Dan is being unfairly hard on folks when he suggests that people are lying when they tell pollsters that they'll save their tax rebate. Even though there's a bit of social pressure to say the 'good answer,' I'm willing to give folks the benefit of the doubt.

What's seems to be going on is that everybody experiences internal conflicts about identity.

On the one hand, we all want to appear as responsible citizens who manage their financial affairs in ways that will contribute to their long-term well-being.

On the other hand, we also want to belong to a tribe, to feel connected and to have a sense of who we are. Here in mall condo America (and in much of the advanced nations of the world) the way to do that is through shopping. Every purchase we make, from toilet paper to the car we drive says something about us to others. But this must constantly be reaffirmed.

So, we're torn. Do I stick the money in a CD earning a piddling 3% return or do I buy that Amy Whitehouse CD?

Of course, for those at the bottom of the heap, there may be no choice. The collection agency from the electric company or the furniture rental place may gobble it up. And those a little further up the ladder may see a new set of tires in their future. For them, the rebate is a temporary lifeline. But for those with the wherewithal to set it aside, there is this constant nagging pressure to revalidate who they are by getting that X Box or Martha Stewart sheets or a gun rack for their pickup.

Either choice conforms to the standards of the world. After all, the politicos in D.C. do want us to go a bit 'wild and crazy' with those rebate checks.

A lot of people right now are "bandwagonning." They're focused, that is, on things that sound popular but aren't really "cool" in NY, Paris, London, and maybe the Ivy League.

Revrick mentions, e.g. a gunrack, a 3% CD, and various other banalities sounding as though US is a land of pious farmers and workers.

That stuff doesn't matter NOW. Everything economic is currently constrained by ENERGY costs and physical outputs. Any taxcuts or rebates or burden shifts won't matter without an ENERGY fix.

Bushco has given us ZERO enery fixes. The rest of the world gets even less than ZERO because the "Second and Third" Worlds are now on the ENERGY addict's syringe. Maybe Brazil alone deserves a grade above ZERO, but the rest of the world somehow resists or ignores Brazil's example.

Will tax-things fix energy at all? No!
Will any tax-rebates WORSEN the energy mess? YES! More energy will be wasted on crap; public awareness will be shlunked.

Revrick is right to mention how absurd is the 3% CD. But that absurdity is NOT in the news. Perhaps the REAL news has become suppressed. A lot of people claim that some kind of "recession" or "downturn" is already here. But there's no real answer on that question -- just an effort to stave it off by the Fed with interest rate cuts -- and the Treasury, with tax cuts and more foreign debt. Energy impact: both NEGATIVE.

Note: Neither Hillary nor Obama talks much on energy.

Note: It's SHELDON Whitehouse. AMY is Winehouse.

Well, I'm definitely shoving my rebate into my IRA, which hasn't had a meal in 3 years. I've been very, very poor, so I'm probably one of those individuals that the social eugenicists who created this stimulus plan counted on to be so stupid and undisciplined that I'd just serve as a shunt to channel the money straight into retail. As I understand it, I'm being irresponsible by being fiscally responsible. Frankly, although I haven't been polled, I'm proudly proclaiming that my rebate will go towards my retirement, so as to STICK IT TO THE MAN.