proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

That's great, GT. I wish they'd do that in every state. It just sickens me to think that schools have to close in Georgia, that our children's education takes a back seat to oil company profits. So much for who's REALLY left behind under Bush.

Bush says rebates going out Monday will boost economy

By TOM RAUM,
AP
Posted: 2008-04-25 13:36:26
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said tax rebates will start going out Monday, earlier than previously announced, and should help Americans cope with rising gasoline and food prices, as well as aid a slumping economy.

Democrats said they were glad the rebate checks were about to go out, but suggested that multinational oil companies were not among the businesses the stimulus package was originally designed to help.

"Starting Monday, the effects of the stimulus will begin to reach millions of households across our country," Bush said Friday in remarks on the South Lawn of the White House.

Those first rebates will be directly deposited into people's bank accounts. The Internal Revenue Service had been saying direct deposits wouldn't start until next Friday. Bush said paper checks would begin going out on May 9, a week earlier than previously announced.

"The money is going to help Americans offset the high prices we're seeing at the gas pump, the grocery store, and also give our economy a boost to help us pull out of this economic slowdown," Bush said.

Bush's emphasis on fuel and food prices differed from other comments he's made since signing the economic stimulus legislation, intended to aid the economy by boosting overall consumer spending - which accounts for roughly two-thirds of the nation's economic activity.

Bush has suggested the rebates could trigger a spending spree. "When the money reaches the American people, we expect they will use it to boost consumer spending," he said last month.

By saying expressly that people could use these one-time checks to pay for such necessities as food and gas, Bush underscored the deepening challenges facing the economy.

Democrats were quick to pick up on the change of focus.

"It's galling to think that taxpayers' stimulus checks will be lining the pockets of OPEC. The sad truth is that the average American family will spend almost their entire stimulus check on higher gas prices this year," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.

OPEC is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

"Unless the administration gets OPEC to increase oil supply, American consumers are going to be in for a scorching summer of $4 gasoline with no relief in sight," Schumer said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed that people "need this rebate to cope with the rising cost of gas and groceries." She said that, while the rebates would help to get the economy moving, there was a need for a second stimulus package "and we have begun some conversation with the administration and Republicans."

As he had earlier in the week, Bush used the word "slowdown" to describe the state of the economy. He has denied that the nation is in a recession, although many economists say it is.

"It's obvious our economy is in a slowdown. But, fortunately, we recognized the signs early and took action," Bush said.

The rebates - up to $600 for an individual, $1,200 for a couple and an additional $300 for each dependent child - are the centerpiece of the government's $168 billion stimulus package, enacted in February. Roughly 130 million households are expected to get them.

Bush made the comments before boarding his helicopter at the start of a day trip to Connecticut.

People must file a tax return for their 2007 income to be eligible for a rebate check.

The IRS now says all checks for those who filed tax returns on time are scheduled to be deposited or mailed by July 11.

The economy - burdened by the collapse of home prices, a financial and credit crisis, and now rising energy and food prices - grew at an anemic 0.6 percent in the final three months of last year and is believed to have gotten even weaker in the first three months of this year.

The government will report on the first quarter's performance next week.

With the economy faltering, the nation's unemployment rate has climbed to 5.1 percent, the highest since September 2005, when it suffered from the devastating blows of the Gulf Coast hurricanes. Job losses in the first three months of this year neared the quarter-million mark.

Foreclosures have surged to record highs and financial companies have taken multibillion losses on mortgage investments that soured. The situation has sent a tremor through Wall Street and has sent the administration, Congress and presidential contenders looking for ways to provide relief.

AP Economics Writer Jeannine Aversa contributed to this report.

I post articles here in order to encourage a debate about the articles. In your limited Israel-is-always-right-and-anyone-who-questions-that-is-worthy-of-a-rabid-attack attitude, you can't see that and once again wish to control everything, even how people communicate with each other.

All you want to do is tear down, not build anything. I gave my reasons for posting this article. In those reasons I expressed some skepticism about Hezbollah's sincerity. Instead of offering an intelligent response to those reasons, you once again slammed the door of dialogue and showed that your abilities to communicate are so limited that all you can do is berate and insult. To call me anti-American only highlights your ignorance. I am absolutely pro-American, and I'm very fearful where President Bush is leading us. It's the duty of every American to question what he or she sees as failures or inadequacies in the administration that is in power regardless of party affiliation. I felt the same way during the Clinton administration, and I feel the same way now.

