Graham Hates The Stimulus, But He’ll Take The Money For South Carolina Anyway: I’m Not ‘Crazy’

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been one of Congress’s most vocal opponents of the economic recovery package. In fact, he and several other Republicans — including John McCain — introduced an alternative bill, which focuses mostly on massive tax breaks for corporations.

Yesterday he went on CNN to explain why he voted against the Senate’s economic recovery package. While many progressives criticized the bill because it slashed vital funding for education and state assistance, Graham is objecting because it has too much state funding:

BLITZER: Doesn’t South Carolina need some help?

GRAHAM: Yes. But there’s only one taxpayer. This is not money we found under a tree in Washington. The money we’re sending back to the states came out of the same wallet that the money going to the states came from.

So, yes, South Carolina needs help. I’m all for infrastructure spending. But it’s got to be shovel ready.

[…]

I’m not for $75 billion slush fund for states that can be spent on anything they want to spend it on including budget problems

because we’ve got our own budget problems and you’re rewarding states who have done very little to trim up their own budget.

However, when Blitzer asked him whether South Carolina should “take the money, Graham replied: “I think that, yes, from my point of view, I — you don’t want to be crazy here. I mean, if there’s going to be money on the table that will help my state, but I’ve got a job to do up here, and that is to try to help people and not damn the next generation.” Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/12/graham-stimulus-crazy/

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

EVERYBODY is talkin' these days about Tammany men growin' rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin' the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. There's all the difference in the world between the two. Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics. I have myself. I've made a big fortune out of the game, and I'm gettin' richer every day, but I've not gone in for dishonest graft - blackmailin' gamblers, saloonkeepers, disorderly people, etc. - and neither has any of the men who have made big fortunes in politics.

There's an honest graft, and I'm an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin': "I seen my opportunities and I took 'em."

Senator Plunkitt

[Teacher Mark 53]

The Pubicans were right! The beggars are lining up.

[peejay 327]

I think the Stimulus Bill is bloated and has way too much pork. Giving $500 checks to people that pay no taxes at all is stupid and will prove to be ineffective and costly in the long run. There is no such thing as a free lunch and money doesn't grow on trees. This foolishness will cost Americans dearly in due time. Pay me now or pay me more later. The fools that voted this will be long gone when the devil comes knocking to get his due or when the sh*t hits the fan.

Will I cash any US Treasury check Uncle Sugar sends me unsolicited in the mail? You betcha I will. Anybody that wants to send me money unsolicited is welcome to do so. Whether I cash it or not...I'll be paying for this folly dearly in the future regardless.

South Carolina and Graham would be fools to turn it down too, because they will be paying for it in the future whether they take it or not or like it or not.

We don't want it nor do we ask for it, but we will be paying for this stupidness in the future whether we like it or not. It is not hypocritical to take money you will be forced to pay back anyway in the future. My mama didn't raise no fool. Neither did Graham's mama.

The premise of the OP doesn't add up.

Edited February 13, 2009 by peejay

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the Stimulus Bill is bloated and has way too much pork. Giving $500 checks to people that pay no taxes at all is stupid and will prove to be ineffective and costly in the long run. There is no such thing as a free lunch and money doesn't grow on trees.

Peejay, you realize that Reagan, the Republican's Zeus, championed and expanded the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), which essentially gives money to lower income families, even if they didn't pay that much in taxes?

....

The EITC was approved by Congress, and signed into law by President Ford in 1975, in part to give an incentive to low-wage workers to remain in the workforce.

Years after President Ford signed it into law, Ronald Reagan called EITC "the best anti-poverty, best pro-family ... measure to come out of Congress."

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/eitc-to-infor...-protect/81797/

So one has to wonder where were all these yahoos complaining about giving an extra $500 to lower income families over the last 34 years?

