Dick Morris: Goodbye Mortgage Interest Deduction
by Big Dog on Jun 2, 2011 at 12:17 Political
Dick Morris has an interesting video out discussing the plan to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. Those who believe this will stimulate people to buy houses are part of the same crowd that believes spending a trillion dollars stimulates economies. They are also part of the same crowd that is always shocked that the economic numbers are not what they expected.
I don’t know why this would surprise anyone. Obama is a Democrat and Democrats like to tax, eliminate tax deductions, and spend like there is no tomorrow.
If we ran our budgets like the federal government runs its budget the banks would stop lending us money and we would not be able to get credit. Our credit companies would NOT raise our limit so we could spend more of what we do not have.
So why is it the federal government is deciding to raise its own limit? Shouldn’t the people who extend the credit be doing that?
But don’t worry; the government will make up the shortfall by taking away tax deductions.
Personally, I would be fine with no deductions if they had a flat tax that everyone paid and that they could not increase without a super majority vote. Instead, taxes go up, deductions go down and government spends like there is no limit to the amount of money available.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: debt limit, dick morris, double dip, lies, mortgage deduction
I’ll never forget this one Democrat in Charlotte. He said, “Well, of course we tax and spend — that’s what we’re supposed to do.”
Well, the new #s are out, and the unemployment rate is ostensibly 9.1 now- but it is really worse than that, since the government doesn’t count people in the trades, like carpentry, stonemasonry, A/C, plumbing, etc- since they are classified as “self-employed”, they are not put on the unemployment numbers- so the true unemployment numbers should be about 18- 20%- but that would look too bad for Bari and hiz crew, so they go with the fake numbers.
I wish I could just bitchslap him outta office. He needs a wake up call like that.
Self-imployed people don’t count as unemployed? All or just certain kinds?
You’ve said this before and I can’t find information to back it up. Can you point me to documentation of BLS methods for counting unemployment that mentions leaving off trades or the self-employed like you suggest?
Here it is mentioned
and here
Employment data covers civilian non-farm wage and salary workers. Self-employed persons, domestic servants, unpaid family workers, and members of the armed forces are excluded. Source
While the establishment survey excludes the self-employed, the household survey provides monthly estimates of unincorporated self-employment. These estimates have shown no substantial growth in recent years. Source
The unemployment rate may be different from the impact of the economy on people. The unemployment figures indicate how many are not working for pay but seeking employment for pay. It is only indirectly connected with the number of people who are actually not working at all or working without pay. Therefore, critics believe that current methods of measuring unemployment are inaccurate in terms of the impact of unemployment on people as these methods do not take into account the 1.5% of the available working population incarcerated in U.S. prisons (who may or may not be working while incarcerated), those who have lost their jobs and have become discouraged over time from actively looking for work, those who are self-employed… Source [emphasis mine]
Those sources are either talking about different measurements or in a couple of cases they’re flat out wrong. Here is why, from the BLS source you site:
To explain: U-3 is calculated using two figures from the Household Survey: Seasonally adjusted Civilian Fabor Force and Seasonally Adjusted Unemployed.
I agree that U-6 is a more accurate measurement of under employment than U-3 but none of these figures exclude self-employment and U-3 is certainly not used simply to make the President look better.
In case you doubt my suggestion that U-1 to U-6 are part of the Household Survey here is the latest table of alternative measurements from BLS: Table A-15 of the Household Data.
I think there is an explanation in them that self employed folks are not actually counted. They use some statistical calculation to determine what they call self employed. And what I mean by what they call self employed is not what Blake is talking about. They classify an unpaid child over 16 who works on a farm as unpaid self employed and they count a wife who helps her husband with his business for no compensation (like watching the kids or paying the bills once a week) as self employed. The articles show that the definition of self employed is rather skewed and that they are not 1) counted if they are in certain kinds of jobs and 2) defined so broadly that those who would not otherwise be considered self employed are, for the sake of the statistics.
I don’t see how you draw that conclusion. BLS differentiates between self-employed and unpaid family workers. See the above quote where it mentions self-employed, unpaid family workers, and agricultural workers as included in Household data. It’s not suggesting BLS counts each as self-employed.
In fact, BLS defines self-employed as someone “working in their own business, profession, or farm.” That’s pretty much how you or I (and Blake) would define it, right?
From what I can tell Blake is completely incorrect.
I guess we’re left to assume Blake either doesn’t have a source for this claim he’s repeatedly made or he understands now he was in error and doesn’t want to admit so.