PDA

View Full Version : OT-possible tax rebates for us Americans.


dopeyfanatic
01-17-2008, 08:31 PM
This could help our budgets!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080117/ap_on_bi_ge/economy_stimulus

runwad
01-17-2008, 08:39 PM
Well I for one don't see this as a good thing. On a personal note I'm like yeah free money but at what expense? Adding to the deficit?

chicagodisneyfan
01-17-2008, 08:52 PM
Ack - this is a terrible idea. The country is in deep debt and truly what is $300 going to do for me? Nothing.

Besides we will ultimately end of paying for it in the end.

disneysteve
01-17-2008, 08:59 PM
What a horrible idea. Typical of Washington.

"endorsed the idea of putting money into the hands of those who would spend it quickly"

I heard that same thought on the news this morning. They want to get people to spend more money. If that isn't insane I don't know what is. If we are headed for recession and facing higher unemployment, lower interest rates on savings, a declining stock market, higher inflation, etc., the last thing people need to be doing is spending more money. This is a time when folks need to be battening down the hatches, building cash reserves, putting away the credit cards and staying out of the mall.

runwad
01-17-2008, 09:05 PM
What a horrible idea. Typical of Washington.

"endorsed the idea of putting money into the hands of those who would spend it quickly"

I heard that same thought on the news this morning. They want to get people to spend more money. If that isn't insane I don't know what is. If we are headed for recession and facing higher unemployment, lower interest rates on savings, a declining stock market, higher inflation, etc., the last thing people need to be doing is spending more money. This is a time when folks need to be battening down the hatches, building cash reserves, putting away the credit cards and staying out of the mall.

Yep I totally agree...although I don't remember what happend that made them give us the refund for the child credit that one summer? I forget what year? Had to be after I had DS in 2000. We got $1200 (3kids x $400) and I took it to the credit union and put on my HEL...the teller said are you sure you don't want to keep any of this? I said nope pay that loan down. I imagine if I get some type of refund again I'll just put it in my car savings account. They wont be getting any spending from me;)

disneysteve
01-17-2008, 09:33 PM
We got $1200 (3kids x $400) and I took it to the credit union and put on my HEL...They wont be getting any spending from me;)

Same here. If unexpected money comes in from whatever source, it goes straight to savings. Sorry, Washington, if I'm not doing my part to support the nation's economy. I'm more concerned with MY economy.

dopeyfanatic
01-17-2008, 09:42 PM
Well you may not want the money, but I do! I can use it to pay more on my car. Or put it in savings...but it's something I'd get to choose. Even if you just pay a bill off with it, that's putting it back in the economy. They tax us enough, so I'll gladly take back some of my money! If you think it would cause such a financial problem for the Country, why would you even cash it to put into savings?

dvcgirl
01-17-2008, 09:46 PM
What a horrible idea. Typical of Washington.

"endorsed the idea of putting money into the hands of those who would spend it quickly"

I heard that same thought on the news this morning. They want to get people to spend more money. If that isn't insane I don't know what is. If we are headed for recession and facing higher unemployment, lower interest rates on savings, a declining stock market, higher inflation, etc., the last thing people need to be doing is spending more money. This is a time when folks need to be battening down the hatches, building cash reserves, putting away the credit cards and staying out of the mall.

But this is what we have to keep doing Steve.....spend, spend, spend. Actually, it's borrow, borrow, borrow followed by spend, spend, spend. Now the "experts" are crying out to get the Fed to cut rates, to make it cheap to borrow money again, so we can continue to borrow more and more and more and more..... The whole economy is built on debt. When banks slow down on their lending, we come to a screeching halt.

I actually heard the testimony from Bernanke today and all of the questions from House members. I can't tell you how many times it came up that we needed to "get the stimulus money to those who can spend it the fastest". I just shake my head....this is window dressing and nothing more. 100 billion, 150 billion "stimulus" in an economy with 14 Trillion of GDP....a drop in the bucket.

And the *last* thing that this government wants people to do is to take your wise advise to stop spending.....we all need to be out there doing our part for the economy! It's pure insanity. To say we've lost our way in this country would be the understatement of the century.

I think we need to see a few more jobs reports before we see how ugly this thing is going to get, but it sure *feels* ugly right now. Hope I'm wrong, but around here we're "battening down". This monoline insurer stuff really has me spooked. If they fail, boy could we see a drop in the markets.

Schachteles
01-17-2008, 09:50 PM
When the heck do they want to push this through? Kinda late at this point...and really not a great idea...though I certainly wouldn't mind an extra $1500 in my pocket!!

disneysteve
01-17-2008, 09:52 PM
They tax us enough, so I'll gladly take back some of my money!

Where do you think these checks are going to come from? Yep, they are coming from taxpayers' money. The only way to support programs like this are to tax you even more. It is a vicious cycle that makes no sense at all. We're going to raise your taxes so we can take some of that money and give it back to you to spend to help keep the economy going. Either that or we will borrow more money so we can send you some and down the line, taxes will have to increase so we can repay that debt. Either way, you lose in the long run.

dvcgirl
01-17-2008, 09:58 PM
Where do you think these checks are going to come from? Yep, they are coming from taxpayers' money. The only way to support programs like this are to tax you even more. It is a vicious cycle that makes no sense at all. We're going to raise your taxes so we can take some of that money and give it back to you to spend to help keep the economy going. Either that or we will borrow more money so we can send you some and down the line, taxes will have to increase so we can repay that debt. Either way, you lose in the long run.

They'll just add it to the deficit. Not a problem. Now that the dollar is in the toilet, we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed that China, Japan and the Middle East will keep buying our treasuries so we can keep borrowing against them.......

Oh, and I hope that those nations still have several billion more to bail out, errrrr, I mean "invest in" the banks that are failing. Our own government can't make investments in our banks, but I don't think there's any problem with foreign governments investing billions in our banks. Nope, can't see how anything can go wrong there, not at all.

dopeyfanatic
01-17-2008, 10:02 PM
Are you not thinking of the fact that if the economy does take a dive, people are going to lose jobs, lose pay and there will be LESS taxes being paid? Something like that could take a few years to recover from. This is an attempt to prevent that, so yes I'm all for it. Like I said, if you don't agree with it then don't cash your check if you get one.

Free4Life11
01-17-2008, 10:07 PM
I don't really care for this idea, however, will *all* individuals get this or just certain groups? If they do decide to do this it's a dumb idea, but if everyone else is getting a check I want one too so I hope it applies to single males!

jenr812
01-17-2008, 10:10 PM
Yep I totally agree...although I don't remember what happend that made them give us the refund for the child credit that one summer? I forget what year? Had to be after I had DS in 2000. We got $1200 (3kids x $400) and I took it to the credit union and put on my HEL...the teller said are you sure you don't want to keep any of this? I said nope pay that loan down. I imagine if I get some type of refund again I'll just put it in my car savings account. They wont be getting any spending from me;)

Exactly. I think that a lot of people would use this to pay for existing bills. I know we would. It wouldn't stimulate the economy then.

dvcgirl
01-17-2008, 10:14 PM
Are you not thinking of the fact that if the economy does take a dive, people are going to lose jobs, lose pay and there will be LESS taxes being paid? Something like that could take a few years to recover from. This is an attempt to prevent that, so yes I'm all for it. Like I said, if you don't agree with it then don't cash your check if you get one.


100 Billion dollar stimulus plan isn't going to prevent any of the above from happening. The sad fact is that we're going to have to go through a certain amount of pain after the excesses of created by the housing/credit bubbles. 50% of the increase in consumer spending over the past five years of incredible GDP growth came from 5 Trillion dollars pulled out of homes in the form of home equity loans and lines of credit. And now "poof", that source of money is gone. 100 billion isn't going to get this economy back on track. Americans are tapped out. Consumer debt at an all time high, national savings at an all-time low, foreclosures at record levels, credit card and auto loan defaults on the rise, and the home equity spigot is turned off. Until Wall Street can engineer the next bubble, Americans may actually have to live within their means for awhile.

Cristy
01-17-2008, 10:28 PM
I think step one would be for the Federal Gvt. to pay all the military personnel the 3.5% increase in pay that was authorized for them to be started in January, but President Bush vetoed the bill! How can we treat them so badly when we daily ask the supreme sacrifice from them?


The additional money we might get from the Government won't be for new spending <unless it's used to cover the increase in everybody's grocery bill, gasoline and home heating this year>. I don't see new purchases in a splurge atmosphere.

MoniqueU
01-17-2008, 11:29 PM
Consumer spending is 2/3s of the economy so having people spend money does indeed help the economy. I am sorry there is a debt in washington but right now I am more worried about my families deficit to be honest. I would be happy with the money and even happier to see a tax cut come along so I can decide how to spend my money on healthcare, debt reduction, retirement and other itmes that will make my families life better. I just hope that the 300 bucks goes to the working people that actually pay into the tax system and not people that don't pay taxes. I am tired of the people that work the hardest and have made the most sacrifices to get where they are and better their lot in life paying for those that don't work to get ahead. The top wage earners in our country pay 70 percent of the taxes. I think that is crap. The people that should pay their fare share certainly arnt and I dont believe it is the rich, they are supporting this country.

disneyfreakk
01-18-2008, 12:33 AM
Oh great, I see my taxes going up. :sad2: This really makes me angry! Why should I have to pay more so some people can go out and spend this "free money" on things they didnt work for?

