NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782454

In an attempt to prevent doom and gloom by way of recession, the government has agreed to literally throw money at the problem by giving pretty much every tax payer a $600-1200+ dollars as part of a tax rebate, among other things.

My impression: In a poorly-thought out attempt to save America, they are ignoring the Reagan-given trickle-down theory and are literally throwing money at the problem of a greased up deaf guy economy being tossed off an icy hill.

I'll be getting $2100. :D

Trickle-down economics doesn't work because greed and corruption exist.

Does that mean they'l be bringing out more money for people? like high inflation? where you get paid with a basket of bills, then someone steals the basket because it has more worth?

Can't we just allow the free market to solve all our woes?

they should have given more money to the lowest income people. they would spend it immediately in the community they live in. it would have the biggest effect on the economy.

they should have given more money to the lowest income people. they would spend it immediately in the community they live in. it would have the biggest effect on the economy.

Whatever commie.

Can't we just allow the free market to solve all our woes?

haha, haha, no.

A free markets only possibly outcome is a monopoly. Monopolies are bad, mkay?

Rolling squid;13396714']haha, haha, no.

A free markets only possibly outcome is a monopoly. Monopolies are bad, mkay?

Like Microsoft?
Like Tesco?

so if everyone is getting 600 dollars in the US.... well there be inflation because of the money handout?

Last time I checked, we were already running a 500 billion dollar budget deficit this year. Now we're cutting another 150 billion dollars of government inlays out on a plan that is not guarunteed to stave of recessioN? Sounds like a lot of fun.

so if everyone is getting 600 dollars in the US.... well there be inflation because of the money handout?

The US dollar has already lost a lot of its value. So giving out the money will probably result in people buying more, which is the idea. Since the goods exist, the money handout is probably not going to seriously harm the dollar.

It is, however, going to harm the Government's account balance.

Like Microsoft?
Like Tesco?

Microsoft is not (http://www.apple.com/) a monopoly (http://www.linux.org/)

Netiher is Tesco, as far as I know, but I don't really know too much about it.

Of course, if this "stimulus package" is anything like the one promulgated in 2001, the so-called "rebate" will not be a rebate at all--instead it will be a loan that gets repaid when you do your taxes in 2009.

Yeah, that's right--people who got the $300 (or whatever it was, I was only 16 back then) "rebates" in 2001 found their refund checks $300 lighter in 2002.

This isn't economic stimulus, it's vote-buying in a presidential election year when Republicans are afraid of getting pwned and Democrats are pandering to the Republicans, because God forbid a Democrat gets labeled "soft on terra." That, and Bu$h actually needs to look like he cares about anything other than his bank account, or Republicans will get pwned come November.

It isn't even vote-buying. It's probably going to turn out to be vote-swindling.:headbang:

Rolling squid;13396763']Microsoft is not (http://www.apple.com/) a monopoly (http://www.linux.org/)

Netiher is Tesco, as far as I know, but I don't really know too much about it.

Depends on your view. Microsoft can be argued to be a monopoly in practice, and are definitely guilty of very anti-competitive practices. Simply because there exist other companies in that particular field of business do not prevent a company from monopolising most of the customers, and from abusing that position to lock customers in for the future.

As you can tell, I don't have a high opinion of Microsoft.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782454

In an attempt to prevent doom and gloom by way of recession, the government has agreed to literally throw money at the problem by giving pretty much every tax payer a $600-1200+ dollars as part of a tax rebate, among other things.

My impression: In a poorly-thought out attempt to save America, they are ignoring the Reagan-given trickle-down theory and are literally throwing money at the problem of a greased up deaf guy economy being tossed off an icy hill.

I know how to solve the problem.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7207681.stm
Give every poor person one of these to sell off, the person with the least gets a house. That's a good deal.

