'Tax rebate' checks expected to yield short-term benefits, long-term troubles Posted: 4 months ago by DerAlt
Budget expert Stan Collender doesn't even like the "tax rebate" terminology used by Washington, since many of the poorer recipients will have paid no 2007 federal income tax or amounts less than their government check. The stimulus package, he says, is really "pure borrowing … just increasing the [federal] deficit."
Comments: 10 Score: [-] 306 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 4 months ago by MeMe:
really it's an advance on the money we're supposed to get next year and I don't actually want it right now. I like getting a fat check in the beginning of the year and now I won't because the government has decided for me that I will get it now.
Score: [-] 22 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« MeMe : really it's an advance on the money we're supposed to get next year and I don't actually want it right now. I like getting a fat check in the beginning of the year and now I won't because the government has decided for me that I will get it now. it is not an advance
I agree that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be getting anymore checks. They already get plenty from the govt teat
Score: [-] 73 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by MeMe:
« 2manyusernames : it is not an advance
I agree that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be getting anymore checks. They already get plenty from the govt teat "This is an advance on a tax credit people would have gotten next year."
Score: [-] 11 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by belvario:
Whether it's an advance or not, it's just political posturing - it's still just another form of borrowing from our children for short-term relief. Totally irresponsible but par for the course for the Bush administration.
Score: [-] 87 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by MeMe:
agreed
Score: [-] 23 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« belvario : Whether it's an advance or not, it's just political posturing - it's still just another form of borrowing from our children for short-term relief. Totally irresponsible but par for the course for the Bush administration. It was a bipartisan agreement and the democrats wanted to give even more money, to borrow even more money from our children, to make a bigger political posture but that doesn't allow for another chance to blame bush for everything that is wrong so we'll ignore that for now
Score: [-] 74 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by belvario:
« 2manyusernames : It was a bipartisan agreement and the democrats wanted to give even more money, to borrow even more money from our children, to make a bigger political posture but that doesn't allow for another chance to blame bush for everything that is wrong so we'll ignore that for now Fair enough, no party has a lock on pandering to populism... both parties wasted no time in taking credit for the final plan though. John Boehner was just as misty-eyed about it as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in the final analysis, crowing about how we can't disperse this money fast enough. Bush certainly has been very publicly enthusiastic about it as well. Sad.
Score: [-] 49 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by DerAlt:
« 2manyusernames : It was a bipartisan agreement and the democrats wanted to give even more money, to borrow even more money from our children, to make a bigger political posture but that doesn't allow for another chance to blame bush for everything that is wrong so we'll ignore that for now Um that's an interesting spin.
The Dems wanted to include money to poorer people who hadn't filed income tax returns. Considering the alleged purpose of this pandering, that actually makes some sense...the poor would more likely spend the money.
I'm against all the pandering be it Republican or Democrat. This whole move is not supported by many economists and will most likely just raise the deficit without spurring the economy much.
On that we agree.
Score: [-] 102 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« DerAlt : Um that's an interesting spin.
The Dems wanted to include money to poorer people who hadn't filed income tax returns. Considering the alleged purpose of this pandering, that actually makes some sense...the poor would more likely spend the money.
I'm against all the pandering be it Republican or Democrat. This whole move is not supported by many economists and will most likely just raise the deficit without spurring the economy much.
On that we agree. If I recall correctly they also wanted to give more money per person
And poor people even those who've never filed a tax return can get the mislabeled "rebate" the govt is even spending money to advertise to them to file a zero earnings return to get money for them and all their children.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by lilyang:
But we're agreed it's a lame idea, right?
Score: [-] 71 [+].
< 1 >