Replies to post #92218 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[StephanieVanbryce]

did you vote for BUSH twice ?

[wbmw]

I understand how gov funding is spread, I'm saying it has not worked very well. We still suffer from energy dependence even with the govs having the clear warning from the 70's all that happened was more 'regulations' and subsidy that helped Big Business. That is all we can expect from Big Government because their buddies the CEO's have rigged the game.

The problem is that we've switched between two parties in government, each with a different agenda and ideology of how to address the energy problem. Democrats like Carter and Clinton funded energy research. Reagan and Bush I and II just gave more subsidies to the oil companies, in the hopes that America could control a larger share of world oil supply (it didn't work).

Now, we have Obama following the Carter and Clinton policies of funding energy research, and Republicans are still asking for off-shore drilling to increase our oil supply. Obama is being pragmatic and willing to do a little of both, but I think the majority of funding should go to energy research.

Plus, I think it's worth pointing out that we have shown some fruits from the energy research in this country. Look at the explosion of LED and compact flourescent lightbulbs, the retrofitting of buildings to be LEED certified for energy efficiency, and the huge growth in wind, hydro, geothermal, and biowaste fuel sources.

My local energy company, called PGE (which was spun off from Enron, by the way), now gives me the option to pay about $5 more on my electric bill so that PGE can expand my number of megawatts of energy to come from wind, geothermal, and biowaste fuel sources, which are now growing in number along the West Coast. That's progress, and I'm happy to pay the small premium to incentivize these alternative options.

Democrates have been duped again, thinking Obama would bring "hope and change" but when his advisor is Summers and his financial General is Geithner, we know they are going to serve their gods, GS - JPM and their Zeus - Ben Bernanke. Obama is not the guy to bring hope and change, I'm sorry to inform you.

I just don't feel that way, and I've already explained why. I think Obama is a good strategist who keeps his friends close, and his enemies closer. I think he hears advice from Summers and Geithner, but Obama's still the one making the decisions.

How would I know...? Because when Obama talks about lending to small businesses through local banks, that's not something that Geithner or Summers would come up with. And when Obama talks about enforcing regulations on banks and breaking up Too Big to Fail, that's certainly not a policy that the Wall Street lobbyists would support.

So you have to look beyond Obama's company, and watch his actions, and what he's pushing through Congress as well.

[wbmw]

What we need is a game changer for all citizens and small business NOW! and the FICA Tax Holiday would do it. And it would be 100% for small business and average citizens. FICA drops off at what 106k so the "rich" would benefit proportionally much less than average Joe and Jane and Bill Small Business.

Let's spawn this one out in a separate discussion, since it's interesting.

Based on the 2011 budget, there are $934B in revenues expected from Social Security and retirement taxes - so that would be roughly the cost of the bill, and the addition to our deficit, in order to enable this tax holiday.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf

Meanwhile, we should compare how that would be different than the $787 billion stimulus bill passed last year, which is also money that was injected into the economy, except that it was specified to fund projections such as infrastructure and research grants that not only contributed to the economy and created jobs, but also funded projects that the country needed.

How much of the $934B in tax cuts that you are proposing will do the same thing, compared to how much people will just leave in their bank account, which is not stimulative at all, and merely contributes to inflation?

I'm not trying to be negative on your idea, but you claim that some people will use the money to create jobs, and some people will use the money to get out of debt. Well, that's all great, but the $934B price tag on your proposed tax cut is more expensive than the stimulus bill, and so I'm trying to hold it in contrast to it, to see if your idea would have actually been superior.

And by the way, I'm sure you're familiar that 1/3 of the stimulus bill went towards state aid that - if not implemented - would have resulted in budget shortfalls in many states, that would have had to result in budget cuts, leading to reductions in employment in positions like teachers, police officers, and other government jobs. Your $934B tax cut would not have saved any of those jobs.

Lastly, I'll just point out that another 1/3 of the stimulus bill was in fact a tax cut for most middle and lower-middle class Americans. Of course, Obama hardly got much credit for it, probably because it only showed up as $40 of additional money in a person's monthly paycheck (which was $140B worth of lost revenues) - but it was in fact a tax cut to stimulate the economy in a time of need, that the taxpayer is eventually going to be responsible for paying back.

So again, if we increased that tax cut to $943B, how would it stack up against the $787B bill that was passed last year? In all fairness, if you think it's such a good idea, then you ought to be able to stack it up against the stimulus bill and explain how it would have been better.