RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Owner59 -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 6:28:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuffkinks

So...The gov. is going to give Me back 600 dollars of My own money, and that's supposed to relieve My economic woes? Gee...Thanks a lot. Even if every taxpayer out there got the max of 1200 dollars, does the gov. actually think that's going to get us out of the recession that our President doesn't even think we're in? I could actually shorten this post by cutting and pasting this little piece of it:

                                                                      "does the gov. actually think"


Actually,it`s not your money.It`s borrowed money.That you (and me) will have to pay back someday,......with interest.

Your money(and mine) was already spent, a couple years ago.

The money we`re sending in now,is paying off debts,Bush and the republicans ran up over the last several years.Those debts, will take years and years to pay of.

Short an economic boom, like the Dot.Com boom,it will take decades and decades,to pay down what the neo-cons have gotten us into.

We have been giving billions of dollars to rich people(in tax breaks),that is borrowed money also.We have been spending(wasting) money,a few billion every month in Iraq.Again,this is money that`s being borrowed,mostly from the Saudis and China.

Like the billions we go into debt to pay rich people with,this 600 or so dollars we`ll all get,will also be borrowed money(from China/Saudi Arabia).And will have to be payed back,at some point down the road,with interest.

This is true with the money Reagan borrowed and the debt that was left with us,the relatively small debt left by all the presidents before Reagan,and the billions and trillions of dollars in debt,that Bush and the neo-cons are leaving us now.

Remember that 3 hudred we all got,when the neo-cons passed the "leave no millionaire behind" tax cuts?

Ask your tax guy,if that $300 wasn`t taken out of the next years taxes.It was.That 300 clams,was just a loan, on the next year`s taxes.We did get jack shit.

If it means that this money(the cash that will fund the 600 dollar "tax rebate")we`re getting puts us farther into debt,I don`t want it.

We`re going to have to pay that money back to the people we borrow it from.It won`t appear out of thin air.

I say no,if this makes our debts larger than they are now.

I also want to end this so called "tax breaks" for rich people.I don`t want to borrow that money, in order to finance them.

Contrary to popular belief,you can`t run up debt forever,as a lifestyle.Eventually,it`ll all come crashing down.

The slagging economy, is largely a consumer confidence problem.With the present leadership,who can blame them.



Sanity -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 6:32:15 AM)

That's right - our number one priority should be to vote out the Democrat Congress and elect a REAL Conservative President, not a quasi-Democrat, like Bush.


quote:

The slagging economy, is largely a consumer confidence problem.With the present leadership,who can blame them.



pahunkboy -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 6:47:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

That's right - our number one priority should be to vote out the Democrat Congress and elect a REAL Conservative President, not a quasi-Democrat, like Bush.


quote:

The slagging economy, is largely a consumer confidence problem.With the present leadership,who can blame them.



Finances need to get in order.  agreed.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 7:13:27 AM)

quote:

With the present leadership,who can blame them.

Owner,
I know you're feeling betrayed and disenfranchised, but Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic controlled House and Senate need to buy some re-election votes and pay back their PAC contributores. This $50 Billion Corporate tax cut and giving folks $600 to spent at Walmart is the best they could come up with I guess.



TahoeSadist -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 7:26:57 AM)

     So, we have a tacit admission from Ali Baba and the 535 Thieves in Congress that they may be confiscating too much of their servant's (those of us who pay taxes) money. After all, one doesn't wish to actually *kill* the golden goose, just keep it on life support, and able to produce. The obvious question then is this: if you, dear Congress are stealing so much of our money to fund your goals of perpetual re-election, (which is what all spending not specifically authorized in the Constitution is) that the US economy is in danger, then rather than a couple hundred bucks of a rebate, why isn't there a massive tax cut? Yes a tax cut, which in simple, easy to understand English means a reduction in the amount a person actually pays in tax. I know that that goes completely against the grain of one political party whose central election theme is class-envy, soak-the-rich politics, but the tacit admission is already out there with this bogus "Stimulus" package: they may be closer than they like to killing the golden goose of US taxpayers.

