| | | Author | Message |
|---|
Chad
  
| #1 posted March 7, 2008 at 4:05pm (EDT)
edited March 14, 2008 at 5:49pm (EDT) |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_go_ot/de...
WASHINGTON - At a cost of nearly $42 million, the IRS wants you to know: Your check is almost in the mail.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Internal Revenue Service is spending the money on letters to alert taxpayers to expect rebate checks as part of the economic stimulus plan.
The notices are going out this month to an estimated 130 million households who filed returns for the 2006 tax year, at a cost $41.8 million, IRS spokesman John Lipold confirmed.
That works out to about 32 cents to print, process and mail each letter. It doesn't include the tab for another round of mailings planned for those who didn't file tax returns last year but may still qualify for a rebate.
Democrats accused the Bush administration of wasting time and postage.
"There are countless better uses for $42 million than a self-congratulatory mailer that gives the president a pat on the back for an idea that wasn't even his," Sen. Charles Schumer said Friday, arguing the IRS could more effectively spend the money to catch tax cheats.
Keith Hennessey, director of the president's National Economic Council, said the letters are being sent to explain how the tax rebates will work.
"Any time you do something as a government tens of millions of times, there is ample room for people to get confused. And so if you're going to have tens of millions of taxpayers getting checks, you want to get the information out so that you have as few people as possible confused about what's happening, they understand what's coming, and it reduces the number of incoming requests that IRS and Treasury have to figure out how to deal with it," said Hennessey.
"Dear Taxpayer," the letters will begin, going on to say the IRS is pleased to inform the recipient that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a plan that will provide payments of up to $600 for individuals who qualify or $1,200 for married couples filing jointly. The rebates are the centerpiece of a $168 billion economic stimulus package.
The actual rebate checks are scheduled to go out starting in May, after the IRS has finished separately mailing out routine refunds for the 2007 tax year.
The letters will be a reminder that people need to file a 2007 tax return so they will receive the rebate if they are eligible for it.
Similar notices will go out later to some Social Security recipients and those who receive veterans benefits — groups that often do not file tax returns.
For those people to get a rebate check, they will need to file a tax return if they received at least $3,000 from a combination of certain Social Security benefits, veterans benefits and earned income. The minimum payment for this group will be $300 for an individual and $600 for a couple filing jointly.
Not everyone will be eligible. Singles with income of more than $75,000 and couples with more than $150,000 get only partial rebates, if any.
People who earn less than $3,000, illegal immigrants and anyone who does not file a tax return will miss out. Singles with incomes exceeding $87,000 and couples with incomes exceeding $174,000 also won't qualify, although those caps rise by $6,000 per child. |
Brilliant.
| Helen
 
 
| #2 posted March 7, 2008 at 4:13pm (EDT)
edited March 7, 2008 at 4:14pm (EDT) |
If people aren't going to file their taxes on time, I dunno that I feel really sorry for them if they don't get the stimulus check.
And wouldn't it make more sense to send the explanation WITH the check rather than months in advance? | Chad
| | #3 posted March 7, 2008 at 4:20pm (EDT) |
Sending it to SS and veterans benefits recipients who don't normally file, it makes some sense to send to them. Everyone else, yeah, just give a short letter when you send the actual check. Or better yet, allow you to register online to have it direct deposited into your bank account like I do on my regular taxes. | langev
 
| | #4 posted March 7, 2008 at 4:27pm (EDT) |
BIG GOV'Tblows | j_factor
| | #5 posted March 7, 2008 at 9:19pm (EDT) |
lol, kind of reminds me of this:
Hey gang... just off the phone with a TOP CLINTON STRATEGIST... I've got the details on Hillary Clinton's new economic stimulus package... designed to help those hit hardest by the recent economic downturn... the unexpected choppy waters we find ourselves in...
It's a specific plan, not like Obama's "let's all hold hands and reach for the stars, which we can't even grab because we're all tangled up in each others' hands..."
Here it is:
IF YOU'RE JUST SCRAPING BY AT YOUR JOB, HILLARY CLINTON WILL GIVE YOU FIVE MILLION DOLLARS, CASH. . . PROVIDED YOUR JOB INVOLVES RUNNING FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION.
