Did Delay in Stimulus Signing Cost Economy More Jobs? - Page 2

I think this is the gist of it. There are those who are absolutely convinced they know what is the "right" approach what is the "wrong" approach to the current mess and have little patience with disagreement and even less patience with others who don't get as exited as they do about the same issues.

Personally, even after listening to both sides and researching how this mess came about, I can't say that I absolutely know how good a remedy the stimulus plan is but I am far from convinced that it is nothing more than the "spendulus" or "porkulus" plan some insist it is.

More news. There's not even personnel in place to handle distributing the money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us...er=rss&emc=rss

President Obama blasted through all sorts of speed records pushing a $787 billion economic plan through Congress, arguing it was too urgent to wait. But even after signing it into law Tuesday, he faces another problem: virtually no one is in place at his cabinet departments to actually spend a lot of the money.

The once efficient Obama transition has ground to a near standstill after tax problems bedeviled several of his nominees, leaving the top echelon of his government largely unassembled. Three cabinet jobs remain unfilled, only 2 of the 15 cabinet departments have deputy secretaries confirmed, and the vast majority of lower-level political jobs remain vacant.

White House officials are concerned about the problem and are working to make sure they are the ones setting direction. “We’re having meetings about that right now,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.



Yeah, be sure and have meetings AFTER the thing is approved.

Anyone wonder how good the accounting for all this will be, without people in place?

I just want to go ahead and thank all taxpayers (DH and myself included) for the extra $8000 we might be getting next year at tax time. We'll most likely be purchasing a house this year, and that $8k will really help next year, when we're settled and don't need furniture.

For those that can get the tax credit this tax season, you're welcome.

I understand what you are saying. It reminds me of a town job I had. The mayor mandated that everyone had to have funds deducted from their paycheck to go to the United Way. I thought that was unfair. I should be in charge of where my charity dollars go.

That being said, how do you know that with the system you propose that everyone who genuinely needs help will get it? For instance, say we have 4 such groups. The indigent elderly, the unwanted animals, the homeless, the severly sick. Say that funding these groups was in the hands of the public rather than the government. We each actually got to decide who was worthy. If 40% of contributions went to the elderly, 30% to the animals, and 25% to the homeless, sick people would have to make due with 5%. There has to be a way to distribute funds so that all the genuinely needy can survive.

Some deadbeats absolutely slip through the cracks. Something needs to be done to correct that problem.

The number of people really in need is growing every day. My husband first lost his health insurance, then his hours were cut, then the place he worked for closed down. He recently applied at a place that got approx 500 applications for one position. He has applied for every kind of job he feels remotely qualified for. He is getting depressed and feels like he's not even good enough to sweep floors.

The place I work is struggling. I never thought I had to be concerned about a job. I am 49 and have never been without a job for longer than one week my whole adult life. I used to think that the only people who were unemployed were those who didn't want to work.

A married couple I know are both unemployed. 2 1/2 years ago they each had good jobs. The husband recently had to choose between keeping the lights on and renewing his driver's license.

Sorry, I'm going on and on. Someone else (sorry I forget who and I'm on a roll now. ) said that Obama is overblowing the situation. I have to disagree.

Of course I don't mean people like yourself.
I mean the people that won't work if they are handed a job, I thought I made that clear. There are thousands of people like that.
They may well be a "small percentage" in this economy but when the economy was good with a 4 or 5% unemployment rate they were not a "small percentage", IMO. I know more than a few people that have made a career out of NOT working, it's pathetic. And taxpayers end up paying for those people.

No one really knows if this stimulus will work or not. One thing we do know, is that it has pushed this country further into debt, so much so, that it will never get out of it. One thing that stinks, is how fast this bill was pushed through. There was NO reason to do so. Did anyone see the size of this thing?? It was as thick as 4 or more huge phone books!! The bill should have been studied from front to back. Obama himself, could have slipped an item in there allowing for full payback to all his supporters. I know how legislation works first hand. Even when a bill looks good, there is always some sneaky dirty law maker who wants to push their own item or agenda through, without anyone knowing it. I can tell you this with certainty, that there are itmes in this bill that no one knows about, with someone getting large sums of our hard earned tax money stuffed into their own pockets. The way this whole thing was handled was wrong, period. Obama and his entire clan should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be. Dems LOVE to spend money.

From today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...src=newsletter

Obama Leaves D.C. to Sign Stimulus Bill

[quote]It is unusual, but hardly unprecedented, for presidents to sign legislation away from Washington.

It was a favored technique of President Ronald Reagan. In 1986, he enacted a stopgap spending bill that prevented a government shutdown while at a summit in Iceland with his Russian counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan also used his Santa Barbara ranch and the port of Long Beach as backdrops in bill-signing ceremonies.[quote]

I'm not sure that you get the whole amount at once, I think I read that you get an extra $500 a year deduction for like 15 years to equal the $7500.

Not in the new bill. It's not $7500 anymore, it's 10% of your home's value or $8k, whichever is lowest for those who qualify as "first-time home buyers." And unlike the previous bill, you are only required to pay it back if you move/sell the home within 2-3 years (can't remember exactly). Otherwise, unlike the bill passed last year, you don't have to pay back the amount you get. You can get the tax credit NOW, just by changing your withholding.

http://www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com/ and http://www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com/2009/faq.php