Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
Obviously not, silly. But they want you to run out and spend that
"stimulus", like that's going to help anyone do anything but get into
debt.
Sheesh.


How would receiving a check get anyone into debt? Since you have to
have an income you must be jealous.

Actually, it will get some people into debt. I have a $1200 check so
lets get that $3000 TV.
That would mean you have a problem budgeting yourself and you would have
the same problem every time you received your paycheck.


And many people do exactly that.



So they should employ an idiot filter to skip the morons who are too
stupid to spend wisely?

-dk

On Thu, 08 May 2008 21:56:55 -0700, sf . fired up random neurons and
synapses to opine:

Cash the check and spread it around, just like any other rebate.

Mine went into a (modern design) 18 carat gold ring with a small, but
sparkly, diamond. It was money well spent.

Hold the phone! Not everyone gets one of these idiotic "stimulus
checks." The DH and I certainly don't, so even TIIC (this would be
our 110th Congress and that imbecile who is the Decider in Chief)
recognized that it would be really bad press if they handed out
"stimulus checks" to taxpayers with (married filing jointly) $150,000
plus incomes. The last round of tax breaks certainly didn't go to
those who needed them, but that wasn't right before an election cycle.
TIIC count on the American people to have a very fuzzy collective
memory, AFAICS.

And I can't believe even the chowderheads in Congress and the White
House really believe that these "stimulus checks" are going to keep
what appears to be a long-haul recession from happening. If a
taxpayer really needs that check, he/she is going to pay some bills
with it...or he/she can become a client of some of my husband's
brethern. They're bankruptcy lawyers.

And I don't find it that much of a coincidence that what the
bankruptcy community (which includes judges, law professors, the DH
and his brethern) call the Credit Card Relief Act of 2005 is a
draconian measure that pretty much ensures that lenders, in particular
credit card companies, can chase a debtor damned near into the after
life. Hugely more complex than that, of course, but coupled with the
sub-prime mortgage meltdown, housing skid (particularly here in
SoCal), and the ripple effect from that (construction, suppliers,
vendors, etc.), the pandering our elected chowderheads did for the
credit card companies is shameful and the result should have been
predictible. And who are the bankruptcy bailouts that *really* are
'spensive, Loosey? Big Business. Oh, wait! Those are the guys with the
lobbyists, not the poor slob who lost his job after his wife died of a
lingering illness that tapped out every resource he had. And, by and
large, most people who filed for bankruptcy pre-Oct. 15, 2005 (other
than those who were just trying to "save the date," as it were)
weren't wallowing in self-indulgent, irresponsible credit card debt,
but had had a major life change that became catastrophic or
insupportable.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...qHw&refer=home

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060101.htm

(And the DH doesn't do consumer bankruptcies. Never did, but you can
be damned sure we pay off our credit cards each and every month. And
you know what the credit card companies call people who never incur
finance charges? "Deadbeats.")

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"

"DK" wrote in message


So they should employ an idiot filter to skip the morons who are too
stupid to spend wisely?

-dk

Personally, I don't give a crap about them. They got themselves into
trouble, they can figure a way out if they wish to. It is not a poor versus
rich argument either as people with very large incomes can still spend more
than they make while others of modest means survive with what they have.

On Sun, 11 May 2008 20:49:39 -0400, DK
wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
Obviously not, silly. But they want you to run out and spend that
"stimulus", like that's going to help anyone do anything but get into
debt.
Sheesh.


How would receiving a check get anyone into debt? Since you have to
have an income you must be jealous.

Actually, it will get some people into debt. I have a $1200 check so
lets get that $3000 TV.
That would mean you have a problem budgeting yourself and you would have
the same problem every time you received your paycheck.


And many people do exactly that.



So they should employ an idiot filter to skip the morons who are too
stupid to spend wisely?