(OFFER NOT VALID FOR BARACK OBAMA.)
The funds are limited, so you'd better start gathering petition signatures now! I'm throwing my hat in the ring and running as "Ron Paul 3000," the hot new version of Ron Paul... look for my virtual rally in Second Life... please come dressed like a warlock... my campaign needs warlocks... we're caucusing in World of Warcraft, too... meet me under the Skull-Bridge of N'thrungore... I'll be playing the zither and singing about Ayn Rand...
I bet Barack Obama wishes he had the (intellectual) funds and (selfless) boldness to propose such an audacious stimulus package! Hillary Clinton has just earned her stripes as an economic-package-stimulator of the highest order!!! Her plan puts real money in the hands of real people who need it real bad.
What's Obama's plan? More of the same old platitudes? "Ooh, look at this YouTube video of a bunch of young people singing some hippie-style rap song where they couldn't even afford to film it in color?" Last time I checked, that didn't add up to FIVE MILLION DOLLARS CASH. NEXT!
Contrast Obama's empty rhetoric with Clinton's PROVEN ABILITY to provide MASSIVE INJECTIONS OF CASH to those who need it most! She's so modest, she didn't even brag about it at the time! Most politicians would have called a big press conference on the porch of their mansion and been all like, "Look at me! I'm giving away millions of dollars to a woman in need! Let's all go to Kazakhstan to celebrate how great I am!"
But not Hillary Clinton! It's the classic dynamic: Specific versus vague; proven versus untested; tested versus unproven. |
<benstylus> what crappy game from 15 years ago have you been playing lately?
Answer: Exile: Wicked Phenomenon (Turbo CD) | Discover
 
| #6 posted March 7, 2008 at 10:21pm (EDT)
edited March 7, 2008 at 10:26pm (EDT) |
Chad wrote:
> Sending it to SS and veterans benefits recipients who don't normally
> file, it makes some sense to send to them. Everyone else, yeah, just
> give a short letter when you send the actual check. Or better yet,
> allow you to register online to have it direct deposited into your
> bank account like I do on my regular taxes.
Indeed, I'd prefer that as well...
*Edit: Just read:
"(If you have your 2007 refund directly deposited into your bank account, the Treasury is supposed to try to direct deposit your rebate, too.)"
http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/2008/02...
So maybe.... | invisibleink
| | #7 posted March 8, 2008 at 9:34am (EDT) |
thats retarded. im worried about where this country is headed | Felty
 
| | #8 posted March 9, 2008 at 4:02am (EDT) |
Hey Chad someone told me I would be getting a rebate check for $300, how is this possible if I made less than 3 grand last year? | Chad
| | #9 posted March 9, 2008 at 4:15am (EDT) |
who told you? they were probably wrong. | Felty
| | #10 posted March 9, 2008 at 4:34am (EDT) |
My mom actually told me, although I was kind of skeptical when she told me because I only worked for like a week last year. I have no idea where she heard it from, I assumed she got a letter or something.
And damn you're up late or very early. | Chad
| | #11 posted March 9, 2008 at 5:12am (EDT) |
ive been entranced by Dexter. Been marathoning that bitch since i got home. | Felty
| | #12 posted March 9, 2008 at 5:19am (EDT) |
I still need to check that out, a friend told me about it months ago but I never got around to it. | John
(frozen)
| | #13 posted March 9, 2008 at 5:11pm (EDT) |
If you didn't make $3k in income last year, then I don't see how you'd be getting anything.
There are a few exception for people that made under $3k, but I don't see that any of them would be likely to apply to you, sorry.
- John...
"God would not put a playground next to a sewage system."
- Forgetting Sarah Marshall Trailer | Johnny_Sack
| | #14 posted March 9, 2008 at 5:15pm (EDT) |
Wait 2006? Is that a typo? I can care either way but why not base it on 2007? | John
(frozen)
| | #15 posted March 9, 2008 at 8:09pm (EDT) |
Whether or not you get the stimulus rebate thing is based on 2007, I believe. The 2006 mentioned above is who they are mailing out the letters to -- simply because a lot of people haven't filed 2007 ones yet -- and because they want to tell people that might not otherwise HAVE to file that they might WANT to for 2007 so that they get their rebate.
- John...
"God would not put a playground next to a sewage system."
- Forgetting Sarah Marshall Trailer | Chad
| | #16 posted March 11, 2008 at 6:00pm (EDT) |
Todays news
NEW YORK - Wall Street finally found a reason for a huge rally Tuesday after the Federal Reserve said it plans to pump $200 billion into the financial markets to help ease the strain from the credit crisis. The Dow Jones industrial average shot up more than 416 points, its biggest one-day point gain since July 2002.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Fed's program is part of a worldwide effort to help struggling banks and mortgage providers. The Fed — acting in concert with the European Central Bank, the Bank of Canada and the Swiss National Bank — agreed to loan investment banks money in exchange for debt, including slumping mortgage-backed securities.
The move is meant to essentially create a market for assets that investors have been too scared to buy. That freeze-up in demand had sent asset values plunging and caused huge losses for some of the world's biggest banks.
The decision by the Fed arrives after a series of hefty losses in stocks, noted Anthony Conroy, managing director and head trader for BNY ConvergEx Group. That, along with the unwinding of bets that the market would fall further, may have exaggerated the stock market's rebound. But the market is hopeful the central banks' decision Tuesday might be more effective than previous moves — like rate cuts, which had elicited initial stock pops but then eventual skepticism about whether they would be enough to keep the economy out of a recession.
"It's not just a rate cut. I think it's a very creative way to do financing," Conroy said. "It shows the Fed is willing to do things that are a little out-of-the-box to shore up credit issues. I really think they went to the heart of the issue."
The latest step was seen as a direct lifeline to investment banks, which previously couldn't borrow in past Fed liquidity plans.
"The big problem has been the financials, and this helps supply money directly to the banks and may take some of the need for aggressive rate cutting off the table," said Peter Dunay, chief investment strategist at Meridian Equity Partners. "The Fed is basically going to take the bad loans off the banks' books, and the market seems to be loving that idea."
The central bank may have avoided dramatically slashing interest rates again when it meets next week. Economists remain concerned about the unrelenting rise in oil prices and the dollar's weakness, which contribute to inflation — and cutting rates only add to these pressures.
According to preliminary calculations, the Dow rose 416.66, or 3.55 percent, to 12,156.81. The index — which lost more than 500 points in the last three sessions — is still down about 2,000 points from its October 2007 record high. It was the biggest point jump in the Dow since its 447-point rise on July 29, 2002, and its widest percentage gain since closing up 3.59 percent on March 17, 2003.
Broader stock indicators also soared. The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 47.28, or 3.71 percent, to 1,320.65, while the Nasdaq composite index surged 86.42, or 3.98 percent, to 2,255.76.
Government bond prices fell as stocks rallied. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, spiked to 3.60 percent from 3.46 percent late Monday.
Financial sector stocks, many of which have dipped to multi-year lows in recent days on liquidity concerns, led the market higher Tuesday.
Citigroup Inc. rose $1.42, or 7.2 percent, to $21.11, Washington Mutual Inc. rose $1.72, or 17 percent, to $11.76, and Bank of America Corp. rose $1.33, or 3.8 percent, to $36.64.
Morgan Stanley rose $4.19, or 10.9 percent, to $42.49, Lehman Brothers rose $3.33, or 7.8 percent, to $46.31, and Merrill Lynch rose $2.76, or 6.4 percent, to $45.60.
Bear Stearns Cos. rebounded from losses to rise 67 cents to $62.97, even after an analyst said the No. 5 U.S. investment bank might need to sell itself, or layoff more staff, to stay afloat. The cost to insure Bear Stearns bonds has been spiking to all-time highs. A spokesman for Bear Stearns didn't immediately return telephone calls.
The central bank's plan basically allows Wall Street's biggest institutions to put up troubled assets as collateral for loans, use the new capital to make money in the market, and then pay back the loan up to 28 days later. Though eventually banks would be forced to take the troubled mortgage-backed debt back on their books, the plan still takes short-term pressure off them. Many of these banks will release first-quarter earnings reports next week.