   Which brings to mind another question. Even with the overtaxation of the country, the Federal Government is operating in a deficit. Again, another simple English definition: going into debt spending money that they do not have. So, if they are already at a deficit, then from where does this  rebate money come? Logic says it must be borrowed, so then it has to be paid back with money that descendents of the current crop of  535 Thieves will confiscate from us at a later date. There is no thought to say "We have X amount of money (capped obviously by the need to not *quite* kill off that goose) and we have Y numbers of re-election schemes (otherwise known as government spending) so divide X by Y and that's how much we spend". No no no, can't do that because it would lead to massive infighting among the band of 535 Thieves as each wants enough to get himself a guaranteed re-election. Besides, with the Presidential candidates out there trying to one up each other by promising more and more government spending (see definition above) it would make life even tougher to spend within the means of the barely alive goose.

   So taxpayers, you lovely geese who perpetually lay that golden egg, and those who don't pay taxes but who are getting a rebate on that which isn't paid (which exposes the lie of a "rebate" for what it is): Go forth! Enjoy this little shot of morphine in the wing! Forget your pain for the amount of time it takes to mark your ballot!! Remember, Ali Baba and the 535 Thieves care about *you* and your well being!! The more they take from you, the more they can show they care by giving a small amount back and charging it off so future bands of thieves can confiscate it again and keep the cycle going.

TS



Owner59 -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 8:03:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

That's right - our number one priority should be to vote out the Democrat Congress and elect a REAL Conservative President, not a quasi-Democrat, like Bush.


quote:

The slagging economy, is largely a consumer confidence problem.With the present leadership,who can blame them.



Or we can vote someone like Bill Clinton,who according to Allen Greenspan, was the best "republican" president,he ever served w/.

I bet you voted for Bush,...twice.And would again,or at least for someone just as bad.That`s a given.

The present democratic congress,didn`t get us into our present trouble.

Funny how the neo-cons were until now,claiming credit for the "good" economy.lol

Now look at`m.lol  Running from Bush like their hair was on fire.

Let me ask you, Sanity.

If you made 30k a year,and had 300.000 dollars in debt,would a few bucks help,knowing that it would only be adding to your present debt load?

Bill Clinton,was a genuine fiscal conservative,and brought the first balanced budget to Washington DC, in 30 years.



Owner59 -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 8:17:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

With the present leadership,who can blame them.

Owner,
I know you're feeling betrayed and disenfranchised, but Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic controlled House and Senate need to buy some re-election votes and pay back their PAC contributores. This $50 Billion Corporate tax cut and giving folks $600 to spent at Walmart is the best they could come up with I guess.


Hey Merc,

Other than not making quicker movement on Iraq,N. Pelosi has done what she promised,and hasn`t broken promises or mislead anyone.

When I referred to leadership,I was referring to the folks who run the entire federal government,ie., the Bush administration.If I`m not mistaken,you voted for Bush,twice.Feeling betrayed and disenfranchised?[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m11.gif[/image]

Congress doesn`t run the fed. gov.,federal reserve,central bank,trade policy,tax policy,or fiscal policy.

Their only influence, is the bargaining power of the "purse strings".With congress almost 50/50,that influence is almost non-existent.

A fish rots, from the head.



popeye1250 -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 8:36:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuffkinks

So...The gov. is going to give Me back 600 dollars of My own money, and that's supposed to relieve My economic woes? Gee...Thanks a lot. Even if every taxpayer out there got the max of 1200 dollars, does the gov. actually think that's going to get us out of the recession that our President doesn't even think we're in? I could actually shorten this post by cutting and pasting this little piece of it:

                                                                     "does the gov. actually think"


Actually,it`s not your money.It`s borrowed money.That you (and me) will have to pay back someday,......with interest.

Your money(and mine) was already spent, a couple years ago.

The money we`re sending in now,is paying off debts,Bush and the republicans ran up over the last several years.Those debts, will take years and years to pay of.

Short an economic boom, like the Dot.Com boom,it will take decades and decades,to pay down what the neo-cons have gotten us into.

