The New Bailout
:lol2:
Did Reid roll Pelosi?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid played a little high-stakes chicken with each other at the tail end of Wednesday’s shotgun stimulus talks.
It’s not clear who won – or who blinked.
According to a half dozen Congressional aides and members, Reid went before the cameras Wednesday to announce a stimulus deal before Pelosi had agreed on all the details of school construction financing.
“It’s ruffled feathers, big time,” said a House Democrat speaking on condition of anonymity. “The speaker went through the roof.”
Added one House Democratic aide: “He tried to roll her and she knew it.”
A few minutes after Reid announced the deal, Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) convened a public meeting of the House-Senate conference committee.
It was supposed to be a glorified photo op. But there were no House Democrats in the room – and Inouye hastily announced the meeting would be scrapped pending a Pelosi “briefing” of members on the details.
The problem, according to people familiar with the situation, was that Pelosi hadn’t completely signed off on the Senate’s approach to restoring some of the $21 billion in school construction funding. House Democrats are pushing to have school-repair funding listed as a recurring expense; Senate Republicans want such an allocation to be a one-time-only deal.
The approach adopted by the Senate still infuriates many members of her caucus, and Pelosi had yet to fully make her case to dissenters, a source told Politico.
The result: Pelosi summoned Reid to her office – her turf – to hash out unspecified modifications to the package prior to a 5:15 re-convening of the conference committee.
People close to Pelosi painted a different picture – one that portrays Reid as the one being rolled. Pelosi, they say, strategically permitted Reid to make his announcement – and then held up her approval to extract a slightly better deal.
Contradicting other sources who said that Pelosi had been blindsided, a House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that Reid had placed a “head’s up” phone call to Pelosi before announcing the deal.
A Senate aide concurred, saying that Pelosi "wasn't blindsided" and "didn't say no" when Reid announced he was going public. The staffer added that Pelosi spent much of the day trying -- unsuccessfully -- to convince the three Senate Republicans to make changes.
Pelosi told reporters late Wednesday that she had some success selling the Senate on unspecified legislative language "that spoke to the purpose of school construction."
Whatever the real story, Pelosi’s members were more than a little bewildered and headed into Wednesday’s night’s negotiation singing their Kumbayas through gritted teeth.
“[Senate Democrats] don’t know everything that’s in the bill,” said a laughing Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Ways and Committee. “So I’m afraid to go to that damned conference.”
Even Senate Democrats seemed a little flummoxed. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), briefing reporters after the Reid presser, stopped short of actually saying he was 100 percent sure a deal had been cut.
"There was general agreement," he said. "It doesn't mean everything is locked in yet. But if we didn't have an agreement, then there wouldn't have been a news conference."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0209/Did_Pelosi_get_rolled.html?showallThere is no honor among dumbasses.
Bipartisan... :lol2:
Republicans Shut Out of Stimulus Conference Negotiations
by Connie Hair
02/11/2009
Republicans have caught the Democrats in a midnight “stimulus” power play that seeks to cut Republican conferees out of the House-Senate negotiations to resolve a final version of the Obama “stimulus” package. Staff members from the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) met last night to put together the “stimulus” conference report.
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.
I spoke with House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) moments ago about this latest version of Democratic “bipartisanship.” Pence told me, “I think the American people deserve to know that legislation that would comprise an amount equal to the entire discretionary budget of the United States of America is being crafted without a single House Republican in the room.”
Some Republicans reportedly were in the late-night conference. But -- at least from the Senate -- the official Republican conferees were excluded. HUMAN EVENTS has received e-mail confirmations from the staffs of both Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and John Thune (R-S.D.) saying that they had no participation in the conference.
Today, the House-Senate deal was announced in a press conference held by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Reid especially praised Susan Collins for her tireless work in developing the $789 billion deal.
UPDATED: The deal was Snowe's and Collins's, according to a Senate source. Sen. Specter, who had been in Harry Reid's office for an earlier meeting on the compromise, left at about 7 p.m. At 8:45 p.m., there was another meeting at which Sens. Snowe and Collins were the only Republicans present. They made the deal, and Specter signed on to it later. He had given an indication of the deal earlier that evening in an MSNBC interview.
No House Republicans were at either meeting.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30667...Republicans have caught the Democrats in a midnight “stimulus” power play that seeks to cut Republican conferees out of the House-Senate negotiations to resolve a final version of the Obama “stimulus” package. Staff members from the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) met last night to put together the “stimulus” conference report. ...
