The New Bailout

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

Either way the D's win - If it works its their fix, if it doesn't it was Bush's fault in the first place.

Isn't that hilarious?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well you must be a damm expert than!

Why the anger?

I have never said my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's

[TheMercenary]

I will never let that pass, it will now be Obama's fault and Pelosi and Reid. They own everything that happens or fails to happen for the next 4 years.

[TheMercenary]

Democrats muscle huge stimulus through Congress

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a major victory for President Barack Obama, Democrats muscled a huge, $787 billion stimulus bill through Congress late Friday night in hopes of combating the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.

After lobbying energetically for the bill, Obama is expected to sign it within a few days, less than a month after taking office.

Supporters said the legislation would save or create 3.5 million jobs. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., conceded there was no guarantee, but he said that "millions and millions and millions of people will be helped, as they have lost their jobs and can't put food on the table of their families."

Vigorously disagreeing, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio dumped a copy of the 1,071-page bill to the floor in a gesture of contempt. "The bill that was about jobs, jobs, jobs has turned into a bill that's about spending, spending, spending," he said.

The Senate approved the measure 60-38 with three GOP moderates providing crucial support - the only members of their party to back it. Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio cast the decisive vote after flying aboard a government plane from Ohio, where he was mourning his mother's death.

Hours earlier, the House vote was 246-183, with all Republicans opposed to the package of tax cuts and federal spending that Obama has made the centerpiece of his plan for economic recovery.

The legislation, among the costliest ever considered in Congress, provides billions of dollars to aid victims of the recession through unemployment benefits, food stamps, medical care, job retraining and more. Tens of billions are ticketed for the states to offset cuts they might otherwise have to make in aid to schools and local governments, and there is more than $48 billion for transportation projects such as road and bridge construction, mass transit and high-speed rail.

Democrats said the bill's tax cuts would help 95 percent of all Americans, much of the relief in the form of a break of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples. At the insistence of the White House, people who do not earn enough money to owe income taxes are eligible, an attempt to offset the payroll taxes they pay.

In a bow to political reality, lawmakers included $70 billion to shelter upper middle-class and wealthier taxpayers from an income tax increase that would otherwise hit them, a provision that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said would do relatively little to create jobs.

Also included were funds for two of Obama's initiatives, the expansion of computerized information technology in the health care industry and billions to create so-called green jobs the administration says will begin reducing the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Asked for his reaction to House passage of the bill, Obama said "thumbs up" and indeed gave a thumbs-up sign as he left the White House with his family for a long weekend in Chicago.

There was little or no suspense about the outcome, although the final act played out over hours and extended late into the night.

That was to allow time for Brown to fly back. He cast his vote more than five hours after most senators had left the Capitol for a 10-day vacation, one of the longest roll calls in Senate history.

Congress cast its votes as federal regulators announced the closing of the Sherman County Bank in Loup City, Neb.; Riverside Bank of the Gulf Coast in Florida, based in Cape Coral; Corn Belt Bank and Trust Co. of Pittsfield, Ill.; and Pinnacle Bank of Beaverton, Ore. They raised to 13 the number of failures this year of federally insured banking companies and were the latest reminders of the toll taken by recession and frozen credit markets.

The day's events at the Capitol were scripted to allow Democratic leaders to fulfill their pledge to send Obama legislation by mid-February.

"Barack Obama, in just a few short weeks as president, has passed one of the biggest packages for economic recovery in our nation's history," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, anticipating final Senate passage.

The approval also capped an early period of accomplishment for the Democrats, who won control of the White House and expanded their majorities in Congress in last fall's elections.

Since taking office on Jan. 20, the president has signed legislation extending government-financed health care to millions of lower-income children who lack it, a bill that President George W. Bush twice vetoed. He also has placed his signature on a measure making it easier for workers to sue their employers for alleged job discrimination, effectively overturning a ruling by the Supreme Court's conservative majority.

Obama made the stimulus a cornerstone of his economic recovery plan even before he took office, but his calls for bipartisanship were an early casualty.

Republicans complained they had been locked out of the early decisions, and Democrats countered that Boehner had tried to rally opposition even before the president met privately with the GOP rank and file.