We have been giving billions of dollars to rich people(in tax breaks),that is borrowed money also.We have been spending(wasting) money,a few billion every month in Iraq.Again,this is money that`s being borrowed,mostly from the Saudis and China.

Like the billions we go into debt to pay rich people with,this 600 or so dollars we`ll all get,will also be borrowed money(from China/Saudi Arabia).And will have to be payed back,at some point down the road,with interest.

This is true with the money Reagan borrowed and the debt that was left with us,the relatively small debt left by all the presidents before Reagan,and the billions and trillions of dollars in debt,that Bush and the neo-cons are leaving us now.

Remember that 3 hudred we all got,when the neo-cons passed the "leave no millionaire behind" tax cuts?

Ask your tax guy,if that $300 wasn`t taken out of the next years taxes.It was.That 300 clams,was just a loan, on the next year`s taxes.We did get jack shit.

If it means that this money(the cash that will fund the 600 dollar "tax rebate")we`re getting puts us farther into debt,I don`t want it.

We`re going to have to pay that money back to the people we borrow it from.It won`t appear out of thin air.

I say no,if this makes our debts larger than they are now.

I also want to end this so called "tax breaks" for rich people.I don`t want to borrow that money, in order to finance them.

Contrary to popular belief,you can`t run up debt forever,as a lifestyle.Eventually,it`ll all come crashing down.

The slagging economy, is largely a consumer confidence problem.With the present leadership,who can blame them.


Owner, correct, it is "borrowed money" that we'll have to pay back.
But, the amount that the people will get back, $28b is still less than the $34.6B in "foreign aid" that the big corporations just pushed through congress not too long ago. That money will have to be borrowed too.
I guess that the people in Washington think that they're going to keep us on the treadmill buying "consumer goods" made in foreign countries by Outsourced former American businesses.



TreasureKY -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 9:13:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Wait a sec...

People who DIDN'T PAY TAX will get a "Rebate"???




No.  What part of...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

... Some people who pay taxes are going to get part of them back. 


was not clear?



Owner59 -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 9:19:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250



Owner, correct, it is "borrowed money" that we'll have to pay back.
But, the amount that the people will get back, $28b is still less than the $34.6B in "foreign aid" that the big corporations just pushed through congress not too long ago. That money will have to be borrowed too.
I guess that the people in Washington think that they're going to keep us on the treadmill buying "consumer goods" made in foreign countries by Outsourced former American businesses.



True ,perhaps,Popeye.

I`m get that your top gripes are Hillary and Bill,Ted Kennedy,and foreign aid.

I kinda wish we upped the aid to Afghanistan,when the Soviets left it in ruins.

We could have $aved ourselves a lot of grief and money.



popeye1250 -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 9:43:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250



Owner, correct, it is "borrowed money" that we'll have to pay back.
But, the amount that the people will get back, $28b is still less than the $34.6B in "foreign aid" that the big corporations just pushed through congress not too long ago. That money will have to be borrowed too.
I guess that the people in Washington think that they're going to keep us on the treadmill buying "consumer goods" made in foreign countries by Outsourced former American businesses.



True ,perhaps,Popeye.

I`m get that your top gripes are Hillary and Bill,Ted Kennedy,and foreign aid.

I kinda wish we upped the aid to Afghanistan,when the Soviets left it in ruins.

We could have $aved ourselves a lot of grief and money.


Owner, I have no problem with "foreign aid" per se as long as it's *individuals* who are doing the giving.
It just isn't our government's "job" to be giving our money to foreign countries.
As for Afganistan I don't understand you there.
And Ted Kennedy is a fat corrupt alchoholic who was never held responsible for vehicular manslaughter.
As for Hillary and Bill they're not in my "top gripes."
They're "Yesterday's News".



SubbieOnWheels -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 10:00:51 AM)

Here's a thought:

How about making the senators and representatives (now there's a word that means nothing) live on the salaries of their lowest-paid constituents? They keep voting themselves pay raises even when their constituents are struggling. Here's an even better idea - how about having the constituents determine how much their congressional representation is worth to them.

I find it sadly laughable that a person who has full health coverage (paid for by taxpayers) is responsible for deciding what my health coverage is going to cost me - a person who makes far less than they do.

