Bernanke wants money in consumers' hands, soon

Hey Lefties, pretty much everyone seems to be saying that money in consumer's hands is good for the economy. Hmmmm, money in our hands. Bush did that in 2001, 2003 and now 2008. Our money in our hands. Sounds good to me.

Thankfully he understands that putting the money in the hands of big business would be a terrible mistake. The reason the republicans want to keep Bushs tax cuts is because they were set up to give a little to the average American in the begining and huge cuts in the later years to the wealthiest. Trickle down is a myth. With the severance pay for the CEO of countrywide at 115M, why in the world do they believe it will trickle into the hands of the average American?

"You've got to find a way to give them a dollar. And take two."

-William Randolph Hearst

But also somes up the GOP principles pretty well, too.

The dems will really push hard for the extension of unemployment benefits...then their minions can stay on the dole longer.
Oh, and they'll increase food stamp monies too...grain prices are going up... because we're taking food and turning it into fuel.

Paulo

Yes, Johnny D. Money in the the middle class spenders', hands is good for the economy. Money in the hands of the ultra-rich is good if you want to have the fat cats sit on that money and put it in savings.

Opps, brain cramped on my grammar. Of course, I meant SUMS up.

John D. AND Paulo,

Apparently you two either can't read, or can't comprehend.

The Fed chairman said that Bush's tax cuts are NOT the answer to fending off a possible recession. Rather than try to explain why, READ HIS COMMENTS!

Paulo thinks the corn grown in the fields of the Midwest is what they use for corn on the cob and popcorn. Priceless.

Well, we've gone from "things have never been better" to a looming recession, all in a matter of two weeks, and they're actually in agreement that ordinary people might be feeling squeezed. Amazing. I'm sure the ultimate solution will be to give the wealthiest 1% more tax breaks so the rest of us can get a couple hundred bucks back at tax time.

Baltimore Tom, sorry to inform you with FACTS, but federal taxes have not increased under Bush. In addition to the rebates of 2001 and 2003, Bush DOUBLED the child tax credit, ended the marriage penalty tax, and the TAX RATES for ALL taxpayers were lowered. Those in the 15 percent tax bracket, went down to 10 percent. Those in the 28 tax bracket went down to 26 percent. Those in the 38 percent tax bracket, went down to 35 percent.

If you are paying more in taxes, please look to your Democratic governor and Democratic legislature in Maryland.

John D.

We've gone through this before.

Supply side economics, trickle down economics, Reganomics, etc. DON'T work without spending cuts.

David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director, came out and stated that after he was out of office. He also came out and said two other things. One the tax cuts (like Bush's) were simply a gift to the wealthy. Secondly, the welfare queens driving around in Cadillacs was a myth perpetuated by the Reagan administration.

As far as the effect of tax cuts on individuals, try looking up any review of those. If you're not in the top 5% you get next to nothing.

Do you just enjoy seeing your name here day after day? Just about every piece of Rush trash you spew is repudiated constantly. Yet you continue to try to spin things with apparent abandon.

Extend the Bush tax cuts that's all the stimulus we need. Lower corporate taxes were the fourth highest in the world this would increase jobs.Get rid of the Death Tax Forever. We don't need representation without resuscitation. Dead people's estates pay twice on the same income.Just sending everbody $250 like Obama wants won't even buy them a good bicycle! Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Why did you make us poor Grandpa? Why do we have to pay the bill for you to have had "money in your hands" back in 2008? We're still paying off the massive deficits you supported. We live in a bankrupt country, why did you do that to us Grandpa John? Why didn't you care about our future?

Dogjudge, nothing gets repudiated. You folks think you do with lies and BS. But that is all they are.
David Stockman is a joke, yet you folks love to trot him out all the time.
And the middle class got next to nothing? Sorry, but in addition to the rebates in 2001 and 2003, the child tax credit doubled from $500 to $1,000; the marriage penalty tax ended; tax brackets lowered. And because of that, the economy grew and was strong from 2002 to 2007. In fact, since 1982, the U.S. has seen economic growth every year but two: 1991 and 2001. Seems to me like Reagan set off a prolonged period of economic strength and stability the past 25 years. And the two years that didn't grow? Mild recessions. Nothing like the Carter recession of 1978-1982.

Posted by: John D's grandchildren | January 17, 2008 3:06 PM

Please like anyone would reproduce with this hateful man. I've stepped in dog doo that was less offensive than the Sultan of Streamwood.

