Who's Pissed They're Not Getting a Rebate Check?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
> The Democrats have a once in a generation opportunity to take away a key issue in national politics that has been costing them elections: fiscal responsibility.





Given the emphasis on "Universal Healthcare" coming from the Democrats, do you really believe they have any interest in fiscal responsibility? Also, I hope this is just a misstatement, but do you REALLY believe that Arnold Schwarzennegger is fiscally conservative?
 
You have all heard this before, not from me, but you have heard it. Both partys are corrupt and there isn't enough difference between them to necessitate a choice. Vote for Ron Paul.
 
<em>"Given the emphasis on "Universal Healthcare" coming from the Democrats, do you really believe they have any interest in fiscal responsibility?" </em>





Probably not, but if they did, they could steal this issue from the Republicans.








<em>"Also, I hope this is just a misstatement, but do you REALLY believe that Arnold Schwarzennegger is fiscally conservative?"</em>





I guess fiscal conservatism is relative in California. He is certainly more conservative than Gray Davis or any Democrat to hold the office in California. I think he is as fiscally conservative as any candidate would could get elected in this state. In California, anything approaching the middle is WAY to the Right.
 
> Probably not, but if they did, they could steal this issue from the Republicans.





To be perfectly blunt, the odds of resuming 30% annual appreciation in real estate starting with the "spring bounce" we are experiencing right now are far greater than the odds of the Democrats acting in a fiscally conservative manner. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I realize that party labels don't always apply. For example, if given the choice, I would vote for Zell Miller for President over John McCain in a heartbeat. Even though Zell Miller was a Democrat, as a southern Democrat, he is more conservative than a lot of Republicans (In Name Only) like McCain. (Also, with "Republicans" like McCain, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, and Chuck Hagel, can you really say that the Republicans had a majority in the Senate at any time during the Bush administration?)





>I guess fiscal conservatism is relative in California. He is certainly more conservative than Gray Davis or any Democrat to hold the office in California. I think he is as fiscally conservative as any candidate would could get elected in this state. In California, anything approaching the middle is WAY to the Right.





Just so you know a little bit more about where I am coming from, though I have moved around a lot in my life (mostly as a kid), I consider myself to be an Arizonan. I lived most of my there, and am only here because of a long term contract that I am on. But when you start talking about fiscal conservatism being relative, you are headed down a slippery slope. Though I could go on for hours on the topic, I think mentioning the $3 billion stem cell research program that Arnold endorsed a couple of years ago says all you need to know about his fiscal conservatism credentials. Clearly this is an issue that PRIVATE biotech companies are interested in, and the private sector should be footing the bill.





Also, though I am not as knowledgeable about politics here as I am back home, from what I have read, Tom McClintock seems to be fiscally sound on absolute terms, not relative. Don't give in to the soft bigotry of reduced expectations on this issue. Simply put, there aren't many things that the government does better than the private sector. Government isn't the answer to problems, government is the problem.
 
Awgee, though there are certain things that Ron Paul advocates that I agree with strongly, there are other things that he is just too wrong about. The importance of those issues is great enough that I am unable to support him.
 
<em>"Tom McClintock seems to be fiscally sound on absolute terms, not relative. Don't give in to the soft bigotry of reduced expectations on this issue. Simply put, there aren't many things that the government does better than the private sector. Government isn't the answer to problems, government is the problem."</em>





I agree with what you are saying, but it is not a formula for winning public office in California. McClintock is a perfect example of how to lose here.
 
It's a shame that Schwarzenegger got the Republican nomination for Governor during the recall elections. But I think that's more because of celebrity than policy.
 
