It’s not out-of-the-question that the 2009 Tea Party participants could someday be regarded by history as patriots who made a difference- same as 1773. This sort of public outrage might be just what’s needed to break through the media’s manufactured reality.
And you can believe that Obama and the left are plenty scared of the TEA party movement- how else to explain the dubious timing of his “everything is under control” speech on the economy, and (on the same day before the protests) the DHS report warning of “right-wing” radicals and their propensity to violence?
Barack Obama is rapidly liquidating everything that made this country great… and needs to be put back-on-his-heels with a major embarrassment that puts an end to the myth that everybody just loves Barack and his wacked-out agenda… because millions of us DON’T.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

Be on guard for Leftist infiltrators.
Luckily, they will stand out, as their only conception of normal Americans is so over-the-top.
More here:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-fascism-comes-to-america-it-will.html

Reality is future taxation from massive debt.
Yet another person who magically came into existince on 1/20/2009. If you’re talking about the stimulus then you’re talking about a relatively trivial portion of the debt (and one that is probably self-financing given the multiplier). If you’re not talking about the stimulus, then what are you talking about? Do you even know?

Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation:
“…over the next 10 years that Obama proposed in his budget are not George Bush’s deficits. They are the deficits that Obama has proposed, resulting from the $1 trillion in increased spending he adopted in the no-stimulus stimulus bill, and the $400 billion supplemental spending bill he supported and also adopted the following week, and the $275 billion housing bailout he proposed the next week, and the $1 trillion bank bailout plan his Treasury Secretary just proposed this week, and the $638 billion he has proposed as a “downpayment” on a new national health insurance entitlement. The health insurance plan will be the most expensive entitlement of all — serious estimates are that it will cost at least $1.2 trillion or more. Does this sound like he is “doing everything we can to reduce that deficit?”
The budget Obama proposes for this year increases federal spending by a fiscally insane 34% over the budget adopted for last year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest EVER.
Under the Obama budget, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the national debt will more than double over the next 10 years from 40% of GDP today to a shocking 82%!”

are you just here to copy talking points from the financial elite?
Ahhh yes. I love people whose understanding of politics and economics is based on a cartoon world of heros and villians.

The “Keynesian multiplier” is about as real as the …
You cite just about the only school of thought in economics that believes this. I won’t say they are cranks but they are pretty borderline. Do you have any evidence that having the gov’t adopt a pro-cyclical stance ever worked?

>>I won’t say they are cranks but they are pretty borderline.
They predicted this crisis, didn’t they? What credibility do the other schools have, given their direct culpability in the meltdown?
>>Do you have any evidence that having the gov’t adopt a pro-cyclical stance ever worked?
What do you mean “ever worked.” Business cycles happen, like weather. The burden of proof is on you to prove the existance of something coming from nothing.

Where were these tea parties when the Bush administration was vastly expanding executive and federal power over the other two branches as well as state governments? Where was Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s ‘we shall secede’ moment when the Bush administration hid military expenditures from the national budget? Where were the tea party protesters when the Republicans used our money to wage ill-advised wars overseas and grant money to the very people who crashed our economic system?
I’ll believe the libertarian rhetoric when it’s consistent. Then I’ll be the first to toss tea into Boston Harbor (but loose leaf only – tea bags are so anachronistic!)

Well the party is over, hope you all had fun. I caught some of it on TV. I saw a few large signs that equated Obama to Hitler (one very tasteful sign compared American taxpayers in Obama’s America to Jews in Hitler’s ovens….classy). Most of the signs and statements I saw (and I didn’t make watching them an all day event) were pretty respectable. Protesting, even astroturfish protesting, is as American as applie pie.
I do think the Hilter signs served a useful purpose. The right has lost their moral standing to complain about the ‘Bushitler’ slogans of the left. They also no longer have any standing to complain about ancedotal incidents that might happen at left-wing protests….say someone snatching a giant foam cross from someone trying to infilitrate a protest…. Don’t worry, I’ve already made my report to my overlords in the ‘financial elite’. The database has been updated!

Tax rates have fallen but don’t let reality spoil your party.

What tax rates have fallen? The only thing I’ve seen falling is the withholding rate. My tax rate stayed the same. My earnings stayed the same. Did you get fooled by Congress into thinking that the withholding rate was the same as the tax rate?

