«

»

They know what they are asking for will hurt the economy

And even the lame ass LSM can’t explain that fact away:

President Obama’s opening offer in ‘fiscal cliff’ talks includes $255 billion in stimulus spending – tax cuts, incentives, and more. It could be a bargaining ploy or a bid to offset rising taxes on the rich.

Get that? These fucking class warriors KNOW that their bullshit tax on the rich is going to actually have a negative impact on the economy, so instead of rethinking their strategy, they decide to double down on the Keynesian stupidity and do some more stimulus money laundering for her friends.

The level of arrogance and petulance from these class warrior social engineers is staggering. What a bunch of douchebags. So what if our envy driven move has a negative impact? We can funnel some more tax payer money to our buddies – never pass up a chance to show that government largesse to your homies – and make it magically go away! I already see Krugababy’s post about this stimulus failing as well because it too wasn’t big enough.

This is Cloward-Piven playing out. It has to be. Nobody can be this stupid.

12 comments

No ping yet

  1. Hal_10000 says:

    Half of that is extending the social security tax holiday, not spending.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  2. AlexInCT says:

    Half of that is extending the social security tax holiday, not spending.

    What? I can’t use their own logic against them? They consider tax cuts to be deficit enabling, so why can’t I do the same?

    All kidding asside, I hope you don’t think this makes my point invalid: they KNOW that what they are doing is going cause more pain than good, and they are now trying to mitigate it.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Dave D says:

    SS is not entitlement spending? Have you bought into the “Trust Fund” myth, Hal?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  4. TxAg94 says:

    Make no mistake, there will be some sort of stimulus offsets for their business friends who made the right contributions over the last few years. The ones who made the wrong contributions, you know, the ones not in the right portion of the Obama campaign database, well they will not see any relief. As much as I hate to admit that sounds like conspiracy that I would have laughed at 5 years ago, I have no doubt of it now. All the talk of stimulus is to keep the big donors thinking they’re gonna be taken care of, kind of like made men in the mob.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Section8 says:

    Half of that is extending the social security tax holiday, not spending.

    Hal do you want more people to feel the pain of these spending programs like you’ve mentioned many times earlier or not? Do you want a reduced deficit or not? You seem pretty pick and choosey on these deductions and breaks. Now it’s ok? It would help to see some consistency. And what about the other half of the spending/deductions? If a percent here or two doesn’t have any impact on growth, then we don’t need a stimulus to cover the hike. Right?

    What this is going to turn into is what it will always turn into.

    A society hooked on government programs like crack, and what they never realize is the addict has zero bargaining power which is why the “anti-tax terrorists” will always ultimately have to cave. We will pay what the dealer tells us we’re going to pay. Yes, we will pay more, all of us, and not a dime will be cut. It will be reshuffled and recategorized, and then we’ll repeat the same battle again with the same result, until we’re taxed to death and broke.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  6. AlexInCT says:

    Yes, we will pay more, all of us, and not a dime will be cut. It will be reshuffled and recategorized, and then we’ll repeat the same battle again with the same result, until we’re taxed to death and broke.

    The reality is that if the left wants a European like nanny state here, then we are going to have to pay European-like taxes. There are not enough rich people, even if we confiscated everything from them, to pay for the European style nanny state leftist want. Everyone, including people that today get money back even though they pay no taxes, are going to have to pay hefty taxes. Everyone! The democrats need this tax hike on the rich to go through so they can then pretend to be baffled when it doesn’t produce enough revenue. Then, after demonizing the rich some more, they will jack taxes up on everyone to ridiculous levels. That, or they will basically outspend what they can take to the point that the US collapses economically. Neither is a good thing.

    The end game is to destroy exceptional America. They hate that concept, especially since they blame America for everything not being the way they want. It’s the “Communism didn’t fail. It was prevented from working because of the evils of capitalism through the US” meme every one of these marxist idiots use to defend the fact collectivism has been proven to be an unworkable system.

    Now Stogy can come here to this post as well and tell me I am again showing my ODS because I dare point out that the collectivist nanny-stater would have to hammer everyone with punitatively high tax rates to even come close to being able to raise the revenue they would need to pay for their nanny state.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  7. stogy says:

    Now Stogy can come here to this post as well and tell me I am again showing my ODS because I dare point out that the collectivist nanny-stater would have to hammer everyone with punitatively high tax rates to even come close to being able to raise the revenue they would need to pay for their nanny state.

    OK. I wasn’t going to but since you invited me, I think I’ll bite. Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows – even with the economy tanked. They could go a little higher without causing much drag on growth. It’s certainly better than continuing to prop up the economy through deficit spending. By ‘punitive’, you are suggesting taxes that are punishing people for earning money – but I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. However quite a lot of wealthy people have said they are fine with somewhat higher tax rates. I am neither wealthy nor struggling, but I would be OK with that as well. What would you consider to be a ‘punitively high’ tax rate?

    I heard a bunch of business owners the other day saying that when it comes to paying higher taxes or reinvesting profits in their businesses, they are more likely to do the latter. If taxes are low, they’ll just stick the money in the bank. Now I am not saying this is always the case, but it certainly is an argument that lower taxes don’t always lead to stronger growth. Raising taxes on profits and giving extra tax breaks on reinvestment strikes me as a fairly good way to promote growth.

    As far as ‘nanny state’ goes, I have issues that I would like governments to address, not all of them require government money, and there are quite a few things that I would like the government to reduce spending on. Other people have their issues. Generally I respect their right to say what they want without referring to their ideas as ‘nanny state’ even if I don’t agree with them. Saying ‘nanny state’ is simply a way to disappear anything that you disagree with from the political conversation. It’s a rubbish argument.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. AlexInCT says:

    OK. I wasn’t going to but since you invited me, I think I’ll bite. Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows – even with the economy tanked. They could go a little higher without causing much drag on growth.

