Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Nope, I’m using mine to get myself out of a little debt. That’s in no way inconsistent with my views.
- Status
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Guy,
I would do like you, I really would, except for the fact that Verizon has graciously offered to give me an HD TV, so who am I to turn it down?
So I guess I’ll have to spend my “rebate” recklessly.
I would do like you, I really would, except for the fact that Verizon has graciously offered to give me an HD TV, so who am I to turn it down?
So I guess I’ll have to spend my “rebate” recklessly.
B
BamaRider
Guest
Dang MelanieAnn how come Verizon is givin YOU a HD TV? What am I? Chopped liver?
Well at least ya got plans to stimulate the economy with YOUR check.
Well at least ya got plans to stimulate the economy with YOUR check.
D
donnykerabatsos
Guest
recession is only in your head. the second i get that check i’m buying the biggest flat screen hdtv i can afford, even if i have to put it on my card.
this stimulus package rules.
this stimulus package rules.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
The free HD TV was an incentive to sign up for FIOS TV. So I did.
But I don’t think you are chopped liver. 
C
CathCentrist
Guest
When I get Bush’s check (my money anyway) I’m gonna use some of it to fill up my gas tank - by then $4 a gallon, drive to my nearest polling place, hold my nose and vote for a democrat president.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
If your goal in voting for a democrat for any office is to lower the price of gasoline, you will be disappointed. Elected officials are powerful, but not powerful enough to lower the price of anything. Such a vote, while helping to preserve abortion as a “right”, will do nothing about the price of gasoline.
All discussion and promises on such subjects during campaigns are nothing but pure political rhetoric designed to sway voters, nothing more.
M
mlchance
Guest
Especially when those elected officials are part of the problem by supporting high fuel taxes and corporate farm subsidies to provide ethanol, by preventing drilling in new oil fields, and by threatening “Big Oil” with even more government interference.
But why bother considering that high oil prices have a great deal more to do with the number of Chinese people in the world than with anything President Bush has done or could do?
– Mark L. Chance.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
But Mark, why bother considering facts when you’ve got politicians promising to beat up on the big bad oil companies??
M
manualman
Guest
Stimulus. What a disgusting joke.
How would Americans feel if they received an envelope with a $1,200 check inside from their credit companies and a letter that read as follows:
Dear customer, Enclosed you will find a check for $1,200 that we have graciously placed on your account. Go out and enjoy it! Interest accrues as of today and this is a MANDATORY part of your policy with our company. Good day!
But that is exactly what is happening here. They are sending us checks when they are already in deficit spending. So the money is nothing but MORE borrowing.
Who elects these morons?
How would Americans feel if they received an envelope with a $1,200 check inside from their credit companies and a letter that read as follows:
Dear customer, Enclosed you will find a check for $1,200 that we have graciously placed on your account. Go out and enjoy it! Interest accrues as of today and this is a MANDATORY part of your policy with our company. Good day!
But that is exactly what is happening here. They are sending us checks when they are already in deficit spending. So the money is nothing but MORE borrowing.
Who elects these morons?
B
BamaRider
Guest
So that means you’re sendin yours back?Stimulus. What a disgusting joke.
How would Americans feel if they received an envelope with a $1,200 check inside from their credit companies and a letter that read as follows:
Dear customer, Enclosed you will find a check for $1,200 that we have graciously placed on your account. Go out and enjoy it! Interest accrues as of today and this is a MANDATORY part of your policy with our company. Good day!
But that is exactly what is happening here. They are sending us checks when they are already in deficit spending. So the money is nothing but MORE borrowing.
Who elects these morons?
M
manualman
Guest
Sending it back? If we had a choice to opt out of this in return for an ironclad guarantee that my taxes from here on out would less than everybody elses by the TRUE cost (principal and interest) of this ‘free’ money then yes, I’d absolutely send it back.
As it is I’d then lose the $1,200 AND have to pay back the loans they are taking out to ‘give’ it to us. Why must I choose between a dumb course of action and a DUMBER one?
As it is I’d then lose the $1,200 AND have to pay back the loans they are taking out to ‘give’ it to us. Why must I choose between a dumb course of action and a DUMBER one?
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Economics is a really boring subject. It should also be required to graduate from high school, which should, in turn, be required to get a driver’s license. Then at least we might have a population that can’t be hoodwinked into warm fuzzy feelings about “rebates” like the ones we’re seeing.
If it’s a true rebate, it is being refunded from a PRIOR YEAR’s tax (such as 2006’s taxes that were filed in 2007). If they reduce NEXT year’s refund by the amount of this “rebate” it wasn’t a rebate at all, it was an accelerated refund of a future tax refund. (It may seem nitpicking, but the nature of this thing we’re supposed to get is important.) It would also be a big fat misapplication of the word “rebate” if this affects next year’s taxes. I’d like to see just exactly what this is supposed to be, because I might not want to have to pay it back next year. That’s how they did the last “rebate”.
