Stimulus Package

"...If Republican politicians are so deeply opposed to President Obama's economic recovery plan, they should refuse to take the money. After all, if you think all that federal spending is damaging, there are easy ways to reduce it: Don't take federal money.

Gov. Sanford can lead the way. South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.
Great idea (really). Let the red states enact the republican plan, and the blue states take the democratic plan. Then they can adjust the federal tax rates for citizens in those states by how much is being given to them. Let the states pay the share of the taxes they are using.

While we are at it, let us personally "opt in/out" of federal funding. If I lose my income, rather than being given a handout, I'll opt to figure out how to take care of myself and my family. I won't want to use food stamps, welfare, or universal health care. So I don't want to pay for it.

I also don't want social security, so instead I will take the money I am paying into it and put it in my own account and I will use it rather than having the government give it back with money they spent already. If someone would like to receive SS, then they can continue to contribute.

Taking care of ourselves... what a concept. I'll work on the details of my new plan. :D :cheesy:
 
I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the following article. I'm just posting it because it is so different from anything else I've been reading about the stimulus package.
Also I found the bolded portion of that article interesting. Maybe that fact is part of the problem. :sick:
Lady

"...If Republican politicians are so deeply opposed to President Obama's economic recovery plan, they should refuse to take the money. After all, if you think all that federal spending is damaging, there are easy ways to reduce it: Don't take federal money.

Gov. Sanford can lead the way. South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.

Justice Louis Brandeis famously called states "laboratories of democracy." So let's experiment. Gov. Sanford can be the guinea pig. His Palmetto State already gets $1.35 back from Washington for every dollar it pays in federal taxes, according to 2005 numbers, the latest calculated by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax research group.

South Carolina is a ward of the federal government. It's been on welfare for years. If Gov. Sanford is so all-fired opposed to federal spending, let's start by cutting federal spending in in South Carolina. Otherwise, he's got about as much credibility on fiscal conservatism as A-Rod has on steroids...."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/begala.carolina/index.html
According to this article, he's considering that idea.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=6883357&page=1

Graham's own Governor, Mark Sanford, is suggesting he may not take
the roughly $8 billion in stimulus funding for South Carolina.
 
I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the following article. I'm just posting it because it is so different from anything else I've been reading about the stimulus package.

Also I found the bolded portion of that article interesting. Maybe that fact is part of the problem. :sick:

Lady

"...If Republican politicians are so deeply opposed to President Obama's economic recovery plan, they should refuse to take the money. After all, if you think all that federal spending is damaging, there are easy ways to reduce it: Don't take federal money.

Gov. Sanford can lead the way. South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.

Justice Louis Brandeis famously called states "laboratories of democracy." So let's experiment. Gov. Sanford can be the guinea pig. His Palmetto State already gets $1.35 back from Washington for every dollar it pays in federal taxes, according to 2005 numbers, the latest calculated by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax research group.

South Carolina is a ward of the federal government. It's been on welfare for years. If Gov. Sanford is so all-fired opposed to federal spending, let's start by cutting federal spending in in South Carolina. Otherwise, he's got about as much credibility on fiscal conservatism as A-Rod has on steroids...."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/begala.carolina/index.html
 
I think the increase by 14% in the amount for the weekly issue of food stamps is needed- currently they offer $29.35 per week . Those using food stamps (cards nowdays) are in poverty, and $29.35 a week doesn't buy much food.
While that may be the "National Average", but in my state, the maximum food stamp assistance is $5.87 a day per person.
Over half of Michigan's recipients are children, and 8% are those over age 60. $5.87 a day works out to $29.35 per person for a five-day week. You only get that amount, if you have no other income at all.

http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-124--201629--,00.html

Right now, almost 10% of my state's residents (remember, our unemployment rate is now about 11%, and rising) receive some kind of food assistance.
"[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The food stamp program - known as the Food Assistance Program in Michigan - is part of a safety net for Michigan residents, many of whom work, but still can't make ends meet. Over a million of them will supplement their food budgets this year by visiting a local food bank - and the need is growing. In some parts of the state, emergency food providers are reporting as much as a 25 percent increase in the number of people seeking help with food this year."[/SIZE][/FONT]
Nobody wants to see people going hungry, myself included.
A food stamp program's purpose is to "assist" people who are
so poor that they cannot afford to buy enough food to maintain
their family's requirements. This does not mean that the
taxpayers should pay 100% of their grocery bill.