What kind of Republican robs from the rich to give to the poor?? :confused:

speedyf
01-18-2008, 12:59 AM
I think step one would be for the Federal Gvt. to pay all the military personnel the 3.5% increase in pay that was authorized for them to be started in January, but President Bush vetoed the bill! How can we treat them so badly when we daily ask the supreme sacrifice from them?


What you fail to note is that the military will still be receiving a 3% increase in pay instead of this vetoed bill's 3.5% increase.

The military will probably pick up the addition .5% increase in February after Congress reconvenes and drops the provision in the bill allowing Iraqis to sue the new Iraqi government for damages incurred under the Saddam regime....thus the reason why Bush vetoed the bill in the first place.

(Edited to add...Military actually received the 3% increase as of January 1st and when the kinks are ironed out, the extra .5% will be retroactive back to the 1st....linkage.... http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/12/ap_payraisebill_071228/)


Now...I'm not a big Bush supporter by any means. I did vote for him....but, I hope we get someone that is more fiscally conservative in office for the next 4 years. Bush has increased spending way too much. Instead of raising taxes to cut the deficit, why not lower taxes (which has proven to bring in more revenue....more money in the people's pockets means more money for them to spend) and actually CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

Not even CUT....just stop the increases. When the national news comes on TV and talks about the goverment cutting spending on a program...most of the time, they are talking about the government only increasing the budget of some useless program by 3% instead of 5%. Oh....the program didn't get a 5% increase in it's budget this year like they were expecting....the government is cutting spending.....

If we are going to tell the people to cut their spending....why not tell the government to do the same thing.

Everyone complains about the high profits the oil companies are making lately. If you look back over the past 25 years....the government has profited 3 times more than all the oil companies combined from taxes on gasoline and oil. Why aren't people complaining about that as much as they are complaining about the oil companies?

Speed :teleport:

speedyf
01-18-2008, 01:15 AM
Who's more greedy.....the greedy oil companies or our greedy government?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1139.html

Speed :teleport:

HeatherC
01-18-2008, 07:00 AM
Just saw this thread and of course had to chirp in.

I also think it's a bad idea. I kind of think of it along these lines.

If you are personally in debt, should you go out and spend an additional $300? Um...no. Put that money towards paying down your debt.

Hello people...have you seen our deficit. Now we are supposed to take more money and spend even more to make the deficit bigger.

Unfortunately, that's how a lot of people think. I certainly don't want more people to lose jobs, etc.. But..if you want to live in a "capitalistic" society, that's how the economy works.

Not to start an outrage, but this reminds me of what happened with Mitt Romney here in Massachusetts a few years ago. The state was almost bankrupt. Literally. So..he came in, cut things ....a lot of services, etc., that made people furious. BUT....it worked. It got MA out of all that debt...turned it into a surplus. But people are still mad about it. I don't get it. (And I'm not necessarily voting for him, just using this as an example.)

If your own budget has a deficit of say $200 a month, in order to fix that YOU HAVE to cut something else out or your deficit will get even larger. Do people not see that? I personally think they do, but don't WANT to cut back. Just my opinion. Go ahead...fire away.

HeatherC

JonS99
01-18-2008, 07:14 AM
If that happens, we will be paying down our CC balances, not going to Best Buy...

Report I saw this morning said $400 per person, up to $1600 per family for those making less than $110K...

Green Tea
01-18-2008, 07:28 AM
If that happens, we will be paying down our CC balances, not going to Best Buy...

Report I saw this morning said $400 per person, up to $1600 per family for those making less than $110K...

I wondered what the specifics were. Is 110K the upper threshold?

JonS99
01-18-2008, 07:36 AM
We saw the story came on, were so busy talking about how stupid the idea was that we didn't listen real close to the details...

jenm2878
01-18-2008, 08:03 AM
Is this an advance tax refund or just flat out free money? If it's an advance tax refund it's not free money.

runwad
01-18-2008, 08:04 AM
I just heard on the radio that these additional monies is for people who make 85k or less.

disneysteve
01-18-2008, 08:20 AM
Is this an advance tax refund or just flat out free money? If it's an advance tax refund it's not free money.

It is not an advance refund, but I would still say there is no such thing as "free money" when it comes to the government. We are all going to pay for this one way or another.

shelly3girls
01-18-2008, 08:22 AM
If that happens, we will be paying down our CC balances, not going to Best Buy...

Report I saw this morning said $400 per person, up to $1600 per family for those making less than $110K...

I do not support this plan at all. I agree with most of the statements above. Clearly the money has to come from somewhere. From what a previous poster said it will be those making more than $110,000. When is the government going to realize that families living in expense areas are not rich if they are making above $100k?

Marie17
01-18-2008, 08:25 AM
Thresholds supposedly are

85k for an individual
110k for married couples

I wonder if it will be based on net or gross income? I personally think it should not be limited to any class or income level and should NOT be tiered. If this money is not needed by a family they could easily spend it or give it away to help a charity. If it is needed by a family, they would most probably just save it or pay a bill.

JodiR
01-18-2008, 08:30 AM
That same article says up to $800 a person. That is $1,600 a couple. I just hope this doesn't affect our 2008 taxes and this amount goes agains that.

Jennifer823
01-18-2008, 08:31 AM
This could help our budgets!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080117/ap_on_bi_ge/economy_stimulus

$300? Big whoop! Like that's going to actually HELP anybody at this point. If anything, it will go to pay off some of the debt most everyone has been incurring from the rising gas prices - and paying of debt really isn't stimulating our economy! This is just stupid.

Jennifer823
01-18-2008, 08:39 AM
Thresholds supposedly are

85k for an individual
110k for married couples

I wonder if it will be based on net or gross income? I personally think it should not be limited to any class or income level and should NOT be tiered. If this money is not needed by a family they could easily spend it or give it away to help a charity. If it is needed by a family, they would most probably just save it or pay a bill.

If the idea is to get people to spend the money then why not give it to every income group? (But the free money has to come from somewhere.. i.e., the rich.) Stupid idea.

dvcgirl
01-18-2008, 08:57 AM
I don't think that they've ironed out the details for this ridiculous plan yet. The Dems are calling for things like extensions on unemployment insurance and "food stamp" debit cards. The Repubs are calling for corporate tax cuts and rebates.

It's all a big joke....huge joke actually. The underlying problems are much bigger than the corporate led recession we had back in 2001. We have a full-blown credit crisis on our hands and we appear to be heading into a consumer-led recession. Putting $300, $400, or $800 in Americans' hands so they can live high on the hog for another couple of weeks and finally get that Wii they've been dreaming about....well, it's not going to fix this.

I'm sure Bush and his "Working group on financial markets" are scrambling behind the scenes today crafting some sort of huge govt' bailout for the monoline insurers (Ambac, MBIA....ACA is already toast). Rumors are rampant that both are in big, big trouble. And if they are allowed to go under, things will get *really* ugly as opposed to a little ugly, which is what we have now.

These companies are the ones that write insurance for those complicated CDO (collateralized debt obligations) that we've all been reading so much about. CDOs are basically bundles of a lot of different debt vehicles, like mortgages that are tied in bunches or "tranches" according to risk and made into securities that investors can buy on the markets. Credit cards and auto loans are also bundled into CDOs, but let's focus on the mortgage backed CDOs.

A lot of the banks out there are holding a lot of this paper, and some of it is basically worthless at this point because so many of those mortgages in those giant bundles are in default. Or the mortgage is more than the home is worth. Once the banks "own up" to holding this worthless paper they need to bring it back on their books, suck it up, and take the loss.

To hedge their bets, these big banks went to those monoline insurers way to buy insurance on those CDOs, in case they tanked. Another way to say, "covering their butts" ;).

In the event of the CDO defaulting, the bank goes to the monoline insurer with their little insurance policy in hand and the insurance company (in theory) pays them the face value of that CDO, so the bank can't *lose* any money on it. They won't make money on it, but they won't lose either.

Well guess what, many of those monoline insurers don't have the money to pay. As the housing market continues to fall, this problem gets worse. And until it hits bottom we won't know the true scope of the problem. As more and more CDOs default, and since the monolines can't pay, the banks will be forced to take these CDOs back on their books and have not choice but to write them down as a loss. So there could be much, much bigger write downs to come in the financial sector. And a lot of pain for states and towns that sell muni-bonds....they bought a lot of CDOs too.

This is like the Long Term Capital Management near collapse in 1998 where regulators scrambled to save them. This time these instruments are more complicated, and the derivatives market is much bigger. I'm sorry to ramble, but I thought some here might be interested in understanding what is happening. It's a big deal.

Why does this matter? It matters because nobody trusts each other in the banking sector right now. Banks are reluctant to lend other banks money right now because they don't know how much of this CDO garbage the other bank has on the books. And because money (debt) isn't flowing freely between the banks, the banks are forced to tighten their lending to the the public and to corporations. That affects us directly, but it also affects corporate growth, and jobs.

I'm defensive as I've ever been with respect to my own personal investments and plan to stay this way for awhile. We're half-way through our first "no buy January" (inspired by folks on this board), and it's not that tough guys. I mean, we're buying groceries and spending money at the Vet for my dog, but that's it. You find books laying around that you never read. We have DVDs laying around that we never got around to watching. It's been a great experience.

In February we're starting a "1/2 of our spending money" budget and padding the emergency fund with that other 1/2. It sure can't hurt right now with DH in the private sector. You just never know how safe your job is in this environment. Chances are we'll be fine. We already have a very solid emergency fund, but building up cash right now can have another benefit....there are going to be some incredible deals in the stock market when this thing is done.

peanut12392
01-18-2008, 09:14 AM
Is this an advance tax refund or just flat out free money? If it's an advance tax refund it's not free money.