Dyslin,

Here's the data once again for you, from the Congressional Budget Office:http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5746&type=0&sequence=1

% Change of Effective Tax Rates from 2001 to 2008

Lowest Quintile +.3%
Second Quintile +.8%
Middle Quintile +.7%
Fourth Quintile +.8%

Top Quintile -.4%
Top 10% -.6%
Top 5% -1.1%
Top 1% -2.6%!

So, when you say everyone received a "tax cut," you are technically correct, in that everyone did receive a rebate. However, no one except those in the top quintile had their TAX BURDEN cut. CBO Table 2 demonstrates this quite nicely.

This might also interest you, and particularly Trickle Down Terry.

Percent Change in Share of Federal Tax Liability

Lowest Quintile 0%
Second Quintile +.2%
Middle Quintile +.4%
Fourth Quintile +.7%

Top Quintile -1.5%
Top 10% -1.7%
Top 5% -1.8%
Top 1% -2%

So, yes, the tax cuts DID demonstrably benefit only the very rich directly (you and Terry can scream Trickle Down until you're blue in the face).

In summary, while it is true that everyone received a "tax cut," only the Top 20% saw an actual reduction of their tax burden. Further, this chart illustrates quite clearly what people have been saying since before the 2001 tax cuts were even enacted: the end result would be a shift of the tax burden to the middle class from the wealthiest Americans.

This is exactly what has happened.

Paolo:

As someone who actually owns a farm and takes part in its management, I can tell you that food prices are going up because of: 1) the increased cost of oil and petroleum based products (like fertilizers and pesticides )needed to raise food, and 2) inflation – more than for any other reason. The very fact that our money is being devalued by a slow down in the economy and the artificial creation of capital through credit (thereby inflating the currency supply) makes our prices go up every day even after all the other causes have stopped.

These reasons far outstrip the use of food to make fuel as a reason for increased food costs. In fact, the use of corn to make fuel does not deprive us of its use in the food chain. Many plants that make ethanol also extract corn oil for consumer use. Furthermore, the same corn used to make the ethanol still has enough nutritional value remaining after the process to be uses as feed for cattle. Some cattle, like cows, can live entirely off of eating the recycled corn. Add to all of this the fact that many more acres – previously fallow – have been put back into cultivation to make up the difference for the corn diverted to the use of ethanol – and the use of food to make fuel is really de minimis.

John D.

Interesting how you now disavow one of the original architects of this moronic idea, Mr. Stockman.

More to the point, however, these tax cuts don't work without spending cuts, which neither Bush nor Reagan did.

Both Presidents ran up huge deficits, in the case of Bush the largest in history. It was then left up to the DEMOCRATS to solve the problem.

The Republicans constantly complain about the Democrats taxing everyone when they take over. It isn't that they tax everyone for fun, it's because the REPUBLICANS are so fiscally irresponsible, if the Democrats didn't raise taxes the country would go bankrupt.

Please go off and take the Republican "Bridge to Nowhere" to your next Young Republicans meeting.

Supply side economics, trickle down economics, Reganomics, etc. DON'T work without spending cuts.

* * * * *

Posted by: dogjudge | January 17, 2008 2:03 PM

I’ll agree with that and raise you one.

Supply side economics cannot have more than a mere hope of working unless cuts in the marginal tax are somehow indexed to reward investment. The idea that tax cuts, by themselves, will stimulate growth by encouraging investment that results in the expansion of businesses and creation of jobs partakes of a lot of wishful thinking. There is nothing in such a blind approach to assure that investors won’t simply pocket the profits they get that would otherwise be paid in taxes. Incentives for investment that result in “trickle down” can only exist for those inclined to invest in a business that would result in the retention, expansion or improvement of the work force.

Thus, a more intelligent approach would be to give tax breaks and credits for businesses that have a record for hiring more people, keeping a larger percentage of their work force local in the United States, invest so much in job training, etc – or for those who invest in such companies. As a corollary, one might even consider denying tax breaks to companies that off-shore their operations. After all, its that type of business that puts people out of work and back on the public dole. If they want to do that, then maybe they ought to be responsible for paying the consequences.

In any event, regardless of the exact details, a plan indexing tax benefits according to investments that would actually have a direct “trickle down effect” would certainly be better than simply granting a windfall to those whose don’t contribute to this purpose.

How about ELIMINATING the AMT, that would immediately put money in the middle class hands that should never have been taken in the first place! These guys make me sick.

