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

[quote name='Pookymeister']The negotiators took out the $15,000 tax credit for homebuyers. fuckers[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Kayden']
I think what needs to happen is every elected official needs to have a small explosive device planted in their head upon taking office. Any time his constituents are displeased, they can click a link on a web site. If his approval rating falls below, say, 30%, his fucking head explodes. They'd clean up the big chunks, but leave the stains. That way the next mother fucker to sit in that office KNOWS. DO YOUR fuckING JOB AND NOT LINE YOUR POCKETS. After they get enough taste of their colleagues' gray matter. they'll wise the fuck up.[/QUOTE]

or we could just be more practical and have reasonable term limits for congress, two terms sounds good to me.
 
I fail to see how that would do anything. If anything I see it just making things worse. They'll just try to exploit the position for as much as they can because they don't have to worry about keeping a job they know they wont have.

On top of that, they'll still get life long pay for less work.

My way sends a message; it's fairly fucking obvious these pricks don't understand practical.

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']or we could just be more practical and have reasonable term limits for congress, two terms sounds good to me.[/quote]
 
[quote name='nasum']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.[/quote]

And I know people were waiting on this to go out and start looking for a place. Now it isn't an incentive anymore.
 
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
 
[quote name='nasum']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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[/quote]

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


[quote name='Kayden']Pooky are mod?! unpossible![/quote]

Welcome to last January ;)
 
[quote name='mtxbass1']Where are they getting 1.3 T from? Several sources say this bill is 789.5B.[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Strell']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.[/quote]

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?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']You see that big open space after the first paragraph?[/quote]

: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?
 
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.


[quote name='KingBroly']You see that big open space after the first paragraph?[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']
At this point I seriously have to wonder if we'd be better off just picking random jerkoffs on the street to fill congress.[/QUOTE]

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

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
Other than my hide, what is financing this? Is the Treasury just going to print it or what?
 
I was under the impression they already did...

[quote name='speedracer']Other than my hide, what is financing this? Is the Treasury just going to print it or what?[/quote]
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:

[quote name='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.[/quote]
 
[quote name='speedracer']I'm failing to understand how Geithner thinks his plan is a good one. Is he defending his plan at all? Is Obama?[/quote]

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?
 
[quote name='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?[/quote]

No not passed - just they've 'agreed' on terms that they can try and pass in Congress....or something like that.
 
[quote name='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:[/quote]

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.
 
Right... because making the working class further indebted to the rich is exactly what this fucking country needs. :rage:
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']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.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']

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.[/QUOTE]

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

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.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Duh. What will schools provide for our future? We haven't been in school for years.[/QUOTE]

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

[quote name='dmaul1114']Indeed. You post so much asinine stuff it's impossible to know what's sarcastic and what's serious.[/quote]
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]
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?
Click to expand...
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.

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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

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

whoops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top