ANOTHER stimulus check???!!!

[luvdiznee]

Could it be true? Has anyone else heard this? Sorry if this has been discussed. One of my neighbors mentioned it to me, this a.m. :confused: She also said if it is true, that it would be around Xmas.:snowman::santa2::tree:Maybe there really is a Santa. :secret:

[scoot241]

Congress is talking about one, but I don't know when it will be if it happens.

Congress goes into a recess at the end of July, so we may not see anything on this until they return to session.

[pink]

Wow, I hope this is true! That would be a great Christmas present. :mickey:

[barnaby]

The idea has been entertained to send out a second one.
Only probelm is the first one hasn't been in circulation long enough to know its full effect.

Heck, I'd take the free money but it seems like another election year ploy to me.

[scoot241]

Heck, I'd take the free money but it seems like another election year ploy to me.

I agree, especially considering who's promoting the idea (Pelosi, Obama, etc.). In fact, it's one of Obama's newest "pledges" if he becomes the President.

[Wells]

If they really wanted to stimulate the economy why don't they just lower the income tax, permanently!? After all, their just giving me back the money they took from me in the first place.
I have to agree with Barnaby...this is just political grandstanding.
Isn't this the same way Bill Clinton got elected, by offering a bunch of "free" stuff.....

[PAYROLL PRINCESS]

I heard about this the other day too. I don't think this is going to jump start the economy though. It will probably just be used to pay the high cost of heating here in the NE! If they really want to do something, lower the price of health insurance, gas and milk etc.

[BelleLovesTheBeast]

WOW! This would be great. I had planned on using my first one for our Disney vacation. However my TV went out the day the check came....go figure. So after a week without a TV my DH insisted we go get another one. So mine went to that instead.:( Just means less spending money in Oct.

If they send out another....then we'll plan on taking a trip to Disneyland in the winter.

[ElenitaB]

Heck, I'd take the free money but it seems like another election year ploy to me.

I have to agree with Barnaby...this is just political grandstanding.

That happens to be exactly how I see the present stimulus package (I'm still waiting for our check). So I just guess that it depends on which side of the fence you sit on.

[barnaby]

That happens to be exactly how I see the present stimulus package (I'm still waiting for our check). So I just guess that it depends on which side of the fence you sit on.

Only probelm in saying that is the first one was co-sponsored by both sides. Both sides benefited.

This second one is being pushed by one side. ;)

[barnaby]

If they really wanted to stimulate the economy why don't they just lower the income tax, permanently!? After all, their just giving me back the money they took from me in the first place.



Amen to that - cut taxes and spending.

Actually it's not your money they are giving you back - its your money they took and spent then borrowed more than gave it back. So now we get to pay the interest on our money that Congress gave back to us. :ack:

[Bethis26fan]

It would be nice, but I'm not getting my hopes up for it. The way my luck goes it would only go to people with children since it's at christmas.

[Ian]

If they really want to do something, lower the price of health insurance, gas and milk etc.Last time I checked, the Federal government didn't sell gas, milk, or health insurance. Not sure how they could "lower the prices" ....

But anyway, on the topic at hand ... blah blah blah. Stop giving me back my own money and trying to make me feel like I should be grateful for it.

Just stop taking so much of it in the first place and I'll stimulate the economy all on my own. I mean it's plain common sense ... lower taxes (and wasteful government spending along with it) and people will have more money in their pockets to afford the more expensive gas, milk, insurance, etc.

[caryrae]

1
By Deborah Solomon
The Wall Street Journal
July 04, 2008
WASHINGTON — As the last batch of stimulus checks shows up in mailboxes, some economists and Democrats are rumbling that the government needs to intervene again to prop up the flagging economy.

The $152 billion stimulus package was meant to provide a short-term lift to the economy, and many economists believe it prompted Americans to spend more money.

But by July 11, most of the checks will have been sent out, and much of the benefit is expected to fade by August even as fears of a recession continue to percolate.

Already, Lawrence Summers, the former Clinton Treasury Secretary, and Robert Shiller, the Yale economist, are advocating some sort of additional stimulus. Democrats on Capitol Hill are discussing legislation to boost the economy. And the presidential candidates are also mulling ways to spur growth.

Still, there's little agreement about what form a second stimulus should take or how quickly it should happen.

Some favor another round of rebate checks, while others advocate investment in infrastructure.

There are also plenty of people, including some economists, who think another short-term stimulus package is the wrong way to go, arguing that it does little to fix the underlying problems plaguing the economy.

"You can't put a Band-Aid on a cancer," Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg said.

