Looks like alot of folks plans will be impacted.
I'm not getting a penny either, and I probably pay more in taxes than most of these people make. It's an economic stimulus package, not another fucking entitlement program. If 600 bucks makes that big a difference in your life you're probably not putting much into the system to begin with.
I don't feel sorry for them in the least. These people are, by and large the same people ridiculing the rebates to begin with.
"by and large the same people ridiculing the rebates to begin with"??
Probably the largest and most readily identifiable group of people with foreign spouses are US servicemen. They don't usually pay a whole lot in taxes because they get paid about 20% what they could make working for Blackwater.
So if they're that stupid to work for peanuts and get the hots for goddam foreigners in the hellholes we send them, then fuck 'em!
Personally, I've got bigger fish to fry than any rebate. But I gotta admire your - whatever you call it - maybe an idea? I can't think it's any kind of LOGIC.
"They don't usually pay a whole lot in taxes because they get paid about 20% what they could make workng for Blackwater. So if they're that stupid to work for peanuts and get the hots for goddam foreigners in the hellholes we send them to, then fuck 'em!"......Darwin, you are a piker, and a pompous ass to boot. It is obvious you have no knowledge of the military pay scales. By your numbers, Blackwater pays at least $350,000/year based on my last year's pay when I retired in 1988. "Goddam foreigners in hellholes"... My wife is from South America. Met her when I was flying U.S. Embassy support missions there. "Fuck 'em"??? Naw, fuck you, asshole, and the box you came in.
not everybody makes what you did when you retired, and nobody said all servicemen were married to foreigners, only that they were a large & identifiable group. That doesn't suggest even a majority, only a lrage number relative to other groups.
A lot of those fellows are not ready to retire on your pay. Most of them are 1st or 2nd term non-rates. Hopefully, you were a bit over E-5 when you retired. Yeah, Blackwater DOES pay A LOT, and often to anybody who has a successful tour.
For everybody who gets to fly, there are many more that don't, so you shouldn't think you were typical. For every South American wife, there's a whole lot more Koreans, Filipinos, and now we're collecting Iraqis. Maybe it's changed, but I haven't heard of a whole lot of people on Embassy duty.
It's obvious you were one of the blowhards who wasn't too good with math, or logic - or for that matter, the English language. If you let your brain cycle long enough, you might have recognized sarcasm, asshole.
Darwin, your verbage would indicate that you have at least some military experience, e.g., E-5, and non-rates. However, having read and re-read your post, I have yet to note any sarcasm, intended, or otherwise. I take a person at their word, spoken or written. If you said it, you meant it. I was a bit over E-5 at retirement. E-9, actually, and that was after 28 years of active duty. Also, pay attention son, I said Embassy SUPPORT duty, not Embassy duty. Obfuscate and name call all you want, I'm too old a cat to get fucked by a kitten.
C'mon man, you can do better than that. You left the 'B' out of DUMFUCK. If you're going to be a shithead, at least do it correctly, and with a little style.
I sort of figured that the 1st time.
Get What? That you are a post pubescent pretty boy with a predilection for prescription pharmaceuticals. Or then again, perhaps you are a 17 year old wanker sitting in your bedroom of your family home, typing away with one hand while tweaking your willie with the other. I'm outta here......
because what you should have asked is, WHICH soldier?
IF YOU HADN'T NOTICED, not every soldier gets paid the same, dimwit.
You're about stupid enough to assume they're all paid the same as you.
Private contractors don't hire many 30 year people, because there aren't many. Frankly, I never saw a 30 year Marine with such a fossilized brain. God, I hope my Corps hasn't gone that far down!
Private pay often runs $150k for simple truck drivers a PFCs job, to $200K for people who do a Cpl 0311's job, and of course there are commissions for people who can write their own contracts to rip off the govt.
So who makes a fifth of that? Military truck drivers usually make less. I didn't see many sgts over 6 driving trucks.
But I'm glad to see such a stupid fuck is out and not anyplace he can hurt anybody.
that your pay as an E-9 over God knows 20+ years is not a statistically valid sample of the person that a private contractor will hire for (his estimate) 5X the cost of military personnel.
For example, a fellow could easily make 6 figures driving a truck in Iraq, which is a PFCs job in service. Now, how much do those folks make? Often considerably less than 20% of what KBR will pay.
Similarly, a sniper or seal or god knows what else could easily be under 8, and not touching your money, and exactly what Blackwater hires.
And $350K is a bit high, but $200K is not unheard of for people with minimal time in service.
Your stupidity is to assume that your specific experience is a statistical average throughout the service. As he points out, there are really not a lot of servicemen who are E-9s over 20 on South American embassy support duty.
Now who is the dumb fuck? What did they do, assign you as ballast because you couldn't do anything else?