    Says who? And what growth are you talking about, because I have not seen much growth in anything but government? Also, when this scenario of yours turns out to be untrue and we d get some serious economic “drag”, to use your words, are the class warriors going to admit they got it wrong this time around? Don’t bother answering. I know the answer. The question was rhetorical.

    It’s certainly better than continuing to prop up the economy through deficit spending.

    Actually the best course is to cut back the spending to the level of income the government is now collecting. Besides, the deficit spending of the last 4 years has not really been about propping up the economy, but about propping up the vote buying special interests of one party. Ate the expense of everyone else, I should add.

    By ‘punitive’, you are suggesting taxes that are punishing people for earning money – but I don’t think anyone is suggesting that.

    Did you just seriously say this, Stogy? How do you think you should label a system where you apply tax rates that basically take away more of your earnings as the earnings go up, and that system is supported by people that think the wealthy, those that make too much money according to their arbitrary and constantly shifting standards, and should be deprived of said wealth, under the guise that this clearly punitive action is for the good of the collective? I know that in the mind of the class warrior this is considered a socially just system, because they want people to believe that paying more in taxes somehow is a privilege of patriotism. Not that these people ever volunteer more of their own money, instead of using accountants to hide their income, or better yet, simply avoid paying the taxes like Geithner did, while demanding others pony up more, either. In the mind of most sane people this form of scaled taxation is considered a coercive and punitive one. The message is blatantly clear: if you make more money than we believe you should be allowed to, we will take it away from you. Pretending that’s not a punitive system is the height of hypocrisy.

    However quite a lot of wealthy people have said they are fine with somewhat higher tax rates.

    You mean people like Buffet that stand to make oodles of cash when their insurance companies double the sale of policies intended to cover the punitive death penalty taxes, while they have army of accountants hiding their income to avoid taxes? That same Buffet that’s also currently litigating the IRS instead of just writing a check for what he owes? Or do you mean people like Spielberg that just sold their lucrative business this year to avoid the tax penalties you feel are not punitive but going live next year?

    Me, I am always confounded why these rich people all feel fine with higher taxes on others. Shit, if they really were OK with higher taxes, I would expect them to write checks to the IRS right now. Why wait?

    Idiot.

    I am neither wealthy nor struggling, but I would be OK with that as well.

    I am neither wealthy nor struggling either, but I am not OK with any kind of tax increase, because government is already wasting quite enough of my money on destroying this country with their economy crushing, vote buying, wealth redistribution schemes. They should live within their means like I am forced to. I don’t get to tell my employer that since I now want to drive a Ferrari and live in a mansion, that they have to give me more money. Why can the government do something that stupid?

    What would you consider to be a ‘punitively high’ tax rate?

    What I already am paying? Besides Stogy, it isn’t about the tax rates: it is about the fact that I am being told I need to pay more so people without fiscal discipline cans spend more to buy votes. That’s the crux of this problem. You don’t give an addict more heroin: you cut him off.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  9. AlexInCT says:

    I heard a bunch of business owners the other day saying that when it comes to paying higher taxes or reinvesting profits in their businesses, they are more likely to do the latter.

    You seriously have no clue about economics due you? What business were these people running? Collecting welfare checks? Please show me the exemption that allows business owners to avoid paying higher taxes if they “invest in their business”. I would also like to know what the approved investments are too. Maybe I am not privy to the genius of the social engineering cadre, and they have actually put plans together that encourage people to invest in business growth. But based on the things I know so far, between the tax hikes and the Obamacare costs, most businesses other than the behemoths that can buy government regulations to squash competition, or the ones that get special exemptions from people like Pelosi, are going to get hammered.

    You may be too stupid to know or acknowledge that taxes impact profits, and that reduced profits means less money to do anything with, but even stupid people should understand the basic concept that when your profits go down, you tend to have less money to invest. I wonder why so many business were sold this month to avoid next years taxes, if they had the option to avoid those punitive taxes by reinvesting in their business? Maybe these goofballs don’t know how to run businesses, huh?

    BTW, not one of the business people I talk to, all small business owners, the real ones, not the imaginary ones you seem to know that think they avoid taxes by reinvesting, are to a ones looking at cutting their costs or outright getting out of the business.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  10. stogy says:

    You seriously have no clue about economics due you?

    Ummm…. this is advice any half-decent accountant would give to any small business owner.

    You can depreciate the cost of tangible property, including buildings, vehicles, machinery and equipment, on your corporate tax return. Depreciation allows you an income tax deduction that will reduce the amount of taxes you pay on corporate profits. Since you will owe up to a 39 percent corporate income tax on profits as of 2011, you can make investments in equipment to expand or enhance your business operations while lowering your corporate tax burden.

    Obviously I stand in awe of your superior economic understanding. I am sure that Chronicle will retract their article as soon as you send them your superior business advice.

    You may be too stupid to know or acknowledge that taxes impact profits, and that reduced profits means less money to do anything with, but even stupid people should understand the basic concept that when your profits go down, you tend to have less money to invest.

    Generally that’s true. But not always. I would have said that what you are suggesting is exactly the kind of management that shrinks your business. But obviously you know best.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  11. Hal_10000 says:

    Hal do you want more people to feel the pain of these spending programs like you’ve mentioned many times earlier or not?

    No, i oppose the tax holiday. but to call it $255 billion in spending is inaccurate.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  12. CM says:

    I know that in the mind of the class warrior this is considered a socially just system

    Not just ‘class warriors’. Most people, certainly almost all Republicans prior to Bush. Almost all Western countries employ this system, for good reason.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.