In retrospect, said White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, the White House wasn't "sharp enough" in emphasizing the benefits of the bill as Republicans began to criticize spending on items such as family planning services, anti-smoking programs and reseeding the National Mall.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid faced a different task - finding enough GOP moderates to give him the 60 votes needed to surmount a variety of procedural hurdles. To do that, he and the White House agreed to trim billions in spending from the original $820 billion House-passed bill, enough to obtain the backing of GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

As the final compromise took shape in a frenzied round of bargaining earlier this week, it was trimmed again to hold the support of the moderates, whose opposition to a new program for federal school construction caused anger among House Democrats.

In the end, a compromise was reached that allows states to use funds for modernizing schools. But in a display of displeasure, Pelosi decided to skip the news conference last Wednesday where Reid announced a final agreement.

In addition to tax relief for individuals and businesses who purchase new equipment, lawmakers inserted breaks for first-time homebuyers and consumers purchasing new cars in an attempt to aid two industries particularly hard-hit by the recession. In response to pressure from lawmakers from Pennsylvania, Indiana and elsewhere, the bill was altered at the last minute to permit the buyers of recreational vehicles and motorcycles to claim the same break as those buying cars and light trucks.

In the House, all 246 votes in favor were cast by Democrats. Seven Democrats joined 176 Republicans in opposition.

From a week before the Democrats "muscled" it through final passage. We'll just have to wait and see how the numbers play out over time.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

He cast his vote more than five hours after most senators had left the Capitol for a 10-day vacation, one of the longest roll calls in Senate history.

10 day vacation? What have these fuckers done to deserve a 10 day vacation?

[classicman]

redux, Who was polled, what was their political affiliation and how were the questions phrased. What was the number of people sampled? What geographic region? Was it a nationwide poll or local from a specific district or state. There are a million questions about how and who was polled that make the info presented useless without the supporting answers.

[classicman]

With respect to limiting the pay of executives... from CNN

"Basically, this is encouraging the sales force -- the lifeblood of any company -- to look for work elsewhere, to leave [TARP-backed companies] for healthier companies where they can make more money," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Washington-based Financial Services Roundtable, a trade association representing 100 of the largest financial firms in the country.

"If the goal of TARP is to make companies stronger, to get them back on their feet so they can stand on their own, and this drives away key executives, this is a problem," he told CNN in a telephone interview.

Talbott also posed the question of what would happen on the Dodd amendment's sliding scale of restricted compensation at large firms when the top 20 earning employees are restricted and move down in income as a result.

"They are no longer that company's top 20 earners, others in the company now become the top 20. Are those 20 (then) under the compensation restrictions?" he asked.

Jim Reda, a New York-based compensation and corporate governance consultant, said TARP-funded firms could face a dilemma if the Dodd restrictions are imposed: either lose key executives to other companies or pay back the TARP money immediately and possibly jeopardize the company's capital position.

"It's not good for taxpayers to have [TARP] money in organizations where the executives are leaving or the company is weakened," Reda told CNN.

"My suspicion is that there are a lot of loopholes in this, " Reda said. "What it accomplishes is that it really confuses everybody."

Originally Posted by classicman

redux, Who was polled, what was their political affiliation and how were the questions phrased. What was the number of people sampled? What geographic region? Was it a nationwide poll or local from a specific district or state. There are a million questions about how and who was polled that make the info presented useless without the supporting answers.

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,018 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 6-7, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Other results are based on telephone interviews with 1,012 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 4, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. (this sentence is a standard disclaimer generally used by most pollsters in the event that is the poll is used in some fucked up manner beyond its intent)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114202/Ob...lus-Fight.aspx

Gallup, like all reputable national polling organizations, uses widely accepted statistical techniques for the sample to be representative of age, income, region, political affiliation, etc. then the data is "weighted" to even more accurately represent the total population.

That is why Gallup can they say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Standardized protocols are also used to minimize question bias.

Again, a poll is simply a snapshot of public opinion on a particular issue (s) at a particular point in (or over) time. Its not something you should stake your life on but it is also not something to dismiss as useless or not credible if you are at all interested in what the public may be thinking (in very general terms) about a particular person or issue.

added:
I can say that with a high degree of confidence and Merc can say its bullshit until he finds a poll that he likes.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

10 day vacation? What have these fuckers done to deserve a 10 day vacation?

"Vacation" means "going back to their respective states to work", usually.

Live, its Saturday Night!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVLEPDG082o

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,018 national adults, aged 18 and older , conducted Feb. 6-7, 2009, [/b]
Other results are based on telephone interviews with 1,012 national adults, aged 18 and older , conducted Feb. 4, 2009.