Jones, this link provides explanation of the Bush tax cuts:

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-working

From it, comes this: Personal income tax rates dropped from 39.6, 36, 31, and 28 percent to 35, 33, 28, and 25 percent, respectively.

In other words, those at 39 are now at 35. Those at 36 are now at 33. those at 31 are now at 28 and those at 28 are now at 25. In addition, those that were in the 15 percent tax bracket (the poor) are now at 10 percent -- a 33 percent CUT for the poor!
You add in increases for the child tax credit, no more marriage penalty, and you get LOWER taxes, with the BIGGEST drop for the poorest.

John W-

As a farmer, do you take part in Federal crop subsidy programs and price supports?

John D.

Since we've had the conversation before on other issues, I'm aware of the fact that you've never served in the military.

Other than paying taxes, which you apparently are disinclined to do, how do you feel that you've paid this great country back for all the opportunities and freedoms that it has given you?

Bush did that in 2001, 2003 and now 2008.
_____________________________
boy george did that this year? WOW! How much did I get?

John D.

I went to your link.

Admittedly, the author does have interesting credentials.

Now.

Having had enough statistics courses to be a little dangerous, there are a lot of cliches about people and spinning numbers.

It's too bad you can't see through the biased presentation in the "facts" that are being presented.

Unemployment. Although it appears that the article was written some time in 2006, or maybe 2006, the author ONLY talks about the increase in jobs for the first six months after the tax cuts. Gee, you wonder why?

Sure corporate profits are up, etc. If it wasn't for those profits, most of GWB's fancy economic doublespeak would fall by the wayside. You know things such as tax revenues being up.

John you are being manipulated and don't even have the common sense to realize it.

* * * * *

Posted by: JT | January 17, 2008 5:50 PM

Yes, the family farm is enrolled in the Department of Agriculture program.

However, we haven’t been getting subsidies because of the current market price of crops. Subsidies are only paid to farmers to make sure they receive a certain, minimum price for a given crop. The market prices have been much higher than the minimum price for a number of years now – ergo, no subsidies.

Thanks John. I just wanted to see if you really put your money where your mouth is.

We've all seen your posts arguing against any and all Federal assistance to individuals as unconstitutional and unaffordable. You argue against Medicare, Medicaid, aid to the uninsured and on and on. Yet when the check from the federal government can be made out to "John W." you're right in line to take it.

Care to point out where the Constitution says that the Federal government can use tax money to ensure that farmers get a minimum price for their crops?

Baltimore Tom - still mad the Colts left town? Please show some unbiasedd proof that income taxes increased for the middle class.

Jackson - you economic dimwit - when money is put into savings, it doesn't just sit in the vault. It gets invested in businessses - large and small, it furnishes capital for mortgage loans, ...

Jones,

I beg to differ - see the attached link to see who pays the income taxes - compare 2001 - 2005

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

The other thing Jones is that people over the course of their life wioll move between the quintiles. So th poor person probably will not always be poor and the rich person will not always be rich (in terms of income).

Also, under the tax cuts federal revenue streams have grown. The federal revenues are coming in, but it is the gov't spending that is the problem.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federal_govt_finances_employment.html

You will also see the differnce in the effect the 2001 tax cuts - primarily the rebates and the 2003 tax cuts - primarily rate reduction had on the economy and therefore gov't receipts

John W,

"...investors won’t simply pocket the profits they get that would otherwise be paid in taxes"

Re-read that stmt very carefully ... investors will pocket the profits - and do what with them? By definition they are investors. Do you think investors stuff the money in the mattress?

Hammer - best idea yet.

As far as the ideas being tossed around - yes a short-term "goosing" of the economy thru rebate checks would probably be a good idea. But to sustain the long-ternm growth, a reduction in tax rates needs to happen - I would start with the corporate tax rates os American corporations can be competitive against the corporate capital structure in Europe - where many rates are under 20%. Extending the Bush tax cuts should also be done. Eliminate the AMT and the estate (death tax) also. Just as importatnt is to reduce gov't spending.

Terry,

Thanks for the correction. I was getting too far ahead of myself. I meant to say rich non-investors. I shouldn't expect mind reading from anyone.

Terry,

So the people who have benefited most from Bush's tax cuts pay most the taxes. Logical, since the top 10% have gotten filthy rich off of Bush's tax policies while the middle class has stagnated.

Why don't you just say that you don't believe in progressive taxes?

Joneses figures show that the BURDEN of taxes as measured in effective tax rates has gone up for the middle class, and down for the top income brackets.

