Stimulus measures that may help your wallet

[DisneyBamaFan]

...So I do wonder--how if you and your husband were both out of work and without health insurance for, say, a year or two did you manage to pay for food, rent, healthcare, gas, etc without taking anything at all from the federal govt (or, I presume, anybody else)?

During the great depression, these programs did not exist. People moved in with family. They consolidated and got through it together...

 

[Carly_Roach]

All of you who benefit from this "stimulus" ie welfare, be sure to thank your children and grandchildren 20-30 years from now when they are bearing the brunt of all this pork.

Yeah, I'm hearing a lot of that kind of argument from those who are against the stimulous package. My answer to that is:

When are we going get around to thanking them for bearing the brunt of the Bush year losses, including the cost of the Iraq War (which has done NOTHING to help American citizens)? We had a budget surplus before the past administration got ahold of it. They burned through that in less than a year.

I think our children and grandchildren, who have to pay taxes like every citizen has had to do since the income tax system came into being, will sleep better knowing that their taxes are going toward helping their fellow Americans instead of into Haliburton's and foreign pockets. The only chagrin I'm hearing is from those who don't like the new President, never did, and are now going to do everything in their power to see to it that he fails even if they take the country down with them.

 

[smartestnumber5]

During the great depression, these programs did not exist. People moved in with family. They consolidated and got through it together...

Yes, but the poster in question indicates that this is not what she and her husband did:

We did it ourselves penny by penny and never asked for help ffrom anyone.

So I am still curious as to how families in which both adults are jobless (or there is only one adult) are expected to be able to exist with no jobs and no help from *anyone.*

And, of course, even when families consolidate in terms of living arrangements, this may lower food, utilities, rent costs, but it doesn't make them go away completely. Somebody still needs to have some money to pay for these things.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by "got through it." I'm sure those who were lucky enough to have a family which was able to take them in and feed them "got through." But what about those who weren't so lucky--i.e. those who ended up living in Hoovervilles. I don't call that getting though it.

And while I'm a little fuzzy on exactly the timing of things, didn't Roosevelt get elected in '32 and start enacting New Deal legislation right away? So the programs may not have existed at first, but I believe they came along pretty quickly.

 

[luvsJack]

I get so sick and tired of reading some of these posts that assumes everyone who qualifies for any of these type things must be a free loader or wanting a hand out. Its as though some of you cannot understand someone needing a HAND UP or are jealous because you do not qualify.

This holier than thou attitude is sickening.

The child care tax credit: Many children are in child care and all of their parents can take this credit. Every parent of every child in my center used this credit-regardless of income. Actually, the lowest income parents had TANF and other agencies helping pay their child care (so they could work and/or go to school) so they did not take this credit because they did not pay child care.

One time payment for those who don't work: Its for seniors, disabled veterns and retired railroad workers. And you are calling it welfare???? Excuse me???

The credit for car buyers and home buyers: Where did it say anything about people that cannot afford to buy these things? Just because someone doesn't go out and pay cash for them doesn't mean they can't afford them. Not everyone chooses to live like Dave Ramsey.

You all do realize that when you are talking about low income families that many times you are talking about single moms and dads who suddenly became single through no fault of their own. Are working to try and improve their lives and that of their children, but just can't catch a break to do that. Some of these things may give them that break. Oh, but because some of these things weren't available to you when you were trying to get to a better place; they shouldn't have them either.

I am one that worked my way out of a tough situation. I have been on food stamps, received EIC, etc. etc. And guess what? If it meant not hearing my child say, "Momma, I am hungry" and me not be able to provide anything; you are darn tootin' I would get it again if I qualified. I worked out of it by my own hard work, just as many are trying to do now; I just used a hand up to get there just like they are getting now.

BTW, its a lot easier to "claw your way out" when there are no children involved. A young married couple can find a way to do without a lot; but when you have a child things are completely different.

Some of you sit at your computer screen and judge those that receive government benefits; but you have never truly walked in their shoes. You have never really been so poor that you could not provide your child with everything he/she needed.

Are there people who take advantage of these benefits? Of course. But do not judge all by what a few do and do not sacrafice the many because of those few either.

I do agree with those that say we need jobs created. We have students graduating, but if they are not in the health field there are no jobs for them to get. Even flipping hamburger type jobs are getting scarce.