[peejay 327]

I think the Stimulus Bill is bloated and has way too much pork. Giving $500 checks to people that pay no taxes at all is stupid and will prove to be ineffective and costly in the long run. There is no such thing as a free lunch and money doesn't grow on trees.

Peejay, you realize that Reagan, the Republican's Zeus, championed and expanded the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), which essentially gives money to lower income families, even if they didn't pay that much in taxes?

The point is not about EITC. It is about whether giving a one time shot of free money to people that pay no taxes is a solution to our economic troubles or is just a bone thrown to the masses to get out the Dim vote in the next election. If Bush's $600 per person shot didn't do the trick to stave off the recession, what will this stupidness accomplish? As I have made clear repeatedly in my posts here on VJ for many years, I'm an independent voter that happens to be a conservative. I have no loyalty to either party and vote the lesser of 2 evils. If there is a conservative alternative to the Republicans I would gladly throw those pricks under the bus in a heartbeat. As it is, they are the only conservative game in my town and a sorry lot they have proven to be. It's just that I have found most of them to be more palatable than the Dim alternative. Both have to woo my vote.

I'm old enough to have seen the Dims in action over the years and their recent performance is true to form. They are just the flip side of the same worthless, self serving, coin. I voted Dim in the past, but they stabbed me in the back too many times.

This $500 is just throwing good money after bad. And the little guy will end up paying for these repeated lame attempts by both parties to buy votes with ineffective stimulus checks that are just a short term feel good shot in the arm. Most of the country couldn't find Washington DC on a map or find their own azz in broad daylight with both hands. But they sure like getting these (so called) free checks in the mail. It will take a hell of a lot more than cookie crumbs tossed to the masses to pull a magic rabbit out of the hat.

In due time you will see that self serving politics ends up trumping the best interests of the country. I was a flaming liberal when I was young, but wised up real quick. Put your faith in people, not parties.

Botton line...this legislation sucks. It's not about us...it's all about them.

Edited February 13, 2009 by peejay

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the Stimulus Bill is bloated and has way too much pork. Giving $500 checks to people that pay no taxes at all is stupid and will prove to be ineffective and costly in the long run. There is no such thing as a free lunch and money doesn't grow on trees.

Peejay, you realize that Reagan, the Republican's Zeus, championed and expanded the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), which essentially gives money to lower income families, even if they didn't pay that much in taxes?

The point is not about EITC. It is about whether giving a one time shot of free money to people that pay no taxes is a solution to our economic troubles or is just a bone thrown to the masses to get out the Dim vote in the next election. If Bush's $600 per person shot didn't do the trick to stave off the recession, what will this stupidness accomplish?

The stimulus checks helped, but weren't enough. BTW, the tax cut is $800 per family, $400 per individual, including low income wage earners.

Do you realize how little someone would have to earn to pay less than $400 in federal taxes? Somewhere under $12,000 per year. That's bringing in $250 per week gross. So you think somebody in that position couldn't use an extra $400 per year? Crazy. That's less than $7 per hour at 40 hrs. per week.

Now, I would much rather see we raise the minimum wage then have tax programs like this or the EITC, but my God - if someone is only grossing $250 a week, they're living on a wing and a prayer.

[peejay 327]

I think the Stimulus Bill is bloated and has way too much pork. Giving $500 checks to people that pay no taxes at all is stupid and will prove to be ineffective and costly in the long run. There is no such thing as a free lunch and money doesn't grow on trees.

Peejay, you realize that Reagan, the Republican's Zeus, championed and expanded the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), which essentially gives money to lower income families, even if they didn't pay that much in taxes?

The point is not about EITC. It is about whether giving a one time shot of free money to people that pay no taxes is a solution to our economic troubles or is just a bone thrown to the masses to get out the Dim vote in the next election. If Bush's $600 per person shot didn't do the trick to stave off the recession, what will this stupidness accomplish?

The stimulus checks helped, but weren't enough. BTW, the tax cut is $800 per family, $400 per individual, including low income wage earners.