Yours simply show that the wealthy cleaned up and received most of the revenues generated from Bush's tax cuts, and therefore paid most of the taxes. The only important statistic is that the effective tax rate of the top income brackets was lower, and therefore the BURDEN less for the people who needed relief the least.

Terry,

Tell me, if the financial brain-trust, the best and the brightest no less, that has controlled the banks and investment vehicles in this country are now hemorrhaging tens of billions of dollars and bringing our economy to its knees, why should we trust them (or you) with directing fiscal policy? Extend the Bush tax cuts when the country is 9 trillion in debt and paying for a $12 billion a month war? You are insane. Where does eliminating the estate tax help (other than the top 1%), it doesn't trickle-down and it puts more burden on the middle class. Why do you hate the middle-class, Terry?

Trickle-Down Terry,

The Bush administration has a well-known propensity to solve every economic contingency with a tax cut for the wealthy. Yet research on fiscal stimuli following the 2001 recession suggests that, of all the options on the table, across-the-board cuts in marginal tax rates are one to avoid. President Bush’s favored approach — extending permanently the tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of 2010 — has the dubious distinction of providing no short-term stimulus at great cost.
In his research, Mr. Zandi concluded that reducing estate taxes delivered no fiscal stimulus whatsoever. That’s probably because the benefit kicks in when the estate-holder dies — an event that is presumably difficult to speed up to respond to an economic slowdown. When Mr. Bush claims that repeal of the so-called “death tax” is an economic stimulus, one must wonder what he has in mind.

NY Times editorial board

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/how-to-rev-up-a-slowing-economy/

Earth to dead end kids. Stay away from economics.

Interesting article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx010208

* * * * *

Posted by: JT | January 17, 2008 6:33 PM

First, in case you didn't read all the way through my last post, the federal government hasn't handed out a check for subsidies in years. The last time they did, I didn't have an ownership interest in the property. (It was my father’s farm then.) So the government has never written a farm subsidy check to John W.

Second, I didn’t sign the farm up for any program because I thought it was a good idea. I have a partner who has fewer libertarian ideas than I do. He’s the one who takes care of most of the day-to-day operations. If I didn’t get the farm signed up for the program, it would tick him off because he is at a greater risk of losing his shirt if the bottom fell out of the market. If it were up to me alone, I wouldn't do it. I don't need the security.

Third, as for where in the Constitution it says that the government can write a check to subsidize farm prices, I don’t believe there is such a place. The framers of the Constitution didn’t think so either. They always referred to agriculture, manufactures and commerce as three separate parts of the economy. Until the mid 1930’s the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the federal government had no power to regulate local manufactures or agriculture until the finished goods or crops began to move into the stream of commerce.

In United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), for instance, the Court struck down a portion of the Agriculture Adjustment Act which laid a tax on local agriculture refineries to fund an agricultural subsidy. In particular, the Court said: 1) Congress had no power under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” to regulate this activity because it was purely local; and 2) the so-called “General Welfare Clause” to could not be used to invade the powers of the States to regulate purely local activity.

In Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936), the Court struck down portions of the “Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935” which fixed coal prices and regulated the hours, wages and working conditions of miners. Why? Because, again, the Court considered coal manufacturing to be a local activity, separate from “interstate commerce” until the coal is sold and shipped to a customer in another state. (Id., at 303.) That’s because, in the Court’s view, neither the possibility nor certainty of exporting a product from a State put it in interstate commerce before it had begun to move from the State. ((Id., at 301.) To hold otherwise, the Court said, would be to nationalize all industries. ((Ibid.)

Again, in A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), the Court struck down the portion of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 which purported to regulate hour, wage, sales and business practices of local poultry slaughtering and retail sales businesses. Significant to the Court’s decision was the fact that the poultry which was the subject matter of the business had already left the stream of interstate commerce and had come to rest within the mass of property within the State by the time it got into the defendant’s hands. (Id., at 543.) The Court observed that, when not dealing with goods still in the stream of commerce, local activities must have a “direct” effect on interstate commerce – so as to injure or obstruct it - for those activities to be subject to congressional regulation. (Id., at 544-46.) “Indirect” effects, which are numerous, would not suffice to confer federal jurisdiction. (Ibid.) Since the poultry business employees were in a local trade and not one engaged in interstate commerce, the court held that regulation of such matters was an unconstitutional attempt to regulate intrastate activity which affected interstate commerce only indirectly.

