When US citizens get their "W" money

[Darwinist]

What do you do when your country is running a massive budget deficit and is fighting a war costing billions of dollars?  You send your citizens money, that's what!   Here is the schedule when all you US taxpayers can expect your money from "W".  Have fun stimulating the economy!


Direct Deposit Payment Schedule
 
Last 2 digits of your Social Security Number
 Deposit should be sent to your bank account by:
 
00 – 20  May 2
21 – 75  May 9
76 – 99  May 16
 
Paper Check
 
Last two digits of your Social Security number:
 Your check should be in the mail by:
 
00 – 09  May 16
10 – 18  May 23
19 – 25  May 30
26 – 38 June 6
39 – 51 June 13
52 – 63 June 20
64 – 75 June 27
76 – 87 July 4
88 – 99 July 11

[Chodon]

I really wish this country wasn't run by idiots.

We're heading into a recession (or so some think), the dollar is very weak, and inflation is ridiculous.  The worst thing to do is print more money, but that's exactly what they're doing.  Ugh.  We're pretty much stealing that money from our grandchildren.

What the government really needs to do is publish accounting sheets as a whole like any other business is required to do.  Income statements, balance sheets, and retained earnings statements.  I think it would really help confidence in the government and the economy to see their assets in black and white (or red).  I think most people would be amazed at how many assets the US government actually has.

The funny thing is that I am planning on spending the check on a vacation in Ireland this summer.  Let's see that help the US economy.

[birdless]

What's depressing is the $180 billion that's going out to us would barely make a dent in the national deficit (and I'm not gonna lie: I can really use the money, regardless of the logic (or lack thereof) of sending it out).

Does anyone know if it's possible to refuse tax refunds? For those who are so inclined and can afford to, why don't they just return the money? If I could actually afford to, and only if enough other people could be convinced to do the same, I think I might actually do it. Two humongous, gargantuan "if's," though. There would probably also have to be some contract written up that the money would go towards the deficit. But I have no idea what kind of impact that might have on the economy. I guess the bigger question is, would it even help? Probably not. I don't think it would matter who was in office, I think it would be just an excuse to spend more money. Is there any room for hope? Now I'm depressed as well as tired and cranky.

[wintermute]

What's depressing is the $180 billion that's going out to us would barely make a dent in the national deficit (and I'm not gonna lie: I can really use the money, regardless of the logic (or lack thereof) of sending it out).

Or, alternatively, it could pay for about three hours of the War in Iraq.

Does anyone know if it's possible to refuse tax refunds?

Well, if you get a paper cheque, you can not cash it.

[Darwinist]

What the government really needs to do is publish accounting sheets as a whole like any other business is required to do.  Income statements, balance sheets, and retained earnings statements.  I think it would really help confidence in the government and the economy to see their assets in black and white (or red).  I think most people would be amazed at how many assets the US government actually has.

Exactly!  We should see this information, it's our frakking tax dollars they're spending.   I wish we had a president with some business acumen.  If a company ran it's finances like this country upper management would've been looking for a job long ago.

[Chodon]

Exactly!  We should see this information, it's our frakking tax dollars they're spending.   I wish we had a president with some business acumen.  If a company ran it's finances like this country upper management would've been looking for a job long ago.

Why do they need business acumen when they can just throw money from helicopters and keep the people happy? 

I was pretty shocked to find most people share our lack of excitement about the "free" money from the government.  Maybe it's just because most people I interact with have a little knowledge of economics, but I have only spoke with one person (my wife's aunt) that thinks this is a good idea.  She is the same peron who, when we told her we booked our trip to Ireland, said "I thought you were going to Europe."

Does anyone honestly think this is a good idea?

On a similar note, I'm sure the assets of the US are huge.  Think about the value of all the national parks.  If the US government were to be liquidated to pay their debts (like a business) there would be plenty of cash at the end of the liquidation.  Hell, with the power of eminent domain they could just claim whatever land they needed and sell that off to pay their debts.

[stePH]

Have fun stimulating the economy!

What a joke.  Most people aren't going to go buy big screen teevees or Xboxes.  They're going to pay bills.  That's what my wife and I are going to do.

... yeah George, stimulate this.

[birdless]

I wish we had a president with some business acumen.  If a company ran it's finances like this country upper management would've been looking for a job long ago.

