2009 Stimulus package, now with more pork. *updated! obama signs. (sad face)*

[nasum]

do you have a link to that being removed? I've been trying to read the bill on congress.org but it isn't clear. On the CNN.com story they say the tax credit is there but has been reduced

[mtxbass1]

GOD DAMNIT!
I really wanted that.

I mean seriously, what's the first thing people do when they buy a house? Usually get some new appliances, remodel something, get new carpet, better hardwood floors, etc... All of that money would go to contractors for the work, manufactureers of the appliances/carpet/floors/tubs/etc... This is the only good thing in the whole bill that could actually stimulate anything.

You do realize that the tax credit was spread out over many years right? You aren't just going to get a 15k credit in a single year.

[Pookymeister]

do you have a link to that being removed? I've been trying to read the bill on congress.org but it isn't clear. On the CNN.com story they say the tax credit is there but has been reduced

The existing $7500 credit is being changed to not requiring payback, but its still restricted to first time buyers.


Pooky are mod?! unpossible!

Welcome to last January ;)

[KingBroly]

Apparently it's going to be 1.3 trillion now.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30667

[mtxbass1]

Apparently it's going to be 1.3 trillion now.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30667

Where are they getting 1.3 T from? Several sources say this bill is 789.5B.

[KingBroly]

Where are they getting 1.3 T from? Several sources say this bill is 789.5B.

You see that big open space after the first paragraph?

They intend to attempt to shove this $1.3 trillion spending bill through in the dead of the night without Republican input so floor action can take place in both chambers on Thursday.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Even in a perfect world, there'd still be someone bitching.

HUMANS aren't happy. Just because it makes you feel better to specialize that disappointment toward a country and its government doesn't make you somehow some big guru on life.



Which is a personal choice, so what the hell does it have to do with anything? "Well it's because the government is so terrible." So? They are going to find the same load of shit in the next country - there's not some magical place you can escape to where everything is suddenly better.

Guess what - the government doesn't give a shit if you leave.



And that's why I responded to it. You putting a few conciliatory words to try and attempt to make your position look strong doesn't change the fact that it's a weak position to have no matter HOW well you argue it.

Don't blame your crappy logic on me with some pompous "big disconnection" rhetoric - you've made a poor bed and get to sleep in it now.

If your whole point is "the US sucks and I'm mad about it," then you're not going to get very far in ANY argument, no matter what is being said on either side. Not only have you already chosen a position, but you've chosen an emotionally-laden value one, which only serves to prevent you from looking at anything with a truthful lens.

Don't pretend that your disapproval is going to get fixed, nor that it serves as some overriding mechanism to broadcast the haterade. You've got free will, cash, and a big open world, so you can either fess up now and live with your decisions, or attempt to make the best of the scenario you've got going.

Here's something to think about: a lot of the problems we face with our government can be helped IMMENSELY through our own power if we attempt to make those intersections as painless and few as possible. Hate the healthcare system? Exercise and eat right. Hate the education system? Work on your own and help your children. Yes, there's some things you can't effectively fix without government involvement, but there's a hell of a lot more good you can do with willing hands than with a big mouth or cold keyboard.

We could wake up tomorrow to find that the government had created gold-farting cinnamon rolls that could keep us full for months AND fix the economic crisis, as well as to find a brand new 52" TV in our living rooms that double-served as blowjob machines, and still some fucker out there would be pissed his TV doesn't also brew beer. It's an endlessly moving target an in endlessly unsatisfied world.

OK.

I give up. You win.

No state will ever try to secede from the Union.

Any state thinking of secession will look back on the Civil War and realize the remaining states will bitchslap any dissenters back into the Union.

Do you feel better?

[mtxbass1]

You see that big open space after the first paragraph?

:roll: Good luck to them. Seriously. You really think they are going to push through a 1.3T bill without any input? I still want to see how this site you mentioned gets 1.3T. Where are they pulling that figure from? What is their source? How did they arrive at that number?

[Kayden]

How the fuck is that even legal?

"Ok guys, we're going to have a secret vote at the fort midnight. Don't tell any girls... I mean republicans."

At this point I seriously have to wonder if we'd be better off just picking random jerkoffs on the street to fill congress.


You see that big open space after the first paragraph?

[thrustbucket]

At this point I seriously have to wonder if we'd be better off just picking random jerkoffs on the street to fill congress.

Very likely. Since random jerkoffs on the street don't owe anyone for getting into congress/senate.

[KingBroly]

How the fuck is that even legal?

"Ok guys, we're going to have a secret vote at the fort midnight. Don't tell any girls... I mean republicans."

At this point I seriously have to wonder if we'd be better off just picking random jerkoffs on the street to fill congress.

They've (Congress) done it before and they can sure as hell do it again. You just don't hear about it, and I'm sure, if this is the case, you won't hear about it in the morning.

[speedracer]

So, it looks like we have a real bill to complain about now. BBC says $798b. What's the good, the bad, and the ugly? Upside? Downside?

Is Geithner gonna sink the ship all by himself?

[RAMSTORIA]

i beleive the 1.3 trilion number is a projected amount the bill will cost after interest. its still hovering around 850 billion at the moment, but ive also heard its going to be around 1.1 trillion with interest. either way, after all is said and done it will be over 1 trillion.

[speedracer]

i beleive the 1.3 trilion number is a projected amount the bill will cost after interest. its still hovering around 850 billion at the moment, but ive also heard its going to be around 1.1 trillion with interest. either way, after all is said and done it will be over 1 trillion.
Other than my hide, what is financing this? Is the Treasury just going to print it or what?

[Kayden]

I was under the impression they already did...

Other than my hide, what is financing this? Is the Treasury just going to print it or what?

[KingBroly]

They're the Government. They can print as much money as they want. It's up to us to determine if it's worth anything or not.

[speedracer]

I'm failing to understand how Geithner thinks his plan is a good one. Is he defending his plan at all? Is Obama?

[dmaul1114]

The key is to get credit flowing again. Doing so requires helping banks get rid of their bad debts and injecting capital. So from the bit I've seen of Geithner's plan it looks to do that, but admittedly I only skimmed the post article on it earlier today.

As for the 1.3 trillion vs. $859 billion number debate above--are you sure people aren't just mixing up Geithner's bank bail and the stimulus bill? Those are separate things.

[KingBroly]

Geithner's plan is for $2 trillion (broke into...3 areas I think) on top of everything else, so I'm sure it's not this plan as the article mentions it's what Congress is doing. Like mentioned above, it's probably relating to inflation. He was also very vague on what the details were.

I don't think anyone can back him up at this point. Not after what he did yesterday.

[Kayden]

Why don't they help the banks by helping the people? Give me 30k and it'll go to my house and student loans. That way the banks will get money right now and I'll be able to spend more of my income on comforts thereby boosting the economy.

Oops... that probably makes too much fucking sense. :bomb:

The key is to get credit flowing again. Doing so requires helping banks get rid of their bad debts and injecting capital. So from the bit I've seen of Geithner's plan it looks to do that, but admittedly I only skimmed the post article on it earlier today.

As for the 1.3 trillion vs. $859 billion number debate above--are you sure people aren't just mixing up Geithner's bank bail and the stimulus bill? Those are separate things.

[mtxbass1]

I'm failing to understand how Geithner thinks his plan is a good one. Is he defending his plan at all? Is Obama?

Geithner hasn't announced any details of his plan as of yet. How can you be unsure of something that he's had to delay so many times now, giving zero details on exactly what they want to do to fix it?

[lilboo]

So, this passed right?
And "what's in it for us" is that we'll get like a $500 tax cut in our paychecks, right?

[Pookymeister]

So, this passed right?
And "what's in it for us" is that we'll get like a $500 tax cut in our paychecks, right?

No not passed - just they've 'agreed' on terms that they can try and pass in Congress....or something like that.

[HovaEscobar]

You see that big open space after the first paragraph?

I can't fuckin believe that.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Why don't they help the banks by helping the people? Give me 30k and it'll go to my house and student loans. That way the banks will get money right now and I'll be able to spend more of my income on comforts thereby boosting the economy.

Oops... that probably makes too much fucking sense. :bomb:

You have to look at it from the government's perspective.

If you paid down your debt, you wouldn't need to borrow money from banks.

If you're laid off and had a $30K emergency fund laying around, you wouldn't be panicked into going along with what the government has planned next.

[Kayden]

Right... because making the working class further indebted to the rich is exactly what this fucking country needs. :rage:

[elprincipe]

You have to look at it from the government's perspective.

If you paid down your debt, you wouldn't need to borrow money from banks.

If you're laid off and had a $30K emergency fund laying around, you wouldn't be panicked into going along with what the government has planned next.

