Friday, October 02, 2009

The economy's not quite dead yet...

...but the .gov has a few ideas to finish it off.

The economy is still flopping around on the floor and they're just trying to get it to hold still long enough to shoot it between the running lights.

If these people were doctors, they'd recommend amputation to cure brain tumors.

20 comments:

  1. I love how the article says they won't do anything until the economy is "stable." But the way things have been going, they'll just declare it stable regardless of the data (Cash for Clunkers was a huge success, after all!) and slap the VAT on there anyway.

    Days like this make driving into a bridge abutment seem more tempting than usual ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Clarification b/c I hit 'publish' too soon: I won't, of course. Drive into a abutment, I mean. I just meant that I'm rooting for the zombies at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. VAT isn't necessarily a bad idea if you replace the income tax with it. Its avoids taxing investment and is less regressive than a standard income tax because it doesn't compound.

    But in addition to the income tax? That's ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bring it on, I say.

    Get the bad here, in large doses, and do it yesterday.

    The Gummint is just mad with power and it's going to take something like this to get the people in this country good and awake.

    Maybe then we can get to see the reality show I've been waiting for...Congressional Deathmatch on the lawn of the Capitol.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jeff,

    They're talking about in addition to, not in place of.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's true. Liberalism IS a mental disorder.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I realize that, hence the third sentence.

    The only good thing is that if they do implement both, we'll have a VAT and an income tax infrastructure. Hopefully the next guy to get stuck in the round room could kill off the less efficient one. We might actually get rid of federal income tax that way.

    Wait. That would mean electing someone who would actually shrink the federal government. No that will never happen. Forget I mentioned it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I know.

    They tell us they love us, whisper sweet nothings in our ear, and then the week after we walk down the aisle with the GOP they're staying out late playing poker with Chuck Schumer and getting caught in bed with Nancy Pelosi at hourly-rate motels.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm wondering just how bad the snap is going to be when the unlock tab on the .gov ratchet is tripped. It's wound pretty damn tight these days.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey, FANTASTIC IDEA! But, who's gonna pay for it, the 47% of people who aren't paying taxes this year??

    I just blogged about it, but here's the source: http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

    Quip:

    "One of Obama's proposals is to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for everyone except high-income tax filers, which was the group that derived the most benefit from those cuts.

    As a result, under Obama's budget, he would keep the ranks of the non-payers higher than they would otherwise be."

    Hilariousness ensues.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lemme see if I have it sorta understood: 70% of our economy depends on consumption, so that means that jobs depend on consumption, right? So the deal is to tax consumption, thereby reducing consumption and thereby reducing employment.

    Sounds like the usual government understanding of Economics 101, in which their commonly merited grade was "F".

    Art

    ReplyDelete
  12. "We're broke ... time for a new tax"

    No! We're broke, time to stop spending money!

    WV: epalub -- "Ain't got no lub fo' da EPA!"

    ReplyDelete
  13. "getting caught in bed with Nancy Pelosi at hourly-rate motels."

    Statements like that should be prefaced with "Brain Bleach Alert".

    Thanx.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Value Aded Tax."

    That is, a tax applied whenever something changes hands or location.

    Guess what - anything you buy, including that call home to say you're broke, has such taxes/fees/registration/etc applied already. Now, my State, for example, claims it does not apply tax on food. What is meant is that the applied-at-the-cash-register sales tax is not added to [most] food. But at every other step, from the harvest to the cash register, taxes are applied to my daily bread.

    ReplyDelete
  15. heck Tam they don't even kiss us!let alone nibble our ear!and they never use a lube or a trojan.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If this is like VAT in the EU, and I think it will be, it will be open to massive fraud. Look into Carousel fraud, msm rarely reports on it but it costs tax payers billions extra every year.

    half

    ReplyDelete
  17. Can't control deficits and debts from the cost side!?! They have to look at the revenue side!?!

    WTF! Of course the Gub't can control deficits from the cost side!

    Stop spending money dammit! It's easy!

    ReplyDelete
  18. VAT, without income tax, is still a problem.

    In many ways, it can be WORSE than income tax, as the true tax rates can be completely hidden from the end user/voter.

    If you like the idea of a "consumption" tax (which is what teh VAT is supposed to be), then look at the Fair Tax proposal. The REAL one, not the straw man opponants set up to argue against.

    Of course, if you don't amend the COnstitution to prohibit any other form of federal taxation, The Fair Tax will be misapplied, IN ADDITION TO whatever other taxes they decide to pass.

    SO, nice as it looks, the chances of ver gettign teh Fair Tax plan instituted, as designed, are somewhat similar to repealing the NFA.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I say everyone in Washington needs a good trepanning. It couldn't hurt them.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.