If I was asked your question based on the state of the law from the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 up until 1936, I could clearly answer that there was no authority to subsidize farming. Farming, being a local activity, and not intimately involved in commerce, would not qualify for federal regulation - any more than coal mining or chicken slaughtering. The price of crops are also determined before any of them are sold or moved into the stream of commerce. Thus, the law as of 1936 would deny Congress to power to regulate prices or subsidies due to a lack of connection to commerce.

But F.D.R. threatened to pack the court with his own appointees because the Court failed to support his New Deal legislation. After that, the Court’s decisions took a miraculous 180 degree turn. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937), and its companion case, Labor Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., 301 U.S. 58 (1937), the Court upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 against a challenge that it exceeded Congress’ authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause – even though the legislation purported to regulate wage, hour and work conditions in local manufacturing concerns. It was written by the same Chief Justice Hughes who wrote the opinion in the Schechter. As pointed out by the dissent, the majority opinions in these cases directly contradicted the holdings in Schechter and Carter Coal Co., and that the lower courts were right in striking down the NLRA. The 180 degree reversal in these cases could not reasonably be explained other than as the product of fear of reprisal from F.D.R.

The real coup de grâce was delivered in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). There, federal planners established quotas for wheat production in order to keep prices up by ensuring that supply did not exceed demand. Filburn, an Ohio Farmer had an allotted quota of 222 bushels. He harvested 461 bushels. The amount in excess of his quota was used by his family and livestock, right on the farm where it was grown. Filburn was fined for his excessive harvest, and he sued the Secretary of Agriculture to block enforcement of the penalty. He won in the lower court, which regarded the restriction as outside the scope of Congress's interstate commerce power since the excess wheat never left the farm. The Supreme Court reversed because, while growing the excess wheat did not involve any activity in interstate commerce, Filburn’s activity, in combination with others engaging in the same activity, would have a substantial impact on interstate commerce even if his own activity, considered in isolation, was trivial. (Id., at 127-28.) The Court also said that “the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices.” (Id., at 128.) This was a rather interesting, but useless, observation considering that the grain never left the farm, and was never for sale. Yet, this was a point the court used to illustrate “some” impact on interstate commerce: Had Filburn not grown his own, he would have had to buy it on the market at market prices, thereby keeping the market prices up.

After Wickard, few decisions imposed any real restrictions on Congress’ Interstate Commerce Clause power as long as the subject matter related to economic activity. The only real retreat from this position came in Lopez v. United States, 514 U.S. 549 (1994), where the Court held that a federal law prohibiting a firearm near a school can’t be justified under Wickard because possession of firearms near a school is not economic activity.

So, after Wickard,the answer to your question is: The Interstate Commerce Clause. That clause, according to the United States Supreme Court, gives Congress the power to regulate farm activities and manipulate the market to insure competitive prices. That was the exact result, if not the exact holding in Wickard. Since making sure farmers grow the crops expected of them, and keeping them in business by some guarantee of a minimum price involve regulation of economic activities which “substantially affect” Interstate Commerce, Wickard would appear to give Congress plenary power to do these things.

I don’t agree with Wickard or the cases that follow it, because I believe the Schechter Poultry and Carter Coal Co. cases had the better reasoning. But there you have it. Happy now?

"Second, I didn’t sign the farm up for any program because I thought it was a good idea. I have a partner who has fewer libertarian ideas than I do. He’s the one who takes care of most of the day-to-day operations. If I didn’t get the farm signed up for the program, it would tick him off because he is at a greater risk of losing his shirt if the bottom fell out of the market. If it were up to me alone, I wouldn't do it. I don't need the security."

John W, perhaps in the future when you are about to attack some Federal aid program you should think about your partner for a second. You seem to be willing to participate in a program you believe is illegitimate in order to protect him from "losing his shirt". A noble sentiment. Maybe in the future you could consider that some of the other programs are there to prevent other people from losing their shirt, people who DO need the security. People who's lives have just as much value as your partner's, even though you don't know them personally.

John D,

I'll take my data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, thanks.

In case you didn't know, the federal tax burden consists of more than just income taxes. The TAX BURDEN of the Bottom 80%, as shown by the CBO's own estimates, has increased, while that of the Top 20% has decreased, most markedly for those in the Top 1%.

So, once again so it sinks in, its clear that you are significantly slow in the mental neurons, though everyone technically received a "tax cut," only the Top 20% experienced an actual reduction in their taxes owed.

Sorry to break into your reality-free bubble.

