Obama’s Second Stimulus Credit Equal to $13 More a Week

$13 a week is ok, but what happens when you get used to that $13 a week, then its dropped down to $8 a week then its down to zero. Most people don't plan for that. If that $13 a week makes them and they budgeted around it, when its gone they will be suffering.

Hey People! NEWSFLASH----They are not changing the tax RATES!!!! You will OWE the 13/week you receive (26/couple) at the end of the tax year. This means next April 15th whatever your tax bill is, you'll need to adds an additional $650/single or $1300/couple to your bill. They are only changing your effective WITHHOLDINGS. YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY BACK THE "LOAN"> Got it???

@b - Short answer: No.

The extra money you are receiving is due to a tax credit that is being paid out to you by deducting less taxes from your paycheck. No pay back is necessary.

perhaps this is a stupid question, but since we are receiving this money via a paycheck, are we going to be taxed on it at the end of the year?

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!! only a idiot would give out $13.00 a check, it's worse then a slap in the face!!!

One major problem I see is that there are a ton of Americans out there who do not get a regular paycheck. What about sub contractors and business owners? Small businesses provide the mojority of jobs in this country and we get slapped in the face. We already work far more hours than employees, take all the risk of the business, and typically get paid next to nothing.

It's real simple in my mind, support the employers, and the employees will benefit.

Obama can take my $13 and shove it up Nancy Pelosils ars!

Sounds like either the wife and I get a small raise (which may be unlikely from my company this year), or the USGov is subsidizing most of my phone/satellite TV bill. Guess it's a matter of perspective.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??????? This is the biggest slap in the face joke I've seen in a long time. What a complete scam this whole stimulus plan is. I cant even tell you how badly I feel that our entire congress needs retooling. I swear to GOD that I could go down the street and come to the first person I see and he or she could come up with MANY, MANY better ways to spend 800 billion. HOLY CRAP, I've lost all faith in what I had left in our government. It is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. BUT HEY, at least I've got $13 a week to fall back on! I may be able to get a pizza, oh wait, a pizza is $16. Never mind. GOD HELP US ALL!!!

Hmm, I'm not too sure about this working.

My husband (and sole breadwinner) gets paid monthly, so his paycheck will be noticeably higher.

I can't promise we'll spend it. In fact, I think we probably won't. We'll probably throw the money at our car loan.

Get ready for more disappointments. This is typical when you put someone in charge that has less experience than the governor of Alaska...

Good points everyone. We're a one paycheck family so I didn't think about doubling the $50. $100 more is $100 more. Not bad. I'd take it. Would pay most of my utilities.

I can totally see where the above comments are coming from and I agree with them, but in our family's current financial situation that $100 (from my wife and I) is going to be a huge help. Not to say that I don't think there's a better way to do it and I AM frustrated with the complete lack of financial responsibility of the people who print and hand out the money, but I guess it's a bittersweet cut? Who knows?

That works out to about an extra $100 a month between my wife and I working. I mean it will help us a little, but what about when you get laid off. You'll end up getting nothing. My dad has been out of work for about 5 months now, he gets to draw $250 or so a week. Which is just enough to pay his Cobra insurance. Who can live like that? Luckily my mom's job is holding steady, so they're surviving. But I can only imagine what others are going through.

It's meant as a sop: "Look, we haven't forgotten you in the midst of throwing trillions of dollars at banks that made terrible and irresponsible decisions."

Besides, it's small enough that people might spend it -- they are more likely to spend such a small amount than they are to save it or use it to pay down debt -- two things our government doesn't want us to do.

What I would like to see is an analysis if it makes financial sense from the government standpoint to offer mortgage payments to be made using pretax dollars, like we can currently do with healthcare and childcare expenses. Obviously for the consumer it would be a great deal but I don't know how it would impact tax income.

Has anyone seen such an analysis done?