Do you realize how little someone would have to earn to pay less than $400 in federal taxes? Somewhere under $12,000 per year. That's bringing in $250 per week gross. So you think somebody in that position couldn't use an extra $400 per year? Crazy. That's less than $7 per hour at 40 hrs. per week.

Now, I would much rather see we raise the minimum wage then have tax programs like this or the EITC, but my God - if someone is only grossing $250 a week, they're living on a wing and a prayer.

Is this an emergency stimulus bill or welfare legislation? This is supposed to be a one shot deal to get the economy going, not a long termed solution to chronic poverty. Jeez! If supporters don't have a clue as to what this is supposed to eventually accomplish...God help us all.

The bottom line is that this is being financed. Somebody has to pay for it eventually. Who will that be? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.

[dalegg 143]

Is this an emergency stimulus bill or welfare legislation? This is supposed to be a one shot deal to get the economy going, not a long termed solution to chronic poverty. Jeez! If supporters don't have a clue as to what this is supposed to eventually accomplish...God help us all.

The bottom line is that this is being financed. Somebody has to pay for it eventually. Who will that be? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.

How can I make a good guess at who is going to be paying for this? None of those people are alive yet.

[peejay 327]

Is this an emergency stimulus bill or welfare legislation? This is supposed to be a one shot deal to get the economy going, not a long termed solution to chronic poverty. Jeez! If supporters don't have a clue as to what this is supposed to eventually accomplish...God help us all.

The bottom line is that this is being financed. Somebody has to pay for it eventually. Who will that be? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.

How can I make a good guess at who is going to be paying for this? None of those people are alive yet.

I'd laugh at that little joke, but the more I think about it I just want to cry. And you can bet this is just the beginning. The GOP got the ball rolling on deficit spending and the Dims are poised to take the ball and run further with it.

I find it quite telling that none of the GOP in the House bought it and 7 Blue Dog Dems ran away. I'm waiting to see the consensus in the Senate.

I fear this is as much of a rush job fiasco as the earlier TARP bill signed by Bush. I'm not too optimistic. Call me jaded.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think the Stimulus Bill is bloated and has way too much pork. Giving $500 checks to people that pay no taxes at all is stupid and will prove to be ineffective and costly in the long run. There is no such thing as a free lunch and money doesn't grow on trees.

Peejay, you realize that Reagan, the Republican's Zeus, championed and expanded the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), which essentially gives money to lower income families, even if they didn't pay that much in taxes?

The point is not about EITC. It is about whether giving a one time shot of free money to people that pay no taxes is a solution to our economic troubles or is just a bone thrown to the masses to get out the Dim vote in the next election. If Bush's $600 per person shot didn't do the trick to stave off the recession, what will this stupidness accomplish?

The stimulus checks helped, but weren't enough. BTW, the tax cut is $800 per family, $400 per individual, including low income wage earners.

Do you realize how little someone would have to earn to pay less than $400 in federal taxes? Somewhere under $12,000 per year. That's bringing in $250 per week gross. So you think somebody in that position couldn't use an extra $400 per year? Crazy. That's less than $7 per hour at 40 hrs. per week.

Now, I would much rather see we raise the minimum wage then have tax programs like this or the EITC, but my God - if someone is only grossing $250 a week, they're living on a wing and a prayer.

Approximately $115 billion for a $400 per-worker, $800 per-couple tax credits in 2009 and 2010. For the last half of 2009, workers could expect to see perhaps $13 a week less withheld from their paychecks starting around June. Millions of Americans who don't make enough money to pay federal income taxes could file returns next year and receive checks. Individuals making more than $75,000 and couples making more than $150,000 would receive reduced amounts.

Most Americans will not see any money until February 2010 or later.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the Stimulus Bill is bloated and has way too much pork. Giving $500 checks to people that pay no taxes at all is stupid and will prove to be ineffective and costly in the long run. There is no such thing as a free lunch and money doesn't grow on trees.

