Stimulus measures that may help your wallet

[disney1990]

Its those freeloaders waiting for a handout that need to get off their butts and get a job. Is it sociallly responsible to keep enabling this mindset? I think not.

"Get off their butts and get a job"??? If there were jobs to be had, I am quite sure they would. When every single day another company announces massive amounts of layoffs, those jobs are pretty hard to find. I was laid off 4 weeks ago (my last day is this Friday). I have been sending out resumes every single day and, yes, I am quite qualified to work. Nobody has bothered to respond back to even one of those resumes. When a company announces that they are hiring and 600 people show up for $10 an hour jobs, you know just how bad thing are.

You may not be happy with the stimulus package, but it will certainly help us. It will increase by unemployment benefits by $25 a week. Which may be the difference in having the house heated or not. My DH is retired and on Social Security. His benefits, are going to certainly go a long way towards paying our bills, don't you think?

You may not be happy with the government helping people pay for their Cobra benefits, but when it cost an unemployed person $600 a month to keep their health insurance, they just can't afford to do that. Maybe you think that being without insurance is an option? Ask my 8 year old granddaughter that developed cancer and ran up a million dollars in hospital costs over the cost of 1-1/2 years. You think you want to play that game and go without insurance; it's a game that you could lose big time.

While there are some things in the stimulus package that I don't agree with, it will help a lot of people that apparently, are a lost less well off than you are.

It may not be you without a job this time, but what about next time? My parents raised me with a social conscience. Even though I only have 2 more days to work at my job, I continue to buy extra food at the store and donate it to food banks and I continue to give to those people that have less than I do, because there will always be people that are worse off than I am. And I am thankful for what I have.

Just remember, there but for the Grace of God go I.

 

[minnie61650]

I don't mean to be OT, but I thought you were retired and, of course, retired folks did not get a check, IIRC. We made too much and did not get one either.

I left my part time with the public schools (elementary) 7 years ago because I developed limited mobility and limited stamina and can no longer stand for more than a couple of minutes.

DH owns his own business and he will never retire , but he takes a lot more time off now.

Like you we make too much money and we did not need a stimulas check.

 

[joviroxx]

Just remember, there but for the Grace of God go I.

My husband has been out of work since November. You are right, jobs are tough. BUT, this stimulus is not what's going to fix the economy. Giving you or my husband extra money is a short term fix. As much as anything helps right now, this isn't going to solve a thing. I have no interest in this country being put MORE in debt in order to give me a little help.

This stimulus is nothing more than a spending/appropriations package disguised as "stimulus". Would programs help? I don't know but sell it the right way, not by scaring people and fooling them into thinking its for the bad economy and using the present need of people to try and pass an agenda that the dems have had for a while. Call it what it is. Debate it for what it is, I have no issue with that but STIMULUS? Nope, no way.

This money has to come from somewhere so either they tax more people, print more money or borrow more money, none of these options which will be good.

 

[wall*e2008]

"Get off their butts and get a job"??? If there were jobs to be had, I am quite sure they would. When every single day another company announces massive amounts of layoffs, those jobs are pretty hard to find. I was laid off 4 weeks ago (my last day is this Friday). I have been sending out resumes every single day and, yes, I am quite qualified to work. Nobody has bothered to respond back to even one of those resumes. When a company announces that they are hiring and 600 people show up for $10 an hour jobs, you know just how bad thing are.

You may not be happy with the stimulus package, but it will certainly help us. It will increase by unemployment benefits by $25 a week. Which may be the difference in having the house heated or not. My DH is retired and on Social Security. His benefits, are going to certainly go a long way towards paying our bills, don't you think?

You may not be happy with the government helping people pay for their Cobra benefits, but when it cost an unemployed person $600 a month to keep their health insurance, they just can't afford to do that. Maybe you think that being without insurance is an option? Ask my 8 year old granddaughter that developed cancer and ran up a million dollars in hospital costs over the cost of 1-1/2 years. You think you want to play that game and go without insurance; it's a game that you could lose big time.