-dk

i don't think they can legally exclude bush voters.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:55:12 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
wrote:

And I don't find it that much of a coincidence that what the
bankruptcy community (which includes judges, law professors, the DH
and his brethern) call the Credit Card Relief Act of 2005 is a
draconian measure that pretty much ensures that lenders, in particular
credit card companies, can chase a debtor damned near into the after
life. Hugely more complex than that, of course, but coupled with the
sub-prime mortgage meltdown, housing skid (particularly here in
SoCal), and the ripple effect from that (construction, suppliers,
vendors, etc.), the pandering our elected chowderheads did for the
credit card companies is shameful and the result should have been
predictible. And who are the bankruptcy bailouts that *really* are
'spensive, Loosey? Big Business. Oh, wait! Those are the guys with the
lobbyists, not the poor slob who lost his job after his wife died of a
lingering illness that tapped out every resource he had. And, by and
large, most people who filed for bankruptcy pre-Oct. 15, 2005 (other
than those who were just trying to "save the date," as it were)
weren't wallowing in self-indulgent, irresponsible credit card debt,
but had had a major life change that became catastrophic or
insupportable.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...qHw&refer=home

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060101.htm


that legislation was truly an atrocity. no medical expenses
exemption? no, don't want to mollycoddle deadbeats.

any democrat who voted for it should be hounded from office. i'm
looking at you, joe biden.

(obama voted no; clinton didn't vote; mccain voted yea. but then, no
republican senator voted against. surprise, surprise!)

you yellow-dog pal,
blake

In article ,
"Cindi - HappyMamatoThree" wrote:

"Default User" wrote in message
...
Cindi - HappyMamatoThree wrote:

I haven't seen this at all in our area. I wonder why? But, our
stimulus checks are paying off last year's taxes. This year we are
paying estimated taxes to avoid having a balance at the end of the
year. The last two years we have been stuck so hopefully this year
will be very different.

Unless you are in a penalty situation, you're better off "paying
yourself" by putting what you would have paid as estimated taxes into a
specially designated money market account.

I need to bring that up with DH. He was intent about paying it off. We don't
have any penalty situation so yours is a good option.

But it appears that simply underwithholding (or not paying estimated
taxes) automatically puts you in a penalty situation. We just got
dinged by the state, and the penalty is more than any interest we could
have earned. We both filed and paid in full, on time. And we had to
pay interest, too. For US$16+, we don't plan on filing for bankruptcy,
but I'm a little concerned about our federal taxes.

We have asked our employers to take more money out each month. This
seems like the easiest way to deal with this.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Dan Abel" wrote

"Cindi - HappyMamatoThree" wrote:

stimulus checks are paying off last year's taxes. This year we are
paying estimated taxes to avoid having a balance at the end of the
year. The last two years we have been stuck so hopefully this year
will be very different.

Unless you are in a penalty situation, you're better off "paying
yourself" by putting what you would have paid as estimated taxes into a
specially designated money market account.

I need to bring that up with DH. He was intent about paying it off. We
don't
have any penalty situation so yours is a good option.

But it appears that simply underwithholding (or not paying estimated
taxes) automatically puts you in a penalty situation. We just got
dinged by the state, and the penalty is more than any interest we could
have earned. We both filed and paid in full, on time. And we had to
pay interest, too.

I wondered about that myself. I thought you were in for penalties and
interest if you didn't pay some 90% of what you owed.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
"Dan Abel" wrote

"Cindi - HappyMamatoThree" wrote:

stimulus checks are paying off last year's taxes. This year we are
paying estimated taxes to avoid having a balance at the end of the
year. The last two years we have been stuck so hopefully this year
will be very different.
Unless you are in a penalty situation, you're better off "paying
yourself" by putting what you would have paid as estimated taxes into a
specially designated money market account.
I need to bring that up with DH. He was intent about paying it off. We
don't
have any penalty situation so yours is a good option.
But it appears that simply underwithholding (or not paying estimated
taxes) automatically puts you in a penalty situation. We just got
dinged by the state, and the penalty is more than any interest we could
have earned. We both filed and paid in full, on time. And we had to
pay interest, too.

I wondered about that myself. I thought you were in for penalties and
interest if you didn't pay some 90% of what you owed.

nancy


They do enforce and penalize tax underpayment heavily. They changed the
safe harbor rules a couple years ago. Now you need to pay in at least
100% of the prior years taxes (and 110% past a certain income) to avoid
a penalty. It also has to be done on time and a proportional amount each
quarter.

On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:41:17 -0400, "Nancy Young"
wrote:


"Dan Abel" wrote

"Cindi - HappyMamatoThree" wrote:

stimulus checks are paying off last year's taxes. This year we are
paying estimated taxes to avoid having a balance at the end of the
year. The last two years we have been stuck so hopefully this year
will be very different.

Unless you are in a penalty situation, you're better off "paying
yourself" by putting what you would have paid as estimated taxes into a
specially designated money market account.

