Stimulus Rebate

[GreatOwl]

 

I DO remember high school civics. There are three branches of government for "checks and balances"

And little did we know that the new philosophy of government was to become just that.  The government writes the checks and the American people run around paying higher taxes and higher prices for commodities just so we can support a "100 year" war.

[mrs. red]

which leads me to my next question, Owl


if Obama is elected, he says we are leaving Iraq immediatley and yet wants to raise taxes... where is that money going?  Same with Hillary... tax cuts will end... and so will the war.  So where is the money going to go?  For what?  Raise taxes on the corporations and all that will happen is more lay-offs....trust me, they will still make thier profit and we all know it. SO, I don't buy into the war argument....
we are paying higher taxes and commodities so that there can be a class of people who have everything they want and the rest of us can pay for it.  Like I have said before, too many people that cry poverty have HD flat screen tv's, $125 a pair sneakers, and $170 blue jeans because they need to
"not feel bad about themselves"... while I work harder and harder everyday to support them... baloney!  I would rather pay for the war, to be honest.

So once again... clarify for me where the money will go?  Why if we are only paying for the war, why we would need higher taxes if we just pull out?

[Red]

 

I DO remember high school civics. There are three branches of government for "checks and balances"

And little did we know that the new philosophy of government was to become just that.  The government writes the checks and the American people run around paying higher taxes and higher prices for commodities just so we can support a "100 year" war.

Great Owl, then would I presume that you have an issue with all of the other things that government provides a hand out for on the back of the American tax payer?

Honestly, war is one of the only things that the government is supposed to pay for with tax dollars. The government was never intended to be a Nanny state.

So many Dems have complained about taxes to pay for war. Did you all not think that a battle was going to eventually have to be waged against terrorism? It should have been started back in the 80's.

That being said, who has ever heard of a Democrat lowering taxes? Say Obama gets elected, Heaven forbid, do you think that he will lower taxes? NOT! So if he pulls our troops out of Iraq and there is another "Killing Fields" which is exactly what will happen, where are those tax dollars going to be spent?

Redistributing the wealth?

Taxes will never be lowered by a Democrat. The people's hard earned money will go toward ridiculous "Nanny" state projects designed to create liberal welfare constituencies. Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe Obama will spend the extra money on bringing in the 10 news states into the union that he thinks exist.

[GreatOwl]

 

I DO remember high school civics. There are three branches of government for "checks and balances"

And little did we know that the new philosophy of government was to become just that.  The government writes the checks and the American people run around paying higher taxes and higher prices for commodities just so we can support a "100 year" war.

Great Owl, then would I presume that you have an issue with all of the other things that government provides a hand out for on the back of the American tax payer?

Honestly, war is one of the only things that the government is supposed to pay for with tax dollars. The government was never intended to be a Nanny state.

So many Dems have complained about taxes to pay for war. Did you all not think that a battle was going to eventually have to be waged against terrorism? It should have been started back in the 80's.

That being said, who has ever heard of a Democrat lowering taxes? Say Obama gets elected, Heaven forbid, do you think that he will lower taxes? NOT! So if he pulls our troops out of Iraq and there is another "Killing Fields" which is exactly what will happen, where are those tax dollars going to be spent?

Redistributing the wealth?

Taxes will never be lowered by a Democrat. The people's hard earned money will go toward ridiculous "Nanny" state projects designed to create liberal welfare constituencies. Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe Obama will spend the extra money on bringing in the 10 news states into the union that he thinks exist.

I do have an issue with many of the "handout" programs instituted by special interests of both parties.  The problem we always have at election time is a lack of choice.  As the years have progressed, it has been less likely that any candidate can be elected without the help of special interest groups.  Having lived through the '68 Democratic Convention and the misuse of power by Mayor Daley I have never endeared to the political process.

That said, I don't feel any more comfortable with the Republican choice this time around.  I have watched our economy take a dive into 'recession" and I don't see either political party offering a viable solution at this point.  Quite frankly, I don't think the Presidency under either party will change the downward spiral.  When we have a domination of Congress by a single party, either Republican or Democrat, we tend to see fewer gains for the average citizen. 

I am not trumpeting support for either party.  I am merely watching what is happening to my hard earned savings and the devaluation of my own lifestyle at the expense of supporting more and more causes outside the borders of the USA. 

