Just Curious: "Stimulus Package"?

[Brassmask]

I've not been able to follow the threads of late and I was curious if there had been much discussion of the Bush's handing out free money to the slobs of the US?

On so many levels this is just proof that the GOP is totally and utterly morally corrupt and absolutely transparent.

A)  If the economy is not in the crapper, why does the it need to be stimulated?

B)  If the GOP is so anti-welfare, why is it's titular leader so gung  ho on handing out free money to people who didn't pay it in?

C)  Could the "stimulus package" have more to do with the GOP tanking against DEM candidates?

D)  Why are they calling it a "stimulus package" and not a bail out for corporate theives and liars which it really is?  It's simply a Savings and Loan bail out AGAIN!  And remember who two of the major, major players in that whole fiasco were?

A helpful reminder:

Lincoln Savings and Loan
The Lincoln Savings led to the Keating five political scandal, in which five U.S. senators were implicated in an influence-peddling scheme. It was name for Charles Keating, who headed Lincoln saving and made $300,000 as political contributions to them in the 1980s. Three of those senators - Alan Cranston, Don Riegle, and Dennis DeConcini - found their political careers cut short as a result. Two others - John Glenn and John McCain - were rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating.[12]


[edit] Silverado Savings and Loan
Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.6 billion. Director of Silverado S&L, Neil Bush was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado, he denied all wrongdoing. [2] Neil Bush is a son of President George H.W. Bush, who became president in 1989.

Lastly,

E)  Why are GOP losers so hot for corporate welfare but so against real human beings having welfare?

[Amianthus]

B)  If the GOP is so anti-welfare, why is it's titular leader so gung  ho on handing out free money to people who didn't pay it in?

The original proposal was to limit the refund to what would be paid in during the year. If you don't pay in $600, you don't get an "early refund." The DEMOCRATS added the payout to those who don't pay taxes.

[Stray Pooch]

A)  If the economy is not in the crapper, why does the it need to be stimulated?

The economy is definitely in the crapper, or at least hovering over the pit.  Nobody is bothering to deny that now.  The only issue is whether we are in, are heading for, or can avoid a recession.  Personally, I think it is the first.

B)  If the GOP is so anti-welfare, why is it's titular leader so gung  ho on handing out free money to people who didn't pay it in?

He's not.  Dems added that one in.

C)  Could the "stimulus package" have more to do with the GOP tanking against DEM candidates?

It could be, except that this was a bipartisan effort that came together ridiculously quickly.  Frankly, that is what convinced me we are in a world of hurt.  Dems and Repubs singing from the same sheet is music is always remarkable.  In an election year it is downright scary.

D)  Why are they calling it a "stimulus package" and not a bail out for corporate theives and liars which it really is?  It's simply a Savings and Loan bail out AGAIN!  And remember who two of the major, major players in that whole fiasco were?
[/quote]

Alright, I see where you are going with this.  You are talking about this is the context of some corporate bailout rather than the tax rebate.  Since I am not familiar with the stimulus package, I can't address those issues.  I was kind of wondering why you were suddenly going all Rush Limbaugh on the "slobs who aren't paying in" theme.  You got me.  Well played.

E)  Why are GOP losers so hot for corporate welfare but so against real human beings having welfare?

And the clincher.  I swallowed it hook, line and sinker.  I could just delete the whole thing and play it cool, but I have to give the devil his due.  The answer to your last question, of course, is that providing assistance to those who create jobs and stimulate the economy makes more sense than providing assistance to those won't hold jobs and drain the economy.  But you drew me in and I will give you the credit.

[Plane]

I've not been able to follow the threads of late and I was curious if there had been much discussion of the Bush's handing out free money to the slobs of the US?

On so many levels this is just proof that the GOP is totally and utterly morally corrupt and absolutely transparent.

A)  If the economy is not in the crapper, why does the it need to be stimulated?

B)  If the GOP is so anti-welfare, why is it's titular leader so gung  ho on handing out free money to people who didn't pay it in?

C)  Could the "stimulus package" have more to do with the GOP tanking against DEM candidates?

