Ideas

Good idea or bad idea?

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor by providing a "tax cut" for those in "need" and raising taxes on those who "don't need."($80 billion)

Giving a "tax credit" to those who can provide a means of production thereby creating opportunities for those in "need" to earn for themselves a life without needs. Perhaps even a life of affluence, with a little hard work. ($80 billion)

Countering the incentives to save and invest money in the countries financial system by raising taxes on earnings on such venture to levels not seen since the days of Clinton's recession. ($60 billion)

Laying out a vague and ambiguous plan on national TV that has changed every week as an instrument of change for an already broken system. ($1 million)

Increasing the size of government by $1 trillion dollars in the midst of an economic downturn. ($1 trillion)

Being endorsed by a non-partisan political action organization. (Priceless)

There is only one good idea among all of these. Cutting taxes for those who have worked the hardest in an attempt to incentivise job growth is a brilliant idea. It has even been proven in application as a way to increase the number of jobs and increase government revenue. The remaining ideas in the above passage are quite frankly a sloppy attempt to make everyone happy from the labor unions to the tax-and-spend liberal left.

Bottom line, there is no possible way, based on my own understanding if the matter, that all of these initiatives can be executed simultaneously without harming the economy. Adding more red tape to an already muddled tax code makes less sense than the "tax cut" checks bring given to those who are responsible for less than 3% of this countries overall tax liabilities. I am further forced to ask why someone would want the responsibility of determining who is or is not worthy of receiving tribute from there leader.

One or more of these tax retooling will fail and create yet another black whole of money in the treasury. Enemies will be made and allies will be thoroughly satisfied but keep in mind that we still haven't included the plan to loan mortgage money to those "in danger of loosing their homes," ($300 billion) or the plan on "universal healthcare" ($200 billion) or putting the high tech tools of tomorrow in every classroom. (I don't know that number but if you include the necessary funds for repair and maintenance you run into an irresponsible amount of money fir the government to spend.)

Has there not been enough damage done to the financial system already? How does making the largest financial burden on American families more burdensome make any sense?


Peace & Love
The Papers