The only people willing to stand up to President Douchebag?

Sane people with a grasp of economics?

Wait! Wait! I know this one...

Hitler?

Doesn't the Senate proposal actually take into account that $150K per couple is not exactly "wealthy"?

The ones that think they can spend my money better than me?

truth_is_stranger_than_fishin: The only people willing to stand up to President Douchebag?

Umm, the House leadership passed this already. It's not entirely Bush's package. The Senate just didn't think Nancy had shoveled enough pork into it, so they want to stuff a bunch more in.

The only thing more boring than economics is people who think they can accurately predict economics. There, I said it.

lunchinlewis: The Senate just didn't think Nancy had shoveled enough pork into it, so they want to stuff a bunch more in.

Yes, food stamps = pork.

Smart people?

Jaboobinator: Yes, food stamps = pork.

Why does Pelosi hate food stamps then?

Or how about, why does the Senate want to extend the rebates to the wealthiest Americans, while the House version puts a sensible income limit on them?

Jaboobinator: Yes, food stamps = pork.

You can also buy beef, fish, and numerous other grocery items with food stamps. It's not just limited to pork.

Ron Paul?

Only so they can add even more pork to a stupid ass plan. It's stupid because we can't afford it. They don't cut spending. They just keep piling more on. I know! We'll just print more money!
/fark you, Washington

lunchinlewis: Or how about, why does the Senate want to extend the rebates to the wealthiest Americans, while the House version puts a sensible income limit on them?

Where are you getting that?

The Senate version adds unemployment insurance and refunds for people on Social Security. It seems to be more aimed at the low-end earners.

coyote71: You can also buy beef, fish, and numerous other grocery items with food stamps. It's not just limited to pork.

I know, but you can't buy Mad Dog or Thunderbird. :(

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait! Wait! I know this one...

Hitler?


*snert*

Jaboobinator: Where are you getting that?

From just about any story you can read about it. Just google Baucus and rebates. They want to roughly double the income limits set by the House version.

I'm all for including seniors and food stamps and all that in this package. I'm not a big fan of the stimulus package concept as a whole, because as others have said, it's a bandaid. But some of what the Senate wants is just going to far with money we don't have.

Meanwhile, they are wasting the bipartisan effort of their colleagues in the House and making Pelosi look weak.

It is sad, because the Republicans never did anything like this to any legistlation proposed by Clinton from 1994-2000. Oh, wait.

Ted Stevens?

*checks article*

Fark, am I bad at this shiat!

oldebayer: It is sad, because the Republicans never did anything like this to any legistlation proposed by Clinton from 1994-2000. Oh, wait.

Or most of the legislation in 2007.

I'm against it. Cut the middle class's taxes drastically. For this year. Screw sending out a bunch of checks.

And the rich don't need this. One bit.

I remember Bush's $300 "rebate" back when he first came into office. That landed in my IRA. And a majority of people I've talked with about this one have said that they're going to be paying off bills, not spending it on consumer goods/services.

Giving people a short term cash payment isn't the way to stimulate the economy long term. It's a short term fix that'll just delay things a bit.

I don't want a 'stimulus package'. I want lower taxes, lower spending, the repeal of the patriot act, dismantle the DMCA, kick RIAA in the 'nads and get off my back if/when I decide to start my own business.

truth_is_stranger_than_fishin: The only people willing to stand up to President Douchebag?

Partial Credit!

unlikely: Sane people with a grasp of economics?

Correct!

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Hitler?

Incorrect.

cameroncrazy1984: Smart people?

Definitely Incorrect. You also get negative points for your snarkiness.

coma: Ted Stevens?

*checks article*

Fark, am I bad at this shiat!

Incorrect and yes, you are.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait! Wait! I know this one...

Hitler?

You're one question too early. Here, I'll help you...

You know who else blocked economic stimulus packages?

tdyak: Incorrect.

Dammit!

pizen: You know who else blocked economic stimulus packages?

Your mom?

unlikely: Sane people with a grasp of economics what else they can tag on to it to get their way?

Corrected that for you

Jaboobinator: Yes, food stamps = pork.

Well a lot of them are used for pork.

Food stamps are not an economic stimulus.

You want to stimulate the economy?

