I think that was Hoover.....(sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2008-12-17
In Reply to: Obama's redistribution of wealth - gourdpainter
A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.
I agree that the trickle down thing hasn't worked. What that did was put more money in the hands of the people who already had money. Instead of creating jobs with that money, they invested or spent it, thereby staying in the top 2% with no benefit for the average American at all.
Obama's plan at least puts that money in the hands of the people who need it. No, it may not be that much, particularly at first. It may just cover that chicken in the pot, but that chicken is more than you started out with.
So, I think the real question is -- are pubs willing to just keep giving that money to the top 2% -- that would include those CEOs everyone's been talking about like dogs -- or would they rather have that money in hand. I don't see why anyone would want to fight this given the fact that Reaganomics has obviously failed so miserably.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Yeah....and in 1929 Hoover was President....
NOT Roosevelt. He got it ALL wrong.
Hubert Hoover raised taxes
during an economic recession and that lead to The Great Depression. Obama is the one wanting to raise taxes here. He wants to raise taxes on companies who are already hurting right now because of the financial crisis. This will lead to less jobs and more companies closing and going out of the country. FDR introduced several new deals which were government assistant programs that were supposed to help people during the great depression and those new deals have actually been proven to lengthen the duration of the great depression.....not help it. Obama wants to introduce new government assisted programs. To me....Obama will be the absolutely worst thing for this economy.
As for Sarah Palin....at least she has run something which is more than I can say for Obama. He may have been a community organizer but the buildings in his region that were for low-income families, like the ones owned by Rezko, were often without heat and were horrible living conditions. Sarah Palin has run a state where she is very popular. She has cut spending in her state. She has no problem standing up to her own party. These are very admirable things. Yes, Obama has been on the senate but he hasn't been on there very long. His experience of running things and making executive decisions is seriously lacking. Instead of cutting back government spending, he wants to raise our taxes. Gee....that sounds like change, huh. A man looking out for us little people.....whatever. Obama has never once stood up against his own party. His own running mate said he didn't have the experience. The amount of pork Obama has spent government money on is just outrageous. The key to this whole thing is to get government under control and stop the spending.....not let government get bigger and control more of OUR money.
Awesome. Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover
Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford all bigtime republican socialists! Who knew?
Obama's scary Hoover-Style Tax Hikes
March 2nd, 2009 5:17 PM Eastern
Obama’s Scary Hoover-Style Tax Hikes
By Phil Kerpen
Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity
The composition of the tax hikes in the 2010 budget is frighteningly similar to the Revenue Act of 1932, the much-maligned Hoover tax hikes that put the “Great” in Great Depression by putting an enormous tax burden on millions of Americans, largely through excise taxes. These taxes, raised even further by FDR, were justified by the promise that the funds would be returned in the form of relief programs, which is to say that some portion of the tax revenue, after administrative costs in Washington, would go back to the states with strings attached, often to further political rather than economic objectives.
As the table below shows, the Obama budget blueprint, like the 1932 act, is split mainly between broad excise taxes and income tax hikes on high income earners. Unfortunately, there were no 10-years projections back then, so I had to use one year numbers, but it’s still an interesting comparison.
link for table.
http://foxforum.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/kerpen_chart1.jpg
The 2010 budget assumes, probably correctly, that the only way to generate a big revenue increase in the face of severe economic weakness is to use a tax mechanism–the excise tax–that is collected in relatively small increments across millions of transactions made by Americans of all income levels. That is a direct lesson of 1932, when the income tax on the rich–then the only people who paid income taxes–was raised to capture as much revenue as possible before high-income earners fled the country or stopped working. Then, as now, that amount was about 0.3 percent of GDP.
Excise taxes did most of the revenue work in the 1932 act, including excises on everything from trucks, tires, jewelry, chewing gum, and soft drinks to gasoline and electricity. Those last two are especially interesting in light of the carbon cap-and-trade proposal in the 2010 budget, which is a DE facto excise tax on those items as well as every other energy technology that relies on the most affordable energy sources: natural gas, oil, and coal.
Despite President Obama’s promise that “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime,” his new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.
While the overall tax hike is smaller than 1932 (0.9 percent of GDP versus 1.6 percent of GDP) and the excise/energy component is only half the size (0.4 percent of GDP versus 0.8 percent of GDP) there is every reason to believe that the bite of the cap-and-trade tax will increase considerably beyond the initial projections, making this plan even more resemble 1932.
The cap-and-trade provisions are designed to get much, much more expensive over time, making the total impact hard to quantify but likely to be as or more expensive than the 1932 Revenue Act. In fact, Obama’s version of cap-and-trade is much more expensive than last year’s already outrageous Lieberman-Warner bill, mandating emissions cuts of 83 percent versus 63 percent in last year’s version.
I didn’t include the death tax in the chart, because there was no revenue estimate for it in 1932, but that’s another eerie parallel. In 1932 the rate was hiked from 20 percent to 45 percent, and in 2010, under Obama’s proposal (which is hidden in a footnote in the budget) it will go from zero under current law to that same 45 percent rate.
If we continue down a path of repeating the policies of the 1930s we risk a repeat of the same results. Let’s hope Congress has the good sense to say no to these Hoover-style tax hikes.
Phil Kerpen is director of policy for Americans for Prosperity.
THE NAME IS HERBERT Hoover HERBERT
SOME WEIRD SPELLERS ON THIS BOARD
|