 

[JDinCO]

Wow another war expert who knows everything from watching the news.

 

[Metsfan520]

I get so sick and tired of reading some of these posts that assumes everyone who qualifies for any of these type things must be a free loader or wanting a hand out. Its as though some of you cannot understand someone needing a HAND UP or are jealous because you do not qualify.

This holier than thou attitude is sickening.

The child care tax credit: Many children are in child care and all of their parents can take this credit. Every parent of every child in my center used this credit-regardless of income. Actually, the lowest income parents had TANF and other agencies helping pay their child care (so they could work and/or go to school) so they did not take this credit because they did not pay child care.

One time payment for those who don't work: Its for seniors, disabled veterns and retired railroad workers. And you are calling it welfare???? Excuse me???

The credit for car buyers and home buyers: Where did it say anything about people that cannot afford to buy these things? Just because someone doesn't go out and pay cash for them doesn't mean they can't afford them. Not everyone chooses to live like Dave Ramsey.

You all do realize that when you are talking about low income families that many times you are talking about single moms and dads who suddenly became single through no fault of their own. Are working to try and improve their lives and that of their children, but just can't catch a break to do that. Some of these things may give them that break. Oh, but because some of these things weren't available to you when you were trying to get to a better place; they shouldn't have them either.

I am one that worked my way out of a tough situation. I have been on food stamps, received EIC, etc. etc. And guess what? If it meant not hearing my child say, "Momma, I am hungry" and me not be able to provide anything; you are darn tootin' I would get it again if I qualified. I worked out of it by my own hard work, just as many are trying to do now; I just used a hand up to get there just like they are getting now.

BTW, its a lot easier to "claw your way out" when there are no children involved. A young married couple can find a way to do without a lot; but when you have a child things are completely different.

Some of you sit at your computer screen and judge those that receive government benefits; but you have never truly walked in their shoes. You have never really been so poor that you could not provide your child with everything he/she needed.

Are there people who take advantage of these benefits? Of course. But do not judge all by what a few do and do not sacrafice the many because of those few either.

I do agree with those that say we need jobs created. We have students graduating, but if they are not in the health field there are no jobs for them to get. Even flipping hamburger type jobs are getting scarce.

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

You all do realize that when you are talking about low income families that many times you are talking about single moms and dads who suddenly became single through no fault of their own. Are working to try and improve their lives and that of their children, but just can't catch a break to do that. Some of these things may give them that break. Oh, but because some of these things weren't available to you when you were trying to get to a better place; they shouldn't have them either.

I am one that worked my way out of a tough situation. I have been on food stamps, received EIC, etc. etc. And guess what? If it meant not hearing my child say, "Momma, I am hungry" and me not be able to provide anything; you are darn tootin' I would get it again if I qualified. I worked out of it by my own hard work, just as many are trying to do now; I just used a hand up to get there just like they are getting now.

BTW, its a lot easier to "claw your way out" when there are no children involved. A young married couple can find a way to do without a lot; but when you have a child things are completely different.

Some of you sit at your computer screen and judge those that receive government benefits; but you have never truly walked in their shoes. You have never really been so poor that you could not provide your child with everything he/she needed.

.

Thank you for your honesty. Great post.

 

[Buckalew11]

well, I still do not understand how the car and home thing helps people who cannot afford to buy such things. If I am having a hard time putting food on the table, why on earth would I go buy a new car? A used one, if I needed it, sure. But does this tax break help on buy a $2000 used car?

Ok, I just went back and read the car deal and it does not state for a new car, just a car payment period. And, if I was to buy a new car in 2009 this would help me because we make less than 250,000 a year. However, a new car is a scary thought to me right now. While I understand it would help the business itself, spending money on a car that'll depreciate quickly isn't on my list unless I'm going to buy a new one for myself and give my car to DD as she turns 16 next year.

I dunno, I just don't think it sounds like it is going to help the majority of people. Let me be wrong though--I'd love it!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...And, of course, even when families consolidate in terms of living arrangements, this may lower food, utilities, rent costs, but it doesn't make them go away completely. Somebody still needs to have some money to pay for these things.