If it’s a true rebate, it is being refunded from a PRIOR YEAR’s tax (such as 2006’s taxes that were filed in 2007). If they reduce NEXT year’s refund by the amount of this “rebate” it wasn’t a rebate at all, it was an accelerated refund of a future tax refund. (It may seem nitpicking, but the nature of this thing we’re supposed to get is important.) It would also be a big fat misapplication of the word “rebate” if this affects next year’s taxes. I’d like to see just exactly what this is supposed to be, because I might not want to have to pay it back next year. That’s how they did the last “rebate”.
B
BamaRider
Guest
As a matter of principal and consistency?
Two guys at the water cooler-
“man this tax rebate is a terrible idea, nothing but bad is gonna come outta this, not gonna stimulate anything, just a one time deal to make us feel good, gonna sink us in more debt, this ain’t right, yada, yada, yada”
“so didja give it back?”
“Well no, I bought a plasma tv and Blu Ray, it ain’t* that *bad a idea”
If I didn’t think it was good, and went around railing on it, I’d make a statement, but hey that’s just me. My daddy raised me to stand up for what I believe in. I believe in supply side economics, so I’m gonna spend my check, and feel good about it. I don’t reckon you’ll be able to say* that.*
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Let’s think about the purpose of the rebate. The purpose of the rebate is to get people to spend more money to stimulate the economy. Of course, when I get my rebate, I probably won’t spend it for two reasons: one, I know I will have to pay higher taxes in the future to pay for these rebates, since the government is borrowing to pay for them. Second, I spend less than my income anyway, so if I wanted something, I would have already bought it.
In this scenario, how does a rebate make sense, unless you assume that people are like sheep and cannot control their spending? If you like the fact that people cannot control themselves, why do you expect the government to control itself?
B
BamaRider
Guest
LOL You do have a point the govt is outta control.
Y’all makin this way too complicated. I look at the consistency in people. My father was the same way. “Go by what a man does, NOT what he says,” was taught to me early in life. If a person says, thinks, and believes this tax rebate is a sham, then give it back, all I’m saying. Now I can get weather reports on why a guy thinks its bogus while at the same time rushing to the bank to cash it, and I’ll make a decesion from there on how committed he is on what he believes.
Now if I hear a guy, “take it back, this is incorrect policy and bad for the country, and I want no part of it,” I might not agree with it, but he’d have my utmost respect.
I guess all I’m sayin is not believing in the tax rebate, and at the same time cashing the check, is not being consistent. I agree it is not a big deal, but I try to keep the color gray outta my rainbow causes it confuses people on what ya stand for.
But y’all are certainly within YOUR bounds to make the case, “I can disagree with this plan, cash the check and still be consistent.” Sometimes it’s just hard to get some to answer yes or no without a weather report.
I can’t debate the StinkCat, cause he hasn’t said if the stimulus is bad or good, far as I can tell just made a comment. All I can tell y’all is what I think. And I say YES! Send me my check!
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
If I send back the check, does that get me out of paying higher taxes in the future to cover the interest that the government is paying to borrow the money to give me the rebate? The problem is that you think of the government as a kindly old uncle that gives you things for free. Nothing from the government is free, and the tax rebate is certainly not free money?
Other than putting money in your pocket that you will have to pay back in the future (after all, how else will the government pay off the bonds it issued to fund the rebate) how is the rebate good for the economy? You have more money now, you will have even less money in the future, how is this good?
I think it is a stupid plan. It is based on the fatal conceit that people think government must solve their problems for them. However, I will cash the check, because I know my tax bill will increase in the future to pay off the bonds issued to fund the tax rebate. I will give it back if the government exempts me from its next tax increase. Sound good?
B
BamaRider
Guest
Fundamental difference here. I don’t buy tax increases are destiny (unless you’re a Dem). It is my belief the we can grow ourselves out of the defciet. NO society has ever been able to tax themselves into prosperity.
But given the choice of the check or free pass on increasing my taxes, I’ll take the latter. I don’t necessarily see it as a either or deal.
But if my taxes go up, I’m gonna be hacked, and the dems are bound and determined to do that. Recent proposal on the table by the Dems raises the taxes on everyone making over 31k a year.
And well all know they’re NOT gonna pay off any debt with it…but will spend it.
M
manualman
Guest
You aren’t listening. The government is borrowing money to give us this ‘stimulus.’ The lenders charge the government interest. The government MUST pay that back and the only source of income the gov has is US.
Go back to my example. Lets say someone somehow signed on to a credit card agreement that didn’t allow him to opt out for say 10 years and one day he got that $1,200 from them that I mentioned that started accruing interest instantly and could NOT be paid back other than at the minimum payment rate. You are saying you’d respect the man who sent the check back to the credit card company AND paid the minimum payment for 10 years!?! IMO, that guy’s a moron!
If the fine print on the agreement forced him to accept it, then he should keep it and FIGHT to change the lending laws to prevent such a crime from happening again.
Taxes might not have to be raised to pay it back. Maybe they’ll cut spending to do it instead. BWAHAHAHAHA, that’s likely, huh?
B
BamaRider
Guest
The manualman said-
Man, you really know how mess my day up.
- Status