Why are your quoted food stamp allowance amounts shown
to represent a "five-day week"? People eat 7 days a week,
whether or not they depend on food stamps.

Here are some opinions of others about food stamps:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2106074/posts
"Food stamps are meant to supplement a person’s income, they’re not meant to be relied on for 100% of your food. Welfare recipients who aren’t working are typically getting their welfare check, WIC stamps which also can be used to purchase food, free medical care and they’re usually living in public housing, or section-8 housing where the Gov’t pays the rent for a private house or apartment.

So, to sum it up, if you’re working and receive food stamps, you’re expected to use part of your income to buy food, which, along with the food stamps should provide your family with 3 meals a day. If you’re not working, you’re most likely receiving several other types of support including a monthly welfare check, free housing, free medical care, etc (free to you that is, other folks are paying for it) in addition to food stamps."
 
I thought that number sounded a "little low"??? :laugh:

Food stamp payments: The bill includes a provision would increase food stamp payments by 13.6%, so a family of four would see an additional $80 on top of the $588 per month they receive currently.
Estimated cost: $19.9 billion.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/stimulus_individuals/index.htm?postversion=2009021319

While that may be the "National Average", but in my state, the maximum food stamp assistance is $5.87 a day per person.

Over half of Michigan's recipients are children, and 8% are those over age 60. $5.87 a day works out to $29.35 per person for a five-day week. You only get that amount, if you have no other income at all.

http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-124--201629--,00.html

Right now, almost 10% of my state's residents (remember, our unemployment rate is now about 11%, and rising) receive some kind of food assistance.

"[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The food stamp program - known as the Food Assistance Program in Michigan - is part of a safety net for Michigan residents, many of whom work, but still can't make ends meet. Over a million of them will supplement their food budgets this year by visiting a local food bank - and the need is growing. In some parts of the state, emergency food providers are reporting as much as a 25 percent increase in the number of people seeking help with food this year."[/SIZE][/FONT]
 
I think the increase by 14% in the amount for the weekly issue of food stamps is needed- currently they offer $29.35 per week . Those using food stamps (cards nowdays) are in poverty, and $29.35 a week doesn't buy much food.
I thought that number sounded a "little low"??? :laugh:

Food stamp payments: The bill includes a provision would increase food stamp payments by 13.6%, so a family of four would see an additional $80 on top of the $588 per month they receive currently.
Estimated cost: $19.9 billion.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/stimulus_individuals/index.htm?postversion=2009021319
 
CNN's summary of the passed stimulus bill.
According to their count:

/"The package devotes $308.3 billion -- or 39% -- to appropriations spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That includes $120 billion on infrastructure and science and more than $30 billion on energy-related infrastructure projects, according to key congressional committees.

It devotes another $267 billion -- or 34% -- on direct spending, including increased unemployment benefits and food stamps, CBO said."/
-----------------------------------------------------------

Senate passes $787 billion stimulus bill
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It's a done deal. Still controversial, but a done deal.

The Senate on Friday evening passed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was drawn up, amended and negotiated in record time.

The bill got 60 votes -- the minimum it needed to pass. Three Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins, R-Me., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Olympia Snowe, R-Me. -- voted for it. Earlier in the day, no Republicans in the House voted for the legislation, which nevertheless passed 246 to 183, with just 7 Democrats voting against it.

President Barack Obama will sign the recently approved economic stimulus bill on Tuesday in Denver, Colorado, two senior administration officials told CNN.

Both officials cited a desire of Obama's to get out of Washington -- to go, in the words of one official, "out west in an area hit hard economically, away from the politics of Washington." The other official described Denver as "a place that will see the benefits of the bill in hiring workers."
"The goal at the heart of this plan is to create jobs. Not just any jobs, but jobs doing the work America needs done: repairing our infrastructure, modernizing our schools and hospitals, and promoting the clean, alternative energy sources that will help us finally declare independence from foreign oil," President Obama said Friday morning.

The Obama economic team estimates the stimulus plan will create or save between 3 million and 4 million jobs.
"We've done something today that's transformational for the nation," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a press conference after the House vote.

During the House floor debate earlier on Friday, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisc., characterized the bill as "the largest change in domestic policy since the 1930s."

Republican discontent
The bill's final passage would represent far less than the bipartisan victory Obama had hoped for weeks ago, a hope he tabled as it became clear that Republicans and some fiscally conservative Democrats were adamantly opposed to the size and contents of the bill.