If you have 3 or 4 generations living in a house, you will find that, together, you have enough.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by "got through it." I'm sure those who were lucky enough to have a family which was able to take them in and feed them "got through." But what about those who weren't so lucky--i.e. those who ended up living in Hoovervilles. I don't call that getting though it.

Sorry, but not everyone has the same tolerance for doing without niceties. Living is living. Survive together to get to tomorrow, then go from there. If they lived through it, as tough as it was, they got through it. Take it from someone who has seen combat for this nation - you are not guaranteed a comfortable life. My life was much more uncomfortable than any Hooverville when I served. In fact, billions of people in this world would love to be able to move into a "Hooverville".

And while I'm a little fuzzy on exactly the timing of things, didn't Roosevelt get elected in '32 and start enacting New Deal legislation right away? So the programs may not have existed at first, but I believe they came along pretty quickly.

They came along in dribs and drabs, but most of those programs required the husband to move away for a job working for the government. The living conditions on those project sites was no better than "Hooverville".

Both of my sets of grandparents talked a great deal about that time. They all said the same thing - without family, almost no one could have survived. Today, we look to the government instead. That is flat wrong...

 

[diskids2]

I get so sick and tired of reading some of these posts that assumes everyone who qualifies for any of these type things must be a free loader or wanting a hand out. Its as though some of you cannot understand someone needing a HAND UP or are jealous because you do not qualify.

This holier than thou attitude is sickening.

The child care tax credit: Many children are in child care and all of their parents can take this credit. Every parent of every child in my center used this credit-regardless of income. Actually, the lowest income parents had TANF and other agencies helping pay their child care (so they could work and/or go to school) so they did not take this credit because they did not pay child care.

One time payment for those who don't work: Its for seniors, disabled veterns and retired railroad workers. And you are calling it welfare???? Excuse me???

The credit for car buyers and home buyers: Where did it say anything about people that cannot afford to buy these things? Just because someone doesn't go out and pay cash for them doesn't mean they can't afford them. Not everyone chooses to live like Dave Ramsey.

You all do realize that when you are talking about low income families that many times you are talking about single moms and dads who suddenly became single through no fault of their own. Are working to try and improve their lives and that of their children, but just can't catch a break to do that. Some of these things may give them that break. Oh, but because some of these things weren't available to you when you were trying to get to a better place; they shouldn't have them either.

I am one that worked my way out of a tough situation. I have been on food stamps, received EIC, etc. etc. And guess what? If it meant not hearing my child say, "Momma, I am hungry" and me not be able to provide anything; you are darn tootin' I would get it again if I qualified. I worked out of it by my own hard work, just as many are trying to do now; I just used a hand up to get there just like they are getting now.

BTW, its a lot easier to "claw your way out" when there are no children involved. A young married couple can find a way to do without a lot; but when you have a child things are completely different.

Some of you sit at your computer screen and judge those that receive government benefits; but you have never truly walked in their shoes. You have never really been so poor that you could not provide your child with everything he/she needed.

Are there people who take advantage of these benefits? Of course. But do not judge all by what a few do and do not sacrafice the many because of those few either.

I do agree with those that say we need jobs created. We have students graduating, but if they are not in the health field there are no jobs for them to get. Even flipping hamburger type jobs are getting scarce.

Said it all and said it very well.

 

[Hoodie]

How so?

Do you mean that people are not likely to spend the tax breaks/refunds or govt help paying for health benefits (that they will save them instead)?

Most of these items are tax credits, not immediate cash in the pocket. People may get cash in the pocket, but not until spring of 2010 when then can take the credits on their tax return. Not one of these will have an immediate impact on cash in the pocket or disposable income. Nor will any of these initiatives directly creat a single job. That's why people are calling it welfare - that's exactly what the bill is. Good, bad or otherwise, it's a welfare bill, not a stimulus package. A stimulus package would increase disposable income so people can spend again and/or create jobs.

 

[CowboyCO]

See my take below in RED

Here's a rundown of many of the measures that would benefit individuals directly. It's likely that many, if not all, of these measures will make it into the final package. CNNMoney.com will update this list as negotiators hammer out a final deal.

Make Work Pay Credit: The bill provides a $500 credit per worker and a $1,000 credit per dual-earner couple. The full credit would be paid to people making $70,000 or less ($140,000 per dual-earner couple). It would also be refundable, which means that even very low-income families who don't make enough to owe income tax would be able to claim it. Estimated cost: $139.4 billion.

