H.R. 5029 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010

[MaggieMae]

"Fool me once, shame on you.....fool me twice, shame on me"

How many times do you think we will fall for this "Cut taxes on the rich to create jobs" bullshit?

We bought the Republican line, we gave them the White House and Congress to show us how their economic theory would work.

The rich kept the money and got richer and sent the jobs overseas

Every tax cut has resulted in larger revenue to the government, not smaller. If they choose to over-spend that revenue, which is what happened, that isnt the fault of tax cuts.
The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there.

The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there

Good point....But the economy recovered when the Democrats took control of the Congress AND the White House

Theres the solution right there

It's interesting to note that Rabbi is trying to equate federal spending when the Dems took over to the economic crash resulting from the housing/financial crash which was brought about largely due to PRIVATE enterprise running amok, not the government.

 

[uscitizen]

I love the name of this bill...."Economic Freedom Act"

It gives the wealthy the freedom from paying taxes

The better sounding a bills name is the more bending over and vaseline is required.

 

[antagon]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.

Basically the bill proposes the following:

1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.

Would you vote for this? Why or why not?

this all seems dandy, but where is the real fiscal conservatism? when will republicans realize that our debts are the result of their tax-cut shtick?

one of the concerns which every government of the next 20 years must deal with is how to grow government revenues to affect solvency. i know i'm going only from your summary, and have not looked at the proposed bill, but i wonder why they dont take any of these responsibilities, but return to the well over a tired, but volatile popular campaign strategy in cutting taxes.

party of nonsense?

 

[MaggieMae]

Every tax cut has resulted in larger revenue to the government, not smaller. If they choose to over-spend that revenue, which is what happened, that isnt the fault of tax cuts.
The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there.

The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there

Good point....But the economy recovered when the Democrats took control of the Congress AND the White House

Theres the solution right there

Unemployment rate when Obama entered the White House: 7.8%
Rate today: 9.7%

Seems to be some misunderstanding here.

Yes, yours. Unemployment jumped dramatically the last quarter of 2007, and again the last quarter of 2008. When the banks began to fail and businesses began to panic, OF COURSE layoffs began at a more rapid rate. It had zero to do with WHICH PARTY was in control.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[MaggieMae]

The economy began tanking when Democrats took control of Congress. There's the problem right there

Good point....But the economy recovered when the Democrats took control of the Congress AND the White House

Theres the solution right there

Unemployment rate when Obama entered the White House: 7.8%
Rate today: 9.7%

Seems to be some misunderstanding here.

Ohh absolutely, but you may catch on eventually.

Don't hold your breath. The guy is a very talented cherry-picker of facts.

 

[FrankieGA]

If this bill were introduced it would be a good START. I think everyone in here can admit that the problems that were created in this country didn't happen and take effect in one day, but over years and years of abuse of power from our elected officials. If a bill like this could get passed, the next step would be to reign in government spending. Thats going to be a battle in itself. No one wants to tell all the gov't employees that get paid around 20% more than the private sector to do the same job that they are going to have to get out and find a job outside of the gov't. But if that could be accomplished and some programs could be cut or simply stream lined to run efficiently, that would be another step in the right direction. See where I am going with this. Step by Step this gov't has to be fixed. WE elected the people there that created this mess. Now its time we elect people to fix the mess. But I would propose something simple. How about first and foremost, limit terms for all gov't officials. No more lifers in the congress and senate. 2 terms and your out. New blood in, maybe then they would care about what they do to the people they SERVE.

Just one mans humble opinion!

 

[MaggieMae]

Unemployment rate when Obama entered the White House: 7.8%
Rate today: 9.7%

Seems to be some misunderstanding here.

I guess in your little republican cheerleader bubble you live in, it wouldn't help much to explain this, and you might be a little too dumb to understand anyway. But I'm glad to try.

When Barack took office, the economy was hemorrhaging about 750,000 jobs a month, due to the meltdown caused by the Republicans. 3 months into his tenure, it was down to about 450,000 a month, and 3 months more, about 200,000 a month. Now yes, during this period, the aggregate Unemployment rate continued on to up trend, albiet much much slower than in the economy he inherited. So even though in reality the condition was improving, you and your contemporaries chose to focus on the aggregate statistic, which (incorrectly) made it appear that the problem was getting worse.

