Stimulating

Okay, this is the post that I planned to write earlier today, but somehow got derailed by presidential pimpology.

In any case, I had a conversation with a co-worker the other day about the presidential stimulus package and the tax rebate of $600 to individuals and $1,200 to couples (1 male, 1 female, filing jointly couples). And, my colleague was up in arms over the implications on Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) filing eligibility; asserting that the refund would more than pay for itself through preventing a significant percentage of otherwise eligible households from claiming the credit.

Well, okay? Kinda. Sure, go on...

So, her theory, which she supported by referencing some talk radio show, and conversations with friends, is that the refunds are in fact a plot to reduce government expenditures by disqualifying as many people as possible from EITC eligibility. (hmmm... veeerrry interesting...)

Wrong!

Certainly, it's an interesting thought, and I'm all for George Bush doesn't care about Black people, but this administration is trying to game you out of money by giving you a refund? C'mon!

Is the administration banking on the money passing right through your hands back into the economy, rather than being saved or invested? Certainly. It wouldn't stimulate the economy otherwise, but I just don't buy this particular assertion of strategery.

Regardless of the size of the rebate, some households will be pushed over the threshold of eligibility. Households are within $50, $89, $475, hell, even $3 of the eligibility ceiling. The greater the rebate issued from the government, the larger percentage of homes that will become ineligible. I mean, if you really want to fuck up poor Black people, issue a $10,000 rebate per household, regardless of whether they filed taxes last year or not. That'll show em! Ha!

Also, I'm not sure whether these moneys must be recorded as income, and therefore will impact one's EITC eligibility anyway. I mean, certainly it might, but I'm just not motivated enough by the subject to take a few keystrokes and the sustained attention to find out. Point being that her whole argument may be moot, but even if it isn't it certainly isn't based upon sound reasoning, or informed by economic analysis that calculated inflows versus outflows at various rebate levels.

I love radicalized, politicized, hell- I'll take informed! black folks. I love us! However, don't come at with some bullshit half-reasoned, flying off the handle, weak-ass argument as the basis of sinister plotting and scheming against economically and politically vulnerable communities. That flash in the pan, static on the line, analysis makes it much harder to build support or even educate folks with respect to critical real life/death shit that is being perpetuated with malice and intent.

There is enough real shit going down on the daily, heinous sinister shit, that we don't need folks running around and popping off about bullshit. It detracts from movement building, and disrupts systems changing.