Republicans: GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE ECONOMY IS BAD...unless it's giving people money to spend

*sigh*

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782454

In an attempt to prevent doom and gloom by way of recession, the government has agreed to literally throw money at the problem by giving pretty much every tax payer a $600-1200+ dollars as part of a tax rebate, among other things.

My impression: In a poorly-thought out attempt to save America, they are ignoring the Reagan-given trickle-down theory and are literally throwing money at the problem of a greased up deaf guy economy being tossed off an icy hill.

I'm so happy that there's only one more year of this God-awful, disgusting "President".

Hopefully, the American people will vote smart and vote for someone (*cough*OBAMA*cough*) who will boost the economy from the slump that the lame duck Bush has got us into.

I can't vote, unfortunately - too young.

Yeah and when the economy is all better they will raise the taxes to pay for that. Geat idea!

A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
Any recession in the US is a highly predictable event, and the inevitable result of overproduction. These bourgeois governments when threatened in these inevitable crises, appear even abandon their attachment to 'free market' economics, and will blindly stimulate the economy, much as what happened with the 'New Deal' and post Depression welfare states, in order to preserve their classocracy.

Any recession in the US is a highly predictable event, and the inevitable result of overproduction.

You really got to stop all your copy and paste...

...especially since what you linked to made near to no sense.

"There are too many things, so there are no things" ...what?

Depends on your view. Microsoft can be argued to be a monopoly in practice, and are definitely guilty of very anti-competitive practices. Simply because there exist other companies in that particular field of business do not prevent a company from monopolising most of the customers, and from abusing that position to lock customers in for the future.

As you can tell, I don't have a high opinion of Microsoft.

neither do I, but Microsoft is far from a monopoly, they could go bankrupt in a few years if people began switching to apple or linux en-masse.

why don't they just give me all the money on the condition that I spend it?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782454

In an attempt to prevent doom and gloom by way of recession, the government has agreed to literally throw money at the problem by giving pretty much every tax payer a $600-1200+ dollars as part of a tax rebate, among other things.

My impression: In a poorly-thought out attempt to save America, they are ignoring the Reagan-given trickle-down theory and are literally throwing money at the problem of a greased up deaf guy economy being tossed off an icy hill.
This is way more Keynesian than trickle-down. I thought this would make the populists amongst you very happy. Besides, it affects all wage earners, rather than all tax payers. And the higher income brackets can't take advantage of it, either.

I'm so happy that there's only one more year of this God-awful, disgusting "President".

Hopefully, the American people will vote smart and vote for someone (*cough*OBAMA*cough*) who will boost the economy from the slump that the lame duck Bush has got us into.

I can't vote, unfortunately - too young.
What should be done to 'boost' the economy? Tax hikes on real wage earners? Yeah, that's the ticket. Tax business more? That's going to help, too.

[/sarcasm]

Why don't they teach at least a little bit of macroeconomics in high school?

"Trickle-Down" economics (that's not what it is called) focuses on the supply side of things. So tax breaks to firms, rich individuals, deregulation and privatisation are all meant to improve the productive capacity of the economy and allow greater equilibrium economic growth. That means, it is a long-term approach.

Right now the economy is not in equilibrium, since, among other things, people are a bit scared. They save rather than spend, which in turn cuts into the sales of employers who will find that they'd rather not hire new people, or even fire some they already have. So to prevent that you give people some more money to spend (or government spends more money itself) in order to get aggregate spending back to the steady-state level. And meanwhile Bernanke has cut interest rates, which is meant to have a similar effect. That is a short-term approach.

So one can be a great supporter of supply side economics (indeed, I don't see why anyone wouldn't be) and still think that a fiscal stimulus is going to help if the economy is below its long-term growth rate. The only criticism you can bring here is either that it is too late or that it is too little, or both. But don't turn this into a political thing, because it clearly isn't.

What should be done to 'boost' the economy? Tax hikes on real wage earners? Yeah, that's the ticket. Tax business more? That's going to help, too.

[/sarcasm]

In a Capitalist society, power lies with the people. If you buy more, then you get an economic boost.