CD and CM, geez, don't you two read a complete sentence before you go running off at the mouth? I'm beginning to think you both are one and the same. Tell you what. Why don't we meet face to face in a public place, and discuss what a dumb fuck I am? How about 'Le Bec Fin', or the 'Striped Bass' in Philly. Lunch is on me. Personally, I prefer the 'Broad Street Diner', in South Philly. The wait staff is more friendly there, and the food is as good as the other two eateries, and not as pricey. Just ask the hostess for 'Chuck', my real name BTW. She'll point you to my table. See you soon?????
The impact on the economy will be alot less than people realize. In the dc area there are many 2 income families that make over 160K and the impact will negligible.
It really isn't accurate to refer to the checks as "rebates" given the fact that those who pay the most in taxes will be getting zilch, while others who paid no taxes whatsoever will be getting a check. It is impossible to get a "rebate" of money that was never paid in the first place.
Should have used the money to rebuild the infrastructure and putting people to work.
That would have been real economic stimulus, probably not popular.
Capital gains taxes should be 0%. And corporate taxes should be reduced to 20% (that's almost cutting them in 1/2!!!!).
Our economy would take off!!!! There'd be JOBS JOBS JOBS!!!! The economy would suck people into the workforce!!! People would get sucked out of welfare and on to tax roles!!! Crime would go down too!!!
We must eliminate capital gains taxes. And we must reduce the federal corporate taxes.
Our economy would explode.
I forgot to add that the economy would grow so much that there will be more tax revenue.
-- Modified on 5/12/2008 9:59:13 AM
-- Modified on 5/12/2008 10:00:20 AM
but you have to clean up the mess!
They would have expanded it to those of us that actually pay the Goddamn taxes. If the Government sent me a $600 check I'd immediately spend it on something foolish, which is exactly the intent of an economic stimulus. The idea is to get the money circulating throught the economy. Giving the money to low income people is not a stimulus package, its just another wealth redistrubution program.
Boo hoo, somepeople without SSANs aren't getting their handout. Somehow I can't muster up any sympathy for them. It's my fucking money,(and the other excluded tax payers) to begin with.
if you get $600 and spend it on a flat-screen TV vs some poorer person gets $600 and spends it on clothes for the kids? Either way, its $600 in new consumption
and actually, consumption has a more direct and immediate effect on GDP than savings. Wealthier people save more than poorer people, so $600 is more likely to be spent by the poor, whereas you are more likely to put some it in your savings account, and banks can only lend out a portion of that. Remember, one school of thought on slow economic growth is that too much savings occurs.
As to who's money it supposedly is, that's irrelevant to the concept of an economic stimulus. Hell, the gov't could spend the money itself paying people to dig and fill up holes, and the increase in GDP would be the same as you buying a new flat-screen.
Private economic transactions create value. I don't have any econ books handy so my terminology is off but it's kinda like the money multiplier thing when a bank takes in money and then supplies a loan to another party, the bank just increased the money supply.
Government spending does not do that. The gov cannot be a player. The gov can only be a referee and should try to keep the players honest.
Your Keynsian model was proved wrong by Milton friedman's money transaction-velocity-supply model.
wealthier people are more likely to spend than poor people. Poor people are much more liekly to save it for a rainy day.
I had already promised to spend any and all monies I recieved on the hobby, as usual however, I am not recieveing a dime. So instead of getting some free fucking, I'm just getting fucked as usual.lol
maybe, maybe not. the assumption has always been that the less well off you are, the more likely you will be to spend this "extra" money.
the worst outcome for the macro economy is when folks take the $$$ and pay off debt. which is what i suspect is going to happen to a decent chunk of those funds.
At least they're DOING SOMETHING!!
We don't hire Presidents (or preachers) for brains, we hire them for entertainment! And what can be more entertaining than watching GW shoot himself in the foot, and the rest of us in the balls?!
Seriously, dude. You gotta understand that P&R is ENTERTAINMENT.
"wealthier people are more likely to spend than poor people. Poor people are much more liekly to save it for a rainy day."
I'm not sure why you think that, but empirically its not true. The wealthy save a greater portion of their income.
yes private transaction create value. so do public transactions.
there is a money multiplier, which is equal to 1/reserve ratio. Reserve ratio is the amount banks are required to hold in reserve, so that's the amount that does not get lent out.
When somebody spends, the entire amount goes to GDP. Some of that will eventually wind up in a bank, and a portion of it (reserve ratio) goes nowhere. Savings is not a net contributor to GDP. Government spending (net of transfers) and consumption is. Government purchasing a desk is the same as you purchasing a desk. Or Dell purchasing a desk. There is nothing Keynesian about this-its the definition of GDP.
The money multiplier is also not a Keynesian concept. And Friedman's model was simply that long run supply is fixed, based on adaptive expectations (by the way, this is no longer taught except as historical evolution of macro theory). The MV=PY equation of exchange is also not Keynesian --- its an identity. The difference between Keynes and Friedman (grossly oversimplified) is that Uncle Miltie (as we like to call him) thought M would affect only P (causing inflation) whereas Keynes believed V and Y as well.
And for what its worth, most of macroeconomics taught in graduate schools today is based on what's referred to as New Keynesian models.