What tax rates have fallen? The only thing I’ve seen falling is the withholding rate. My tax rate stayed the same. My earnings stayed the same. Did you get fooled by Congress into thinking that the withholding rate was the same as the tax rate?
The tax rate has changed as well. The cut is in the payroll taxes and it is in the rate. If it wasn’t you’d have to make up for the ‘under-withholding’ at the end of the year when you file your 2009 tax returns.
How does that explain the US in the 1930′s? During that period we had massive increases in government spending and almost nothing to show for it.
Increases in gov’t spending were modest from 1930-37 (esp. when you offset Federal spending with declining spending in state & local budgets). Nonetheless unemployment dropped sharply until 1937 when concerns about deficits cut back fiscal stimulus which resulted in another steep drop. The two policies that ultimately resulted in escaping the GD were monetary stimulus (in the form of getting off the gold standard which resulted in ‘printing money’….this was by far the most effective…there’s a graph or chart out there somewhere which shows how long the depression lasted in various countries, almost perfectly it shows that the longer they stayed on the standard the longer their depression) and fiscal stimulus with the start of WWII.
I think using the Great Depression as the baseline for economic recessions is fallacious. It’s a little like using Bill Gates as a baseline for determining poverty rates.
It’s actually a baseline for measuring the pre-Depression era which was marked by very limited gov’t spending and the modern one which is. I’m not comparing recessions to the GD since none of them can hold a candle to the GD. But T’s ‘question’ was:

What do you mean “ever worked.” Business cycles happen, like weather. The burden of proof is on you to prove the existance of something coming from nothing.

If the modern policy ideas don’t work then why are Depressions so rare and the post-Great Depression recessions so minor? Before 1930 ‘recessions’ looked more like the Great Depression than they looked like our relatively mild modern recessions.

No it isn’t, I suggest you review http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/31/pf/taxes/making_work_pay_credit/
The payroll tax cut is $400 per person, $800 per couple. The withholding was changed so the money goes into your pocket now as opposed to waiting until you file 2009 taxes in 2010 to get it in a refund.
Second Bush’s tax cutes are set to expire in 2011. The cuts for the lowest bracket are extended. Since this is a Bush tax increase cutting it is an Obama tax cut.

You really expect me to believe it was President Bush’s idea back in 2001 to have the tax cuts expire?
Actually it was his idea. The tax cuts were sold as being less expensive because both the CBO and Bush’s budget office had to analyze the proposed law as written. If the law says after X number of years the rates change back to where they were then that is what they must say. Bush hyped his tax cuts as ‘only costing so much’ due to that provision. Your man is out of office so let’s stop trying to give him his cake and let him eat it too. You take both sides of the coin. His bill that he signed lowered and raised taxes. You’re upset that he served you desert when he was in office but saved the spinach for after he got out? Hah, not my problem it took you over 8 years to learn to pay attention!
Do I need to remind you that they’ve been in the majority since 2006?
Hey moron, the tax cuts were enacted in 2001 along with their ‘self-destruct’ provision. Like it or not Bush signed a tax increase into law and your Congress passed it. Believe it or not plenty of tax changes have passed in our history without ‘self-destruct’ provisions. Your man did this so don’t try to pretend that the ticking time bomb he left is anyone else’s fault.
And you would know so much better than me what tax rate I’ve been paying,
I have no idea what you’re paying and it seems neither do you. You are saying that when you do your 2009 taxes in 2010 you’ll pay $400 more to make up for the withholding decrease you ADMIT to seeing now due to the bill Obama signed. I’ve presented sources to indicate that is not true, you’ve presented nothing in reply. Once again someone on the right spends a lot of effort shooting his mouth off about something and appears to put an even greater amount of effort into remaining as ignorant as possible about what he is talking about. Are you guys trying to play some type of postmodern game or something here?

Dude this ain’t no mystery, the code is in the public domain and I already provided you with sources on it. You have a $400 tax cut…..well I am assuming you actually have a job.
I say again, do you REALLY expect me to believe it was President Bush’s idea to have the tax cuts expire?
Please, even the tax cuts weren’t Bush’s idea but his people(s). Bush proposed it, Bush signed it. Don’t like it? Tough. Deal with it.

You can try http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/irs-tax-return/5519.html if you want a source that is more focused on taxes. The $400 cut has nothing to do with the EITC, which is a different thing. (But thanks for bringing that up, the phaseout for the EITC is higher so more are eligeable for it).
There is a phaseout for the payroll tax credit starting at $75K and ending at $95K so it is fair to say that the tax cut does not apply to the entire under $250K crowd.
Again, you are being self-contradictory. If the idea wasn’t even his, then why are you blame-storming President Bush? Still can’t shake off that derangement syndrome?
I’m not blaming Bush, only assigning responsibility correctly. Last time I checked, the bill was signed by Bush and there’s no real excuse for him not to have been aware of the sunset provisions. I have no idea why you and your cohort seem to find the concept of it being treated as his bill disturbing.

It would seem that the IRS has a different idea than yours, considering that they supposedly instructed employers to referrence Publication 15-T which is specifically about EITC
The pub’s title is “New Wage withing AND Advance Earned Income Credit Payment Tables”, so I’m not sure how that translates into being ‘specifically about the EITC’, it is about both withholding and the EITC. For example, if you go to page 50 you can see the beginning of tables that combine income, social security and medicare tax withholding.
You’ve cited nothing that says the payroll tax credit that results in lower withholding now has to be made up in next years tax returns, I’ve cited two sources that say the opposite.
Try maybe, the way you and your cohort have of continually shifting blame to a convenient and often incorrect target?
Shifting blame? You mean someone else signed the Bush tax cuts into law? Tell me who was behind this forgery! Have you alerted the FBI!!!!!

