why did the gov't stop giving stimulus checks to the public?

[grasswire]

Weren't there two of those issued in the Bush years? Were they considered ineffective? Or what? Or did the WH decide that it was better to give money to 1%?

[Jnana]

1. Sending stimulus checks to the public has always been part of a broader stimulus or tax package.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Cause on their own they were very ineffective

Politically they worked like charm.

[TheWraith]

17. Bingo. Direct payments are HORRIBLY ineffective as a means of stimulus.

Usually when gifted with a check from the government, people either save the money or use it to pay down debt, rather than spending it as intended. You get very little stimulus in exchange for a very high pricetag. For instance, $500 per person--not exactly a fortune unless you have a big family--translates to $155 billion dollars spent. The credit card companies love it, since they get a big share of that, but it doesn't do much for the economy.

Also, the Bush payments were taken OUT of the following year's tax refunds, so in essence you were getting a cash advance you had to pay back a few months later. Made for good PR and shitty economics.

Although I'll chalk it up as another landmark I didn't think I'd see on DU when we have people bashing Obama in the course of praising Bush's economic policies.

[pinboy3niner]

3. Obama did it less than a month after the inauguration

But his stimulus "Making Work Pay" tax cuts were less noticeable because, instead of issuing checks, the cuts were effected by reducing withholding in employer paychecks. IIRC, the cuts resulted in the average worker taking home at least $65 more every month.

[saras]

4. "the average worker taking home at least $65 more every month" and the poorer worker less or nothing

[Raschel]

10. I thought wages were down?

[hfojvt]

5. there were two, one in 2001 and one in 2008

both times though, they were sort of the Democrats idea. The first one was approzximately $300 per person. Because the Bush tax cuts included a new 10% bracket on the first $6,000 of income, most people were saving $300 (the old rate was 15%, a savings of 5% on $6,000 is $300). Since the Bush tax cuts were passed fairly early, April or May 2001, the Democrats idea was to send out $300 checks to most taxpayers (those with less than $6,000 of taxable income got smaller checks). Thus taxpayers were getting the tax cut in June of 2001 instead of in February of 2002 or whenever they filed their taxes. Getting money early would obviously provide more of a stimulus than getting the same money later.

However, those $300 checks were part of the larger Bush tax cuts, which gave most of their benefits to the top 10%.

Because the tax rate was still 15% when people filed their taxes in 2002, even on the first $6,000 of taxable income, some in the media started a story that "the rebates are only temporary, you have to pay it back". Some people believe that still today, apparently confused by the math, or by media hype of some unbelievable outrage.

The next rebate was in January 2008 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/2008-tax-rebate-stimulus-package-explained.html and it was a compromise where Pelosi caved to Bush's idea of a stimulus. Clearly it failed, considering the massive job losses that happened at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009, but the media forgets to mention that failed stimulus which many Republicans supported.

I was not happy about the unequal nature of it. At $12,000 a year income, I got $300. Whereas a couple with two children and making $140,000 a year would get $1,800. Larger families would get even more, since the rebate was $300 per child, with no upper limit.

My feeling was, that in typical Republican fashion, that the rebates were tilted upwards, but since it passed so quickly and was a one time thing, it seems that Citixens for Tax Justice, did not do an analysis of which income groups got rebates.

[eShirl]

8. there was one in 2001?

I do remember there being two, but I thought it was 2008 and 2009

[FBaggins]

6. You're still getting one.

It's just that it's in the form of a higher take-home check each payday rather than in an annual check.

[eShirl]

7. No you're not, if your only income is Social Security.

Those two stimulus checks sure did go a long way, if memory serves...

[Fumesucker]

15. Not if you make under 20K/year.. Those folks got a net tax increase..

So, to recap.. Millionaires and billionaires got a monstrous tax cut, those at the very bottom of the economic ladder got a tax hike.

Que sera, sera.

[Raschel]

9. It's easier to send a few big checks to banks than a bunch of little ones to taxpayers?

[boston bean]

11. The reason GWB gave them, was so it wouldn't appear as a tax increase

the next year when people didn't get them.

Felt like they were getting some $$ back, and were not to expect it the next year.

It's all political theater.

[hfojvt]

12. the first one was the Democrats idea

it was not part of the original Bush plan. Perhaps Democrats thought they would get credit for it, but they didn't. Perhaps they genuinely wanted to stimulate the economy a little bit. All it did was sell people on the idea of the Bush tax cuts. Then Rightwingers started in with their ridiculous taunts "liberals should send the checks back" as if we objected to $300 tax cuts to low income workers. If was the $3 million checks that went to Bill Gates and Rush Limbaugh that we objected to.

As for the second rebate, Bush and Republicans supported that because a) they refused to stimulate the economy by Government spending and b) it gave bigger tax cuts to the rich (although the super rich were left out becuase of the cap, so Democratic victories in 2006 accomplished SOME things.)

[grasswire]

16. mine went to help a family member with college expenses

I don't know if that stimulated anything or not. I thought the whole thing was some kind of gimmick.

[MrsCorleone]

13. The WH? Hellooooo. Congress has the checkbook, not the President.

What? You cannot honestly believe that Obama can just start writing stimulus checks arbitrarily. The Republicans control the House at the moment. That is where ALL spending bills originate.

Gee whiz.

[grasswire]

14. where did I imply what you are saying I believe?

Helloooooo.