Rasmussen polling organization has an elsewhere citied article showing that 66% of those polled believe that the people of the United States pay too much in taxes. There is a US Message Board thread showing that half of the federal income tax filers owe nothing. They in fact even get money back under the first-ever, equal-dollar amount, National COLA-like: Refundable Tax Credit, Make Work Pay!
Anyone might guess that the people of the United States are not too smart about things like math.
March 2008: Bush stimulus $29 billion for Bear Stearns/JP Morgan Chase deal
May 2008: Bush stimulus $178 billion in tax rebate checks
July 2008: Bush stimulus $300 billion for distressed homeowners
July 2008: Bush stimulus $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
September 2008: Bush stimulus $50 billion to guarantee money market funds
September 2008: Bush stimulus $25 billion to Big 3 automakers
September-November 2008: Bush stimulus $150 billion to AIG
October 2008: Bush stimulus $700 billion to banks (TARP)
Bush Total: $1.632 tril., $1.0 tril mostly to selected large corporations.
February 2009: Obama stimulus $787 billion in broad stimulus package
February 2009: Obama stimulus $75 billion for distressed homeowners
February 2009: Obama stimulus $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
March 2009: Obama stimulus $30 billion for AIG
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $15 billion for small business lending
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $1 trillion to get toxic assets off banks troubled asset sheets
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $22 billion for Big 3 Automakers Chrysler and GM
Obama Total: $1,130 tril. mostly to State and Local Governments and Federal Contractors, in the Stimulus. She stimulus also included the amounts of the Make Work Pay Tax Credit. Large Corporations account for about $56.0 bil.
Cash for Clunkers is in addition, but is in the same direction as the Make-Work-Pay credit kind of plan.
So who was the bigger government spender?
Ronald Reagan was among the biggest tax increasers. and created the first $1.0 trillion dollar deficit legacy on the books, in one Administration. Obama, by comparison, is relatively more redistributive, and less of a spender.
Obama Costs less than the more modern Bush Adminisration, in some accounting!
The Obama Stimulus is already working!
All of a sudden, anyone might guess that the United States knows how to macro-economic arithmetic?
This applies under the general concept, "How will the United States pay down the federal deficits if in fact more of the people have the money to do it?
The Tea Partiers and famous Palin--now even rejected by Senator Scott Brown--themselves reject the Clinton Administration legacy of several federal budget surpluses. Commedians call Clinton the first African-American President in the History of the United States. As opposed to what Reagan-Bush had created--55% black teen unemployement and youth gang murders--the outcome of the Clinton Administration increase of incomes among lower income groups actually paid off for the U. S. federal budget. The Silicon Valley bubble was also helpful, but there were people able to buy things, so that the bubble could happen.
And now, the Obama Administration has created more progress out of the downturn, with far less spending, and relative spending. The reason is that clearly it is more redistributive--in the manner of an equal-amount increase of income to rich and to the poor alike. It is therefore more liberal of policy than was Bush or Reagan, or the Other Bush.
As opposed to the Republican administrations, Arithmetic can actually be done in an Obama, Democratic Party, Fairly Liberal Administration. The GOP Conservatives, comparing and contrasting, are still not on board after whay they had done in the immediate eight years after Clinton!
Possibly at least Senator Brown, of Massachusetts, surprise, surprise, possibly appears to have relieved himself of the Bush Administration belief that all federal income tax filers actually owed taxes.
The economy cannot be stimulated with a tax cut!
"Crow, James Crow: shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many Squaws pull lever. Find many coins come from top to bottom. Hmmmm!)
Anyone might guess that the people of the United States are not too smart about things like math.
March 2008: Bush stimulus $29 billion for Bear Stearns/JP Morgan Chase deal
May 2008: Bush stimulus $178 billion in tax rebate checks
July 2008: Bush stimulus $300 billion for distressed homeowners
July 2008: Bush stimulus $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
September 2008: Bush stimulus $50 billion to guarantee money market funds
September 2008: Bush stimulus $25 billion to Big 3 automakers
September-November 2008: Bush stimulus $150 billion to AIG
October 2008: Bush stimulus $700 billion to banks (TARP)
Bush Total: $1.632 tril., $1.0 tril mostly to selected large corporations.
February 2009: Obama stimulus $787 billion in broad stimulus package
February 2009: Obama stimulus $75 billion for distressed homeowners
February 2009: Obama stimulus $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
March 2009: Obama stimulus $30 billion for AIG
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $15 billion for small business lending
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $1 trillion to get toxic assets off banks troubled asset sheets
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $22 billion for Big 3 Automakers Chrysler and GM
Obama Total: $1,130 tril. mostly to State and Local Governments and Federal Contractors, in the Stimulus. She stimulus also included the amounts of the Make Work Pay Tax Credit. Large Corporations account for about $56.0 bil.
Cash for Clunkers is in addition, but is in the same direction as the Make-Work-Pay credit kind of plan.
So who was the bigger government spender?
Ronald Reagan was among the biggest tax increasers. and created the first $1.0 trillion dollar deficit legacy on the books, in one Administration. Obama, by comparison, is relatively more redistributive, and less of a spender.
Obama Costs less than the more modern Bush Adminisration, in some accounting!
The Obama Stimulus is already working!
All of a sudden, anyone might guess that the United States knows how to macro-economic arithmetic?
This applies under the general concept, "How will the United States pay down the federal deficits if in fact more of the people have the money to do it?
The Tea Partiers and famous Palin--now even rejected by Senator Scott Brown--themselves reject the Clinton Administration legacy of several federal budget surpluses. Commedians call Clinton the first African-American President in the History of the United States. As opposed to what Reagan-Bush had created--55% black teen unemployement and youth gang murders--the outcome of the Clinton Administration increase of incomes among lower income groups actually paid off for the U. S. federal budget. The Silicon Valley bubble was also helpful, but there were people able to buy things, so that the bubble could happen.
And now, the Obama Administration has created more progress out of the downturn, with far less spending, and relative spending. The reason is that clearly it is more redistributive--in the manner of an equal-amount increase of income to rich and to the poor alike. It is therefore more liberal of policy than was Bush or Reagan, or the Other Bush.
As opposed to the Republican administrations, Arithmetic can actually be done in an Obama, Democratic Party, Fairly Liberal Administration. The GOP Conservatives, comparing and contrasting, are still not on board after whay they had done in the immediate eight years after Clinton!
Possibly at least Senator Brown, of Massachusetts, surprise, surprise, possibly appears to have relieved himself of the Bush Administration belief that all federal income tax filers actually owed taxes.
The economy cannot be stimulated with a tax cut!
"Crow, James Crow: shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many Squaws pull lever. Find many coins come from top to bottom. Hmmmm!)