I can't wait to get my extra 13$ a week. . . .personally. . .

[chess9]

Now I know I'm old. To me $13 a week is not insignificant. That's about 4 gallons of milk a week!

This reminds me of a relative of mine who is an alcoholic. He was in dire financial straits and called me asking for a 'loan' of $5,000. I told him I'd 'lend' him $500, knowing full well he'd never repay it. His response? "If you can only lend me $500, I'll send YOU $500!". LOL.

-Robert

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Topic Title: I can't wait to get my extra 13$ a week

I can't wait for the new AT forum and the ignore features.

:thumbsup:

This section in particular has become filled with trolls.

 

[PingSpike]

$13/wk isn't a lot thats true, buts not nothing either.

 

[Gand1]

For anyone who thinks $13 a week is insignificant, they can happily send it to me. $13 a week keeps my gas tank full, so it's a win win for me.

 

[fleshconsumed]

As someone else has mentioned it's funny, $13 a week comes out to $676 a year. Most people would be up in arms if their taxes went up by almost $700 a year, but when it's a tax cut, suddenly it's not worth enough.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Gand1
For anyone who thinks $13 a week is insignificant, they can happily send it to me. $13 a week keeps my gas tank full, so it's a win win for me.

Exactly... This pretty much covers the car insurance on my and my wife's cars.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Wait, weren't you guys laughing at the people who were saying that Obama was going to give they free money, calling them selfish and lazy? But now you're complaining that your 'free money" isn't enough?

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Instead of complaining, you could take that money and purchase a health insurance policy rather than continuing to ask for universal healthcare funded by other taxpayers like you constantly do. Of course, then you'd have to (horrors) do something responsible with your money, and of course we can't have that!

Link to a health insurance policy that can be had for $13/week with a low enough deductible that one wouldn't go bankrupt from a serious injury or illness. If its $13/week with a $20,000 deductible, that's worthless.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Link to a health insurance policy that can be had for $13/week with a low enough deductible that one wouldn't go bankrupt from a serious injury or illness. If its $13/week with a $20,000 deductible, that's worthless.

Last month I signed up for this health insurance, option #1. The cost for me is $8.27 a week (mostly healthy, non-smoker, with just one permanent disease, age 31). Yes, it is a $5000 deductable, but $5k shouldn't put anyone into bankruptcy. I average roughly $20 a year in health bills, so there is no reason for a low deductible $200/month plan for me. The premium savings alone will pay for the $5000 deductable every 2.5 years.

But, if you want to fall into the false math of low deductibles, then option #3 was under $17 a week with $3000 deductibles, it has free yearly preventative care, small copays, and max $6k out of pocket in a serious injury or illness. Or, option #4 is under $19 a week with $0 deductible.

 

[xenolith]

Again, the devil is in the details:

This starts in June! Hasn't BO continually argued (ad nauseum) that this stimulus package needs to be a "targeted and immediate boost to our economy"?

And it's for only for 30 weeks: $13 x 30 = $390. We are getting further and further away from that promised $500/$1000 tax break by the day.

The tax break then turns into $8 a week (starting January 2010) for the next 30 weeks: $8 x 30 = $240. After that: it ends.

Come on guys, we all know it's much more important the "stimulus package" go to:

- $2,400,000,000 for "zero emission powerplants", a technology that does not even exist - yet. Can you say R&D blackhole? This was originally a Bush initiative the democrats killed when he was in office.

- $4,190,000,000 for ACORN, the left-wing advocacy group best known for allegations of voter fraud during the 2008 presidential campaign.

- $600,000,000 to buy brand new cars for government bureaucrats. Which promises to grow.

- $335,000,000 for adult sex workshops (one of the few line items which could conceivably deliver "stimulus.")

- $150,000,000 for honeybee insurance. WTF

- $246,000,000 for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

- $2,800,000,000 for broadband internet services to urban areas (where most already have it) and rural areas (where most likely don't want it.) The fed's version of "a bridge to nowhere."

- $1,000,000,000 for an already bloated Amtrak. Oink-oink!

- 2,000,000,000 for government office renovations to make them "green."

- 20,000,000,000 for additional food stamp assistance.

- 36,000,000,000 for extend unemployment benefits. These last two will certainly produce jobs. :roll:

- 25,000,000 for another Native American alcohol and substance abuse progam.

- 200,000,000 for re-seeding the lawns of the National Mall. This little piggy went to market.

$2,000,000,000 for a 2010 Census overun. This little piggy stayed home.

