Free Markets, Free People


John Kerry Was For Tax Cuts Before He Was Against Them

Apparently the Brainiac known as John Kerry is again displaying his wit an wisdom for all to see.  Mary Katherine Ham caught him on the floor of the Senate pontificating about why tax cuts were bad:

I’ve supported many tax cuts over the years, and there are tax cuts in this proposal. But a tax cut is non-targeted.

If you put a tax cut into the hands of a business or family, there’s no guarantee that they’re going to invest that or invest it in America.

Can I get me some of that Gray Poupon?

Can I get me some of that Gray Poupon?

They’re free to go invest anywhere that they want if they choose to invest.

If you feel like you’ve just been hit in the solar plexus, welcome to the club. While technically true, his statements are so stunningly ignorant it’s hard to fathom how one could actually articulate them with a straight face.

This man who wanted to be president is sure that only government can “invest” these dollars properly – like the first half of the TARP funds, some of which went toward buying banks in China – but that the majority of Americans would “invest” them ignorantly or not at all.

Per Kerry you can’t be trusted to spend your money the way John Kerry wants it spent – on bike paths and Frisbee Golf Courses or other misbegotten projects he finds preferable. The poster boy for rule by the elite, Kerry manages in three sentences to underscore why this travesty of a bill will fail. The economic ignorance embodied by his words, and the fact they fairly represent the dominant thinking in the dominant party and their lackeys is amazing but true.

With people like Kerry in charge, it is going to be a long, debt-ridden and impoverished 4 years, folks.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

9 Responses to John Kerry Was For Tax Cuts Before He Was Against Them

  • Live and learn. I see nothing wrong in what the senator had to say. What is wrong is to misinterprete what he is saying and ignore that he is correct on tax breaks as applied to stimulating the economy. What did you do with your last tax break? Did you put it back into our enconomy?  As the senator wisely said, he has voted for tax breaks in the past and experience has taught him that they do not work. At least when they are distributed without any guidelines.
    Now, if Republicans what to argue that the middle class and the rich pay to much in taxes than that is something that needs to be introduced and debated at another time. What is being debated now is a stimulus bill. A bill that will hopefully jolt our economy and get it moving in a postive direction again.

    • What I did with my last “tax break” is none of your business nor is it any business of John Kerry. And the fact that you assume it is tells me alot about you.

      But that sort of attitude (and understanding) is only found among people who understand and appreciate liberty, which clearly excludes you.

      There’s no misinterpreting what he said. It’s as clear as it can be. He has no understanding of how leaving money in people’s pockets is the quickest and best way to stimulate an economy. And it is also apparent that he, and you, are trying to blame problems on tax breaks which have nothing to do with them.

      Lastly, whatever I did with may last tax break benefited the economy, unless of course, I buried it in a can in my back yard. Obviously I didn’t. I’ll leave it to you to puzzle out, then, how my “tax break” accomplished economically precisely what Kerry is either unable or incapable of understanding.

  • I took my tax break out as cash and burned it out of spite. That way it didn’t help the economy AND it contributed to global warming. Is that what you want to know?

  • I don’t think you can be sure that stimulus spending won’t be put in the bank, either. Because some of the projects being funded may not be hiring unemployed workers, but people already with jobs, who may simply pocket their overtime or use it to pay down their own debst.

    Even unemployed people may simply use the bulk of their newly found income to pay off debts, i.e. their mortgage and car. Those usually are a huge chunk of the average American’s costs, and are not consumer spending. 

    So, one criticism of rebate checks is that are only used 20-50% for spending and the rest is saved or used to pay off debt, what is the difference when an unemployed person uses their benefits or new make-work job money to pay off their mortgage first, and not buy a made in the USA DVD player?

    • Currency gets circulated. So when a company pays employed workers, those workers spend or save the money. So this isn’t something that just stops after “spend 1″ or “save 1″. Spend 1 goes to a company to pay down debt, who then pays it to hire another employee with spend 2. Etc. And “save 1″ ends up being “lend 1″, which may become spend 1 in that chain, etc. Pretending like the government has a better idea of how to spend money is to buy into the idea that a command economy is always better than a solution than individuals spending the money they’ve earned on their priorities.

      • I understand what you are saying, but I am addressing the Keynesians who claim that savings does not equal investment and that savings destroys income. This is one of the reasons they think hiring workers directly for government projects is better than tax cuts. I’m suggesting that even doing that might not have the effects they want of foricng consumption.

  • Of course my last tax cut went into the economy, Marky.  Unless people put their money into mattresses, it’s going back into the economy.  And far more efficiently than the government can allocate it.

    As far as not discussing tax rates as part of this “stimulus” bill, most of the bill is the wildest wet dream of socialist spending, and NOT stimulus.

  • Further effin’ proof that it’s not your money.  They are deciding how much to let you keep.

  • If you put a tax cut into the hands of a business or family, there’s no guarantee that they’re going to invest that or invest it in America.

    Translation – The American people are too stupid to spend their money wisely.

    They’re free to go invest anywhere that they want if they choose to invest.

    Translation – This “freedom” thing is a real inconvenience for us in Washington.  Gotta do something about that…

    Marky CWhat did you do with your last tax break? Did you put it back into our enconomy?  As the senator wisely said, he has voted for tax breaks in the past and experience has taught him that they do not work. At least when they are distributed without any guidelines.

    OK, here’s an idea for you.  Since you seem to agree with Jean-Francois and think that people are too stupid to spend their own money wisely, please have all your pay and any other money you get (such as gifts) sent to me.  I PROMISE that I, following the examples of Jean-Francois, TAO and the Congress, will spend the money wisely and invest it properly.  I’ll give you enough to live on (I understand better than you how to live your life) and even have a few luxuries, ensuring of course that the luxuries are “buy American” and don’t contribute to global warming or otherwise harm the environment.  You don’t trust me?  Well, why don’t you write a letter to Jean-Francois and offer to let him run your life for you?  That’s essentially what you are advocating.

    Let me know how that turns out.

    / sarc

    Here’s a tip: any time I or anybody else spends, saves, or invests here in the United States, we are BY DEFINITION “putting the money into our economy”.  Where the hell do you think money goes?  Conduct the following though experiment: think about where the money goes the next time you buy ANYTHING.  You are paying somebody to produce the item, which means you are paying somebody to make the raw materials, transport them, convert them, package the final product, warehouse it, ship it to the retailer (which means paying somebody to build, maintain, fuel and drive the truck AND build / maintain the roads it moves along), put it on the shelf, advertise it, ring it out at the cash register, and bag it (which means people were employed to make the bags).  All that economic activity just because you bought one little item.  Oh, and taxes were paid all along the way, which the government uses to… um… er… Well, do much the same thing, only money is wasted because of what one might call a bureaucratic handling fee.

    Do please try to understand this: GOVERNMENT DOESN’T PRODUCE ANYTHING.  Government spending CAN stimulate the economy (for example, by buying 100 fighter planes for the Air Force), but it is a damned ineffective way to do it.  Wouldn’t you rather let people make their own decisions about how they’d like to spend their money?  The end result is the same: the economy gets “stimulated”.  The difference is, when people get to spend their own money, they make themselves a bit happier.  When government spends their money for them, the only people who are happy are the politicians.