While there are some things in the stimulus package that I don't agree with, it will help a lot of people that apparently, are a lost less well off than you are.

It may not be you without a job this time, but what about next time? My parents raised me with a social conscience. Even though I only have 2 more days to work at my job, I continue to buy extra food at the store and donate it to food banks and I continue to give to those people that have less than I do, because there will always be people that are worse off than I am. And I am thankful for what I have.

Just remember, there but for the Grace of God go I.

Been there, done that and have the gaps in my resume to prove it. BTW DH was also laid off at the same time. We needed none of the "stimulus" package stuff to keep a roof over our heads, heat on or food in our bellies.

 

[DisneyMomOK]

I left my part time with the public schools (elementary) 7 years ago because I developed limited mobility and limited stamina and can no longer stand for more than a couple of minutes.

DH owns his own business and he will never retire , but he takes a lot more time off now.

Like you we make too much money and we did not need a stimulas check.

Sorry for the health problems, Linda. My DH owns a business, too, but he is anxious to "fish for a living" in the near future!

 

[djm99]

Many of you have your talking points down to a science.

 

[OctMtnWoods]

Stupid question.....are these for the 2009 taxes that you file early 2010? How is that going to help NOW?

 

[DebbieB]

Stupid question.....are these for the 2009 taxes that you file early 2010? How is that going to help NOW?

Are they going to change the withholding tables so that you get more in your paycheck now?

 

[OctMtnWoods]

Are they going to change the withholding tables so that you get more in your paycheck now?

I'm not sure if that's a sarcastic answer or another question.

 

[DebbieB]

I'm not sure if that's a sarcastic answer or another question.

It was a serious question. It wouldn't make sense to have to wait a year to actually get the money in your pocket so I would hope they would reduce the payroll withholding now.

 

[OctMtnWoods]

It was a serious question. It wouldn't make sense to have to wait a year to actually get the money in your pocket so I would hope they would reduce the payroll withholding now.

Thanks. Just so many of my posts are met with snark here that its getting hard to tell.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Not a single person in this thread has suggested that helping someone in need is socialistic. What they are saying is taking money from someone by force and giving it to someone else at the government's hand is socialistic. Maybe that clears up the confusion.

Conservatives give far more to charity than any other group. And religious people give 4 times more than non-religious people. But conservatives do not support the government's role in this effort.

That is exactly how I feel. I think the haves should help the have nots....because they want to, choose to, and it is the moral and right thing to do. I don't like the government coming in and taking from one to redistribute the wealth to another. I think it is just wrong.

Allyson

Thank you both for so eloquently and succinctly saying exactly what was on my mind.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I still like the saying:

"You give a child a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a child to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."

This government is taking fish away from the ones who caught 'em...and they're giving them to the ones who don't know how to fish.

Wouldn't it be better to teach EVERYBODY how to fish? So, we could keep the government out of it. (and keep our fish?)

And... that's why the government does it. They want to tell us how many fish we can or can't have....even if it's just fish. Otherwise, they would be irrevelant.

 

[luvsJack]

I still like the saying:

"You give a child a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a child to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."
QUOTE]

I like this saying too. And trully that is the answer, I think. But I also know that realistically, there will still be those that need a hand up while they are learning to fish. And there will always be those that lose their place and simply cannot find another place to fish. There will always be someone who just needs some help hopefully for just a little while, maybe longer, but still really needing some help.

I do not for one minute think that anyone should be able to live on welfare completely , but I think getting rid of the system entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It should be revamped so that a lot of the abuse can be prevented; but we can never expect there to be no abuse.

Saying that charity should be given willing by the "haves" is all well and good. But do you all seriously think that everyone is going to give? Its not going to happen. And how much can those charities really help someone in need?