Now in 3 of the last 5 months, we've actually gained jobs, for the first time since February '08.

Now I'm not trying to be mean, bless your indignant little soul, so you don't have to go crying like a 5 year old to the moderators like you did last time. I'm just trying to point out that you are reverberating faulty information, and make sure that you're aware of it before you wind up looking foolish.

Please, don't paint yourself as the rational one here because you are clearly a partisan hack. Anyone who would write in a neg rep "suck my dick you little assclown" is clearly not playing with a full deck, in addition to violating TOS on this board.
The fact is that the economy lost many more jobs in the 2001 recession but the unemployment rate never went this high. That is because job creation was still strong.
Under "Barak" (I didnt know you were on a first name basis with Barry) that job creation has lagged badly. The last figure for job creation you cite includes many government jobs (which are a drain on the economy, not a help) including census worker jobs, which are temporary by nature.
So we have not gained jobs in any meaningful sense, and the unemployment rate continues to be stubbornly high. It will continue to be this way because Barack has pushed an agenda that punishes job creation, making it expensive and uncertain. ANd this will not change before November, when the Democrats will get the full force of electoral anger.

So if government job creation isn't ideologically viable in your opinion, then why doesn't the private sector rejoin the human race and stop being so afraid to take risks? If businesses want to move forward, they've got to put some shoes on.

 

[MaggieMae]

I love the name of this bill...."Economic Freedom Act"

It gives the wealthy the freedom from paying taxes

Sounds like it might have been written by Dick Armey.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now in 3 of the last 5 months, we've actually gained jobs, for the first time since February '08.

We've gained jobs? Then why are there still hundreds of thousands of new unemployment claims each month? Does one person getting a job count while the person who lost his job doesn't? Do government jobs that drain the economy more than they contribute to it count?

Nobody has yet competently explained those two things to me.

But I am primarily interested in how the proposals in H.R. 5029 will make matters worse rather than better. I am interested in how this proposal would be a job killer and increase economic woes.

Frankly I can't find a down side in an economy as bad as this one.

But I'm prepared to hear all arguments.

 

[antagon]

hear ye, hear ye! the bill also proposes:

8) Sale of all TARP stock/asset warrants within a year of enactment.

the bill also includes a provision to require sale of all tarp stock assets within a year of its action. the problem with this, of course, is that a government sell-off of GM positions, for example, may put the taxed at a loss on the same. it may degrade the stock as well, with sales being mandated, rather than driven by demand, and where the sales affect an increase in supply.

one thing about republican legislation is that it can be read in a jiffy. even in committee, a democratic bill would stretch round the block, only to grow by leaps thereafter.

this one is light in the pants, awaiting some grand 'ol earmark ballast, no doubt.

the bill

 

[boedicca]

Who cares who wrote it? The sponsor is Jim Jordan; if you have evidence that he is a Dick Armey sock puppet, please post it.

The points are plain common sense if combined with significant cuts in government spending.

Let's hold bureaucrat line item budget reviews on CSPAN, like Japan is doing.

 

[MaggieMae]

If this bill were introduced it would be a good START. I think everyone in here can admit that the problems that were created in this country didn't happen and take effect in one day, but over years and years of abuse of power from our elected officials. If a bill like this could get passed, the next step would be to reign in government spending. Thats going to be a battle in itself. No one wants to tell all the gov't employees that get paid around 20% more than the private sector to do the same job that they are going to have to get out and find a job outside of the gov't. But if that could be accomplished and some programs could be cut or simply stream lined to run efficiently, that would be another step in the right direction. See where I am going with this. Step by Step this gov't has to be fixed. WE elected the people there that created this mess. Now its time we elect people to fix the mess. But I would propose something simple. How about first and foremost, limit terms for all gov't officials. No more lifers in the congress and senate. 2 terms and your out. New blood in, maybe then they would care about what they do to the people they SERVE.

Just one mans humble opinion!

