Does anyone have the most up to date site to find out what's in this deal? It gets so darned confusing!
TIA,
MZ

I know! 2 of the things on it could help my mom. She bought a new car last year and bought is buying a new house this year. Those could equal SERIOUS credits for her so I am crossing my fingers that the auto and home purchase credit go through if the stimulus itself gets passed.

__________________
Proud to say I haven't shopped at a Wal-Mart since Sept 2003

I have tried my every loving best to make sense outa all the info on this I have found and am totally lost. Someone posted that they thought we were getting another check sometime soon and a few of my clients have ask me about it and I can not find anything that makes sense to me about it. does anyone have a link or some info about this?

__________________
·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·
«·´¨*·.¸¸. Jo ¸¸.·*¨`·»
«·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»


Please leave feedback for me here.
http://www.mycoupons.com/boards/g-l/...-littlejo.html



gretchengirl@gmail.com

http://lifewithlittlejo.blogspot.com/

Maybe the deal is to have it be very confusing but make people think they're going to be getting something, so they get out and spend in anticipation!?#@ Then when the details do become available, the recipients can go stimulate again. Double whammy! (Just kidding, of course)

__________________
I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In morse code. -Emo Phillips

I can add nothing but confusion...as we are not sure about anything connected to the stimulus package. Any help is appreciated!

__________________
Think about helping out with cancer...
Join the Relay for Life

There is already the $7,500 first time home-buyer credit out there for those who have not owned a home in the last 3 years so long as it was bought between I think April 1st, 2008 and July 1, 2009 ( i am sure on the ending date its the beginning date I am not sure on 100%)

This whole package is confusing and we keep getting asked about it at work and all I can tell them it watch the news Google it, contact your congressman I have no clue, but I am going to definitely have to have a clue by January next year and hope the IRS has a clue and is on top of their game and not all messed up from jumpstreet again.

__________________
~ Christine ~
Grammie to Trinity Lorayne Jean Keens Born June 9, 2011 Loving my awesome guitar picking 100% Country Boy boyfriend Kenny !
RIP Daddy~ 01/24/1930-06/01/2007 I miss you !
Dont Think you Can .. know you can ~ Jeff Hardy

I already know about the 1st time homebuyer thing but what we want is for ANY homebuyer to get a credit. It IS confusing. My mom is an EA so her clients are asking her about it and she's like "can you google it today and check"..she doesn't have time right now with tax season.

__________________
Proud to say I haven't shopped at a Wal-Mart since Sept 2003

Its meant to be confusing...so they can pass it and you have no idea what you are in for.....isnt that how Washington works???? Sherri

__________________
"It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

Here's an article on the home buyer's credit: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/bu...08tips.html?em

What I'm trying to find out, after listening to so many news stories, is not what's in it for me personally, but what's in it *exactly*. It still sounds like it's loaded with pork, and I've been appalled at some of the stuff politicians have slipped in there. I'm interested to know *all* of it. There's gotta be some .gov site to find out info, but I'll be dipped if I've been able to find it.
MZ

The bill does not have a single earmark in it. Those are what are generally called "pork." It is a spending bill where 78% of the money will be spent in 2 years.

Here's a summary: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com...timSummary.pdf

And the whole bill starts at section SA 570: Retrieve Pages

The whole bill is the size of a phone book.

kvmj,I don't have time to read the phonebook, but I disagree about your pork comment.

My vocation involves, among other things, dealing with entities that receive government funding. I can tell you that the agency with which I have been communicating in DC over the past week is rather giddy about the money they will likely get to disperse if this thing passes.

Typically, if something is said to be "congressionally directed" it is straight-up pork. However, the agency I've been dealing with has the freedom and the ties to allocate those funds in a way that will benefit congressional districts at the whim of congressmen/women who choose to insert themselves into the allocation process.

To imply that none of the money will be directed in a partisan or self-protective way on the part of congress is, IMHO, to lead people astray.

Power Line - Biggest Boondoggle in American History

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/...ry01-15-09.pdf
Actual legistation

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...cle/198/20639/
Breakdown of Pork




Info on Stimulous
cmmcmm

How about the $$$ for the 'stimulus payment' or 'tax credit' that was posted on this board recently and the poster said it was going to be $3000-6000 instead of the $500 or $1000 that was expected.
Any truth to that or was that an urban legend? Someone had posted that tax advocates were telling people about it but I could never find anything about that either so figured it wasn't for real.

