Posted on 02/07/2008 7:32:05 PM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Apparently.
Adding in “seniors” and “veterans” is clearly pandering.
My point about gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. is that I’m surprised they didn’t go that far.
Don’t forget the cost of printing and mailing the checks(and the amount the ‘thieves in DC’ take out for handling)—
I’ve been encouraging my kids to live at home until school debt is paid off and they have some savings. I know so many people are so eager to see young people get out on their own, but really, if you have a full time job and some social interests and your own wheels, all you need is a place to sleep, eat, shower, and do the laundry.
I lived at home until I got married. With a full time job and being busy, I really didn’t spend that much time at home myself. I was able to save quite a bit of money, too, and still be able to travel some.
Then you really need to learn to manage your money.
90K and yet you are struggling, my guess you live WAY WAY beyond your means.
I have no sympathy for you, so stop your belly aching.
PREVIEW:
Mrs. Clinton, January 31, 2008 (RE: On Romney having run a successful business and revived a failing Olympics), Hillary scoffed that the government:
"(It)is not out to make a profit, it is out to help the American People."
Exactly. I agree with you. They are clearly pandering. I just never thought of this crap in racial terms. More like me vs. my own gov’t terms.
PREVIEW:
Mrs. Clinton, January 31, 2008 (RE: On Romney having run a successful business and revived a failing Olympics), Hillary scoffed that the government:
"(It)is not out to make a profit, it is out to help the American People."
After taxes and student loans, I take home $4,000 per month. The mortgage on the average home in my area is $3,500.00 per month.
I don’t care how great a money manager you are, there is no way in hell you can live on $500.00 per month.
Good point.
A completely ridiculous piece of legislation.
I have a few issues with it.
1. They want(ed) to give money to people who didn’t pay any taxes. How is it a rebate if you didn’t pay in the first place?
2. Most people have said they’re going to pay bills with the money. How does that stimulate the economy?
3. It’s supposed to create jobs. How the hell does it accomplish that, especially when the job creators (companies and the more affluent) are excluded?
I would certainly rather have had congress make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Well, at least that’s one less thing that you’ll have to remember to pay taxes on next year.
I agree, these stimulus packages, if efficacious at all, always arrive a day late and a dollar short. Bush should have never got the thing started in the first place. Now if he doesn’t add seniors and veterans all he will have accomplished is allowing the Democrats to appear like they care about people. Seniors and veterans do pay taxes or many of them do, just not income taxes. My position is just give people a tax break, reduce their tax burden and get a handle on the spending. That is how you stimulate the economy.
GET OUT OF CALIFORNIA
Anytime the government tries some nebulous "program" to "stimulate" something they "stimulate" it........
The wrong way......
Wait until round 2..
I’m still holding out for 1000 bucks a head.. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.