I say skip it. IMO it wont do much to turn things around. Too little too late with the money going where it?s not needed.
It's either a spending spree for pork projects or a tax give away for big business.
So who needs it? Skip it. Don't spend the money.
Comments
We are in total agreement here.
If there is any assistance, perhaps it should go to the laid off airline employees?
Airlines have fought increased security mesures for years. Their incompetance resulted in the deaths of thousands. So, the government turned around and handed over 15 Billion to cover their operating expenses.
The airlines turned around and laid of tens of thousands of employees and found ways to deny many of them any kind of severence pay whatsoever.
Giving corprorations more money will accomplish nothing. They will take the money and still screw their employees if they have the chance. I have no problem with helping to pay the bills of people who don't have anything to fall back on now their unemployment benefits have been denied.
It's a double edged sword.
So the best way to do it right is to do nothing.
If there was a way for them to pass a stimulus package that involved acceleraing the tax cuts already passed and nothing more, I'd say go for it. But that won't happen so they should just leave it alone.
Expansionary fiscal policy would be used to speed up the rate of GDP growth or during a recession when GDP growth is negative. A tax cut and/or increase in government spending would be implemented to stimulate economic growth and lower unemployment rates. These policies will lead to higher budget deficits. A decrease in taxes would also raise private spending.
Government spending would hurt unemployment more, so I think tax cuts would be better.
--edited to make myself less of a pompous ass.
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: tuxbook731 ]</p>
What's interesting to me is that it's not just a removal of the tax, or even a retroactive removal of the tax for this year, like they did for the individual income taxes. It's a rebate of all the AMT that these corporations have ever paid.
IBM alone would get a check for 1.4 billion dollars. (!) Ford would get a billion, GM 800 million, and several oil companies would get several hundred million each.
Oh, that income tax rate reduction wouldn't be effective until 2006. That's right about the time I'll probably have enough income to actually pay taxes.
<strong>this is an old proposal package.</strong><hr></blockquote>If you're referring to the AMT rebate, it's in the House proposal, and hasn't been taken off the table, as far as I know. Senate Dems oppose it, so it probably won't make it. Of course, the House and Senate bills have to be reconciled, so no one knows yet what will appear in the end.
It'll be interesting to watch what happens once the parties in each house come up with a plan. The conference committee proposal should be intriguing to say the least if it combines the proposals out there now.
BTW, CTJ is one of my favorite watchdog groups. They really tear apart Tennessee's tax structure in a few papers.
<strong>to meet their Keynesian desires.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You make it sound so... dirty.
Can you give an explanation of what Keynesian means?
<strong>
Can you give an explanation of what Keynesian means?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://cepa.newschool.edu/~het/essays/keynes/gtintro.htm" target="_blank">Here</a> you go.
Can you give an explanation of what Keynesian means?<hr></blockquote>
Basically, Keynesian policy focuses on using government spending to spur the economy. It tries to spur demand by employing more people. A prime example is the FDR administration and their alphabet soup programs that helped the U.S. recover from the Great Depression in the 30s.