See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #239141
   On February 7th, 2008 at 8:53 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

   Future diagnosis for the country from this bill: “The operation was a success but the patient died.”

2. #239143
   On February 7th, 2008 at 8:54 pm, zorro said:

   It is really going to be rough 5 years. Hang on to your wallets, the roller coaster is leaving the gate and heading towards the cliff.

   And I love the way the democraps slam Bush for deficit spending and they are the ones larding every single bill up with more lard. They have perfected that technique.

3. #239145
   On February 7th, 2008 at 8:55 pm, DougT said:

   So many of us were left out of STIM-1. I’m hoping to be a part of enlarging the deficit with STIM-2.

   Well, I’m off to calculate my AMT.

   Great work today at CPAC, by the way. Thanks.

4. #239151
   On February 7th, 2008 at 8:58 pm, Blind_Mule said:

   http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080128/REG/242822623/1001/BENEFITSFINANCE

5. #239154
   On February 7th, 2008 at 9:00 pm, Blind_Mule said:

   oops sorry some how I copied and pasted the news link.

6. #239159
   On February 7th, 2008 at 9:03 pm, atxcowgirl said:

   Um, this link
   

   stimulation-palooza stage two.

   leads to a google page?

7. #239164
   On February 7th, 2008 at 9:11 pm, Blind_Mule said:

   A second-tranche stimulus could take longer and be prone to more earmarks, though it would likely adhere to “pay-go” rules, which require corresponding spending cuts and tax increases to offset tax cuts, lawmakers told Financial Week. This initial stimulus is expected to pass without adherence to pay-go.

   Hmmm, wonder who’s taxes will increase if this is a bussiness stimulus. Ok I’m not a financial genius but some of us will be given money then it will be taken away? I’m confused

8. #239165
   On February 7th, 2008 at 9:12 pm, Blind_Mule said:

   atx

   read my link

9. #239179
   On February 7th, 2008 at 9:33 pm, tarpon said:

   So we borrow the palooza from the chicoms so we can buy the loot from the chicoms. Exactly where is the stimulus in this welfare handout plan?

10. #239181
    On February 7th, 2008 at 9:36 pm, StandardDeviation said:

    Personally I wish they’d just let me keep my money in the first place.

    At least I’m in the middle, so I’ll get back some of the money the government confiscated from me. If my wife were working instead of staying home raising our daughter, I doubt I’d see a penny.

    It’s a shame that some people who deserve it get screwed, while those who don’t, benefit.

11. #239182
    On February 7th, 2008 at 9:37 pm, d1carter said:

    I can’t wait to pay for all the house flippers that have had their deals go bad. I hope stage two buys us all new cars….

12. #239191
    On February 7th, 2008 at 9:42 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    Stimulation package=”go out and spend money.”

    Let the madness continue….

13. #239204
    On February 7th, 2008 at 9:54 pm, OldGuy53 said:

    Well I got a pretty nice little savings account, so it’ll go there.
    I stimulate the economy plenty every week when I get paid.

14. #239214
    On February 7th, 2008 at 10:05 pm, pedro4 said:

    Bush is afraid of his father’s legacy-a slight recesion that is blown into a calamity by the Dem’s. So he has to “do something”. Sheesh.

15. #239220
    On February 7th, 2008 at 10:15 pm, Grey Fox said:

    Well, I confess that I could sure use some of my tax money back. I think I’ll stimulate the economy by buying one of those new fangled cartridge guns, before they ban them all.

16. #239226
    On February 7th, 2008 at 10:21 pm, et said:

    Anyone care to guess which politician or party will be the first to suggest that we send our stimulation-palooza check to them. So that they can stimulate the economy with their campaign spending.

17. #239230
    On February 7th, 2008 at 10:29 pm, rightisright said:

    I think i need more 2nd amendment rights, can anyone tell me if i will be getting any of this hand out, so I can buy more bullets. i’m on SSD and don’t pay taxes? I’d sure like my share
    /sar

    grrrrrr

18. #239241
    On February 7th, 2008 at 10:58 pm, David Segal said:

    Why are we just discovering now that Bush is NOT a fiscal conservative?

    Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton handled this country’s finances better than our beloved GW.

    I think we gave GW a pass because of the GWoT and he took advantage of it. It’s far easier to spend than conserve.

    Disappointing.

19. #239242
    On February 7th, 2008 at 10:59 pm, Kevin K. said:

    I guess that I have too much money that I’m not spending [NOT true, by the way!]–according to the government–so my money has to be taken away from me and inefficiently given away to others. Hold on to your wallets everyone–it’s going to be an expensive 4-8 years.

20. #239247
    On February 7th, 2008 at 11:09 pm, Tennessee Dave said:

    From the Briebart.com linked story:

    Democrats said Republicans would pay a political price for their opposition. The more expensive proposal would have extended unemployment for 13 weeks for people whose benefits had run out;

    Considering that unemployment rates nationally are 4.9% for January 2008, according to http://www.bls.gov/cps/, I don’t think the Republicans have to worry about too big a price.
    I do think that the Dems manufactured an issue and the Republicans went along not to look bad and in the end we all pay the price.