If I were to come on here and say that Hezbollah is rebuilding Lebanon and now the Bush administration wants to compete with them, I would get responses that demand I provide my source, and rightly so. That is the reason I post the entire article itself. I want to gauge if it brings the same questions to the minds of other (repeat once again) LIBERALS as it does to me.

You're free to have your opinion of me, but you come off as pompous and controlling, demanding that everyone bow down and kiss Israel's feet. The mere suggestion that Israel may be even slightly wrong elicits anger and rage from you, and you have shown that repeatedly.

No, you are not obligated to engage in debate with anyone here, but don't whine and complain that you're unable to when someone offers you the opportunity. Your failure to do so when invited only proves how angry and full of rage you are.

For the record, I have never said you were sent to shut down the board. It's laughable to even imagine you have the power to do that. You are no more important or influential than I am or than any other poster on this board is. Get over yourself already.

And, no, I have no idea which sentence of the original article you find disturbing. I personally found several of them disturbing, but I refuse to engage in any guessing games with you.

Am I paranoid? I sure am these days. I'm pro-peace and I'm living in a country run by a President who is trigger happy and who has done nothing but incite the world.

If looking at Israel objectively is anti-Israel according to your definition, then so be it. You said previously on this board that just because Israel didn't bother to send any troops to Iraq didn't mean they're an ally. Please enlighten me. With the BILLIONS of dollars we give Israel every year, along with weapons, we are definitely an ally to Israel. Please explain how Israel is an ally to us. Is it because they grace us with their agreement to take our money and then spy on us? (I could post a number of articles regarding the spying, but since you don't like it when I do that, feel free to Google it on your own.) What have they done for us in return?

I have always believed Israel was the underdog in the Middle East and have always favored them. This is the first time I have ever questioned their actions. We here in America still have freedom of thought and speech, whether you like it or not. You know nothing of me, including how I believe. Your assessment of me is not only wrong, it's absurd and only proves how you interact with people who disagree. I am very relieved that you are not representative of all Israelis, as it gives me a small sense of hope.

I doubt your sincerity in stating that I'm not worth the time to answer, considering all the time you spent doing just that. Another example of your hypocrisy. No doubt you will waste your time once again responding to this with more hatred and insults, only this time I will let you have the last word, since you are now no longer worth the time it takes to respond.

definitely in the race as McCain agrees with his polices over 90% and has announced to plan to change any of those policies.

coming from this administration. Do I think Bush is a good president, yes! Do I think he's great? No, because, personally, he's not been conservative enough for me. To me, Ronald Reagan was great. He was tough, but he still made people like him. Bush not been tough enough on some issues.....however, that's never here or there. I have always freely said that I don't agree with everything coming from the Republican party. I'm a conservative first, Republican second, but as the days go on I am becoming more and more a Libertarian. I will still vote Republican, because I think that's where my vote has the most value, but if the Libertarian movement becomes more of a contender, believe me, I'm going to catch that wave.

I said all that to say this.....I never generalized when it came to Democrats when it came to Clinton in office, because, being from the South where there are still a lot of old Southern Democrats (and, gasp, I was one for several years believe it or not...) I knew all Democrats did not stand behind some of the Clinton policies. There were some Clinton policies I did like, although as a presidential role model he drug the office of president through the mud.....

To me it seems that liberals are all or nothing in hating Bush, but if there are some liberals out that who like Bush speak up and prove that generalization wrong

Lying and attacking and personal insults. You can't defend the issues because your theory is indefensible.

1. Sarah's socialism is fine and dandy for Alaska: "...and Alaska - we're set up, UNLIKE other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we SHARE THE WEALTH when the development of these resources occurs"... boasting to a reporter of having been able to send a check for $1,200 to every man, woman and child in the state since, "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources.�

2. She agrees with Obama's windfall profits concept...a windfall profit, by any other name, is...well, a windfall profit.

4. Sarah can articulate the shrub's oil policies even more precisely that her running mate.

have to change. Quite frankly, I'd rather feed a family than endure/survive a home invasion. We haven't even SEEN the outcome of this economic crisis. When people are hungry, they steal. When people have nowhere to live, they steal. They steal in order to survive. In order to avoid massive civil unrest - these people need a safety net. My husband is laid off and he is a professional. I pray we don't have to resort to eating out of dumpsters in order to survive. And don't think for a minute you are immune.

pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you. If you don't like the policy, don't work there. Your office is not your personal gallery.

If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.

However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree. What's next? An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?) Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it. If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it.

If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this. In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.

Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations. What is it they don't understand about "liberty"? If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay! Disciplinary action against the complainer. Law suits! ACLU involvement! Paid leave and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!