Terry,

If the people making 1,000 and 1,000,000 times the median income weren't paying the bulk of taxes, there would be something very very wrong. Of course, its clear you would LIKE to see that day.

Fortunately for you, President Bush has made that dream all the more realistic for you. You see, according to the CBO, the tax burden of the Bottom 80% INCREASED while the Top 20% DECREASED.

I also thought, and thanks for biting at the bait, that you would be particularly interested that the SHARE OF TAX LIABILITY of the Top 20% FELL while the burden of all other groups became a greater share of the pie or remained unchanged (bottom quintile).

So what's your answer, that the reason the burden of the top 20% is falling is because they are making less money? Hah!!

JT,

Well said.

"Maybe in the future you could consider that some of the other programs are there to prevent other people from losing their shirt, people who DO need the security. People who's lives have just as much value as your partner's, even though you don't know them personally."

Posted by: JT | January 18, 2008 7:08 AM

JT:

You have made a couple mistakes here.

First, what I failed to convey was the idea that I didn’t really have much choice in signing up for the program. I might have lost a partner if I hadn’t. In any event, I reckoned there was no harm signing up for the program because there was no reasonable likelihood that we would ever get paid a subsidy by the government. In fact, with prices the way they are, I am simply amazed that Hillary and some of the other candidates are still talking about subsidies.

Consider the price of corn. It was $4.64 at the close of business today where I sell corn. Now consider that the price guaranteed by the USDA for corn was $1.95. And it had been that way since 2004. Before then it was $1.98 for a couple years. Same was true of soy beans (my other crop). The USDA guarantee was $5.00 a bushel and the current market price is $11.52. So I ask you: Given market prices of more than double the guaranteed rates, why is there any need for farm subsidies? The answers is that there is no need

I must also ask: Do you really believe that I believed I could have reasonably expected any farm subsidies from the USDA? The answer is: Obviously not. In which case, your previous comment: “Yet when the check from the federal government can be made out to "John W." you're right in line to take it.” is both over the top and a load of bovine scat.

Second, you mistakenly believe that I somehow don’t have the best interests of people in mind when I rail against further expansion of, and centralization of power in, the federal socialist state, and particularly against federal spending programs. I care very much about America and its people, and don’t have any basic objection to public assistance for the poor, and especially for those who are jobless, homeless, sick, aged, widowed and/or disabled. I firmly believe that our goodness, as a people, depends on how well we care for those who can’t care for themselves.

But that’s why I rail. I also firmly believe that taking care of people ought to be the job of State governments, and not the federal government. Taking care of basic health, welfare and education has always been the traditional job of the States. Those duties and powers were never delegated to the federal government; in which case, the fed’s assumption of those duties and corresponding powers is a usurpation. Furthermore, there is nothing the federal government can do that a State government cannot do more efficiently and with greater accountability. The federal government is large and wasteful; whereas most State governments don’t have the luxury of being that way. Moreover, politicians at the State level are more directly accountable to the voters, and have to live under the same circumstances they create for everyone else.

That is why, for instance, you have never heard me complain about the efforts of states to take care of their own people. I like the idea that States like Massachusetts and California have developed their own health care programs. I find some of the details a bit obnoxious, but not the ideas for the programs themselves. Nor have I ever objected to the States spending on public education, welfare or housing subsidies for the poor. Those are good things when implemented in a manner that efficiently get the goods to the needy.

The issue underlying all of my objections is power. We have been giving too much power to the federal government; and certainly more than the Constitution permits. Just look at our President. Were it not for the expansion of federal power to the extent it is now, he would not have the power to so easily turn this country in the wrong direction on so many fronts at once. In this manner, we have created a monster and put Duh’bya in charge of it. This is precisely the problem the framers of the Constitution sought to avoid by first creating a republic with power distributed among State and federal governments, and then by separating power between the various branches of the federal government. They realized that safety and liberty were secure when power was diffused rather than compounded.

The fact we have concentrated power in Washington is also the reason we are beholding to corporate America. If we didn’t have a compounded central government, corporations wouldn’t have been able to acquire as much influence in one place – as they obviously have. And, contrary to what a lot of people believe, most of the politicians in Washington, and those aspiring to power in Washington, have already been bought and paid for by large corporate interests. As such, I have a very strong mistrust for what the federal government does, and especially when it involves corporations. What some people likely consider to be a public benefit, I suspect to be more than likely the act of federal drum beaters driving game to the corporate hunters.

So, yes, I do very much have the interests of other people in mind. I simply do not believe the direction we are headed is in anyone’s best interests – and I am far from being alone in this belief.

