A specific answer to a specific question: The Economy

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. anon says:

   October 13, 2008 at 3:06 pm

   I love the jobs tax credit. For decades Republicans have been telling us that if we cut taxes, then businesses will create new jobs. But after the Bush tax cuts, we have been losing jobs instead. Now the results are in on that devastating Republican experiment.

   Want a tax cut? Show us the jobs.

   Imagine that – a TAX CUT proposed by a Democrat, that actually provides accountability and reinforces the social contract.

2. Dominique says:

   October 13, 2008 at 3:19 pm

   Is it ok to agree with some and disagree with some?

   – What is a ‘refundable tax credit’? This is not an agree/disagree, it’s just a question. It sounds a little redundant.

   – I like the idea of giving a $3,000 credit per new employee.

   – I’d like clarification on the waiver of capital gains taxes on investments made in small and start-up businesses. Does that meant no tax on the gains you make on those investments or does it mean no tax on the gains you’ve made on other investments that you roll into small and start-up businesses. The former would not be as great an idea as the latter.

   – I like the infrastructure investment but wonder where the money is coming from. I understand that once people start working they’ll pay into the tax base, but how long would it take to recoup those costs? How is the initial expense going to be covered?

   – I like the auto industry idea, but – again – where is the money coming from?

   – Extending unemployment benefits and suspending taxes is an excellent idea.

   – On the fence about penalty-free 401K withdrawals. Not a good idea to encourage people to tap into their 401K. “Hardship” is very loosely defined in 401K-world.

   – Got dizzy reading the “delay required 401K withdrawals” bullet. Maybe I’ll get a senior citizen to give me the Reader’s Digest version of it.

   – Heating Oil bullet: how’s he paying for that?

   – Not sure how much a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures is going to help. Seems like it’s just going to delay the inevitable. Would probably make more sense to work something out with lenders where the loan terms are modified (extending terms, maybe? 50-year fixed, anyone?) so that borrowers can better afford the payments.

   – $25 billion in state relief – how’s he paying for that?

   Overall, the plan sounds pretty good. I just wonder how it’s going to be funded in addition to his very lofty healthcare and tax cut goals. I’ll give him props for at least having a plan with some details.

3. Raisa Heckle says:

   October 13, 2008 at 3:30 pm

   He thinks he’ll pay for it by leaving Iraq high and dry, which will most likely end up destabilizing pan-Arabia and we’ll spend all that back and more to fix it a third time. Might take the Sears Tower going down for him to say “oops.”

4. Phantom says:

   October 13, 2008 at 3:49 pm

   Wow Raisa,
   Good to know what your delusions are since the Prime minister of Iraq wants us to leave and Bush is scheduling a timeline it must somehow be Obama’s fault.
   Dom,
   We will have to pay for it in the deficit with the basis being that as jobs are created from the combination of infrastructure investment and avoiding a financial collapse of the housing, government (state and local), and auto maker businesses will provide the stability and tax base to grow the economy and increase revenues. During this crisis it will be acceptable to go into deficit spending but once it stabilizes there will have to be answers for paying this back, whether through greater job creation by business or other methods.

5. Duffy says:

   October 13, 2008 at 4:01 pm

   The part about aggressively restructuring the terms of a mortgage. What does that mean? Joe alluded to changes in not just rate but principle. Is that really a good idea? How will that be handled? It concerns me b/c it’s ripe for shenanigans.

   In re: capital gains taxes for small business. Small businesses rarely have capital gains. This would target a very narrow band of “small” businesses.

   Mostly I echo Dom’s questions of funding and would like more discreet definition of “small business”. Is that defined by revenue? If so, what’s the #? I’m a (very) small business. Will I qualify?

6. pandora says:

   October 13, 2008 at 4:03 pm

   What I like most about this plan is the rewarding of companies who invest in America. Talk about a change in mindset! And I’m okay with responsible debt (especially if it grows the economy in the long run). I always have been. Debt for education? Fine with me. Debt for a flashy new car? Irresponsible.

7. Dominique says:

   October 13, 2008 at 4:13 pm

   I think universal healthcare and a tax cut for the middle class is a flashy new car when our country is in financial turmoil.

8. Phantom says:

   October 13, 2008 at 4:22 pm

   Dom,
   Universal Health Care is neccessary as if something isn’t done then health care costs will just require another bailout and even greater spending. This is one of those situations where you spend now so you don’t spend more later. It would ease costs on business and employers and lead to greater efficiency and lower costs. The middle class tax cut is more of the idea that the middle class consumer drives the economy and in the short term is a method for increasing liquidity in the middle class and/or paying down debt that the government might have eventually had to pay down as well. It can’t be a permanent tax cut.

9. pandora says:

   October 13, 2008 at 4:22 pm

   Obama has already said that certain programs will be delayed due to the economic crisis. He has also prioritized his list, unlike McCain who said at the last debate that we can do it all at once.

   Obama has addressed the problem. Has McCain? What is his plan?