The child tax "rebate" that we got a while back was just an advance tax refund. (It had to be decucted from the refund on the next years taxes). I bet this will turn out to be the same. We try to come out even at tax time, I don't want an advance refund, no matter what they call it.

Marie17
01-18-2008, 09:23 AM
If the idea is to get people to spend the money then why not give it to every income group? (But the free money has to come from somewhere.. i.e., the rich.) Stupid idea.

I do think they should NOT limit it to anyone group, tier, or class of income. I wrote that if a family doesn't need it they would most probably easily spend it or give it to a favorite chairty to help offset their taxes. If a family needed it they would most probably save it or pay some bills.

jenm2878
01-18-2008, 10:04 AM
I don't understand why they are using $110K for a married couple and $85K for single. So a married couple could only make $55k/each while a individual can make $85k? It's not logical. (not that the government ever does much that's logical)

Tnkrbelle565
01-18-2008, 10:08 AM
Yup...looks like the the $85/$110 cap put us just out of the running (unless the $110 is the adjusted gross income) for this. CNN is reporting that the exact details will be released at some point today.

jenm2878
01-18-2008, 10:10 AM
I think we may be out of the running too. I know our gross income is more then that, but if you deduct our pre-tax stuff we may slide under. DH and I are in no way well off either.

Schachteles
01-18-2008, 10:12 AM
Thresholds supposedly are

85k for an individual
110k for married couples

I wonder if it will be based on net or gross income? I personally think it should not be limited to any class or income level and should NOT be tiered. If this money is not needed by a family they could easily spend it or give it away to help a charity. If it is needed by a family, they would most probably just save it or pay a bill.

That is what I wonder too...hmmm...or will our deductions come into play because we make over that, but after interested on the house, etc we are well below the 110k

HeyIt'sMe
01-18-2008, 10:13 AM
Same here. If unexpected money comes in from whatever source, it goes straight to savings. Sorry, Washington, if I'm not doing my part to support the nation's economy. I'm more concerned with MY economy.

::yes::

That's actually what I thought when I read the article - - I'd put the money in my savings account, not spend it.

But, it sounds like we won't get anything because we are over the $110K for married couples.

momof3littlelilos
01-18-2008, 10:47 AM
Is this an advance tax refund or just flat out free money? If it's an advance tax refund it's not free money.

My memory of 2001 was that they deducted the money from the following years tax refund...does anyone remember it differently?

ETA - and, no, we wouldn't "spend" it on anyting either, we'd pay off part of our heating bill. The money would be slightly helpful, but it wouldn't make any major difference to us...Although if it's paying for fuel I guess in the end it would benefit Bush's business buds? ;)

trip
01-18-2008, 11:19 AM
Yup...looks like the the $85/$110 cap put us just out of the running (unless the $110 is the adjusted gross income) for this. CNN is reporting that the exact details will be released at some point today.


I wonder what tax year they are basing the caps on?

Tnkrbelle565
01-18-2008, 11:30 AM
My thought is that they'll be basing it on our 2007 taxes.

harleyquinn
01-18-2008, 11:30 AM
Bush is on ABC right now

Schachteles
01-18-2008, 11:33 AM
Bush is on ABC right now

Let us know what he says, if we can get more specifics that would be nice.

sarahlovesmickey
01-18-2008, 11:36 AM
Not to start an outrage, but this reminds me of what happened with Mitt Romney here in Massachusetts a few years ago. The state was almost bankrupt. Literally. So..he came in, cut things ....a lot of services, etc., that made people furious. BUT....it worked. It got MA out of all that debt...turned it into a surplus. But people are still mad about it. I don't get it. (And I'm not necessarily voting for him, just using this as an example.)
HeatherC


I agree with this thinking! Again not to start an outrage, but why don't we make some cuts to some of these welfare programs, etc?? I've seen people on foodstamps that eat better than my family. Or how about we stop paying for medical care and welfare for illegals??? Just a thought... If this whole "payout" does happen, I do not think that people on welfare or any assistance should receive it. But I don't think that they should get tax returns anyway, but that is another whole debate.

harleyquinn
01-18-2008, 11:42 AM
Okay, he basically said, "Congress get something done."

At least that's what I got.

George Stephanopolis said that the rebates would probably be for people that make less than $150K (he didn't say individual or married). He also said they will most likely do everything , from incentives for business growth to the rebates to extending unemployment benefits. He also said the Dems want to make sure that "people too poor to pay income tax get a rebate too."

You can get more at www.abcnews.com

disneyjunkie
01-18-2008, 11:43 AM
I agree with this thinking! Again not to start an outrage, but why don't we make some cuts to some of these welfare programs, etc?? I've seen people on foodstamps that eat better than my family. Or how about we stop paying for medical care and welfare for illegals??? Just a thought... If this whole "payout" does happen, I do not think that people on welfare or any assistance should receive it. But I don't think that they should get tax returns anyway, but that is another whole debate.

What about families on welfare that working their way off?

Some people work full time, yet still qualify for medicaid, housing and/or food stamps.

I donít think these families should be lumped with the people who are too lazy to get out and work.

jenr812
01-18-2008, 11:54 AM
I hope that they extend umemployment bennies. My DH lost his job in June and still cannot find a job that wouldn't put us in the hole after childcare. His unemployment bennies ran out 2 weeks ago and it is hitting us very, very hard. Of course, with our luck, we wouldn't qualify since they ran out already :( He is still within his benefit year, so who knows? Sorry, just rambling.

momof3littlelilos
01-18-2008, 12:03 PM
I've seen people on foodstamps that eat better than my family. Or how about we stop paying for medical care and welfare for illegals??? Just a thought... If this whole "payout" does happen, I do not think that people on welfare or any assistance should receive it. But I don't think that they should get tax returns anyway, but that is another whole debate.

Anyone who works should, of course, file taxes and get refunds if they qualify for them.

disneysteve
01-18-2008, 12:17 PM
Assuming I qualify for whatever they send out, I hope it isn't an advance refund. I don't get a refund. I don't believe in loaning the IRS money interest-free all year, so we owe in April. This would mean we'd owe even more I suppose. That would really be lousy.

dvcgirl
01-18-2008, 12:24 PM
Assuming I qualify for whatever they send out, I hope it isn't an advance refund. I don't get a refund. I don't believe in loaning the IRS money interest-free all year, so we owe in April. This would mean we'd owe even more I suppose. That would really be lousy.


On CNBC they're "guessing" that this would be based on income taxes, not payroll taxes. However, I can't imagine that there will be some cap income-wise though. Remember, this is an election year, and the politicians running for the presidency won't want to see *anyone* left out of this gig....even those of us who make some decent $$$$. I don't care how much money you make, deep down, most people will be slightly peeved if just about every American is getting a check and they aren't. That's just human nature.

I highly doubt that we'll qualify if there's a cap, but I really don't care. I'd just stick it in the bank if I got a check anyway.

There's also talk of there being tax breaks for small businesses who invest in equipment this year.

I don't think we'll know that details until Tuesday when Bush meets with Pelosi.

I do keep hearing $800 per worker ($1600) per family being bandied about.

tbrenk73
01-18-2008, 12:33 PM
On CNBC they're "guessing" that this would be based on income taxes, not payroll taxes. However, I can't imagine that there will be some cap income-wise though. Remember, this is an election year, and the politicians running for the presidency won't want to see *anyone* left out of this gig....even those of us who make some decent $$$$. I don't care how much money you make, deep down, most people will be slightly peeved if just about every American is getting a check and they aren't. That's just human nature.

I highly doubt that we'll qualify if there's a cap, but I really don't care. I'd just stick it in the bank if I got a check anyway.

There's also talk of there being tax breaks for small businesses who invest in equipment this year.

I don't think we'll know that details until Tuesday when Bush meets with Pelosi.

I do keep hearing $800 per worker ($1600) per family being bandied about.

If passed, did they mention when the rebates would be sent out?

dvcgirl
01-18-2008, 12:39 PM
If passed, did they mention when the rebates would be sent out?

No. Reporters have tried to get Paulson to answer that question by asking it ten different ways.

They don't have the plan hammered out yet. So, I'm sure we'll hear more next week on this....

Just feel assured that they'll give everyone as much as they can and get it out to them as fast as they can. This is an election year.

Pay no mind to the mushrooming deficit behind the curtain.....

cats mom
01-18-2008, 12:39 PM
Really stupid idea IMO, but I'm guessing there's no stopping it now. :sad2:

It will be interesting to see what they do with the income limits.
If we do qualify I guarantee ours would be diverted into savings or investments.

Too bad the powers that be decided to turn this into a media event before cooler heads even had a chance to prevail.

I agree with Rep. Ryan:

"There are several key principles that we need to keep in mind. First, do no harm. I'm concerned that in our rush to help, we talk ourselves into a quick, feel-good hit today that will leave us with a bigger budgetary hangover tomorrow," said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).


Edited to add:

Looks like we were posting basically the same message at the same time. I defer to dvcgirl. :thumbsup2
I like her deficit behind the curtain allusion even better than Rep. Ryans' budgetary hangover reference.

mom2cinderella
01-18-2008, 12:46 PM
Pay no mind to the mushrooming deficit behind the curtain.....


Like my Penguin friend from Madagascar likes to say "You didn't see anything...".


Really stupid idea IMO, but I'm guessing there's no stopping it now.


I'd say it's a done deal.

Michele

disneysteve
01-18-2008, 01:02 PM
Really stupid idea IMO

As they say, the opposite of Progress is Congress.