However, the government is the driving force behind all of this. When the government has useless spending (the only thing that the Bush Administration has done right), then the Private Sector is affected. When the Private Sector is affected, then the economy is affected.

But what do I know. Economy is not my strong side. I know a lot about politics, but when it comes to (Capitalist) economies, I suck.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782454

In an attempt to prevent doom and gloom by way of recession, the government has agreed to literally throw money at the problem by giving pretty much every tax payer a $600-1200+ dollars as part of a tax rebate, among other things.

My impression: In a poorly-thought out attempt to save America, they are ignoring the Reagan-given trickle-down theory and are literally throwing money at the problem of a greased up deaf guy economy being tossed off an icy hill.

Reaganomics doesn't do shit.

they should have given more money to the lowest income people. they would spend it immediately in the community they live in. it would have the biggest effect on the economy.

No, they'd probably save it, to pay off bills, or something. In fact, that's what most people would do.

I like tax rebates but it won't help the economy.

Government spending = inflation.
Trade deficit plus too much money in the supply = inflation.
Tax rebates which can mean more spending = inflation.
Cutting the interest rates = inflation.

Controlling inflation is usually more important than controlling unemployment. A 10% unemployment would affect that 10 percent, but uncontrolled inflation will annihilate the entire middle class.

This is way more Keynesian than trickle-down. I thought this would make the populists amongst you very happy. Besides, it affects all wage earners, rather than all tax payers. And the higher income brackets can't take advantage of it, either.

I think this is utter bullshit. This is a start of the redistribution of wealth we may be looking at in the near future.

Well since I am not going to get any of this I will post my business addresses when this all comes in your mail boxes so you can promptly come down and spend it.

What should be done to 'boost' the economy? Tax hikes on real wage earners? Yeah, that's the ticket. Tax business more? That's going to help, too.

[/sarcasm]

Actually getting them to pay taxes is a good idea.

I think this is utter bullshit. This is a start of the redistribution of wealth we may be looking at in the near future.

Well since I am not going to get any of this I will post my business addresses when this all comes in your mail boxes so you can promptly come down and spend it.
I figure it's just another loan, excuse me -- it's a gift, from those of us that pay taxes to those that don't. Isn't that what government is all about? Income redistribution? We wouldn't want anyone to be successful, now, would we?

Actually getting them to pay taxes is a good idea.

You probably know this, but please don't look it up first...

What percentage of all income taxes are paid by the top 1% of wage earners?

Top 10%?

Top 50%?

Why don't they teach at least a little bit of macroeconomics in high school?


Hmm. They do in university, however... the effect of taxes was one of the first things to learn (among other short term effects). Right after that, we learned that even in the medium term, the effect of taxes or government spending is non-existant. Apart from the effect on the money market, that is (inflation/deflation).

You probably know this, but please don't look it up first...

What percentage of all income taxes are paid by the top 1% of wage earners?

Top 10%?

Top 50%?

What percentage of all income is (un)earned by the top 1% of "wage earners?" (With executives using the companies they run as personal $lu$h fund$, I use the term "wage earner" loosely)

Top 10%?

Top 50?

I don't think $600-$1200 is going to do much...that's what, rent/mortgage/car payment for a month? So, one month of spending is going to reverse years and years of accumulated debt? I somehow don't see the logic in this...does the term "Band-Aid solution" mean anything here?

Now, if everyone got $1 million....

I figure it's just another loan, excuse me -- it's a gift, from those of us that pay taxes to those that don't. Isn't that what government is all about? Income redistribution? We wouldn't want anyone to be successful, now, would we?

You make it sound like those who don't pay income taxes are getting a free ride...which is rarely, if ever, true.

What about state taxes...sales taxes...property taxes...license payments...user fees...and the hidden costs of corporate taxes that are generally passed on to the consumer?

If the "successful" want to make themselves out to be victims, they would do well to remember that that would make nearly everyone else out there a victim too.