Ah, you are always one step ahead.

But let's return to the original bailout for a second. Why did the government put $700 billion into idiot banks who screwed up their business in the first place? The real answer lies in the fact that our former Treasury secretary used to be in charge of Goldman Sachs.

That and our former president and former+current congressional leadership (of both parties) are idiots when it comes to all things financial. Just look at the federal budget and national debt.

[KingBroly]

Ah, you are always one step ahead.

But let's return to the original bailout for a second. Why did the government put $700 billion into idiot banks who screwed up their business in the first place? The real answer lies in the fact that our former Treasury secretary used to be in charge of Goldman Sachs.

That and our former president and former+current congressional leadership (of both parties) are idiots when it comes to all things financial. Just look at the federal budget and national debt.

This has been the case for the past 2 decades you know. No matter who's in there, they just keep spending. Government has refused to tighten their belts why they expect us to tighten ours. No one knows what the hell they're doing, and we just keep electing their sorry asses.

Also, in relations to our former Treasury Secretary, we're still giving money to banks with this upcoming bailout, and that goes back to what fatherofcaitlyn said. They don't want us in control.

[dmaul1114]

But let's return to the original bailout for a second. Why did the government put $700 billion into idiot banks who screwed up their business in the first place? The real answer lies in the fact that our former Treasury secretary used to be in charge of Goldman Sachs.


There's much more to it than that.

The problem is the world economy is totally reliant on credit and debt. These idiot banks ran themselves into the ground with toxic assets etc., but they were too big to fail as the world economy is so dependent on credit that there would be a near total collapse of the credit market dried up.

Consumer spending plumets especailly for big purchases like cars, houses, appliances etc. that are made with credit as many people can no longer get credit. Businesses fold as they can't make payroll as they'd relied on payroll loans to pay their employees while waiting for contracts to come in etc. etc. etc.

But who knows, maybe it would be better to have another great depression and have banks and reliance on credit and stocks largely go away and have a more cash based society that's not so susceptible to shocks made by the bad decisions of a few huge lending corporations.

[BillyBob29]

But who knows, maybe it would be better to have another great depression and have banks and reliance on credit and stocks largely go away and have a more cash based society that's not so susceptible to shocks made by the bad decisions of a few huge lending corporations.

That is my take on this situation. We, as a global economy, are far to reliant on credit. Sure, working off all this excess credit and leverage would be very painful over probably the next decade or so if we let the market balance itself out but 20-40 years from now, I believe we would be MUCH better off.

Put that doesn't really matter because it is painfully obvious that the government has no intention of allowing us to get off the credit/leverage freight train. They don't want to solve our credit problem, they just want to make our credit problem profitable again.

[dmaul1114]

True, but the credit problem can be solved and future problems limited by regulating credit default swaps, limiting amounts of bad debts banks can take on etc.

But it's a giant mess that will take tons of money to get out of before we even get to a point of worry about the right balance of regulations to allow growth and prevent crashes.

[Kayden]

I thought the credit problem was started by the Great Depression. The government said to hell with the Federal Reserve and pushed the print button a few million times.

How are we going to get back to having the dollar backed by cold hard gold? Money bondfires?

[MSI Magus]

So details are starting to come out on the bill. Its disgusting seeing some of the things that were cut out in compromise. The single biggest cut went to education/renovation of schools.

[Kayden]

Duh. What will schools provide for our future? We haven't been in school for years.

[paddlefoot]

So details are starting to come out on the bill. Its disgusting seeing some of the things that were cut out in compromise. The single biggest cut went to education/renovation of schools.

It will come soon enough.


Though, I don't like some spending decisions when it comes to education.

Take Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania (my state). On one hand he proposed a large spending ncrease in continuing education for the upcoming budget (at the last minute, which was probably planned). Then he wants to cut 2,600 state employee jobs. Robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

[dmaul1114]

Duh. What will schools provide for our future? We haven't been in school for years.

New schools being build creates a lot of jobs--jobs to build them. New teaching positions, secretaries, principles, janitors etc. etc.

And education will always be the future. If the US wants to be competitive in the world economy it needs to improve it's education so future generations are competive in engineering, science, medicine etc. lest countries like India and the rest of Asia grow to dominate those markets--which they likely will with their vastly larger populations and larger commitment to education.

[Kayden]

:lol: I guess I have to lay it on thicker next time.

[dmaul1114]

Indeed. You post so much asinine stuff it's impossible to know what's sarcastic and what's serious.

[Kayden]

Sick burn dude. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go date your ex's. :roll:

Indeed. You post so much asinine stuff it's impossible to know what's sarcastic and what's serious.

[Sarang01]

Right about now I think I need to be looking at buying some firearm's for investment. Also putting some solar panels on the house sounds good.
I gotta figure out a place where I can set up a switch grass growing thing or something that burns at a high BPU to generate some electricity. Also a generator set up for Ethanol and Biodiesel.
Firearms as they're cheaper then gold and pay off more in my opinion.

[thrustbucket]

I thought the credit problem was started by the Great Depression. The government said to hell with the Federal Reserve and pushed the print button a few million times.
What's really amazing is how little we learn from history.

The government wouldn't be "allowing" this all to happen so as to implement Super Mega New Deal 2. Would they?

How are we going to get back to having the dollar backed by cold hard gold? Money bondfires?
That will sadly never happen. For many many reasons. But the main reason being that precious metals are a lot harder to control than numbers in a computer.

Right about now I think I need to be looking at buying some firearm's for investment. Also putting some solar panels on the house sounds good.
I gotta figure out a place where I can set up a switch grass growing thing or something that burns at a high BPU to generate some electricity. Also a generator set up for Ethanol and Biodiesel.
Firearms as they're cheaper then gold and pay off more in my opinion.

That's probably wise. But you best hurry, the prices have been steadily climbing on most firearms.

[RAMSTORIA]

EAST PEORIA, ILL. -- President Obama today repeated the claim we asked about yesterday at the press briefing that Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar, Inc., "said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."

Caterpillar announced 22,000 layoffs last month.

But after the president left the event, Owens said the exact opposite.

Asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, Owens said, "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again"

"It is going to take some time before that stimulus bill" means re-hiring, he said.

Owens supports the stimulus plan, but said it would take some time to have an impact on his industry and "is a little light on the heavy construction."



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/doh-caterpillar.html

whoops.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

whoops.

:lol:

[KingBroly]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Congress-kills-plan-to-apf-14346074.html

Let the money fights RESUME!

[Kayden]

Give me a second to prepare myself to feign surprise....

...*gasp*

[FloodsAreUponUS]

This is why I hate washington. Its a big fucking joke, and companies will lobby to get whatever they want.

[mykevermin]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Congress-kills-plan-to-apf-14346074.html

Let the money fights RESUME!

The worst part about reading this super-rich circle jerk nonsense?

It's really hard to disagree with the fucking Marxists' arguments when they see how much the majority of us are neck deep in shit while things like this go down.

Elect me to congress. I'll call them fucking assholes on Larry King Live, I'll propose legislation to cut the dicks (and carve the ovaries) out of every motherfucker that gets bailout money and earns any income/bonuses over $250K. And I'll create jobs by hiring people to cut off those dicks, and carve out those ovaries.

[Kayden]

Are you going to first hire other people to obtain the most jagged, rusty knives possible?

What I don't get about the bonus cap is what does it affect? Is it pay or bonuses or both? They seem to flip the terms every article. Can they not make more than $500k in a year, get more than a $500k bonus or not bring home more than $500k combined?

The worst part about reading this super-rich circle jerk nonsense?

It's really hard to disagree with the fucking Marxists' arguments when they see how much the majority of us are neck deep in shit while things like this go down.

Elect me to congress. I'll call them fucking assholes on Larry King Live, I'll propose legislation to cut the dicks (and carve the ovaries) out of every motherfucker that gets bailout money and earns any income/bonuses over $250K. And I'll create jobs by hiring people to cut off those dicks, and carve out those ovaries.

[RAMSTORIA]

The worst part about reading this super-rich circle jerk nonsense?

It's really hard to disagree with the fucking Marxists' arguments when they see how much the majority of us are neck deep in shit while things like this go down.

Elect me to congress. I'll call them fucking assholes on Larry King Live, I'll propose legislation to cut the dicks (and carve the ovaries) out of every motherfucker that gets bailout money and earns any income/bonuses over $250K. And I'll create jobs by hiring people to cut off those dicks, and carve out those ovaries.

youve got my vote. of course, id probably vote everyone in this forum in rather than the incumbants.

[Kayden]

Camoor? Slidecage? ME?

