Page 1 of 2
Stimulus Package
Posted:
Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:53 pmby AdventWolf
PLEASE tell me I am wrong! Congress plans to give each of us (and by each of us they mean those who qualify) a whopping $13 a week for a certain amount of time. This is the money coming from the stimulus package right? I don't know much of the specifics but let me talk a little bit.
I'm guessing if you make more than what, $60k to $70k a year then you make too much money to receive this money?
How is $13 a week suppose to help? You can buy you and maybe one of your kids a meal at McDonalds. Wow, that really helped the economy. Maybe if enough people buy from McDonalds then they can donate money to the National debt. What the crap? you can hardly buy anything with $13 .
Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't Obama or Michelle laugh at like a $500 tax rebate stimulus rebate a while back? Ha! Here
it is Okay so it is $600, she laughs at $600 yet I'm guessing she is for our $13 check?
Posted:
Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:36 pmby que13x
I don't know all the details but the plan is to give everyone a tax credit equating to $500 AFTER taxes and social security is paid, in the hopes that you go out and say buy dinner or get you something nice instead of paying off debt or just saving it like a responsible person should.
Posted:
Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:07 pmby D3ViLsAdvocate
Hey it's free money.
Posted:
Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:07 pmby AdventWolf
But it is just billions of dollars to waste. These dollars will be flushed down the toilet into the economy boosting it in no way. I mean if it was any size able amount, then that would actually work. But this is way too little money to do anything so it is a waste.
Posted:
Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:56 pmby que13x
It isn't really free money when you take into consideration that no one that posts on this board will ever recieve Social Security benefits.
It isn't free money when you realize that most of the income tax goes to the federal reserve to pay interest on money printed out of thin air.
It isn't free money when in Florida, 6 million people are without work. Vermont and Michigan have it worse (DPM sound off)
Lets not loose sight of the original problem which is that Banques and credit card agencies are refusing to lend and raising interest rates, these organizations want to recoup their losses in a calamity that they themselves created and it is the everyday people that suffer in the end.
So it is obvious that a $500 tax credit will not solve the problem. The government should control the banks (as stated in the US Constitution)and abolish the Federal Reserve eliminate interest payments (which only serve to keep people in perpetual debt) and eliminate the stock market. If people want to gamble, let them do it in Vegas with their own money instead of the money of others.
I believe this would solve everything, at least in America.
Posted:
Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:13 pmby AdventWolf
That would certainly do some good, but it seems we are too far down to ever relinquish the debt in hundreds of years.
Posted:
Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:58 pmby que13x
The way I see it America has been robbed by the bankers since 1913 so F**k em. Let them see what it feels like to hold the bag. Besides it would be the financial corporations in this country that loose out. A 30 million dollar salary for a banker is not unusual. IF they can't manage their lives with that sum and blew it with little to no regard for their own future that is their problem.
The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few greedy crooks that got us in this mess to begin with.
I know people that were unemployed that were granted credit and mortgages 4 years ago. IT was the bankers responsibility to determine the risk as well as the individual. At some point someone needed to say "wait a minute" but apparently that never happened and that is why we are here today. The banks wanted to foreclose and to take over the properties of these people. The banks never put up a dime of the money owed for the property or credit instead the debt got bundled up into securities and sold to other investors that seem to think that playing this money game is without risk.
F**k em all. Let this be a lesson to all of them.
It isn't fair that individuals now owe their nation $70k for descisions they did not make. These institutions do not share profits with the people so why should the people carry their debt?
Found this interesting article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-h ... 66572.html
Posted:
Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:58 pmby JustinWoodypond
que13x wrote:The way I see it America has been robbed by the bankers since 1913 so F**k em. Let them see what it feels like to hold the bag. Besides it would be the financial corporations in this country that loose out. A 30 million dollar salary for a banker is not unusual. IF they can't manage their lives with that sum and blew it with little to no regard for their own future that is their problem.
The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few greedy crooks that got us in this mess to begin with.
I know people that were unemployed that were granted credit and mortgages 4 years ago. IT was the bankers responsibility to determine the risk as well as the individual. At some point someone needed to say "wait a minute" but apparently that never happened and that is why we are here today. The banks wanted to foreclose and to take over the properties of these people. The banks never put up a dime of the money owed for the property or credit instead the debt got bundled up into securities and sold to other investors that seem to think that playing this money game is without risk.
F**k em all. Let this be a lesson to all of them.
It isn't fair that individuals now owe their nation $70k for descisions they did not make. These institutions do not share profits with the people so why should the people carry their debt?
Found this interesting article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-h ... 66572.html
While I agree with everything you say about the banks lending to high risk people, isn't also a persons responsibility to not spend more than they have? That would've also prevented the situation. Are they evil and twisted? I think so, but I don't think the banks are 100% to blame in terms of the foreclosure crisis.
Posted:
Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:36 amby que13x
JustinWoodypond wrote:While I agree with everything you say about the banks lending to high risk people, isn't also a persons responsibility to not spend more than they have?
You missed this bit right here (3rd paragraph 2nd sentence):
que13x wrote: IT was the bankers responsibility to determine the risk as well as the individual.
Still, it is mainly the banks fault. I don't think it was entirely accidental either. I view this banking crisis as a consolidation because in the end you have more and more money in fewer hands as smaller institutions are merged with larger ones.
Posted:
Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:52 amby crait
It's the bank's fault they failed.
They should have better inspected who they gave loans to.
The banks are businesses and because of such, the government should leave them alone.
Lasse-Faire FTW!!!!!
Now that they persuaded the government to help them, the government is giving away a lot of money to rich people and they're sticking it in savings instead of giving it to the people who are being effected by the falling of the banks.
Here again, the government is keeping rich people rich and suppressing people with the short end of the stick.
Posted:
Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:16 amby DracoDarco
its funny, the republicans suggested a tax cut quite a few times but, i guess it would only work if a democratic president suggested it....
Posted:
Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:22 pmby que13x
Tax cuts haven't worked for the last 9 years.
Clinton raised taxes and the economy was chugging along. W immediately cut taxes and the economy has been in the toilet since.
All tax cuts will do is eliminate services (jobs) from the states (could be a good thing) and increase the national debt (always a bad thing)
If the average person saves $500 a year from these tax cuts it amounts to roughly $40 a month. Last year $40 wouldn't even fill the average gas tank and today it barely pays for a new video game.
I don't see how these tax cuts help the economy.
Posted:
Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:51 pmby DracoDarco
tax cuts allow Americans to have a surplus of money with which to spend, thus stimulating the economy, the real problem is the rapidly growing amount of socialist programs that make not working more attractive then actually having a job.
that said a 13$ a month stimulus package does seem rather stupid but, i can see how you more likely to go ahead and spend just 13$ rather than save it which would be more likely if you got a larger sum all at once.
all of that being said I really dont care because IM ONLY 16!!!!
Posted:
Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:01 pmby crait
The thing about getting a surplus of money is that it isn't spent.
Whenever something like that happens, people put the money into savings.
So, there's even less money floating around the market.
With less money, not all the products get purchased from a manufacturer and the manufacturer goes out of business.
That's what's been happening.
Posted:
Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:04 pmby Steeler12
[quote="crait"]It's the bank's fault they failed.
They should have better inspected who they gave loans to.
The banks are businesses because of such, the government should leave them alone.
Lasse-Faire FTW!!!!!
Actually thats not true. There was an act passed in the 70s by Jimmy Carter that made banks no longer be able to financially profile people applying for loans. There were certain things that could no longer be investigated by the banks.