Discussions on the new bailout bill

[Cold_Zero]

Oooohhh look! The Rangers are playing the Devils on VS (HD). Orr just clocked Rupp in a fight.

[audtatious]

Here's your stimulus



Get bailing

[CakeDaddy]

Dear President Obama.Thank you for f**king up my Monday night TV. I don't watch much TV, but when I do, my show is on Monday. I don't f**king need to hear about the economic problems in Elkhart Indiana. Because this is NOTHING new! The RV industry in Northern Indiana has been in trouble for some time now. Shut the f**k up and get off the TV. I will not support the bills going through Congress right now and nothing you say will make me change my mind.

Nice post I doubt if President Obama reads Nico or drive a Nissan for that matter, but nice try . CZ, please deviate from your ignorant responses before this thread goes down the drain just as the Rush/Obama thread. Now, back to more important things…(Presidential News Conference)

[Cold_Zero]

Cake...I thought that chasing Obama down in Northern Indiana would not elicit a good response from the Secret Service... Point taken, calmed down now and back on topic.

[Cold_Zero]

The MoveOn type groups have been hitting the TV advertising pretty hard encouraging Hoosiers to call their Republican Senator (d!ck Lugar) to support this Stimulus Bill.

I guess they are technically these groups are stimulating the economy by buying up air time. I guess at the expense of trying to turn us all into lemmings.

[480sx]

Dear President Obama.Thank you for f**king up my Monday night TV.

He fvked my DVR of Heros up, it cut off the end of the show by getting into the start of heros screwing up the timing of the show. The ONE show i watch on TV and you RUINED IT BO!

[smockers83]

I've been seeing and hearing about people complaining about Obama's press conference and how it screwed up their shows. Is this the sad state of our country where we care more about entertainment than what our leader has to say about one of the most important bills of his presidency during pressing times that will have worldwide implications?

Sad.

[Cold_Zero]

Nah, but it really does beg the question, if you are going to win people to your point, why screw up a perfectly good night of TV? I mean, what is on from 6-8pm that is really worth watching? Obama could have scheduled two hours and steered clear of any good TV watching....

And what prolific thing did he have to say? I mean its not the State of the Union Address, its not Bush's Press Conference after we got attacked on 9-11. Or was he just using it as a bully pulpit to get his way with the Stimulus Package making its rounds through the Senate?

Again, I dont watch much TV, but when I do, its Monday night.Not ashamed, Bud

[Cold_Zero]

But seriously Smockers, most of us here are political junkies that get more than 2-3 hours of talk shows, cable news casts and articles a day on the subject matter. I suspect that Obama's target was not you, I or 480 (basically anyone here), no he was targeting the Access Hollywood and Entertainment Tonight crowd. Which if that is really his target audience, 7-8pm would have been a better time slot.

But I resent the implication that just because I was more worried about my TV program last night, that I am some how less informed or that I don't care. To be honest, after listening to the amount of Talk Radio and Sirius Radio that I do in a day, I need to unplug after we eat, clean up and put our child down to sleep.bud

[Cold_Zero]

Apparently it passed in the Senate 61-37 with only three Republican Senators voting for the bill.They are:Olympia Snowe Maine Susan Collins Maine Arlen Specter Pennsylvania

No Republican voted in the House for their measure.

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...00061

[480sx]

But I resent the implication that just because I was more worried about my TV program last night, that I am some how less informed or that I don't care.

+1

I for one was pretty much just joking anyway, that tone should be clear from that post.

Or maybe that wasnt really directed at us.. I think we might be taking it the wrong way.

[audtatious]

Hmmm

Some Republicans and even Democrats pressed to have E-Verify as part of the stimulus package within the House version of the bill. The Senate Democrats have quietly removed it. E-Verify is a computer program that would be used by companies who get a part of the stimulus package to quickly validate applicants to ensure they are hiring US citizens or documented foreign workers instead of illegal immigrants.

Wasn't it a week or so ago that some Dem headed groups were trying to increase the number of Visa application by 85,000 for Indian workers to come over and do IT work?

[liquid_cool]

+1 for Hash.

