While there are certainly reasonable and legit objections to some of the spending in the bill, NONE of it is coming from the GOP or the right.

*They've proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they don't care one bit about "waste."

*They have repeatedly lied about what's in the bill, including "Pelosi's mouse" and now things like this.

*They negotiated in bad faith, dishonestly asking for changes knowing they were never going to vote for the bill.

*They absolutely have no problem with spending, as their track record shows. And the total amount of their objections comes to only about 2% of the total spending in the bill anyway.

In short, they are a complete joke, hypocritical liars, and their advice and opinions should be regarded with the same level of seriousness one would regard a psychic or a witch doctor, and one who is a proven fraud and constantly wrong about everything.

Andrew Sullivan:

Republican Taliban declare jihad on Obama

He went to Capitol Hill to talk directly with members of the other party in the more ideological House of Representatives – spending more time with them than even Bush did. He asked three Republicans to be a part of his cabinet, including Robert Gates, Bush’s defence secretary. He went to dinner with key Republican columnists before reaching out to those who had supported him in the election. And this open hand was met with a punch in the face.

From the outset, the Republicans in Washington pored over the bill to find trivial issues to make hay with. They found some small funding for HIV and sexually transmitted diseases prevention; they jumped up and down about renovating the national mall; they went nuts over a proposal - wait for it - to make some government buildings more energy-efficient; they acted as if green research and federal funds for new school building were the equivalent of funding terrorism. And this after eight years in which they managed to turn a surplus into a trillion-dollar deficit and added a cool $32 trillion to the debt the next generation will have to pay for. Every now and again their chutzpah and narcissism take one’s breath away. But it’s all they seem to know.

John McCain gives you the flavour. Fresh from a dinner in his honour hosted by Obama, he abruptly dismissed the stimulus package as the “same old” spending of the distant Democratic past. His closest Republican ally, Senator Lindsey Graham, declared: “This bill stinks.”

Pete Sessions, chairman of the Republican congressional committee, explained that the Republican strategy was going to be modelled on jihadist insurgency. “I’m not joking,” he added. “Insurgency we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban.”

Bill Clinton yesterday: “I find it amazing that the Republicans who doubled the debt of the country in eight years and produced no new jobs doing it, gave us an economic record that was totally bereft of any productive result are now criticizing [Obama] for spending money.”

So the American Public has once again been screwed/cheated whatever you want to call it. Instead of the 15k tax credit that first time home buyers would have got in the Senate version they now get a 8k credit in the final bill. WTG, you f'ing twats in Congress. I'm so sick of them all.

On a related note: $65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Now Exceed The Entire World's GDP...

Dick Cheney: "Deficits don't matter."

That's what we were told for 8 years by Republicans while they were doubling the national debt. Now the GOP and World Nut Daily, which that "article" sites, suddenly have an issue with deficits and debt? Not likely.

Second, the entire global GDP is $65 trillion a YEAR. And the debt liabilities are spread out over several decades. So I'm not sure of the point of the comparison other than the numbers are roughly equal.

The numbers aren't so important, the deficit as a percent of the GDP is what I look at the most. It's high currently, but nothing that will cripple the US.

eagle is right. whenever the markets go up, the vaue of the us dollar will which will make our deficeit shrink.

Not only that, but inflation allows the US to MAKE money on the deficit (in an oddly convoluted way), and considering we're heading for an inflationary spell ... the deficit is honestly the least of my worries.

So how much money do I get from the stimulus?

Do I get $8000 now instead of $7500 for my house?

Wow, talk about clairvoyance!

You get an $8000 AGI credit, it's not equivalent to $8000, but you get to reduce your AGI by 8k, thus not having to pay taxes on that amount.

The biggest difference is that the $7500 credit had to be paid back, while the new $8000 credit does not.

Correct, which is good, since having someone pay it back is asinine IMO.

Saw this on Market Watch this morning.

All they are doing is changing the taxes withheld amount which anyone could do today by telling their employer that they want to change their exemption amount. W-4 form. Anyway, this is the form that everyone could and should review today.


Obama promises Americans will get tax breaks by April 1

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Most American families will start benefiting from the broad $787 billion stimulus package as early as April 1, President Obama said in his weekly address on Saturday.

