get over your fucking self.

The rebates will amount to $600 for struggling single workers like me—and $2,400 for a couple in which the man makes $150,000 and the woman stays at home with four kids.

Believe it or not, ECB, there are many couples out there with four kids who don't make anywhere near $150,000 - in fact, they struggle far worse than you do, having more mouths to fill. You're basically arguing, with this point of yours, that your single-person household deserves an equal amount of assistance as theirs. You know, liberals usually are of the opinion that society does have a responsibility to its young. Why do you call yourself a liberal, exactly?

Obama’s economic stimulus plan relies heavily on similar tax rebates.

And this is what we speak of when we call you a dishonest hack when you shill for Clinton. From one of Clinton's own press releases:

Clinton also called on Congress to stand ready to provide an additional $40 billion in direct tax rebates to working and middle class families if the economy continues to worsen.

Whatever. I'm blowing my rebate check on ganja (assuming I can find some in this godforesaken town).

Only suckers pay for weed.

If you have issues with the refund policy, I would say take it up with the current tax code.

We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.

Given that we need to stop having so goddamn many kids if we’re going to salvage the planet

The fertility rate in the US is slightly over two children per woman - basically equilibrium level. Our population is, at least in that regard, sustainable. Most developed nations have even lower levels and face potential population decline. If you're looking to control population, focus your concerns on developing nations, not here.

Hillary Clinton: C-plus. Clinton, too, raised the issue early, then turned in a faulty first draft with a $70 billion stimulus plan that didn't provide much immediate stimulation. It included a $25 billion increase in the program to help low-income Americans with heating costs -- an excessive amount (the current program is under $3 billion) that probably wouldn't kick in until next winter. Even worse was her housing plan, including a five-year freeze on subprime mortgage rates that could produce higher interest rates and reduce liquidity.

Four days later, Clinton said she would immediately implement a $40 billion tax rebate plan she had put in reserve in her first draft. Fine, but overall, the Obama plan devotes a far greater percentage to spending that is more likely to jump-start the economy.

Maybe we can starve these useless eaters to death, saving more of the pie for ourselves.
And of course, our progeny.

Of course, those who are ignored are the ones most likely to do what is intended with the money, i.e., spend it, but....
who give a shit.
Me first, where's mine, up yours.
It's the American way.

Shhhh!

Americans use more resources per capita than any other group on the planet. Developing countries need to bring their populations to equilibrium. We need to see some population decline, or a diminishing quality of life from a decreased consumption of resources (I'd actually prefer both).

We're just arguing over who gets the cash injection.

The interesting point: It doesn't matter if the theory is correct. All that matters is enough people believe the theory is correct.

For example: It is possible people are more willing to spend coined money than paper money. If this theory gained enough credence with a lot of people (or with a few people with a lot of liquid money), the Federal Reserve could stimulate the economy by announcing it was issuing more coins than bills. So long as enough people believe this plan will increase consumer spending, they will spend, invest and borrow accordingly.

See, all we have to do is believe in them enough, and our dreams will come true!

I'm sorry, could you please cite the part of the bill that specifies the gender of the single earner in this hypothetical six person family? I think probably you can't, because I think probably you're full of shit. But I'm ready to be proven wrong.

@22

From wikipedia:

The spectacular growth of the Hispanic population through immigration and higher birth rates are noted as a partial factor for the US’ population gains in the last quarter-century. The Bureau of the Census projects that by 2050 one-quarter of the population will be Hispanic.[17] Bureau figures show the U.S. population grew by 2.8 million between July 1, 2004, and July 1, 2005.[18] Hispanics accounted for 1.3 million of that increase.

So the (largely Catholic) Hispanic population, which makes up about 12.5% of the population, was responsible for almost 50% of our population growth between 2004 and 2005. I don't really have a problem with it, but you'd have to be some kind of asshole to pretend it's not a factor. Therefore, you are cordially invited to shut your fucking pie hole.

Thank you.

This could be my big score!

I couldn't have said it any better Elenchos!

Thanks!

you say ECB lies but I don't think her point was all tax rebates are bad (such that it would be unfair for her to ding Obama on this, because hey look -- Clinton has tax rebates, too).

I think her point is that tax rebates are bad when tied more to no. of kids than to income level of the household.

So we'd need to know, does Obama's plan do the same thing? And does Clinton's?

Before we know if ECB was unfair and you are right to call her on it.