Now, I'm admittedly and ashamedly naïve when it comes to politics, and I'm no great fan of Bush (whether you liked him or not, he has so let us down), but do you think it's the man or the office? I think it's the office, but I'm a little jaded and cynical when it comes to politics and feel like it's become corruptive to all but the purest hearts.

honestly, i have no business even posting in such a political thread; i don't know why i'm doing it

[Chodon]

I wish we had a president with some business acumen.  If a company ran it's finances like this country upper management would've been looking for a job long ago.

Now, I'm admittedly and ashamedly naïve when it comes to politics, and I'm no great fan of Bush (whether you liked him or not, he has so let us down), but do you think it's the man or the office? I think it's the office, but I'm a little jaded and cynical when it comes to politics and feel like it's become corruptive to all but the purest hearts.

honestly, i have no business even posting in such a political thread; i don't know why i'm doing it

Birdless, you're sounding like a Libertarian.  I like it!

[CGFxColONeill]

I wish we had a president with some business acumen.  If a company ran it's finances like this country upper management would've been looking for a job long ago.

Now, I'm admittedly and ashamedly naïve when it comes to politics, and I'm no great fan of Bush (whether you liked him or not, he has so let us down), but do you think it's the man or the office? I think it's the office, but I'm a little jaded and cynical when it comes to politics and feel like it's become corruptive to all but the purest hearts.

honestly, i have no business even posting in such a political thread; i don't know why i'm doing it

totaly agrree with that last statment but I have trouble with the other one b/c I tend to agree with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton

on that issue

we just finished with the depression in my history class and from that stand point paying off the national debt would help in some aspects
as it would pump alot ( I think it is in the 7 to 8 trillion range ) into the economy but at the same time that $ would have to come from taxes so that would take money out of the general population.
so the overall effect would be to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer ( bad English I know but it gets the point across)
so I dont know how that would work as a whole

and for the record I dont think that the refunds are all that great of an idea but like most people when they are offered money they did not expect they generally take it ( it is not free money they are giving your money back but that is another thread.

[Listener]

I wish we had a president with some business acumen.  If a company ran it's finances like this country upper management would've been looking for a job long ago.

Now, I'm admittedly and ashamedly naïve when it comes to politics, and I'm no great fan of Bush (whether you liked him or not, he has so let us down), but do you think it's the man or the office? I think it's the office, but I'm a little jaded and cynical when it comes to politics and feel like it's become corruptive to all but the purest hearts.

honestly, i have no business even posting in such a political thread; i don't know why i'm doing it

It's the system.  Wasn't it Adams or Franklin who said that the lifespan of a democracy is 200 years?  Well, just like people are getting older, so is the system, and it's siphoning more and more of the resources of the young to keep the old afloat.  If it was Gore or Kerry in office we'd be in the same situation, just the entitlements would be distributed differently.  Clinton, Obama, McCain... no change.  Not really.

Besides, we don't live in a democracy.  We live in a representative republic.  Spreading democracy is spreading mob rule; spreading the idea of a republic is the way to go, representative or not.

I've blogged about this back when I was a political blogger, but basically we are not actualized enough (Maslow's hierarchy of needs) to be able to truly govern ourselves.  Would that we could.  Would that even ONE of Robert Heinlein's futures came true.  Would that we could all be independent traders, moving from territory to territory, a sovereign state inside our own vehicle, scrounging for parts, hiring mercenaries and savant engineers who talk to ships and pilots who play with dinosaurs and have wives that can kick everyone's ass...

You see where I'm going here.

Anyway, there is no fixing the system.

In one fell swoop, the W money will duplicate the percentage raise I got last May.  My half of the check (my wife will take the other half I'm sure) will pay for 20 fill-ups at current prices, probably closer to 10 by the end of the year. 

I can't wait until our tax bills for 2008 come due and we end up paying income tax on it...

Anyway, I'll probably just bank the money.  In about three months I'll finally own my car and then my $300/month car payments will go to the bank too until I have enough for a good down-payment on a hybrid.  I'm no granola-eating liberal, but I live 25 miles away from work.  I can't afford gas, and I can live with a Prius if it means I save money in the long run.

Enough rambling.

[Chodon]

we just finished with the depression in my history class and from that stand point paying off the national debt would help in some aspects
as it would pump alot ( I think it is in the 7 to 8 trillion range ) into the economy but at the same time that $ would have to come from taxes so that would take money out of the general population.

