Hey citizen, I thought we agreed you wouldn't be the first to reply on threads I started...
Stimulus package, uscit. Those are the checks they keep sending to the poor people to get the economy going.
So you think Pelosi would put forward a different type of package that paid off who then?Maybe, one cannot assume from a name.
This is stupid. Is any economist actually supporting this?
This just has no fucking purpose but to drive us deeper into debt.
""House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is mulling recommendations from several economists that Congress act on an economic-recovery package that would cost taxpayers $300 billion, according to congressional aides, equivalent to about 2% of the country's gross domestic product.""
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122402768546534409.html?mod=article-outset-box
So Bush obviously didn't veto the last one. Do you think Obama would veto this one?
""House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is mulling recommendations from several economists that Congress act on an economic-recovery package that would cost taxpayers $300 billion, according to congressional aides, equivalent to about 2% of the country's gross domestic product.""
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122402768546534409.html?mod=article-outset-box
So Bush obviously didn't veto the last one. Do you think Obama would veto this one?
Why should it be vetoed?
Edit: 'I should say the short answer is' because "stimulus" checks don't do anything to help the economy and they push us further into debt.
You didn't have to sign up, they simply sent you a check if you fell within their parameters.I refused to sign-up and accept the first stimulus package as I will do with any subsequent ones as well.
You didn't have to sign up, they simply sent you a check if you fell within their parameters.