- Tax credit of up to $400 for individuals, $800 for couples for 2009 and 2010. Figure your individual credit by taking 6.2% of your earned income. Note that your employer can adjust your withholdings so that the credit is returned to you over the year instead of all at once. The Associated Press says most people will see this in the form of a $13 bump in weekly paychecks starting in June, and dropping to about $7.70 a week for the duration of 2010.
- The $1000 child tax credit will be extended to more families, and if you’re a poor family with three or more kids, you’ll get an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit.
- No tax on the first $2400 of unemployment you receive in 2009.
- The government will subsidize up to 65% of your premium for Cobra coverage if you lost your job after Sep 1st, 2008. If you declined Cobra, you’ll have 60 days to reconsider.
- $87 billion is going to help states administer Medicaid, which the AP notes “could slow or reverse some of the steps states have taken to cut the program.”
- If you get food stamps, you’ll get more.
- If you buy a new car, light truck, recreational vehicle or motorcycle in 2009, you’ll be able to deduct the state and local taxes you paid on it.
I’d be curious to see how much more things will cost in the future to pay for all this. What, you thought Obama was giving away free money and stuff?
# 39 Proud Alien said, “Kennedy, eh? Aliens, too?”
Your babbling. Read Executive Order No. 11110
#36,
We had a free-market focused government and free-market oriented policies for the last 8 years, didn’t we?
No, we didn’t. That is what they want you to think but that is not the case:
http://tinyurl.com/bosjq8
Here is a little history on the Bush administration. One example I liked was the fact he expanded government spending at a faster rate than Clinton? Free Market economics does not include rampant government spending.
# 40:
Thanks for the tip. Looks intriguing. I am always up for new twists in a conspiracy theory
Listen, I am as much concerned about where we are heading as the next guy. At least, what Obama is doing makes sense for the most part.
# 42 Proud Alien said, “Thanks for the tip. Looks intriguing. I am always up for new twists in a conspiracy theory”
What conspiracy? You’re babbling.
Well, one thing’s for sure. There’s plenty of room for disagreement on a solution when the problem is already so bad, it’s insoluble. Everyone whose solution was ignored will get their chance to say, “But MY plan would have worked!” That’s all the comfort some people will need, and it’ll be enough to win a few votes in the next election.
Can anyone explain taxing unemployment benefits? I thought politicians cared so very much for the downtrodden and unemployed. Do they extend benefits so they can get more taxes?
# 42 I agree, what we saw under Bush was a long way from the free market. First, we saw all of these public-private partnerships, which more or less amounted to the no-bid filling the pockets of connected people in exchange for lackluster products and services. Second, we saw a complete gutting of the regulatory apparatus that is needed to maintain the free market system against a tide of greed and fraud. And, finally, we saw the institution of policies specifically crafted to help the powerful and connected and tread under their smaller competitors. All of these things worked against the free market, and all of them were essentially fascist economic policies.
However, in order to re-start the free market, we’d have to have a large portion of the population with real liquidity again, and baring a Jubilee or a mass handout of cash to the poor and middle class to even the playing field before we start the new game, the free market is never returning. We’ll have to figure out something different, if we want to have any economy at all in five years.
Where were all you “concerned” people when Bush was slashing taxes, spending money overseas, allowing Corporations to rob people blind, and sitting on his thumb?
The right wing nut policies got us in this mess, stand aside so some real Americans can fix it.
Cow-Patty,
Shut up. You’re annoying the hell out of anyone with a normal brain.
#47, Li,
Second, we saw a complete gutting of the regulatory apparatus that is needed to maintain the free market system against a tide of greed and fraud.
Not quite:
Under Clinton, the cost to the economy of federal regulations topped out around $500B annually — an unheard of price. Bush’s regulatory costs are estimated to be over $1T. You may think he was anti-regulation, but he wasn’t. Regulations increased 11% under Bush. Not as bad as Clinton (+21%) but no where near what Reagan did (-12%).
The man was a regulation making machine second only to Clinton.
