wow an extra

[bambii]

13.00 in our checks each week how is that going to help the economy....

 

[Tuffcookie]

I know what you mean! As soon as that kicks in, we'll see increases at the grocery store/gas stations, so there goes the little bit of extra we thought we were getting!

TC

 

[Keira1387]

I know. I really liked the lump sum that we got last year!

 

[RNMOM]

I saw this discussed on one of the mega-news channels last night. They said when the lump sum was given last year, most of us saved it. They figure if they give it in smaller amounts it will get spent and be more likely to stimulate the economy.

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Kath2003]

13.00 in our checks each week how is that going to help the economy....

I don't know about the economy but I wouldn't turn my nose up at over $600 extra a year...

 

[kydisneyfans]

Not at all. This whole thing is a trillion dollar joke.

 

[Sherwin]

Adjust for inflation and factor in cost of living, and it just might wor...

No, it won't.

 

[aprilgail2]

I saw this discussed on one of the mega-news channels last night. They said when the lump sum was given last year, most of us saved it. They figure if they give it in smaller amounts it will get spent and be more likely to stimulate the economy.

Don't shoot the messenger.

as soon as I see an extra amount in my paycheck I will increase my 457 plan and that is where it will go- so I spent the large one but if its in my paycheck that one will be saved LOL.

 

[tink_n_pooh]

LOL - $13 A week from June to January - ish? And then something like $7.70 a week for 2010... I'm going to start planning right now what I'm going to do with my stimulus

 

[BCDisneyFanatic]

Wow. Does anyone else see the irony in some of these responses?

One of the main reasons that the economy is in such bad shape is because people have been irresponsible with the money (overextending their credit, spending more money than they had, etc.). If you find an extra $50 or so a month added to your paycheque is something to be sneered at, either you don't need the stimulus in the first place, or you don't really have a good understanding (or control) of your personal finances.

 

[bicker]

That's a good point. I'm upset that I'm going to lose some money on this crappy, dangerous coffeemaker I bought, in terms of the shipping costs to send it back. Duh! I just bought a coffeemaker so the pittance that it will cost to ship it isn't going to break me. However, the cost of shipping that coffeemaker back actually represents a meal for someone else, someone who actually might be deciding between having two meals a day and having three meals a day, based on this $13 we're talking about. How many of us have someone we know well who is close to making these kinds of decisions? I think the closer you are to such people, the more you can appreciate their situation, and understand how how they see things differs from how we see things.

The point made earlier is important: The lump-sum stimulus back-fired. People saved. Normally that's a good thing, but these days, saving money is costing jobs, and therefore increasing the deficit. The stimulus needs to be such that it gets people to spend more (but only money they actually have).

I think the stimulus is better than the alternatives.

For example, one sure-fire way of pushing people to engage the economy (spend money they have) is to raise tax rates on interest and dividends -- make it less worthwhile to save. However, that disproportionately hurts the elderly, so hopefully that isn't the extreme we'll need to go to to get the economy working again.

Another approach would recognize that an economy that relies so heavily on spending is an economy without a strong foundation, anyway. So give into the reality, and impose a decommercialization of our economy. Indeed, President Obama raised that idea in his campaign. So how would folks feel if we just give into the reality? Christmas gifts go back to being (only) hand-made arts and crafts, and clothing which the family did without all year, just so that it could be gifted over the holidays. We'll be deciding between buying a new computer and buying a new microwave oven, instead of expecting to have both Internet access and the ability to quick-cook meals. Are folks ready to switch to a world where we're making those kinds of decisions?

 

[AlexTina]

Wow. Does anyone else see the irony in some of these responses?

One of the main reasons that the economy is in such bad shape is because people have been irresponsible with the money (overextending their credit, spending more money than they had, etc.). If you find an extra $50 or so a month added to your paycheque is something to be sneered at, either you don't need the stimulus in the first place, or you don't really have a good understanding (or control) of your personal finances.

Anyone who actually "needs" a stimulus is not going to be helped one bit by a raise of $13 every two weeks for 8 months, factor in the inflation that is sure to come and you'll be getting a lot less for your money in a few months than you are now. End result, people are actually going to end up worse off than they are now.

 

[Wonderlandmom]

I wish they would give us back 50% of what they took from DH! We could really stimulate the economy with that. We would hire painters to come in and paint inside the entire house, new tile could be put in, and new carpet too. And we would do it all at once! We are talking about doing this, but I think we will be painting and maybe even putting in the tile our self. And it will be spread out over a long period of time.

I am unclear if DH even gets the $13. He makes over $71,000 or whatever that number is and I am a stay at home mom.

 

[MomofCKJ]

We spent most of last year's check. This teensy amount in our weekly checks? I don't think we'll even notice and we certainly won't be out shopping just because we got it.

Allyson

 

[DancingBear]

So I guess the $22/week from the 2003 Bush tax cuts also was a pretty stupid idea.

 

[BCDisneyFanatic]

Anyone who actually "needs" a stimulus is not going to be helped one bit by a raise of $13 every two weeks for 8 months, factor in the inflation that is sure to come and you'll be getting a lot less for your money in a few months than you are now. End result, people are actually going to end up worse off than they are now.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Inflation is likely to happen anyway(at least we hope...deflation would be much worse), so even though they may be worse off than they are now (as we all likely will be unless the economy does one massive turnaround), they will still have more money in their pockets than they would have if they hadn't gotten the tax cut.

For all of you that think $13 a week is a joke...please feel free to send me that $52 a month. I promise to put it to good use .

 

[frisco]

For all of you that think $13 a week is a joke...please feel free to send me that $52 a month. I promise to put it to good use .

I think the point people are trying to make is they could do much more with a lump sum, as opposed to breaking it up into little tiny amounts.

 

[PeterPan09]

I think the point people are trying to make is they could do much more with a lump sum, as opposed to breaking it up into little tiny amounts.

Well, if these were the same people that got the lump sum last time, we know that didn't work. Yes, on a personal level it probably did-people paid down debt or put $$ in savings, but that's not the goal. The goal is to get that $$ back into the economy. It needs to be spent on things that are going to keep other people working, like going out to eat or shopping.

We were in Ocala over the weekend and I was shocked to see the number of restaurants that had closed since the last time I was up there. Sure, the one we went to was crowded, but that might have been because the other 4 that used to be on the same block were closed! If people take that $52 a month and go out even one more time, some of those folks that lost jobs at those places might be able to get work as demand rises.

 

[IDoDis]

The payroll tax cut was added to the stimulus bill by the Republicans.

 

[AlexTina]

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Inflation is likely to happen anyway(at least we hope...deflation would be much worse), so even though they may be worse off than they are now (as we all likely will be unless the economy does one massive turnaround), they will still have more money in their pockets than they would have if they hadn't gotten the tax cut.

For all of you that think $13 a week is a joke...please feel free to send me that $52 a month. I promise to put it to good use .

It's actually only $26 dollars a month/$13 per pay check. Inflation is one thing super inflation is an entirely different animal. All these billions of dollars are going to have to be paid for somehow and that will be through tax increases. Manufacturers, suppliers, retailer, etc.. are all going to be paying higher taxes. Naturally they are not just going to absorb these higher taxes they are going to pass them on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. In the end we loose and can get much less for our money, some folks will be receiving an extra $26 per month in their paychecks which would be fine if their living expenses were going to remain the same but their living expenses are going to increase by much more than $26 per month.