<p>IR,</p>

<p>Again, I still think you overestimate the power the President has on the budget. As you point out, one issue can make or break a Presidency and, with him as the figurehead, a party. The restrictions on a President's power to veto are limited by his desire to serve another term, and this is even more apparent in the budget process. When was the last time you counted the number of sub-committees under the Appropriations committee? While individual congressional Reps only have to focus on being re-elected by a small faction, the President has to woo an entire nation. With the electorate as evenly split as it has been in recent Presidential elections, he can not afford to alienate too many voters by vetoing an entire budget because he think there are too many pork projects. In contrast, Congress rarely has to worry about that as they are running based on how much pork they bring back to their district. This frees them to be as generous as they want, but forces the President to choose between handing his opponent's party a sure election issue or accepting a budget that gives him most of what he wants. Reagan was an extreme example, but the practice goes back to the creation of the income tax, at least. The President is more than a rubber stamp, but not by much. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>The American populace really wants a leader and a party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. This is one of the reasons Arnold is so popular in California. If the Democrats can make themselves over in this mold, they would really resonate with the American people. I think this challenge is much more difficult for Republicans because the social conservatives are so strong, and the fiscal conservatives are in such disarray. Our current Republican leader is the exact opposite -- a social conservative and a fiscal liberal -- the worst of both worlds. It also explains much of his unpopularity.</em></p>

<p>This is why so many conservatives eye the Libertarian party. If it wasn't for their retarded foreign policy and their rather extreme views of land rights, I think you would see a swell of Libertarians winning local elections as conservatives switched over. But I'm not worried about Democrats becoming fiscally responsible; they can't pay for their programs without either rasing taxes to Finnish levels or deficit spending. Their base demands the social spending, cutting the military down to the bone is not an option after 9/11, and Americans will not stand for 40% tax levels so they don't have any options left to them.</p>
 
Sidenote: I'm getting a rebate check and it's going into my low interest savings account. (whoo hoo!)

Do not feel like getting something that'll eventually be e-wasted, out of style, or get me stuffed with high calories.
 
<em>Our current Republican leader is the exact opposite -- a social conservative and a fiscal liberal -- the worst of both worlds. It also explains much of his unpopularity.</em>



Truer words never spoken. Of course the war hasn't made him any more popular, but that's a discussion for another time.



<em>[The Democrat's] base demands the social spending,</em>



We've already covered this ground. It's not blue states that are net recipients of federal money, it's the Republican red states. If red, fiscally-conservatives really want to demonstrate their resentment of social programs, they should say refuse to accept a dime more in federal funds than they pay. Instead, they vote for McCain with their left hand, hold out their right for a federal handout, all the while congratulating one another on their fiscally restraint. It's pure hypocrisy.



To be fair the Democrats suck equally bad, but for different reasons. Feckless, rudderless and suffering from political hypogonadism, the Dems simply react to the world. When I used to demographic research and database marketing, I consulted for both parties (mercenary, I know) and I was shocked at the Dems inability to make a decision on any matter. Everyone had to agree on every facet of every proposal to the point where no decisions were ever made. But they all made sure that everyone "felt good" about the process. We never got anything done, but it was great for the inner puppy, if you get my meaning.



The Republicans on the other hand were inflicted with the most profound sense of certitude in everything they did. If you didn?t feel good after the process, it was because your loyalties were considered to be in the wrong place and you were frowned upon for it. You either had the "religeon" of you were on your way of out there. And where the Dems couldn't execute against a plan to save their lives, the Republicans executed with awe-inspiring efficiency.
 
<p>HBB,</p>

<p>I probably could have written that more clearly. What I mean is that the Democratic base will demand more social spending, not necessarily for themselves. As evidenced by the discussions on welfare spending in another thread, the Government is expected to handle social issues like welfare, homelessness, health care, etc.. Content in the knowledge that tax dollars can solve any problem, they expect Democrat politicians to expend what ever money is needed to fix the problem and the amount is always "more". It isn't that they will demand it be spent on themselves, but that it will be spent as evidence that something is being done. While the war may be ended on 1/21/09, defense spending will continue lest the Dems cast themselves as "weak" again (and instantly obsolete if a major attack occurs due to force reductions), social spending cannot be cut for the above reasons, and taxes cannot be raised to draconian levels without voter revolt (especially during a recession), leaving the Dems with no choice but to continue deficit spending in order to remain politcally viable.</p>
 
Nude,



You know, I just don't know. From where I sit, monies don't have to be spent on the least fortunate for them to be considered welfare. I look at the $150 billion stimulus package, the Medicare drug benefit, exploration tax credits for the oil companies, the tax cuts for the rich and on capital gains and I see them all as "welfare" of one kind of another, targeted at one consituency or another.



So why is it when monies go to the poor, the homeless, insuring American children the Right considers it welfare, sometimes even socialism, but when the monies go to the rich or to industry it's considered "strategic investment"? I just don't get it.
 
