Senate will "speed" rebates and latest news on stimulus

[agogley]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080207/economy_stimulus.html

This makes me sick.  Not only are people getting "rebates" for money they never paid, I wont get a dime.

[Reflex]

It makes me sick because they are giving away money they don't have to spend.  Last I checked we have a massive deficit this year.  Faltering economy or no, you can't give away money you don't have.

[Rocky]

It makes me sick because they are giving away money they don't have to spend.  Last I checked we have a massive deficit this year.  Faltering economy or no, you can't give away money you don't have.

Common sense!!!  I wish more people had it.  Not saying you, but I have seen a lot of conservatives say this same thing now, but I can bet you back in 2001 when Bush was sworn in they were not saying the same thing, even after those surpluses disappeared..

[agogley]

I heard that somebody once said that democracy works until the people figure out that they can vote to have special monetary benefits for themselves.  I wish I could find the quote.

[ScutMonkey]

On a personal level I'm going to enjoy the money assuming I qualify.

But really, this is a bad idea in two aspects for me:

1.  Better spent on the deficit.
2.  We shouldn't be bailing out big corporations for making stupid mistakes and that's what this smacks of.

[rrussell]

Are we gonna get taxed on this?

[Intuit]

On a personal level I'm going to enjoy the money assuming I qualify.

But really, this is a bad idea in two aspects for me:

1.  Better spent on the deficit.
2.  We shouldn't be bailing out big corporations for making stupid mistakes and that's what this smacks of.

You're always welcome to send it back.  

At this point I don't think they're capable of paying the defecit.  Even if we "let them" (laugh) keep that money they'd do nothing more than spend it.  Regardless, for the exact same reasons you've mentioned and beyond, I was against it in 1999/2000 and am against it now.  Even though inflation rates have been artificially held low the rate of cost of living increase has been steadily rising since '02.  Clinton, the Republican Congress and the projected defecit reductions were an anomoly.  Assuming the Democrats can gain a decisive lead in Congress 2010, and they acquire the house in '08, it'll be interesting to see whether they will institute policies of physical responsibility.  So long as Congress hasn't declared any official war, physical responsibility should be much higher priority list.  If the economy doesn't expand to pick-up on and cover what was spent we can't continue to borrow/spend what we don't have without consequences; those being exhorbitant inflation and a devaluing currency.

[Intuit]

Are we gonna get taxed on this?

It's absolutely amazing how many times goods and services are taxed by the time the reach us isn't it ?

[agogley]

Are we gonna get taxed on this?

It's supposed to be a "rebate."  It wont be directly taxable, i.e. it wont be included as income on your 2008 tax return.  However, it still remains to be seen if this will reduce your refund amount.  But that's unlikely too.

Enjoy your rebate guys.  Consider it a gift from yours truly.

[GTX]

I don't qualify for a rebate, but the rebate money would be somewhat of a joke since it wouldn't even begin to cover gas, diesel, heating oil, kerosene, propane, food, labor, materials, equipment, insurance, utility, land and property tax related inflation, let alone provide some low to middle income households with additional disposable income. Some of our heating customers joked about how little fuel their rebate will buy them.

With possible recession related salary cuts, work slowdowns, business closures, downsizing, layoffs, competition for jobs etc, some people better save or invest their rebates, or buy something that holds its value and can be sold easily.

[agogley]

So consider your rebate a gift from both myself and GTX!

[ScutMonkey]

You're always welcome to send it back.  

I actually pay taxes.  Alot.  So when people are getting it who didn't have to pay?  Nope, I'm keeping it.

At this point I don't think they're capable of paying the defecit.  Even if we "let them" (laugh) keep that money they'd do nothing more than spend it.  Regardless, for the exact same reasons you've mentioned and beyond, I was against it in 1999/2000 and am against it now.  Even though inflation rates have been artificially held low the rate of cost of living increase has been steadily rising since '02.  Clinton, the Republican Congress and the projected defecit reductions were an anomoly.  Assuming the Democrats can gain a decisive lead in Congress 2010, and they acquire the house in '08, it'll be interesting to see whether they will institute policies of physical responsibility.  So long as Congress hasn't declared any official war, physical responsibility should be much higher priority list.  If the economy doesn't expand to pick-up on and cover what was spent we can't continue to borrow/spend what we don't have without consequences; those being exhorbitant inflation and a devaluing currency.