10. Dorian Gray says:

    October 13, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    My two cents… allowing 401(k) withdrawals with little or no penalty is a terrible idea. It incents imprudent behavior and it affirms the idea that your retirement money may be at risk so it is better to remove it. There is always some inherent risk but it could perpetuate an irrational fear. Just my personal opinion, but that one is a stinker.

11. Jerry says:

    October 13, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    I think Obama has the right idea. Take money from the record-high profits of the oil industry, and other lucrative industries, and redirect it towards reducing the deficit while creating more opportunities for youth seeking out a college education.

12. anon says:

    October 13, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    Dealing with insurance companies is a first step. Under McCains plan companies will set up shop in a state that has no pre existing condition coverage, mammograms, prostate checks etc. Plus the benefit will be taxed under McCain.

    The socialization of our banking system under a neo con republican reign of 12 years will finally force States left holding the bag, no other recourse, but to change the health care system. Health care costs are skyrocketing and will continue to do so until none of us can afford it.

    A complete overhaul will be necessary. Just like Europe when your country is broke, you cannot afford to have a “for profit” built in cost that will only cause insurance rates to continue to rise. The country is broke. Tax cuts for the middle class are an absolute. Tax cuts for the ultra rich never trickled down. Its time to bury “trickle down economics” and adopt an economics plan of a Paul Krugman who just won the Nobel Prize for Economics. Lets see what his plan is all about.

13. A. Bundy says:

    October 13, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Zero capital gains rate on investments in small!

    This is both a terrible and horrifying idea. He is going to try and force people into investing (their money) in small businesses. You will be punished for making money investing in the big boys because he is going to tax the shit out of you. But he will reward you for investing in small businesses. Our economy does not need this at all. This is very risky. I am sure you are all well aware of how many small/start-up businesses fail. This is not what we need at all. Further, this will do nothing to stabilize our market. Finally, what/who qualifies as a small/start-up business? Do you not get taxed if you invest in a company like Starbucks or Walmart in the beginning? And, once they get too big for the Messiah’s liking he will begin to tax you? This is just one of the many crocks of shit in this plan.

14. anonone says:

    October 13, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    A. Bundy,

    The whole idea against (Gasp!) taxing the rich is that they are more likely to invest (read: risk) their money in business development investments if the government does not take it in taxes first.

    Stimulating investments in small businesses is a great idea – this is what venture capital does and it helped fuel the 90s (remember then? Peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses?)

    Venture capitalists know that 9 of 10 of their businesses will fail, but the 10th one will pay back for all the others and a lot more. So this is a great way to promote capital investment in a new generation of small businesses and it will pay back in droves even if 90% of them fail.

    As far as your “Messiah” remark, you showed that you’re just another mindless wingnut creep. Who fed you this talking point? Go back to your stinkin’ freepers.

15. Truth Teller says:

    October 13, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    A good start but more roads schools dam’s and green power

16. Not Brian says:

    October 13, 2008 at 11:20 pm

    To anonone’s point, Bundy must like his talking points but not actually understand why taxes are supposed to be bad… this is a very direct incentive for people with capital to invest in starting companies and investing in small businesses.

    There is a higher risk in start-ups and small businesses, this provides an incentive to invest.

    I would be interested to understand how you would define a small business, and I ould be interested in understanding whether an existing small business can be changed on paper in a way that allows an owner to become an investor for the purpose of having a tax advantage (in other words rather than generating new capital investment simply creating an incentive for businesses to restructure to dodge taxes in the long term).

17. Not Brian says:

    October 13, 2008 at 11:38 pm

    I think we will need a lot of the spending to get the economy moving, and the investments in infrastructure and energy diversification really would be investments in the economy.

    No matter what, get ready for really high inflation – I think they are actually going to do it intentionally. Higher inflation right now would actually have some odd upsides:

    – Even if the value of real estate does not increase in real dollars, the nominal value will increase (inflation will get people with homes worth less than their mortgages to eventually get even – if they have a fixed rate)
    – Most of our foreign debt right now is on relatively short term (10 year or less) low fixed rate bonds. Inflation will significantly reduce their value in real dollars and will make the debt decrease as a % of GDP
    – There is a a tendency for individuals and businesses to move spending forward to avoid increases in price and/or drop in buying power.

    All that said – inflation is bad for the average responsible person trying to save… it will not be paradise and if the economy is not manged responsibly then the longer term consequences could be disastrous… if the Dems treat this whole thing like an ATM (as the Reps did with the war and homeland security) then we will all regret Obama getting elected – as his presidency will end badly and with Reps taking back Congress and the Presidency…

    I don’t have a ton of faith this will not become a big boondogle – the economic plan seems nice, but I m worried about all the other spending the Dems will be doing with control of everything…

18. mike w. says:

    October 14, 2008 at 7:26 am

    “I just wonder how it’s going to be funded in addition to his very lofty healthcare and tax cut goals.”

    See Dom this is why I like your comments. You’re a liberal, yet still objective enough to ask this question.