Peejay, you realize that Reagan, the Republican's Zeus, championed and expanded the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), which essentially gives money to lower income families, even if they didn't pay that much in taxes?

The point is not about EITC. It is about whether giving a one time shot of free money to people that pay no taxes is a solution to our economic troubles or is just a bone thrown to the masses to get out the Dim vote in the next election. If Bush's $600 per person shot didn't do the trick to stave off the recession, what will this stupidness accomplish?

The stimulus checks helped, but weren't enough. BTW, the tax cut is $800 per family, $400 per individual, including low income wage earners.

Do you realize how little someone would have to earn to pay less than $400 in federal taxes? Somewhere under $12,000 per year. That's bringing in $250 per week gross. So you think somebody in that position couldn't use an extra $400 per year? Crazy. That's less than $7 per hour at 40 hrs. per week.

Now, I would much rather see we raise the minimum wage then have tax programs like this or the EITC, but my God - if someone is only grossing $250 a week, they're living on a wing and a prayer.

Approximately $115 billion for a $400 per-worker, $800 per-couple tax credits in 2009 and 2010. For the last half of 2009, workers could expect to see perhaps $13 a week less withheld from their paychecks starting around June. Millions of Americans who don't make enough money to pay federal income taxes could file returns next year and receive checks. Individuals making more than $75,000 and couples making more than $150,000 would receive reduced amounts.

Most Americans will not see any money until February 2010 or later.

So basically, you're saying that tax cuts are not that effective when it comes to stimulating the economy? Tax cuts are what the Republicans in Congress have been touting as the best way....or are we going to be selective over which tax cuts are effective?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the Stimulus Bill is bloated and has way too much pork. Giving $500 checks to people that pay no taxes at all is stupid and will prove to be ineffective and costly in the long run. There is no such thing as a free lunch and money doesn't grow on trees.

Peejay, you realize that Reagan, the Republican's Zeus, championed and expanded the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), which essentially gives money to lower income families, even if they didn't pay that much in taxes?

The point is not about EITC. It is about whether giving a one time shot of free money to people that pay no taxes is a solution to our economic troubles or is just a bone thrown to the masses to get out the Dim vote in the next election. If Bush's $600 per person shot didn't do the trick to stave off the recession, what will this stupidness accomplish?

The stimulus checks helped, but weren't enough. BTW, the tax cut is $800 per family, $400 per individual, including low income wage earners.

Do you realize how little someone would have to earn to pay less than $400 in federal taxes? Somewhere under $12,000 per year. That's bringing in $250 per week gross. So you think somebody in that position couldn't use an extra $400 per year? Crazy. That's less than $7 per hour at 40 hrs. per week.

Now, I would much rather see we raise the minimum wage then have tax programs like this or the EITC, but my God - if someone is only grossing $250 a week, they're living on a wing and a prayer.

Is this an emergency stimulus bill or welfare legislation? This is supposed to be a one shot deal to get the economy going, not a long termed solution to chronic poverty. Jeez! If supporters don't have a clue as to what this is supposed to eventually accomplish...God help us all.

The bottom line is that this is being financed. Somebody has to pay for it eventually. Who will that be? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.

We've got 7.6 unemployment and climbing, peejay. You can bet your bottom dollar those tax credits for the lower income earners is going to go right back into the economy. If you don't understand the economics about it, then I'd suggest reading what the leading economists have been saying. And BTW, as I just pointed out to Mr. Bill - tax cuts are what the Republicans have been wanting to do - so what part of this Stimulus do you think is going to stimulate the economy or what alternative solution do you have?

Edited February 14, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think the Stimulus Bill is bloated and has way too much pork. Giving $500 checks to people that pay no taxes at all is stupid and will prove to be ineffective and costly in the long run. There is no such thing as a free lunch and money doesn't grow on trees.

