea?

You and I.

Obdicut: Do you think it would be a bad idea to not only do zero tax, but to actively give everybody in the country $5,000?

Yes. I'm not real big on the whole deficit thing to begin with...adding $5000 per person would compound the problem with the deficit. However if it's going to happen (which it most undoubtedly will) it might as well be in a wy that has the biggest impact on the population.

GAT_00: Except your proposal will actually take money from the government twice, once is tax loss and the second time to cover tax-funded agencies.

And this is different than writing a Trillion dollar check on an already overdrawn account how?

kmmontandon: Except for the part where it wouldn't do shiat for the unemployed, or the people who don't make enough to pay taxes to start with.

And spending a trillion on shiat like buying flood plain easements* will do what for the unemployed and untaxed?

*an example of an actual line item in the $365B in spending in the current "stimulus plan"

Dancin_In_Anson: You and I.

So, in a world where 10% of the population pays 70% of the federal income tax...you believe you and I (the middle class) would benefit most from canceling the federal income tax?

How, may I ask, did you come to this conclusion?

The obvious solution to the bickering is some type of 'compromise' (do people even know what this means anymore?).

However, if my government was going to spend piles of cash I'd rather they spend more of it on infrastructure than just giving out cash.

I think better roads, updated broadband and renewable energy investment will be more useful in the long run than a new HDTV in every bathroom. Even if people put it towards their mortgages, that helps them in the short term but doesn't really contribute much to jobs.

In terms of job creation, most of the crap that people will buy is manufactured outside of the country. Most of the jobs would be retail or unloading the merchandise off of the ships and distributing it.

On the other hand, jobs building roads, broadband infrastructure and cleaner power plants would have to stay in the country.

I would go with a 60/40 or 75/25 split.

Oh, add public transportation to the list of things that stimulus money could be spent on.