This is what I don't really get about the expectations for Democrats.  Bill Clinton only became fiscally responsible AFTER he got creamed in the 1994 midterm elections.  After that he moved towards the center.  Towards conservative ideas which were put forth by Newt Gingrich and his "contract with America."  Gingrich is run out of Congress on a rail and Bill Clinton is celebrated as some sort of fiscal hero.

And this is the disappointment in Bush much of the right has.  The disappointment many dyed in the wool conservatives and Republicans feel with Bush is his movement towards the left on fiscal responsibility and spending.  Right now, the Republicans are the same as "tax and spend" Democrats.  The only difference is the programs.  Educational spending when up by 60% in Bush's first four years.  If the Dems had done that, the Republicans would have had a heart attack.  But no, this is the "compassionate conservative" crap that Bush sold Republicans on.  Instead of cutting and doing things like privatization of Social Security in even a limited form, he instead puts in a $500 billion medicare drug benefit package?   That's a liberal Democrat stance.  Not a conservative Republican stance.

The ONLY difference I see between the two parties right this minute is what they spend the money on.  Not whether they actually spend it - and this rebate is a current example.  The only time you can get Congress to vote almost unanimously and have the President rubber stamp it is when they spend an eggregious amount of money?  Pathetic.

The current "Earmarks" dictum passed down by the Bush White House should have been done the day after Bush's 2004 election.  Not when he's a lame duck.  That would have been a major coup for conservatives.  Major.  But now it's just lame duck crap.

PS.  If you want to understand why conservatives are so upset with Romney's defeat by McCain, look no further.  McCain has continually crossed the isle to work with Democrats to implement various programs which are NOT conservative by nature.  You know when McCain lost me?  When he was one of the band leaders of the baseball steroids hearings in Congress.  Wasting money on a bunch of whiny overpaid primadonnas.  And this is the mentality in congress.  They DESERVE to be involved in anything and everything.  So then Congress pulled in the NFL.  And now Roger Godell of the NFL is being brought to DC, probably on the taxpayer's dime to appear to before Sen. Arlen Spector (another Republican no less) to explain the taping of practices by football teams which supposedly amounts to cheating and "damages the integrity of the game."  WHAT?  We shouldn't spend $1 trying to help the NFL try to control cheating because who fucking cares?  But this is a byproduct of the steroids in baseball fiasco.  The first time Congress dips it's dirty little fingers into an issue, it will do so forever.  And personally?  I hate it.

Would Romney automatically stop this?  Would Romney attack this problem?  He says he will to some extent and maybe he will and maybe he won't.  But McCain is part of the problem so I see no way how he can be part of the solution and other conservatives don't either.

[GTX]

So consider your rebate a gift from both myself and GTX!

Make sure you spend my money on cigarettes, beer, liquor, pot, lottery tickets, junk food or blow it at the strip clubs, track or casinos. Might as well have some fun with your Free Money. Please don't save it, invest it or buy anything practical that holds it's value or lasts too long.

Remember to shop at Wal-Mart....

[ScutMonkey]

Make sure you spend my money on cigarettes, beer, liquor, pot, lottery tickets, junk food or blow it at the strip clubs, track or casinos. Might as well have some fun with your Free Money. Please don't save it, invest it or buy anything practical that holds it's value or lasts too long.

Remember to shop at Wal-Mart....

I only get it because my wife doesn't work.  I had an assload of paid overtime last year as a contractor so I wouldn't have qualified for it if I'd been single....

Once again proving that hard work is punished.

[rrussell]

I just read the guidelines. Turns out that since my wife lost her job last year, her severance will push us into the "you don't get any" realm, even though at this single-income point we could really use it.

Hooray?

GTX, I promise that if I'm wrong and we DO get a check, I'll spend it exclusively on scratch-off lottery tix.

[Reflex]

Scut - To be fair, there is a reason congress is involved in baseball and football.  Both operate with a special anti-trust exemption that put them under the purview of congress.  The result is that the sports can both face special penalties when they screw up.  I do feel that much of this is showboating and a waste of time and money.  That said, they would get blasted for being negligent in their responsibilities if they said and did nothing as well.

