Received by email from friend: Is this true or false? (re: Stimulus Package)

[Mike 03]

She wrote:

"...What do you think of the stimulus package? From the little I have heard, I'm ticked.
I read that they are spending $84 million on a board to oversee the stimulus bill spending. How many people could it possibly take to do this and exactly how many millions are the top cats going to get to do this? Meanwhile the taxpayers are getting a tax credit of $400 if single or $800 per family. That ought to buy you a cup of coffee."

I'm really good at defending the stimulus package and attacking the Republicans for ruining it (and she is a Republican who voted for Bush twice and I'm sure she voted for McCain), but I need to know if her statement about the $84 million is true or not. It sounds like the usual horseshit and I dismissed it as such, but the truth is I don't know if she is right or not. My asswipe senators would be all over that expenditure if it were actually true, so I'm assuming it's another fabrication from Hannity or Limbaugh or someone of that ilk.

Anybody know where her "facts" are coming from?

ON EDIT:

This was the punchline from her email.

"We are really going to be hurting here in Ca. I hear a 1% sales tax is on the table and a gas tax and of course our cigarettes just went up $6 a carton. I hear they are going to tax you 5% if you owe andy taxes, but if you get a refund you get an IOU. This tax would go in effect for next years income taxes. "

I didn't respond to her this way, but I wanted to: You wouldn't be fucking hurting so bad if you had not voted for Bush twice!

Stupid idiots. I love her, but...

[Clear Blue Sky]

1. I think there is much in the bill we don't know about.

Has any member of Congress actually read it? All we here about is a snipet here and there in the bill.

I thought the bill would be available on line for scrutiny and comment before the final vote?

[alsame]

2. First, ask her for the link that proves the $84 million for the

oversight. Then explain that the tax breaks are NOT really stimulus, they were put in the bill to appease the Republicans. Hopefully, the tax breaks will help ease the pain for a lot of people, but they were not the main focus of the package.

Hope this helps.

[Winterblues]

18. Actually the tax cuts are a big part of what Obama ran on

Tax cuts for 95% of the people he said. People earning under $250,000. would get a tax cut and those earning more would see a slight increase back to where they were when Bush* came into office. There were some cuts put in there though to please Republicans but the ones being mentioned were not those.

[alsame]

21. Yes, of course you're right. But those campaign promises were

made before the economic crisis...they were meant to be relief and not part of a stimulus package. Believe me, I'm not objecting to the tax breaks at all, I just don't like to see them as part of a stimulus package, which is what the GOP wants all the time.

[babylonsister]

3. I can't imagine, if the board is composed of Dems and rethugs, they'll

be getting paid independently for it. Ask your friend to send you a link to her 'facts'.

http://www.fxstreet.com/news/forex-news/article.aspx?StoryId=db59ae1a-a1c1-4920-a6d1-7a50f8f7d637

Outside board to oversee stimulus spending - Obama

Mon, Feb 9 2009, 17:55 GMT
http://www.afxnews.com

ELKHART, Indiana, Feb. 9 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Monday that an independent, bipartisan board will oversee spending in the massive economic stimulus package to ensure that the money is not wasted.

"We're going to set up an independent board made up of Democrats and Republicans to review how the money is being spent, because we've got to make sure that it's not being wasted on somebody's special project that may not actually create help for people," Obama said at a rally to promote the more than $800 billion bill.

[ThoughtCriminal]

4. What has lack of oversight cost us?

in the last 8 years?

I found the figure mentioned here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/13/stimulus.winners.losers/index.html

[eleny]

5. Mike, she should be the one you ask for the source of her facts

[Buck Laser]

6. Here's a link to the actual spending breakdown.

http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/investments

So far as I know, this site just went up today as the President signed the recovery bill.

[hfojvt]

7. $84 million seems high for something like that

I googled a source here, where they praise the idea as something that pays for itself and there is a link to an NYT story

http://www.politicalbase.com/forums/topic/the-most-important-part-of-the-stimulus-bill-oversight/20971/

[hfojvt]

10. whoops, the Times story is not about the stimulus oversight board

I see an AP story here, with no mention of cost

http://www.pr-inside.com/obama-plans-stimulus-oversight-board-r1038965.htm

and NDN (whatever that is) lauds the stimulus oversight board (again no mention of cost)

http://ndnblog.org/node/3394

[Winterblues]

19. About one percent of the entire package.

But still we are talking millions here. Not as if we are Exxon and making a NET PROFIT of OVER One Hundred Million Dollars a DAY $84 miilion wouldn't even be a day's NET Profits for them. And I am talking NET, after every single expense has been paid. Every single day, Over a Hundred Million dollars, day in and day out week after week, month after month, year after year for OVER five straight years...and people wonder why we are having financial problems...

[madokie]

8. Beings as that is the kind of thinking that the other side do

I would question her allegiance. I like the idea that I will be able to go to a web site and check up on where the money is being spent

[Mass]

9. I love it when people make comparisons that mean nothing.

1/ 84 million is about 1 c for $100 spent. Sure, the number looks big, but it actually take people to monitor how the money is spent. This is called accountability. How do you think it is done (and btw, how many people to monitor 780 billion dollar.

2/ The tax payer is getting a lot more than $400 a year. They are getting jobs, investments in the country in roads, bridges, school funds (even if less than wanted), and tax credits for cars and houses.

3/ Whether the number is correct or not, this is based on pure RW flawed ideology: that tax cuts is all that matters.

[endarkenment]

11. So accepting the 'freep facts' as is. $0.000105 per dollar to oversight.

That would be the approximate cost to administer the oversight of spending the 800B. A 0.01% overhead. Perhaps the freep would instead prefer that money was simply vanished with no oversight at all, as for example the billions, perhaps 10s of billions that vanished during the initial occupation phase of our conquest of Iraq?

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. one-tenth of one percent?

I dunno. I would expect audits and oversight and .1% doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

[gratuitous]

14. Certainly no oversight kind of got us into this mess in the first place

So if $84 million has been set aside to birddog the other $790 billion, that seems a prudent expenditure. A little more oversight over Commander Bunnypants Wild West Show could have saved us a hell of a lot money, lives, armaments and prestige.

[Mr. Sparkle]

13. Where do you get a $400 cup of coffee ?

It seems to me your friend has conveniently forgotten the rat bags who did this to the American Economy over the last 8 years.

[Boomerang Diddle]

15. Probaly 99% of these types of emails

are right-wing propaganda/lies. If I get an email like this I always assume it's false until proven otherwise.

[ColbertWatcher]

16. "our cigarettes just went up $6 a carton" OUR (?) cigarettes!?

"Our" cigarettes? Really? Cigarettes are now one of the commons, like water and air?

Wow.

Your friend's misguided and uninformed republicanism is just one of her problems.

[ET Awful]

17. Inform you friend that the California tax refund IOU's are due to the Gropenators incompetence

not any stimulus plan proposed by Obama's administration.

[Fleshdancer]

20. Send her this link: http://www.recovery.gov/

If she doesn't want to go there, she can read the bill for herself here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ARRA_public_review/