"What I'm trying to find out, after listening to so many news stories, is not what's in it for me personally, but what's in it *exactly*." I have to agree with you..,. A whole lot of talk... most of it BS....

__________________
Be careful what you wish for.....

Thanks, these sites are what I was looking for.
MZ

Well I haven't heard anything else the people with the big mouths are now not saying a word but it looks to me like there will NOT be checks like last time but I could be wrong.

ETA I am kind of scared if all this doesn't work then what?

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

What is *ETA*? I know estimated time of arrival, but know that can't be what it means in the context used on the boards.
MZ

Edited To Add

__________________
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box.

The money most assuredly will be spent a partisan fashion. For instance, there will be tax credits towards making your home more energy efficeint. There is also increased expenditures for food stamps and to extend unemployment benefits. These are priorities for the Democrats. Republicans insisted on eliminating aid to state governments.

You are a Republican. Republicans are generally opposed to government spending. But, no, there is not a single earmark in this bill.

Just because money is spent on a particular agency, department or entity doesn't make it an earmark. Republicans are whining that it's a "spending bill." Well, duh -- what do you think a stimulus bill is??

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

Again, kvmj, I respectfully say that you are using terminology that is misleading.

You are correct in that there are no earmarks.

Earmarks have a very specific definition.

There is, IMHO, PORK on this bill. I believe "pork" is a wider umbrella. There are going to be ways for politicians to circumvent normal application processes and send bucks directly back to their constituents in ways designed to get them noticed, re-elected... pick your desired outcome, and they'll be able to achieve it because they will control how federal monies are spent and which constituents receive them.

I helped an entity get $100,000 in earmarked pork last year. They were grateful for it and it is being put to good use. Our senators were delighted to take credit for getting that money designated for that specific cause and of course wanted public credit for it, etc..

The outcomes from any monies received by individuals or organizations through this <cough cough> "stimulus" package will be identical, but you won't be required by law to say they were 'congressionally-directed' when you publicize them. Otherwise... that's about it.

I remember when I was student teaching, a little girl tattled on a boy who rode her bus, saying that Jamal had a chain in his book bag and was going to beat her up after school with it. These were third graders, mind you. I asked Jamal if he had a chain. He said no. I asked him again, and told him that Tiaifa had reported that he had a chain. Again he said no. I took his bag and looked in it. Sure enough, there was a chain. But... it wasn't his chain. It was his cousin's chain. Jamal did not own a chain. I guess 'owning' a chain and 'having' a chain are not the same thing.

It's all a matter of semantics.

Pork is acknowledged to be specific earmarks. That's what it is understood to be. Now, if you believe that this entire bill does nothing for the citizens of this country nor will it even provide any jobs, then you could consider the entire bill to be wasteful spending, but, it wouldn't be pork. You misunderstand the term.

For instance, the Pentagon has spent money on some very questionable items. There were times that the specifications were so precise for a toilet seat that they were spending $600 for each one. We can all agree that this was a stupid use of taxpayer monies and extremely wasteful, but it wasn't pork.

Ted Stevens got money to promote salmon fisheries in Alaska. The money was used to paint a plane to resemble a salmon. That would be an example of pork.

Someone had the idea to require our senators and representatives to attach their names to any earmarks that they sponsored. They would all be happy to do so. It may make the public outside their respective states look at them oddly, but at home, they're heroes.

Um, sorry, I'm not buying your Obama Lovefest positions.

I do not misunderstand the term. Not at all. I realize Wikipedia certainly isn't Websters, but the Wiki article on pork starts out like this:

If Websters is more your style, this is their definition:
I sense that you are really confused as to what is going on here, kvmj. Perhaps this AP news piece will help clear some things up for you:

My Way News - FACT CHECK: Obama has it both ways on pork

ETA: An "earmark" is money that is specified in a congressional spending bill as going to a specific cause. A prime example is that "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska. Congress very specifically said, "Alaska, here is money for that bridge." That's an earmark.

In the case of the stimulus bill, what it would do would be say, "Alaska, here is money - spend it on your roads and bridges." It doesn't earmark WHICH road it has to go to. It's broader. It's not specific, so it is not an earmark.

However, they will choose WHICH states, cities, and regions get this money, which in the end has an identical effect. Congress gets the credit for 'helping' a particular region because they gave them money.

So it's pork.

It's not an earmark. But it's still pork.