WendyisDarling
01-18-2008, 01:03 PM
No. Reporters have tried to get Paulson to answer that question by asking it ten different ways.

They don't have the plan hammered out yet. So, I'm sure we'll hear more next week on this....

Just feel assured that they'll give everyone as much as they can and get it out to them as fast as they can. This is an election year.

Pay no mind to the mushrooming deficit behind the curtain.....

I think we were watching the same press conference. No details were given. But what I heard was there are two key components : fast and simple.
Someone asked if those on SS would get it and the reply didn't really answer the ? but was something to the effect of the plan is to stimulate the economy. Although many people have legitimate needs, the plan isn't to address those needs its pupose to get more money flowing which will create jobs, etc.
Did others who saw it get the same message?
The articles I have read label it a rebate and said it will work like the a few years ago.
I really haven't decided if this is a good idea or not. I think we really need to cut government spending and get oil prices down, but that is going to take time. The few articles I've read indicate that both parties are working together now and this is going to get passed in a few days. Too bad other government issues can't be handled with the same cooperation.

Schachteles
01-18-2008, 01:05 PM
Assuming I qualify for whatever they send out, I hope it isn't an advance refund. I don't get a refund. I don't believe in loaning the IRS money interest-free all year, so we owe in April. This would mean we'd owe even more I suppose. That would really be lousy.

I am with you on this, I DON'T want an advance...I would rather NOT have it then have that.

JodiR
01-18-2008, 01:07 PM
Here's a new article. Looks like checks wouldn't be sent until June

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/18/news/economy/rebate_how_it_works/index.htm?postversion=2008011812

Schachteles
01-18-2008, 01:11 PM
I am with you on this, I DON'T want an advance...I would rather NOT have it then have that.

From CNN...

Another way is to have the rebate be a payroll tax rebate. The payroll tax - 6.2 percent of your wages - is what's taken out of everyone's paycheck to fund Social Security, no matter how low your annual income.

A payroll tax rebate would not affect your Social Security benefits or the long-term solvency of the entitlement program, Furman said, because it would really serve as a tax credit. In other words, money from your paycheck would still be taken out and put towards Social Security, but the federal government would send you a check that would serve as an advance on a refundable tax credit on your tax return.

dvcgirl
01-18-2008, 01:12 PM
Following on JodiR,


This is interesting....from that article:



"Right now, President Bush is said to want an income tax rebate that would be generated by eliminating the 10 percent tax bracket, which applies to roughly the first $8,000 of income for single filers and the first $16,000 of income for married couples filing jointly.

That would mean taxpayers could get rebates of up to $800 if single, or $1,600 if married."

Here's the deal, they don't want to attach this to the IRS refunds because some of us owe taxes each year. So, we'll get a bit of a break on anything we owe, but that's just erasing part of an existing liability.

They'll want people like me to send in my check to the IRS, and *then* they'll send me a check in June which in theory I'd be much more likely to view as some sort of "bonus" and go out and spend.

Based on the timing of these checks, look for big sales and probably discounts from our friends at Disney too....lol! And I'm not even kidding, I just find it all hysterical.....

harleyquinn
01-18-2008, 01:18 PM
the federal government would send you a check that would serve as an advance on a refundable tax credit on your tax return.

So we'd pay for it next year? I don't understand. I don't think I qualified in 2001, so this thing is really confusing me.

dvcgirl
01-18-2008, 01:23 PM
From CNN...

Another way is to have the rebate be a payroll tax rebate. The payroll tax - 6.2 percent of your wages - is what's taken out of everyone's paycheck to fund Social Security, no matter how low your annual income.

A payroll tax rebate would not affect your Social Security benefits or the long-term solvency of the entitlement program, Furman said, because it would really serve as a tax credit. In other words, money from your paycheck would still be taken out and put towards Social Security, but the federal government would send you a check that would serve as an advance on a refundable tax credit on your tax return.

Are you saying then that the Gov'mint would be giving us an *advance* on a future tax return? Did the U.S Government just turn into a PayDay Loan Joint? LOL! If this is true, it's too freakin funny.....the Government is no different than a crack dealer who tells the junkie..."that's cool, here's the stuff, you'll just pay me later". Oh man, only a politician could dream this up.

Schachteles
01-18-2008, 01:24 PM
Are you saying then that the Gov'mint would be giving us an *advance* on a future tax return? Did the U.S Government just turn into a PayDay Loan Joint? LOL! If this is true, it's too freakin funny.....the Government is no different than a crack dealer who tells the junkie..."that's cool, here's the stuff, you'll just pay me later". Oh man, only a politician could dream this up.

LOL that is what I am saying...it sounds like it is just an advance...NO THANK YOU...keep it!

harleyquinn
01-18-2008, 01:29 PM
Are you saying then that the Gov'mint would be giving us an *advance* on a future tax return? Did the U.S Government just turn into a PayDay Loan Joint? LOL! If this is true, it's too freakin funny.....the Government is no different than a crack dealer who tells the junkie..."that's cool, here's the stuff, you'll just pay me later". Oh man, only a politician could dream this up.

Is that what happened in 2001?

That has to be the dumbest thing ever, why are they all on board? Just cuz it sounds good?

MrsNick
01-18-2008, 01:31 PM
Voodoo rebates, anyone? Whoosh! Now you see it, now you don't!

java
01-18-2008, 01:33 PM
a fundamentally strong economy healthy, and it will help keep economic sectors that are going through adjustments, such as the housing market, from adversely affecting other parts of our economy."

Um if you have a fundamentally strong economy you don't need to increase the deficit by handing out money. If you don't have it don't just go print some! Can we discuss the value of the dollar? How is that significant of a fundamentally strong economy- just because you say it doesn't make it so.

peanut12392
01-18-2008, 01:59 PM
Is that what happened in 2001?

That has to be the dumbest thing ever, why are they all on board? Just cuz it sounds good?

Yes, thats EXACTLY waht happened in 2001, I try to pay attention to things, but I didn't realize what happened until we were doing our taxes. That child tax "rebate" came directly off any refund you may have been getting. If they are doing that again, they should call it what it really is, an advance refund, not a tax rebate.
I do not want an advance refund. We try NOT to get a refund (come out even on out taxes as close as we can).

luvsJack
01-18-2008, 02:03 PM
I agree with this thinking! Again not to start an outrage, but why don't we make some cuts to some of these welfare programs, etc?? I've seen people on foodstamps that eat better than my family. Or how about we stop paying for medical care and welfare for illegals??? Just a thought... If this whole "payout" does happen, I do not think that people on welfare or any assistance should receive it. But I don't think that they should get tax returns anyway, but that is another whole debate.

Have you ever been on foodstamps? Obviously not. It's not easy and its not fun, I can assure you. Until you have walked a mile in the shoes of someone who has to go on public assistance--you really should not judge them or decide what the do or do not need. The majority of people on public assistance are not there by choice and they are the ones that could really use this money and would put it back into the economy by buying things they NEED. Keep in mind that the people on assistance that you think do not deserve this money also includes many of our elderly who worked hard their whole lives and now only have social security to live on.

luke6417
01-18-2008, 02:05 PM
There is some validity to the idea of pumping money into the economy to stimulate it. This was basically FDR's New Deal idea. I know that it's not exactly the same but is based on the same theory. I personally don't see it being all that successful because it is a short term band aid for an economy that is systematically flawed at the moment. Lenders loaned too much money to people who couldn't afford it. They figured that increasing property values would make up for any risk invovled. I was lucky with the housing boom. I built a house and sold it two years later for 190% of what I had invested in it. I then moved to Mississippi where it is pretty cheap to live. My wife and I are both teachers and we don't make that much less than we would if we were still living in South Florida. the only thing that is killing us right now is paying for fuel.
And by the way. Nearly everything that I get back from this will go to Disney World.:cool1:

WendyisDarling
01-18-2008, 02:24 PM
So, it is basically an advance and those likely to receive it are low to middle income...if I have misunderstood don't bother reading the rest of my post ;)

I sure hope they explain the details when they mail those checks in June. I so often hear of people saying that they count on their income tax refund as a method for savings because they aren't disciplined. Then, the savings is usually for something like a vacation or home improvement...I'm fine with people doing that (not the best idea, but if that's what they want to do). It may come as a real shocker when 2009 rolls around and they find they don't have as much in "savings" aka "tax refund" as planned. I think the government shoudl make it clear that this is not free money it will be paid back.
Maybe the Disney deals will come in 2009 when families who planned on paying with their tax refund have to cancel. I hope that doesn't happen, but IMO it isn't fair to hand out money with strings attached and not explain the expectation.
After later posts, I realize I probably did misunderstand. I'm glad at least that this will not have the negative consequence I put forth in this post

sarahlovesmickey
01-18-2008, 02:28 PM
Have you ever been on foodstamps? Obviously not. It's not easy and its not fun, I can assure you. Until you have walked a mile in the shoes of someone who has to go on public assistance--you really should not judge them or decide what the do or do not need. The majority of people on public assistance are not there by choice and they are the ones that could really use this money and would put it back into the economy by buying things they NEED. Keep in mind that the people on assistance that you think do not deserve this money also includes many of our elderly who worked hard their whole lives and now only have social security to live on.

Um, no I have never been on any public assistance. But I attended college so that I could get a college degree and do something that would make me okay money. I have, however, worked at various grocery stores (while in high school and college) and think that 80% of those people buy items that I cannot even afford. I don't agree that the majority of people that are on assistance are there by no fault of their own. I just don't agree with that statement at all! I work around people who are on assistance and if most of them could just get motivated and get a job, then they would be much better off. I am ending this topic, as I do not want this thread to get locked.