The term bailout, I feel, is used slightly inappropriately when talking about the TARP funds. Yes, we are putting up large amounts of capital into the financial system. However, if we didn't do so, the entire US financial system would collapse, which would then spill into foreign markets causing other systems to collapse. The TARP funds are not necessarily bailing out these institutions, they are providing liquidity to the financial system so that it doesn't completely crash. The whole thing is try and get the credit markets liquid again and to turn up the velocity of money.

this is on the nailhead....but ask yourself how we got to this point!...its called "The Urban Re- Develoupment Act" where banks were forced by the US goverment to loan to prospected buyers reguardless of income!...basicly a kid fresh out of highschool could buy a 300k home..no questions asked..to offset this dumbass law..banks would take the junk loans..package em up and sell em off as secruritys....who bought em?..FannyMae and Freddy Mac..GOVERNMENT subsidized industrys..they are government run...so inpart its not the banking industry that started this nightmare..its the government sticking its hand in the industry for the sake of cheep housing..the writers os said law should be hung for treason.."Barny Frank,Criss Dodd ,Nancy Pelosie , and Bill Clinton sighn'd it into law...so there ya have it!..the criminals named..but why did said act happen?..becouse fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are back door democrat political campain funders..millions in donations to the dems throu a back door all leagal like..even thou they are government agencys..just follow the money.

[audtatious]

You know, I'm still having problems with the whole "most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression" and "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" viewpoints of the current Administration. During the recession of the early 80's unemployment reached 10.8 percent in 1982 versus 7.6 today, there was an annual inflation rate of 13.5 percent versus the 0.1 percent when Obama took office and the prime interest rates reached 21.5 percent in comparison to the 3.25 percent rates we had at the end of 2008. So, how is the current viewpoint even correct?

[Cold_Zero]

It is called revisionist history in order to get the Spendulus Package through Congress. It's nice to see the current Administration take a tactical cue from the prior Administration.

[audtatious]

The media is helping ensure that the masses only hear doom and gloom. I thought we were to have Hope and Change with this President? I see SOSDD where the solution to the problem created by too much spending is to spend more.

An analogy on this forum would be: I boosted my motor to 20psi and blew it so I'm getting another motor with the same stuff and boosting it to 30psi as a solution.

[Cold_Zero]

Good analogy, we just didnt try hard enough the first time, so we need to harder!

Wasn't that the claim lodged against the Bush Administration with their policy in Iraq before the 'change in course?' The charge was the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

[audtatious]

With Obama we simply Hope for a different result.

If you hit yourself in the head with a baseball bat long enough there is always the chance you will be knocked out and not feel the final swing, right? Not feeling that final swing is CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

[OriginalWheelman]

Apparently it passed in the Senate 61-37 with only three Republican Senators voting for the bill.They are:Olympia Snowe Maine Susan Collins Maine Arlen Specter Pennsylvania

No Republican voted in the House for their measure.

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...00061

So now the Repubs can slam the Dems if this doesn't work out as planned the same way the Dems spout "Most of us voted against the use of force." Somehow I doubt that will be an acceptable answer this time around.

Hmmm

Some Republicans and even Democrats pressed to have E-Verify as part of the stimulus package within the House version of the bill. The Senate Democrats have quietly removed it. E-Verify is a computer program that would be used by companies who get a part of the stimulus package to quickly validate applicants to ensure they are hiring US citizens or documented foreign workers instead of illegal immigrants.

Wasn't it a week or so ago that some Dem headed groups were trying to increase the number of Visa application by 85,000 for Indian workers to come over and do IT work?

Great. We can't keep US citizens employed, and they take out a clause that could help them find jobs. I bet there are a lot of Americans who would take those jobs that "Americans don't want" right now.

The media is helping ensure that the masses only hear doom and gloom. I thought we were to have Hope and Change with this President? I see SOSDD where the solution to the problem created by too much spending is to spend more.

An analogy on this forum would be: I boosted my motor to 20psi and blew it so I'm getting another motor with the same stuff and boosting it to 30psi as a solution.

Exactly. Bush's stimulus cut seems a lot more to the people than Obama's. Maybe they forgot who's side they are on? The Repubs hand money to the people, while the Dems are handing it to big business and the gov? Isn't it supposedly the other way around? I thought the big bad repubs didn't care about the people, only the major corporations? The same corps they told to go F themselves when they wanted a bailout. I think the stereotypes are a bit dated.

Good analogy, we just didnt try hard enough the first time, so we need to harder!

Wasn't that the claim lodged against the Bush Administration with their policy in Iraq before the 'change in course?' The charge was the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

Yup, yet after 2 failed stimuli we try a for a bigger, badder third! Lets spend our way out of bankruptcy, brilliant!

With Obama we simply Hope for a different result.

NOW I GET IT! We HOPE Obama can CHANGE the HEARTBEAT of America. Brilliant. Like my dear departed grandmother used to say, "Hope in one hand **** in the other and see which fills up first."

[audtatious]

What's interesting is that retail sales are +1%, unemployment numbers are down and home foreclosures are down. Could it be that the market is trying to fix itself?