I didn't pay taxes last year, so I'm not expecting a rebate. Those whom I know are getting one all say they'll pay the utility or grocery bill - something that has to be paid regardless. According to what I've heard and read, that isn't going to accomplish what was intended. Three or six hundred dollars is a pittance compared to what many people owe in debts.



Owner59 -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 10:09:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250



Owner, correct, it is "borrowed money" that we'll have to pay back.
But, the amount that the people will get back, $28b is still less than the $34.6B in "foreign aid" that the big corporations just pushed through congress not too long ago. That money will have to be borrowed too.
I guess that the people in Washington think that they're going to keep us on the treadmill buying "consumer goods" made in foreign countries by Outsourced former American businesses.



True ,perhaps,Popeye.

I`m get that your top gripes are Hillary and Bill,Ted Kennedy,and foreign aid.

I kinda wish we upped the aid to Afghanistan,when the Soviets left it in ruins.

We could have $aved ourselves a lot of grief and money.


Owner, I have no problem with "foreign aid" per se as long as it's *individuals* who are doing the giving.
It just isn't our government's "job" to be giving our money to foreign countries.
As for Afganistan I don't understand you there.
And Ted Kennedy is a fat corrupt alchoholic who was never held responsible for vehicular manslaughter.
As for Hillary and Bill they're not in my "top gripes."
They're "Yesterday's News".


"As for Afganistan I don't understand you there."


You need to see "Charlie Wilson`s War",if you haven`t already.

The History Chanel did a great show on the movie,Texas Rep.Charlie Wilson, and the fall of the Soviets in Afghanistan.It`ll be on DVD and PPV, soon.

Wilson,and many others who were there,think that we could have saved Afghanistan from the Taliban and al-queda,with our resources ,leadership,and the world community`s help.

One note about foreign aid.Much of it is money in the form of vouchers,which is spent in the US.It`s not just a complete give away.

We also give bulk and other food items,which count as dollars when tallied by the gov.,but isn`t cash money.We do give cash,but always w/ strings attached,for the most part.

This aid also gives us tremendous influence ,good will and respect around the world.

Believe it or not,but our enemies also attempt to provide food and aid to the world`s poor,trying to gain influence.

We can`t let that happen or get worse than it is now.



ChainsandFreedom -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 10:18:02 AM)

Here's what I've been wondering all week:

The 'average' American family with two bread-winners and dependants makes less than 70k, no matter what figures you go by. I've heard that the medium salary for Americans was 30-55k, depending on the figures.

I haven't read anything to date about rebates for the majority of Americans, people in this tax range.

Does that mean most people who actually defaulted on their loans and could use the help, the majority of people who don't yet have a blue-ray dvd player from walmart and would be most likely to go buy one, are going to get nothing?

My interpertation: Those with the investment income which depends on other people owing interest are going to be getting both a rebate AND continue to make just as much money off of other peoples interest-incurring debts. 



quote:

ORIGINAL: ravennfyre

I just got this off the MSNBC site...

I'm not holding my breath...(as fun as it is)

Who gets what

How Americans in different financial situations would fare under the rebate plan proposed by House leaders and the White House.

— An individual with $2,500 in earned income in 2007: Disqualified because income fell below the $3,000 threshold. No rebate.

— A married couple with no children, with adjusted gross income of $100,000 in 2007: Would qualify for the full $1,200 couples. A $1,200 rebate.

— A worker with one child, who earned $9,000 and owed no taxes in 2007: Would qualify for the $300 rebate available to individuals who pay no taxes but earned at least $3,000, plus an additional $300 for the child. A $600 rebate.

— A couple with income of $145,000 in 2007, with three children: Would qualify for the full $1,200 for couples, plus $300 for each child. A $2,100 rebate.

— A couple with income of $160,000 in 2007 with two children: Would qualify for a partial rebate, reduced by 5 percent for every $1,000 in income above the $150,000 threshold. An $1,800 rebate — $1,200 for the couple plus $300 per child — would go down by 50 percent for this family. A $900 rebate.