Tax cuts cannot be welfare, except by some really convoluted logic. "Charity" is giving money you have to someone who needs it. "Socialism" is giving money you take from one group to another group as 'welfare'. A "tax cut" is taking less of someone else's money, period. They only was you can consider a tax cut to be welfare is by thinking that their money is your's or the government's in the first place and that any lowering of the rate is a giving of money. That way thinking of is so completely backwards that it makes me wonder if you wear your underwear on the outside of your pants, too.
 
Again, I just don't know.



I just don't see the difference in the difference of paying $1,000 less in tax becuase of a decrease in the tax rate or getting a $1,000 tax credit because I've got a kid or getting a $1,000 in food stamps or getting a $1,000 stimulus check from W or getting $1,000 in extra dividends that are the result of a tax credit for an industry I've invested in. To me, they are essentially the same, becuase it's a zero-sum game; at the end of the day, I have $1,000 more than I would have otherwise and the tax coffers have $1,000 less.



If you want to argue that is more efficient to let me my own $1,000 out of the gate, versus my sending it in and having the feds sent it back to me, you won't get any argument from me. The differences in labeling, however, seem semantic and really only useful because some don't want their righteous and judicious $1,000 transfer of payments (e.g. stimulus check, Bush tax cut) lumped in the with the scuzzy, socialitic $1,000 a poor mother gets as a "handout" from AFDC to feed her kids.
 
<p>Taking your theoretical $1000, let's compare the flow of each of your scenarios.</p>

<p>Assuming you are just saving it, paying $1000 less in taxes means you are free to put it into a high interest savings account or a CD. That $1000 is combined with several other deposits and lent to Joe to open his bakery. You get a small amount of interest paid on your deposit, Joe gets a steady income and provides a couple of jobs in the community, which increases taxes going into the coffers. The bank makes a small percentage off the interest differential and pays it's shareholders, it's employees, it's taxes, and reinvests the remaining profit with many other small businesses and homeowners. </p>

<p>Getting a tax credit because you have a kid means you can afford a new set of school clothes, or maybe a laptop computer for homework, or maybe you invest it in a college fund, where it again goes to help Joe start up his bakery. You are directly helping the economy, your kid, and possibly Joe. You child gets a better job in the future, the retailers are able to pay their employees and their investors, who in turn pay taxes.</p>

<p>A company, in which you have invested via 401(k) or other vehicle, now has money for them to use as operating capital which allows them to hire and train workers, who in turn make a product that is sold or used by someone who needs that product. That company pays out a dividend to it's stock holders at regular intervals, it pays it's workers who in turn pay taxes and support local businesses who's workers pay taxes. In turning raw materials into a product that company meets a societal need that the government has decided is beneficial and subsequently encourages with a tax credit to spur more production or to increase it's profitablity which allows it to attract more investment. This produces more jobs, which provide more taxes.</p>

<p>Giving someone a $1000 in foodstamps allows them to eat, and hopefully this allows them to spend any other income on housing and utilities while they wait to hear from Joe about that job in his new bakery. Supermarkets turn them into the government to get reimbursed with tax dollars so they can pay their suppliers and employees, who in turn pay taxes, but the profit margin and amount of foodstamp business is tiny in comparison with what they make from a fully employed person and no store could depend on it for it's sole revenue.</p>

<p>Giving a targeted section of the population $1000 is a desperate attempt to replicate the irresponsible consumer spending of the last 5 years. And it will have a small effect on the overall economy, but mostly I suspect it will be used to pay off the purchases made with credit that previously stimulated the economy. If this proves to be the case, it will be less than a zero sum game.</p>

<p>So there you go, HBB. What $1000 can do is largely dependent on who is using it but it is rarely a zero sum game. If you only consider your personal perspective, it's easy to say that $1000 is better off going to AFDC payments. But that same $1000 will do far more for a far longer period of time in private hands than it can in public hands. It generates more revenue, more jobs, and for a much longer time than when doled out in an amount too small to actually make a change in one person's life in a permanent way. I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't find a way to help people. But $1000 just not capable of providing the kind of growth via welfare that it can in other uses. </p>
 
This is pure speculation. I get criticized for not providing numbers or whatever but this is just plain story telling. The use of this fictional character Joe makes it sound even more ludicrous. Give me a break!



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top