You do understand that payroll taxes are different from Federal Income tax? The $400 refers to the payroll tax credit which results in lower withholding today but does not result in added cost on your 1040. (Most people don’t do anything on their 1040 with payroll taxes unless they had self-employment income or they overpaid payroll taxes….usually due to holding more than one job).
Yes, I know you will still blame President Bush for that tax increase despite any lack of evidence that he made all those Congress men and women ignore the upcoming deadline
Since the deadline was not only part of his tax cut’s design but sold as a *feature* it is quite fairly Bush’s responsibility. I’ll point out again that plenty of changes to the tax laws have passed without sunset provisions. Bush served you the desert first and put the spinach into his out years. Learn to cope.
Right now, even though Bush is out of office, the estate tax is in effect for amounts over $3.5M but in 2010 the tax will be eliminated and then reappear in 2011. Why? Because Bush signed a law that raised the exclusion, then eliminated it and then ‘sunsets’ to revert everything back. Does Obama get credit for the 2010 elimination of the estate tax? By your reasoning he should because he’s in office and in theory he could propose a law eliminating the elimination. I doubt you’d reason that way, though. I’ll be consistent and say Bush deserves responsibility for that tax cut even though it happens after he is gone from office.

Where did he supposedly have to “sell” the notion of the bill with a sunset provision, to the public, or to Congress?
To both, why does that matter, though? He was clearly aware of the sunset provisions. Whether he came up with them or some financial analysist twenty steps down or if he agreed to them because Congress wanted to limit the costs it’s pretty hard to say he is not responsible for them. He did sign the bill into law and it’s not like the provisions were some obscure piece of language hidden away. They were well noted by multiple commentators before, during and after the bill was debated and voted on.
I noticed you dodged the question I posed on the estate tax. Does Obama get credit from you for the estate tax dropping on his watch?
I think maybe the original idea was to make the tax cut permanent, but your buddies in Congress pitched a fit about a permanent tax cut and in order to get Congress to even submit a bill for a tax cut, President Bush had to agree he would sign it if they included the sunset provision.
Except that the Congress was controlled by Republicans at the time. But the point remains. Say you’re going to have a $500B tax cut. You can make that tax cut really minor, like $20B a year but go for 25 years (essentially forever since the tax code never goes that long without changes) or you can do a huge $250B a year for two years. Instead of opting for the long run but less noticeable tax cut, Bush opted to grab the bigger but more temporary tax cut that would expire, surprise suprise, after he left office.
AND the political back and forth here still doesn’t matter. If Bush only could get a temporary tax cut then that’s all he got. He doesn’t get credit for achieving a perm. tax cut if he didn’t do it. Maybe it wasn’t his fault. Maybe everyone else is to blame. Big deal, at the end of the day he signed a temp. tax cut. The quarterback doesn’t get the superbowl ring just because his pass was perfect and the other guy fumbled it.
I’m a bit surprised that you are stunned politicians behave this way. In fact, it’s not even politicians but human behavior. Passing the buck to the next guy is as old as time itself. I can only think your amazement stems from your inability to comprehend that your savior, George W Bush, could do anything bad. Well welcome to your reality check.
So, there we have it, you were wrong about the tax rates changing. You were wrong about the responsibility for the sunset provision. You were wrong to call a tax credit a tax cut. Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?
1. You’ve demonstrated nothing about tax rates.
2. I’m right about the sunset provision.
3. Credit=cut. Either way a person who has a job pays less in taxes than he would have sans the stimulus bill.

I’m a bit surprised that you are stunned politicians behave this way.

And you think I’m clueless. Hint: I’m not stunned by anything politicians do. Look, I can see you will not admit that you were wrong about the tax rates falling. And I can see you will not admit you didn’t have any evidence for your assertion that President Bush intended the tax cuts to expire, but you really ought to drop the projection you are making on why I dig into you for bashing Bush. I’ve heard projection is unhealthy.

I notice you’ve constructed a nice little ‘heads I win tails you lose’ set of rules for Obama.

No, that’s the game you enjoy playing. As evidenced by the paragraph you followed up with. Again, you’re projecting. I’ve not stated one way or the other whether I would blame or credit Obama for an outcome pursued by Congress. A U.S. President has enough opportunity for making mistakes without being made the head scapegoat for Congress or whichever party he belongs to. Take for instance Obama bowing so deeply to the Saudi King after he kept a really stiff back toward the Queen of the U.K. That was a big mistake! I can’t recall hearing one way or another whether he took ownership of that one, do you?