- $50,000,000 for additional funding to The National Endowment for the Arts. This little piggy had roast beef.

- $650,000,000 for digital TV conversion coupons. This little piggy had none.

- 300,000,000 to buy brand new "green" golf carts for government bureaucrats. Squeal! This little piggy went we-we-we all the way home!

This list is just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more pork being served up at our expense.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: xenolith
And it's for only for 30 weeks: $13 x 30 = $390. We are getting further and further away from that promised $500/$1000 tax break by the day.

The tax break then turns into $8 a week (starting January 2010) for the next 30 weeks: $8 x 30 = $240. After that: it ends.

The true tax break is $400 per tax payer this year (Which is $800 for married couples). We need to stop multiplying the silly $13 business since that is just rounding. Yes, $400/$800 is short of the original $500/$1000 plan. But it is most of it. And this is just the first round of tax cuts. Others will come.

As for the rest of your post, stimulus is ALL pork. That is the definition of stimulus spending. It is supposed to be pork - ie money that wouldn't be spent otherwise. And you are forgetting the flip side of the coins. For example, the government sold YOUR analog TV spectrum out from under you for billions, spending $650M more on coupons to the people hurt by the deal is just plain fair AND the governement still comes out billions of dollars ahead. True, you can argue that spending money is bad - however you then have to deal with the consequences of an economy shutting down. But, to complain that it is pork is just ignorant. Stimulus is pork. Pork is stimulus. They are one and the same.

Every single dollar spent in pork stimulates a local economy. Every single dollar goes to workers, share holders of companies, and/or owners of raw materials. You could just give that money directly to workers, share holds, and owners and get nothing in return (ie a tax cut). But with pork at least the government gets something for that money. The real key to a succcessful stimulus package is if that money goes to American workers, share holders, and owners or if the stimulus pork is spent on foreign entities.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: dullard
True, you can argue that spending money is bad - however you then have to deal with the consequences of an economy shutting down. But, to complain that it is pork is just ignorant. Stimulus is pork. Pork is stimulus. They are one and the same.

So we can mark you down as one who believes the solution to economic downturns is out of control government pork.

History is not on your side.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: xenolith
So we can mark you down as one who beleives the solution to economic downturns is out of control government pork.

History is not on your side.

Did I say that? Nope. Not exactly.

In my belief, in a good economy, the government spending should decrease. For example, welfare type payments should diminish or end since the economy is good and it isn't needed. With the savings, the government should build up a safety net of cash. Then, in a bad economy, the government should spend that cash on things that do public good. Things that will make life cheaper or better for Americans. This includes some welfare.

We can do similar things with taxes. Cut taxes in bad times and raise them in good times. Unfortunately, inept congress makes the tax changes too difficult to be timely. Thus, spending changes are easier. Ideally, a combination would be used, but the political world is too far from ideal for tax changes to usually be effective.

Out-of-control spending isn't my answer at all. It should be very well controlled by spending cuts in good economies. You should only deficit spend to the extent that you saved in the good years. Too bad we didn't do that in the 2000s.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: xenolith
So we can mark you down as one who beleives the solution to economic downturns is out of control government pork.

History is not on your side.

Did I say that? Nope. Not exactly.

In my belief, in a good economy, the government spending should decrease. For example, welfare type payments should diminish or end since the economy is good and it isn't needed. With the savings, the government should build up a safety net of cash. Then, in a bad economy, the government should spend that cash on things that do public good. Things that will make life cheaper or better for Americans. This includes some welfare.

We can do similar things with taxes. Cut taxes in bad times and raise them in good times. Unfortunately, inept congress makes the tax changes too difficult to be timely. Thus, spending changes are easier. Ideally, a combination would be used, but the political world is too far from ideal for tax changes to usually be effective.

Out-of-control spending isn't my answer at all. It should be very well controlled by spending cuts in good economies. Too bad we didn't do that in the 2000s.

Well targeted spending can stimulate the economy somewhat, you and I can probably agree a little bit on that, but this proposed BO stimulus package is as far from well-targeted as you can get.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: xenolith
Well targeted spending can stimulate the economy somewhat, you and I can probably agree a little bit on that, but this proposed BO stimulus package is as far from well-targeted as you can get.