I think you're confusing revenue with assets and liabilities with expenses.  The debt the US owes is a liability that it exchanged for cash.  It now has to pay it back by generating more cash through generating revenue (more taxes), cutting expenses (fewer programs), selling assets, or taking on more liabilities.  So far the government just takes out more and more liabilities.  There is a lot of other stuff they can do besides raise taxes to pay off the debt.

Also, it wouldn't inject any money into the economy.  Most US debt is foreign owned.  If we paid back all our debts we would be giving out a bunch of money overseas.  However, if we just gave people the finger and said we weren't paying our debts the economic crash that would follow would make the great depression look like a blip on the radar.  It would be pretty much an admission that the US government can't pay its debts.

so the overall effect would be to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer ( bad English I know but it gets the point across)
so I dont know how that would work as a whole

Paying back the debt wouldn't do anything of the sort.  It would just increase the value of the dollar to the other currencies of the world.  That's why just handing out money (like the gov't is doing) is such a terrible idea.  If more dollars are out there it devalues all dollars because they becomes less scarce as compared to foreign currency.  There's nothing wrong with a little recession.  It's easily recoverable.  Inflation isn't.

and for the record I dont think that the refunds are all that great of an idea but like most people when they are offered money they did not expect they generally take it ( it is not free money they are giving your money back but that is another thread.

I think it's a terrible idea, but there is no way in hell I'm giving it back.  The government has already shown they can't manage money.  Why would I give them more?  Plus, if I don't take this money all I'm going to be left with is less devalued money than I had before.

[wintermute]

It's the system.  Wasn't it Adams or Franklin who said that the lifespan of a democracy is 200 years?  Well, just like people are getting older, so is the system, and it's siphoning more and more of the resources of the young to keep the old afloat.  If it was Gore or Kerry in office we'd be in the same situation, just the entitlements would be distributed differently.  Clinton, Obama, McCain... no change.  Not really.

Not so sure about that. If Gore or Kerry had been in office, we probably wouldn't have spent several trillion dollars on a war where no-one can even define what "winning" would mean. Clinton's budget was designed to have the national debt paid off in full by 2012, and it would not have been difficult for a fiscally responsible president to stay close to that budget; instead it's now ten times higher than it was when Bush took office; the five billion dollar budget surplus per year has been turned into the largest budget deficit any country has ever had.

People who aren't morons (or possibly evil; I don't know) wouldn't have thought that massively increasing spending while simultaneously cutting taxes was a sustainable policy.

[Chodon]

People who aren't morons (or possibly evil; I don't know) wouldn't have thought that massively increasing spending while simultaneously cutting taxes was a sustainable policy.

Let's be honest here.  If you could get away with spending as much money as you wanted on whatever you wanted and not have to be held liable for it wouldn't you?  I know I would.  Granted, I wouldn't spend money on blowing things up (much).  I would spend money on trying to solve the current energy crisis.  There is no accountability though.  Why should they have a balanced budget?

[wintermute]

People who aren't morons (or possibly evil; I don't know) wouldn't have thought that massively increasing spending while simultaneously cutting taxes was a sustainable policy.

Let's be honest here.  If you could get away with spending as much money as you wanted on whatever you wanted and not have to be held liable for it wouldn't you?  I know I would.  Granted, I wouldn't spend money on blowing things up (much).  I would spend money on trying to solve the current energy crisis.  There is no accountability though.  Why should they have a balanced budget?

Why did Clinton have a balanced budget?

Because he didn't want to be remembered as the president who sold America to the Chinese? Because he understood that the money he spent had to come from somewhere?

Of course, Bush has a long history of spending far more than he has and bankrupting companies, so obviously he was an obvious pick for being able to manage the economy of an entire country.

[Chodon]

Of course, Bush has a long history of spending far more than he has and bankrupting companies, so obviously he was an obvious pick for being able to manage the economy of an entire country.

And what consequences are there for Bush screwing up the budget and, eventually, the US economy?  Nothing.  That's the definition of a broken system.

[wintermute]

Of course, Bush has a long history of spending far more than he has and bankrupting companies, so obviously he was an obvious pick for being able to manage the economy of an entire country.

And what consequences are there for Bush screwing up the budget and, eventually, the US economy?  Nothing.  That's the definition of a broken system.

Yeah, I'm halfway convinced that a monarchy is the way to go. Instead of being elected on the basis of having a nice smile on TV, and walking into a hundred-thousand-a-year consultancy job when you leave office, regardless of how poorly you do is flawed compared with training someone from birth in how to run a country and knowing that if they screw up they get beheaded...

[CGFxColONeill]

Of course, Bush has a long history of spending far more than he has and bankrupting companies, so obviously he was an obvious pick for being able to manage the economy of an entire country.

Ok with the statement that I am not putting out a position on good or bad what companies were you talking about here?

we just finished with the depression in my history class and from that stand point paying off the national debt would help in some aspects
as it would pump alot ( I think it is in the 7 to 8 trillion range ) into the economy but at the same time that $ would have to come from taxes so that would take money out of the general population.

I think you're confusing revenue with assets and liabilities with expenses.  The debt the US owes is a liability that it exchanged for cash.  It now has to pay it back by generating more cash through generating revenue (more taxes), cutting expenses (fewer programs), selling assets, or taking on more liabilities.  So far the government just takes out more and more liabilities.  There is a lot of other stuff they can do besides raise taxes to pay off the debt.

Also, it wouldn't inject any money into the economy.  Most US debt is foreign owned.  If we paid back all our debts we would be giving out a bunch of money overseas.  However, if we just gave people the finger and said we weren't paying our debts the economic crash that would follow would make the great depression look like a blip on the radar.  It would be pretty much an admission that the US government can't pay its debts.

so the overall effect would be to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer ( bad English I know but it gets the point across)
so I dont know how that would work as a whole

Paying back the debt wouldn't do anything of the sort.  It would just increase the value of the dollar to the other currencies of the world.  That's why just handing out money (like the gov't is doing) is such a terrible idea.  If more dollars are out there it devalues all dollars because they becomes less scarce as compared to foreign currency.  There's nothing wrong with a little recession.  It's easily recoverable.  Inflation isn't.

and for the record I dont think that the refunds are all that great of an idea but like most people when they are offered money they did not expect they generally take it ( it is not free money they are giving your money back but that is another thread.

I think it's a terrible idea, but there is no way in hell I'm giving it back.  The government has already shown they can't manage money.  Why would I give them more?  Plus, if I don't take this money all I'm going to be left with is less devalued money than I had before.

thanks for the clarification I am not real clear on all economic terms so I think I was trying to say most of the same things I just mis-said them due to my lack of knowledge.  I did not know that most US debts were to other countries so ya you learn something new every day 

[Chodon]

thanks for the clarification I am not real clear on all economic terms so I think I was trying to say most of the same things I just mis-said them due to my lack of knowledge.  I did not know that most US debts were to other countries so ya you learn something new every day 

I did a little more research, and I was wrong before.  MOST debt isn't owned by foreign nations.  Here is a breakdown of the US debt:

So 1/3 is owned by US citizens, 1/3 by foreign countries, and 1/3 by the US government (pretty much issuing themselves loans, or printing money).  This site has a really neat debt to GDP ratio clock which is a lot more meaningful than the national debt clocks seen everywhere.  It is what a company would report as their debt to earnings ratio, and it's a measure of solvency:
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/05/pie_chart_of_wh.html
Overall, we aren't doing too bad.  If the gov't isn't going to cut spending they need to get their money somehow.  If they didn't take out loans taxes would need to be higher.  Still, less debt is always better, and I don't know one thing the government does EFFICIENTLY.  There is probably a private sector contractor that could do everything the government does, but at half price.

[Darwinist]

Have fun stimulating the economy!

What a joke.  Most people aren't going to go buy big screen teevees or Xboxes.  They're going to pay bills.  That's what my wife and I are going to do.

Same here.  Most of the people I know are also paying off debt.  So much for W's big idea.  A person I heard on the radio said that the government should've given out debit cards (like the ones they gave out to Katrina victims) to insure that people spend them on goods and services rather than paying off debt.  Too late.

[wintermute]

Of course, Bush has a long history of spending far more than he has and bankrupting companies, so obviously he was an obvious pick for being able to manage the economy of an entire country.

Ok with the statement that I am not putting out a position on good or bad what companies were you talking about here?

Zapata Oil: Owned by friends of Bush Sr. Bush seems to have done nothing for them other than draw a fat salary and spend all of his time on vacation in South America.

Arbusto Energy Inc: Owned by Bush. Started with funding from Bush Sr's political supporters (such as the Bin Laden family). Ran at a loss every year, and owned more dry wells in Texas than any other oil company. Bush sold his interest just before they went bankrupt. Was never prosecuted for insider trading for reasons probably utterly unrelated to his father being vice-president at the time.