The Fed's announcement overshadowed a report from the Commerce Department that showed the United States' trade deficit grew larger in January. The latest snapshot of the economy showed that the trade gap increased to $58.2 billion — the highest since November.
The primary reason behind the widening trade deficit is high oil prices. Crude rose as high as $109.72 in premarket trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange before ending at a new settlement record of $108.75. The weak dollar has contributed to oil's rally from $87 a barrel in January.
Gold prices rose, while the dollar edged up against most other major currencies.
The only sector posting major losses Tuesday was healthcare, which has been strong in recent months. WellPoint Inc. fell after Goldman Sachs trimmed its ratings in the managed care sector to neutral from attractive. The investment bank singled out WellPoint's performance amid pricing pressures. The stock plunged $18.66, or 28 percent, to $47.26.
Google Inc. shares spiked after European Union regulators cleared the Internet company's $3.1 billion bid for online ad tracker DoubleClick. Shares of Google rose $26.22, or 6.3 percent, to $439.84.
The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies rose 29.84, or 4.63 percent, to 673.81.
Advancing issues surpassed decliners by more than 5 to 1 on the New York Stock Exchange, where volume came to 1.95 billion shares.
Stocks overseas rebounded. Japan's Nikkei 225 stock average rose 1.01 percent, while Hong Kong's market closed up 1.28 percent higher. Britain's FTSE-100 rose 1.7 percent, Germany was up 2.01 percent, and France added 1.61 percent.
| Chad
| | #17 posted March 11, 2008 at 6:08pm (EDT) |
The most important part as far as I am concerned:
"The primary reason behind the widening trade deficit is high oil prices. Crude rose as high as $109.72 in premarket trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange before ending at a new settlement record of $108.75. The weak dollar has contributed to oil's rally from $87 a barrel in January.
Gold prices rose, while the dollar edged up against most other major currencies. "
So dumping 200 fudging billion dollars is supposed to somehow be a remedy? It is absolutely ignoring the underlying issue of weakening dollar. As I said some time ago, the correct course of action from a utilitarian approach is freeze everything. I think today's gains will be gone within 2 weeks. Feds going to cut the rates again further devaluing our dollar. Risk adverse investors continue to follow gold, and are benefiting from it.
Freeze the gosh darn rates. Sorry for the people getting hosed, but you bought a fudging house on the presupposition that it is the only thing in the universe that ALWAYS goes up in price. You should have realized what a fudging idiot you were then, but you didn't, so now you are learning your lesson.
If you are a bull in this market you deserve to lose everything you have (which you will). Invest in fall out shelters and canned goods if you know whats good for you. | John
(frozen)
| | #18 posted March 11, 2008 at 10:50pm (EDT) |
So, basically, the government is going to bail out all the banks that made sub-prime loans by buying their bad loans above market value and hold them instead. 
So, WaMu, one of the (if not THE) largest sub-prime loaners gets a 17% boost instead of being held responsible for loans that it shouldn't have made.
And, of course, when more of those start to default, now the Fed will own them -- and it won't look good for them to actually foreclose on all of those, so we're about to see them start bailing out all of the people that took ARM loans with no-docs and nothing down that should not have taken them to start with!
In the end, that means us taxpayers are going to be the ones bailing out BOTH the bad banks and the mortgage holders that should have been foreclosed on...
- John...
"God would not put a playground next to a sewage system."
- Forgetting Sarah Marshall Trailer | John
(frozen)
| | #19 posted March 11, 2008 at 10:50pm (EDT) |
Chad -- you and I need to get together and take over...
- John...
"God would not put a playground next to a sewage system."
- Forgetting Sarah Marshall Trailer | Chad
| | #20 posted March 11, 2008 at 11:36pm (EDT) |
Totally. I think if the government and fed just took the fiscal approach of any random person who is debt free and earns a modest income the country as a whole would be better off. If they simply lived by the principle if you don't have the money don't spend it, this mess would have never happened.
Doomsday scenario, I see the banks federalizing and becoming even dumber and more inefficient.
Did you hear Bernanke call for banks to start reducing PRINCIPLE on people defaulting? That is absolutely asinine. That is pure and simple wealth distribution. Anyone who has the most basic understanding of economics understands that but there isn't a massive outcry to silence him. I just don't get how people can be so uncaring about something that impacts every single person greatly but get worked into a tizzy over the presidential election when, lets be honest, there is very little difference between any of them left. If Ben wasn't dropping money from the sky, gas would likely still be around $2.50 a gallon.
We really need a competing currency. I wish I could demand that I only get paid in Euro. | John
(frozen)
| | #21 posted March 12, 2008 at 8:25am (EDT) |
Indeed. Agreed completely on all points.
- John...
"God would not put a playground next to a sewage system."
- Forgetting Sarah Marshall Trailer | Chad
| | #22 posted March 12, 2008 at 12:54pm (EDT) |
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/12/markets/dollar_imp...
That article brings up some scary points but wants to try to put a rosey picture on it. It basically says that if the dollar continues staying low there will be a profound long-term impact, but they think the dollar will recover. I just don't see that happening. We are losing 10s of billions of dollars of wealth each month from the housing fall out. They are going to continue trying to prop it up which will continue to fail which will continue to drive the dollar ever lower. If they are right and once it hits 1.60 USD per Euro there is a massive selling, bad times are ahead. In the past we would have had the strength of manufacturing to fall back on if it got too bad, but all of that is gone. Once a sell out happens long term bond rates will go up causing mortgage rates to skyrocket putting even more downward pressure on home prices.
Nice mess you got us in here, Ben. | Chad
| | #23 posted March 12, 2008 at 1:10pm (EDT) |
http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/?story=ON-20080312...
CEO of Freddie Mac thinks we have only seen 1/3 of the decline that will happen.
I'd give that an optimism factor of 2, meaning we have only seen 1/6 of the total declines.
| virtuadept
 
| | #24 posted March 12, 2008 at 3:13pm (EDT) |
we're all fudgeed. lets get drunk and get naked.
Visit virtuadept's RPG forum! or virtuadept's blog! (updated 2/24) | John
(frozen)
| | #25 posted March 12, 2008 at 9:46pm (EDT) |
Acftually, let's get our credit together and buy real estate. 
- John...
"God would not put a playground next to a sewage system."
- Forgetting Sarah Marshall Trailer | virtuadept
| | #26 posted March 12, 2008 at 9:55pm (EDT) |
i'll wait until at least 5/6 of the declines happen. 
Visit virtuadept's RPG forum! or virtuadept's blog! (updated 2/24) | Chad
| | #27 posted March 14, 2008 at 5:49pm (EDT) |
So todays fiasco with Bear Stearns is the first step in my doomsday scenario of federalized banking.
BS's stocks took it up the ass today big time. Fell over 50% (ended down 46% for the day). They are at 15% their 52 week high. JP Morgan has agreed to "help" them out and the Fed has essentially guaranteed them. We are getting fudgeed and everyone is just standing by watching it. Every day we see the Fed fudge over 99% of the country to save the asses of the few, it becomes more and more clear that Ron Paul was the only candidate that ever had the best interest of the general populace in heart. We need a commodity based currency. Its blatantly obvious that the money is soon not going to be worth the paper it is printed on. Around the world countries are stopping accepting US currency. Why is that? Because they understand it is a quikcly depreciating asset. For Gods sake, BRAZIL's currency is more stable than ours right now.
Back in January I started moving some of my $ over to gold but I started feeling gold was too high. What a fool I was! Gold will just keep going up. The dollar will just keep going down.
