Pointless without a reduction in spending. All they are doing is borrowing money to pay for this.
Yes, it's like a fat person eating more food to speed up their metabolism.Originally posted by: Genx87
Pointless without a reduction in spending. All they are doing is borrowing money to pay for this.
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Jadow
If I get the same rebate as some punk who didn't pay any taxes I'll be plssed.
yes, pelosi got the provision in to give free money to non tax paying low income workers, basically anyone that is issued a W-2 will get the minimum amount, even if they are EIC welfare recipients and pay no income taxes
Liquor stores, crack & crystal meth dealers, and payday loan/check cashing companies - stimulating the local economy!
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Jadow
If I get the same rebate as some punk who didn't pay any taxes I'll be plssed.
yes, pelosi got the provision in to give free money to non tax paying low income workers, basically anyone that is issued a W-2 will get the minimum amount, even if they are EIC welfare recipients and pay no income taxes
Liquor stores, crack & crystal meth dealers, and payday loan/check cashing companies - stimulating the local economy!
Don't forget lottery and casino.
Originally posted by: senseamp
It's disgusting political market manipulation with borrowed money to delay the pain until after the election year. Democrats disappoint me. You'd expect this sort of stunt from the GOP, which has been borrowing money like it's free for ages, but Democrats? Ugh.
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Jadow
If I get the same rebate as some punk who didn't pay any taxes I'll be plssed.
yes, pelosi got the provision in to give free money to non tax paying low income workers, basically anyone that is issued a W-2 will get the minimum amount, even if they are EIC welfare recipients and pay no income taxes
Liquor stores, crack & crystal meth dealers, and payday loan/check cashing companies - stimulating the local economy!
Don't forget lottery and casino.
And republicans wonder why they aren't seen as the party of the middle class? Everyone classified as "low income" must be on crack or gambling or at the liquor store... Everyone's so busy pointing fingers at the Clintons they are forgetting who the real race card players are.
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Jadow
If I get the same rebate as some punk who didn't pay any taxes I'll be plssed.
yes, pelosi got the provision in to give free money to non tax paying low income workers, basically anyone that is issued a W-2 will get the minimum amount, even if they are EIC welfare recipients and pay no income taxes
Liquor stores, crack & crystal meth dealers, and payday loan/check cashing companies - stimulating the local economy!
Don't forget lottery and casino.
And republicans wonder why they aren't seen as the party of the middle class? Everyone classified as "low income" must be on crack or gambling or at the liquor store... Everyone's so busy pointing fingers at the Clintons they are forgetting who the real race card players are.
Huh? You were the only one that brought up race!
I'll spend my fair share at the liquor store, make you feel better?
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Jadow
If I get the same rebate as some punk who didn't pay any taxes I'll be plssed.
yes, pelosi got the provision in to give free money to non tax paying low income workers, basically anyone that is issued a W-2 will get the minimum amount, even if they are EIC welfare recipients and pay no income taxes
Liquor stores, crack & crystal meth dealers, and payday loan/check cashing companies - stimulating the local economy!
Don't forget lottery and casino.
As I understand it the original plan had talked about the money being an advance payment on your 09 tax return. Such that if you recieved 800 now, come 09 you would have 800 taken off your refund (or end up paying it back).
Sources on Capitol Hill and at the Treasury Department said the plan would send checks of $600 to individuals and $1,200 to couples who paid income tax and who filed jointly.Originally posted by: piasabird
This is going to be a fiasco just like it was when they gave out free credit cards to people who had flood claims after Katrina!
$300 - $400 may cover groceries for one week now that we are paying for higher gas and higher food costs to offset the fuel made from corn.
This is all a joke and we are getting the shaft.
Originally posted by: Icepick
You do realize that this is being flagged as a "Stimulus package." The whole point is to put cash into the hands of the people who are most likely to spend every cent, thus, infusing that money into the economy. Those of you complaining that you earn more than $75000 and won't receive any of this are missing the point entirely. Wealthy people are more likely to tuck the money away in a savings account and sit on it. The segment of the population most likely to spend every cent of this money are working class poor.
To those whining that you earn too much $$ already to qualify need to get over yourselves.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Vic
See how this works?
I think can answer that for myself: "I am a Hillary Hating Race Baiting Retard"
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: senseamp
Health is the most important thing a person has.
No, senseamp. While health care is certainly a valuable thing to have, freedom is something much more valuable.
If you can understand my sarcasm, then you will see that I strongly believe that our government should hold protecting the American way of life with a higher priority than protecting American life.
Your definition of "freedom" is different from mine. I don't consider inability to afford to see a doctor "freedom."
Also, there is nothing unAmerican about universal healthcare, because we already provide it to all seniors.
You're confusing the difference between freedom and positive rights.