That's why people shouldn't be allowed to vote. :lol:
youve got my vote. of course, id probably vote everyone in this forum in rather than the incumbants.

[FloodsAreUponUS]

The worst part about reading this super-rich circle jerk nonsense?

It's really hard to disagree with the fucking Marxists' arguments when they see how much the majority of us are neck deep in shit while things like this go down.

Elect me to congress. I'll call them fucking assholes on Larry King Live, I'll propose legislation to cut the dicks (and carve the ovaries) out of every motherfucker that gets bailout money and earns any income/bonuses over $250K. And I'll create jobs by hiring people to cut off those dicks, and carve out those ovaries.

Vote +1.

I blame all of this on Ronald Regan.

[camoor]

Camoor? Slidecage? ME?

That's why people shouldn't be allowed to vote. :lol:

Don't lump me in with you and slidecage.

[RAMSTORIA]

Camoor? Slidecage? ME?

That's why people shouldn't be allowed to vote. :lol:

ok maybe not slidecage... i meant regulars in the vs forum.

[willardhaven]

I think we would all do a much better job than the current administration... even with Slidecage and Level1Online.

Wow, that's really depressing yet at the same time hilarious.

[Kayden]

"President Slidecage, can you tell us about your peace talks with the middle east?"

"wel, i went their to talk 2 them and they like wernt home. i nocked but they didnt asnwer. I was was going to go to the next cuntry but then my jet brokedown. i was like WTF! im president why jet not work. so i had to pay a bunch of money to have the plain fixed. I no machanic screwed me. The plain used to go vvvvrrroooooooooosh, but no it only does ggrrrvvroom. I no he broek it. anyone lawyer? think i sue him. i wanted to stop at gs on the way back home but the pilot was all we cant land on building or some crap. is bullshit!! i was going to pick up my pokemon preoder. preorder is the only way to get games at gs. so dumb. why they just not make orders for more? I should clothes hole chain. I am predisent I can do it."




I think we would all do a much better job than the current administration... even with Slidecage and Level1Online.

Wow, that's really depressing yet at the same time hilarious.

[willardhaven]

Haha, well I think he could easily replace a congressman.

[Strell]

p.s. day got better - found kittens behind plain wing. when people stop putting kittens behind plains! no i have three mor kittens than i had before i had three kittnes just now.

Kayden: Do yourself a favor and read one of Graham Roumieu's Bigfoot (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Graham%20Roumieu) books. I imagine you'll like them. It doesn't matter which one you get or what order you read them in - the general theme is the same throughout. Rofl at that whole thing by the way - hilarious to read, with an added layer of hilarity in that it sounds JUST like a typical slidecage post.

[mtxbass1]

"President Slidecage, can you tell us about your peace talks with the middle east?"

"wel, i went their to talk 2 them and they like wernt home. i nocked but they didnt asnwer. I was was going to go to the next cuntry but then my jet brokedown. i was like WTF! im president why jet not work. so i had to pay a bunch of money to have the plain fixed. I no machanic screwed me. The plain used to go vvvvrrroooooooooosh, but no it only does ggrrrvvroom. I no he broek it. anyone lawyer? think i sue him. i wanted to stop at gs on the way back home but the pilot was all we cant land on building or some crap. is bullshit!! i was going to pick up my pokemon preoder. preorder is the only way to get games at gs. so dumb. why they just not make orders for more? I should clothes hole chain. I am predisent I can do it."

:rofl:

[Sarang01]

Kayden you would be awesome in Congress.

Thrust would be fabulous except for his hang-up on abortion. As a Classical Libertarian he embarrasses the shit out of me on this issue. But that's why you make sure Abortion never comes up as an issue to begin with.
My thought for the Stimulus plan. Well I'd prefer one wouldn't be coming to begin with but mine would consist of 4 things and cost a fraction of this nonsense. 1.$10 billion dedicated to helping people with innovative ideas start up businesses. I'm talking about they put forth a business plan and idea that is like 90-95% certain to make money. Then after they put the product to market, the first 5 years profit from their business would be tax free. Also for the first 10 years they wouldn't be allowed to Outsource at ALL. 2.Spend enough money to fix or come up with bridges built with materials that are far less costly to repair and last much longer. I'm talking about regardless if it's a more expensive cost at the beginning, instead you see the cost analysis over the long run. 3.Bring back that $2 billion for rural broadband. 4.Pay for all the upgrades to translators to full Digital. If you're going to force this upgrade you should be paying for it, especially when you're offering a shittier reception solution over analog. Well or THIS particular Digital solution is shittier.
I think #1 might take 5 years to ruminate, getting some of those idea's fully realized and to market but they WOULD help bring the economy out of the shitter, even slightly.
Oh yeah and do away with the Fed of course. How the fuck do no one see this coming when our own currency is printed with interest. I mean everything is rigged that way. The unfortunate thing is most of us are screwed if we don't prepare ourselves before it's said "The emperor has no clothes!" unless Congress actually deals with the Fed. I doubt that or we could go back to where we were, just a little bit.
Bottom line is there will be one or two results. 1.We will be nickel and dimed to death on our every expense more then we should. Remember how Utility costs like electricity as tightly regulated in our state? Remember the SMART Grid idea? Imagine the Conservation idea that has become the supposed central platform of the Green movement, though I believe that's only what the media is covering. Watch electricity being restricted like Broadband and sold by packages. You go over your number, you get double charged or whatever. It's coming and it'll be sold under the guise of Conservation.
Also on a similar note, look at cell phones and the plans and how you get nickle and dimed. If lan-line service isn't bring compromised already in some areas it will be. You have people who forgo a line in the house for a cell. What's going to happen is cell phone service will keep getting improved to where it's identical to lan-line then so many people will drop their lan-lines. Lan-lines will get knocked down more. What's going to happen is this when you find it almost impossible to get lan-line and dirt cheap service for basic and argue this point with cell phone companies. They're going to argue back at you that there is lan-line service you can get, only it will be token.

[Kayden]

http://www.ocforums.com/oc_images/images/smilies/head_bang.gif
Kayden you would be awesome in Congress.


So, with everyone saying the 8 stimulus bills did nothing for Japan... What did those actually entail? Was it the same self servicing bullshit our morons are trying to push through?

[thrustbucket]

Sarang - Last I checked libertarians were very big on one of the only and most important functions of government being protection of the innocent. I guess that's a pretty shitty "hang up" to have for a politician....

I'm a little perplexed by how many people seem to think improving roads is a must for the Federal budget, especially for a "stimulus package". It makes more sense that roads are paid for by the state they are in, unless we are talking interstate highways.

I don't know why people in New Jersey should pay for municiple road improvements in Wyoming.

Am I missing something? Is there a good reason why Federal money should be used for local road improvements that I haven't thought of?

[willardhaven]

Libertarians suck, as do all political ideologies.

Thinking is not like a value meal at McDonald's, you have to come up with your own ideas.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Are you going to first hire other people to obtain the most jagged, rusty knives possible?

No, no, no. We would needs spoons.

[thrustbucket]

Libertarians suck, as do all political ideologies.

Thinking is not like a value meal at McDonald's, you have to come up with your own ideas.

Absolutely true. Most people's so-called "thinking" can more or less fall snuggly into a political ideology though.

But I'm not a member of any party for reasons you state.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I'm a little perplexed by how many people seem to think improving roads is a must for the Federal budget, especially for a "stimulus package". It makes more sense that roads are paid for by the state they are in, unless we are talking interstate highways.

I don't know why people in New Jersey should pay for municiple road improvements in Wyoming.

Am I missing something? Is there a good reason why Federal money should be used for local road improvements that I haven't thought of?

Well, duh.

Let's say Wyoming makes the Dick Cheney phrase "Go fuck yourself" its position towards the rest of the Union because clouds are too puffy.

If the roads of Wyoming are busted up, it slows down the speed of the military vehicles that would be sent to liberate Wyoming.

[dmaul1114]

Thought this was a good read on why some think tax cuts won't work as they likely wouldn't lead to a huge increase in consumer spending.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/184599


Tax Cuts Won't Work
Yesterday's fixes can't help this economy

By Daniel Gross

The congressional debate over the stimulus package may be over, but the larger debate isn't. Many critics of the bill, which contains a mix of tax cuts and government spending, believe that the government spending part just won't work. Thirty-six of the 41 members of the Republican Senate minority voted for an amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina that called for a stimulus package consisting only of tax cuts. Economists whose sympathies lie with the Republicans have backed up the cut-taxes/don't-spend approach. Robert Barro of Harvard, speaking to the Atlantic, called the stimulus package "probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s." The government spending proposed wouldn't work as intended, he argued. Instead, we should cut tax rates. Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, a former Bush adviser, expressed his preference for a stimulus that would immediately and permanently end payroll taxes, to be offset by an increase in gas taxes.