Are Clinton and Obama are different on this (tying it more to kids than income level) or the same?

Grow a thicker skin.

Be that as it may. ECB, your anti-breeding argument is outmoded.

Europe is experiencing economic problems due to falling populations. The second and third worlds' populations are stabilizing and soon even Brazil will be facing an aging population. Turns out that even in desperately poor countries, if you give women birth control they use it.

The only things keeping America from having the same problems as Europe right now are immigration (yay!) and fundies (booooo!)

But blaming Obama for it is nutso - this was a deal worked out by the House and the White House, and we're sinking BILLIONS of US taxes into Iraq each and every day while we stay there, so the economy will keep bleeding red ink ...

Are you the type who think that the human species should be extinguished for the good of the planet.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Why the hell didn't they give me the power to remove comments a few weeks ago?

Someone help a tardy understand here!

As soon as President and Co-President Clinton got wind of it, that was the end of that, as you can imagine. The polls said it was anti-family.

Anyway, if you can't figure out why old people and parents are given such good deals, and young, single people are ignored and neglected, the reason is very, very simple: young, single people do not vote. Never have, never will, and so they get the shaft.

I didn't know the new definition of "struggling" included trips to Barcelona with the Euro at an all-time high.

Anyway, our entire system of old-age benefits is dependent on an ever-growing population to keep the ratio of workers to retirees high. To favor a reduction of the future workforce without also figuring out a way to pay for it by reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits is ignorant.

But I hope nobody gets their hopes up that any stimulus package will have a meaningful effect on the sliding economy. It's political posturing at this point.

@26 - Sure, well-off nations need to consume less. The thing is, though, that less breeding in rich nations, with little change in poor nations, is basically a recipe for (even more) income inequality - you eventually have even more resources in the hands of even fewer people. A Bad Thing, IMHO.

How exactly does spending money overseas make the US economy worse?

Is this something obvious I'm missing?

On another note: Does it matter if people use this money to pay down their debt, save, invest or spend? Isn't the fed only trying to increase the amount of liquid assets in the economy?

As much as I like arguing (especially about stuff I know nothing about), these are non-rhetorical questions.

Because you didn't deserve it.

This statement is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Wouldn't the same couple with 4 kids get $2,400 back even if they made $30,000 per year? It's driven by the number of dependents, not the income level.

In other news, isn't the idea of a tax rebate in the face of a $9 trillion deficit and a TRILLION DOLLAR IRAQ WAR completely fucking ridiculous?

Sock them away? Give me a break.

It's only funny when you're laughing with someone.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=5466

ECB - you rarely delete posts that was a bum rap.

But you really should stop those yearly airplane trips to Europe and flights around the US to have a high ground on CC.

Vacation closer to home. Air travel is growing in popularity and jet fuel combustion is a major contributor to climate change. Carbon dioxide savings from not taking one round-trip flight of 1,600 miles: 720 pounds.

Of course, Edwards did pull off a B+ response. But you MSM types at the Stranger don't want to talk about him, because it's an inconvenient truth that more than two people are in the race.

Edwards is the only one who's talking in these terms. If you want good economic management that helps middle class and working class Americans, you need to get over the Clinton-Obama spat and vote for Edwards.

so... why are you ignoring her now?

Very simple. The money is removed as taxes (SS tax) from US workers who tend to spend it (they make less than $102,000) in the US and then given to CEOs who tend to spend it in another country. Very little gets used to buy US goods and services. If spent by US poor people, most gets recirculated in the US economy, creating more jobs and GDP thru the multiplier effect. ECON 102.

"On another note: Does it matter if people use this money to pay down their debt, save, invest or spend? Isn't the fed only trying to increase the amount of liquid assets in the economy?"

Yes, as the intention is that the money be spent in the US economy, to create multiplier effects.

Saving used to result in money being lent out, but now is shipped overseas (exception: credit unions and small regional banks).

Investing in a small local business is a good idea, but usually investing is in large firms and most leaves the country.

However, if you are someone about to not pay off a home mortgage or car loan, and you use it to do that, you then stop contributing to the underlying problem, so it's not a bad choice at all.

It depends on exactly where the money goes and where it was taken from.

I've already increased my retirement from 12.5 percent (7.5 percent match) to 13.5 percent (same match) this year, so I'm just going to pay off credit cards. But I'm one of those people, so it's best to ignore what I do when considering the general population.