Okay, back to the subject at hand here, put me in the column of not agreeing with this little payout. It is just ridiculous to me....:sad2:

budbeerlady
01-18-2008, 02:36 PM
I really dont want it now if it is an advance on 2008. I figured it would be since that happened to us before. It wont really fix anything.

Schachteles
01-18-2008, 02:37 PM
So, it is basically an advance and those likely to receive it are low to middle income...if I have misunderstood don't bother reading the rest of my post ;)

I sure hope they explain the details when they mail those checks in June. I so often hear of people saying that they count on their income tax refund as a method for savings because they aren't disciplined. Then, the savings is usually for something like a vacation or home improvement...I'm fine with people doing that (not the best idea, but if that's what they want to do). It may come as a real shocker when 2009 rolls around and they find they don't have as much in "savings" aka "tax refund" as planned. I think the government shoudl make it clear that this is not free money it will be paid back.
Maybe the Disney deals will come in 2009 when families who planned on paying with their tax refund have to cancel. I hope that doesn't happen, but IMO it isn't fair to hand out money with strings attached and not explain the expectation.

They surely need to lay this out for people...CLEARLY! Because if you don't read it carefully or the whole article, it sounds like we are getting a nice $1600 bonus. But then when you read the WHOLE article you realize that this is just a "payday loan" and you will settle up at tax time.

I am one of those people that "counts" on the tax refund...not to get by, but we usually do a splurge with it...like this year we booked a Disney Cruise. So if all of a sudden we had $1600 less we would feel it. But if I KNOW it is coming then I can brace.

disneyjunkie
01-18-2008, 02:39 PM
Um, no I have never been on any public assistance. But I attended college so that I could get a college degree and do something that would make me okay money. I have, however, worked at various grocery stores (while in high school and college) and think that 80% of those people buy items that I cannot even afford. I don't agree that the majority of people that are on assistance are there by no fault of their own. I just don't agree with that statement at all! I work around people who are on assistance and if most of them could just get motivated and get a job, then they would be much better off.

Life happens.

Yes, there are plenty of deadbeats out there. However, there are plenty of people that are working to make life better for themselves and their children.

It takes time to move from one situation to the next.

The family may no longer receive a welfare check, but still receive food stamps, medicaid and housing. As their salary increases, services will be decreased.

These people are doing the right thing and should not be lumped together with the deadbeats.

dvcgirl
01-18-2008, 02:44 PM
Um, no I have never been on any public assistance. But I attended college so that I could get a college degree and do something that would make me okay money. I have, however, worked at various grocery stores (while in high school and college) and think that 80% of those people buy items that I cannot even afford. I don't agree that the majority of people that are on assistance are there by no fault of their own. I just don't agree with that statement at all! I work around people who are on assistance and if most of them could just get motivated and get a job, then they would be much better off. I am ending this topic, as I do not want this thread to get locked.

Okay, back to the subject at hand here, put me in the column of not agreeing with this little payout. It is just ridiculous to me....:sad2:

Not trying to pick on you, because I don't agree with the government stimulous plan either, but sometimes people do end up on foodstamps because they really need it. When I was a kid my Dad was on strike a few times and I remember we had to get on the foodstamp program one of those times to help us out. I remember my Mom watching that grocery store total like a hawk and having to put a few items back if there wasn't enough money. I was very young then, so it was early in their marriage and the emergency fund wasn't enough to cover everything. During that time my Dad worked a few part time jobs to bring in whatever he could, but it didn't match his regular salary.

There was a woman in front of me at the grocery store just last week and she was paying with food stamps. She didn't have enough to cover her last few items....bananas, apples and rice, and so she asked the cashier to take them off. She had an infant in a car seat and a toddler in the cart. I asked the cashier to please put those items on my bill. The woman thanked me and even gave me a hug.

I hoped later that I didn't embarrass her, but it reminded me so much of being in that same spot with my own mother. Hey, I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but sometimes people really do need these programs. I just think that there are really some people out there right now who are hurting.

Jennifer823
01-18-2008, 02:49 PM
There was a woman in front of me at the grocery store just last week and she was paying with food stamps. She didn't have enough to cover her last few items....bananas, apples and rice, and so she asked the cashier to take them off. She had an infant in a car seat and a toddler in the cart. I asked the cashier to please put those items on my bill. The woman thanked me and even gave me a hug.

That was a really nice thing to do :lovestruc

disneysteve
01-18-2008, 02:54 PM
I just can't help but note the irony that the same government officials who complain that Americans aren't saving enough for the future are now crying that Americans aren't spending enough so let's send them more money to blow at the mall. You can't have it both ways. Either people will be responsible, live below their means and save for the future, or people will spend every penny they get their hands on and then some, living paycheck to paycheck and racking up debt.

Sending out these checks, the folks who are living paycheck to paycheck already will likely spend it. The folks who are savers will save it. And the end result will be not much of anything will change.

The 3.5 million people at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure are not going to be bailed out by $800 or $1,600. People with 10K and more in CC debt aren't going to make a dent with $800 or $1,600.

This is election-year politics basically.

Fizzgig
01-18-2008, 02:55 PM
What does a discussion of our personal judgement calls on who should or shouldn't be on welfare add to a discussion of an "economic stimulus package"?

I think all we're generating with that sidetrack is animosity.

familyoffive
01-18-2008, 02:57 PM
With the financial amounts relating to income cap, I am surprised that so many frequenters of the DIS would qualify. There are so many debt free, no mortgage posters with high household incomes that this offering wouldn't apply to most. Start a thread about cost of living, cost of housing in your area, debt to income ratio, and you will be innundated with folks who are out of debt, carry 10% debt to income ratio if at all, have a mortgage that can be paid off at any time, and have incomes that defy reality.
In our house we have 1 full-time income and it exceeds the cap being projected. This stimulous will do nothing for us except allow us to watch households with lower income go out and spend money. We are not rich and our California home is very expensive. This idea rewards too few and will penalize the upper-middle class.

familyoffive
01-18-2008, 02:59 PM
What does a discussion of our personal judgement calls on who should or shouldn't be on welfare add to a discussion of an "economic stimulus package"?

I think all we're generating with that sidetrack is animosity.

I couldn't have written this any better!

Ariel Wanna-be
01-18-2008, 03:08 PM
Not trying to pick on you, because I don't agree with the government stimulous plan either, but sometimes people do end up on foodstamps because they really need it. When I was a kid my Dad was on strike a few times and I remember we had to get on the foodstamp program one of those times to help us out. I remember my Mom watching that grocery store total like a hawk and having to put a few items back if there wasn't enough money. I was very young then, so it was early in their marriage and the emergency fund wasn't enough to cover everything. During that time my Dad worked a few part time jobs to bring in whatever he could, but it didn't match his regular salary.

There was a woman in front of me at the grocery store just last week and she was paying with food stamps. She didn't have enough to cover her last few items....bananas, apples and rice, and so she asked the cashier to take them off. She had an infant in a car seat and a toddler in the cart. I asked the cashier to please put those items on my bill. The woman thanked me and even gave me a hug.

I hoped later that I didn't embarrass her, but it reminded me so much of being in that same spot with my own mother. Hey, I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but sometimes people really do need these programs. I just think that there are really some people out there right now who are hurting.


I have absolutely NO problem with the concepts of welfare, foodstamps, medicaid, etc. God forbid my family ever falls on hard times and needs some of these services. I have no issue at all with some of my tax dollars going to help people get back on their feet.

However, those programs should be a helping hand through tough times, and not a way of life.

There are so many people who truly need those services...it must mortify them when they see others blatantly abusing the system.

Just this morning there was a woman at Macy's (who, by the way, was sporting more bling than I could ever afford) who was trying to pay for a Coach bag with her WIC card. The cashier said NO and the lady argued with her that the purse could be used for a diaper bag.

Ariel Wanna-be
01-18-2008, 03:10 PM
I just can't help but note the irony that the same government officials who complain that Americans aren't saving enough for the future are now crying that Americans aren't spending enough so let's send them more money to blow at the mall. You can't have it both ways. Either people will be responsible, live below their means and save for the future, or people will spend every penny they get their hands on and then some, living paycheck to paycheck and racking up debt.

Sending out these checks, the folks who are living paycheck to paycheck already will likely spend it. The folks who are savers will save it. And the end result will be not much of anything will change.

The 3.5 million people at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure are not going to be bailed out by $800 or $1,600. People with 10K and more in CC debt aren't going to make a dent with $800 or $1,600.

This is election-year politics basically.

HIGH FIVE.

momof3littlelilos
01-18-2008, 03:12 PM
There was a woman in front of me at the grocery store just last week and she was paying with food stamps. She didn't have enough to cover her last few items....bananas, apples and rice, and so she asked the cashier to take them off. She had an infant in a car seat and a toddler in the cart. I asked the cashier to please put those items on my bill. The woman thanked me and even gave me a hug.

I hoped later that I didn't embarrass her, but it reminded me so much of being in that same spot with my own mother. Hey, I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but sometimes people really do need these programs. I just think that there are really some people out there right now who are hurting.

I hope I don't embarrass you, but you have a good and big heart. People like you make me hope karma works (...in a good way :goodvibes )

sarahlovesmickey
01-18-2008, 03:12 PM
Just this morning there was a woman at Macy's (who, by the way, was sporting more bling than I could ever afford) who was trying to pay for a Coach bag with her WIC card. The cashier said NO and the lady argued with her that the purse could be used for a diaper bag.