I may have editd too late for you to see it. But read my last paragraph in my first response to you. I agree, the key detail is in the targetting. Most important to me, is are you targetting American workers and American companies, or are you targetting foreign workers and foreign companies. For example, if you buy American cars for bureaucrats, you help solve a minor problem with our government bureaucrats AND you stimulate the sagging American auto industry. But, if you buy BMWs for them, your stimulus money just went to waste. I really don't think details like that have yet been decided, so it is really hard to see how well or how poorly targetted this package is.

We also have to be careful to stimulate parts of the economy that need stimulus. If you stimulate the construction sector then you will do good (ie hurt badly now by housing busts and soon to be hurt by the looming commercial space bust). But if you stimulate Wal-Mart when Wal-Mart is already doing well in this economy, your money is wasted.

Maybe the bureaucrats don't need cars. But that isn't the point. The point is: did you stimulate the American auto industry or not?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Gand1
For anyone who thinks $13 a week is insignificant, they can happily send it to me. $13 a week keeps my gas tank full, so it's a win win for me.

Exactly... This pretty much covers the car insurance on my and my wife's cars.

You can buy yourself a cheap set of earrings.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Link to a health insurance policy that can be had for $13/week with a low enough deductible that one wouldn't go bankrupt from a serious injury or illness. If its $13/week with a $20,000 deductible, that's worthless.

Last month I signed up for this health insurance, option #1. The cost for me is $8.27 a week (mostly healthy, non-smoker, with just one permanent disease, age 31). Yes, it is a $5000 deductable, but $5k shouldn't put anyone into bankruptcy. I average roughly $20 a year in health bills, so there is no reason for a low deductible $200/month plan for me. The premium savings alone will pay for the $5000 deductable every 2.5 years.

But, if you want to fall into the false math of low deductibles, then option #3 was under $17 a week with $3000 deductibles, it has free yearly preventative care, small copays, and max $6k out of pocket in a serious injury or illness. Or, option #4 is under $19 a week with $0 deductible.

Single, young, skinny, and healthy, eh? Enjoy it while it lasts. Most Americans, especially the ones in financial trouble, aren't in that boat. In my challenge, I should have specified married with kids.

As soon as you hit the married with kids stage, that low deductible becomes far more important. While you might not be clowning around and wrap your mouth around a coffee table, your kid just might. It can add up really, really quickly.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Link to a health insurance policy that can be had for $13/week with a low enough deductible that one wouldn't go bankrupt from a serious injury or illness. If its $13/week with a $20,000 deductible, that's worthless.

Last month I signed up for this health insurance, option #1. The cost for me is $8.27 a week (mostly healthy, non-smoker, with just one permanent disease, age 31). Yes, it is a $5000 deductable, but $5k shouldn't put anyone into bankruptcy. I average roughly $20 a year in health bills, so there is no reason for a low deductible $200/month plan for me. The premium savings alone will pay for the $5000 deductable every 2.5 years.

But, if you want to fall into the false math of low deductibles, then option #3 was under $17 a week with $3000 deductibles, it has free yearly preventative care, small copays, and max $6k out of pocket in a serious injury or illness. Or, option #4 is under $19 a week with $0 deductible.

I've got denied for every 'buy it yourself' plan I've ever looked at. Reason? Congenital problem that requires meds. . . I really don't get a 'reason' - just a 'no'. . .

 

[BarneyFife]

Don't worry. Gas prices will hit $3 gallon in June so the $13 a week will go straight to the racket.

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by: xenolith
Again, the devil is in the details:

This starts in June! Hasn't BO continually argued (ad nauseum) that this stimulus package needs to be a "targeted and immediate boost to our economy"?

And it's for only for 30 weeks: $13 x 30 = $390. We are getting further and further away from that promised $500/$1000 tax break by the day.

The tax break then turns into $8 a week (starting January 2010) for the next 30 weeks: $8 x 30 = $240. After that: it ends.

Come on guys, we all know it's much more important the "stimulus package" go to:

- $2,400,000,000 for "zero emission powerplants", a technology that does not even exist - yet. Can you say R&D blackhole? This was originally a Bush initiative the democrats killed when he was in office.

- $4,190,000,000 for ACORN, the left-wing advocacy group best known for allegations of voter fraud during the 2008 presidential campaign.

- $600,000,000 to buy brand new cars for government bureaucrats. Which promises to grow.

- $335,000,000 for adult sex workshops (one of the few line items which could conceivably deliver "stimulus.")

- $150,000,000 for honeybee insurance. WTF

- $246,000,000 for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

- $2,800,000,000 for broadband internet services to urban areas (where most already have it) and rural areas (where most likely don't want it.) The fed's version of "a bridge to nowhere."