— A couple with income of $200,000 and four children: Disqualified because their income exceeded $174,000, the phase-out limit. No rebate.


also: 150 billion + the cost of interest on this national debt over god knows how many years untill the budget is balanced again + the cost of loans being continually in default because this 'stimulus' isn't going to be enough of a shot in the arm is very easily going to turn into 300 billion...



popeye1250 -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 10:44:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250



Owner, correct, it is "borrowed money" that we'll have to pay back.
But, the amount that the people will get back, $28b is still less than the $34.6B in "foreign aid" that the big corporations just pushed through congress not too long ago. That money will have to be borrowed too.
I guess that the people in Washington think that they're going to keep us on the treadmill buying "consumer goods" made in foreign countries by Outsourced former American businesses.



True ,perhaps,Popeye.

I`m get that your top gripes are Hillary and Bill,Ted Kennedy,and foreign aid.

I kinda wish we upped the aid to Afghanistan,when the Soviets left it in ruins.

We could have $aved ourselves a lot of grief and money.


Owner, I have no problem with "foreign aid" per se as long as it's *individuals* who are doing the giving.
It just isn't our government's "job" to be giving our money to foreign countries.
As for Afganistan I don't understand you there.
And Ted Kennedy is a fat corrupt alchoholic who was never held responsible for vehicular manslaughter.
As for Hillary and Bill they're not in my "top gripes."
They're "Yesterday's News".


"As for Afganistan I don't understand you there."


You need to see "Charlie Wilson`s War",if you haven`t already.

The History Chanel did a great show on the movie,Texas Rep.Charlie Wilson, and the fall of the Soviets in Afghanistan.It`ll be on DVD and PPV, soon.

Wilson,and many others who were there,think that we could have saved Afghanistan from the Taliban and al-queda,with our resources ,leadership,and the world community`s help.

One note about foreign aid.Much of it is money in the form of vouchers,which is spent in the US.It`s not just a complete give away.

We also give bulk and other food items,which count as dollars when tallied by the gov.,but isn`t cash money.We do give cash,but always w/ strings attached,for the most part.

This aid also gives us tremendous influence ,good will and respect around the world.

Believe it or not,but our enemies also attempt to provide food and aid to the world`s poor,trying to gain influence.

We can`t let that happen or get worse than it is now.


That's why individuals should do "foreign aid".
There is just too much corruption in those programs.
If the lobbyists love them you "know" they're no good!
I mean the Lobbying Firms in Washington are making *Billions* of dollars off "foreign aid" alone never mind the other stuff they're pushing through congress!
How is that "representing the people" by the congress?
There are just too many people in Washington making too much money from "foreign aid".

"Good will and respect throughout the world?"
I thought that the world "hates" the U.S.?
That's what the lefties have been telling us for the last 5 years.
And, I really don't care if "our enemies" want to give aid to the world's poor to try to influence them.
What's the names of their NGO's who do that anyway?
"Fat Allah's Free Grain" or something like that?
I really don't care if someone in some shit pit of a country "likes me" or not.
That "feel good" stuff never works anyway.
So they "used to like us" but  for whatever reason, "they don't like us now?"
And if we were giving these shit pit countries "foreign aid" all along when did they start "hating" us?
Has anyone actually physically gone to all those countries and taken a survey?
If someone "hates" the U.S. I want to see them starve!
You don't want to "help" them, right?
If someone wants to kill you you don't want to see them in good physical condition, you want to see them with diseases, malnourished etc so that diseases of opportunity will finish them off.
Or, poison the water, use nerve agents etc.
As for "helping" Afganistan you don't give them money you give them equipment and guns and ammo to defeat the taliban and al qeada.
I thought we learned lessons from Vietnam.
Oops, Clinton and Bush got out of going to Vietnam, didn't they.
Owner, I try to be fair, I hate Clinton and Bush *equally.*



ChainsandFreedom -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 10:46:32 AM)

"And, I really don't care if "our enemies" want to give aid to the world's poor to try to influence them.
What's the names of their NGO's who do that anyway? "

Al quada and the Taliban, for starters.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 10:56:07 AM)

quote:

When I referred to leadership,I was referring to the folks who run the entire federal government,ie., the Bush administration.If I`m not mistaken,you voted for Bush,twice.Feeling betrayed and disenfranchised?