Republican critics believe there are more targeted and effective ways to create jobs than the measures in the bill, including more spending on infrastructure and more tax relief.
They frequently cite the tag line to describe what Democrats have often said makes stimulus measures effective -- that they be timely, targeted and temporary. "This bill fails on all three points," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Friday.

In the House, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., blasted the bill as misguided.
"Republicans are not about saying 'No' but about saying 'Yes' to solutions that put Americans back to work," Pence said. "[This legislation] will not grow our economy. It will grow our government."

And they frequently cite the burden of such an expensive package on the country's record high deficit and the burden that will place on the next generation.

In response to Republican critics, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., cited provisions in it that will help families facing job loss, education expenses and mortgage troubles.

"Consider the impact on the next generation if their parents lose a job ... if their home is foreclosed upon ... if they're forced out of college because their parents can't pay the bills," Durbin said.

Democrats have also countered the Republicans' debt argument by noting that record deficit levels were achieved as a result of borrowing to pay for the cost of the Iraq war and to finance a series of tax cuts -- both decisions made during a Republican administration.

The compromise bill was crafted after intensive negotiations in recent days between the House, Senate and White House, although Republicans said repeatedly they felt excluded from the process. And on Friday, several said they did not think it was fair that they were being asked to vote on a 1,000-page-plus bill that was posted online only late Thursday night.

How the bill breaks down
The package devotes $308.3 billion -- or 39% -- to appropriations spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That includes $120 billion on infrastructure and science and more than $30 billion on energy-related infrastructure projects, according to key congressional committees.

It devotes another $267 billion -- or 34% -- on direct spending, including increased unemployment benefits and food stamps, CBO said.

And it provides $212 billion -- or 27% -- for tax breaks for individuals and businesses, although the biggest piece of that is for individuals. (Here's a quick breakdown of those breaks.)
Depending on how tax measures are categorized, the percentage of the bill devoted to tax relief is 35%, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Unlike the CBO, the committee counts all portions of tax credits that are refundable. A refundable credit is one that may be paid to tax filers even if the credit exceeds a tax filer's liability. In other words, it is money the government needs to spend. The CBO, by contrast, treats that money as an outlay.
Republicans have advocated for more tax relief in the bill -- they wanted at least 40% -- and they often oppose tax credits going to those who pay less in income tax than they receive in refunds.

Democrats counter that the lowest-income families do pay money into the system by way of payroll tax for Social Security and through sales taxes. And they note that it is those low-income families most likely to quickly spend any tax relief they get, thereby making it more stimulative for the economy.

What it can - and can't do
For months, economists -- both liberal and conservative -- have urged lawmakers to act quickly to help stem the economic downturn. They argue that while tax cuts can be put out more quickly than infrastructure spending, they may not be as stimulative as spending because tax filers are likely to save at least a portion of what they receive.

There also has been debate over how large the total package should be. Many economists think it should be larger -- to help combat what is expected to be a $2 trillion shortfall in the country's output this year and next. But at this point, though they're not enamored with every provision in the bill -- they say it's necessary to do something.

Proponents of the bill aren't promising the economic recovery package will be a panacea for the economy. "No one thinks this is the answer," said House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

But, they say, it's needed to stem the downturn and ease the financial strains hurting Americans. Indeed, Obama's economic team last month said they expect that the unemployment rate likely will go up in the near term but having a stimulus package could bring it down to around 7% by the end of 2010. That's slightly below the rate of 7.6% today.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/house_final_stimulus/?postversion=2009021318

 
Last edited:
I think the increase by 14% in the amount for the weekly issue of food stamps is needed- currently they offer $29.35 per week . Those using food stamps (cards nowdays) are in poverty, and $29.35 a week doesn't buy much food.
 
The democrats continue to lead off describing the contents of the stimulus package with infrastructure projects. They've learned the more you tell people something the more they believe it. Axelrod this morning did exactly that again. At least when GWOT appropriations moved forward, even though the bill became a Christmas Tree, the bulk was closely related to GWOT. Infrastructure projects in the Package are between 9 and 15% depending on who's speaking. Our populace sure seems to be easily misled.


Yep- you are right. Our populace sure seems to be easily misled.

there are a lot more tax cuts in it than infrastructure spending:

Here's how USA TODAY reported it breaks down:



How the stimulus plan breaks down
javascript:void('Recommend')



http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-02-12-stimulus-plan-breakdown_N.htm#

Many provisions of the nearly $789 billion compromise stimulus plan expire in two years. Additional debt costs would add about $330 billion over 10 years (Story).


Highlights:


Spending
Aid to poor and unemployed
•$40 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits through Dec. 31, and increase them by $25 a week; $20 billion to increase food-stamp benefits by 14%; $3 billion in temporary welfare payments.

Direct cash payments
•$14 billion to give one-time $250 payments to Social Security recipients, poor people on Supplemental Security Income, and veterans receiving disability and pensions.


Infrastructure
•$46 billion for transportation projects, including $27 billion for highway and bridge construction and repair; $8.4 billion for mass transit; $8 billion for construction of high-speed railways and $1.3 billion for Amtrak; $4.6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers; $4 billion for public housing improvements; $6.4 billion for clean- and drinking-water projects; $7 billion to bring broadband Internet service to underserved areas.


Health care
•$21 billion to provide a 60% subsidy of health care insurance premiums for the unemployed under the COBRA program; $87 billion to help states with Medicaid; $19 billion to modernize health information technology systems; $10 billion for health research and construction of National Institutes of Health facilities.


State block grants
•$5 billion in aid to states to use as they please to defray budget cuts.


Education
•$54 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid to school districts, with up to $10 billion for school repair; $26 billion to school districts to fund special education and the No Child Left Behind law for students in K-12; $17 billion to boost the maximum Pell Grant by $500 to $5,350; $2 billion for Head Start.


Homeland security
•$2.8 billion for homeland security programs, including $1 billion for airport screening equipment.


Law enforcement

•$4 billion in grants to state and local law enforcement to hire officers and purchase equipment.




Tax Breaks-


New tax credit
•About $115 billion for $400 per-worker, $800 per-couple tax credits in 2009 and 2010. Credit phases out for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 to $90,000 and couples with AGI of $150,000 to $190,000.


Alternative minimum tax
•About $70 billion to spare about 24 million taxpayers from being hit with the alternative minimum tax in 2009. The change would save a family of four an average of $2,300.


Expanded college credit
•About $13 billion to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples with incomes over $160,000.


Home buyer credit
•$3.7 billion to repeal a requirement that an $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit be paid back over time for homes purchased from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31, unless the home is sold within three years.


Bonus depreciation
•$5 billion to extend a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up depreciation through 2009.


Auto sales
•$2.5 billion to make sales tax paid on new car purchases tax deductible.
Source: The Associated Press


So- twice as much on AMT tax break, business tax breaks, and auto sales tax breaks, as there is on infrastructure spending.
 
The democrats continue to lead off describing the contents of the stimulus package with infrastructure projects. They've learned the more you tell people something the more they believe it. Axelrod this morning did exactly that again. At least when GWOT appropriations moved forward, even though the bill became a Christmas Tree, the bulk was closely related to GWOT. Infrastructure projects in the Package are between 9 and 15% depending on who's speaking. Our populace sure seems to be easily misled.
 
We're limiting pay for those companies getting TARP funds and giving a lot of money to those that bought more home than they could afford, but I haven't see or read anything where are "talented" politicians addressed another big root cause of this mess, the one that would limit the amount of house a person can purchase so that we wouldn't get into this mess again.

Where is the legislation to ensure future homebuyers have a deposit of at least 5% or even better a 10% deposit? Or only have mortgages that are up to 2.5 times one income? Plus, actual verification that a future homebuyer has a real job and if caught in a lie, then some sort of penalty, whats good for the goose is good for the gander, but then BHO looses all those votes. It took both sides to get us into this mess, but one side is walking away without any penalty. It used to be a foreclosure was something to be avoided or even ashamed of, because it showed the lack of ability to be responsible in taking care of one's life and/or family, now people have little shame.

For some of us oldtimers, we actually had to adhere to these regulations, before we could get a mortgage, but then we also knew what it meant to be responsible and not expect Uncle to bail us out for bein stupid, a liar or just plain greedy. Now those characteristics gets you a bailout using our tax dollars. Now ain't that a real bite.

CB
 
More news on a Stimulus package:


[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Recession puts people in the mood for condoms[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
BY CHARISSE JONES
USA TODAY
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]With a crippled economy forcing millions of cash-strapped Americans to entertain themselves at home, it's not surprising that one particular product is seeing a sales increase — condoms.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]While car purchases plummeted and designer clothes mostly stayed on the racks, sales of condoms in the U.S. rose 5% in the fourth quarter of 2008, and 6% in January vs. the same time periods the previous year, The Nielsen Co. reports

The sales bump squares solidly with one of the nation's most common trends during any recession: nesting. At the same time, condoms make for a relatively inexpensive form of birth control at a time many cash-strapped families are hesitant to grow.