What a bogus charge.
First draft of House/Senate conference committee bills to work out the differences in language between the two bills is nearly always done by the staffs of the majority, often working late into the night..and then presented to the full conference committee for review and discussion.
The purpose of the first draft is NOT to provide new proposals but to address the differences in the House and Senate versions as passed by their respective majorities.
Since nearly all Republicans voted against the bills in the House and Senate, by the very nature of their vote, they had little, if any, input into the first draft of a conference bill.
So you are saying that Pelosi and Reid have not shut out the Republickins from the process and the people on the inside say otherwise. Ok.
So you are saying that Pelosi and Reid have not shut out the Republickins from the process and the people on the inside say otherwise. Ok.
No..please reread your article and my response carefully. Your conservative publication, at the urgiing of the Republicans in Congress, is making an issue out of nothng.
Add it obviously worked, since you are so concerned!
I said the Democratic staff developed the FIRST DRAFT. Your article implies that this uncommon, when in fact, it is not.
The Republicans were involved in the discusisons and development of the final draft that was or will be voted on the House/Senate today.
I do believe that would be Three Repubs. Anyway it will be interesting to see how they reconcile the House and Senate versions. I just want them to get it done so we can see if it really is going to make any difference at all. There is plenty of evidence out there to suggest the the Republickins have had very little influence if any on the House bill.
I do believe that would be Three Repubs....
How many Repubilcans are on the Conference Committee....that would be
Four (and Six Democrats, reflecthing their majority status).
But you do understand that they are now just dealing with the left-overs. Essentially the meat of the day was put on the table by the Dems. The Conf Comm is juggling around the last few pieces and tweaking it, since the Dems are 6-4 it really does not matter what the Repubs want. I do believe it is set up that way for a reason. Maybe you assume there will be a lot of compromise, I do not.
But you do understand that they are now just dealing with the left-overs. Essentially the meat of the day was put on the table by the Dems. The Conf Comm is juggling around the last few pieces and tweaking it, since the Dems are 6-4 it really does not matter what the Repubs want. I do believe it is set up that way for a reason. Maybe you assume there will be a lot of compromise, I do not.
Welcome to life in the minority. The R's were real kind to the D's when the shoe was on the other foot. Don't like it now do you/they? Too late to cry about it.
Perhaps both sides will learn from the experience and start doing what is best for the country instead of themselves. I don't think so, but I still have hope.
But you do understand that they are now just dealing with the left-overs. Essentially the meat of the day was put on the table by the Dems. The Conf Comm is juggling around the last few pieces and tweaking it, since the Dems are 6-4 it really does not matter what the Repubs want. I do believe it is set up that way for a reason. Maybe you assume there will be a lot of compromise, I do not.
Of course it is set up that way for a reason...it always has and always will. The majoirty party has a majority on the conference committee. In this case, 3Ds and 2Rs from the Senate and 3Ds and 2Rs from the House. Why is that so shocking?
Compromise doesnt mean an equal voice or the same number of seats at the table when you are the minority party.
I thought Obama and the Democratic leadership went the extra mile by ensuring that a significant portion of the stimulus bill (1/3 of total) met the Republican demands for tax cuts and against the wishes of the more liberal wing of the Democratic party who wanted nearly all spending.
I dont think the Republicans would have been satisfied until it was the other way around: 2/3 tax cuts and 1/3 spenidng. .
So lets not pretend that the Republicans were willing to compromise and the Democrats were not.
The Democrats are the majority in part because the voters did not want the same old policies and solutions.
In the end, you are right...the Democrats have more ownship of this bill. If it works, they get the credit. If it fails, they get the blame.
Repubilcans are already suggesting it will be a 2010 campaign issue. IMO, its a little too soon for that and a risky strategy for Republicans, giving the preception to some thay they prefer being obstructionists rather than contributing to consens building.
In the end, you are right...the Democrats have more ownship of this bill. If it works, they get the credit. If it fails, they get to blame the R's.
Fixed that for ya ;)
So we are in agreement after all.
Fixed that for ya ;)
Please dont change the context of
my post when it appears in a quote box..as you did in the above post (#12).
I dont know if it was an attempt at humor, but in any case, I assume you have no right to change my words unless I am violating some rules or protocals of the Cellar.