Now reduced to $400/$800. "Refundable" means you paid something (taxes) and get it back. Paying nothing and still getting a check is called welfare/handout. This didn't work last time. Why would it work this time?

One-time payments to those who don't work: For seniors who don't work, as well as disabled veterans and retired railroad workers, the bill provides a one-time $300 payment. Estimated cost: $17 billion.

See above -- If injecting cash into people's hands didn't work before, then why would it now?

Break for higher income families: The bill includes a one-year provision to protect middle- and upper-middle-income families from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT was intended primarily for high-income taxpayers but has in recent years threatened to engulf those lower down the income scale. Estimated cost: $70 billion.

I think this is probably a good thing because the AMT can really penalize someone who isn't sheltering income. It just needs to be re-worked.

Temporary credit for car buyers: The bill would let those who buy a car in 2009 deduct the interest they pay on their car loan as well as the sales tax charged in the purchase. The full deduction would be available to those earning less than $125,000 ($250,000 for joint filers). Estimated cost: $11 billion.

This is good. It should help stimulate some car sales. I think you should be able to deduct ALL taxes paid, gas, sales, excise, property, luxury, sin, etc.

Temporary credit for home buyers: The bill doubles the size of an existing temporary home buyer credit to $15,000. It also would allow all home buyers to claim it. And it removes the requirement under current law that the credit be paid back. Estimated cost: $39 billion.

This is good. It should stimulate home sales.

New college credit: The bill introduces the American Opportunity Tax Credit, a $2,500 credit for higher education expenses. The full credit would be available to those making less than $80,000 ($160,000 for joint filers). Estimated cost: $10.3 billion.

This is good. It gives incentive and help to get more education and training for the workforce.

Pell Grants: The bill increases the maximum Pell Grant by $281 in the 2009-10 academic year and by $400 in the 2010-11 academic year. Estimated cost: $14 billion.

Also Good. But should be part of regular appropriations, not the stimulus package

Child care credit: The bill increases eligibility for the child care tax credit by lowering the income threshold that must be met to $8,100. That will allow lower income families to claim more of the credit. Estimated cost: $7.2 billion.

This is also good and also should be part of regular appropriations.

Earned income tax credit: The credit will be temporarily increased from 40% to 45% of qualifying earnings for low-income families with three or more children. It also includes a marriage penalty relief provision for couples who qualify for at least a portion of the credit. Estimated cost: $4.6 billion.

This is more welfare. Is not stimulus. I'm not debating whether it should be raised or not. Just shouldn't be in this bill. Should be debated in appropriations.

Direct lifeline benefits

Health insurance help for the jobless: The bill includes provisions to help eligible jobless workers pay for health insurance under Cobra. Cobra coverage allows newly laid off workers to keep health insurance provided by their former employers for a period of time.

This is GOOD.

One of the provisions offers a government subsidy -- 50% of premiums for 12 months -- to help out-of-work Americans pay for healthcare. Estimated cost: $20 billion.

This is good, but needs to be temporary. I expect it will reappear in the future as sustained spending.

Another provides states funding to help pay for expanded Medicaid rolls for workers who've lost their jobs and can't afford health care on their own or can't get Cobra coverage because their former employer doesn't offer a health care plan. Estimated cost: $87 billion.

This is just increased spending. If they didn't have health insurance with their previous employer, then this is an incentive to stay on the unemployment rolls unless they find a job with better benefits than welfare and medicaid plus EIC, plus food stamps, plus tax "rebate", and unemployment insurance. This isn't stimulus.

Unemployment benefits: The bill provides jobless workers with an additional 20 weeks in unemployment benefits, and 13 weeks on top of that if they live in what's deemed a high unemployment state, of which there are about 30 currently. Estimated cost: $27 billion.

This is good. It may take longer to find employment.

In addition, the weekly unemployment benefit will temporarily increase by $25 on top of the roughly $300 jobless workers currently receive. Estimated cost: $8.8 billion

OK -- as long as it is temporary and not sustained spending.

Plus, the first $2,400 of benefits in 2009 would be exempt from federal income taxes. Estimated cost: $4.7 billion.

