This is the shell game by BHO and his cronies. The $250 one-month stipend, which is still treated as income, and will be taxed. Just as the tax credits on the payroll taxes will be treated as income. The administration did not change the income tax tables; consequently, what BHO gives with the right hand, he takes with the left hand. What a con-artist. It's great to have a community organizer (who squandered the $180M grant given while he was in Chicago) and an affirmative action product as our leader.

---------------------------------------------
I was a liberal until I learned to read, got a job, and was mugged by tax and spend politicians

Now that its probably too late but Stephen Colbert had an idea for a stimulus package -- use the stimulus package to pay down our personal debt.

You have a website/form that people fill out to list off their credit cards, car loans, personal loans, etc. up to $15,000. The government makes the payment to pay off that debt.

The credit card companies either close the account, cut the credit limit down to $1000 (or half the current limit if under a $1000).

The money is repayable over the next 15 years of income taxes.

This would get a lot of debt off the banks books. It would give the consumer a chance to have a clean slate. The new limits would slow a lot of people from getting back in over their heads. The givernment would see most of the money come back.

Those people, like you Amy, who have been fiscally responsible (and made their own luck), aren't really hit that hard.

Their will still be toxic mortgages out there, but the direct loans and takeovers of banks will be significantly slowed. the banks that failed the stress test and need to raise capital would probably be in good shape.
-------------------------------------

It sounds like a dumb idea at the outset; but it beats the government owning the banks, and would give a jump start.

What a fantastic idea! Let's give people who are RETIRED (not unemployed) and oftentimes living on pensions a stipend paid for by the generations who have been paying into social security their entire lives, even though the program isn't likely to benefit them.

Libertarians unite!

Keep your hands out of my paycheck and I might be able to afford healthcare, food, shelter, and retirement.

This is a great visualization of the budget cuts Obama is promising:

http://reason.tv/roughcut/show/772.html

-Julie

Here is another interesting one: U.S. National Debt in $100 bills.

"Please, please, somebody start a viable third party and get a viable candidate up for office who's a fiscal conservative."

Amen. I am a registered Independent...but I'd be willing to switch to any fiscally conservative third party with a great candidate and some real traction.

"I was a liberal until I learned to read, got a job, and was mugged by tax and spend politicians"

Exactly! When you’re young, in college...whatever, it’s easy to spend other people’s money. But when the rubber meets the road, most of us are fiscally conservative in this country even though some may find that tough to admit!

...people's great-great grandchildren picking up the cost....

BHO was overwhelmingly voted into office by young voters. Why shouldn't they be stuck with the bill for his incompetence?

Maybe by the time they're forty, they'll figure out you don't elect a president because he'll "feel your pain" or because he's "for change."

You elect a president that can do the job and make the tough decisions - and sometimes that means the boring old fart is a better choice.

"BHO was overwhelmingly voted into office by young voters." You sure about that? What about old hippies, most of the East and West coasts, the AARP, and minorities?
Don't blame this shit on my generation.

Those groups didn't turn out in record numbers for him. Young voters did.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27525497

That's hilarious, about the young voters. Generation Y is really going to take it in the shorts when the bill for our national debts and unfunded liabilities for our old-age entitlement programs comes due. A co-worker of mine just read an article about this very thing but couldn't find the link to send me. It makes sense, though, when you look at the projections. Make sure you watch the movie 'I.O.U.S.A.'

Here's some quick math, on the idea that people can retire with thirty years of their lives left, and not have to work. We know inflation's going to skyrocket, and the stock market isn't going to give these people 10% average returns. But I'm going to keep the argument simple and ignore any compounding and growth on investments, but also ignore inflation and taxes. Just to live on $20,000 a year, you'd have to have $500,000 to pull that off for 25 years without working. With average household incomes at about $40,000 a year, just how many people can save that kind of money? It doesn't even come close to working out. It's ridiculous to think that the government can magically make it happen.

In their defense, Generation Y isn't old enough to remember what it's like when Democrats control both Congress and the Presidency. This will be a valuable object lesson for them. Hopefully they won't have to kill and eat us to survive it.

In their defense, Generation Y isn't old enough to remember what it's like when Democrats control both Congress and the Presidency.

If only there was a way that Generation Y could find about what happened in the past.

How ironic, that the Baby Boomer generation people are the parents of Generation Y. Must make for some pretty interesting dinner table conversation.

BeanerECMO:

True, the tax tables didn't change to accomodate the reduction in withholding from paychecks for the rest of 2009, but there will be a credit on our 2009 returns. This credit should correspond pretty closely in most cases to the reduction in withholding, thus leaving any given taxpayer in about the same place next April 15 as they would have been.

That said, I am in total agreement that this credit, as well as the $250 payments to retirees, are both unconscionable, given the ginormous deficits the feds are already running. It is a brazen attempt to get as many people as possible even further on the government teat, thus increasing their dependence on the socialists and attempting to buy their allegiance and votes next time around. Just more small contributors to the impending fiscal meltdown and/or bankruptcy we will be seeing before too very long.