Freedom, or negative rights, are inherent. That means they exist until takenaway. For example, freedom of speech: you have the right to speak freely until someone punishes you for something you said. And even then you don't lose the freedom per se, you can only be punished for exercising it.
Positive rights OTOH can only exist by being granted through social contract. UHC is an obvious example of that. One is not born with access to free healthcare. Hence, the most common complaint about positive rights is that they assume that a person would want to live a particular way of life as dictated to them by the state. For example, the fact that YOU want UHC does not mean that everyone does, no matter how beneficial you think it would be, but your goal of making UHC a right requires that everyone have it whether they want it or not, hence violating one or more of that person's inherent rights.
See how this works?
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: senseamp
Health is the most important thing a person has.
No, senseamp. While health care is certainly a valuable thing to have, freedom is something much more valuable.
If you can understand my sarcasm, then you will see that I strongly believe that our government should hold protecting the American way of life with a higher priority than protecting American life.
Your definition of "freedom" is different from mine. I don't consider inability to afford to see a doctor "freedom."
Also, there is nothing unAmerican about universal healthcare, because we already provide it to all seniors.
You're confusing the difference between freedom and positive rights.
Freedom, or negative rights, are inherent. That means they exist until takenaway. For example, freedom of speech: you have the right to speak freely until someone punishes you for something you said. And even then you don't lose the freedom per se, you can only be punished for exercising it.
Positive rights OTOH can only exist by being granted through social contract. UHC is an obvious example of that. One is not born with access to free healthcare. Hence, the most common complaint about positive rights is that they assume that a person would want to live a particular way of life as dictated to them by the state. For example, the fact that YOU want UHC does not mean that everyone does, no matter how beneficial you think it would be, but your goal of making UHC a right requires that everyone have it whether they want it or not, hence violating one or more of that person's inherent rights.
See how this works?
Where is this going?
Are you saying we should have no social contract in this country?
Is Medicare taking away old people's freedom? Why did the GOP expand medicare then? Do they hate Freedom?
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Jadow
If I get the same rebate as some punk who didn't pay any taxes I'll be plssed.
Well, I paid way more taxes than you, and under this plan I won't get any rebate because I make more than 75K. Ridiculous.
LOL, you do realize that the working class poor will go out and place it right in the accounts of the mega rich within 20 minutes of cashing the check?Originally posted by: Icepick
You do realize that this is being flagged as a "Stimulus package." The whole point is to put cash into the hands of the people who are most likely to spend every cent, thus, infusing that money into the economy. Those of you complaining that you earn more than $75000 and won't receive any of this are missing the point entirely. Wealthy people are more likely to tuck the money away in a savings account and sit on it. The segment of the population most likely to spend every cent of this money are working class poor.
To those whining that you earn too much $$ already to qualify need to get over yourselves.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: senseamp
Health is the most important thing a person has.
No, senseamp. While health care is certainly a valuable thing to have, freedom is something much more valuable.
If you can understand my sarcasm, then you will see that I strongly believe that our government should hold protecting the American way of life with a higher priority than protecting American life.
Your definition of "freedom" is different from mine. I don't consider inability to afford to see a doctor "freedom."
Also, there is nothing unAmerican about universal healthcare, because we already provide it to all seniors.
You're confusing the difference between freedom and positive rights.
Freedom, or negative rights, are inherent. That means they exist until takenaway. For example, freedom of speech: you have the right to speak freely until someone punishes you for something you said. And even then you don't lose the freedom per se, you can only be punished for exercising it.
Positive rights OTOH can only exist by being granted through social contract. UHC is an obvious example of that. One is not born with access to free healthcare. Hence, the most common complaint about positive rights is that they assume that a person would want to live a particular way of life as dictated to them by the state. For example, the fact that YOU want UHC does not mean that everyone does, no matter how beneficial you think it would be, but your goal of making UHC a right requires that everyone have it whether they want it or not, hence violating one or more of that person's inherent rights.
See how this works?
Where is this going?
Are you saying we should have no social contract in this country?
Is Medicare taking away old people's freedom? Why did the GOP expand medicare then? Do they hate Freedom?
:roll:
I swear I don't even know why I reply to you...
I was trying to educate and explain your confusion about the nature of freedom and the different kind of rights and what they entail. Unlike you, I'm not always pushing some slanted partisan agenda.
Originally posted by: senseamp
I thought you were defending Bamacre's contention that having a social contract (health care) is somehow counter to having freedom. I think it's completely laughable. Being tied to your job in order to keep your health coverage is not freedom. It's servitude. I've heard people say many times that they would go out and start a business, but they are staying in their current jobs because they can't afford to lose their coverage due to preexisting conditions. It's killing the entrepreneurial spirit of a lot of people who could be contributing more to society if they didn't depend on their job for their medical care.