Owner,
Not at all - I've stated any number of times that I voted against the candidates running against President Bush. I don't feel "disenfranchised". I never felt "franchised". I don't back away from my support of going into Iraq. I, along with a long list of others, bought into the propaganda represented as fact from both sides. Like any focus on the past, it is easy to see that the invasion and current occupation wasn't and isn't necessary. The people there need to get on with their routine of killing each other without a US presence and we should vacate ASAP. I suppose the only grateful parties to the US entry are those who were on the waiting list for a trip through Saddam's 'People Shredder'.

However, shouldn't the focus be on the here and now and the people in control of the here and now, especially the "purse-strings"? Let's look at today's Congress and their leaders as well as the lame duck executive branch. 

Do I have to again quote Speaker Pelosi regarding issues such as ending the funding for Iraq. Come to think of it - I'd better do just that:
quote:

"If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now," Pelosi said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"The American people and the Congress support those troops," she added. "But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new for him, because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions."
What "blank check" hasn't been signed? I guess President Bush made a good argument for her and her party since she also didn't follow through with not funding the 'surge' either.

Her "Fight" against Corporate Welfare?
quote:

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed off Friday on a five-year farm bill that would keep multibillion-dollar subsidies flowing to cotton, corn and a handful of other crops, deeply disappointing Bay Area food and environmental activists who had hoped that Congress might shift federal farm policy this year to combat obesity, air and water pollution and industrial farming


Give her appropriate credit though - she gave more Corporate Welfare than the Republican Party and President Bush thought was enough.   
quote:

Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat, hailed as reform a bill that would grant subsidies to farmers earning up to $1 million — five times more than the cap sought by the Bush administration — while increasing actual payments to farmers. The bill comes during the most prosperous era American agriculture has seen in decades as crop prices and farm income approach or set record highs.
“Bush seems to be taking a harder stance on millionaires than the Democratic Party, which is surprising,” said Kari Hamerschlag, policy director for the California Coalition for Food and Farming, a Watsonville group urging lawmakers to move money from crop subsidies to environmental and nutrition programs.
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/21/2676/ 


Consistency being a true indicator of intent and belief her hailing this Bill is to be expected. The largest part of this economic stimulus is the exact thing you take the biggest issue - Corporate Welfare. There's $50 Billion of it in Speaker Pelosi's Bill. That was what was promised by Speaker Pelosi and her party? That defines a 'good job' and was the anticipated change you, and I for that matter by voting against all incumbents, to bring in a new majority?

How about focusing on your point of "influence" and "purse strings". Isn't that where the $50 Billion going to Corporations was originated? The House decided that the Corporation receive the largest majority of benefit. That doesn't bother you - You who said that Corporate welfare was one of the biggest issues you hoped the changing majority would address? A "slight" majority is similar to being "slightly pregnant". The modifiers shouldn't discount or lessen the underlining factual representation.

How about tying two issues together?

Now the corporate welfare and tax payer stipend Bill is on the way to the Senate; where the Democratic party is in the majority. How about adding one addendum to fund the Bill by taking a dollar for dollar reduction in funding Iraq? The Senate has it in its power. It only requires a simply majority. It would make every Senator's position regarding support or withdraw from Iraq clear.



PanthersMom -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 12:44:09 PM)

i'll believe it when i have it in my hand.  until then, it's all talk.

PM



proudsub -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 12:55:29 PM)

Am i right that those that don't have at least $3000 of earned income get nothing?  Seems like some of them need it the most, like those on social security or living off meager investments.  We have our own business and didn't take any salary last year, so does that mean we won't get any?  But those who make 150K as a couple will get a check, they certainly don't need it. [:o]



mnottertail -> RE: Economic Stimulus Packaged Approved - Your Check is ALMOST in the Mail (1/25/2008 1:00:10 PM)

one would think the poorer end of the spectrum would have to spend the money thereby increasing consumerism.

After all, the rich get richer and the poor get kids.

TrixBunny



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875