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

[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.

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.

I have been an adult in the workforce since the 1970's. I never got a stimulus check until Bush sent the first one in the middle and the second one at the end of his presidency. Now we are (supposedly) going to get a third one. All this in a span of roughly 5 years. And after all that we are deeper in debt and mired in economic problems. If this kind of cheap shot is a solution, why hasn't it worked? Where is the end?

The money would be better spent on corporate tax cuts that puts money in the hands of businesses that create real jobs. Borrowing money from China to give to the unwashed masses to buy cheap Chinese imports at Walmart (or something similar) does not exactly seem like a long termed fix to the economy. I can't help but see these checks as lame attemps to throw a bone to the unwashed masses to prime the voting booth.

Giving stimulus jobs to illegal aliens so they can continue to send remittances to Mexico (and elsewhere) also is a dubious red herring to prime the voting booth and does nothing to help American workers. But, then again, that is not the point. It's all about priming the voting booth. Cheap votes that American worker will end up paying for.

I don't see any "change" going on all around. Same lame game...different faces. Until there is real change, I'm not very optimistic. I'm not very impressed either.

So what is my solution? We need to create a real economy again. The last 20 years has been a slow downward spiral toward a fake economy built on a house of cards. Eventually reality trumps bullshit.

Edited February 14, 2009 by peejay

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

I have been an adult in the workforce since the 1970's. I never got a stimulus check until Bush sent the first one in the middle and the second one at the end of his presidency. Now we are (supposedly) going to get a third one. All this in a span of roughly 5 years. And after all that we are deeper in debt and mired in economic problems. If this kind of cheap shot is a solution, why hasn't it worked? Where is the end?

The money would be better spent on corporate tax cuts that puts money in the hands of businesses that create real jobs. Borrowing money from China to give to the unwashed masses to buy cheap Chinese imports at Walmart (or something similar) does not exactly seem like a long termed fix to the economy. I can't help but see these checks as lame attemps to throw a bone to the unwashed masses to prime the voting booth.

Giving stimulus jobs to illegal aliens so they can continue to send remittances to Mexico (and elsewhere) also is a dubious red herring to prime the voting booth and does nothing to help American workers. But, then again, that is not the point. It's all about priming the voting booth. Cheap votes that American worker will end up paying for.

I don't see any "change" going on all around. Same lame game...different faces. Until there is real change, I'm not very optimistic. I'm not very impressed either.

So what is my solution? We need to create a real economy again. The last 20 years has been a slow downward spiral toward a fake economy built on a house of cards. Eventually reality trumps bullshit.

peejay, I think you're stuck on the notion that we're just handing a person $400 dollars, instead of seeing that when a low income earner gets that kind of money, they are much more likely to spend it on groceries or other merchandise which helps out business. The difference between that and a corporate tax cut, is that the low income earner is the primary beneficiary and logic behind that is when we are in a deep Recession, the best way to turn things around is to help those wage earners that are hit the hardest.

This worldwide Recession has made it painfully clear just how interdependent we are with one another. No one can say with confidence that this Recession is not effecting their livelihood, so they have no steak in what happens to the rest of Americans, or even the rest of the world - even the price of oil has been affected.

According to estimates, the total cost of all the tax cuts in the Stimulus Bill amount to $300 billion - nearly half of the total. Again, it has been the Republicans who have been pushing for tax cuts as the sole stimulus. Tax cuts are not the most effective way, but when comparing the different tax cuts - the ones that target lower income earners are the most effective because the money will go right back into the economy in personal expenditures.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[dalegg 143]

peejay, I think you're stuck on the notion that we're just handing a person $400 dollars, instead of seeing that when a low income earner gets that kind of money, they are much more likely to spend it on groceries or other merchandise which helps out business.

Do you believe then that if the Government were to take $400 dollars away from someone then that would hurt business, or do you not believe they were going to spend that $400 dollars because they have a $300,000 salary and money is just piling up unused on their living room sofa anyway?

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

peejay, I think you're stuck on the notion that we're just handing a person $400 dollars, instead of seeing that when a low income earner gets that kind of money, they are much more likely to spend it on groceries or other merchandise which helps out business.

