Stimulus mess and taxes
By celestos
@celestos (814)
United States
February 19, 2009 3:10am CST
I was watching on television about the stimulus package today and I think it may just end up being a mess. Giving more money to welfare? I understand helping people who need it,thats what government help is suppose to be for right? On the other hand how many people who are now unemployed are going to head to the welfare office and sign up? Alot I would say which is what anyone would if they had to. What about the people who have never had a job,not because they can't get one but because they enjoy the government fat way too much? I think its ridiculous to add more money to welfare and in turn drag more taxes out of people who do work. Some people will get around $250.00 on their stimulus check which is great but what can be bought these days with that amount? Groceries for a month? I also heard that there will be a $2.00 tax hike on things such as cigarettes. So we put the tobacco farmers out of business now? Is someone forgetting there are many individuals and towns that survive off tobacco profits to live? Many tobacco farmers are also produce farmers which rely on their profits to continue to grow the food we eat. So what now? We screw them and then bail them out next year? Then the auto companies we just bailed out had the guts to ask for even more money all while making it clear they intend to fire or lay off (whichever one sounds better) thousands of more employees? the best thing that couldve been done was getting rid of the stuffed shirt idiots behind the auto industry and figuring out ways to save employees jobs. In turn possibly helping some people to keep their homes. I cannot understand how bailing out the auto industry is helping America when all they are doing is firing all the employees,causing foreclosures and giving money to people who initially did not need it to begin with.
3 people like this
6 responses
@mgmagana (3618)
• United States
20 Feb 09
i'm all for helping people when down n out esp. in this economy...but maybe those people that get assistance can do community service in the positions with the state jobs that are laying people off...that's a thought..in turn they will also get training n experience along with the assistance checks.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
19 Feb 09
First I would like to address your comment: I understand helping people who need it,thats what government help is suppose to be for right? wrong. I do not know where you got that information. In truth, it is our federal governments job to stay out of our way.
the best thing that couldve been done was getting rid of the stuffed shirt idiots behind the auto industry and figuring out ways to save employees jobs. on thi, you may be right but the government should not be doing this. The natural course of things, you let the business go down. As a tax payer, I should not be part owne of banks, auto companies or any other.
Otherwise, I agree with a lot you say. I do want to point out that if we want entitlements, then we have to pay for them. Why not stop this crazy spending, crazy taxing and go back to personal responsibility and charity at home.
1 person likes this
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
19 Feb 09
This might surprise you but welfare and food stamps have long been used to stimulate the economy. I was a caseworker in Philadelphia in the late 1970's early 1980's and we all knew that every time a major financial indicator went south, welfare regs loosened a bit and prosecutions were temporarily shelved.
The truth is that this is a stimulous package and one of it's major aims is to put money in circulation. Tax refunds and government checks to the middle class don't put cash on the street because the middle class will bank those checks. George Bush tried tax refunds to get the economy moving and a huge part of that money wound up bank accounts. To get money on the streets, it has to go into the hands of people who cannot afford to save it.
Many a recession in the 1970's and 1980's was softened by relaxing the welfare laws for a bit. Unfortunately, there isn't enough of a welfare system left to make a difference and that's why Obama is going back to the previous regs. Right now, it's not a bad idea.
You can argue that it's not fair but a lot of the tax loopholes for the upper middle class and the rich are also not fair. However, they can sere a purpose and so can loosening up the welfare system especially with so many victims of this financial nightmare about to come onto the welfare roles.
@stacyv81 (5903)
• United States
19 Feb 09
I think its sad that in this country we tend to help those who do not help themselves. As opposed to helping those who try to help themselves. You cannot get welfare unless you do nothing. You know? I mean its harder to get Social Security Disability because you need it than it is to get welfare.
I think that Obama is just throwing money around, and Americans dont realize where all of that is eventually going to come from.
Also, many Americans are losing their jobs to thos overseas (ie, customer service on the phone) Because it saves the company a couple of bucks, but it definitely doesnt help our economy.
Middle class in America is the most hard up. We are middle class, and we are stuck in the you dont make enough to this yourself, but you make too much to get help..
Its sad the way we look at things here, I think if you do your best to help yourself and your family, you should still be able to get help.
But this system sometimes makes people choose to do nothing but bleed the system dry, because it works for them, and they get what they need and do not have to do anything.
@mommaj (23112)
• United States
19 Feb 09
It's extremely hard to get Social Security Disability. If you are a family of four and earn less than $245 a month you can go on welfare. You will get around $245. Is that outrageous or what. When I heard that I laughed. No wonder no one wants to work.
@celestos (814)
• United States
20 Feb 09
I was six months pregnant a few years back and I am a high risk pregnancy. After I had surgery during the pregnancy I could not return to work. My husband worked a full time job and after we sat down and went over how much money we actually had to eat on we knew we needed some help. I went to apply for foodstamps at least until I had my daughter and was able to return to work. We had added up our necessary bills such as electricity and so on and felt we had no other choice at that moment. We were denied however,the woman told me to begin with that my husband made too much money a month which shocked me. she then told me that if I had been an unwed mother I would have no problems getting food stamps...
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
19 Feb 09
I read an article this morning that indicated that Governors of the various states are very carefully reviewing the bill and deciding which programs would actually benefit their states and which ones could end up costing them more or commit them to future spending the federal funds will not cover.
One example is the expanded unemployment benefits which would give unemployment to people not currently qualified to receive them by state guidelines.
@mommaj (23112)
• United States
19 Feb 09
Great points. It's just like the banks. Banks aren't giving out loans with their money because their are no worthy credit risks in individuals with the job market the way it is. The auto industry is going to sit on their money and lay off the little men. With out anyone buying new cars what do they need workers for? What exactly is the government thinking? You're right about the farmers too! There won't be any more farms in America before long and we will be buying all products from overseas including meat.
