Monday, February 16, 2009

Now this amused me

Millions of workers can expect to see about $13 extra in their weekly paychecks, starting around June, from a new $400 tax credit to be doled out through the rest of the year. Couples would get up to $800. In 2010, the credit would be about $7.70 a week, if it is spread over the entire year.

Seriously... you who get this HUGE 13.00 more a week... don't spend it all in one place LOL


joanne said...

How can Obama really think he's doing something here? It's laughable. And how much can we expect to get after that $13.00 is taxed? Yeah this is going to help a whole lot...

Vicki said...

Who knows. As I said... when Clinton went in things got better and I am NOT seeing one sign of anything getting better, like we were so promised.All I see is things getting worse

Tommy said...

Takes more than 3 weeks to undo 8 years of mismanagement, ladies. Not saying I agree with every step taken so far, by any means, but I think anyone expecting his mere presence in office to suddenly halt the tidal wave wasn't listening when he said, "Things will get worse before they get better".

And Clinton's first 100 days were deemed a train wreck in retrospect, from all I've read of late. It was only later that he got some traction and got some legislation passed.

joanne said...

I'm not one of those people that thinks his simple presence in the White House will improve things and I understand it will take time. I just don't understand how anyone thinks an extra $13 in our paychecks is really doing anything helpful.

Tommy said...

I know, Joanne - but I think the stimulus thing is risky no matter how you cut it. Even if we all got $2000, most of us would just save it, knowing we may need it for the impending 'rainy day', and they are telling us that our saving $ instead of spending may be wise in the long run, but does nothing to stimulate the economy. So, instead of us getting a huge chunk, we get a little (keep in mind there are a few million of us!) and other loftier figures go directly to boost other entities that we, as consumers, might not otherwise stimulate.

I don't know if I even agree with the stimulus idea - but both sides agreed SOMETHING had to be done. they just can't agree on what, how much, or who should get it.

Most of my libertarian friends say 'let the economy self-correct'. That sounds like the most ideal situation, but also the scariest. If we stand by, do nothing, and hope for the best, I dunno what would happen, good or bad.

I just wanted to chime in, since Clinton got blamed for 9/11, because 'Bush hadn't been in office long enough to be responsible for things'. I figure Obama is owed at least his first 100 days to get his bearings.

And true change is always painfully slow.

I think he's done himself a disservice (and others have contributed) by letting his pop culture stature make him seem messianic, when he's really just a guy who is smart, leads well, and campaigned remarkably.

We'll see where that leadership takes us. Here's hoping...

Anonymous said...

Wasn't it Clinton that got the banks to loan --or I should say made the banks loan-to people that would not normally qualify--which is what lead to a lot of the big mess going on--with mortgages etc. I don't get it when the whole financial mess is laid on Pres. Bush, when that whole mess came from the liberal side. "They" always make it sound good as in fair, equal for everyone when it just makes more "victims" when those loans went through for "everyone" not seeing the problem that there is a reason they didn't qualify for reg. loans--they cannot afford them! So what people lauded as such a great thing-becaue everyone has a "right" to a house right (well, not if you cannot afford it) That's where that bank mess came from--big govt. forcing this entitlement mentality.

Vicki said...

Well I for one think it is the media that is doing the most damage to the economy. If they would SHUT UP and stop talking all the damn doom and gloom it might actually get better and people would feel like they could spend again. Maybe places would not have to shut down and such and people could actually have a job (or keep the one they already have. I have never been as depressed as when I got out Sunday paper and saw how what once had the thickest section of jobs got to what would be equivilant (sorry no clue how to spell but you know what word it is LOL) to maybe a full page. That was very sad to see the actuality of that.

I personally blame the media for this. Not one person can bring down the entire US. Sorry but that is a crack of crap to me. But when the media keeps on and on and on and on it makes people scared to do or go anywhere. In some ways I guess it is good because we can now get better deals on things. But I also know it is scary not knowing from one day to the next if you will have a job.