I need to bring that up with DH. He was intent about paying it off. We
don't
have any penalty situation so yours is a good option.

But it appears that simply underwithholding (or not paying estimated
taxes) automatically puts you in a penalty situation. We just got
dinged by the state, and the penalty is more than any interest we could
have earned. We both filed and paid in full, on time. And we had to
pay interest, too.

I wondered about that myself. I thought you were in for penalties and
interest if you didn't pay some 90% of what you owed.

nancy

I almost always paid 100% of last years tax unless it looked like the
income would be much less in the current year. When we had a business
that was the only way to do it.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
So they should employ an idiot filter to skip the morons who are too
stupid to spend wisely?

-dk

Personally, I don't give a crap about them. They got themselves into
trouble, they can figure a way out if they wish to. It is not a poor versus
rich argument either as people with very large incomes can still spend more
than they make while others of modest means survive with what they have.



Meanwhile, those of us who are responsible and pay our bills also pay
their bills.

-dk

blake murphy wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 20:49:39 -0400, DK
wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
Obviously not, silly. But they want you to run out and spend that
"stimulus", like that's going to help anyone do anything but get into
debt.
Sheesh.


How would receiving a check get anyone into debt? Since you have to
have an income you must be jealous.

Actually, it will get some people into debt. I have a $1200 check so
lets get that $3000 TV.
That would mean you have a problem budgeting yourself and you would have
the same problem every time you received your paycheck.

And many people do exactly that.


So they should employ an idiot filter to skip the morons who are too
stupid to spend wisely?

-dk

i don't think they can legally exclude bush voters.

your pal,
blake

He's ineligible for another term.

-dk

On Mon, 12 May 2008 19:59:27 -0400, DK
wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
So they should employ an idiot filter to skip the morons who are too
stupid to spend wisely?

-dk

Personally, I don't give a crap about them. They got themselves into
trouble, they can figure a way out if they wish to. It is not a poor versus
rich argument either as people with very large incomes can still spend more
than they make while others of modest means survive with what they have.



Meanwhile, those of us who are responsible and pay our bills also pay
their bills.

-dk

oh, boo-hoo. you also pay for the fire department even if your house
isn't burning down.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 12 May 2008 20:00:16 -0400, DK
wrote:

blake murphy wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 20:49:39 -0400, DK
wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
Obviously not, silly. But they want you to run out and spend that
"stimulus", like that's going to help anyone do anything but get into
debt.
Sheesh.


How would receiving a check get anyone into debt? Since you have to
have an income you must be jealous.

Actually, it will get some people into debt. I have a $1200 check so
lets get that $3000 TV.
That would mean you have a problem budgeting yourself and you would have
the same problem every time you received your paycheck.

And many people do exactly that.


So they should employ an idiot filter to skip the morons who are too
stupid to spend wisely?

-dk

i don't think they can legally exclude bush voters.

your pal,
blake

He's ineligible for another term.

-dk

but mccain most certainly is eligible for bush's third term.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:47:41 GMT, blake murphy
wrote:

On Mon, 12 May 2008 19:59:27 -0400, DK
wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
So they should employ an idiot filter to skip the morons who are too
stupid to spend wisely?

-dk

Personally, I don't give a crap about them. They got themselves into
trouble, they can figure a way out if they wish to. It is not a poor versus
rich argument either as people with very large incomes can still spend more
than they make while others of modest means survive with what they have.



Meanwhile, those of us who are responsible and pay our bills also pay
their bills.

-dk

oh, boo-hoo. you also pay for the fire department even if your house
isn't burning down.

your pal,
blake

Not a very good analogy.

Lou

blake murphy wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 19:59:27 -0400, DK
wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
So they should employ an idiot filter to skip the morons who are too
stupid to spend wisely?

-dk
Personally, I don't give a crap about them. They got themselves into
trouble, they can figure a way out if they wish to. It is not a poor versus
rich argument either as people with very large incomes can still spend more
than they make while others of modest means survive with what they have.


Meanwhile, those of us who are responsible and pay our bills also pay
their bills.

-dk

oh, boo-hoo. you also pay for the fire department even if your house
isn't burning down.

your pal,
blake


People don't choose to have their house burn down (most of the time).
Deadbeats choose to overspend and not pay their bills.

Apples and oranges, Blakester.

-dk