The OP summary is not "a bill." Each item would be a proposed bill by itself. So it would obviously take many months, and even years, to pass all of it. The proposal is a piece of propaganda to make it appear the Republicans are concerned, but most of it would be impossible to pass as generically proposed.

Term limits have never been, nor will they ever, be possible because the very people who would need to approve limits are those who would be affected. And if anything, term limits of House members need to be EXPANDED from two years so that they don't spend one year actually working and the next year campaigning to get reelected.

 

[MaggieMae]

hear ye, hear ye! the bill also proposes:

8) Sale of all TARP stock/asset warrants within a year of enactment.

the bill also includes a provision to require sale of all tarp stock assets within a year of its action. the problem with this, of course, is that a government sell-off of GM positions, for example, may put the taxed at a loss on the same. it may degrade the stock as well, with sales being mandated, rather than driven by demand, and where the sales affect an increase in supply.

one thing about republican legislation is that it can be read in a jiffy. even in committee, a democratic bill would stretch round the block, only to grow by leaps thereafter.

this one is light in the pants, awaiting some grand 'ol earmark ballast, no doubt.

the bill

Democrats' bills are long because they cross all the t's and dot all the i's, cross-reference everything to avoid loopholes. Yet they're highly criticized for being thorough. Go figure.

 

[MaggieMae]

Who cares who wrote it? The sponsor is Jim Jordan; if you have evidence that he is a Dick Armey sock puppet, please post it.

The points are plain common sense if combined with significant cuts in government spending.

Let's hold bureaucrat line item budget reviews on CSPAN, like Japan is doing.

Yes, I can just envision 18-hour, seven-day workweeks to do line by line. And of course the American people would generally show interest for, oh I don't know, a week maybe, and then they'd tune it out and move to their favorite pundit for their favorite biased synopsis.

 

[Bern80]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.

Basically the bill proposes the following:

1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.

Would you vote for this? Why or why not?

I wouldn't vote for it, mainly because it doesn't go far enough. Our tax code is ridiculous, but we've all become so used to it all we can think of for solutions is cutting taxes here or giving breaks there. It's a system that needs to be thrown out completely. Look at withholding tax. Would everyone still be okay with it if they got a bill from the government every month instead of having their income automatically deducted from their paycheck?

The fair tax seems the best way to go to me. I just can't come up with a downside. It would eliminate tax breaks for corporate America that libs whine about. Government would still have it's money and a tax on consumption rather than a progressive tax on income is just plain more fair to all. I can't figure out why a citizen would opposse it. Who doesn't want to actually keep ALL of their paycheck? It's understanable why politicians would because they wouldn't be able to wield the tax code as a weapon anymore.

 

[Foxfyre]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.

Basically the bill proposes the following:

1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.

Would you vote for this? Why or why not?

this all seems dandy, but where is the real fiscal conservatism? when will republicans realize that our debts are the result of their tax-cut shtick?

one of the concerns which every government of the next 20 years must deal with is how to grow government revenues to affect solvency. i know i'm going only from your summary, and have not looked at the proposed bill, but i wonder why they dont take any of these responsibilities, but return to the well over a tired, but volatile popular campaign strategy in cutting taxes.

party of nonsense?

I disagree. Fiscal conservatism includes the government using no more of the people's property than is absolutely necessary in order for government to fulfill is constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Fiscal conservatism also recognizes that our debts are the result of spending more money than we take in, of programs that have far exceeded their projected costs and have mushroomed into unsustainable entitlements, and of government using the people's money and resources recklessly, unnecessarily, frivolously and/or to increase its own power, prestige, authority, influence, and personal fortunes.

 

[boedicca]

Who cares who wrote it? The sponsor is Jim Jordan; if you have evidence that he is a Dick Armey sock puppet, please post it.

The points are plain common sense if combined with significant cuts in government spending.

Let's hold bureaucrat line item budget reviews on CSPAN, like Japan is doing.

Yes, I can just envision 18-hour, seven-day workweeks to do line by line. And of course the American people would generally show interest for, oh I don't know, a week maybe, and then they'd tune it out and move to their favorite pundit for their favorite biased synopsis.

Oh ye of little imagination.

This concept has Block Buster Potential. "Grill The Bureaucrat" - Must See TV!