This is good. Should be permanent.

Also included in the bill is an incentive for states to provide unemployment insurance coverage for part-time workers and for workers who quit their jobs for compelling family reasons. Estimated cost: up to $2.6 billion.

Negative. Part time is part time. Ridiculous. Who decides if they have a compelling reason? The same people who will decide if seniors are worth medical treatment to live another measly two years?

Food stamp payments: The bill includes a provision would increase food stamp payments by 12%, so a family of four would see an additional $71 on top of the $588 per month they receive currently. Estimated cost: $16.5 billion.

This isn't stimulus. It's spending. It's not temporary. Should be debated openly in appropriations

Help for needy families: The bill provides $2.3 billion to states to create a contingency fund through 2010 for the welfare program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which provides cash assistance to the needy. Estimated cost: $2.3 billion.

What is this -- welfare on welfare? Certainly not stimulus. Should be debated in appropriations. Certainly won't help the economy.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stimulus-measures-that-may-cnnm-14320775.html

 

[Sanchez]

Geesh, giving a helping hand is not welfare, it is what humans are supposed to do, help and care for each other.

You are correct in one respect: People should provide a helping hand to others. Many of us do that on a regular basis. But the government giving a helping hand by means of taxpayer dollars is welfare.

Obviously you are of the liberal persuasion and believe a major role of goverment is to provide a helping hand. You have the right to believe that but do not presume that it makes you a better person. Some reasonably disagree and do not deserve to be called mean spirited and do not deserve to be made fun of on the liberal board. You do not have the moral high ground here.

This legislation has been put to us as a stimulus package. It seems a fair reading of this bill that many of the included expenditures have nothing to do with stimulus.

 

[smartestnumber5]

If you have 3 or 4 generations living in a house, you will find that, together, you have enough.Sorry, but not everyone has the same tolerance for doing without niceties. Living is living. Survive together to get to tomorrow, then go from there. If they lived through it, as tough as it was, they got through it. Take it from someone who has seen combat for this nation - you are not guaranteed a comfortable life. My life was much more uncomfortable than any Hooverville when I served. In fact, billions of people in this world would love to be able to move into a "Hooverville".They came along in dribs and drabs, but most of those programs required the husband to move away for a job working for the government. The living conditions on those project sites was no better than "Hooverville".

Both of my sets of grandparents talked a great deal about that time. They all said the same thing - without family, almost no one could have survived. Today, we look to the government instead. That is flat wrong...

I guess you and I just have a fundamental moral disagreement then.

I find it morally reprehensible that in a country with such an abundant amount of wealth anyone is forced to live under a piece of newspaper and the government *can* help them, but *won't*.

And I don't think the fact that there are some people who are even worse off than living in Hoovervilles, makes the living conditions of Hoovervilles morally acceptable. (Lots of people would also prefer not to be victims of mass genocide, rape, and torture--does that mean it's *okay* if these things are happening to Americans on a smaller scale? That the govt should do nothing to try to stop it?)

I don't think that merely managing not to die is an acceptable life for *anyone*--certainly not for people who live in a country in which the riches flow like a river to the upper-class.

And I think that the majority of Americans agree with me that Hoovervilles are indeed something the govt has a responsibility to prevent and that merely managing not to die is not a morally acceptable standard of living for anyone. In fact, I know that my grandparents who lived through the depression as well (and my grandfather who served in WWII) would find your seeming cavalier attitude about the suffering people went through absolutely appalling.

I guess this is why they have voted Democrat for their entire lives.

 

[mefordis]

I think the car and home credit is for people who aren't that badly effected by the economy, to encourage their purchase of a car or home to help those industries. We may take advantage of the car credit this year -- we will need a new car within the next few years so this may be the time to get one.

I agree that the 300.00 for elderly is wasteful. I know my dh's parents and grandparents don't need it.

That car and home credit...how can people afford to buy new cars and new homes? They are tightening their belts when handing out credit for anything. So, if you are poor and can't really afford to do either, how is this credit going to help? When people are struggling to pay their bills, the last thing they need to do is buy a new car. A home I can see, but if you have no credit or bad credit, how do you get a loan these days? We've been giving loans to people who could not afford it for the past ?? years and look what has happened. I just don't get it.