I am never in favor of isolationism, however, we do need to dial back a bit to seek relief for some of our own problems.  Neither party has shown a inclination to do so.

[Anna]

Our economy is NOT in a recession.  Yes, it has taken a beating since the Democrats won the majority in Congress but is holding on.  See Carter Administration for a real recession.

But the liberal media continues to report on a non-existent recession just at though it were real.  Well, I guess to some, it is wishful thinking.

Quote:

Surprising Figures Don't Stop NYT From Seeing "Recession"
Milder-than-expected job losses in April nonetheless spurred a lead story shouting the loss as "powerful evidence that the United States is almost certainly now ensnared in a recession."

Posted by: Clay Waters
5/5/2008 2:56:40 PM



The Times continues to insist the country is in recession, despite an utter absence of actual figures demonstrating that that's the case. The latest attempt is Saturday's lead story by the pessimistic duo of economics reporters, Peter Goodman and Michael Grynbaum, "20,000 Jobs Lost As U.S. Registers 4th Monthly Dip – Evidence of Recession – But Limited Scope of Job Cuts Give Hope of Mild Slump."

 

The American economy lost 20,000 jobs in April, the fourth consecutive month of decline, in what many economists took as powerful evidence that the United States is almost certainly now ensnared in a recession.

 

The story doesn't mention last week's reporting showing that Gross Domestic Product grew by 0.6 percent for the second consecutive quarter. Given that the traditional definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, this indicates the country is not in a recession, no matter what "many economists" say.

But the number of jobs reported lost by the Labor Department on Friday was significantly smaller than most analysts had predicted, and the unemployment rate nudged down to 5 percent, raising hopes that the economy may not suffer as severely as once feared.

“It strongly argues that this downturn will be mild and short- lived,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “As long as businesses hold the line on their layoffs, the economy will weaken, but it won’t unravel.”

On Wall Street, investors bought into that thinking, bidding stocks up sharply in morning trading before pulling back in the afternoon, pushing the Dow Jones industrial average up 0.4 percent for the day, to close at 13,058.40, a new high for 2008.

But economists emphasized that a substantial pullback in consumer spending could yet force American companies to lay off hundreds of thousands of workers in coming months if business prospects do not improve swiftly.

Times Watch readers know that a Goodman story is never complete until it quotes the left-wing (or in Times-speak, "labor-oriented") think tank Economic Policy Institute:

“The punch line is that you don’t have to lose your job to get pinched in a recession,” said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute in Washington. “Understandably we focus on layoffs and job losses, but most people keep their jobs in a recession. People who held their jobs are losing ground both in terms of hours and hourly wages.”


http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080505145138.aspx


------------

NYT--always good for a laugh!

[GreatOwl]

If it feels like a recession, looks like a recession and my savings tell me it is a recession, then it is a recession.  I am just a very average person and I am not out here playing politics.  The drain on my dollar began long before the Democrats took power.  I have watched a steady decline in buying power.  A steady decline in investment returns and certainly a sharp increase in the cost of the items which affect my living.

This is not one parties fault.  The major trend began back in about July/August of the year 2000.  There was a steady decline in the NASDAQ from which nobody except the large "connected" investor ever recovered.  Today the greatest drain on the dollar is the effect that the rise in the cost of fuel is having on not just gasoline and heating oil, but all products.  My experience in life is that once something goes up in price, it rarely comes down.

We now have an energy policy being prompted to push for more ethanol.  So we all will need to buy new cars and vehicles to realize an increase of 4 miles to a gallon on average?  At the same time the cost of grain products will continue to rise because is a shortage not only to put bread on the table but to feed the live stock.   This year alone it has been estimated that there will be at least 33% less gain available for food products.  Each year the percentage will increase.

Those who wish to live in a utopia and let a newspaper, magazine, or even a government report tell them that we do or do not have a recession have that right.  As an independent American Citizen all I can do is look at my own buying power and resources available to me.  I use this to make the determination that for the past seven and a half years I have had a steady decline in the buying power of "my" dollar with very little fluctuation.

When the sun drops below the western horizon I have enough intelligence to know that it is night time.  All the "spin" in the all the prolific media and political arenas will not convince me otherwise.  Perhaps they sit higher above the horizon or have an ability to follow the sun around the world thereby staying in daylight the entire time.  I do not.  I can safely say that for me, night has come.

May you all remain prosperous and in good health.

