…while the host has been losing weight:
[Rasmussen] asked likely voters — his usual sample, which tilts more Republican than all adults — whether increased government spending is good or bad for the economy.
The results were unambiguous. Good for the country? 28 percent. Bad for the country? 52 percent.
He got similar results when he asked whether increasing the federal debt is good or bad for the economy. Likely voters believe it’s bad for the economy by a 56 percent to 17 percent margin.
There is some dissent, from the voters Rasmussen labels the Political Class. These are voters who trust the judgment of America’s political leaders over that of the American people, who do not believe the federal government has become a special interest group and who don’t believe government and big business work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
In other words, they’re the people the New York Times’ David Brooks refers to as “the educated class.” Or those voters in Cambridge and Brookline who stuck with the Democratic nominee in the special Senate election last January.
Around here, we refer to them as the parasitic idiot class. And David Brooks is at the head of the class.
[Update a couple minutes later]
This seems related: thoughts on the academic/industrial complex. I wonder if it will survive the bursting of the academic bubble?
[Update a while later]
Gee, this seems related, too. Electric car subsidies as handouts for the rich.
And thoughts from Roger Simon on the continuing myth of Democrats as the party of the people:
We live in an era — the worst economically since the Depression — when the daughter of the first couple of the Democratic Party has a multi-million dollar, Marie Antoinette-style wedding with port-a-potties almost as luxurious as a toilette in Baden Baden; it’s self-proclaimed environmental leader, the first global warming billionaire, sprouts “green” McMansions from Nashville to Montecito; and its already multi-billionaire senator from Massachusetts moors his yacht in another state to escape taxes we hoi polloi could only dream of paying.
But wait, as they say, there’s more. At this moment, two of their leaders from a supposedly disadvantaged minority are about to be tried for ethical transgressions (read: thievery) even Congress couldn’t sweep under the rug. Never mind that these transgressions mostly exploit the very minority these people purport to represent. It’s part of the game. Convince minorities they should act like victims. Extort guilt payments from the majority and keep the change. Meanwhile, nothing improves for the minority because it would interrupt the system.
They’re the new Bourbons, of whom it was said that they have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing. But I think they’re in for a big lesson this fall.
I read the article.
It seems to imply that Range Extended hybrids will be the brand entrant platform for future EVs, that price point matters and that if they can drive down the cost, then adoption will be much higher.
Finally, given we spent the last 2 decades subsidizing SUV’s for rich people
it seems appropriate in light of the terrorist threat from the saudis to
provide incentives for eletric vehicles.
@Jack, help me understand your comment “…we spent the last 2 decades subsidizing SUV’s for rich people…”
SUVs almost without exception were the highest profit vehicles for all manufacturers. It would seem to me that as a result the purchases of SUVs subsidized the cost of the remaining fleet for the big auto makers.
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_utility_vehicle)
SUVs became popular in the United States, Canada, and Australia in the 1990s and early 2000s. U.S. automakers could enjoy profit margins of $10,000 per SUV, while losing a few hundred dollars on a compact car.[9] For example, the Ford Excursion could net the company $18,000, while they could not break even with the Ford Focus unless the buyer chose options, leading Detroit’s big three automakers to focus on SUVs over small cars.
Jiminator,
Remember too that SUV’s wouldn’t even exist (in any significant quantity) in the first place, if it weren’t for CAFE regulations.
Ther broader point, I suppose, is not to argue with economic illiterates…they are also like the Bourbons, except that they have forgotten everything….
“But I think they’re in for a big lesson this fall.”
The problem is their replacements in the Party are waiting in the wings with new bottles of snake oil and the desire to cash in by selling it when opportunity knocks.
the lesson we learn this fall is that we are still doomed…..doomed I say.
jim
“The SUV tax deduction only applies to certain especially big SUVs, ones over 6,000 pounds. The intention is to allow people to deduct farm machinery and other work equipment, concentrating on the “utility” part of the “sport utility vehicle”. It includes Hummers and Land Rovers, but not the smaller family-sized SUVs.