[audtatious]

Also of note, per the current stimulus package, poor people will be able to keep appx $13 additional each week. This equates to $676 a year and will need to be paid back over a 15-year time frame.

Does anyone else remember Michelle Obama's comments concerning the Bush stimulus? Something to the effect of "what can you do with $600?" and going on how people need money on a monthly basis....Well, I guess the Dems and her hubby think $13/wk is juuuuust right.

[aleks77]

sad really

[Cold_Zero]

Also of note, per the current stimulus package, poor people will be able to keep appx $13 additional each week. This equates to $676 a year and will need to be paid back over a 15-year time frame.

Does anyone else remember Michelle Obama's comments concerning the Bush stimulus? Something to the effect of "what can you do with $600?" and going on how people need money on a monthly basis....Well, I guess the Dems and her hubby think $13/wk is juuuuust right.

Apparently the whopping 13$ stimulus will be cut down to $8 next year. Yahoo!

[HashiriyaS14]

I read this fantastic post about the current economic situation and the stimulus on FiveThirtyEight.com this morning (written by Nate Silver).

Thought some people might like it. I think he is a good rational voice.

1. Nobody, absolutely nobody, has more incentive to get this right than the Obama Administration. If the economy collapses -- well, more than it already has collapsed -- then the Democrats get slaughtered in 2010, Obama is a one-termer, health care doesn't happen, the poverty rate increases by a couple orders of magnitude, and the imperative to fix the environment gets put on the backburner. To suggest that Obama or Geithner are tools of Wall Street and are looking out for something other than the country's best interest is freaking asinine. Maybe their ideas are wrong -- but their hearts are in the right place.

2. If the banks fail, then rich people lose a lot of money, and poor people lose a lot of jobs (and also much of what money they have). But I swear to God, there's a lunatic fringe out there that would take this trade and call it "progress".

2a. At the end of the day, a great deal of the debate between liberals and conservatives is about how to apportion wealth. It seems so banal to talk about it that way, and so we put all sorts of window dressing on it, but that's really what it's all about. But on this issue of the banking crisis -- and to a lesser extent this was true of the stimulus -- there is a much larger delta on the aggregate amount of wealth that the United States stands to gain (or lose) than on how that wealth is distributed. Over the next 6-18 months, the outcomes for everyone from the top of the economic ladder to the bottom rung are very strongly correlated.

3. I'm sorry, but somewhere between 99.9% and 99.999999% of us are severely underqualified to be making policy recommendations on this particular issue. And I'm certainly in the majority on this one. My anecdotal experience for the past several months has been that the more someone knows about the economy, the more they know (or at least are willing to admit to) what they don't know. Anyone who is professing with certainty that this or that will work -- nationalizing the banks, for instance -- is an idiot.

4. So if I'm telling you to lay off the ideological smelling salts (not that you will) and that your ideas on policy are probably not contributing very much to the discussion (don't worry -- neither are mine) then what, exactly, do I want you to do?

What I'm asking you to do is to clear the playing field. This is neither the time nor the place for mass movements -- this is the time for expert opinion. Once the experts (and I'm not one of them) have reached some kind of a consensus about what the best course of action is (and they haven't yet), then figure out who is impeding that action for political or other disingenuous reasons and tackle them -- do whatever you can to remove them from the playing field. But we're not at that stage yet.

[OriginalWheelman]

You know, my father in law is a stock broker and he is the only one I know who is not concerned about the economy. And he's been doing for it for few decades now. He's no noob.

[Cold_Zero]

Nice find Hash.

1. Nobody, absolutely nobody, has more incentive to get this right than the Obama Administration. If the economy collapses -- well, more than it already has collapsed -- then the Democrats get slaughtered in 2010, Obama is a one-termer, health care doesn't happen, the poverty rate increases by a couple orders of magnitude, and the imperative to fix the environment gets put on the backburner. To suggest that Obama or Geithner are tools of Wall Street and are looking out for something other than the country's best interest is freaking asinine. Maybe their ideas are wrong -- but their hearts are in the right place.

Can’t say that I disagree with the first part of this analysis, but I think Obama not only knows that his reputation and legacy is on the line but also he re-election bid. We all need to look back at Jimmy Carter’s Administration for a modern day example of this. But who launched the complaint that Obama and/or Geithner was tools of Wall Street? I would think that the charge would be more credible with Paulson, who actually worked for Goldman Sachs back in the day.But really, having their hearts in the right place doesn’t necessarily fix our economic problems and it sure doesnt quell investor fear. Sorry I don’t by that sentimental defense.

Quote »2. If the banks fail, then rich people lose a lot of money, and poor people lose a lot of jobs (and also much of what money they have). But I swear to God, there's a lunatic fringe out there that would take this trade and call it "progress".[/quote]As those Guinness guys say, “Brilliant!” Progressives would call that, leveling the playing field and I am not convinced that dragging someone down really brings me up to their level. Lunatic is a good word for it, because I suspect progressives that condone this line of thinking really do so out of hatred for what others have or have become.

Quote »2a. At the end of the day, a great deal of the debate between liberals and conservatives is about how to apportion wealth. It seems so banal to talk about it that way, and so we put all sorts of window dressing on it, but that's really what it's all about. But on this issue of the banking crisis -- and to a lesser extent this was true of the stimulus -- there is a much larger delta on the aggregate amount of wealth that the United States stands to gain (or lose) than on how that wealth is distributed. Over the next 6-18 months, the outcomes for everyone from the top of the economic ladder to the bottom rung are very strongly correlated.[/quote]But why are we only concerned about the apportionment of wealth? Why aren’t we having a discussion about where the ‘wealth’ comes from, what the consequences will be for creating such ‘wealth’ and what the liability will be when it has to pay it back. The reality is this, if the tax rates continue as they are, people who are in a higher tax bracket will have to pay more on the debt management and principle than people in lower tax brackets. So I have to scratch my head when Obama talks about the “Tired and played out tax cut for the rich policy.” I was pleasantly surprised that the host of WSJ This Morning went on a 10 minute rant of that Obama sound clip.

Quote »3. I'm sorry, but somewhere between 99.9% and 99.999999% of us are severely underqualified to be making policy recommendations on this particular issue. And I'm certainly in the majority on this one. My anecdotal experience for the past several months has been that the more someone knows about the economy, the more they know (or at least are willing to admit to) what they don't know. Anyone who is professing with certainty that this or that will work -- nationalizing the banks, for instance -- is an idiot. 4. So if I'm telling you to lay off the ideological smelling salts (not that you will) and that your ideas on policy are probably not contributing very much to the discussion (don't worry -- neither are mine) then what, exactly, do I want you to do?[/quote]This is soooo true! And almost 99.9999999% of Politicians are not qualified and ill equipped to set economic policy. Don’t believe me? How many Congress people and Senators read the Patriot Act when it was first passed, before they voted on it? Not many. For all of his faults, this was something that Michael Moore pick up on years ago. So I think its foolish to think that Senators and Congress People actually read this Spendulus Rex Bill.

I am convinced by the actions of the Congress that the majority of them are idealogs (sp?) and idiots. That’s right they are Politicians. So don’t scold me for trying to get into the fray, discuss the issue, try to learn more about the problem and maybe try to suggest some ideas to fix the problem.

[audtatious]

Well, the bill passed the House today it seems and without any GOP support:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...age=1

Seems Obama was in Nashville today giving a speech in which he stated if this stimulus package does not resolve the problem then he has another Plan B stimulus package that is being finalized.

""We cannot afford to sit and twiddle our thumbs as our economy flounders," Obama said in front a large crowd in Nashville, Tennessee. "We can watch, we can hope, but if the Stimulus Bill that I now support in Congress fails to produce results on our nation, we must take action."

The President then revealed an "unexpected" stimulus plan that could cost upwards of 950 billion dollars. This bill aims extensively at curbing health care costs for people who make less than $45,000 a year and aims to help the unemployed pay their mortgage."

http://jumpinginpools.blogspot....html

Obama must be the happiest person (alongside Pelosi and gang). He and the Dems have been given carte blanche to implement everything he wants and utilize the economy as the reason.

[smockers83]

3. I'm sorry, but somewhere between 99.9% and 99.999999% of us are severely underqualified to be making policy recommendations on this particular issue. And I'm certainly in the majority on this one.

The same goes for the politicians as well. They are as well very unqualified to be talking about this kind of stuff like they know what's best. That's not an opinion, that's just fact. A very high majority of the politicians don't understand economics and claim to say their ideas are great economic ideas when in fact they are not. They do it to get votes.

[liquid_cool]

OMG! they passed that SINKING ECONOMIC TITANIC of a debotchery friggin spending bill...im so mad..this bill does nothing for the american people but to add 3trillion in debit to the national debt in 10 years after intrest...these bafoons in congress just sent us all down the economic river!..on a good note thou...at least the republicans grew a friggin spine and said no for a change..insted of crossin the friggin isle to vote with the other bafoons!

[audtatious]

A very high majority of the politicians don't understand economics and claim to say their ideas are great economic ideas when in fact they are not.

And the rest just don't pay taxes to help themselves