Texas Rangers Baseball Team: Bought by Bush for ~$500,000, borrowed $7,500,000 from the city of Arlington to build a new stadium the team couldn't afford, refused to pay it back and sold the team on for $14million. Texas taxpayers shouldered the cost.

These are all the jobs that Bush has had before becoming governor of Texas (unless you count being AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam), and they don't give the impression that he should be left in charge of a hamster, let alone a country...

[Chodon]

...
These are all the jobs that Bush has had before becoming governor of Texas (unless you count being AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam), and they don't give the impression that he should be left in charge of a hamster, let alone a country...

It just goes to show you...democracy (or representative democracy) doesn't work.  Tyranny by majority vote is more like it.

[birdless]

Damn me I'm posting in here again, dammit. But it's interesting... and I got behind so now I have to catch up…

Birdless, you're sounding like a Libertarian.  I like it!

What little I know about them does appeal to me, though there are a few tenets that I have issues with, but what party doesn't have those?

totaly agrree with that last statment but I have trouble with the other one b/c I tend to agree with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton

THANK you, CGF! I was wondering who said that. But the office holds the power that corrupts, thus my statement that I feel like its the office, not the man... does that make sense?

I'm no granola-eating liberal, but I live 25 miles away from work.  I can't afford gas, and I can live with a Prius if it means I save money in the long run.

I feel your pain: i live 50 miles away from work, and am wanting to get a Prius or even a Honda Civic... more so a Prius after reading Chodon's post.

Not so sure about that. If Gore or Kerry had been in office, we probably wouldn't have spent several trillion dollars on a war where no-one can even define what "winning" would mean.

There's no way to tell to what degree, but I think there would have been some military operations regardless of who was in office, though perhaps better planned ones. Those attacks on 9/11 demanded a military response. Money would have been spent. Again, maybe with more discretion or strategic thinking, and maybe not as much, but still a lot.

Let's be honest here.  If you could get away with spending as much money as you wanted on whatever you wanted and not have to be held liable for it wouldn't you?  I know I would.  Granted, I wouldn't spend money on blowing things up (much).  I would spend money on trying to solve the current energy crisis.  There is no accountability though.  Why should they have a balanced budget?

I think you're a better man than that, Chodon. I bet you wouldn't spend thoughtlessly if you knew someone was going to be held liable for it.

And what consequences are there for Bush screwing up the budget and, eventually, the US economy?  Nothing.  That's the definition of a broken system.

Oh! By the way, some fascinating listening on This American Life a few weeks ago.

Yeah, I'm halfway convinced that a monarchy is the way to go. Instead of being elected on the basis of having a nice smile on TV, and walking into a hundred-thousand-a-year consultancy job when you leave office, regardless of how poorly you do is flawed compared with training someone from birth in how to run a country and knowing that if they screw up they get beheaded...

Hahahaha!! That's the best argument I've ever heard for a monarchy... love it.

[wintermute]

Not so sure about that. If Gore or Kerry had been in office, we probably wouldn't have spent several trillion dollars on a war where no-one can even define what "winning" would mean.

There's no way to tell to what degree, but I think there would have been some military operations regardless of who was in office, though perhaps better planned ones. Those attacks on 9/11 demanded a military response. Money would have been spent. Again, maybe with more discretion or strategic thinking, and maybe not as much, but still a lot.

It didn't demand a military response against Iraq, though.

In fact, what it demanded was a police response, tracking down the people responsible and bringing them to justice instead of attacking governments that had little (Afghanistan) or nothing (Iraq) to do with the attacks. It demanded the capture or death of Bin Laden, which seems to be something that Bush and the Pentagon have absolutely no interest in.

[Chodon]

I think you're a better man than that, Chodon. I bet you wouldn't spend thoughtlessly if you knew someone was going to be held liable for it.

I would spend the money on things I thought were important.  Bush thinks the war is important, but he's an idiot.  I think that fusion research and space exploration is important, but most of the country would think I'm an idiot.  It just depends on how the media wants to present things.  People eat whatever the media feeds them.

Oh! By the way, some fascinating listening on This American Life a few weeks ago.

I listened to that on a podcast.  Some of that is so freaking screwed up, and you and I are footing the bill.  Anarchy is sounding better and better by the day.

Does anyone know of a government that has ever relinquished power voluntarily?  I was trying to think of an example and I couldn't come up with one.  Seriously.