This isn't economic stimulus, it's vote-buying in a presidential election year when Republicans are afraid of getting pwned and Democrats are pandering to the Republicans, because God forbid a Democrat gets labeled "soft on terra." That, and Bu$h actually needs to look like he cares about anything other than his bank account, or Republicans will get pwned come November.
agree with all that. You forgot to mention that this package will also be used as ammunition against the Dems - They go against it, and they're tax-hungry greed whores who hate the American middle-class. They go for it, and this 'proves' that Bush and GOP know what they're doing and are the best ppl to handle the economy.

You make it sound like those who don't pay income taxes are getting a free ride...which is rarely, if ever, true.

What about state taxes...sales taxes...property taxes...license payments...user fees...and the hidden costs of corporate taxes that are generally passed on to the consumer?

If the "successful" want to make themselves out to be victims, they would do well to remember that that would make nearly everyone else out there a victim too.
The only reason I can even begin to tolerate this tax 'rebate' is because there are many other taxes, other than income, that are paid by wage earners. The abolishment of all those payroll and income taxes is one of the best things about the FairTax.

I figure it's just another loan, excuse me -- it's a gift, from those of us that pay taxes to those that don't. Isn't that what government is all about? Income redistribution? We wouldn't want anyone to be successful, now, would we?

Well, we might want other people to be successful too.

One of my earliest conscious memories is of sitting at the table during one of my parents' dinner parties, listening to them talking about how Reaganomics was completely made of fail and "trickle-down" economics was a handy way of funneling money into the pockets of a few very rich people at the expense of everybody else.

It amuses me that I have grown to adulthood watching this failure in action. I have lived my whole life seeing how "conservative economics" fuck up the joint. And yet people still back these ideas.

One of my earliest conscious memories is of sitting at the table during one of my parents' dinner parties, listening to them talking about how Reaganomics was completely made of fail and "trickle-down" economics was a handy way of funneling money into the pockets of a few very rich people at the expense of everybody else.

It amuses me that I have grown to adulthood watching this failure in action. I have lived my whole life seeing how "conservative economics" fuck up the joint. And yet people still back these ideas.I know. It's not as though there's a whole continent that can be used as reference to the failure of trickle down.

One of my earliest conscious memories is of sitting at the table during one of my parents' dinner parties, listening to them talking about how Reaganomics was completely made of fail and "trickle-down" economics was a handy way of funneling money into the pockets of a few very rich people at the expense of everybody else.

It amuses me that I have grown to adulthood watching this failure in action. I have lived my whole life seeing how "conservative economics" fuck up the joint. And yet people still back these ideas.

It's hardly surprising though. Shock horror, there are rich people who want to get even richer and to hell with everyone else.

I'm not convinced it's the best solution(or a solution at all) and I question the logic of a tax rebate when the budget deficit is the biggest in history. It seems to me that the reason we have a recssion in the first place is because of the growing national debt. But if the government is going to insist on spending money it doesn't have, then at least give it to me. :)

they should have given more money to the lowest income people.

The "lowest income people" do not pay income tax and therefore cannot receive an income tax refund. If we wish to just give taxpayer money to these people, let's call it what it is, a handout.

The "lowest income people" do not pay income tax and therefore cannot receive an income tax refund. If we wish to just give taxpayer money to these people, let's call it what it is, a handout.

A scholarship. :)

A scholarship. :)

Agreed! Scholarships are what's paying my tuition. Not a handout.

One of my earliest conscious memories is of sitting at the table during one of my parents' dinner parties, listening to them talking about how Reaganomics was completely made of fail and "trickle-down" economics was a handy way of funneling money into the pockets of a few very rich people at the expense of everybody else.

It amuses me that I have grown to adulthood watching this failure in action. I have lived my whole life seeing how "conservative economics" fuck up the joint. And yet people still back these ideas.