Food pantries in churches can help supply food somewhat, but you can't really expect someone to feed a family of four out of a food pantry month after month. Soup kitchens exist, yep--what is a working parent going to do? Take off from work so their kids can get to the soup kitchen for lunch? Oh, and that working mom; should she just leave her kids at home alone so she can go to work? Without government benefits, she has no way to pay child care. (and if you think $6.00 per hour can pay child care you are sadly mistaken). Charities are great in times of immediate need but they are not designed for long term. Single parent, minimum wage, 3 kids, hopefully trying to go back to school---none of that equals short term. Those of you who have never had to rely on government assistance have no clue what it is like and have no clue what it takes to get off of assitance.

And to those that say "I have been without work and I paid all my bills and never needed anything". Great, wonderful, proud for ya! But, sadly, we cannot all be you. Being in need when you are out of work does not mean you were living above your means in the first place. It means you have no money coming in, you have used up your unemployment benefits and your savings or your benefits wouldn't pay the bills and you used up your savings. If Dh was laid off, his income would go from $1000 a week to, at the most, $210 per week (highest Mississippi unemployment benefits); thats loss of income of 3160.00 per month! Wouldn't take long to eat up the savings with that kind of loss and without a new job coming, we too would be in need of assistance.

 

[PeterPan09]

I still like the saying:

"You give a child a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a child to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."
QUOTE]

I like this saying too. And trully that is the answer, I think. But I also know that realistically, there will still be those that need a hand up while they are learning to fish. And there will always be those that lose their place and simply cannot find another place to fish. There will always be someone who just needs some help hopefully for just a little while, maybe longer, but still really needing some help.

I do not for one minute think that anyone should be able to live on welfare completely , but I think getting rid of the system entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It should be revamped so that a lot of the abuse can be prevented; but we can never expect there to be no abuse.

Saying that charity should be given willing by the "haves" is all well and good. But do you all seriously think that everyone is going to give? Its not going to happen. And how much can those charities really help someone in need?

Food pantries in churches can help supply food somewhat, but you can't really expect someone to feed a family of four out of a food pantry month after month. Soup kitchens exist, yep--what is a working parent going to do? Take off from work so their kids can get to the soup kitchen for lunch? Oh, and that working mom; should she just leave her kids at home alone so she can go to work? Without government benefits, she has no way to pay child care. (and if you think $6.00 per hour can pay child care you are sadly mistaken). Charities are great in times of immediate need but they are not designed for long term. Single parent, minimum wage, 3 kids, hopefully trying to go back to school---none of that equals short term. Those of you who have never had to rely on government assistance have no clue what it is like and have no clue what it takes to get off of assitance.

And to those that say "I have been without work and I paid all my bills and never needed anything". Great, wonderful, proud for ya! But, sadly, we cannot all be you. Being in need when you are out of work does not mean you were living above your means in the first place. It means you have no money coming in, you have used up your unemployment benefits and your savings or your benefits wouldn't pay the bills and you used up your savings. If Dh was laid off, his income would go from $1000 a week to, at the most, $210 per week (highest Mississippi unemployment benefits); thats loss of income of 3160.00 per month! Wouldn't take long to eat up the savings with that kind of loss and without a new job coming, we too would be in need of assistance.

Wow-you said it beautifully!

 

[minnie61650]

I still like the saying:

"You give a child a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a child to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."

[

I like this saying too. And trully that is the answer, I think. But I also know that realistically, there will still be those that need a hand up while they are learning to fish. And there will always be those that lose their place and simply cannot find another place to fish. There will always be someone who just needs some help hopefully for just a little while, maybe longer, but still really needing some help.

I do not for one minute think that anyone should be able to live on welfare completely , but I think getting rid of the system entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It should be revamped so that a lot of the abuse can be prevented; but we can never expect there to be no abuse.

Saying that charity should be given willing by the "haves" is all well and good. But do you all seriously think that everyone is going to give? Its not going to happen. And how much can those charities really help someone in need?