Adherents of the tax-cuts-only strategy are suspicious of free-spending Democrats, old-fashioned Keynesians, and big government. They believe—no, they know—that tax cuts are more efficient than government spending, since people and businesses make better and quicker decisions about spending than government does. And the way they read the relevant data, history, and experience, permanently reducing long-term tax rates has historically provided the best possible incentives to invest and spend. They may be right. But there are also reasons to think that what worked or made complete sense in the past may not be as effective today. The current, somewhat extraordinary circumstances, and the nation's changing economic geography, should make us wonder how effective tax cuts will be in stimulating new spending and investment.

Let's say you're a tenured professor of economics at Harvard. You have—and have earned—a great deal of stability and security. Your job is guaranteed, at pretty much the same salary, until retirement. Your employer, which has been around for more than 350 years, isn't going anywhere. The university provides nice health care benefits and contributes generously to a retirement plan. All of which means you can make pretty good plans about your short- and long-term financial future. If we reduce payroll taxes—or eliminate them entirely—the professor will have an extra $200 in his paycheck every month. And that might yield predictable results. Feeling slightly more flush, he might be more likely to amble down to the Coop and buy a few books or a V-neck Crimson sweater or to invest in a summer home on Cape Cod. That's what a rational person would do. And that would stimulate the economy nicely.

Back in the day, and in many of the past episodes of postwar recession, the typical American worker resembled a Harvard professor—not in brains or wit, to be sure, but in the shape of her economic life. Many—not all, but a lot—enjoyed long, relatively secure job tenures, steady incomes, and generous employer-provided health and retirement benefits. But the economy has changed significantly in recent decades. And the circumstances that might prod our professor to start spending those tax cuts immediately might not apply to everybody else. The typical worker—white-collar, blue-collar, no-collar—doesn't have anything like tenure or a guaranteed job. In fact, she may be working at a company that has just laid off 10 percent of its work force and may soon lay off more. She may be one of the 3.6 million people who has lost a job in the last year. She may work in an industry in which one large, longtime player has just liquidated. She might still have employer-provided health insurance, but the company may have just jacked up the employee contribution. She knows that if she loses her job, she would have to start spending several thousand dollars a year to purchase health insurance. Meanwhile, this worker—say she's in her mid-40s—is providing for her own retirement via a 401(k), whose balance has fallen by 40 percent in the last year. Oh, and her adjustable-rate mortgage is about to readjust to a higher rate.

So, what happens if you cut this worker's payroll taxes (assuming she's on somebody's payroll and isn't a contractor or self-employed)? Well, she might spend the increased cash flow. But given everything that's going on, a fearful but still rational person might not rush out to spend or invest the money. She might be far more likely—and well-advised—to save it, to build up a cash hoard that would allow her to remain solvent should she lose her job, or to prepare for the eventuality that she might have to buy her own health insurance. Or she might start shoveling that extra $100 per week into her 401(k) to make up for some of the huge losses she's suffered.

Psychology plays a big role in all sorts of economic decisions. And at times like these, when people are gripped with fear, it plays an even larger role. In such a climate, cutting taxes can't hurt. But should we expect it to have the same effect it would have in a period when people are generally confident and secure? If you believe the typical American worker would respond to tax cuts the way a typical tenured Harvard economist would, then it makes all the sense in the world to focus on tax cuts to the exclusion of other types of stimulus. But if you believe the typical American worker might respond to tax cuts the way, say, a typical Cambridge-area worker would, you might be less sure.

[RAMSTORIA]

passes the house

WASHINGTON (AP) - Handing the new administration a big win, House Democrats passed President Barack Obama's $787 billion plan to resuscitate the economy on Friday despite a wall of Republican opposition. The bill was approved 246-183 and sent to the Senate, where a vote was scheduled late Friday afternoon.

That vote was to be held open for hours, waiting for Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown, who was attending a memorial service for his mother and then flying back to cast the deciding vote.

Senate passage would meet a deadline of sending the bill to Obama before a congressional recess begins next week.

The 1,071 page, 8-inch-thick measure combines $281 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses with more than a half-trillion dollars in government spending. The money would go for infrastructure, health care and help for cash-starved state governments, among scores of programs. Seniors would get a $250 bonus Social Security check.

Told that no Republican backed the measure, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reacted by citing another number: "3.5 million jobs that we look forward to saving or creating."

Seven Democrats voted against the bill.

Republicans said the package won't work because it has too little in tax cuts and spreads too much money around to everyday projects like computer upgrades for federal agencies.

"This legislation falls woefully short," said House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio. "With a price tag of more than $1 trillion when you factor in interest, it costs every family almost $10,000 in added debt. This is an act of generational theft that our children and grandchildren will be paying for far into the future."

The final $787 billion measure has been pared back from versions previously debated in order to attract support from three Senate GOP moderates—Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Their help is essential to meeting a 60-vote threshold in the Senate, required to overcome a Republican objection that the bill adds to the deficit.

The bill originally passed the Senate by a 61-37 tally, but Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., suffering from brain cancer, is not expected to vote this time.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who withdrew his nomination to be Obama's Commerce secretary, said he would vote against the bill.

Democrats lavished praise on the measure, which combines tax cuts for workers and businesses with more than a half-trillion dollars in government spending aimed at boosting economic demand.

"By investing in new jobs, in science and innovation, in energy, in education ... we are investing in the American people, which is the best guarantee of the success of our nation," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The plan is the signature initiative of the fledgling Obama administration, which is betting that combining tax cuts of $400 a year for individuals and $800 for couples with an infusion of spending for unemployment assistance, $250 payments to people on Social Security, and extra money for states to help with the Medicaid health program for the poor and disabled will arrest the economy's fall.

Local school districts would receive $70 billion in additional funding for K-12 programs and special education and to prevent cutbacks and layoffs and repair crumbling schools. There's about $50 billion for energy programs, much of which goes to efficiency programs and renewable energy.

Some $46 billion would go to transportation projects, not enough to please many lawmakers.

Negotiators insisted on including a $70 billion tax break to make sure middle- to upper-income taxpayers won't get hit by the alternative minimum tax and forced a reduction of Obama's signature tax break for 95 percent of workers.

The AMT was designed 40 years ago to make sure wealthy people pay at least some tax, but is updated for inflation each year to avoid tax increases averaging $2,300 a year. Fixing the annual problems now allows lawmakers to avoid difficult battles down the road, but economists say the move won't do much to lift the economy.

Republicans pointed out a bevy of questionable spending items that made the final cut in House-Senate negotiations, including money to replace computers at federal agencies, inspect canals, and issue coupons for convertor boxes to help people watch TV when the changeover to digital signals occurs this summer.

"This measure is not bipartisan. It contains much that is not stimulative," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama's rival for the White House. "And is nothing short—nothing short—of generational theft" since it burdens future generations with so much debt, he added.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96AU3H80&show_article=1

we all knew it would, doesnt make it any easier to swallow. passes the house at a mere 999 pages, the mere fact that the bill is 999 pages should tell you how sloppy this bill is.

[thrustbucket]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvnwOjDjnH4

So much for the promise of "new transparency" in government.

[Kayden]

I wonder how many of them actually read it. :-k

Did that government medical document tracking/treatment policing addon get approved too?

[thrustbucket]

How many people can read 1100 pages in 8 hours? Furthermore, how many people in the Senate can?


And don't worry we still got some really important stuff:


Tax benefits for Golf Carts, Electric Motorcycles and ATV.
$300 million for Federal Employees Company Cars which will acquire vehicles with higher fuel economy, including hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles.
$1 billion for ACORN--Eligible block grants to carry out community development.
$50 million For an Arts Endowment.
$165 million for Fish Hatcheries.


The amount of jobs created by that stuff alone will be staggering.

[KingBroly]

I don't think any of them read the new bill. Even the additional...350(?) pages. That's a hell of a lot of reading, so who knows what kinds of new shit they added.

My guesses:
- Expanded the whole Health Care "Plan" (Unless it was taken out, but I doubt it was)
- Added in the Fairness Doctrine (A couple of major mentions in the last few days makes me think this is not mere coincidence)
- Pushed back the Feb. 17th "Get your ass to Digital TV" date to sometime in 2011.

[thrustbucket]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isvrFuxXADU

[Kayden]

I wonder what the "Fair Tax" would do for our situation...

[thrustbucket]

Congressional offices are frustrated that lobbyists get the stimulus bill before they do. (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/2/12/congressional-offices-dont-have-the-stimulus-bill-lobbyists-do.html)

[elprincipe]

Congressional offices are frustrated that lobbyists get the stimulus bill before they do. (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/2/12/congressional-offices-dont-have-the-stimulus-bill-lobbyists-do.html)

That is just beyond belief...or it would be if I was a little less cynical about these sorts of things.

[Capitalizt]

They also upped the debt limit to $12 trillion in this bill. I think by this time next year, we will surpass that mark and it will need to be raised again.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif

[fatherofcaitlyn]

They also upped the debt limit to $12 trillion in this bill. I think by this time next year, we will surpass that mark and it will need to be raised again.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif

Next year? That's over 9 months away.

[KingBroly]

Don't worry, I'm sure the next "stimulus" bill will come out in the next 4 months.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Don't worry, I'm sure the next "stimulus" bill will come out in the next 4 months.

Do you remember that SNL opening skit from (I think) before the election?

The automakers' new plan was to ask for more money every few months.

[mtxbass1]

Congress snuck a piece in the stimulus bill, pretty much going behind Obama's back about executive pay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29192298/

The bill, which President Obama is expected to sign into law next week, limits bonuses for executives at all financial institutions receiving government funds to no more than a third of their annual compensation. The bonuses must be paid in company stock that can be redeemed only when the government investment has been repaid.

That's somewhat different from what Obama wanted to cap them at.

Does he have the ability to line item veto parts of a bill? Or is that only with the budget?

[KingBroly]

Do you remember that SNL opening skit from (I think) before the election?

The automakers' new plan was to ask for more money every few months.

Well...that's exactly what is going to happen. You know, just with every company.

There is no Line Item veto. The Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional a few years back, and even if it was Constitutional, I doubt Obama would veto that part. CEO's could just as easily take on a consultant's job with the company as well that pays nothing but they could get bonuses that way. They wouldn't be getting bonuses as a "CEO", but as a "Consultant" or whatever they would want to call themselves.

[Kayden]

It's so nice to know there's a plan in place to undermine laws before they even get enacted.
Well...that's exactly what is going to happen. You know, just with every company.

There is no Line Item veto. The Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional a few years back, and even if it was Constitutional, I doubt Obama would veto that part. CEO's could just as easily take on a consultant's job with the company as well that pays nothing but they could get bonuses that way. They wouldn't be getting bonuses as a "CEO", but as a "Consultant" or whatever they would want to call themselves.

[KingBroly]

The good criminals don't get caught. They're also the ones we elect.

[mtxbass1]

Well...that's exactly what is going to happen. You know, just with every company.

There is no Line Item veto. The Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional a few years back, and even if it was Constitutional, I doubt Obama would veto that part. CEO's could just as easily take on a consultant's job with the company as well that pays nothing but they could get bonuses that way. They wouldn't be getting bonuses as a "CEO", but as a "Consultant" or whatever they would want to call themselves.

See, that's what I was thinking too. Just create a special position that only the CEO was qualified for. Move the CEO to that position. Move someone else up to CEO, but almost as a puppet, so to speak. The "real" CEO gets the huge bonus and salary. The puppet CEO gets the "capped" salary.

[RAMSTORIA]

After pushing Congress for weeks to hurry up and pass the massive $787 billion stimulus bill, President Obama promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway.

Obama arrived at his home in Chicago on Friday, and treated wife Michelle to a Valentine's Day dinner downtown last night. The couple was spotted leaving upscale Table Fifty-Two, which specializes in Southern cuisine, with the first lady toting what appeared to be a doggie bag.

The president plans to spend the Presidents' Day weekend in the Windy City, and is not expected to sign the bill until Tuesday, when he travels to Denver to discuss his economic plan.

Both the House and Senate passed the bill Friday night.

The push to get the bill through before the holiday weekend was so frantic, members of Congress didn't have a chance to read all 1,071 pages of the document before they could vote.

"In a perfect world it would have been nice to have had more time to process it," said Ilan Kayatsky, a spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

Meanwhile, Gov. Paterson called yesterday for fiscal restraint with the massive influx of federal aid. His budget office estimated that New York will receive $24.6 billion over the next two years, $4 billion more than first believed.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152009/news/nationalnews/whats_the_rush__155255.htm

so after all the fuss about getting this thing passed, the senate and barry are going to enjoy the 3 day weekend. i guess since banks arent open on monday it can wait now.

[thrustbucket]

Well you can't properly bend over, spread your cheeks and allow penile insertion into the country's ass if they aren't even there, right?

[mtxbass1]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152009/news/nationalnews/whats_the_rush__155255.htm

so after all the fuss about getting this thing passed, the senate and barry are going to enjoy the 3 day weekend. i guess since banks arent open on monday it can wait now.

Not just a 3 day weekend. Congress doesn't take up another bill until around Feb 23. Most are taking at least 10 days off.

Pelosi wanted to rush the bill through just so she could go on a trip to Italy Friday night.

[Kayden]

I can think of nothing to say that isn't rage.

[evanft]

The good criminals don't get caught. They're also the ones we elect.

OMG that's so poignant!!!!

[HovaEscobar]

So it went through?

I wonder what else Obama will do, how else could he possibly screw up more after this? Luckily too many Americans bought " Yes We Can " bumper stickers and merchandise to ever consider that the stimulus is a bad idea.

[mtxbass1]

So it went through?

I wonder what else Obama will do, how else could he possibly screw up more after this? Luckily too many Americans bought " Yes We Can " bumper stickers and merchandise to ever consider that the stimulus is a bad idea.

It'll be signed Tuesday.

What else?

Well, Geither still hasn't unveiled his plan yet.

And there's still this whole "bail out everyone with a mortgage except the people who did everything right" plan.

[Kayden]

:( I wish I would have fucked up my finances.

It's ok though. I'm sure once I have to foot the bill for everyone else, I will have to foreclose too, of course, I won't get any assistance because I was fiscally incompetent. :roll:
It'll be signed Tuesday.

What else?

Well, Geither still hasn't unveiled his plan yet.

And there's still this whole "bail out everyone with a mortgage except the people who did everything right" plan.

[Strell]

Kayden wishes life was like Diablo 2, and he could kill catwomen for money.

Also that he was an Amazon. With a great set of knockers.

[mtxbass1]

:( I wish I would have fucked up my finances.

It's ok though. I'm sure once I have to foot the bill for everyone else, I will have to foreclose too, of course, I won't get any assistance because I was fiscally incompetent. :roll:

Me and you both. Pay your mortgage on time since they day you signed the paper? You get nothing. Miss 3 months payments and you're about to be foreclosed on? You'll at a minimum get a moratorium from your lender, and more than likely "help" from uncle sam. In a growing number of cases, you can even stay in the home once it's foreclosed on.

It's a broken system.

[gareman]

:( I wish I would have fucked up my finances.

It's ok though. I'm sure once I have to foot the bill for everyone else, I will have to foreclose too, of course, I won't get any assistance because I was fiscally incompetent. :roll:
or you will have foreclosure when you get laid off and you're mortgage goes from 500 a month to 5000 in a matter of months, and you have to chose between food and paying it.

[HovaEscobar]

Me and you both. Pay your mortgage on time since they day you signed the paper? You get nothing. Miss 3 months payments and you're about to be foreclosed on? You'll at a minimum get a moratorium from your lender, and more than likely "help" from uncle sam. In a growing number of cases, you can even stay in the home once it's foreclosed on.

It's a broken system.

I haven't learned about this, could someone provide a link?

[elprincipe]

Not just a 3 day weekend. Congress doesn't take up another bill until around Feb 23. Most are taking at least 10 days off.

Pelosi wanted to rush the bill through just so she could go on a trip to Italy Friday night.

Congress takes a week every time you get a one-day holiday. Actually, more than a week usually, since they tend to take off the preceding Friday and following Monday. They also take off a couple of weeks in the spring, all of August, and typically all of December and part of November (if not all), plus part of January. I've actually had that schedule before, and it's pretty sweet. Totally out of sync with the rest of the (hardworking) country, but sweet.

[elprincipe]

Kayden wishes life was like Diablo 2, and he could kill catwomen for money.

Who doesn't?

[mtxbass1]

I haven't learned about this, could someone provide a link?

Obama plans to address the foreclosure crisis...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29208201/

JPMorgan, Citi, halt foreclosures.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10463982/1/jpmorgan-citi-halt-new-foreclosures.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN

Fannie Mae let's renters stay in homes despite foreclosures. They are doing this now with regular foreclosures as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/business/15evict.html

[HovaEscobar]

Some lawmakers have complained that evicting renters is unfair. In November, the Los Angeles City Council voted to draft a law that would bar financial institutions from evicting renters living in foreclosed homes.

How is evicting someone who couldn't pay their bill unfair? The example of someone who was current on their rent getting evicted seems to be an exception.

Obama is devising a program that would use tax dollars to subsidize mortgage payments for certain homeowners who are struggling financially. Numerous reports citing sources close to the matter say the administration is committed to spend $50 billion on foreclosure prevention and establish national standards for modifying home loans.So, basically a plan that sucks money away from the people who work hard to pay their payments as opposed to deadbeats? What GOOD can come of that? Surely they'll just take such financial help and be smarter with their money now.

[gareman]

How is evicting someone who couldn't pay their bill unfair? The example of someone who was current on their rent getting evicted seems to be an exception.

So, basically a plan that sucks money away from the people who work hard to pay their payments as opposed to deadbeats? What GOOD can come of that? Surely they'll just take such financial help and be smarter with their money now.


The problem with mortgage crisis is that the housing bubble caused a lot of people whom were trying to make smart and productive educated decisions about purchasing homes are the one's that are suffering the worst.

Whether you're conservative or liberal one has to see the tragedy of people losing their homes who were responsible and worked very hard have lost what they worked for. It's not about giving handouts or guiding/helping those who made poor decisions but about fixing a system that isn't syncing up with the basic concept of the "American dream"

[Dr Mario Kart]

Bad mortgages isnt even the problem. The problem are all the investment vehicles, like credit default swaps and other derivative products, that were based on them.

This should not have been allowed to happen, and were not until the late 90's due to various deregulations, all of which are chiefly Phil Gramm's doing. We're only treating the symptoms here, as these products still exist.

[rickonker]

Bad mortgages isnt even the problem. The problem are all the investment vehicles, like credit default swaps and other derivative products, that were based on them.

This should not have been allowed to happen, and were not until the late 90's due to various deregulations, all of which are chiefly Phil Gramm's doing. We're only treating the symptoms here, as these products still exist.

Actually banning those derivatives would just be treating the symptoms.

[Dr Mario Kart]

There wouldnt be a problem if a bunch of bad mortgages were made and a bunch of people lost their homes. It would still suck for a lot of folks, but it wouldnt cause a global financial crisis.

We're in a lot of trouble if we cant even agree on what the problem actually is.

The potential for problems is actually WORSE now, because of the post-crisis mergers. The only reason people wanted to bail them out in the first place is because they were "too big to fail", which shouldntve been allowed to happen in the first place. Now they are even bigger! Fantastic.

And now some republicans are calling for some sort of nationalization to be on the table. Its fucking bizarro world

[rickonker]

There wouldnt be a problem if a bunch of bad mortgages were made and a bunch of people lost their homes. It would still suck for a lot of folks, but it wouldnt cause a global financial crisis.

No, the crisis was coming anyway.

We're in a lot of trouble if we cant even agree on what the problem actually is.

The potential for problems is actually WORSE now, because of the post-crisis mergers. The only reason people wanted to bail them out in the first place is because they were "too big to fail", which shouldntve been allowed to happen in the first place. Now they are even bigger! Fantastic.

And now some republicans are calling for some sort of nationalization to be on the table. Its fucking bizarro world

When they say "too big to fail", why take their word for it?

[Dr Mario Kart]

I wouldve totally let them fail. And they're going to fail anyway, so we will get to see what kind of damage it will do, except worse now that we've thrown so much good money after bad.

Too big to fail is somewhat theoretical. The bigger a corporations gets, the more damage its likely to do when it fails (Enron, also due to Gramm deregulation and loopholes). So its not that they are literally too big to fail, but that we want to minimize the harm that such an entity will do when it fails, by preventing them from getting that large in the first place.

[rickonker]

I wouldve totally let them fail. And they're going to fail anyway, so we will get to see what kind of damage it will do, except worse now that we've thrown so much good money after bad.

Too big to fail is somewhat theoretical. The bigger a corporations gets, the more damage its likely to do when it fails (Enron, also due to Gramm deregulation and loopholes). So its not that they are literally too big to fail, but that we want to minimize the harm that such an entity will do when it fails, by preventing them from getting that large in the first place.
What if one of the ways to prevent them from getting too large is to let the ones that get large fail?

I'm not just being obtuse here. Keep in mind that we actually encourage increases in size, both before and after the fact. Why not stop doing that, instead of playing whack-a-mole with the symptoms?

[Dr Mario Kart]

Letting the large ones fail in this case, has only produced larger ones. I dont see how letting them fail necessarily prevents new ones from getting that large in the future.

I certainly would be for a new culture that involves emphasizing smaller over larger, and limited larger by enforcing anti-trust again, and secondarily, absurdly high top tax rates.

[rickonker]

Letting the large ones fail in this case, has only produced larger ones. What do you mean? The bank mergers? I dont see how letting them fail necessarily prevents new ones from getting that large in the future
That doesn't do it by itself, but do you agree that it's a disincentive to becoming large and taking extreme risks?

[mykevermin]

How is evicting someone who couldn't pay their bill unfair? The example of someone who was current on their rent getting evicted seems to be an exception.

You're quite young, yes? Just asking because youth befits your naivete. In the case of renters, they don't have a mortgage to pay on. THEY'RE BEING EVICTED BECAUSE THEIR LANDLORDS AREN'T PAYING THEIR MORTGAGE, NOT THE RENTERS. Christ. This is about the mortgage crisis, not the great "lease crisis of 2009."

So, basically a plan that sucks money away from the people who work hard to pay their payments as opposed to deadbeats? What GOOD can come of that? Surely they'll just take such financial help and be smarter with their money now.

The "work hard and pay" or "don't work because you're lazy" dichotomy is a false one anytime it's stated, let alone when unemployment is soaring and job restrictions exist the way they do. We don't like in a "get a job, lazy" atmosphere: even those McJobs are in high demand right now, because some folks will do anything to earn money.

[Kayden]

I wonder if they still have to pay rent. :-s
You're quite young, yes? Just asking because youth befits your naivete. In the case of renters, they don't have a mortgage to pay on. THEY'RE BEING EVICTED BECAUSE THEIR LANDLORDS AREN'T PAYING THEIR MORTGAGE, NOT THE RENTERS. Christ. This is about the mortgage crisis, not the great "lease crisis of 2009."

[KingBroly]

Depends if the house was foreclosed on or not. If it wasn't foreclosed on, so they'd still have to pay rent would be my guess.

[speedracer]

I wonder if they still have to pay rent. :-s
If your landlord defaults and the house forecloses, you as a renter are (almost always) evicted. Any money you've paid to the landlord would be a contract dispute between you and the former landlord. The bank (or whoever the new holding entity is) has no relationship (or contract) with you the renter and owes you nothing.

And since they're defaulting and losing their property, good luck recovering any rent. It is entirely possible that you pay your rent on the 1st, the check is cashed on the 2nd, and you are evicted on the 3rd.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/05/28/renters.booted/index.html

Bad mortgages isnt even the problem. The problem are all the investment vehicles, like credit default swaps and other derivative products, that were based on them.
I think bad faith lending is the root of the evil here. A significant portion of those unable to make their payments are hitting the wall exactly as the bank/lender/etc. expected them to. There's a implicit trust in lending where a borrower doesn't expect the lender to be actively engaged in undermining their ability to repay. In this case, property values were rising so quickly that the banks saw huge incentives to screw borrowers. Get the borrower to take the loan, ratchet up the ARM, and when they default, reclaim the property and do it all over again to a new borrower. The individual at the bank gets a bonus based on commission each time this happens and the mortgage institution gets essentially free money in the form of payments on the house as well as the capitalization of increased value on the property (whose values only went up) when they get it back. Everything about it was predatory.

It's the fucking definition of an "agency" problem (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencyproblem.asp) and an excellent illustrator of the inability of capital to self-regulate and recognize systemic risk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk). It's the part of capitalism that the hardcore supporters can't even pretend to address because you can't do what banks do (which is the essence of capitalism) without incurring negative externalities and if they had to be honest about systemic risk assessments and agency conflicts, they'd be the fuck out of business.

[RAMSTORIA]

You're quite young, yes? Just asking because youth befits your naivete. In the case of renters, they don't have a mortgage to pay on. THEY'RE BEING EVICTED BECAUSE THEIR LANDLORDS AREN'T PAYING THEIR MORTGAGE, NOT THE RENTERS. Christ. This is about the mortgage crisis, not the great "lease crisis of 2009."



im in the midst of having to move because my landlord hasnt paid his mortgage and the condo is being foreclosed. we arent getting any money back, we still have to pay our rent, and could have stayed until the bank finalized the foreclosure, but once thats done depending on how the bank wants to go about it they can give us a 3 day notice or a 30 day notice to get out. so we are moving next month, lucky for us our lease was up and we were going month to month.

we can sue the landlord for moving costs, which is about the only way a renter can get any money back because of it, but i dont think were even going to bother with that, it would be a lot of effort to take him to court for a couple hundred dollars.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

im in the midst of having to move because my landlord hasnt paid his mortgage and the condo is being foreclosed. we arent getting any money back, we still have to pay our rent, and could have stayed until the bank finalized the foreclosure, but once thats done depending on how the bank wants to go about it they can give us a 3 day notice or a 30 day notice to get out. so we are moving next month, lucky for us our lease was up and we were going month to month.

we can sue the landlord for moving costs, which is about the only way a renter can get any money back because of it, but i dont think were even going to bother with that, it would be a lot of effort to take him to court for a couple hundred dollars.

If you're month to month, how can you sue the landlord for forcing you to move? If it is in the lease, I understand. However, with month to month, terms can change each month.

[MSI Magus]

If you're month to month, how can you sue the landlord for forcing you to move? If it is in the lease, I understand. However, with month to month, terms can change each month.

RAM is a dick. Would you be surprised if he was trying to fuck someone over for something that wasn't even their fault or logical?

[RAMSTORIA]

If you're month to month, how can you sue the landlord for forcing you to move? If it is in the lease, I understand. However, with month to month, terms can change each month.

actually you may be right. our lease actually ended this month, so were only doing 1 month of month to month. we got the notice several months ago and werent sure what was going to happen, but weve been in contact with the proptery management and bank, so we figured out we werent going to have to move anytime soon.

https://www.cccssf.org/education/publications/rentersrights.html

in any case, we arent going to sue him. the hassle wouldnt be worth the small amount of moving costs. plus, (we learned through the property management) hes moved out of state. so yeah.


RAM is a dick. Would you be surprised if he was trying to fuck someone over for something that wasn't even their fault or logical?

well arent you just a ray of sunshine.

[MSI Magus]

actually you may be right. our lease actually ended this month, so were only doing 1 month of month to month. we got the notice several months ago and werent sure what was going to happen, but weve been in contact with the proptery management and bank, so we figured out we werent going to have to move anytime soon.

https://www.cccssf.org/education/publications/rentersrights.html

in any case, we arent going to sue him. the hassle wouldnt be worth the small amount of moving costs. plus, (we learned through the property management) hes moved out of state. so yeah.




well arent you just a ray of sunshine.

I like to think so.

[Kayden]

Someone must have made fun of his tattoo again. He always gets salty after that.


well arent you just a ray of sunshine.

[MSI Magus]

Someone must have made fun of his tattoo again. He always gets salty after that.

Since when? I knew from day 1 getting my tat that I would be given a hard time for it, especially on the internet which draws assholes like Bush draws boooooourns.

[RAMSTORIA]

Someone must have made fun of his tattoo again. He always gets salty after that.

hmm, well it wasnt me. best i can tell he just felt like calling me a dick because hes on the left and im not.

[lilboo]

So when can I expect my additional $11 in my paycheck? :lol:

[KingBroly]

Probably around the time the Bush tax cuts expire. So...you might get a buck or two.

[lilboo]

YAY! :whee:

[rickonker]

If your landlord defaults and the house forecloses, you as a renter are (almost always) evicted. Any money you've paid to the landlord would be a contract dispute between you and the former landlord. The bank (or whoever the new holding entity is) has no relationship (or contract) with you the renter and owes you nothing.

And since they're defaulting and losing their property, good luck recovering any rent. It is entirely possible that you pay your rent on the 1st, the check is cashed on the 2nd, and you are evicted on the 3rd.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/05/28/renters.booted/index.html


I think bad faith lending is the root of the evil here. A significant portion of those unable to make their payments are hitting the wall exactly as the bank/lender/etc. expected them to. There's a implicit trust in lending where a borrower doesn't expect the lender to be actively engaged in undermining their ability to repay. In this case, property values were rising so quickly that the banks saw huge incentives to screw borrowers. Get the borrower to take the loan, ratchet up the ARM, and when they default, reclaim the property and do it all over again to a new borrower. The individual at the bank gets a bonus based on commission each time this happens and the mortgage institution gets essentially free money in the form of payments on the house as well as the capitalization of increased value on the property (whose values only went up) when they get it back. Everything about it was predatory.

It's the fucking definition of an "agency" problem (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencyproblem.asp) and an excellent illustrator of the inability of capital to self-regulate and recognize systemic risk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk). It's the part of capitalism that the hardcore supporters can't even pretend to address because you can't do what banks do (which is the essence of capitalism) without incurring negative externalities and if they had to be honest about systemic risk assessments and agency conflicts,
What banks do today is the essence of capitalism? "Self-regulation" was prevented by propping up and supporting these stupid bankers.
they'd be the fuck out of business.
Yeah but they're not, are they?

[Strell]

Someone must have made fun of his tattoo again. He always gets salty after that.

There's no way it could be worse than the Spiderman tattoo.

[speedracer]

What banks do today is the essence of capitalism? "Self-regulation" was prevented by propping up and supporting these stupid bankers.
I agree with you about that. The banks lending, spreading capital to where demand is greatest is what I meant by the essence of capitalism.

These stupid bankers got paid long ago. We're the stupid ones.

[elprincipe]

More details on some of the provisions included in the bill that nobody was able to read since it was voted on within a few hours of it being written:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/14/AR2009021401724.html

And of course, there's this gem, which will surely deliver the transparent and accountable government the Democrats have been promising (but not delivering) since 2006:

The bill sets up a new panel, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which has the authority to request "that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation."

I'm sure that will reduce corruption.

[mtxbass1]

More details on some of the provisions included in the bill that nobody was able to read since it was voted on within a few hours of it being written:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/14/AR2009021401724.html


The largest single item to be added to the package in the final negotiations was an $8 billion investment fund for building high-speed rail. This cheered rail advocates, who had been perplexed about why the package had included relatively little for rail and mass transit, despite Obama's and other Democratic leaders' stated support for investing more in those forms of transportation as a way to reduce the country's dependence on fossil fuels.

A high speed rail between LA and Las Vegas. Championed by Harry Reid of course...Senate Majority Leader from Nevada.

Nothing to see here folks, move along. We've got this under control... :roll:

[Kayden]

Must... gamble.... faster!

[KingBroly]

Must... gamble.... faster!

Keep gaming

[Kayden]

http://www.inkcinct.com.au/Web/CARTOONS/2008/2008-583-V--buddy-can-you-spare-a-dime.gif

[dmaul1114]

www.recovery.gov

Official site set up to list how the money is spent etc.

[RAMSTORIA]

www.recovery.gov

Official site set up to list how the money is spent etc.

still dont like the bailout, but big kudos for setting up this website. a lot of the info on the site, having quickly browsed it, seems very general and vague, but its still better than nothing.


heres an article about obama signing the bill.

DENVER: President Barack Obama signed into law a $787 billion economic stimulus plan Tuesday, predicting the package of spending and tax cuts marked "the beginning of the end" of America's worst economic slide since the 1930s-era Great Depression.

Speaking in Denver, the city where he won the Democratic presidential nomination last August, Obama said the stimulus package — one of the most costly pieces of legislation in U.S. history — cleared the way for Americans to begin "laying claim to a destiny of our own making."

By signing the bill outside of Washington, a highly unusual move, Obama signalled he would continue taking his message directly to the American people as he tries to stay above the partisan tensions still gripping the Capitol. Opposition Republicans in both houses of Congress were nearly unanimous in voting against the plan that Democrats hope will save or create 3.5 million jobs.

Shortly after signing the bill, Obama issued a long-expected order to boost U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, where a resurgent Taliban has retaken much of the ground it lost early in the seven-year-old war. The additional brigades would add about 17,000 troops to the slightly more than 30,000 U.S. forces currently in Afghanistan.

"This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," Obama said in a statement.

That was a slap at his predecessor, George W. Bush, whom Obama has accused of slighting urgent national security needs in Afghanistan in favor of the war in Iraq.

Obama's stimulus passage, despite stark opposition, was a major legislative victory for the new president, who was closing out his first month in office under a storm of economic bad news and public pessimism.

Even with the promise of a huge infusion for the economy, the stock market tumbled about 4 more percentage points Tuesday as investors continued selling off equities in a retreat to safer ground.

At least one state, Missouri, quickly began putting the promised funds to work. Construction crews began work on a replacement for a rural Missouri bridge minutes after the bill was signed. Officials said they believed it would be the first project supported by stimulus funds.

With the stimulus measure in place, Obama now must take vigorous steps to prop up the deeply troubled financial system, ease the pain of Americans facing home mortgage foreclosures and save the teetering auto industry.