"First, what I failed to convey was the idea that I didn’t really have much choice in signing up for the program. I might have lost a partner if I hadn’t."

So the fact the you would possibly have suffered financial harm is justification? Really. I guess I misjudged your motivation.

"I must also ask: Do you really believe that I believed I could have reasonably expected any farm subsidies from the USDA? The answer is: Obviously not. In which case, your previous comment: “Yet when the check from the federal government can be made out to "John W." you're right in line to take it.” is both over the top and a load of bovine scat."

Huh, if it's so completely obvious that you would never get a check, why didn't you explain that to your partner and not sign up for the program? Don't you trust your partners ability to understand something you find to be the blindingly obvious?

While we're discussing it, the subsidy program is more than just the price floor isn't it, John? I believe the 2002 Farm bill included direct payment to corn produces of $0.28/bu, correct? Do you recieve funding from the direct payment provisions of the program John?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ITW/is_4_85/ai_n14897214/pg_3

"As such, I have a very strong mistrust for what the federal government does, and especially when it involves corporations. What some people likely consider to be a public benefit, I suspect to be more than likely the act of federal drum beaters driving game to the corporate hunters."

Well, John, you have your chance to strike a blow for freedom. Do your part. Withdraw from the subsidy program. If its so obvious that it will do nothing for you ever, there is absolutely no reason for you to collaborate with a Federal intrusion into your business life like that.

JT:

I was prepared to more fully answer your last post, right up to the time I read your cynical, contemptuous finish. After that, I reckoned I may as well be writing on a lavatory wall. That's because I know I will get nothing from you except even more snarky, cynical, or contemptuous remarks. Answering that is beneath my dignity.

It appears that you are self-righteously wedded to the ideal that large government, supporting a federal welfare state, is the way things ought to work despite the fact we're not an inch closer to the "Great Society" than when we started. It doesn't seem to bother you that we have trapped people in their poverty by the means of which you approve. It doesn’t matter to you that we have destroyed their families and broken their will. In this, you are not unlike a number of other posters in the Swamp. In fact, I’m not sure you aren’t one of those I’ve tangled with before over the same issues – only this time you are just using a different moniker.

So, stew in your views, and see if I care. Regardless of what you or I write on this blog, we are either going to rise or fall as a nation. And we are not going to get anywhere as long as the people remain as helpless and spineless as the current governmental order conditions them to be. I certainly wouldn’t bet my good money that yours’ is the way we will survive.

BTW – when it comes to advise, I’ll listen to someone who has my back. I’m positive you don’t. So, don’t bother.

"It appears that you are self-righteously wedded to the ideal that large government, supporting a federal welfare state, is the way things ought to work despite the fact we're not an inch closer to the "Great Society" than when we started. "

You call someobne else self-rightously wedded to their views? What a laugh. Look in the mirror.

And yes, I do support federal aid programs, for the benefit of others, not just the ones that benefit me directly.

Sorry that pointing out the inconsistancies between your rhetoric and your actions has bothered you so. I wasn't trying to piss you off, I was trying to get you to step back and look at these things from a little different angle, and to see that maybe, just maybe, the federal aid program you benefit from isn't the only one with some value. Unfortunately I failed in that task. I'm sure you will continue to hold tight to your views that all Federal aid is evil (except farm subsidies to John W. and friends).

"I wasn't trying to piss you off. . ."

You fail when you say such condescending things like:

"Well, John, you have your chance to strike a blow for freedom. Do your part. Withdraw from the subsidy program.”

- which you obviously don't mean. You find nothing wrong with the farm program, in which case you would never view withdrawing from it as a “blow” for anything, except, maybe, one against sanity. Furthermore, you imply from the “Do your part” bit, that the petty act of withdrawing from the program is the only action of which I am capable, or proportionately within my abilities. When you say such things, I know I am dealing with someone with no respect for his intended reader. At that point, I get frustrated because I know that all my efforts at communication are in vain or worse.

"I was trying to get you to step back and look at these things from a little different angle, and to see that maybe, just maybe, the federal aid program you benefit from isn't the only one with some value."

Number One – If you want someone to step back and look, you deal with them in earnest and without the condescension. Otherwise, you will offend them.