Who answered? Unknown
What was their political affiliation? Unknown
How were the questions phrased? Unknown
What was the number of people sampled? Answered
From what geographic region? Unknown
Were the respondents evenly distributed? Unknown

Originally Posted by Redux

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Gallup, like all reputable national polling organizations, uses widely accepted statistical techniques for the sample to be representative of age, income, region, political affiliation, etc. then the data is "weighted" to even more accurately represent the total population.
Standardized protocols are also used to minimize question bias.[/quote]

I don’t think anyone here is a poll expert, but many times these things seem to be biased. They repeatedly state how they want to or try to minimize the bias or statistical inaccuracies. They try to accurately represent a huge number of people based on percentage wise, a miniscule sampling. I’m not against polls, but there are too many variables that are never answered. Not the least of which in this case is who actually responded. Aside from their age there is no answer. It was a national poll, but was there an even sampling of the data nationally or did more people respond from one area versus another? I think the outcome would be very different if they asked those in the northeast versus the west coast, for example.

Or more importantly let’s say they attempted to reach an even number of people from as diverse a group as possible. It is not clear whether one party responded more than another did. Another example is the time of day polls are conducted. If they are calling during normal business hours, are they getting a relative sampling of those people or is the data skewed? Of course the data is skewed, it has to be. I am not implying that this poll or any other is intentionally doing this. It is just the way it is. It is nowhere near an exact science. Also, how are they weighting the data?

Originally Posted by Redux

added:
I can say that with a high degree of confidence and Merc can say its bullshit until he finds a poll that he likes.

Of course you can. But isn't that why you posted this poll, because you liked it?

Classicman...with all due respect, your post suggest that you dont understand what is meant by the "data is weighted" after the sampling.

That is how pollsters account for the discrepancies you mentioned. If more Rs responded to a poll then Ds (there are more registered Ds in the country than Rs) or more from the NE than the SW, they would "weight" the results to more accurately reflect the national profile. I dont claim to be an expert, but I do remember that from Polling 101.

A 95% confidence level within maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points is pretty damn high by any statistical standards.

And no, I like polls because they tell me something about the what the American public is thinking about a political issue of the day.

Lately, they have reinforced my own opinions. For much of the early 00s, that was not the case, but I found them to be equally meaningful.

But, hey, if you dont think they have much value...thats fine with me.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

"Vacation" means "going back to their respective states to work", usually.

I remember when Hoyer proposed more five-day work weeks for the House when the Democrats took over in 2007.

He (and by extension, Democrats) was called anti-family!

It will no doubt be a change of pace, but apparently, members of Congress may have to start working (cue scary music) five days a week, at least some of the time.

House Democratic leaders have decided to lengthen the congressional workweek next year as they try to implement President-elect Obama's agenda and clear a backlog of priorities no longer subject to the veto of President Bush.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) released a 2009 schedule on Friday that includes 11 five-day weeks and 18 four-day weeks. The House is scheduled to be in session for 137 days before the target adjournment date of Oct. 30.

If this sounds familiar, there's a good reason. When Democrats reclaimed the House majority after the 2006 cycle, leaders vowed to bring back five-day workweeks. They backpedaled this year, as members felt more pressure to return home during a campaign cycle. The House still worked more Mondays and Fridays in 2008 than they did in 2006, when Republicans led the chamber, but not by much.

This upcoming year, however, will apparently be work-intensive. Keep an eye out to see just how much pushback the leadership gets on this. Two years ago, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) was so outraged by the idea of forcing lawmakers to work five days a week, he told reporters, "Keeping us up here eats away at families. Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

Kingston's bizarre whining notwithstanding, it's hard to feel too sorry for the lawmakers. We're in the midst of several crises, and Congress had several years -- most notably 2004 to 2007 -- in which the institution didn't do much of anything.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._12/015949.php

In all fairness, I suspect many Democrats dont like it ether. Old habits are non-partisan but "anti-family" rhetoric doesnt help.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Classicman...with all due respect, your post suggest that you dont understand what is meant by the "data is weighted" after the sampling.

What I am saying is that neither do you or anyone else - They weight the polls to even out what is not even. That is my point.

Originally Posted by Redux

I dont claim to be an expert, but I do remember that from Polling 101.

I didn't take polling 101 - I don't recall it being offered where I got my degrees. Sounds like an interesting course though.
What I do remember about polling from college is how extremely difficult it is to get accurate information and how skewed the data therefore can be. They attempt to weigh/modify/alter the data to make it credible and make a prediction. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong.