Nasty, Brutish & Short

« Previous · Home · Next »

Stimulus Package

January 24, 2008 05:02 PM

What I want to know is do we get extra money for the NBS baby even though she won't be born until March, but will be born before the checks start gettin' cut?

I wants to take our babymoney to the Argosy.

Comments

Pelolsi sold everyone out again.

From AP: Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining the rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including those who make too little to pay income taxes.

“I can’t say that I’m totally pleased with the package, but I do know that it will help stimulate the economy. But if it does not, then there will be more to come,” Pelosi said.

Is it the "economy" the Dems care about, or the people themselves? I am sick to death of these overprivileged politicians in their warm homes and their real estate agent hairdos and clothes killing us.

Clueless about how much food stamps are, clueless about unemployment benefits, clueless that most of America is off the clock working part-time or on a contractor basis, clueless on how people on social security are getting by, clueless on the destitution and immiseration produced by their frivolous, callow, and ignorant actions in Washington.

Clinton bears more than a little bit of the blame for this with his signing of NAFTA. I can not support anyone with the last name Clinton, and it's getting to the point I can't even support a Democrat. What is the point when they will sell you out in a second to reach their "compromise."

I'd like to see backbone for a change, a politician who remembers what it is like to go without -- and I don't mean going without your weekly manicure.

Shame on the Democrats for agreeing to this.

Kitty   ·  January 24, 2008 05:59 PM

Kitty - I am suprised you are upset by the current stimulous package. After all, it is a redistribution of wealth. People don't even have to be productive or pay into the system to get a check from this program, while many people who have funded most of the government's income will see nothing from it. Yet another example of many people in government's mindset that the money all of us earn is theirs for the taxing, not ours.

Your comments clearly show that you believe government is best able to solve people's problems. Time after time, government has proven it is not. The problem with simply extending or increasing social programs is that it does nothing to stimulate the growth of the economy (after all this is supposed to be a stimulous package). Why should the government extend unemployment benefits instead of putting the money where it will create more jobs and end the unemployment itself. Plus, individuals on food stamps and collecting unemployment benefits will receive a check anyway. I am glad I didn't have Speaker Pelosi's or Senatro Reid's jobs of arguing for additional spending for the unemployed and the poor in the US when the US has lower unemployment than many (if not all) industrialized countries in the world today, and we are importing labor to fill jobs.

TinCan/TopSoil/Typhoid   ·  January 28, 2008 07:31 PM

Good lord. Another know nothing conservative whining about "redistribution of wealth" and "the rich paying too much taxes." No wonder our economy is in such condition. I know you can't get your own clue so I'll let you share one of mine:

From business.timesonline.co.uk
June 28, 2007

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

Marq G   ·  February 12, 2008 10:52 PM

Redistribution or not, at the end of the day most people get some extra cash to spend.

The stimulous package should hopefully have the effect of reviving the economy when people start spending the cash.. we will see.

Stimulous Package   ·  March 19, 2008 11:35 AM