Well sure if you want to turn something completely unpolitical (as everyone annoyingly does) into a political conspiracy theory used only to make extremely rich people even richer, then go right ahead and make that bullshit claim. Proponents of supposedly 'trickle down' economies are doing it only for economic reasons. They think that it might, guess what, improve the economy! The fact that pretty much every country with a successful economy owes most of its success to fiscal policies should in itself do away with this fantasy about all proponents of this sort of policy just being evil capitalists who want more money at the expense of the poor, rather then just economists.

The "lowest income people" do not pay income tax and therefore cannot receive an income tax refund. If we wish to just give taxpayer money to these people, let's call it what it is, a handout.

Everyone pays income tax unless you are in the "underground economy". I worked at a camp and made $800 and that was taxed like $50 for various things.

One of my earliest conscious memories is of sitting at the table during one of my parents' dinner parties, listening to them talking about how Reaganomics was completely made of fail and "trickle-down" economics was a handy way of funneling money into the pockets of a few very rich people at the expense of everybody else.
Why are people saying these things? They're not just wrong, they're also irrelevant to what is happening.

What Bush is doing is old-school, Keynesian intervention in the economy. Its roots are very clear: Keynes figured that sometimes the outcome of the market was irrational (since he said that investors are irrational (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch24.htm)), and in that case the government could act rationally and produce a superior result by injecting money in one way or another. Whether that is through spending directly or spending in the form of tax cuts is irrelevant.

Supply Side Economics (to call it its proper name and to repeat myself) is aimed at getting people to produce more (as opposed to spending more) by expanding the productive capacity of the economy. So you make it easier for people to set up businesses, you make it easier to buy more machines or hire more people, you make it easier to invest bigger amounts of money (hence the tax breaks for rich people - the idea is that they invest it into companies that produce things). That is not wrong. It's not a way to get out of a "normal", "Keynesian" recession, but it's not meant to be. It's trying to move the natural growth rate of the economy (below which there is higher unemployment and above which there is higher inflation) from, say, 3% to 4%. Over 20 years or so, that makes a huge difference, regardless of which particular income bracket you're sitting in. And over 50 years, that's the difference between Uganda and South Korea. That's the "trickling down".

I really don't see any reason whatsoever why there'd be people who are against supply side economics on principle. There are times to do it and times when it's not necessarily appropriate. But somehow ignoring the production possibility curve of the economy when you make policy just doesn't seem like a smart or rational course of action.

Hmm. They do in university, however... the effect of taxes was one of the first things to learn (among other short term effects). Right after that, we learned that even in the medium term, the effect of taxes or government spending is non-existant. Apart from the effect on the money market, that is (inflation/deflation).
That depends entirely on the situation. These days, we know that the single biggest influence on inflation is expected inflation. So if that can be managed properly, the extra money should do precisely as it was intended. That's the vital link in the chain that makes fiscal policy so weak in an open economy - but then, this isn't actually enough money to make a direct impact. It's aimed at the psychology of it.

Everyone pays income tax unless you are in the "underground economy". I worked at a camp and made $800 and that was taxed like $50 for various things.
Of course poor people pay taxes. They just don't pay as much - and the idea with a Keynesian stimulus like this is that you get a certain amount of money in aggregate into the cycle as directly as possible.

So if you think that poor people will spend the money straight away, then give them a tax break. But if they only pay very little tax, then you'd end up giving them a very little tax break unless you're going with a straight transfer payment. Which would be a pain to organise and a lot more complex to justify to voters who miss out.

But more importantly, it's the middle class that is involved in this recession. They're the ones that have the ability to stop spending if they're scared (for example because they fear about the value of their house). If poor people spend everything they have, they have little ability to stop and therefore really be involved in causing a big fall in aggregate demand. So as far as targetting the psychology of the problem is concerned, it makes sense to target the middle class people who are the most worried, in the hope that the extra cash makes it clear to them that they've got plenty enough money to do okay.