D)  Why are they calling it a "stimulus package" and not a bail out for corporate theives and liars which it really is?  It's simply a Savings and Loan bail out AGAIN!  And remember who two of the major, major players in that whole fiasco were?

A helpful reminder:

Lincoln Savings and Loan
The Lincoln Savings led to the Keating five political scandal, in which five U.S. senators were implicated in an influence-peddling scheme. It was name for Charles Keating, who headed Lincoln saving and made $300,000 as political contributions to them in the 1980s. Three of those senators - Alan Cranston, Don Riegle, and Dennis DeConcini - found their political careers cut short as a result. Two others - John Glenn and John McCain - were rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating.[12]


[edit] Silverado Savings and Loan
Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.6 billion. Director of Silverado S&L, Neil Bush was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado, he denied all wrongdoing. [2] Neil Bush is a son of President George H.W. Bush, who became president in 1989.

Lastly,

E)  Why are GOP losers so hot for corporate welfare but so against real human beings having welfare?

The stimulus package is in the form of a Tax rebate.

This is clever, a gift to the honest taxpayer , no assistance to the undrground economy which doesn't need the help.

To stimulate the economy it doesn't matter were you ut the money , as long as it is put where it will circulate. It could be given to cats if that would get mew mix sold .

The beauty of makeing it a tax rebate is that it returnd the vigorish to its origional sorce and waters the plant that grows  the stuff in the first place.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The idea of flinging money about on an election year is simply a form of a bribe to the voters to vote for the Republicans. What the Roans called "Bread and Circuses".

It may or may not serve to stimulate the economy, but it is a silly way to do it. Not pissing away bazillions in Iraq would have been better for the economy.

[Plane]

It may or may not serve to stimulate the economy, but it is a silly way to do it. Not pissing away bazillions in Iraq would have been better for the economy.

How exactly?

[kimba1]

actually the timing is right for it
I read of a article that strangely I can`t find now that say`s americans are not spending that much nowadays
people are actually leaning toward using cash only to lay off the plastic.
which is hurting the high end businesses.
so it looks a stimulus package is needed to get folks to use that credit card more to help our economy

[Brassmask]

You'll note that RARELY does the media even mention anything other than the moneys being doled out to us citizens.  There are actually parts of the bill that give money to the corporations in the form of "tax cuts".

Workers who make at least 3,000 dollars but do not pay taxes would get 300 dollar rebates. The rebates were expected to cost about 100 billion dollars, and the package also includes close to 50 billion dollars in business tax cuts.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/25/content_7491030.htm

Which we all know is just a bullshit way of saying they're handing them cash.

What we're looking at here folks is subsidies with "rebate checks" (bribes) to us to just look the other way or risk no one getting anything.

Corporate welfare.  The government might as well nationalize those corporations and let's just move on to socialism which is the natural way of life.

If we're all paying for the corporations to stay afloat, shouldn't we all get some kind of permanent benefit from our investment rather than a one time buy out?  Where's the "choice" in the way their doing this?  Isn't this just a semantic way of using eminent domain to screw the citizen?

Think about it.  The government has "our" money.  Way more of mine than the $1500 they will possibly be sending me in May or June.  But they're taking my money (minus the amount used to run the government and my rebate) and giving it to a private entity, a corporation but what is my return on my investment?  I'm not getting any government running results.  I'm not getting any newer roads or improved education for my kid or health care or longer legislative periods or anything.  All I'm getting is about $1500 of my own money back and the corporations are getting a tax break so that some executives can get their million dollar bonuses rather than taking the hit for making poor business decisions that resulting, not in their terminations, but in the loss of hundreds of homes and jobs and a declining overall economy.

I guarantee any company that gets the so-called tax break will go on to have layoffs and CEO's with million dollar bonuses and pay-outs. 

Please, feel free to tell me why that is somehow better than giving a woman with five kids and no job a check for $200 a month over a year?

[kimba1]

I got a question
does our country need it`s citizen to be in debt for the economy to get better?
meaning if everybody only use money they can truely afford to spend and never use plastic.

would it hurt or help our country?
it`ll definately hurt high end businesses