[Tylergal]

Great Owl, you are a very self-centered, demagoguing pessimist. 

[GreatOwl]

Great Owl, you are a very self-centered, demagoguing pessimist. 

[mrs. red]

well I can certainly see how we all feel the squeeze.... let's face it... over time, only the truly rich are getting richer and the rest of us... well, I don't think I am ever going to see the word retirement in my vocabulary... since 2000 there has been some one retiring every 10 seconds... who is paying the SS for them?  that would be my generation and the ones after me... we discuss this at work all the time...

While I don't think we are truly in a recession I do think that gov't has spent so out of control that I don't get to keep enough of the money I make and really honest to GOD wish that they would just stick a fork in SS,  too many people just don't think.... I will have to write more later when I am feeling more coherent...

[GreatOwl]

Mrs. Red, I can certainly understand your frustration.  I have been retired for some time now.  SS helps but without my pension and investments, I could never make it.  My wife still has at least 5 years to go until retirement and we are looking at how are budget shapes up.  The house will not be paid up until well after her retirement so that is sort of scary.  Fortunately, it is locked under 5%.  We will probably go down to one car once she does retire.  We live a very average life as I am sure you do.  It does get scary some days wondering how things will be paid from month to month.

I have no idea how my children will ever retire.  It is difficult for them to save anything these days as almost all of both paychecks goes to just keeping up with the expenses of raising a family.  Even with college educations it is difficult making ends meet.

While I do believe we do need a better system than SS there are those who depend solely on it.  Many in our area have lost jobs because factories have just plain moved out of the state.  It is difficult for some businesses to exist with the rising heating costs.  The northern part of our state is in real danger.  I am not sure how it is in your area, but I know your climate isn't much different.

I would be interested in knowing what you think could replace SS.  It obviously would need to be some sort of phase in program since many people have based their retirement on the existing system.  Not everyone could get along without it especially with so many companies discontinuing their pension programs.

[mrs. red]

Owl... I will have to think some about that.  It would have to be a phase in program. one that would allow for ppl my age to opt our if they wish... but of course if they don't get the dollar strengthened with the value of everyone's 401 k tanking like it is... well Walmart will never be in need of greeters, that is for sure.

[GreatOwl]

Mrs. Red, I do agree with the phase in part.  The problem I see is that the program can not be scraped entirely.  Over the years it has changed so greatly to a point that I don't know if the average person knows all the additional parts of the program that have nothing to do with people of retirement age.

There are death benefits paid to children of a deceased parent that last possibly until age 25 under some circumstances.  The program helps support those who are disabled (cognitive, mental illness, physically) under 1619A (medical) 1619B (financial support).   This program has expanded over the years as we have moved those who are able off the back wards of mental hospitals and into half way or community group homes.  Currently those individuals are not even placed an institution any longer if at all possible.  The savings of doing this has been astronomical.  It has shifted the burden, however, from the mental health budget on to SS.

There are a couple more instances where SS has taken on a burden, but nothing as significant as those I have mentioned.

[mrs. red]

the issue is that there isn't enough money to support any of it and i am tired of the government programs that enable those who want to work the system to be able to do so. 

like illegals and generational welfare reciepents...

i don't have time until this weekend to write more, but I will add a lot more to all of this

[GreatOwl]

the issue is that there isn't enough money to support any of it and i am tired of the government programs that enable those who want to work the system to be able to do so. 

like illegals and generational welfare reciepents...

i don't have time until this weekend to write more, but I will add a lot more to all of this

I will look forward to it.  I do agree completely with your perception of those who "work" the system.  I know exactly who those people are in our area and it does frustrate me when I see it going on.  Wisconsin is probably one of the stricter states when it comes to controlling this misuse, but we still have not gotten rid of all of it.

I have worked my entire professional career with a population that falls on both sides of the fence.  It is disgusting to see the loopholes and not be able to do anything about it.  I also see the other side.  I currently take on cases as a volunteer from the court system.  I am appointed legal guardian for 7 people who have no other means of survival other than what they get from SS.  These individuals range in age from 22 to 43.  It these instances, myself and others like me are responsible to see that the money is used to provide for the most appropriate lifestyle for the level of each individual.  Yet, there are regulations which drive me nuts when it comes to limits and spend downs.  Some of it is wasteful and unnecessary, but is driven by law.