Edward429451
Moderator
Bush is about to give all Americans an 800 dollar welfare check to convince us the economy isn't that bad. I'm no economist but that's a band aid & a lie even to my poor ol wrench turner ears.:barf:
Our economy
- Thread starter BerettaCougar
- Start date
Edward429451
Moderator
I'm spendin mine on ammo or componants. All of it.
Unregistered
Moderator
This money is not intended for saving, it is intended to be blown immediately to boost the economy. I believe the intention of President Bush is for the money to be spent immediately on consumer goods. I don't think he wants you to pay down debt or put it in savings. He wants the money to go immediately back into the economy.
Personally, I think that you would be better off to spend the money immediately myself. I think his plan is going to cause inflation and devaluation of the dollar. So you might as well spend it quickly before that sets in.
Last edited:
This is why I mentioned turning it into a shiny gold coin. That's most of an ounce.
If it breaks $1000, then you made money, and it's proof against the dollar falling.
That, or do some foreign investments. Pacific Rim is pretty hot. And if you have unsecured credit card debt, PAY IT DOWN!
It never ceases to amaze me, people who play the market with any funds they get, meanwhile, they've got five maxed-out cards charging over 20% interest. Their net income is NEGATIVE.
If it breaks $1000, then you made money, and it's proof against the dollar falling.
That, or do some foreign investments. Pacific Rim is pretty hot. And if you have unsecured credit card debt, PAY IT DOWN!
It never ceases to amaze me, people who play the market with any funds they get, meanwhile, they've got five maxed-out cards charging over 20% interest. Their net income is NEGATIVE.
I know the answer to this dilemma. The government needs to sabotage the condoms and birth control pills. This would preserve the upper classes since the people least able to support children have most of them and don't use birth control anyway. Then we could have a growing population of affluent people to support the entitlement Ponzi scheme.
Unregistered
Moderator
delected by me because of incorrect facts.
Last edited:
Edward429451
Moderator
I heard it was for people who make <150K. Thats me
Good on ya' if you make more than 150K a year. Wish I didn't qualify.
Unregistered
Moderator
deleted by poster due to incorrect facts
JuanCarlos
New member
And, since I've seen confusion before here and elsewhere on exactly how tax brackets work, it should be noted that since this tax cut is applied to the lowest bracket, it will apply to every single person who pays any amount of income tax...even those making millions of dollars in income. There's no "upper limit," on who can receive it, it just won't be quite as exciting to those who make more (as it will cap at the $800 per person or so mark).
There are no "people" in the 10% and below bracket. There is income in the 10% and below bracket. If you make a million dollars a year, the first X amount of your income is still in the 10% and below bracket (and the next X will be in the next bracket, and so on, until you hit the highest bracket...where, obviously, most of your income will fall). Every single person with taxable income has income in the 10% bracket.
There are no "people" in the 10% and below bracket. There is income in the 10% and below bracket. If you make a million dollars a year, the first X amount of your income is still in the 10% and below bracket (and the next X will be in the next bracket, and so on, until you hit the highest bracket...where, obviously, most of your income will fall). Every single person with taxable income has income in the 10% bracket.
Unregistered
Moderator
Ah, I see! Thanks for clarifying that, Juan Carlos. That makes much more sense to me now, and is a much better idea than what I thought they were talking about.
I am going to go back and edit my posts to remove the confusion, but let me say I stand corrected.
Well, I guess anytime the government gives me back my money its a good thing, even if the plan really won't help our economy.
I am going to go back and edit my posts to remove the confusion, but let me say I stand corrected.
Well, I guess anytime the government gives me back my money its a good thing, even if the plan really won't help our economy.
Wow. 'Interesting' perspective there.......
The intention is, as stated, to stimulate the economy. The economy in it's simplest description is the FLOW of money. More flow, more healthy, less flow, more 'stagnant'.
The money is intended to be spent. The buy and therefore things get sold. More stuff gets sold the the profits go up and investment continues and jobs are kept and wages earned and things get bought and so on.
Remember, this is a proposal not anything set in stone. Another one is to invest in much needed infrastructure improvement. I like it better because it not only has the stimulus effect but leaves a tangible asset when completed. Plus this is something that is needed. How about improving and supplementing the gas (CNG not gasoline) pipeline infrastructure and how about a CNG pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48. This would also go toward the whole energy issue.
The intention is, as stated, to stimulate the economy. The economy in it's simplest description is the FLOW of money. More flow, more healthy, less flow, more 'stagnant'.
The money is intended to be spent. The buy and therefore things get sold. More stuff gets sold the the profits go up and investment continues and jobs are kept and wages earned and things get bought and so on.
Remember, this is a proposal not anything set in stone. Another one is to invest in much needed infrastructure improvement. I like it better because it not only has the stimulus effect but leaves a tangible asset when completed. Plus this is something that is needed. How about improving and supplementing the gas (CNG not gasoline) pipeline infrastructure and how about a CNG pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48. This would also go toward the whole energy issue.
Unregistered
Moderator
I think the infrastructure idea would be a much better idea for the reasons Bruxley has noted.
The $800 tax cut directly back to people is appealling in that it gives people the sense that their money is going back to them, but most are just going to blow on cheap chinese imports that won't last long. Renovating our infrastructure would generate jobs and leave us with improved roads, bridges, etc.
Boy, I am starting to sound more like a big government Republican and less like a Ron Paul supporter. This must be some kind of government conspiracy to control my mind!
The $800 tax cut directly back to people is appealling in that it gives people the sense that their money is going back to them, but most are just going to blow on cheap chinese imports that won't last long. Renovating our infrastructure would generate jobs and leave us with improved roads, bridges, etc.
Boy, I am starting to sound more like a big government Republican and less like a Ron Paul supporter. This must be some kind of government conspiracy to control my mind!
Unregistered
Moderator
Right, but telling people the government knows how to spend their money better than they do is the essence of the nanny state.
Unregistered
Moderator
Increased consumer spending of imports would increase some low paying jobs (maybe) like cashiers at Wal Mart. Mainly it makes people have a better perception of the economy. Its kind of like TSA screeners in airports make soccer moms feel safe, but probably don't impact a determined hijacker all that much.
The big winner, of course, is the chinese economy.
The big winner, of course, is the chinese economy.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Edward429451 said:
What he is proposing is cutting my tax bill by $800.
The money he plans to give to me is mine to begin with.
In what twisted sense of the word "welfare" does this fit?
JuanCarlos
New member
Well put. EDIT: Especially since, as described, you'd have to actually pay taxes to get this refund...so those at the bottom wouldn't actually see any money from this rebate/cut.
I'd agree, though, that infrastructure improvements would probably be more beneficial in the medium to long run, but either is a perfectly valid plan.
Edward429451
Moderator
Dang you guys don't know a little sarcasm?
It's kinda like a welfare check inthat they still control too much of our money and they dictate wether or not we even get the bone and how much.
Sure I want the (credit). It's not going to help the economy though.
It's kinda like a welfare check inthat they still control too much of our money and they dictate wether or not we even get the bone and how much.
Sure I want the (credit). It's not going to help the economy though.