The U.S. economy grew at just 1 percent in the first quarter, buoyed in part by the stimulus checks. While similar growth is expected for the second quarter, analysts are concerned about what will happen later in the year as the impact fades. Consumer confidence has plunged amid concerns about jobs and soaring prices for oil, fuel and other commodities. Inflation remains a concern and the Federal Reserve is likely finished with its interest-rate cuts. Economic projections show weakness throughout this year and into the first quarter of 2009.

The stimulus checks boosted retail sales and consumer spending but their impact has been blunted by the continued rise in oil prices. In a speech last month, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged that rising gas prices had undercut the government's effort.

"While the stimulus is making our economy stronger than it otherwise would have been, the headwind of high energy prices has the potential to lengthen the economic slowdown," Paulson said.

On Monday, President Bush signed a bill including an extension of unemployment benefits, which could give unemployed workers additional money to spend. Beyond that, the administration has no plans to push another round of stimulus.

"Obviously we're always looking at ideas and always looking at the economy and people are talking about these things but we thought the stimulus done already was big enough to make an impact," said Phillip Swagel, the Treasury assistant secretary for economic policy.

Some top economists say there's little choice but to do something more. Summers said the U.S. could be in for a long economic downturn and that Congress should move quickly.

"Given that recessions associated with financial problems are never short and that the storm clouds are gathering rapidly there's far more risk of stimulus being too late than too early," Summers said. Among his remedies: Infrastructure investment, which he said would help create jobs, bolster the construction industry and provide a cash infusion to municipalities. Shiller, in a recent New York Times column, argues for more rebate checks.

Sen. John McCain, who backed the stimulus checks and has proposed cutting taxes, is considering whether another round of checks makes sense, according to an economic adviser. "We're looking right now to see if there is any merit in trying that again," the adviser said. The adviser added that checks won't solve the underlying problems of low housing prices and rising costs.

Sen. Barack Obama, who didn't vote on the stimulus package, has talked about infrastructure spending to spur economic growth.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) wants to send financial aid to states and fund infrastructure projects, according to her spokesman. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) is backing legislation that would give cities and states $15 billion to buy foreclosed properties.

Frank said he doesn't support another round of checks because it will be treated more like a permanent tax cut. "They're more likely to be saved the second time around," he said.

Some economists say focusing on short-term fixes is the wrong way to approach the problems. And they question whether it's really appropriate to try to bolster the economy when it's still growing, albeit sluggishly.

[pdrlkr]

I mean it's plain common sense ...

Come on Ian, your much smarter than that. If it made sense then it wouldn't be the government. :blush:

[disneycutie165]

I heard! It is all true, and my parents will be so happy to hear! Is it true that it will come to everyone around Christmas?:santa: It's like the government is giving us all a big Christmas present!

[dnickels]

I don't mean to be a downer here, but everyone does realize that any stimulus check we get is just more money that we (or your children if you have them) will have to pay back in the future right?

I understand the stimulate the economy results in more jobs, results in more taxes, etc etc line of thinking, but the long term affect of these 'stimulus checks' is just more burden on the young and future generations to pay off. What should be happening is that the government (and most households) should be balancing their budgets, cutting out a lot of the wants like new big TVs, big houses, 3+ cars to a family, things like that. If you can afford it, that's great, but the government can't.

It's like living high on the 'free' money from a credit card. Eventually that bill is going to come due.

[gamblefamily5]

There is no such thing as free money... The way I see it is let's save all of us money by not paying for more and more people to have babies that we tax payers have to pay to feed and clothe b/c of people not working. I am tired of the fact that people can get so much free from our government but we are doing VERY little to take care of our elderly or our military/veterans! The Medicaid/food stamps/WIC should be for people that hit hard times (death, major catastrophe, unexpected job loss, etc) not for people to live off of! Let's get all THAT money back and all of us working folks can use that money to help support our elderlyand military AND take our vacation to Disney!!!:mickey:

[FiremanDisney]

Amen to that - cut taxes and spending.

Actually it's not your money they are giving you back - its your money they took and spent then borrowed more than gave it back. So now we get to pay the interest on our money that Congress gave back to us. :ack:
Agreed 500%

[FiremanDisney]

Last time I checked, the Federal government didn't sell gas, milk, or health insurance. Not sure how they could "lower the prices" ....

But anyway, on the topic at hand ... blah blah blah. Stop giving me back my own money and trying to make me feel like I should be grateful for it.

Just stop taking so much of it in the first place and I'll stimulate the economy all on my own. I mean it's plain common sense ... lower taxes (and wasteful government spending along with it) and people will have more money in their pockets to afford the more expensive gas, milk, insurance, etc.

Yep!:thumbsup: