Will economic stimulus checks be sent out before May 1, 2008?

wow...you guys have alot more faith in the gov't and the irs than i do...two weeks after tax day and they're gunna have all the taxes done and be sending out more checks...it would be nice but i don't think it'll happen.

Seems alot of people are not reading the entire news story. Even with this quick passage checks aren't expected til May, and this question says they must go out before May 1st. Here is a link: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080208/D8ULQFAG0.html

What is being sent out now are not checks. Direct Deposits only. This market should not have been settled.

I have no money in this wager...The question clearly states checks, which are paper documents.

i have no money on this either, but it's my understanding the direct desposits will start may 1st. thats not before may 1st. the admin used a "non mainstream" source to settle this. be interesting to see what happens if a "mainstream" media source contradicts the "non mainstream" source. settlement details: using these rules given by the question creator. only rule i saw from the creator was a link talking about the checks..not when they'd go out. hopefully they go out before may 1st and there ain't a rumble on hubdub.

This question has been resettled. It was originally settled as a no, then resettled to a yes, so everyone is a winner.

hu? resettling this is spitzer'ish, isn't it?
Comment on the first settlement was "IRS is now stating they won't be sent out before May." It's an announcement.
Now this is resettled with a reference to an article where it states "San Antonio taxpayers should start receiving economic stimulus rebate checks on Monday, April 28" from April 25th. It's an announcement too.
What will happen, when they do NOT send out those checks on Monday, April 28th?
Can someone explain to me what is going on in this market and why the settlement has been done and now has been redone and might even be redone once again?

Oh, and if it's re-re-settled as "NO" will there be double payout on the "NO"-stakes?

Just to give me 1/100th of a penny's worth:
Settlement on announcement vs outcome: We've had this debate before. Generally, it has seemed much safer to settle based on the announcement of an action rather than wait for it to happen ('ala Spitzer's resignation or Florida's intention to not re-vote). As long as it seems quite likely that the person/agency/etc fully intends to carry through with their announcement and isn't widely regarded to be political posturing (i.e. all the people who say they have no interest in being Vice President).

For an agency as bloated and bulky as the IRS, if they say they can't get something done before a certain date, I think its reasonable to believe it won't be able to happen. In this case however, apparently Bush has exerted tremendous pressure and the IRS got a spiffy new computer program. So now, they are able to send them out early. I think this is a good example for the practice of: settle at announcement and resettle if there is a major change of circumstances. If you don't agree with that practice, then its worth discussing (over at www.getsatisfaction.com/hubdub -- I don't want to hijack this thread), but that is the current methodology.

Final thought as to the strength of the article - I've been having trouble myself finding another article that discusses it, but I did watch Bushie make the announcement last week that the stimulus "checks" (deposits) would start rolling out today. Maybe no one is overly excited that they're coming out a couple of days early so its not getting reported on. I dunno.

Wait, final, final thought: Should we count direct deposit refunds as "checks". I think yes. It seems common sense that this question was getting at: "When will the economic stimuls payments start going out" and not only worried about the literal paper checks.

(Disclosure: I had no h$ in this market)

Hi everyone,

Here in the UK, the BBC is reporting the early send out of checks, so there are other sources reporting what bizjournals did. But seeing as there is some concern regarding settlement here's the explanation: When the market was first settled there were disagreements over its settlement because of the apprehension that something like what has happened would happen. So because of the confusion regarding settlement and the unclear settlement details I've resettled the market. This is due to the fact that because of the confusion concrete settlement to one side wasn't possible. The market will not be resettled again, as both sides now have their winnings.

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub US Politics Content Editor

lol....The point still remains. What is being issued is direct deposits from electronic filings. No checks involved. This should not be settled at all, yet. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Check :a written order directing a bank to pay money as instructed

jenni - in re: your final thought, checks are slower than electronic transactions. All the more reason to not see them as the same thing. Especially when a deadline type question such as this is involved. The question didn't refer to funds, it specified checks...slow checks.

I find it interesting that a market which has been settled can be resettled but a question which has been void can not be reopened.