Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 154

Thread: House, White House Reach Deal 'In Principle' on Economic Stimulus

  1. #1

    House, White House Reach Deal 'In Principle' on Economic Stimulus

    [QUOTE=FOXNews.com]WASHINGTON Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a tentative deal Thursday on tax rebates of $300 to $1,200 per household and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.

    Congressional officials close to the negotiations said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio reached agreement in principle in a telephone call Thursday morning.

    The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the two wanted key members of their parties to sign off on the accord before any announcement.

    The development came as the Bush administration, which also has been pushing for a deal, said agreement seemed imminent. "Our understanding is there is no final deal yet but they are making progress," presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino said early Thursday.

    Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.

    Pelosi, answering questions from reporters Thursday after a speech in Washington, said, "I am not confirming anything." But Pelosi added she would have something to say later.

    Under the tentative plan, families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.

    Workers would have to have earned at least $3,000 in 2007 to receive the rebates, the officials said.

    Another element of the plan is a package of tax breaks for businesses that could cost $70 billion, far more than had been expected, said a senior House aide and a Democratic lobbyist said.

    Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., scheduled a meeting of the Senate Finance Committee for next week to discuss the package.

    "The Senate will want to speak, as well," Baucus said, adding that he and Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the panel's senior Republican, had "agreed to work together, move quickly, and mark up economic stimulus legislation next week."

    Bush has supported larger rebates of $800-$1,600, but his plan would have left out 30 million working households who earn paychecks but don't make enough to pay income tax, according to calculations by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. An additional 19 million households would receive only partial rebates under Bush's initial proposal.

    To address the mortgage crisis, the package also allows Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac government-sponsored companies that are the two biggest U.S. financers and guarantors of home loans to buy home mortgages much larger than the current $417,000 limit. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that lending cap might reach as high as $700,000 in areas with the highest home prices.

    The business tax portion would give businesses incentives to invest in plants and equipment, give small businesses more generous expensing rules and allow businesses suffering losses now to reclaim taxes previously paid.

    After a key Wednesday night meeting in which the parameters of an agreement were reached, Pelosi and Boehner spoke again Thursday to cement the accord.

    In the talks, Pelosi pressed to make sure tax relief would find its way into the hands of lower-income earners while Boehner pushed to include upper middle-class couples, according to congressional aides.

    The emerging package was already drawing fire from liberal activists and labor unions upset that proposals to extend unemployment insurance and boost food stamps had been dropped. They said those ideas could pump money into the economy more quickly than tax rebate checks that won't be delivered until June.

    Conservative Republicans were likely to be restless over tax rebates going to those without income tax liability.

    Democratic aides said greater GOP flexibility over giving relief to poor families with children who would not have been eligible under President Bush's original tax rebate proposal was the catalyst that moved the talks forward.

    Pelosi's decision to drop expanding unemployment payments and more money for food stamps which many lawmakers had assumed would be included in the package could prove very controversial with Democratic constituencies, who were already stung by a decision to deny states more money for their Medicaid programs.

    Many Democrats had pressed to extend unemployment benefits for people whose 26 weeks of benefits have run out, but Republicans resisted.[/QUOTE]

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Thoughts?

    Well, thanks to the cap of 75k for individuals this doens't put any extra money into my pocket. I guess people making more than 75k a year in NYC are rich. So much for helping the young working professional whose paying student loans and saving for a home. It bothers me somewhat but ultimately, f it, I'll do this on my own...it's been that way with out any handouts for me for 25 years now. I really can't believe they're giving tax rebates to people that didn't even pay taxes. It is good, though, that they didn't raise unemployment benefits.

  3. #3
    On one hand, it's good to see them moving quickly on a deal and working together.

    On the other, I do not understand why there is such reluctance to help those most in need in an economic crisis. Seems to me those in a cash crunch would be the most likely to spend their rebates as opposed to saving them (which has no macroeconomic benefit).

    I do agree that it seems odd to characterize someone making $75k in a expensive market like NY, SF or Chicago as too wealthy to need assistance. Seems like their ought to be a way to index these payouts to cost of living.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE]Conservative Republicans were likely to be restless over tax rebates going to those without income tax liability.[/QUOTE]

    Now why would a Conservative mind yet more tax money flowing into the hands of those who don't actually pay anything in? Heartless bastards, right?

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2333038]Now why would a Conservative mind yet more tax money flowing into the hands of those who don't actually pay anything in? Heartless bastards, right?[/QUOTE]

    Not corrrect, or even close to accurate.

    People with jobs who don't pay income tax (what we're talking about here) still pay payroll taxes, and in many cases the percentage of their income they are paying the government is greater than what some people who make enough to pay income taxes are paying.

    Tell me more about how lucky they are to be poor, please.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2333031]On one hand, it's good to see them moving quickly on a deal and working together.

    On the other, I do not understand why there is such reluctance to help those most in need in an economic crisis. Seems to me those in a cash crunch would be the most likely to spend their rebates as opposed to saving them (which has no macroeconomic benefit).

    I do agree that it seems odd to characterize someone making $75k in a expensive market like NY, SF or Chicago as too wealthy to need assistance. Seems like their ought to be a way to index these payouts to cost of living.[/QUOTE]

    Saving has no macroeconomic benefit? Are you high?

