sdw at lig.net
Tue Jul 14 18:01:21 PDT 2009
I started out thinking these were good points, until... I read one
article on the subject.
Jeff Bone wrote:
> Well, the central dilemma of the Obama administration is shaping up to
> be the same one as plagued the Bush administration: is the man an
> absolute idiot (albeit a much more eloquent one) or a colossal
> From Obama's speech yesterday in Ghana:
> "No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20
> percent off the top..."
> I suppose a dogged literalist might think he forgot to include "only."
Are you implying that the US "skims" 20% of gross revenue on all
business revenue? Really? "Skimming" means taking a chunk of gross
receipts. The mob guy stops by Friday night and dips into the till for
Is that why some ad I saw for Mother Jones at the post office yesterday
(misleadingly) points out that "61% of corporations pay no tax"? Some
counties do have a gross receipts tax. The most I've seen is 1%.
California has an $800 minimum corporate tax, which is kind of painful
and unfair to small business. (It is the most clear barrier to entry
for creating a small business that I've seen in the US.) Sales tax
maybe gets to 9% some places. But nothing like "skimming 20%". EU has
the VAT, but that still is only on the marginal increase on value, not
the gross receipts.
So, how is Obama being an idiot or hypocrite here? I would raise the
> PS - for all of you keeping score out there re: my economic indicator
> predictions and program cost-projections from last summer... how you
> feeling about all that *now*, chumps?
You predicted that the US Federal Government would spend less than $196B
on stimulus this year? Because that is the most that will be spent.
And you do realize that $288B of the $787B total was "spent" on tax
cuts, right? Are you asking about our feelings on those?
> The record-breaking $787 billion fiscal stimulus package that Congress
> passed in February is not breaking records on the job front. In
> California, with 11.5 percent unemployment, it has done little more
> than prevent layoffs of state workers.
> In response, Democrats who sold the stimulus as a way to cap the
> national unemployment rate at 8 percent are scrambling to explain why
> hundreds of thousands of jobs disappear each month.
> To arrive next year
> None of this should be a surprise. Only a small fraction of the
> stimulus has even been spent, so it is not shocking that it has yet to
> show results. By the end of this year, less than a quarter of the
> money will be out the door. As was widely noted in February, the bulk
> of the $787 billion will arrive next year.
FACT CHECK: GOP joins murky math on stimulus jobs
> (07-10) 18:07 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
> House Republicans on Friday declared the nation's economic stimulus
> efforts a "dismal failure." But the convoluted math they used to
> disparage the recovery is as murky and meaningless as the White House
> formula championing the stimulus.
> Led by the senior Republican on the House Transportation and
> Infrastructure Committee, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., committee members
> argued simultaneously that the government was spending too much money
> and not spending it fast enough.
> They argued that projects are mired in red tape, that the slow pace of
> transportation spending is to blame for rising unemployment, and that
> the stimulus was not targeted to areas that needed jobs the most.
> MICA SAID: Transportation money is slow to get out because of "red
> tape" slowing things down.
> THE FACTS: Republicans are correct that only a small percentage of the
> $48 billion in transportation money has been spent. But red tape is a
> red herring. In fact, stimulus projects have to be ready to begin
> quickly. Projects that have yet to clear permitting, environmental
> review or other bureaucratic hurdles won't get funded because they
> won't meet the law's deadlines.
> REP. MARIO DIAZ-BALART, R-FLA., SAID: "There is a new definition for
> dismal failure: Stimulus. This stimulus."
> THE FACTS: The argument is based on the idea that unemployment keeps
> going up despite the transportation spending. That's a non-sequitur.
> The $48 billion in transportation money represents just 6 percent of
> the total stimulus. A far greater share of stimulus money, $288
> billion, was spent on tax cuts, and conservatives would never accept
> the argument that rising unemployment proves that tax cuts don't work.
> The fact is, Republicans don't need to create mathematical
> head-scratchers to criticize the stimulus. Since President Barack
> Obama signed the stimulus into effect in February, the nation has lost
> more than 2 million jobs and unemployment has climbed ever higher. The
> administration's claims that the law has created or saved 150,000 jobs
> is based on a misused formula and the number cannot be verified.
> Whether it's today or in 2012, voters can judge the Obama
> administration on real job numbers, not rosy White House estimates or
> gloomy Republican numbers.
More information about the FoRK