"If people don't have the money to go out to a fancy dinner or are looking to cut back, Trojan gives them some real affordable ways to stay in and make some great memories together," says Jim Daniels, vice president of marketing for Trojan, the nation's No. 1 condom maker.

Contraception may also be more popular during a time when families are stretching dollars and want to avoid having more mouths to feed. "Obviously people in general want to avoid … unintended pregnancies," Daniels says. "But in a down economy those costs are even more burdensome to bear."

Pam Piligian of Fitzgerald+CO, the ad agency for Durex condoms, says that condoms are "recession resistant."

Still, condom sales increased at a slower rate in 2008, going up 2.3% over the previous year, compared with a 5.5% increase just three years ago, according to research firm Information Resources. Marketers say they are aware of the need to continue reminding consumers that condoms are an inexpensive and healthy way to have fun.

Piligian says that in a nod to the poor economy, Durex placed coupons last weekend in newspapers and is making more coupon offers on its website, trydurex.com.

Carol Carrozza, vice president of marketing for Ansell Healthcare, maker of LifeStyles condoms, says that her company may incorporate the idea of nesting into future campaigns, along with a focus on new products.

"We're mulling both … and trying to determine what kind of products and marketing strategies we can come out with that will help people during these recessionary times," she says.

Trojan says the message that it's good to cocoon is already part of its promotions, and it will spend more on advertising this year than last as it launches a multimedia campaign to promote two new products.

Trojan 2Go, a thin plastic case with a condom inside, hits store shelves this month while a new condom, Trojan Ecstasy, is scheduled for sale in the spring.
[/FONT]
 
"This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV
set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up.
That's great!

Life was a lot less stressful when I did not pay attention to this stuff. :blink:
 
Birch- What does the manager tell you about how business is?


Latest news-
Steak n Shake chain posts wider 1Q loss

Monday January 26, 6:07 pm ET

Steak n Shake chain posts wider fiscal 1st-quarter loss as restaurants draw fewer customers

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- Steak n Shake Co. posted a wider fiscal first-quarter loss Monday, saying slower customer traffic weighed on revenue.The restaurant chain operator recorded a loss of $3.4 million, or 12 cents per share, compared with a loss of $1.2 million, or 4 cents per share, in the year-ago quarter.

Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expected a loss of 8 cents per share in the quarter ended Dec. 17.

Sales declined 3.5 percent to $131.7 million from $136.4 million, just topping the average Street estimate of $130.4 million.

Same-store sales, or sales at locations open a year or more, declined 1.4 percent, the company said. Same-store sales are considered an important performance indicator because they measure sales at existing locations rather than newly opened ones.

Steak n Shake said customer traffic was down 0.9 percent while the average check declined 0.5 percent.

The chain, which is popular in parts of the Midwest and South, said it cut costs during the quarter by about $1.5 million.

Of 146 Steak n Shake restaurants, 33 properties are up for sale, the company said. One company-owned restaurant was closed during the quarter and seven turned into franchise locations.

The company's stock closed up 22 cents, or 4 percent, at $5.69.
 
I'm eating at The Steak and Shake Co restaurant tonight in my local area. I also own the stock and often ask the on duty manager how business has been lately.
 

James48843

Well-known member
I got this in my e-mail today.

Makes you think about it, doesn't it.

Support the USA. Keep your economics local. :-)

--------------------------------------------------

From: U.S. Government, plain language initiative.

Subject: Stimulus Payment Info.



"This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a

very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:



Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.


Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV
set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending
your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.

If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs in the middle east, and/or dictators in South America.

If you purchase a computer it will go to India.

If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).

If you buy a car it will go to Japan, Korea, and parts of the far east that now dominate our auto parts supplier chain.

If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan.

And none of it will help the American economy.


*We need to keep that money here in America.

You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spending it on hookers.
And yes, most beer is also still American made, check the can or bottle carefully. American made beer qualifies.
\

Yard sales, beer, baseball games (home), hookers, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.

THAT is the stimulus plan.

But please, don't spent it on beer, baseball games, get a tattoo, see a hooker, and then drive to a yard sale all on the same day.
After all, we're trying to keep the health care costs down.

Sincerely,

The U.S. Government plain language stimulus department.





 
Back
Top