Peejay, you realize that Reagan, the Republican's Zeus, championed and expanded the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), which essentially gives money to lower income families, even if they didn't pay that much in taxes?

The point is not about EITC. It is about whether giving a one time shot of free money to people that pay no taxes is a solution to our economic troubles or is just a bone thrown to the masses to get out the Dim vote in the next election. If Bush's $600 per person shot didn't do the trick to stave off the recession, what will this stupidness accomplish?

The stimulus checks helped, but weren't enough. BTW, the tax cut is $800 per family, $400 per individual, including low income wage earners.

Do you realize how little someone would have to earn to pay less than $400 in federal taxes? Somewhere under $12,000 per year. That's bringing in $250 per week gross. So you think somebody in that position couldn't use an extra $400 per year? Crazy. That's less than $7 per hour at 40 hrs. per week.

Now, I would much rather see we raise the minimum wage then have tax programs like this or the EITC, but my God - if someone is only grossing $250 a week, they're living on a wing and a prayer.

Approximately $115 billion for a $400 per-worker, $800 per-couple tax credits in 2009 and 2010. For the last half of 2009, workers could expect to see perhaps $13 a week less withheld from their paychecks starting around June. Millions of Americans who don't make enough money to pay federal income taxes could file returns next year and receive checks. Individuals making more than $75,000 and couples making more than $150,000 would receive reduced amounts.

Most Americans will not see any money until February 2010 or later.

So basically, you're saying that tax cuts are not that effective when it comes to stimulating the economy? Tax cuts are what the Republicans in Congress have been touting as the best way....or are we going to be selective over which tax cuts are effective?

What I am saying, is many lower income Americans who thought they were going to get another stimulus check, and that is their only focus, will be disappointed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the Stimulus Bill is bloated and has way too much pork. Giving $500 checks to people that pay no taxes at all is stupid and will prove to be ineffective and costly in the long run. There is no such thing as a free lunch and money doesn't grow on trees.

Peejay, you realize that Reagan, the Republican's Zeus, championed and expanded the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), which essentially gives money to lower income families, even if they didn't pay that much in taxes?

The point is not about EITC. It is about whether giving a one time shot of free money to people that pay no taxes is a solution to our economic troubles or is just a bone thrown to the masses to get out the Dim vote in the next election. If Bush's $600 per person shot didn't do the trick to stave off the recession, what will this stupidness accomplish?

The stimulus checks helped, but weren't enough. BTW, the tax cut is $800 per family, $400 per individual, including low income wage earners.

Do you realize how little someone would have to earn to pay less than $400 in federal taxes? Somewhere under $12,000 per year. That's bringing in $250 per week gross. So you think somebody in that position couldn't use an extra $400 per year? Crazy. That's less than $7 per hour at 40 hrs. per week.

Now, I would much rather see we raise the minimum wage then have tax programs like this or the EITC, but my God - if someone is only grossing $250 a week, they're living on a wing and a prayer.

Approximately $115 billion for a $400 per-worker, $800 per-couple tax credits in 2009 and 2010. For the last half of 2009, workers could expect to see perhaps $13 a week less withheld from their paychecks starting around June. Millions of Americans who don't make enough money to pay federal income taxes could file returns next year and receive checks. Individuals making more than $75,000 and couples making more than $150,000 would receive reduced amounts.

Most Americans will not see any money until February 2010 or later.

So basically, you're saying that tax cuts are not that effective when it comes to stimulating the economy? Tax cuts are what the Republicans in Congress have been touting as the best way....or are we going to be selective over which tax cuts are effective?

What I am saying, is many lower income Americans who thought they were going to get another stimulus check, and that is their only focus, will be disappointed.

Yes - which is an example of why tax cuts by themselves are not the most effective way to stimulate the economy. It helps, but not as much as the Republicans believe. However, $400 is a lot of money for someone only making $12,000 a year and every penny you can count on going right into the economy.