Measures passed by governments that reduce the barriers to work effort are what constitute true supply-side, or classical economic policy. Simplified, governments in a broad sense can negatively increase the barriers to work in four ways: through more regulation, tariffs on trade, higher penalties (taxes) on work, and currency devaluation. If they do, economic stagnation is frequently the result, while supply-side policies meant to enhance growth once again involve reductions in those wedges placed between work and reward.
John Tamny
Of course, you may attack John Tamny, but his articles have been fairly prophetic.
Wasted money again… They should be preparing for the massive tent cities and soup kitchens that will result from the unraveling of the mother of all credit/debt bubbles we’ve experienced since 1987. i.e. GD2′s Deflationary Spiral.
ProudAlien
Why are you limiting Economic history to the past 8 years? You act like all of this is Bush’s fault, which while he contributed to it, he certainly wasn’t the start of it. You can trace the rumblings back to the 70s. Hell, the past 8 years had little to do with what we’re in now.
To All Those Who Don’t Like It.
I have yet to see anything remotely acceptable as an alternative. Cut taxes on Corporations? Hell, most of them are paying minimal taxes as it is?
When the right wing nut crowd can come up with a plan to fix the economy, we would love to hear it. In the mean time, shut up and quit the whining.
Shut up and quit whining. Either be a part of the solution or get out of the way. If you think different from the popular opinion, then you’re a nut.
Hey, that’s some good old fashion national socialism rhetoric for ya.
Alternative: Leave the taxes alone and gut government spending. Until you cut pet spending products permanently we are going to spiral down the drain, and soon.
When Porkulus fails at least they can’t say it was bipartisan.
#54, Mr. Diesel,
And how will a smaller government help? Bushes plan of reducing oversight caused the mess. The same thing happened when Reagen was in office. Gee, lack of any government oversight caused the Great Depression in 1929 and the Depression of 1873.
People are not sophisticated enough to play “buyer beware” anymore. I know of no one that knows enough about automotive engineering to tear apart a car to discover if it is safe, verify a drug is effective, test dog food for poison, and do a background on an IPO. Collectively we (through the government) have appointed others that are expert in those fields to verify those and many other things for all of us.
So where would you make government smaller? Well, we could let those without health insurance and those whose insurance providers refuse to cover their illness, just die. We could only pave the roads in front of my house and phuk everyone else. We could bring the military back from their foreign bases and allow the pirates to proliferate. We could halt support programs for the poor and allow them to foment a rebellion.
Have I missed any obvious places to cut government?
55: “Collectively we (through the government) have appointed others that are expert in those fields to verify those and many other things for all of us.”
Unfortunately, they are susceptible to the outside influences of those they are overseeing either directly or indirectly. Lack of action early on of Bernie Madoff comes to mind as one, small example.
In other words, we, the public, are screwed if we do, screwed if we don’t.
yeah, it’s going to really suck having our bridges, roads and rails built back up after decades of bilateral neglect.
and it’s really going to suck to have some tax cuts too.
this obama guy, who does he think he is? sheesh.
i mean seriously, none of us paid any taxes under george w. bush during the six years when he had both houses of congress under party control.
p.s. there was zero pork and a balanced budget for all six years george w. bush had both houses of congress under his party’s controls!
this is a travesty!
#55,
So where would you make government smaller?
As you have suggested, and I agree, there is no simple answer to downsizing. However, the following book details a proposal on how do exactly that.
http://tinyurl.com/3xcpv
You can read the whole thing or you can get to the meat of the proposal on page 11.
The downside to this book is it is four years out of date. It is still a damned good start, though.
#56, Uncle Dave,
Unfortunately, they are susceptible to the outside influences of those they are overseeing either directly or indirectly. Lack of action early on of Bernie Madoff comes to mind as one, small example.
Good point. That is what happens when you allow the fox to oversee the hen house. If DU is an example though, there has been plenty of outrage when government has failed to properly oversee its duties. Especially over the past few years.
I don’t know many people that would rather do away with the FDA, for example, instead of reforming it. Or the FBI, or other policing organizations.