You do have to declare it a business expense and insist that you’re driving it more than 50% for business, but the IRS has been pretty lenient on that. Section 179 of the tax code lets you deduct it all in the first year rather than over the 5 years ordinarily required. You can declare only $25,000 of it, plus 25% of the sticker price (the “bonus deduction”), which means you’re getting a pretty good break on the price of a great big vehicle.
Sources: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/biz_tips/20030403b1.asp”
so you buy a sedan for your business, it’s deducted over 5 years, you buy a big SUV and it’s deducted all at once. That’s why there was that explosion of SUVs in the 90’s. Rich people (People paying high taxes) suddenly found that they could purchase status and get a big old tax break.
it’s a pity you will never hear about that from NRO or human reason
but you will hear much screaming about an electric car tax break
Thanks Jack. Yet another reason why I am in favor of some form of flat tax.
I figure if the tax code for individuals was re-written to require everyone to file an individual return, no deductions, everyone was given a 20K poverty exemption (annually tied to some kind of COLA based on inflation or some other measure), and then you paid 10% of your remaining income, we would have a much better system. Plus we would need Congress to stack rank all expenditures and cut them off when the tax proceeds are spent.
I would even go for no corporate income tax. Perhaps some kind of requirement that each year corporations flush a major percentage of net earnings out as dividends to their stockholders, which would then get captured in the individual income tax.
Finally, given we spent the last 2 decades subsidizing SUV’s for rich people
it seems appropriate in light of the terrorist threat from the saudis to
provide incentives for eletric vehicles.
Why does it seem appropriate? This just means to me that we should eliminate the SUV loophole.
So the Gini coefficient (disparity of income between rich and poor) in the US has steadily increased over the last couple of decades and is now at levels similar to China – dangerous levels with regard to civil unrest/revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg
I am not entirely sure why this is but I suspect that the very wealthy have been entrenched as it takes a very “big” person to obtain the economies of scale necessary to withstand big government, the middle class have been over fished as they are an easy target and the unskilled/low wage economy (poor) have been increased due to various counter productive government programs. The US is unlikely to do well until these problems are addressed.
I find it a little ironic that for the US, bigger government is perhaps also less equitable (less effective re-distributive) government.
Government action is the reason we have a diminishing middle class. Economic classes are not static groups as politicians like to use them. As Sowell points out income is not wealth.
Teenagers are generally not wealthy and start out with low paying jobs. As they get older their earning power through experience should increase. By 30 or 40 they they reach their most productive and highest earning years but will not yet have accumulated wealth. They may enter and start moving through the middle class. As they get older and their earning potential declines they may get wealthy through the magic of compound interest.
The governments assault on ‘the rich’ is an assault on the job market. Almost every action of the government (and this includes local government as well) is an assault on the efficiency of the market. The demagoging idiots in congress are going to destroy this countries wealth for everybody… not just ‘the rich’
jim
the issue is deductions not flat taxes. The deductions are what drove SUV’s, now if you mean shred 90% of the deductions you might have a point but we had 6 years to try and the GOP never did it.
now the real problem is the tax on wealth is much lower then the tax on labor this has allowed the financial sector to starve the physical sector of capital.
the issue is deductions
Yes, and you, jack, keep supporting them, want more of them. So far, everyone else in the thread is supporting ending them. Why do you think the government should have the power to manipulate markets? To choose which industries should prosper and which should fail? What people can afford to buy?
Why not remove market manipulation and return the liberty to purchase items in a fair market to the individual consumers?
Leland
There may be net social benefit to tax policy.
Somehow supporting the oil markets of Saudi Arabia is considered a good idea no matter how many madrassas and terrorists they spawn.
Me I think those guys are scumbags and coming up with Domestic Tax Policy
that starves them is a good idea.
If that means having taxes on oil imported to the US, then yes, I think it’s a good idea. If your ideological preference is to make terrorist sponsoring states like Iran and Saudi Arabia more Economically competitive, well, then shame on you.
if that means giving tax credits to people who buy fuel efficient cars, and that means fuel becomes cheaper and the DoD spends less on energy,
well that is a good thing. If you think it’s a bad idea, well, then it’s your
shame, not mine.