Giving 300.00 to retired RR workers and older people will help them for how long? One month? People who saved for a rainy day and retirement don't need the 300.00 and most of the retired RR workers I know made great money and also saved. I am sure 300.00 will help some people but not for very long.

We need job creation. I know too many kids graduating from college and they can't find a good job in hard times like these.

We're definitely in a huge mess.

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

I guess you and I just have a fundamental moral disagreement then.

I find it morally reprehensible that in a country with such an abundant amount of wealth anyone is forced to live under a piece of newspaper and the government *can* help them, but *won't*.

And I don't think the fact that there are some people who are even worse off than living in Hoovervilles, makes the living conditions of Hoovervilles morally acceptable. (Lots of people would also prefer not to be victims of mass genocide, rape, and torture--does that mean it's *okay* if these things are happening to Americans on a smaller scale? That the govt should do nothing to try to stop it?)

I don't think that merely managing not to die is an acceptable life for *anyone*--certainly not for people who live in a country in which the riches flow like a river to the upper-class.

And I think that the majority of Americans agree with me that Hoovervilles are indeed something the govt has a responsibility to prevent and that merely managing not to die is not a morally acceptable standard of living for anyone. In fact, I know that my grandparents who lived through the depression as well (and my grandfather who served in WWII) would find your seeming cavalier attitude about the suffering people went through absolutely appalling.
I guess this is why they have voted Democrat for their entire lives.

Absolutely. The attitude that these living conditions are acceptable for our citizens is reprehensible.

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

I think the car and home credit is for people who aren't that badly effected by the economy, to encourage their purchase of a car or home to help those industries. We may take advantage of the car credit this year -- we will need a new car within the next few years so this may be the time to get one.

I agree that the 300.00 for elderly is wasteful. I know my dh's parents and grandparents don't need it.

I almost agree. Is that for every senior citizen? My Grandparents would put that right in the bank. My 91 year old Aunt (with no DH or children) still renews all of her cds every year...I guess she thinks she'll live forever!

 

[JDinCO]

$300 for a disabled Veteran? At what percentage does this kick in. If it's 100% they are already eligble for Social Security. 90% and lower (the boat I'm in) can work. IMHO $300 will not make any difference. If anything make Concurrent receipt fully functiional now instead of 2014.

 

[minnie61650]

We will be buying a new car for me in a few months.
DH bought a Saturn Outlook in November 2008 so that will not count.

Our youngest DD (age 25) is working on her masters an she makes less than $80,000 so she might qualify for the college tax credit.

I think there are a lot of good items in the bill.

Jyst my 2 cents.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Most of these items are tax credits, not immediate cash in the pocket. People may get cash in the pocket, but not until spring of 2010 when then can take the credits on their tax return. Not one of these will have an immediate impact on cash in the pocket or disposable income. Nor will any of these initiatives directly creat a single job. That's why people are calling it welfare - that's exactly what the bill is. Good, bad or otherwise, it's a welfare bill, not a stimulus package. A stimulus package would increase disposable income so people can spend again and/or create jobs.

Ah, yes I can see that there is a timing issue--that the money won't show up for another year in people's pockets.

I wonder if there is any evidence that when people know they are paying less tax/will have more money at a given date they spend differently.

I would think that the car and home-buying taxes, for instance, would make a difference (so long as people aren't too scared in general to be making these large purchases even when they come with tax breaks) before the spring. Most people buy these things on credit anyway, so I wouldn't think they'd need the money in their pocket to make the purchase--just the knowledge that eventually they are going to get the money and will thus pay less overall. (Kind of like the programs at CVS and Rite Aid and such where you get mailed rebates on certain purchases. Even though you won't get the rebate $ for a month or two, you factor that discount in when you buy the item.)

And I guess the package probably does make a difference in my situation because as a grad student I get semester long stipends for living expenses all in one chunk. There is nothing withheld because the money is not technically wages earned, so I just set aside a certain amount per month for taxes (and pay them quarterly if I will end up owing enough to be required to do it.) So I guess for me there is a little $ in my pocket right away. But, of course, my situation is pretty unusual in that regard.

But yeah, overall I can see the worry that the money won't get to consumers and then to businesses soon enough if it mostly comes in the form of tax breaks.