1) Farking stop spending more than you make.
2) Lower taxes.
3) Get the fark out of the way of small businesses.

Kaiser Chieftess: Doesn't the Senate proposal actually take into account that $150K per couple is not exactly "wealthy"?

Wealthy is a subjective term. $150k puts you in the top 10-15% in terms of income in this country. The reason why people in that strata aren't being included is pretty basic: The whole phoney-baloney reason behind all this was to "stimulate the economy". They think (rightly, in my eyes) that people in that bracket aren't waiting around for $1600 so they can blow em on 22" dubs. This is why trickle-down economics don't work.

And just to save people the trouble of doing the RTFA bit-

The correct answer is: Starscream.

Starscream is blocking the economic stimulus package in the Senate.

pretty miuch every economist I saw talk in the media said the stimulus plan was idiotic and wouldnt' work and even if it could work it would have to go into affect immediately, but it wont' so too little too late.

Aristocrats

'Blocking'? Do you mean 'not rubber stamping'? Acting as if one week of intracogressional negotiation is going to be the difference between fixing the economy and a total meltdown is kind of premature. But, if that's what you want to believe, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I can sell you...

SpaceyCat: I remember Bush's $300 "rebate" back when he first came into office. That landed in my IRA. And a majority of people I've talked with about this one have said that they're going to be paying off bills, not spending it on consumer goods/services.

Giving people a short term cash payment isn't the way to stimulate the economy long term. It's a short term fix that'll just delay things a bit.

Yes but you must understand, why let the problems happen today when you can delay them for your successors to take the blame.

Any sane person with even a fleeting grasp of economics?

I saw today that Exxon made a record profit last year. Perhaps we could stimulate the economy by taking away their tax breaks and incentives and giving them to small businesses that DIDN'T make record profits last year.

tallguywithglasseson: And just to save people the trouble of doing the RTFA bit-

The correct answer is: Starscream.

Starscream is blocking the economic stimulus package in the Senate.

?

Biatch better have my money.

unlikely: Sane people with a grasp of economics?

Correct!


cameroncrazy1984: Smart people?

Definitely Incorrect. You also get negative points for your snarkiness.

So you think smart people aren't sane?

jj325: I saw today that Exxon made a record profit last year. Perhaps we could stimulate the economy by taking away their tax breaks and incentives and giving them to small businesses that DIDN'T make record profits last year.

I've always wondered why we don't just eliminate this crap then lower tax rates. Oh yeah, lobbyists and the people fellating those industries predicting doom if we end them.

Nancy wants illegals to get the rebate as well. May as well start buying the votes now. Soon, our whole country will look like New Orleans.

SpaceyCat: I remember Bush's $300 "rebate" back when he first came into office. That landed in my IRA. And a majority of people I've talked with about this one have said that they're going to be paying off bills, not spending it on consumer goods/services.

Giving people a short term cash payment isn't the way to stimulate the economy long term. It's a short term fix that'll just delay things a bit.

That's what I was thinking. Even if everyone spent their money as soon as they got it, wouldn't the economy be alright for say, those 10 weeks? Then wouldn't it suck even harder after production has ramped up to meet the artificially created "demand"?

/not an economist by any means

Your mom?

FTA Right now, mortgages for more than $417,000 carry higher interest rates than mortgages below that amount. That's because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not allowed to back loans above that cutoff.

If you went out and got a home loan for almost half a million dollars and can't afford it you deserve to lose your house.

Why not just take the rich's money through force and give it to poor people

Oh wait, that's exactly what is happening.

While I would like my $600 for a new TV, I must agree that it's a bad idea.

But not for the reasons the libs are holding it up. The entire tax system in the U.S. needs to be replaced, and in doing so we need to remember that we are a capitalist society.



http://www.fairtax.org (new window)

Defeat all DumboKKKrats: Why not just take the rich's money through force and give it to poor people

Oh wait, that's exactly what is happening.

Wait'll we have to fund the baby boomers on social security. our tax load should double.

What happens at that point?

Defeat all DumboKKKrats: why not just pleasure your bunghole with a dubya "mission accomplished" action figure?

Oh wait, that's exactly what is happening.

Defeat all DumboKKKrats: Why not just take the rich's money through force and give it to poor people

Oh wait, that's exactly what is happening.

No it isn't.