Trickle-down economics doesn't work because greed and corruption exist.
And Reagan was a fraud for pushing that.

The "lowest income people" do not pay income tax and therefore cannot receive an income tax refund. If we wish to just give taxpayer money to these people, let's call it what it is, a handout.
First, I believe the whole handout thing is called a "tax rebate", so it can include the various payroll taxes that every wage earner pays. Second, the handouts are for people that earned more than $3000 last year, so, it really is a handout to wage earners.

But, it's not the kind of stimulus that's going to stoke the economy for very long. After Joe Bob and Betty Lou blow their $300 at Walmart on a bunch of Chinese-made crap, the stimulus pretty much ends.

Cut the tax rates on capital gains to zero and watch the economy go...That's the kind of stimulus that really makes a difference.

And Reagan was a fraud for pushing that.
Yep, he defrauded the whole country into doubling the tax revenue after he reduced the top income brackets.Kennedy committed the same kind of fraud. It's too bad neither could defraud the Congress into spending less than a drunken sailor on liberty.

It is a token amount of money that will have negligible effect on the economy, but it will make the current budget problems even worse. I see 2 major problems going on here - moral hazard and economic ignorance.

The moral hazard comes into play as people expect the government to step in and bail them out every time the economy get a sniffle. Government intervention in the market is ham fisted idiot swinging blind, more likely to cause harm than be of any help.

Furthermore, every time some politician wants to pander (most blatantly in an election year) to the masses and show that they are doing something (because it's important for a politician to be seen doing something, any actual effect isnt important), the ignorant masses are led to believe that government can just step in and do something. This is especially dangerous when you have politicians promising that you can get something for nothing.

There is always a cost - always. Politicians gain with populist rhetoric, but dont personally lose much with economically harmful proposals.

I think this is utter bullshit. This is a start of the redistribution of wealth we may be looking at in the near future.

Well since I am not going to get any of this I will post my business addresses when this all comes in your mail boxes so you can promptly come down and spend it.
Think of it like this; the bourgeois dictatorship doesn't want to be overthrown by the workers, so like in the Depression it is going to have to concede some measure of welfare to the workers in order to placate them.

Cut the tax rates on capital gains to zero and watch the economy go...That's the kind of stimulus that really makes a difference.

Cut the tax rates on capital gains to zero and watch rampant, bubble-like speculation in the stock market that looks like (Enron)*(subprime credit crisis)*10.

Or maybe I am just too cynical...:confused:

Cut the tax rates on capital gains to zero and watch rampant, bubble-like speculation in the stock market that looks like (Enron)*(subprime credit crisis)*10.

Or maybe I am just too cynical...:confused:
Nope, just too ignorant or naive. Or dogmatically anti-capitalist.

Cut the tax rates on capital gains to zero and watch rampant, bubble-like speculation in the stock market that looks like (Enron)*(subprime credit crisis)*10.

Or maybe I am just too cynical...:confused:
No, Myrmidonisia just has an absurdly optimistic, and unrealistic, view of economics.

Cashapault?! *Gets hit in head with wad of money from cashtrebuchet*

*spends money on trebuchet to fire back*
*Fires Monopoly money*
*Monoply money fired back as tax rebate*...
and the cycle countinues.

But in all seriousness. It might help but then again giving away money when you're already in a huge edficit is bad to asy the least.

I'll be getting $2100. :D

You to many children. :D I will only get $1200. What happened to the Senior Citizens bonus. :(

The money is a quick fix. IF you give an average american money what will they do with it? Spend it. The influx of cash will jumpstart the economy. Also microsoft isnt all powerful.

It amuses me that I have grown to adulthood watching this failure in action. I have lived my whole life seeing how "conservative economics" fuck up the joint. And yet people still back these ideas.
amuses?
surely that should be saddens. There's been nothing amusing about how trickle-down has screwed the lives of so many, while at the same time seeing the proponents ignoring the abject failure of this ideal and still continue to vigorously and angrily defend and push this onto society even now.
Nothing amusing at all.