If you want a free market, go to Somalia. See how well it works for you.
Naw, I think Hong Kong would be a better choice…
jack,
There may be net social benefit to tax policy.
Nice line, but can you provide anything other than false statements to back up your claim?
Somalia isn’t a free market. You say that because you believe absense of a organized government means the same as a free market. But that’s not true. Absense government is closer to anarchy. Markets have rules. What everybody but you seem to want is for the market not to have rules that give special exemptions to the preferred class. You, jack, apparently think there should be classifications of people and they should lose or gain things by those classifications. That’s something you have in common with the warlords running Somalia.
A family of 4 living on income of $60,000 a year will have a hard time buying a $41,000 car, even with a $7,500 tax break. Yet that same family’s contribution to our government will be used for this tax break for the rich. Why should such a family subsidize the rich? You have never explained why you think soaking the poor to pay for the toys of the rich is a good idea beyond pointing out it was done in the past. Why do you want to continue and expand these policies that you claim were bad in the first place?
Somehow supporting the oil markets of Saudi Arabia is considered a good idea no matter how many madrassas and terrorists they spawn.
Me I think those guys are scumbags and coming up with Domestic Tax Policy that starves them is a good idea.
How about we start with not shutting down domestic drilling operations and laying off thousands of US oil workers? I don’t see you against the moratorium. Indeed, you seem to support government intervention in this case. Government intervention which makes us reliant on Middle East energy products. Once again, nice line you have there, but since you obviously don’t really believe it, why did you write it?
leland
how about we start taxing off shore oil imports at $30/BBl
and use that to increase EV Credits.
Hybrids used to have credits why not expand that?
How about we don’t expand taxes? What is it you have against people spending money the way they want to rather than the way government wants them to do it?
How about we allow companies to drill for oil in the US? What is it you have against employing people in the US rather than employee people in the Middle East?
“This bill is based on the premise that we believe in private, free-market capitalism to develop the resources of this land in a cost-efficient manner.”
— Rep. Joe Barton, on voting for bill giving the oil and gas industries $2.7B in tax breaks and $500M for research”
hows about we get that money back from the oil companies first
Joe sounds a lot like you, jack. His understanding of free-markets is just as bad as your belief that Somalia is a free-market. We will never get that money back, just like we won’t get back the $10B tax refund Obama helped give to BP. What can be done is to keep people like you, Joe, and Obama from doing it again. So I ask again:
Why not remove market manipulation and return the liberty to purchase items in a fair market to the individual consumers?
How about we don’t expand taxes?
How about we allow companies to drill for oil in the US?
“A family of 4 living on income of $60,000 a year will have a hard time buying a $41,000 car, even with a $7,500 tax break. Yet that same family’s contribution to our government will be used for this tax break for the rich. ”
if we still had progressive taxes it wouldn’t be a subsidy for the rich.
flat taxes are a predicate condition for subsidies for the rich.
as for drilling for oil, are you willing to eat gulf seafood?
if we still had progressive taxes it wouldn’t be a subsidy for the rich.
that’s simply an absurd statement
flat taxes are a predicate condition for subsidies for the rich.
again, not true but I know socialist always try to make the case. Simple math taught in elementary schools can be used to prove that statement false.
as for drilling for oil, are you willing to eat gulf seafood?
I have several times. In fact, just this past weekend we had a shrimp and fish fry of critters picked up in the Gulf of Mexico. Is there any reason you think people shouldn’t be eating gulf seafood, beyond the fact that the government doesn’t want you to eat it because of a belief, while their own science says there is nothing wrong with it? Do you always base your decisions on faith and belief in government?
And back to the same questions you refuse to answer:
Why not remove market manipulation and return the liberty to purchase items in a fair market to the individual consumers?
How about we don’t expand taxes?
How about we allow companies to drill for oil in the US?