21. #239256
    On February 7th, 2008 at 11:39 pm, Jim M. said:

    Call me a skeptic, but this action will have no impact on the overall economy. People spending a few hundred dollars in one shot is not going to cause businesses to go out and hire more employees, or add to their infrastructure to increase production. And given that most production occurs on foreign shores these days, the real beneficiaries will actually be China and Indonesia.

    The proposed federal budget for next year is $3 trillion. A $150 billion “rebate” is about 5% of the federal budget.

    Seems like it should be enough for a boost, but consider that the federal government’s budget is based on money it collects in the form of taxes and fees. And taxes are largely based on earnings. So the economy that generates the money for the federal government is several times larger than the budget itself (if the Democrats had their way it would be equal).

    Assume that, after deductions, write offs and other reductions in the taxable income numbers the average tax rate for everything collected (individual, corporate, tarrifs, etc) is 25%. That would put the taxable economy at roughly $12 trillion a year. The “real” economy that included ALL income before reduction down to taxable income would probably be North of $15 trillion a year.

    That means that the impact of a $150 billion rebate would be in the neighborhood of 1% (understand that these are rough back-of-the-envelope numbers that don’t account for borrowings or other sources of government revenue). I don’t know many CEO’s who will alter their corporate spending patterns for a one time 1% increase in sales.

    The stimulus may have a psychological impact on consumer confidence, but will have virtually no impact on the overall economy.

22. #239260
    On February 7th, 2008 at 11:49 pm, right_on said:

    How long do you suppose it will take the liberals who supported this “gift” to America, to blame Bush for adding to the deficit?

23. #239276
    On February 8th, 2008 at 12:26 am, fred5676 said:

    On February 7th, 2008 at 11:39 pm, Jim M. said:
    Call me a skeptic, but this action will have no impact on the overall economy. People spending a few hundred dollars in one shot is not going to cause businesses to go out and hire more employees, or add to their infrastructure to increase production. And given that most production occurs on foreign shores these days, the real beneficiaries will actually be China and Indonesia….

    Exactly!

    90% of the “rebate” recipients will go to Wal-mart to purchase a Japanese-branded HD TV, made in a Chinese factory.

    My stimulus advice – buy some Asian mutual funds.

24. #239277
    On February 8th, 2008 at 12:26 am, winemkr said:

    right_on said:

    How long do you suppose it will take the liberals who supported this “gift” to America, to blame Bush for adding to the deficit?

    Why shouldn’t they blame him. He’s the President of the United States of America.

    He is going to sign the bill.

    I’ll be the first in line to blame him. And I support him.

    But I don’t support this.

25. #239330
    On February 8th, 2008 at 6:35 am, CarpiJugulum said:

    If the economy is so bad, and we face a recession. How can the government justify this spend thrift scam policy?

    If you look at the dow. The fluxuation of three hundred points is nothing. The percentage is much smaller then it was in 87 when it dropped. This economic crisis is a manufactured problem by the MSM and the liberals. They are wanting us to believe we need this money.

    Because people refused to read the smal print and inform themselves of the bad deals they got into with morgages on homes and SECOND homes. The keeping up with the jones and credit card debt. The entitlement mentality is beiung entrenched into this country and it will cause problems in the future, but right now it is not as bad as being claimed.

26. #239628
    On February 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm, e.koenig said:

    USA – hey china can we borrow 168 billion…don’t worry were good for it.

    CHINA – well what do you need the money for?

    USA – well we need to trick people into thinking we are working to protect our economy and giving them money to buy your tv’s will surely make them forget about our complete failure.

    I saw on drudge the other day that a state politician wanted to test elected officials for drug use…may I add psychiatric evaluations also?
    I think I’ll just pay off my one cc with it…someone has to be financially responsible.

27. #239702
    On February 8th, 2008 at 2:46 pm, Barry F. said:

    Call me a skeptic, but this action will have no impact on the overall economy. People spending a few hundred dollars in one shot is not going to cause businesses to go out and hire more employees, or add to their infrastructure to increase production.

    I don’t think it’s really meant to stimulate job growth, Jim. It is a government handout that they will turn around and revoke with higher taxes. Except, the higher tax burden will far, far exceed anything pocketed by people with this “stimulus”.

28. #239938
    On February 9th, 2008 at 2:27 am, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

    On February 7th, 2008 at 10:58 pm, David Segal said:
    Why are we just discovering now that Bush is NOT a fiscal conservative?

    Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton handled this country’s finances better than our beloved GW.

    I couldn’t possibly disagree more. Clinton’s time in office was a huge economic boom because of what was happening in the free market. Before the Internet bubble burst, the economy was soaring. What did Clinton do? Did he lower taxes to send the economy into dizzying heights and simultaneously create an insurance of sorts against bad times? No, he did the political equivalent of a drunk on a Saturday night – he spent it. How? By imposing the largest tax increase in history And when the bubble burst, it fell upon GW to fix the recession, and he did with his tax cuts. Had Clinton not been so G*dda*n socialist/reckless with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, this country could be experiencing the kind of growth not seen since the 1950’s.

    Dope. Jerk. Idiot. The are no words sufficient to describe how irresponsible Clinton was.

    And now his blushing bride wants to be the President of the United States.