The "lowest income people" do not pay income tax and therefore cannot receive an income tax refund. If we wish to just give taxpayer money to these people, let's call it what it is, a handout.

it IS a handout. its no tax refund. thats a polite fiction. its not even OUR money. its money borrowed from asia.

if the point is to bring up spending then it should go to the lowest income people because they will spend it the fastest in the country, in their communities.

im looking at putting the money toward debts. i dont need extra cash. giving it to people like ME doesnt help pull us out of recession.

Yep, he defrauded the whole country into doubling the tax revenue after he reduced the top income brackets.Kennedy committed the same kind of fraud. It's too bad neither could defraud the Congress into spending less than a drunken sailor on liberty.
And it's just coincidental, isn't it, that during Reagan's tenure the deficit, which had been steadily dropping since the 50's shot up massively? Nothing to do with Reagan at all, eh? just mere coincidence
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/debthistorical4005.gif
or, if you prefer:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/debtgdp4005.gif
The end result of this burgeoning deficit was for Volcker to raise interest rates in an attempt to curb inflation, causing a recession and a soaring dollar - making US uncompetitive and leading to the massive job losses in the blue-collar industries we saw during 1980s. masterful handling of the economy and great legacy there/

As for reducing the top tax bracket to 28% - admirable in itself (70% tax rate is criminal) - at that time only a little more than 1% paid that level so it didn't make much difference at all. During Reagan's presidency, all but the top 2 deciles of Average Family Income experienced losses.

Also, in blaming congress on spending blowout, you appear to have forgotten that from 1981 to 1987 (all but 2 years of Reagan's reign) Senate was controlled by GOP and congress was de facto controlled by GOP, as all those SWDs (Southern White Democrats, whose loyalty to the Democratic Party was dubious at best) sided with GOP on pretty much everything.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782454

In an attempt to prevent doom and gloom by way of recession, the government has agreed to literally throw money at the problem by giving pretty much every tax payer a $600-1200+ dollars as part of a tax rebate, among other things.

My impression: In a poorly-thought out attempt to save America, they are ignoring the Reagan-given trickle-down theory and are literally throwing money at the problem of a greased up deaf guy economy being tossed off an icy hill.
No...no....no...it is a Republican trick to buy votes for the upcoming elections. Didn't you know dat? :eek:

And it's just coincidental, isn't it, that during Reagan's tenure the deficit, which had been steadily dropping since the 50's shot up massively? Nothing to do with Reagan at all, eh? just mere coincidence
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/debthistorical4005.gif
or, if you prefer:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/debtgdp4005.gif
The end result of this burgeoning deficit was for Volcker to raise interest rates in an attempt to curb inflation, causing a recession and a soaring dollar - making US uncompetitive and leading to the massive job losses in the blue-collar industries we saw during 1980s. masterful handling of the economy and great legacy there/

As for reducing the top tax bracket to 28% - admirable in itself (70% tax rate is criminal) - at that time only a little more than 1% paid that level so it didn't make much difference at all. During Reagan's presidency, all but the top 2 deciles of Average Family Income experienced losses.

Also, in blaming congress on spending blowout, you appear to have forgotten that from 1981 to 1987 (all but 2 years of Reagan's reign) Senate was controlled by GOP and congress was de facto controlled by GOP, as all those SWDs (Southern White Democrats, whose loyalty to the Democratic Party was dubious at best) sided with GOP on pretty much everything.

Oh, come on. It's obviously COngress's doing. The fact that the years 1980-1992 and 2000 on experienced massive increases in debt while in 1992-2000 they dropped is one of those happy coincidences. ;)

IF these checks come out in May, which is an early estimate, and the economy has been sliding since January, and 6 months negative growth = recession, even the slightest delay or the slightest mishap doesn't save us from a technical recession.

Bullshit! I'm only getting $650!!