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    This is RIDICULOUS.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Somerset, NJ
    Posts
    1,573
    Outside of increasing the deficit, since it doesnt affect home-owning NY'ers its a non-issue as far as I'm concerned..

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    This is nothing more than putting a bandaid on a severed limb.

    The current economic downturn has nothing to do with consumer spending. How is this going to help the subprime mortgage crisis?

    This idea is just plain stupid...what is the government giving out anyway? borrowed money...

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=parafly;2333087]This is nothing more than putting a bandaid on a severed limb.

    The current economic downturn has nothing to do with consumer spending. How is this going to help the subprime mortgage crisis?[/QUOTE]

    Not even that, because band-aids don't make injuries worse.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2333067]Tell me more about how lucky they are to be poor, please.[/QUOTE]

    Luck has little to do with how people wind up poor in America.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    what a friggen joke..

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,836
    Capping @ 75,000 is bad? I guess I'm waaaay poorer than I previously thought.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE]

    Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.
    [/quote]
    So how can giving families who don't pay income taxes $1200 be considered a "rebate"

    [quote]
    Bush has supported larger rebates of $800-$1,600, but his plan would have left out 30 million working households who earn paychecks but don't make enough to pay income tax, according to calculations by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. An additional 19 million households would receive only partial rebates under Bush's initial proposal.[/QUOTE]
    Bush's proposal sounds much better, if only he hadn't turned the country on him with this stupid war.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2333078]This is RIDICULOUS.[/QUOTE]

    My thoughts as well.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=SINYJets;2333017]Thoughts?

    Well, thanks to the cap of 75k for individuals this doens't put any extra money into my pocket. I guess people making more than 75k a year in NYC are rich. [B]So much for helping the young working professional whose paying student loans and saving for a home[/B]. It bothers me somewhat but ultimately, f it, I'll do this on my own...it's been that way with out any handouts for me for 25 years now. I really can't believe they're giving tax rebates to people that didn't even pay taxes. It is good, though, that they didn't raise unemployment benefits.[/QUOTE]

    Exactly. I am little upset that my money will be going to some college grad not motivated to leave the house is about to go by a PS3 instead of paying of his loan.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2333076]Saving has no macroeconomic benefit? Are you high?[/QUOTE]

    Poorly phrased by me. Saving has a benefit, of course, but it runs counter to what a stimulus is supposed to do, which is pump more money into the economy right now. The idea is for people to spend the money in the near term.

    That's what I meant.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2333093]Luck has little to do with how people wind up poor in America.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, the working poor are all just lazy and dishonest. The fact that people are born into poverty, attend schools that are a national disgrace or sometimes get sick is clearly not a factor at all in how people wind up impoverished.

    Screw them: They deserve whatever befalls them. Right, Warfish?

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2333212]Yeah, the working poor are all just lazy and dishonest. The fact that people are born into poverty, attend schools that are a national disgrace or sometimes get sick is clearly not a factor at all in how people wind up impoverished.

    Screw them: They deserve whatever befalls them. Right, Warfish?[/QUOTE]

    Need a napkin? Cause your heart is bleeding all over the forum, and it's kinda sticky and messy if you ask me.:rolleyes:

    You make it sound like people have no choice but to "fall" into poverty, and once there, have no means whatsoever to get out in America. Guess personal responsabillity, choices, hard work and effort have nothign to do with ones success then. It's all a crapshoot. Maybe I should start *****ing about my luck endlessly then, eh?

    Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but don't worry my friend. America is headed directly towards a far more socialist, Govt.-takes-care-of-all-no-responsabillity culture and mentallity. I am sure you'll enjoy it.
    Hard work not required.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2333212]Yeah, the working poor are all just lazy and dishonest. The fact that people are born into poverty, attend schools that are a national disgrace or sometimes get sick is clearly not a factor at all in how people wind up impoverished.

    Screw them: They deserve whatever befalls them. Right, Warfish?[/QUOTE]

    Nuu, the overwhelming majority of poor people in America do not remain poor for very long and they are not poor in any absolute sense. The University of Michigan did a study many years ago that followed individuals over time and tracked how they moved to different income brackets. Age is a hugely important factor. You'll see that many poor people start out poor and over time move into the middle and uppper classes. One of the biggest misconceptions when people talk about income distribution, especially trends over time, is the implicit assumption that these groups are comprised of static members...as if a person starts out working a minimum wage job at 18 and stays there, earning MW, until he retires at 65. Most rich people were not born that way and did not start out that way. Most poor people do not remain poor. A majority of people in the lowest 20% or quintile of income move into the top 20% within 20 years. Of course, at any given snapshot in time, you will find x% of the population below a poverty line, a line which itself keeps moving upwards in real terms as living standards rise, which is why poor people in American live better than many middle-class people, even in other developed naitons. Not to mention that we always have a steady stream of immigrants and young people to keep the ranks of the poor packed, and this doesn't factor in differences in costs of living in a place as vast and diverse as the US.

    Why are the schools a national disgrace, BTW? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the government has a virtual monopoly and that the Teacher's Unions are not always acting in our student's best interests? Tell me, again, which party opposes vouchers and school choice and privatisation and is beholden to the teacher's union?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us