Do you believe then that if the Government were to take $400 dollars away from someone then that would hurt business, or do you not believe they were going to spend that $400 dollars because they have a $300,000 salary and money is just piling up unused on their living room sofa anyway?

What part of the Stimulus Bill is taking that $400 from someone else? The taxpayers (all of us) are footing this enormous bill, including the billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts.

[dalegg 143]

peejay, I think you're stuck on the notion that we're just handing a person $400 dollars, instead of seeing that when a low income earner gets that kind of money, they are much more likely to spend it on groceries or other merchandise which helps out business.

Do you believe then that if the Government were to take $400 dollars away from someone then that would hurt business, or do you not believe they were going to spend that $400 dollars because they have a $300,000 salary and money is just piling up unused on their living room sofa anyway?

What part of the Stimulus Bill is taking that $400 from someone else? The taxpayers (all of us) are footing this enormous bill, including the billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts.

no no. Not talking about the Stimulus bill. Just talking in general.

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

peejay, I think you're stuck on the notion that we're just handing a person $400 dollars, instead of seeing that when a low income earner gets that kind of money, they are much more likely to spend it on groceries or other merchandise which helps out business.

Do you believe then that if the Government were to take $400 dollars away from someone then that would hurt business, or do you not believe they were going to spend that $400 dollars because they have a $300,000 salary and money is just piling up unused on their living room sofa anyway?

What part of the Stimulus Bill is taking that $400 from someone else? The taxpayers (all of us) are footing this enormous bill, including the billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts.

no no. Not talking about the Stimulus bill. Just talking in general.

I'm not sure if you're asking me about the legitimacy of our current progressive tax policies, but if the Fed was to raise everyone's tax rates by $400 per individual, I'd say the ones who'd be hurt most by it would be the lower income earners.

[mRx 16]

peejay, I think you're stuck on the notion that we're just handing a person $400 dollars, instead of seeing that when a low income earner gets that kind of money, they are much more likely to spend it on groceries or other merchandise which helps out business.

Do you believe then that if the Government were to take $400 dollars away from someone then that would hurt business, or do you not believe they were going to spend that $400 dollars because they have a $300,000 salary and money is just piling up unused on their living room sofa anyway?

What part of the Stimulus Bill is taking that $400 from someone else? The taxpayers (all of us) are footing this enormous bill, including the billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts.

no no. Not talking about the Stimulus bill. Just talking in general.

I'm not sure if you're asking me about the legitimacy of our current progressive tax policies, but if the Fed was to raise everyone's tax rates by $400 per individual, I'd say the ones who'd be hurt most by it would be the lower income earners.

What if, then, the government didn't tax anyone? Wouldn't that be the quickest way out of this recession?

This "stimulus" has to come from us anyway, so why not let us stimulate the economy on our own. We don't need politicians ciphering off our money only to spend it what they believe is best for us, we can do that ourselves.

[peejay 327]

peejay, I think you're stuck on the notion that we're just handing a person $400 dollars, instead of seeing that when a low income earner gets that kind of money, they are much more likely to spend it on groceries or other merchandise which helps out business.

Do you believe then that if the Government were to take $400 dollars away from someone then that would hurt business, or do you not believe they were going to spend that $400 dollars because they have a $300,000 salary and money is just piling up unused on their living room sofa anyway?

What part of the Stimulus Bill is taking that $400 from someone else? The taxpayers (all of us) are footing this enormous bill, including the billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts.

no no. Not talking about the Stimulus bill. Just talking in general.

I'm not sure if you're asking me about the legitimacy of our current progressive tax policies, but if the Fed was to raise everyone's tax rates by $400 per individual, I'd say the ones who'd be hurt most by it would be the lower income earners.

What if, then, the government didn't tax anyone? Wouldn't that be the quickest way out of this recession?

This "stimulus" has to come from us anyway, so why not let us stimulate the economy on our own. We don't need politicians ciphering off our money only to spend it what they believe is best for us, we can do that ourselves.

Ah, young grasshopper. But that is what politicians are all about. They derive their power by making you go through them for things you could and should do yourself.

Hence my references to "priming the voting booth". And for the unwashed masses it means getting tossed a bone. Something for nothing. So people that pay no income tax get a free stimulus check. You figure it out.