It's too bad, because Obama would be a shoe in, instead of having to beat back the millions of well-meaning, middle-aged women in Crocs and poly fleece who made the Democratic party what it is today.

You know, this crappy plan isn't the fault of the candidates. It's the fault of the Democratic establishment. And who is the anointed candidate of the Democratic establishment?

You said ECB was "dishonest." (@6). I explained why you seemed to misread ECB, and asked you to back up your claim she was dishonest (@33). In response (@43) you do not answer.
So ...are we to assume you don't got the facts??

Again:
If Obama's plan is more or less the same as Clinton's (in tying rebates to no. of kids, more than income) -- then ECB was wrong to ding Obama and you are right to ding ECB. If Clinton's plan is different and better than Obama's in this regard -- then ECB was right and you were wrong.

If you don't provide the facts, what are we supposed to think? that you've got them and are just hoarding them, when you could back up your accusation if you so chose?

is that directed at tsm or ECB?

Are rich CEOs buying consumer goods and services in other countries instead of the US?

Or, are their companies are buying products manufactured in other countries for sale in other countries?

Multiplier Effect seems to state that the change in GDP is directly related to the change in Investment or Spending. I tried, but I can't see anywhere in that article that requires domestic spending on domestically produced goods and services to work.

1. The tax rebate won't work because it comes too late.

2. The tax rebate won't work because it goes to the wrong people.

3. The tax rebate won't work because it is too small.

Oh, I found another:
Tax rebates don't work at all.

Right before the election, didn't you publish something about you and Josh going to a bar and having some drinks and driving home, and didn't you pull some stuff that (from other peoples' comments later in the thread) appeared to offer some uneducated speculation on your and Josh's relationship?

I remembered it, because it was the first time I had ever seen comments removed (I've only been on the SLOG for about six months.)

...a commenter in this thread pointed out--while implying that I was racist, a claim I didn't delete, although it would have been well within my right to do so...

Someone calling you racist is grounds for removing their comment? What if they're right? Chaz gets called a racist about every fifteen minutes. Isn't that just someone disagreeing with you?

Slog's comments policy is the most liberal of any blog I can think of

W'ev. Sure, most comments don't get cut. Unless they are ad hominems about your sex life and/or alleged biases, evidently.

if you're going to tell me that I need to get laid, however, that meets the off-topic standard for deletion.

Of course *I* said nothing of the sort, you're just speaking generally I assume.

But even if someone did say that, I can't say I understand why that warrants removal. Don't people say that about each other around here *all* the time?

Ms. Barnett, I think you are a good writer and I think that for some reason people think it's o.k. to dump on you in way that they would never *dream* of doing to Dan or Josh or annie or Dominic. And that's a shame. And it must get tiring. And you don't deserve it- which I said in my comment.

But if you think somebody saying "that person needs to get laid" is a deeply personal attack worthy of censoring, then I think you are never going to get out from under this incessant teasing (to use a benign word for what is, I'm sure, not a benign experience.)

I'm not trying to be Dr. Phil. Do whatcha got to do. But I bet that if you fired back (as Dan and annie do) instead of wielding your editorial pen, you'd see 10x less of it.

But, to answer @71, "Are rich CEOs buying consumer goods and services in other countries instead of the US? Or, are their companies are buying products manufactured in other countries for sale in other countries?"

Both. CEOs as people do that. Their corporations also accelerate the outshipment of money to other countries, so giving them a tax break doesn't help.

"Multiplier Effect seems to state that the change in GDP is directly related to the change in Investment or Spending. I tried, but I can't see anywhere in that article that requires domestic spending on domestically produced goods and services to work."

Look at the underlying assumptions. Not all models work in all circumstances, and you need to choose the right model for the actual circumstances. Right now, paying off debt indirectly causes an outflow of cash to China and Europe, whereas the classic definition assumes no transnational movement of money. Again, the only good debt to pay off is that from credit unions and small regional banks, which tend to loan it locally in the US.

My husband and I got married December before last. When I went to file my taxes in March of last year, I found that even though I had been married for less than a month that tax year, I was required to file as "Married." I went ahead and ran the tax-software both ways, married-filing-separately and single, out of curiosity. The difference was $600- it was more expensive to say I was married. I filed as single. After all, I was single more than eleven months that year. I'm going to run it both ways again this year, just out of curiosity. But whatever it says, I will filed as married.