:sad2: :mad: :sad2: sickening, just sickening. Glad my tax dollars are being put to such good use.

xoprincessmomxo
01-18-2008, 03:14 PM
I just can't help but note the irony that the same government officials who complain that Americans aren't saving enough for the future are now crying that Americans aren't spending enough so let's send them more money to blow at the mall. You can't have it both ways. Either people will be responsible, live below their means and save for the future, or people will spend every penny they get their hands on and then some, living paycheck to paycheck and racking up debt.

Sending out these checks, the folks who are living paycheck to paycheck already will likely spend it. The folks who are savers will save it. And the end result will be not much of anything will change.

The 3.5 million people at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure are not going to be bailed out by $800 or $1,600. People with 10K and more in CC debt aren't going to make a dent with $800 or $1,600.

This is election-year politics basically.

I completely agree!!!

momof3littlelilos
01-18-2008, 03:32 PM
However, those programs should be a helping hand through tough times, and not a way of life.

There are so many people who truly need those services...it must mortify them when they see others blatantly abusing the system.

Just this morning there was a woman at Macy's (who, by the way, was sporting more bling than I could ever afford) who was trying to pay for a Coach bag with her WIC card. The cashier said NO and the lady argued with her that the purse could be used for a diaper bag.

Yes a few people do horrible things...but how come when the rich do stupid things we don't get all up in arms about them? And they really do LOTS of *** moments...
But that's not my point...What I wanted to say is that as long as so many of the jobs that the economy has created pay so little...isn't it just sad that the "way of life" thing for many people has more to do with being stuck for all time in below poverty level employment? Really, we're subsidizing Dick Clark, WalMart and McDonald's - who can keep paying below the living wage because the government picks up the slack.
I remember one presidential candidate's spouse, who used to be president who shall remain nameless, making vague promises that no one who works full time will live in poverty (as he abolished welfare). What happened to that? Why didn't we make sure that the single moms who left their children to go to work made a livable wage? That's just sad and nonsensicle.
I know it's OT and I'm sorry to have carried it on...I just had to add my 2 cents, Maggie Kuhn said so...
ETA - WIC doesn't have a card. It's a program that gives women coupons to buy dairy products. Maybe you're thinking of an EBT card from food stamps and which is only usable in a food store? Does your Macy's have groceries, otherwise no one would have any reason to attempt to use their EBT card there?!

Skatermom23
01-18-2008, 03:34 PM
In our house we have 1 full-time income and it exceeds the cap being projected. This stimulous will do nothing for us except allow us to watch households with lower income go out and spend money. We are not rich and our California home is very expensive. This idea rewards too few and will penalize the upper-middle class.


I am in the same situation and believe me we are not rich. We are trying to do everything "right." We save for retirement, put some away for the kids college (and even that won't pay for it all), we do not take annual vacations and have a reasonable home with a mortgage that we can afford. So because my DH makes a nice living and we are reasponsible, we can sit here and watch those that get checks go to Disney World or have a shopping spree at the mall. :mad: Personally, I don't want them to rebate any money but if they do then give it to us all.

Schachteles
01-18-2008, 03:47 PM
I am in the same situation and believe me we are not rich. We are trying to do everything "right." We save for retirement, put some away for the kids college (and even that won't pay for it all), we do not take annual vacations and have a reasonable home with a mortgage that we can afford. So because my DH makes a nice living and we are reasponsible, we can sit here and watch those that get checks go to Disney World or have a shopping spree at the mall. :mad: Personally, I don't want them to rebate any money but if they do then give it to us all.

You can be upset, as I would be, but just remember, they have to "pay it back"!! It will be coming out of what the would have been getting back in taxes or will have to pay in if they come out even. So really you are probably better off!

madge
01-18-2008, 03:56 PM
You can be upset, as I would be, but just remember, they have to "pay it back"!! It will be coming out of what the would have been getting back in taxes or will have to pay in if they come out even. So really you are probably better off!

I'm going to look on the practical side - I think we'll be getting a check, but instead of rushing out and spending it, I'll put it in the vacation account for NEXT year, and let it earn a few month's interest before the rest of the refund comes in 2009. LOL.

Schachteles
01-18-2008, 04:05 PM
I'm going to look on the practical side - I think we'll be getting a check, but instead of rushing out and spending it, I'll put it in the vacation account for NEXT year, and let it earn a few month's interest before the rest of the refund comes in 2009. LOL.

IF we even get one, we will be putting it towards the downpayment for our NEXT cruise likely in 2010.

Ariel Wanna-be
01-18-2008, 04:25 PM
Yes a few people do horrible things...but how come when the rich do stupid things we don't get all up in arms about them? And they really do LOTS of *** moments...
But that's not my point...What I wanted to say is that as long as so many of the jobs that the economy has created pay so little...isn't it just sad that the "way of life" thing for many people has more to do with being stuck for all time in below poverty level employment? Really, we're subsidizing Dick Clark, WalMart and McDonald's - who can keep paying below the living wage because the government picks up the slack.
I remember one presidential candidate's spouse, who used to be president who shall remain nameless, making vague promises that no one who works full time will live in poverty (as he abolished welfare). What happened to that? Why didn't we make sure that the single moms who left their children to go to work made a livable wage? That's just sad and nonsensicle.
I know it's OT and I'm sorry to have carried it on...I just had to add my 2 cents, Maggie Kuhn said so...
ETA - WIC doesn't have a card. It's a program that gives women coupons to buy dairy products. Maybe you're thinking of an EBT card from food stamps and which is only usable in a food store? Does your Macy's have groceries, otherwise no one would have any reason to attempt to use their EBT card there?!

You're right...technically it's not a WIC card per se...that was just my "shorthand speak" for the card that is used to subsidize food purchases for those people on welfare. So I guess EBT card would be a more accurate discription. Sorry for my misrepresentation of the acronym.

No, my Macy's does not sell groceries. Thus the incredulity of the clerk.

As for the rest of your post (if it was directed at me), I'm sorry but I don't really understand it, so I'll have to respectfully refrain from replying. Suffice it to say that I stand by my previous comments.

Back to the previous topic, there was an article in Wednesday's paper that said that the previous "economic growth incentive" checks we received in 2001 were mostly saved or used to pay down debt. The money that was spent was mostly spend on goods we use every day, such as groceries. So no big economic stimulus there. I'm sure the same would happen today.

momof3littlelilos
01-18-2008, 04:33 PM
You're right...technically it's not a WIC card per se...that was just my "shorthand speak" for the card that is used to subsidize food purchases for those people on welfare. So I guess EBT card would be a more accurate discription. Sorry for my misrepresentation of the acronym.

No, my Macy's does not sell groceries. Thus the incredulity of the clerk.

As for the rest of your post (if it was directed at me), I'm sorry but I don't really understand it, so I'll have to respectfully refrain from replying. Suffice it to say that I stand by my previous comments.

.

I believe that you stated that people should not accept government benefits as a "way of life"...To which I replied:
"...so many of the jobs that the economy has created pay so little...isn't it just sad that the "way of life" thing for many people has more to do with being stuck for all time in below poverty level employment? Really, we're subsidizing Dick Clark, WalMart and McDonald's - who can keep paying below the living wage because the government picks up the slack."...Really at this point we're subsidizing corporations not individuals.
If had caught the mention of the WIC card, I would have recognized your post for what it was worth and not replied at all.

Ariel Wanna-be
01-18-2008, 04:37 PM
I believe that you stated that people should not accept government benefits as a "way of life"...To which I replied:
"...so many of the jobs that the economy has created pay so little...isn't it just sad that the "way of life" thing for many people has more to do with being stuck for all time in below poverty level employment? Really, we're subsidizing Dick Clark, WalMart and McDonald's - who can keep paying below the living wage because the government picks up the slack."...Really at this point we're subsidizing corporations not individuals.
If had caught the mention of the WIC card, I would have recognized your post for what it was worth and not replied at all.

:scratchin

Glenn
01-18-2008, 04:37 PM
What the government is hoping for is that giving out $100B will have a multiplication effect. Say you take your spouse out for an aniversary dinner with some of the money. The waitress & restraunt then makes a little extra. They then go out and use some of the extra to buy something. The place they spent it at makes a little extra & they do the same thing and so on. Even if 1/2 of the money is spent they hope it has several times that original dollar amount affect on spending. If I get anything its to be saved for what I feel will be hard times coming. Even my neighbors who are Disney nuts cut back on this yrs vacation due to the economy.

Fizzgig
01-18-2008, 04:38 PM
What the government is hoping for is that giving out $100B will have a multiplication effect. Say you take your spouse out for an aniversary dinner with some of the money. The waitress & restraunt then makes a little extra. They then go out and use some of the extra to buy something. The place they spent it at makes a little extra & they do the same thing and so on. Even if 1/2 of the money is spent they hope it has several times that original dollar amount affect on spending. If I get anything its to be saved for what I feel will be hard times coming. Even my neighbors who are Disney nuts cut back on this yrs vacation due to the economy.

Sooo.... what you're saying... is that trickle-down economics rides again?

Except we all have to pay the "rebate" back on April 15, 2009?

runwad
01-18-2008, 04:43 PM
So are you guys saying that the monies we got in 2001 we had to pay it back or deduct it from our 2001 refund? Cause I don't remember that. We always get a little refund due to how I have our withholdings adjusted and I'm just thinking we'd of had to pay and I've never had to pay??

And so also you're saying w/this money we get in June of 08 we'll have to deduct it from our 08 tax refund if we have one or owe a tax bill. Am I understanding all this right?

momof3littlelilos
01-18-2008, 04:47 PM
So are you guys saying that the monies we got in 2001 we had to pay it back or deduct it from our 2001 refund? Cause I don't remember that. We always get a little refund due to how I have our withholdings adjusted and I'm just thinking we'd of had to pay and I've never had to pay??

And so also you're saying w/this money we get in June of 08 we'll have to deduct it from our 08 tax refund if we have one or owe a tax bill. Am I understanding all this right?

I think you're understanding it correctly.
I remember a few people being blindsided by the 2001 $ being deducted from their tax refunds; It wasn't made very clear at the time that the money was an advance...I'm assuming it's going to be the same thing this time around.

luvsJack
01-18-2008, 04:50 PM
Um, no I have never been on any public assistance. But I attended college so that I could get a college degree and do something that would make me okay money. I have, however, worked at various grocery stores (while in high school and college) and think that 80% of those people buy items that I cannot even afford. I don't agree that the majority of people that are on assistance are there by no fault of their own. I just don't agree with that statement at all! I work around people who are on assistance and if most of them could just get motivated and get a job, then they would be much better off. I am ending this topic, as I do not want this thread to get locked.

Okay, back to the subject at hand here, put me in the column of not agreeing with this little payout. It is just ridiculous to me....:sad2:


So did I and that's wonderful for you and I but not everyone gets the privilege of a college education. Its not always a matter of choice.

As for the checks we may receive. There was a slow Christmas season for many businesses. From a business's prospective this payout could be beneficial. It would generate spending that may not have happened otherwise and isn't that the point?

livie1205
01-18-2008, 04:52 PM
I never agree with pres. bush (and i am republican) but I do like this idea but i dont know about the 110,000 limit, I do not make that much but people that make more than this pay plenty of taxes...now if you dont pay taxes you should not get money back.

vellamint
01-18-2008, 04:53 PM
I do not support this plan at all. I agree with most of the statements above. Clearly the money has to come from somewhere. From what a previous poster said it will be those making more than $110,000. When is the government going to realize that families living in expense areas are not rich if they are making above $100k?


HERE HERE - I totally agree with you since I live in LONG ISLAND NY and we are being SQUEEZED and TAXED to DEATH!!

dvcgirl
01-18-2008, 05:00 PM
I just can't help but note the irony that the same government officials who complain that Americans aren't saving enough for the future are now crying that Americans aren't spending enough so let's send them more money to blow at the mall. You can't have it both ways. Either people will be responsible, live below their means and save for the future, or people will spend every penny they get their hands on and then some, living paycheck to paycheck and racking up debt.

Sending out these checks, the folks who are living paycheck to paycheck already will likely spend it. The folks who are savers will save it. And the end result will be not much of anything will change.

The 3.5 million people at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure are not going to be bailed out by $800 or $1,600. People with 10K and more in CC debt aren't going to make a dent with $800 or $1,600.

This is election-year politics basically.

I'm still fuzzy on these numbers. $800 per worker...what are there, 200 million workers in the US? That's what?.....1.6 Trillion? They're talking about a 150 Billion package.

I'm guessing it's like we're thinking...that this is just some kind of advance on future tax refunds, or something like that. There's no such thing as a free lunch I suppose.

Just an FYI....This is the worst start for the US Stock Market in any year....ever. Yikes....

madge
01-18-2008, 05:58 PM
IF we even get one, we will be putting it towards the downpayment for our NEXT cruise likely in 2010.

we are wise :cool1:

I figure, if it comes in June ... that's 8 months to earn some interest before the rest of the refund comes. LOL!

DianeV
01-18-2008, 06:03 PM
I'm not sure some of you are understanding this correctly

When they did it in 2001 yes we 'gave' it back the next year but it was an additional credit that was added to what you were already getting back. It wasnt 'including' what you were already getting back

In other words I think you didnt have to 'take' the credit early from what I remember and then you got it the next tax year. If you had already 'taken' it you just didnt claim it and get it in ADDITION to your regular refund

We NEVER had it taken out of our regular refund..it was additional

dvcgirl
01-18-2008, 06:14 PM
I'm not sure some of you are understanding this correctly

When they did it in 2001 yes we 'gave' it back the next year but it was an additional credit that was added to what you were already getting back. It wasnt 'including' what you were already getting back

In other words I think you didnt have to 'take' the credit early from what I remember and then you got it the next tax year. If you had already 'taken' it you just didnt claim it and get it in ADDITION to your regular refund

We NEVER had it taken out of our regular refund..it was additional


But the math doesn't add up unless it's something like that. 200 million workers....$800 bucks a pop is *way* more than 150 Billion dollars. I mean, I'm pretty sure they could send us all 8 dollars, but that would put them over by 10 billion. I know that the government pays $1,500 for toilet seats and things like that....so maybe they use different math from what we all know. Maybe it's like Kramer said on Seinfeld...."Jerry, It's a Write-off" ;).

speedyf
01-18-2008, 07:01 PM
I'm not sure some of you are understanding this correctly

When they did it in 2001 yes we 'gave' it back the next year but it was an additional credit that was added to what you were already getting back. It wasnt 'including' what you were already getting back

In other words I think you didnt have to 'take' the credit early from what I remember and then you got it the next tax year. If you had already 'taken' it you just didnt claim it and get it in ADDITION to your regular refund

We NEVER had it taken out of our regular refund..it was additional

Aha....finally someone remembers what really happened.

If you go back and read the info on this current stimulus package, you will note that the $800 and $1600 figures are coming from the fact that they want to abolish the 10% tax bracket this year.

No matter what you make....the first $2650 worth of your money is not taxed. Then, from $2651 to $10120....you are taxed at 10%. That's for single people....the tax table goes up from there. So, the difference between $10,120 and $2651 is about $7500.....and we all pay 10% tax on that....which is about $750 (around $800)

For married people....the first $8000 you make you are not taxed. From $8000 to $23500 you are taxed at 10%. The difference between $23500 and $8000 is $15,500. 10% of that is $1550 (around $1600).

Now...I don't know how they figure the $150,000 top range unless it has something to do with alternative minimum tax....I haven't really read up a bunch on that.

Diane is correct about the prior rebate. The child credit went from either $600 or $700 to $1000. They gave us the additional $300 or $400 per child during that year. The next year, we got the $1000 credit minus the $300 or $400....which brought us down to the credit we were expecting anyway.

Same thing here. You are already locked in to pay that 10% on your wages made between $2651 and $10120....or $8000 and $23500. If they abolished the 10% tax on this money, when you file in 2009 for 2008 you would get your 10% back that you paid. They want to send that money to you now instead of waiting until next year.

That's how I see it.....but, I haven't really done a bunch of research on it and I don't know if all the details are quite out yet.

It's basically a tax cut at the lowest level retroactive to the 1st of this year. They are giving you the refund now instead of waiting until the 1st quarter of 2009 when you file your taxes and realize that you paid that 10% on that income and you did not owe it and you get it back as a refund then.

Hope I didn't confuse yall too much.....

Speed :teleport:

speedyf
01-18-2008, 07:08 PM
Also...to all the people who don't pay extra and break even....why complain?

The reason you do this is that you don't want the government to hold on to your money and draw interest when you could be holding on to your own money and drawing interest.

If the goverment wants to send you a $1600 check....and you think you will owe it back to them in a year.....why not put it in a savings account and draw interest on THEIR money....then send it back.

You would really be sticking it to the goverment then....not only are they not getting your money to draw interest on....you are taking some of their money temporarily for a year....and drawing interest on it....then, sending it back.

Woohoo! :banana:

I try to do this as well...but, I usually don't account for the full child tax credit, so I end up getting about $500 or $600 back every year. I'll take the $1600 now and stick it in my savings for a year and send it right back, if they want it....but, I don't think that's how this stimilus package will work anyway. It's an advance on a tax cut...from what I see.

Speed :teleport:

Schachteles
01-18-2008, 07:32 PM
speedyf---you very well could be right...let me know if I have this right, or at least for what you understand it as...ok??

*So this years taxes that I am getting ready to file right now I will get $5400 back from the feds.

*Then with this stimilus plan I would possibly get $1600 for my family in June (all depends on the income level and how they figure it).

*But when I file my taxes for 2008 I hypothetically should still get that $5400 back if nothing changed, right?? But if they didn't give it out in June then I should have seen $7000 back?

I am just trying to figure this out to be more educated...forgive me if I am wrong or confusing more people.

mom2my3kids
01-18-2008, 07:40 PM
I could sure use the extra money..

Grumpy's Gal
01-18-2008, 09:07 PM
I notive several people said "per worker."

That confuses me.

What if one partner works and one doesn't?

What about dependants that work? (college aged kids)

So confusing.....

MakiraMarlena
01-18-2008, 09:22 PM
Are you not thinking of the fact that if the economy does take a dive, people are going to lose jobs, lose pay and there will be LESS taxes being paid? Something like that could take a few years to recover from. This is an attempt to prevent that, so yes I'm all for it. Like I said, if you don't agree with it then don't cash your check if you get one.


I'm a little curious as to how getting a one-time socalled "tax rebate" check is going to prevent anyone from losing jobs or pay. :confused3

MakiraMarlena
01-18-2008, 09:25 PM
I think step one would be for the Federal Gvt. to pay all the military personnel the 3.5% increase in pay that was authorized for them to be started in January, but President Bush vetoed the bill! How can we treat them so badly when we daily ask the supreme sacrifice from them?