- $1,000,000,000 for an already bloated Amtrak. Oink-oink!

- 2,000,000,000 for government office renovations to make them "green."

- 20,000,000,000 for additional food stamp assistance.

- 36,000,000,000 for extend unemployment benefits. These last two will certainly produce jobs. :roll:

- 25,000,000 for another Native American alcohol and substance abuse progam.

- 200,000,000 for re-seeding the lawns of the National Mall. This little piggy went to market.

$2,000,000,000 for a 2010 Census overun. This little piggy stayed home.

- $50,000,000 for additional funding to The National Endowment for the Arts. This little piggy had roast beef.

- $650,000,000 for digital TV conversion coupons. This little piggy had none.

- 300,000,000 to buy brand new "green" golf carts for government bureaucrats. Squeal! This little piggy went we-we-we all the way home!

This list is just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more pork being served up at our expense.

link

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: BuckNaked

- $1,000,000,000 for an already bloated Amtrak. Oink-oink!

If anything this is one of the answers to stopping oil dependency, and one of the biggest needed infrastructure upgrades, sorry I do not see the problem.
Taking a train is much better then driving x100. Even in the underfunded wrecks we call a passenger train network here in the states.
It is plain embarrassing taking a train and have our European neighbors also riding ask us WTF is wrong with us to have such crap rail when we have oil problems.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: BuckNaked

- $1,000,000,000 for an already bloated Amtrak. Oink-oink!

If anything this is one of the answers to stopping oil dependency, and one of the biggest needed infrastructure upgrades, sorry I do not see the problem.
Taking a train is much better then driving x100. Even in the underfunded wrecks we call a passenger train network here in the states.
It is plain embarrassing taking a train and have our European neighbors also riding ask us WTF is wrong with us to have such crap rail when we have oil problems.

Trains are not, and never will be a meaningful form of passenger transport for people in the US outside of the few who can use them to commute and the bored and/or poor who don't mind spending four months to traverse the country in one. This is not Europe; geography is vast and trains are no future for passenger travel in a meaningufl way.

 

[Lemon law]

God bless Limbaugh and dittoheads, as soon as Limbaugh came up with these questionable numbers yesterday, it finds it way into P&N as the gospel truth. Quite frankly I can use the $13.00 a week, I just do not want to hear that the very wealthy get $1300.00 a week as a repeat of GWB policies.

Feeling masochistic, I too listened to Limbaugh yesterday, and I hope he is right on his advocacy, he wants the GOP to purge every GOP member anywhere to the left of the far right lunatic fringe, should do wonders for the GOP in 2010. In an era of austerity, who can afford a big tent. After 2010, the GOP can all fit in a pup tent with room to spare. And no need to warehouse those token blacks and token Hispanics for four years between conventions. By 2012, we won't need a color TV to watch the 2012 Republican convention, no more rainbows, just a small swamp of white faces.

And like Moses, Limbaugh shall lead them.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: BuckNaked

- $1,000,000,000 for an already bloated Amtrak. Oink-oink!

If anything this is one of the answers to stopping oil dependency, and one of the biggest needed infrastructure upgrades, sorry I do not see the problem.
Taking a train is much better then driving x100. Even in the underfunded wrecks we call a passenger train network here in the states.
It is plain embarrassing taking a train and have our European neighbors also riding ask us WTF is wrong with us to have such crap rail when we have oil problems.

Trains are not, and never will be a meaningful form of passenger transport for people in the US outside of the few who can use them to commute and the bored and/or poor who don't mind spending four months to traverse the country in one. This is not Europe; geography is vast and trains are no future for passenger travel in a meaningufl way.

You have to remember steeplerot loves trains. Thinks they should run everywhere and replace cars.

 

[AndrewR]

Speak for yourself, I'm likely not even getting any of that money because of the way it's structured. Since my wife stays home to take care of our daughter, and the law is structured for "dual income" earners qualifying under $150,000, my salary (higher than $75,000 for single earner) appears to disqualify me from receiving any of the benefit. Gee, thanks. Actually, I'm just below the $100k mark so I'll probably see $4/week or something. Better than a tax increase, I suppose, but not exactly "stimulating" because it would take me a few months to even get a lap dance with that.

- $150,000,000 for honeybee insurance. WTF

Honeybees are dying off in record numbers in recent years, and no one is quite sure why. I'm not saying this particular item isn't pork, just saying that there is some sort of problem. I'd think the money is better spent on research than insurance though.