Ahhhh... it's a little humorous to see twisting and turning happening in an effort to defend something that is as obvious as the nose on my face in the name of making sure that Obama keeps a mistake-free image. He's just a man... he's a politician like all the others... and this, my friends, is the epitome of pork.

Okay, so here's an example of what I called *pork*.
This weekend someone (republican, I think) was decrying the fact that monies going to improve school sites would only go to schools for improvements that would *not* be used for any clubs or other school groups that had a religious nature/affiliation. For example, if a school wanted to build or improve a student center, any clubs/groups with any type of religious affiliation could not meet there or else they would be ineligible for the $$. Of course, this is unconstitutional, which was the point of the guy talking about it. (I think it was CNN, not a major network).
At any rate, I've heard all sorts of stuff like that over the past 3-4 days - the conditions attached to who would get the monies were the types of things everyday citizens would not know about till after this thing was a done deal, and many citizens would not approve of this sorta sneaky crud. So would anyone here consider that sorta stuff *pork*?
Anybody else see or hear any of this over the weekend?
It's been interesting to me to learn what the terminology means both literally and in spirit. Shows I'm never too old to learn something new.
MZ

Momziller, I think that one is a tough call. I guess I would consider that to be 'social architecture' as much as anything. But definitely, it could also be construed to be pork. They are making sure a certain constituency gets financial benefit from monies that other constituents won't be able to access, and the benefiting constituents will primarily be "Friends of Obama" in philosophy and political party.

An earmark, in the traditional sense, would occur when, in the course of a typical budget process, some senator would designate that $200,000 was to go to the XYZ School in XYZ, New Jersey, for equipment to allow them to study the mating habits of the mice in the supply room. There is no real legitimate reason for such a study, but he just wants his constituents to love him for getting them goodies. Earmarks ARE pork.

In this <cough cough> "STIMULUS" bill, congress can say, "We are giving $200,000 to scientific experimentation in XYZ, NJ, to be administered through the National Science Foundation. Then, they can twist the arm of the guy who works for the NSF and order him to direct the funds to the school for the mouse research.

It's not IN the budget, specifically... but they'll make sure the money goes where they want it to go to benefit the demographics - with specificity - that they want to.

So it's still pork.

ETA: Go to grants.gov and sign up to receive their daily emails of government grant opportunities. Any time you see an 'opportunity' come through that is 'open only to pre-designated organizations'... those are earmark opportunities.

I think they are working overtime there. Several of these 'dummy' opportunities came through today. They are probably getting ready for the big giveaway they're about to perpetrate.

http://www07.grants.gov/search/searc...se&oppId=45213

That would have been Sen. Jim DeMint, R. SC. He is only repeating what he heard from Pat Buchanan's Think Tank. They could not be more mistaken about that particular piece of wording in the bill. Someone at Buchanan's think tank badly misinterpreted this very standard clause. How embarassing for Sen. DeMint. (He's on camera spouting this nonsense for all eternity)

For the past 46 years, that particular piece of wording has been attached to every single bill having to do with school construction. What it actually means is that taxpayer money cannot be used for the construction of a religious edifice. In other words, it would be illegal to use taxpayer funds to build a chapel on campus. Private donors could certainly contribute funds for such a structure.

Students are free to hold prayer meetings on common grounds, in dorms or at the student union. They would probably need permission to meet on public grounds from school administrators, but that would be your only restriction.

If our country weren't in such sad shape right now, going to that site to sign up for daily e-mails wouyld be funny.
I did *not* find anyplace to sign up for daily e-mails, but did find a spot to sign up for their quarterly e-newsletter.
Granted I am not the most savvy user of modern technology, but sheesh. Why are so many things that have to do with getting info from our government, our employees, so difficult? No need for anyone to reply to that, don't wanna start a new fight, it was purely a rhetorical question.
MZ

kvmj:
can you direct me to a site where I could actually see the wording? I'm talking about more than just the issue I wrote of, but similar stuff as far as folks not knowing what is truly what.
What I'm hoping to find is someplace to look up things I may have questions about that will have accurate and specific wording.
And yes, now that you posted his name, I'm pretty sure that's who made that one allegation. I *thought* it was someone from SC, but because my middle aged brain has forgotten more than it remembers, didn't want to make a mistake on that.
Cuz Lord knows, I certainly make enough mistakes in other areas of my life ;-)
MZ

Looks like Chuck thinks it's got pork: YouTube - Schumer: The American People Don't Care About Pork Projects In Stimulus

I gave you a link to the entire bill.