Considering how outraged a big chunk of the public are about government spending, watching squirming career bureaucrats with huge pensions and benefits attempt to justify wasteful spending is exactly the Sunlight Disinfectant we need.

 

[FrankieGA]

If this bill were introduced it would be a good START. I think everyone in here can admit that the problems that were created in this country didn't happen and take effect in one day, but over years and years of abuse of power from our elected officials. If a bill like this could get passed, the next step would be to reign in government spending. Thats going to be a battle in itself. No one wants to tell all the gov't employees that get paid around 20% more than the private sector to do the same job that they are going to have to get out and find a job outside of the gov't. But if that could be accomplished and some programs could be cut or simply stream lined to run efficiently, that would be another step in the right direction. See where I am going with this. Step by Step this gov't has to be fixed. WE elected the people there that created this mess. Now its time we elect people to fix the mess. But I would propose something simple. How about first and foremost, limit terms for all gov't officials. No more lifers in the congress and senate. 2 terms and your out. New blood in, maybe then they would care about what they do to the people they SERVE.

Just one mans humble opinion!

The OP summary is not "a bill." Each item would be a proposed bill by itself. So it would obviously take many months, and even years, to pass all of it. The proposal is a piece of propaganda to make it appear the Republicans are concerned, but most of it would be impossible to pass as generically proposed.

Term limits have never been, nor will they ever, be possible because the very people who would need to approve limits are those who would be affected. And if anything, term limits of House members need to be EXPANDED from two years so that they don't spend one year actually working and the next year campaigning to get reelected.

Your right it would take years to pass, that was kind of my point. We have put so many band aids on the problems over the years that if you take them all off at once we would hemorage and bleed out of control.

But to say its a piece of propaganda is really a bold statement. I hear all this crap about how the republicans are evil rich and how they only want to give tax cuts to the "rich". blah blah blah. Here is a question for you. For example, you have all these elitist assholes in Hollywood, Rich as all hell, begging for you to vote Democrat, Why would they want that? Could it be they are truly looking out for themselves? that it would be a good thing to keep Dem's in power. I mean look at that fat ass Michael Moore. Making millions off of propaganda. Al Gore, the creator and almighty of the internet revolution, self claimed. Even that facist troll looking terd Bill Mahr. Always bashing conservative movements. To me the Dem's have a lot more vocal people to the cause making a lot more noise about being liberal that us evil Conservative or Republicans do. Again, just one mans opinion.

 

[boedicca]

Y'know. If Harry and Nancy can RAHM through a 2,700 plus page bill nobody has read in a short amount of time, there is no reason why some clearly drafted common sense government financial reforms cannot be expedited.

The Real Financial Reform we need is in Government, not Wall Street. If we properly reform government, the ability for Wall Street to be ensured form risk with Taxpayer money will be eliminated (cuz that is the problem with them).

 

[antagon]

altogether, i like the expensing part of the bill most.

the payroll tax holiday should be rolled to the year following the action of the bill such that it could act as stimulus, rather than relief. the former will allow businesses to consider hiring employees early in the year and hope to grow them into their shoes during the holiday. the latter will just cut the government revenue, probably with little resultant hiring.

the capital gains provision should be nixed. capital gains should be treated as taxable income. real savings and lending is preferred economic activity to gambling on investment markets. the republicans are just looking to line some pockets and affect another disaster-bubble to blame on the rest of the country.

corporate tax rates should be left alone or raised, and loopholes allowing transfer to offshore subsidiaries filled more effectively. parring or raising the tax puts effect behind the expensing power in the bill. have companies dodge some of their tax liability, all of it if possible, but have that happen through investment in the US economy.

this bill should be able to project par or improved solvency for the government, at least with the same smoke and mirrors which the HC bill did. with it not passing with spending provisions from tarp still in the wings that is doubtful.

i would like to see a repeal of the alt min tax - the stupidest part of our code which i owe the biggest ass whoppin. that's not in there. i dont think that the payroll tax holiday is realistic. havent we borrowed enough stimulus from medicare and SS? i would like to see new hire deductions, explicitly, in lieu. gimme $6k/ ea. and we'll make jobs.