True that O got a ton of young votes. But O himself (and most of his advisors, and GW Bush and Clinton before him) are baby boomers. They are, collectively, nothing but reconstituted hippies from the 60s who have never actually produced a good or service, who have had everything handed to them, most frequently off the public dole, and as a result have no idea of really what makes a productive economy tick.

I'm frankly ashamed of being in the same generation as these idiots. I have already apologized on their behalf to my aging parents for being the generation that will most probably be the ones that finally gut the most successful experiment in freedom in the history of the world.

A lot of these intergenerational equity issues illustrate one of the biggest problems with government programs. That is, most people have fewer reservations about ripping off anonymous strangers than ripping off people they personally know and have to deal with regularly.

In most families, if the parents announced they were going to live it up and run up huge debts, and then pass those debts onto the children when they die, there would probably be a blazing argument and the children wouldn't speak to the parents after that.

Yet this is pretty much what is happening with public policy at the moment.

What happens if you raise the SSI/Medicare/Prescription Drug Program age to 70? Or 75?

It certainly helps with the insolvency problem. But then you have all these people who have to work for another 10 years, taking up jobs that Generation Y already can't hardly get. What happens to unemployment taxes? How long do you want your kids living with you?

What if those Boomers go ahead and retire at age 60 anyway, by living off their IRAs and 401Ks until SSI kicks in at the now-increased age of 70? You have a massive selloff, so what does that do to the stock market?

Who knows? What's the likelihood of the age being raised to 70 or 75 anyway, with the largest segment of the population consisting of those who would be hurt most by such a change? So, then, what happens if we don't raise the age?

I'm not seeing happy outcomes in any case. What will happen with inflation? In eight or ten years, what are we going to be spending each month on groceries? The big red sign that starts blinking on my wall says, 'Pay off your house now, while your money is still worth something.'

You have a massive selloff, so what does that do to the stock market?

Well there is going to be a massive sell off from IRA/401K's in a few years anyway. Those individuals that have enough savings, pensions, etc. that they don't have to hit their IRA/401K's -- at age 70 1/2 the

You must begin to have your Traditional IRA distributed no later than April 1st of the year following the year in which you reach age 70 1/2.

No matter what -- The IRS wants its money, and some will take it as an annuity, but others will do a lump sum. Take a guess where all that money is being held? And the boomers are rapidly coming up on 70 1/2 -- Try in 2016. That money is going to come out of the market in a big way. All 2.5 million that are having to sell it all as the market crashes.

Someone wrote 401(k) + Mandatory Withdraw age 70 1/2 + Baby Boomers = BAD over on the Ron Paul website.

Be scared; be very, very scared.

Pirate Jo "It certainly helps with the insolvency problem. But then you have all these people who have to work for another 10 years, taking up jobs that Generation Y already can't hardly get."

If that is the case, then why is it that in countries like France (with more generous early retirement policies and a 4 day working week), there is still relatively high youth unemployment?

This kind of thinking is common with regard to arguments about the labour market, i.e. if one section of society either drops out of the workforce or works less, it will somehow create more work for other sections of the community. Yet this type of thinking is generally spurious. The notion that there is somehow a fixed amount of work available, which can then be divided up among the population however one sees fit, is an example of flat-earth economics.

There are a few reasons why if one section of the population decides to either stop working or work less, it does not generally lead to more work being available elsewhere:
- if people work less, they tend to spend more time doing things for themselves instead of paying others to do them. Whether that's mowing their lawns, fixing their cars, or whatever. So this reduces outside employment in these areas
- if people stop working or work less, they generally have less income and are no longer contributing as much productivity to the formal economy. This has a negative impact on employment elsewhere in the economy, particularly through the loss of the multiplier effect.

The simple truth is that economic activity generally fosters more economic activity either directly or indirectly. If one section of the population drops out of the productive economy, it does not magically lead to a net increase in opportunities elsewhere. Generally it creates more of a negative economic spiral.

So the idea that baby boomers who quit working are somehow doing a favor to genXers and Yers is spurious. But even if there were more jobs for them, would it really be worth working long hours to simply pay high taxes to prop up the existing entitlement programs? Methinks not.

Interesting point, Nick S. At a given point in time, when someone leaves the job market, a position opens up for someone else. If five people in my department quit tomorrow, five job openings would immediately be posted.

But you are looking at the impact the overall market has. In times of decline, the total number of jobs available goes down. You're absolutely right - if a bunch of people drop out of the job market only to be supported by the taxes of working people, it's not exactly an "opportunity" they're leaving behind.

This is an interesting question too: "... would it really be worth working long hours to simply pay high taxes to prop up the existing entitlement programs"

If you've been a successful business owner, say, and have made yourself financially comfortable, why would you keep working those 70-hour weeks if the government is just going to bleed you dry? Aren't you just going to go out of business and move to the Bahamas? The people who aren't that rich will still have to work, because they need to feed themselves. But even they will reach a point where they see no need to do more than that. If any money you would have left over to invest, save, or spend on something fun gets sucked away, why would you ever do more than just enough to get by?