Seriously, what will it take to wake up the populace? This mess is no longer just credit. It is no longer just housing. It is wide spread. Recession? If we are lucky. I am now fearing Great Depression 2. | DR_SPOCK
 
| | #28 posted March 14, 2008 at 6:43pm (EDT) |
So, Chad, I should invest in GOLD? Is there a place that will send me gold bricks? I'd like that.
eBay Store
Amazon Storefront | Chad
| | #29 posted March 14, 2008 at 7:04pm (EDT) |
if you have enough money, yeah. if you want to invest in gold the easiest way is to buy off ebay. | Chad
| | #30 posted March 14, 2008 at 7:04pm (EDT) |
and yeah, i think putting money into gold would be smart. | DR_SPOCK
| | #31 posted March 14, 2008 at 7:09pm (EDT) |
Gold! The one true metal.
eBay Store
Amazon Storefront | Chad
| | #32 posted March 14, 2008 at 7:21pm (EDT) |
its been a bit since i looked up silver, but it has the best potential to increase a lot, but you might also lose more with it, whereas gold i think should be pretty stable. | invisibleink
| | #33 posted March 15, 2008 at 12:15am (EDT) |
gold is up to over 1000$ per ounce | Chad
| | #34 posted March 16, 2008 at 10:15pm (EDT) |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080317/ts_nm/usa_econ...
hoooooooly fudge. On wednesday they were over $60. On Friday they were over $30. Today they are $2.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080317/ap_on_go_ot/fe...
fed also cut 25 bp off the discount rate (though I think the funds rate is remaining the same)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGqroT1FZ5Y If we go into a depression, I have a feeling that in 30 years when they are making movies about the times, this will be the standard theme of it. | Chad
| | #35 posted March 17, 2008 at 2:37pm (EDT) |
So today oil actually went down. Some were saying there was an oil bubble, but I didn't believe it. I was sure it was going to stay strong. I don't exactly understand what the underlying issue is with all of this. I believe it may be seen as a sign of reduced overall demand, which is needless to say a real blow to the economy, but I'm not sure. | MightySlacker
| | #36 posted March 17, 2008 at 7:30pm (EDT) |
I wish I knew more about this stuff so I could contribute to the conversation. I hated running economy disadvantages when i debated in college - and we just had this giant argument against them that boiled down to "Greenspan is such a pimp that nothing we do will ever have a negative impact on the economy".
I miss Greenspan 
Dave
2004-07-22 17:30:17 Morph Mr. Funny man, get ready to have ur life get funnier
HAS HE LEARNED ANYTHING IN A YEAR?
7-Sep-2005 11:04pm Morph keep it up mighty i will have you nailed for harassment
HELL NO! | Chad
| | #37 posted March 17, 2008 at 10:02pm (EDT) |
greenspan is part of what caused all of this. back in 04 or so the rates should have been rising. | Staraang
| | #38 posted March 17, 2008 at 10:14pm (EDT) |
Chad, you're a ron paul fan, right? you heard of peter schiff before? i believe he's paul's economic advisor. here's a clip of him in 8/06 predicting the recession: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o | Chad
| | #39 posted March 17, 2008 at 10:29pm (EDT) |
Yeah, big time paulie. I don't think he has all the answers but I believe he is the only realist in congress that has gotten any national air time.
Personally I didn't expect a recession until mid-07. I knew there was a housing bubble since about 05 but at the time I thought it was isolated and a quick correction would minimize the losses of everything else. Now I am thinking the longer it is drawn out the more painful it gets.
I can try to find the article, but I believe in either 06 or 07 there was a -2% saving rate, mostly from HELOCs but also from credit card debt. We have nothing in the coffers. We have lost our manufacturing strength and much of our specialization. I think in the near future we will go through a phase of protectionism much like Japan or Germany. Even if having the jobs local "costs" everyone money I believe it is a long term necessity. The fact that there was such an outcry (at least locally) over the Northrop Grumman/EADS award of the tanker contract is I believe the first taste of this. I think we are reaching the point where more and more people won't stay seated when they hear of Dell outsourcing all of its tech support.
I also believe there was an article that for the first time in a loooooong time (like great depression long) that nominal household income has fallen. When you take into account the devaluation of the currency, we are making 80% of what we made last year. I think more and more people are realizing this and its going to get nasty. | Chad
| | #40 posted March 18, 2008 at 12:10pm (EDT) |
So what happens today after the fed makes their cut?
50 bp and we drop for the day, albeit a small one
75 bp and it remains about the same, some small losses but still end up over 200
100 bp and there are minor gains since I think most of the investors have already priced that cut in. | | |
There are more posts in this topic. See Next Page Jump to the End Post Follow-up |
Rules Help 