Food pantries in churches can help supply food somewhat, but you can't really expect someone to feed a family of four out of a food pantry month after month. Soup kitchens exist, yep--what is a working parent going to do? Take off from work so their kids can get to the soup kitchen for lunch? Oh, and that working mom; should she just leave her kids at home alone so she can go to work? Without government benefits, she has no way to pay child care. (and if you think $6.00 per hour can pay child care you are sadly mistaken). Charities are great in times of immediate need but they are not designed for long term. Single parent, minimum wage, 3 kids, hopefully trying to go back to school---none of that equals short term. Those of you who have never had to rely on government assistance have no clue what it is like and have no clue what it takes to get off of assitance.

And to those that say "I have been without work and I paid all my bills and never needed anything". Great, wonderful, proud for ya! But, sadly, we cannot all be you. Being in need when you are out of work does not mean you were living above your means in the first place. It means you have no money coming in, you have used up your unemployment benefits and your savings or your benefits wouldn't pay the bills and you used up your savings. If Dh was laid off, his income would go from $1000 a week to, at the most, $210 per week (highest Mississippi unemployment benefits); thats loss of income of 3160.00 per month! Wouldn't take long to eat up the savings with that kind of loss and without a new job coming, we too would be in need of assistance.

 

[blu3d3vil]

I sure am looking forward to my $13 a week. I'm sooo excited.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I like this saying too. And trully that is the answer, I think. But I also know that realistically, there will still be those that need a hand up while they are learning to fish.

I don't have a problem with helping....but, that's not what our welfare programs have become....they are a way of life. There are no incentives to live a better life...and no way to achieve it. After awile, a person gives up hope. They believe there is no "better" life. It's depressing what welfare progams have done to folks. The democrats want them dependant on the government...plain and simple. That's how they keep the votes of the poor. Promises, promises and more promises....lies, lies and more lies.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

I sure am looking forward to my $13 a week. I'm sooo excited.

I'm pretty sure that's a pre-tax amount, so don't go hog wild.

 

[jodifla]

I still like the saying:

"You give a child a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a child to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."
QUOTE]

I like this saying too. And trully that is the answer, I think. But I also know that realistically, there will still be those that need a hand up while they are learning to fish. And there will always be those that lose their place and simply cannot find another place to fish. There will always be someone who just needs some help hopefully for just a little while, maybe longer, but still really needing some help.

I do not for one minute think that anyone should be able to live on welfare completely , but I think getting rid of the system entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It should be revamped so that a lot of the abuse can be prevented; but we can never expect there to be no abuse.

Saying that charity should be given willing by the "haves" is all well and good. But do you all seriously think that everyone is going to give? Its not going to happen. And how much can those charities really help someone in need?

Food pantries in churches can help supply food somewhat, but you can't really expect someone to feed a family of four out of a food pantry month after month. Soup kitchens exist, yep--what is a working parent going to do? Take off from work so their kids can get to the soup kitchen for lunch? Oh, and that working mom; should she just leave her kids at home alone so she can go to work? Without government benefits, she has no way to pay child care. (and if you think $6.00 per hour can pay child care you are sadly mistaken). Charities are great in times of immediate need but they are not designed for long term. Single parent, minimum wage, 3 kids, hopefully trying to go back to school---none of that equals short term. Those of you who have never had to rely on government assistance have no clue what it is like and have no clue what it takes to get off of assitance.

And to those that say "I have been without work and I paid all my bills and never needed anything". Great, wonderful, proud for ya! But, sadly, we cannot all be you. Being in need when you are out of work does not mean you were living above your means in the first place. It means you have no money coming in, you have used up your unemployment benefits and your savings or your benefits wouldn't pay the bills and you used up your savings. If Dh was laid off, his income would go from $1000 a week to, at the most, $210 per week (highest Mississippi unemployment benefits); thats loss of income of 3160.00 per month! Wouldn't take long to eat up the savings with that kind of loss and without a new job coming, we too would be in need of assistance.

Thank you! Well said.