Automakers General Motors Corp. and Chrysler, now kept afloat on a combined $13.4 billion in federal emergency loans, said Tuesday they'll need billions more in government loans than they predicted just two months ago. The two automakers also plan further job cuts and additional curtailment of auto production.

General Motors on Tuesday said it could need up to $30 billion from the Treasury Department to keep operating. Included in that amount is $13.4 billion the company has already received. Previously, GM had said it could need as much as $18 billion.

Chrysler said it needs $9 billion of total government financing, compared to its original request of $7 billion. It has already received $4 billion in government loans.

Both requests, submitted to Treasury on Tuesday, were part of restructuring plans the two automakers owed the government in exchange for earlier loans.

GM also said it would cut 47,000 jobs worldwide and shutter five more U.S. factories in its massive restructuring plan. Chrysler plans to cut 3,000 jobs and eliminate three vehicle models.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters traveling to Denver with the president on board Air Force One that he would not rule out bankruptcy for Detroit automakers, even as the administration looked forward to reviewing the companies' restructuring plans.

Gibbs said it was important for the economy to have a strong and viable auto industry, adding it was up to automakers to make choices about what is most helpful to their recovery.

Gibbs also said the administration was keeping an open mind about a second stimulus effort. He stressed, however, that there were no plans currently in the works for one.

In remarks before signing the bill, Obama cautioned Americans not to expect a quick or dramatic economic turnaround and said government intervention was not at an end.

"I don't want to pretend that today marks the end of our economic troubles," Obama said before signing the legislation. "Nor does it constitute all of what we going to have to do to turn our economy around. But today does mark the beginning of the end."

Obama used the signing ceremony at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science to underscore investments the spending plan will make in "green" energy-related jobs. Colorado is one of the leading U.S. states in the shift to renewable energy sources.

The White House announced a Web site, http://www.recovery.gov, that will allow tracking of where the stimulus money is spent. The White House press office also announced job growth projections for each state and congressional district.

On Wednesday, Obama will be in Arizona to unveil plans to help millions of homeowners avoid looming home mortgage foreclosures.

That will be a next and likely very costly move, designed to further bolster the stimulus program to pump federal money into infrastructure projects, health care, renewable energy development and conservation.

The stimulus plan will have to break through a stone wall of economic troubles. The unemployment rate is now at 7.6 percent, the highest in more than 16 years. Analysts warn the economy will remain feeble through the remainder of the year.



http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=20264246

[elprincipe]

Too bad Obama has already broken his campaign promise to put up bills on the White House website for five days before signing. He already signed the Lily Ledbetter bill, the SCHIP bill and the stimulus bill without doing what he promised.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18441.html

[KingBroly]

And you are shocked by this how exactly?

[Kayden]

I've never had a black man lie to me. I just don't know if I can cope.
And you are shocked by this how exactly?

[Vega$]

Wait, are we getting a Stimulus check this year?
I haven't heard of anything. I already filed my taxes, but nobody told me anything about it.

[RAMSTORIA]

I've never had a black man lie to me. I just don't know if I can cope.

#-o

cmon now, you just as easily could have said person or politician or liberal or any number of others things.

[Kayden]

I know, It's always been the white man lying to me. This is strange and unfamiliar territory.#-o

cmon now, you just as easily could have said person or politician or liberal or any number of others things.

[Vega$]

anyone know the answer to my question?

[dmaul1114]

still dont like the bailout, but big kudos for setting up this website. a lot of the info on the site, having quickly browsed it, seems very general and vague, but its still better than nothing.


Yeah, hopefully there will be more specifics once money starts being given out to states etc. and spent.

The site implies there will be, hopefully it lives up to it.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

anyone know the answer to my question?

Are you a banker?

If no, then probably not.

There isn't a check because your taxes are lower starting this year instead of retroactive like they did in 2001.

[KingBroly]

I've never had a black man lie to me. I just don't know if I can cope.

Where'd that come from? I wasn't referencing race at all.

[Kayden]

Weren't you talking about Obama not keeping his word?

I know you may not have noticed, but Obama is black.

Where'd that come from? I wasn't referencing race at all.

[perdition(troy]

Wait, are we getting a Stimulus check this year?
I haven't heard of anything. I already filed my taxes, but nobody told me anything about it.

no, not unless you are on welfare. if not, look forward to getting almost $8 whole dollars more a week!!!!1111111!!

I can't wait to get my eight bucks more a week. It'll fill a quarter of my gas tank. My economic problems are solved.

[redline]

How much money will be spent overseeing how this money is spent? And how can I get a job doing some oversight??!!

[lilboo]

:rofl: I can't believe we are getting like ~$10 a week extra. What is that going to do?? Absolutely nothing!
~$50 extra a week, well, that might give people some extra spending money..but, having extra spending money isn't the sole issue here.

[thrustbucket]

Sorry for those sensitive to this source, but I have to do it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDEe0Ai6lTM

And before the usual rabid anti-fox/beck peanut gallery gets warmed up about embellishment, etc etc:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/AMBNS_Max_630_378.png

I don't always agree with Beck; but I do agree that most people still haven't quite comprehended what our government has just done.

[Capitalizt]

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/AMBNS_Max_630_378.png

I don't always agree with Beck; but I do agree that most people still haven't quite comprehended what our government has just done.

They DOUBLED the amount of dollars in circulation in just a few months...staggering.

That means the value of every dollar in your pocket has been cut in half. You just haven't felt it yet due to the financial bubble bursting. We have temporary price deflation as the economy corrects, but once things stabilize, all that new money sloshing around is going to be put to work and we will have massive inflation in the coming years. People/banks/companies will be buying everything under the sun with these new dollars which will cause prices to soar. The law of supply and demand can't be conned forever.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

They DOUBLED the amount of dollars in circulation in just a few months...staggering.

That means the value of every dollar in your pocket has been cut in half. You just haven't felt it yet due to the financial bubble bursting. We have temporary price deflation as the economy corrects, but once things stabilize, all that new money sloshing around is going to be put to work and we will have massive inflation in the coming years. People/banks/companies will be buying everything under the sun with these new dollars which will cause prices to soar. The law of supply and demand can't be conned forever.

(Assuming hyperinflation occurs.) If you buy a house now, it will be worth double in just a few years due to inflation.

Think about the cleanup rental managers will make.

[Kayden]

At least the rich will get it all first while it's still worth something. :roll:

It'll be nice once inflation kicks in and we're all effectively making half as much money.

They DOUBLED the amount of dollars in circulation in just a few months...staggering.

That means the value of every dollar in your pocket has been cut in half. You just haven't felt it yet due to the financial bubble bursting. We have temporary price deflation as the economy corrects, but once things stabilize, all that new money sloshing around is going to be put to work and we will have massive inflation in the coming years. People/banks/companies will be buying everything under the sun with these new dollars which will cause prices to soar. The law of supply and demand can't be conned forever.

[MSI Magus]

At least the rich will get it all first while it's still worth something. :roll:

It'll be nice once inflation kicks in and we're all effectively making half as much money.

Meh I am not really that worried about this. Even if it happens its just happening a few years early. The rise of the rest of the world was sure to pull down the American standard of living a little in coming years anyways. Is it really that bad that people are going to have to learn to save money and not buy a second car or upgrade their HDTV to a flat screen HDTV?

Dont get me wrong ya it would be nice to make 2x or 3x as much money. But I am perfectly content if our standard of living goes down because frankly it needed to. People need to learn its ok to live in an apartment for awhile before buying a house, hold off a few years out of high school to have kids and drive a $12-$15k car vs a $30-50k car.

[BillyBob29]

Meh I am not really that worried about this. Even if it happens its just happening a few years early. The rise of the rest of the world was sure to pull down the American standard of living a little in coming years anyways. Is it really that bad that people are going to have to learn to save money and not buy a second car or upgrade their HDTV to a flat screen HDTV?

Dont get me wrong ya it would be nice to make 2x or 3x as much money. But I am perfectly content if our standard of living goes down because frankly it needed to. People need to learn its ok to live in an apartment for awhile before buying a house, hold off a few years out of high school to have kids and drive a $12-$15k car vs a $30-50k car.

Depends on your perspective. When you have a society that has been used to excessive standard of living for decades and then force them to drastically alter that standard of living.....yes it can be very bad.

When your economy is built on excessive consumer spending, on buying pointless crap, and you put an end to that......yes it can be very bad.

We aren't talking a simple short term shock to the system, we are talking about a complete re-boot.

[perdition(troy]

which is exactly what comrade obama wants.

[speedracer]

which is exactly what comrade obama wants.
I see what you did there.