Voting & Taxes Should you be required to do one to do the other?

[Mark F. Barnes]

You are exactly right on that, Perry is grandstanding as usual. Don't know enough about Jindal, I really just think he's just inexperienced and is getting some bad advice. Perhaps he's slicker than I think and is doing some political posturing, and I'm to naive to see it. But Perry is a real piece of work. He's definately looking out for Rick Perry, per the norm. If the GOP has any thoughts of running either of these two in 2012, they might as well just forfeit the win to Obama and be done with it. I may not agree with all of Obama's stuff, but I darn sure don't want to see either one of these two clowns in the White House. Perry has screwed Texas so hard to date, we ought to all be on birth control. I wish Steve (Ogden), would get off his lazy butt and run for Gov.

[Marksmu]

If as expected, the rolls of the unemployed are far lower in 3 years than they are today, then the extra cost to businesses would be far lower as well. Additionally, tax rates and benefits are adjusted all the time. As crunch stated, there is no reason why the states could not readjust benefits downward in 3 years on the basis that the extra tax burden would put additional stress on businesses.

Here is an article that addresses some the issues. The biggest change is that some part-time workers would qualify for unemployment benefits. It also encourages states to update their formulas to the 21st Century. Having paid unemployment taxes in the past, I know that Texas based unemployment benefits on what the worker was doing a year ago, rather than recent work history. Apparently, the lag time was due to how long it took to compile paperwork by hand. Now, it is computerized and is compiled much more quickly, so the benefits could be calculated quicker.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourmoney/work/ar...ulus_plan_.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6307951.html

Given that the quickest way to stimulate the economy is through direct payments to consumers, Perry's act has the effect of denying Texas businesses $555 million in direct revenue. The unemployed immediately spend those checks in grocery stores, on rent and mortgages, at gas stations and other Texas businesses. I do not find Perry's rationale persuasive. He is counting on most voters not researching what it is that he is rejecting. Considering how much effort I had to go through just to find out exactly what the extra money was for, I think that he guessed right. However, he is not doing his state any favors in rejecting the money. Neither is Jindal. The better practice is to take the funds now, and adjust the rules later when the funds dry up.

The reason for rejecting is simple - the government is incapable of contracting and Perry may actually recognize that and for a change be doing something right. Dont get me wrong here Perry is a grandstanding idiot - I cant stand him - BUT - to say that once were out of this mess the legislature is going to retract this tax is ludicrous. The government, whether its city, state, or federal is incapable of contracting - all they do is grow grow grow - regardless of the economy. When the private sector is shrinking and fewer tax dollars are created, the government should be contracting, cutting costs, reducing hours, etc - but its not - it never does - it just keeps plugging and chugging operating on a defecit, and trying to find new things to tax to cover it.

We must stop government expansion in a time of economic contraction.

[crunchtastic]

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourmoney/work/ar...ulus_plan_.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6307951.html

He is counting on most voters not researching what it is that he is rejecting. Considering how much effort I had to go through just to find out exactly what the extra money was for, I think that he guessed right. However, he is not doing his state any favors in rejecting the money. Neither is Jindal. The better practice is to take the funds now, and adjust the rules later when the funds dry up.

My bad. I looked it up but failed to post links.

As the recession continues, more and more people will be forced into part-time work to make ends meet. They won't show up in the broad unemployment statistics, but consumer spending will stay depressed and perpetuate the cycle. This is the point of of stimulus spending, as Red pointed out. The benefits extension keeps money flowing directly in the ecomony until more full-time jobs are created again, essentially hedging that full employment rises back to the level that the tax issue solves itself. One of the worst things that could happen is to have large numbers of people permanently leave full-time employment for part-time, low wage work. They have little or no discretionary income to spend or save, few have health or retirement benefits, and risk becoming a permanent drag on the system. You could work 2 mcjobs and keep the bills paid, but you can't pay for a hospital visit or save for retirement that way.

[TheNiche]

I shall wait for an enumerated threat caused by the poor before I respond.

You've attempted to make the issue more convoluted. You had specifically stated:

As mentioned before, all of the threats to the US requiring military force are derived from actions of the wealthy or actions of the government on behalf of the wealthy.

One such threat requiring US military force that neither derived from the actions of the wealthy or of government actions on behalf of the wealthy would be the Japanese attack on the military base at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. Had the United States just rolled over and given up their Pacific territories to the Japanese, the (disproportionately poor) populations of those territories would've been ruled by Japanese conquerors, probably not all that differently to the situation in Japanese-held China...which is to say, very unpleasant. And that sort of strategic blunder would no doubt have had other far-reaching consequences adversely affecting both the poor and wealthy at home and abroad.

Btw, sorry for the slow response. My internet connectivity has been unreliable this week.