[agogley]

I just read the guidelines. Turns out that since my wife lost her job last year, her severance will push us into the "you don't get any" realm, even though at this single-income point we could really use it.

Hooray?

GTX, I promise that if I'm wrong and we DO get a check, I'll spend it exclusively on scratch-off lottery tix.

I have a better idea.  Send me your money and I'll pay you .25 cents on the dollar.  Then you'll have more then you will after you buy your lottery tickets.

[Intuit]

You're always welcome to send it back.  

I actually pay taxes.  Alot.  So when people are getting it who didn't have to pay?  Nope, I'm keeping it.

At this point I don't think they're capable of paying the defecit.  Even if we "let them" (laugh) keep that money they'd do nothing more than spend it.  Regardless, for the exact same reasons you've mentioned and beyond, I was against it in 1999/2000 and am against it now.  Even though inflation rates have been artificially held low the rate of cost of living increase has been steadily rising since '02.  Clinton, the Republican Congress and the projected defecit reductions were an anomoly.  Assuming the Democrats can gain a decisive lead in Congress 2010, and they acquire the house in '08, it'll be interesting to see whether they will institute policies of physical responsibility.  So long as Congress hasn't declared any official war, physical responsibility should be much higher priority list.  If the economy doesn't expand to pick-up on and cover what was spent we can't continue to borrow/spend what we don't have without consequences; those being exhorbitant inflation and a devaluing currency.

This is what I don't really get about the expectations for Democrats.  Bill Clinton only became fiscally responsible AFTER he got creamed in the 1994 midterm elections.  After that he moved towards the center.  Towards conservative ideas which were put forth by Newt Gingrich and his "contract with America."  Gingrich is run out of Congress on a rail and Bill Clinton is celebrated as some sort of fiscal hero.

And this is the disappointment in Bush much of the right has.  The disappointment many dyed in the wool conservatives and Republicans feel with Bush is his movement towards the left on fiscal responsibility and spending.  Right now, the Republicans are the same as "tax and spend" Democrats.  The only difference is the programs.  Educational spending when up by 60% in Bush's first four years.  If the Dems had done that, the Republicans would have had a heart attack.  But no, this is the "compassionate conservative" crap that Bush sold Republicans on.  Instead of cutting and doing things like privatization of Social Security in even a limited form, he instead puts in a $500 billion medicare drug benefit package?   That's a liberal Democrat stance.  Not a conservative Republican stance.

The ONLY difference I see between the two parties right this minute is what they spend the money on.  Not whether they actually spend it - and this rebate is a current example.  The only time you can get Congress to vote almost unanimously and have the President rubber stamp it is when they spend an eggregious amount of money?  Pathetic.

The current "Earmarks" dictum passed down by the Bush White House should have been done the day after Bush's 2004 election.  Not when he's a lame duck.  That would have been a major coup for conservatives.  Major.  But now it's just lame duck crap.

PS.  If you want to understand why conservatives are so upset with Romney's defeat by McCain, look no further.  McCain has continually crossed the isle to work with Democrats to implement various programs which are NOT conservative by nature.  You know when McCain lost me?  When he was one of the band leaders of the baseball steroids hearings in Congress.  Wasting money on a bunch of whiny overpaid primadonnas.  And this is the mentality in congress.  They DESERVE to be involved in anything and everything.  So then Congress pulled in the NFL.  And now Roger Godell of the NFL is being brought to DC, probably on the taxpayer's dime to appear to before Sen. Arlen Spector (another Republican no less) to explain the taping of practices by football teams which supposedly amounts to cheating and "damages the integrity of the game."  WHAT?  We shouldn't spend $1 trying to help the NFL try to control cheating because who fucking cares?  But this is a byproduct of the steroids in baseball fiasco.  The first time Congress dips it's dirty little fingers into an issue, it will do so forever.  And personally?  I hate it.

Would Romney automatically stop this?  Would Romney attack this problem?  He says he will to some extent and maybe he will and maybe he won't.  But McCain is part of the problem so I see no way how he can be part of the solution and other conservatives don't either.

Biased ?

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html