Number Two – I re-checked my books in the interim (just for you). There is nothing in them from the USDA to me in the form of a Loan Deficiency Payment, a Counter Cyclical Payment or a Direct Payment. I keep my books carefully, such that a payment would have been reflected in them had one been made. And I have yet to receive a 1099 with John W. on it from the USDA. This all might be a mistake, and I plan to call up my USDA Farm Service Agency office to clear it up, all thanks to you. You may even be right that I am entitled to a Direct Payment. But I have never received any payments as a result of the USDA farm program. Thus, I reiterate: The subsidy program is still not one from which I have ever benefitted. You might have to wait until I collect Social Security benefits to press your point, if in skewer me with your point.

Number Three – I am fully aware of the fact that federal aid programs benefit people. As I told you before, my beef is not with the existence of such programs, or the fact they benefit people. I am pleased that people are provided benefits, and I do believe such programs have value. Therefore, I didn’t need to be led to that perspective by you.

But that’s beside the point. As I said before, my beef is with the power behind the programs. You either don’t believe me or you didn’t care to read it. Having the federal government authorize or fund these programs is no blessing. The States could run them much more efficiently, flexibly, accountably – and constitutionally - than the feds ever could. You are not atypical in your belief that programs that offer benefits can’t exist without federal involvement. Half the people on the Swamp are convinced that nothing ever gets done unless the federal government does it. And that is the precise point, and the only point, where you and I have any fundamental disagreement.

Number Fourt - You are wrong in believing that I view all federal aid programs as “evil.” I am not quite as Manichean or simplistic in my outlook as you suggest. There is a difference between good, bad, constitutional and unconstitutional. I am only concerned with the latter two descriptors. There have been constitutionally valid laws that turned out to be bad ideas, just as there have been good ideas implemented in unconstitutional laws. At a minimum, we have to insist on constitutionality because that marks the point from which exercises of power are legitimate from those that aren’t. I will even concede there may be federal aid programs that constitutionally hands out benefits. That’s because there are many programs out there, and I am unaware of all of them. What troubles me is the pervasiveness of all the unconstitutional programs of which I am aware.

John W. - "How many "rich non-investors" do you know?

dt,

Truthfully a flat-tax would be best. However, I realize the regressiveness of FICA and sales tax, so I would suggest fewer rates - 15%, 20%, and 25%. Here in Illinois, we have a flat income tax rate of 3% with few deductions - it works well as people pay as proportionate to what they make.

"why should we trust financial brain-trust (or you) with directing fiscal policy?"

First - thanks for the increase in responsibility. Second, who should we bring in: plumbers, doctors, teachers?

Extend the Bush tax? If the Bush tax cuts are let to expire, then it is a tax increase. Are tax increases good for an economy? If you say, please expound on your theory - don't use the 90's as an example.

It is your "logical" conclusion that I hate the middle class. I have shown on this blog that a family of four making $40K pays no federal income tax. I have stated that the federal gov't confiscating nearly $6,000 of that family's income for FICA and medicare is confiscatory. Have you stated that? Or do you believe that that family should continue to pay $6,000 into the federal gov't? Now tell me who hates the middle class?

Finally - on your third post you call me "Trickled down Terry" Are you becoming John E? Your research of decreased tax rates being the worst for economic economy come from NY Times editorial that quotes the Brookings Institute - a left-wing think(?) tank and the CBO - a gov't institution that scores tax cuts thru static economic methods only.

As far as reducing/eliminating the estate tax, that isn't an economic stimulus question it is a matter of fairness - double taxation.

Logic Priioner comes up his proof from a Paul Krugman of the NYTimes and something called Progressive magazine.

Jones - are you talking tax burden or FEDERAL INCOME tax burden? Be clear. If it is FEderal Income Tax burden, you rea wrong. and my graph shows that the rich are paying a larger % of teh federal income tax burden than the poor today than they did 5 years ago.

"I must also ask: Do you really believe that I believed I could have reasonably expected any farm subsidies from the USDA? The answer is: Obviously not. In which case, your previous comment: “Yet when the check from the federal government can be made out to "John W." you're right in line to take it.” is both over the top and a load of bovine scat.
"

John W- you started the tone of the conversation not me. If you don't want to be condescended to, don't start condescending. As a farmer, you should know, "You reap what you sow".

Any money sent should be for AMERICAN MADE ONLY

John W- you started the tone of the conversation not me. If you don't want to be condescended to, don't start condescending. As a farmer, you should know, "You reap what you sow".

Posted by: JT | January 21, 2008 9:03 AM

You are wrong. You set the tone when you accused me of being a hypocrite for taking money from a federal government subsidy program, which I never did.

Oh, forgot about that one, did ya?