Prez. Bush sending out rebates

[Scanner]

What does the forum think of the "economic stimulus" package circulating around up in Washington?

I personally think we as a country are not in a position to hand out tax rebates when we are

1. At war
2. In a spending deficit
3. When it's a temporary fix

What say the forum?

Is this liberal-speak?

I realize the gov't is not the best fidicuiaries of public money and I am all for cutting spending as much as possible but I am really angry at Washington for doing this and placing higher taxes on my kids.

[Broken Arrow]

I'm with you. It's completely insane, and we should be upset about it.

[cschin4]

I will take ANY rebate I can get. The govt collects WAY more money than it should. And, the govt should learn to live on what it collects rather than just passing one bill after another increasing spending.
I will take tax relief in ANY form. We should lower and reduce taxes permanently!

[Scanner]

The govt collects WAY more money than it should.

Then why is there a deficit and debt?

[tripods68]

I'm for it. I think when 2/3 of the economy is driven by consumer spending, tax rebates to consumers will enhance the spending back and hopefully the economy again. It's temporary but it shouldn't be permanent either.

The only concern I have is the amount of rebates being given. We don't know the detail yet. I'd heard from the media today that rebates should benefit the most are the people making between 25K to $103K (AGI) a year per household. Because this group tend to spend more which will benefit the economy real fast that the people makes more than 103K a year. I thought that was rather interesting comment. So the people that makes above $103K a year does not spend or benefit the economy? Ridiculous! So what happen to household earning above 103K AGI?

In 2007 our combined Income $141K and maybe after deductions and exemptions, our AGI might be still above $103K. Is this mean we may not get any rebates at all. Certainly we don't feel rich or anything after paying all our expenses taxes (2OK both federal and state), mortgage, 1 car payment, raising 2 kids, retirement contributions, and NOT benefit from rebates Frankly SUCK! I know---I shouldn't get excited since it's still early in the game but I hope Congress do it right so everyone equally benefit. That's all I'm saying

[poundwise]

The govt collects WAY more money than it should.

Then why is there a deficit and debt?

SPENDING!

I know its becoming almost un-American these days to suggest it, but both the people of our nation and the government itself must learn to live within their means.

Our country is in debt and operating at a deficit, not because the government doesn't take in enough, but because they spend it all and then some.

[boefixepa]

I agree with poundwise's above mentioned quote!

I think the rebate is a joke, but I can't do anything to stop it. And I'll just add it to my savings if I get it.

People need to get the thought out of their head that it is the governments job to fix their problems!!! Let the housing market and Credit companies fall on their faces for their own stupidity and poor business practices. I mean look what Bank of American did, they bailed out Countrywide and I am sure are going to make a pretty penny for Countrywide's poor lending practiceses. Government just need to keep their hands out of it and STOP SPENDING MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE. Let americans experience a little tough love from the ecomony and learn that they have to responsible for their choices.

[disneysteve]

We've been discussing this all day at another site. All but a couple of posters oppose this "economic stimulus package" as it has been proposed.

There is no such thing as free money. The money has to come from somewhere or someone and that's part of the problem. Another problem is that it really won't solve anything. The 3.5 million folks who are at risk of foreclosure won't be bailed out by $800 or $1,600. The millions of people with 5-figure CC debt will barely make a dent with $800 or $1,600. And if they only give the money to those earning less than $110,000, which is the number I heard, it won't benefit a huge portion of the country. Contrary to what the government persists in thinking, $100,000 isn't that much money in many parts of the country - NY, NJ, CA, etc. Folks making $100,000 are struggling right along with everyone else.

The other thing is this really won't change anything. Folks who spend every penny they get will spend this money and be no better off than they were. Folks who are dedicated savers will add this money to savings, which won't do a darn thing for the economy. The end result will be that not much of anything will change.

[herm4]

Then why is there a deficit and debt?

Maybe it's because we are spending more than we are saving?

[PrincessPerky]

SPENDING!

I know its becoming almost un-American these days to suggest it, but both the people of our nation and the government itself must learn to live within their means.

Our country is in debt and operating at a deficit, not because the government doesn't take in enough, but because they spend it all and then some.

Ditto that

The other thing is this really won't change anything. Folks who spend every penny they get will spend this money and be no better off than they were. Folks who are dedicated savers will add this money to savings, which won't do a darn thing for the economy. The end result will be that not much of anything will change.

And that....

[disneysteve]

I just find it terribly ironic that the same government officials who moan that Americans aren't saving enough are now out there complaining that Americans aren't spending enough. What a mixed message that is.

[aida2003]

I just find it terribly ironic that the same government officials who moan that Americans aren't saving enough are now out there complaining that Americans aren't spending enough. What a mixed message that is.

Yes, I'm with you, I never understood the gov't or its incapability of balancing its checkbook.

As far as the original question goes, I think it's a very stupid idea to offer this stimulus package and Bernanke agreeing to it. But if they send me a check, I'll take it, of course (I even pick up a penny if I see it on the ground) and invest it. However, if it's true that only couples with $110K income or less will qualify, we're out of luck .

In general, I think the country should just go through its natural economic cycle: growth, slowdown (aka 'recession') and then again growth. Maybe they're seeing depression instead if nothing is done now

[Scanner]

Everybody always says, "Well, spend less" but when it's something that their Congressman is going to bat for (a gov't contract for the local Boeing plant, healthcare benefits/Medicare, whatever) then everybody decides they do want the gov't to spend after all.

The system is sick and the public is part of it.

The "Well. . .let's cut spending" theory is all well and good. The Clinton Administration did trim gov't a lot (along with the Republican Congress started by Prez. Bush I) but you can only take it so far. And Clinton hiked taxes on the upper 1% and we had record economic expansion as the budget became balanced.

I hate to say it - it's time for a tax hike, not rebates.

The problem is, it should have been done 2 years ago when the economy was robust.

Bernacke will just print more money. He's admited to it.

Not to mention we are at war. . .never before in American history has so little sacrafice been made on the homefront as boys/girls give life and limb.

I'm embarrassed - our grandparents at home sacraficed food and goods while at war. We get big screen TV's and ask for, no. . .think we are entitled to, tax rebates.

It really chaps my ass.

[Daylily]

I am opposed to the rebates.
They offer only a temporary patch to the economy.
Either taxes need to be raised or the gov't needs to cut back spending.

[bjl584]

Then why is there a deficit and debt?

Cause they spend too much on "fill in the blank."