"And I'm pleased to announce that this morning, the Treasury Department began directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks -- meaning that by April 1st, a typical family will begin taking home at least $65 more every month," Obama said.

Who are the ones that are getting this. I know the number was 9 Million.

So again, no surprise with the rich helping the rich or friends helping their friends. Notice how the rich make out much better than the middle.

PRETTY SHITTY AS USUAL! Great that a couple making between 200 to 500 K get so much more than a single person making 50 K. Guess the end result is instead of getting a roommate, have a fake marriage. That could pay for the rent!!!!!

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/090221/022109 ... eal-estate

CNNMoney.com
Stimulus tax savings analyzed by household
Saturday February 21, 11:46 am ET

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer

Some tax-saving scenarios

A single person with no children making between $20,000 and $30,000 would see a 12.5% reduction in his or her tax liability for an annual savings of $453. The same person making between $50,000 and $75,000 would see a 4.6% drop, or $626.

At the upper income ranges, someone with income between $100,000 and $200,000 would see a 2.1% drop, which translates into $706.

With or without kids, a married couple filing jointly making between $50,000 and $75,000 could see a 10.5% drop for a savings of $991. Those making between $75,000 and $100,000 would see their tax liability go down 9.1%, or $1,457.

Couples with very high incomes -- between $200,000 to $500,000 -- could see a 7.5% decline in their tax bill, or $5,645.

Households with children, regardless of the parent's marital status, would see savings on their tax bill averaging 9.7% of their tax liability, or $1,975.

Grill,

These are tax cuts, so they are obviously proportional to the amount of money paid. If you want to compare, look at percentages:

Income - Savings - Drop in Tax

Under $19K - $476 - 95%
$19K-$38K - $652 - 22%
$38K-$66K - $781 - 9%
$66K-$112K - $1,301 - 7.5%
$112K-$161K - $2,549 - 8.3%
$161K-$227K - $3,883 - 8.3%
$227K-$603K - $5,133 - 5.7%
$2.8M plus - $39,350 - 1.4%

They are cutting people making under 19K's taxes by 95%, that's mostly part time low income workers. How much more do you want them to cut? The next bracket up gets a 22% reduction in taxes as well, a ton more than any other bracket. I don't understand what you're complaining about, this isn't a handout, it's a tax break.

Per the above article, not a uniform tax-break for everyone in those groups as your status/fiiling makes a big difference in what you will receive.

Also, just look at this number compared to the others to show how this group is almost always treated. > $66K-$112K - $1,301 - 7.5%

Sorry you're mistaken, the extra breaks in no way favor the rich, in fact, it's quite the opposite. The breaks are for:

1) Making Work Pay Credit. Only accessible to those making below $75k.
2) First time homeowners. How many upper bracket people are first time homeowners or qualify for this?
3) For car buyers. This goes for any tax bracket, no advantage here.
4) Additional education tax credits. These favor lower incomes.
5) Unemployment Benefits. First $2400 is tax free, certainly doesn't favor the wealthy.
6) Expansion of Child Tax Credit for Low Income Families.
7) Expansion of Earned Income Tax Credit. Another credit for low income households.

Now the one tax break that DOES help the middle and upper class is protection from the AMT, a tax that had it's baseline set in 1986 and hasn't been adjusted for inflation since. It's creeping down into the $75k to $100k bracket (about 15% and growing due to bracket creep). I was thrilled to see this in the bill, as I've said before.

Either way, the vast majority of these tax breaks are aimed at people making less than $75,000.

You don't know what you're talking about. The reason this bracket gets less is due to the AMT, please, go read up on it, educate yourself, then we can continue this conversation.

Plus tax cuts for lower income people will help more. people making less than 35k a year are mostly going pay check to pay check so they will spend this money and not save it.

Maybe, it sure can't hurt. Of course the alternative argument is that while tax cuts to low income families can't hurt, it won't help create jobs either. But that's what the other part of the stimulus bill is supposed to accomplish.

Cities in California trade stimulus money for cash at a discount
Next up - the amazing architecture of mayoral mansions in California.