The additional money we might get from the Government won't be for new spending <unless it's used to cover the increase in everybody's grocery bill, gasoline and home heating this year>. I don't see new purchases in a splurge atmosphere.


I am civilian federal and my raise with locality pay in my city is 4.49.

The military increase has to be at least 3.0%. It is usually on par with the basic civilian raise (without locality pay)

IDoDis
01-18-2008, 09:48 PM
Just this morning there was a woman at Macy's (who, by the way, was sporting more bling than I could ever afford) who was trying to pay for a Coach bag with her WIC card. The cashier said NO and the lady argued with her that the purse could be used for a diaper bag.


Funny I've heard that story before. Isn't it an urban legend?

scrapquitler
01-18-2008, 10:13 PM
A few years ago, here in CT the state had a huge surplus, so they decided to give us a 'rebate' like the one that was proposed today. There were two problems with it: It cost the state millions of dollars to process these rebates, and we were all shocked the next year to recieve a 1099 from the state for the amount of the rebate -- yup, that's right...WE HAD TO PAY INCOME TAX ON THE REBATE THE NEXT YEAR.

You can be guaranteed that if we get this rebate, it will cost the government tens of millions of dollars to process sending out the rebate. You can also be sure that next year you will have to to pay income tax on that $800, so be sure to save some of it instead of spending it.

robsmom
01-18-2008, 10:30 PM
A few years ago, here in CT the state had a huge surplus, so they decided to give us a 'rebate' like the one that was proposed today. There were two problems with it: It cost the state millions of dollars to process these rebates, and we were all shocked the next year to recieve a 1099 from the state for the amount of the rebate -- yup, that's right...WE HAD TO PAY INCOME TAX ON THE REBATE THE NEXT YEAR.

You can be guaranteed that if we get this rebate, it will cost the government tens of millions of dollars to process sending out the rebate. You can also be sure that next year you will have to to pay income tax on that $800, so be sure to save some of it instead of spending it.

You will not pay income taxes on the federeal refund/rebate whatever it ends up to being but i am not sure why you were suprised by having to pay taxes on a state refund. they are always taxable and have been for a long time. You only paid the taxes if you were itemizing and took your state taxes as a deduction for state and local taxes. You can't keep the deduction if the state gave you the money back. Think about it, if this where the case then every state would tax us 100% and then give most of it back. but people would owe no federal taxes because they would deduct the 100% and never add back in what they got back. You took the money as a deduction

pandora174
01-18-2008, 11:39 PM
I wonder if my DB who is disabled & gets SSI but never makes enough to pay taxes but he still files every year to be ok with the IRS will qualify for this stimulas package. He definitely can use the extra $. He gets $614 a month & $124 in food stamps & it's very hard for him. Thankfully he lives with our other brother.:confused3

MrsPiglet
01-18-2008, 11:46 PM
I wonder if my DB who is disabled & gets SSI but never makes enough to pay taxes but he still files every year to be ok with the IRS will qualify for this stimulas package. He definitely can use the extra $. He gets $614 a month & $124 in food stamps & it's very hard for him. Thankfully he lives with our other brother.:confused3

This are the people that really needs it. I hope he gets it.

speedyf
01-19-2008, 12:14 AM
speedyf---you very well could be right...let me know if I have this right, or at least for what you understand it as...ok??

*So this years taxes that I am getting ready to file right now I will get $5400 back from the feds.

*Then with this stimilus plan I would possibly get $1600 for my family in June (all depends on the income level and how they figure it).

*But when I file my taxes for 2008 I hypothetically should still get that $5400 back if nothing changed, right?? But if they didn't give it out in June then I should have seen $7000 back?

I am just trying to figure this out to be more educated...forgive me if I am wrong or confusing more people.

That would be correct. The plan still hasn't been set...but, that's what I'm reading into it. Now...if this were a permanent tax cut, it would be nice....but, it seems like another temporary tax cut just like the Bush tax cuts that are in effect now. This means future congress/president can decide not to renew the cut.

Again...this is all preliminary....and it seems to be all political (election year)...but, I don't think it will be a situation where you get money now and have to pay it back at the end of the year. That's what everyone seems to be stressing about.

I still don't understand how removing the 10% tax bracket would not effect people that make over $150k unless they plan on sticking that 10% back in somewhere else.

I don't have all the answers...I just don't want everyone jumping to conclusions about what this is or isn't. The info from Diane about the past rebate was correct, though. We basically received an advance on an additional tax credit that we would have received at the end of the year anyway.

I still got my scheduled $600 child credit that year...but, also got to keep the $400 rebate check I received earlier in the year. The child credit went from $600 to $1000 per child. The nice thing is that it actually stayed there....so far....until Congress decides whether it will renew the Bush tax cuts or let them expire and send the credit back to $500 or $600.

I have a feeling that our taxes will go up in that way....not raising taxes....just not renewing or making permanent the Bush tax cuts.

Speed :teleport:

speedyf
01-19-2008, 12:25 AM
Again....this stimulus package may or may not be a good thing. If they would come out and say that they are "cutting" spending to help pay for it, it would be a heck of alot better.

I'm all for lower taxes and lower government spending.

The problem is that the government sets up more and more programs each year to fund. Then, each year....these projects get a % increase in budget to keep up with inflation or CPI or whatever. If they get a 2% increase instead of a 5% increase, the reporters are all over the news, internet, etc saying that the government is cutting funding to these programs. Most of the time, they are not cutting funding...they are just not giving them the increase in budget that they want.

I really wish they would cut out alot of the programs and cut funding across the board (foreign aid, domestic projects, everything!) to balance the budget.

Why do you think companies are moving out of the US? The ridiculous corporate tax rate is a big reason. Also...anytime a company makes too much money, the government wants to bring it down by making them pay more taxes.

Hey...you're doing too well and you are too successful. Let's change the rules and make you pay even more taxes. Guess what? I'm moving overseas.

Speed :teleport:

dvcgirl
01-19-2008, 09:11 AM
Again....this stimulus package may or may not be a good thing. If they would come out and say that they are "cutting" spending to help pay for it, it would be a heck of alot better.

I'm all for lower taxes and lower government spending.

The problem is that the government sets up more and more programs each year to fund. Then, each year....these projects get a % increase in budget to keep up with inflation or CPI or whatever. If they get a 2% increase instead of a 5% increase, the reporters are all over the news, internet, etc saying that the government is cutting funding to these programs. Most of the time, they are not cutting funding...they are just not giving them the increase in budget that they want.

I really wish they would cut out alot of the programs and cut funding across the board (foreign aid, domestic projects, everything!) to balance the budget.

Why do you think companies are moving out of the US? The ridiculous corporate tax rate is a big reason. Also...anytime a company makes too much money, the government wants to bring it down by making them pay more taxes.

Hey...you're doing too well and you are too successful. Let's change the rules and make you pay even more taxes. Guess what? I'm moving overseas.

Speed :teleport:

While I agree with you that corporate taxes are high, I believe that another reason for outsourcing is that company like GM can pay someone in Mexico $1.25 an hour to work on the assembly line vs. that union worker in the U.S $47.50 an hour. I'm not saying that this is right (before all you DISers from Michigan start to flame me ;), I'm just saying that's the way it is.

As for the stimulus. I think it's more insanity on top of insanity.


Adding it to an already mushrooming deficit just makes no sense. It's just borrowing more money and making the underlying problem even larger. A 9 trillion dollar deficit, 53 Trillion in unfunded future entitlement programs. And people want their taxes to go *down*? Seriously, the citizens of this country are in for the mother-of-all disappointments down the road. Those who are riding on the Great American Consumer Treadmill and not saving as much as they possibly can are going to see a huge drop in lifestyle in their futures. I'm saving as much as I can and I think that *I'll* see a huge drop in my lifestyle because what I'm thinking will be discretionary income in retirement will end up going towards health care and energy costs.

This type of slowdown shows how incredibly vulnerable our economy is. Just a one percent slowdown in consumer spending and we're in trouble.

And this stimulus is just another short-term mini-fix to a much bigger problem. How do we keep growing this economy when the money runs out? We had the dot.com bubble that fueled the economy for awhile and went right into the cheap money/housing bubble. Inflation is out of the bag, real wages are down as a result. Now that people are a whole lot poorer on paper (and in reality), and there's nothing in savings, and credit is drying up.....now what?

I have an idea....we'll send everyone $800 dollars....yeah, that will do it!!

JodiR
01-19-2008, 09:36 AM
I think the highest is $800/$1600 and the lowest $300/$600. I wonder how it is determined who gets how much?

momof3littlelilos
01-19-2008, 11:41 AM
It's basically a tax cut at the lowest level retroactive to the 1st of this year. They are giving you the refund now instead of waiting until the 1st quarter of 2009 when you file your taxes and realize that you paid that 10% on that income and you did not owe it and you get it back as a refund then.

Hope I didn't confuse yall too much.....

Speed :teleport:

Aha...Okay, now that you've explained it I *think* I get it. I *think* I even understand DianeV when I re-read her post after reading yours...I don't feel so much confused; I more feel sheepish - like my former high school self who didn't "get" Algebra...until college when for some reason it all just clicked with maybe my 5th teacher.
Thank you,
From Slow Math Girl:)

harleyquinn
01-19-2008, 02:29 PM
I just want to thank everyone who took the time to explain their POV on who this will all work! Thanks!

WendyisDarling
01-19-2008, 05:59 PM
Thanks DianeV and Speedy for getting that info. straight. That puts a whole different spin on it.
I think I am going to reserve my judgment until the final details are revealed. So much speculation --not so much on the Dis, but the media in general.