I know it will take some time Tommy. Of that I am not arguing. But I do remember there was a BIG blast at first when Clinton took office. (Sorry Deb I did love Clinton the first 4 years and he did do a lot of good for us) The only reason that sticks out to me even is because of all the arguments I had with my family because I voted for him and I remember me saying "I told you so" to them. What they are saying now Tommy is beyond me. I don't really keep up with it.

But really in the scheme of things.. what is 13 extra dollars per pay check going to do for anyone? Not much in my household.That would not even cover the gas to get to and from work in a week. Ok well maybe if your driving a hybrid but us POOR folk can NOT afford those cars. Hell I can't afford a new one let alone a hybrid.

On a better note I think I read where he is making it so the CEO's can only make so much, or they can't have raises. I can't remember it exactly. Now that was a plus on the whole bailout thing.

Tommy said...

Deb, I think both sides hold some responsibility here - yes, Clinton did put the ball into motion for subprime loans. But, personal responsibility is an issue as well. Wendy and I don't let the bank tell us what we 'could afford to do', we tell ourselves, and we don't borrow when we can't pay back.

Secondly, the Bush legacy isn't one of great oversight of corporate entities. They basically turned the other way for everyone from Enron to Halliburton, not to mention the big financial establishments, which the Bush admin did not want regulated - and those entities got pretty greedy, and took a lot of people for a ride to financial ruin.

I don't think Dems are faultless in this. Entitlement is a slippery slope. Democrats supported it for Joe Lunchbox thinking he could buy a McMansion, Republicans supported it for big corporations, giving them a free ride because their lobbyists were in their back pockets. No one has clean hands here.

I do agree with Vicki that the media is driving the doom and gloom, and we've given them too much power. Time to turn 'em off!

I'll be the first to say my guy goofed - if he does on this, and he might. But, unlike Rush Limbaugh, I'm not rooting for him to fail, and I didn't root for our former President to fail either - I just rooted for him to change his thinking on some policies.

Here's to the people leading, because the leaders - on both sides - and the media, aren't really cutting it these past couple o' decades.

Vicki said...

You know your right Tommy.Banks did loan to people they knew better than to loan to. but I also think people in general should be part to blame because they really knew going in they could not afford them. come on you know what you can and can not afford. and the CC companies the same. and the sad part is they are STILL giving CC's to people who do not need them. Now all those banks are stuck with all these houses they can not get rid of. If I had money I would be buying them up and renting them out until things "got better".I know there is no magic fix to all of this. To think that would be stupid. But I do think there should be more than a slap on the hand to those CEO's. Just like the car people. OMG who goes to a meeting begging for money flying in a private jet? I guess those idiots do.But seriously..they loaned the money to the people who can not afford it. Therefore they should be responsible for the actions "they" took. I should not have to be paying for the mistakes they made. Nor do I think any of us should. This whole bailout thing just pisses me off to tell you the truth.

I am not going to say I know all the much about politics. Because that would be a lie. But I do know what I read and see around me. Like I said.. we had one of the biggest job sections in the country and now it is a joke.

joanne said...

I totally agree about personal responsibility. When interest rates went to all time lows and they relaxed lending criteria requirements people got greedy. Nobody "deserves" to be a homeowner unless you can afford it. Being an American does not automatically mean you deserve a house or a car or anything else. You work for it and earn it like we did. If I work at McDonald's and earn $8 an hour and can only afford to drive a used car that's what I drive. I don't think I'm entitled to a brand new car. Sure everyone would like one but you have to live within your means. And people lost sight of that because it was so easy to get car and home loans when they obviously were not qualified to receive them. I don't feel sorry for the people that are having their homes foreclosed that bought them living beyond their resources. I don't want to hear them crying, they brought this on themselves.

Vicki said...

On anther note Joanne, I do feel for those who could afford it and the lost there job because of the economy

Anonymous said...

Yes--it is personal resposibility--but I think a lot of programs encourage entitlement instead of that.
I agree-no administration is all good or all bad.
It is scary that the media can make or break a person---or maybe in this case a country? Hope not--just remember--God is in control.

joanne said...

Yes I do feel bad for the people losing their homes because of lost jobs and not being able to find other employment. Those people have my sympathy.