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

[quote name='mtxbass1']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.[/quote]

I haven't learned about this, could someone provide a link?
 
[quote name='mtxbass1']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='HovaEscobar']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.[/quote]


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"
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

Actually banning those derivatives would just be treating the symptoms.
 
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
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Letting the large ones fail in this case, has only produced larger ones. [/quote] 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?
 
[quote name='HovaEscobar']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.[/quote]

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.
 
I wonder if they still have to pay rent. :whistle2:s
[quote name='mykevermin']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." [/quote]
 
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.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I wonder if they still have to pay rent. :whistle2:s[/QUOTE]
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

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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 and an excellent illustrator of the inability of capital to self-regulate and recognize 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']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."

[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']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.[/QUOTE]

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.


[quote name='MSI Magus']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?[/QUOTE]

well arent you just a ray of sunshine.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']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.[/QUOTE]

I like to think so.
 
Someone must have made fun of his tattoo again. He always gets salty after that.
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']

well arent you just a ray of sunshine.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']Someone must have made fun of his tattoo again. He always gets salty after that.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Someone must have made fun of his tattoo again. He always gets salty after that.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='speedracer']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 and an excellent illustrator of the inability of capital to self-regulate and recognize 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, [/quote]
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?
 
[quote name='Kayden']Someone must have made fun of his tattoo again. He always gets salty after that.[/QUOTE]

There's no way it could be worse than the Spiderman tattoo.
 
[quote name='rickonker']What banks do today is the essence of capitalism? "Self-regulation" was prevented by propping up and supporting these stupid bankers.[/quote]
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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
[/quote]

[quote name='the article']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. [/quote]

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:
 
2008-583-V--buddy-can-you-spare-a-dime.gif
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']www.recovery.gov

Official site set up to list how the money is spent etc.[/QUOTE]

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've never had a black man lie to me. I just don't know if I can cope.
[quote name='KingBroly']And you are shocked by this how exactly?[/quote]
 
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.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I've never had a black man lie to me. I just don't know if I can cope.[/QUOTE]

#-o

cmon now, you just as easily could have said person or politician or liberal or any number of others things.
 
I know, It's always been the white man lying to me. This is strange and unfamiliar territory.[quote name='RAMSTORIA']#-o

cmon now, you just as easily could have said person or politician or liberal or any number of others things.[/quote]
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Vega$']anyone know the answer to my question?[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I've never had a black man lie to me. I just don't know if I can cope.[/quote]

Where'd that come from? I wasn't referencing race at all.
 
Weren't you talking about Obama not keeping his word?

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

[quote name='KingBroly']Where'd that come from? I wasn't referencing race at all.[/quote]
 
bread's done
Back
Top