If you do have that right to edit the meaning of a member's post, please let me know and I will take my participation elsewhere.
Thanks!
Yes it was an attempt at humor - something I have been failing at quite well lately.
You made some very good points and I am sorry if I diminished them with what I did.
No big deal. I just have never seen that in other political forums.
So I can do this and it is a commonly acceptable practice here?
There is plenty of evidence out there to suggest the the Republickins have had plenty of influence on the House bill.
fixed it for you! ;)
Wow...a very strange way to debate, discuss, dispute ..but hey, its not my house. I'm just a guest here.
For the record, I wont ever this do this again!
There is plenty of evidence out there to suggest the the Republickins have had plenty of influence on the House bill.
fixed it for you! ;)
Yup - thats about how it goes.
Talk about a pet project. A tiny mouse with the longtime backing of a political giant may soon reap the benefits of the economic-stimulus package.
Lawmakers and administration officials divulged Wednesday that the $789 billion economic stimulus bill being finalized behind closed doors in Congress includes $30 million for wetlands restoration that the Obama administration intends to spend in the San Francisco Bay Area to protect, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represents the city of San Francisco and has previously championed preserving the mouse's habitat in the Bay Area.
The revelation immediately became a political football, as Republicans accused Democrats of reneging on a promise to keep so-called earmarks that fund lawmakers' favorite projects out of the legislation. Democrats, including Mrs. Pelosi, countered that the accusations were fabricated.
See related story: Deal reached on historic stimulus
Politics aside, the episode demonstrates that no matter how hard lawmakers argue that they technically lived up to their pledge to keep specific projects from being listed in the bill, there is little stopping the federal money from going to those projects after the legislation passes and federal and state agencies begin deciding where to spend their newfound dollars.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/earmark-less-bill-gives-pelosis-mouse-cookie/SURPRISE! Dems Break Promise: Stimulus Bill to Floor Friday
by Connie Hair
In a press conference Thursday, the House Republican leadership spoke candidly about being kept out of the House-Senate conference on the Obama-Pelosi-Reid so-called “economic stimulus” bill. They confirmed they had not yet seen the text of the bill as of 4 p.m.
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was unsure how many Democrats would vote with Republicans again on this bill but that he thought Republicans “may get a few” Democrats to side with them. The fact that the Demos have now broken their promise to have the public able to see the bill for 48 hours may drive more Dems into the Republican camp.
“[I] don’t know, ‘cause they haven’t seen the bill either,” Boehner said.
“The American people have a right to know what’s in this bill,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) told HUMAN EVENTS after the press conference. “Every member of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- voted to post this bill on the internet for 48 hours, 48 hours ago. We’ll see if the Democrats keep their word.”
Actually -- as of 5:15 pm, the Democrats had broken their word. The stimulus bill -- which we still haven’t seen -- will be released late tonight and will be brought up on the House floor at 9 am tomorrow.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30697Lawmakers and administration officials divulged Wednesday that the $789 billion economic stimulus bill being finalized behind closed doors in Congress includes $30 million for wetlands restoration that the Obama administration intends to spend in the San Francisco Bay Area to protect, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represents the city of San Francisco and has previously championed preserving the mouse's habitat in the Bay Area.
The revelation immediately became a political football, as Republicans accused Democrats of reneging on a promise to keep so-called earmarks that fund lawmakers' favorite projects out of the legislation. Democrats, including Mrs. Pelosi, countered that the accusations were fabricated.
Money for mice is not in the bill. It looks like the Washington Times was a bit more careful than some who picked up on the story by couching it in "intends to spend" and "among other things".
According to
this blog (YMMV), the story came from a GOP staffer who is claiming that an unnamed official from an unnamed federal agency said that if unsaid agency gets stimulus money, they will put $30 million into wetlands restoration in the area that includes the mouse's habitat.
So, even if the source is correct, the money is for wetlands restoration in the SF Bay Area, a much bigger issue than mice. If the source is incorrect, the money is for wetlands restoration in all of the US (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that the bill at least mentions wetlands), a MUCH bigger issue than mice, and may not affect the mice at all:
“There are no federal wetland restoration projects in line to get funded in San Francisco,” Pelosi spkesperson Drew Hammill said. “Neither the Speaker nor her staff have had any involvement in this initiative. The idea that $30 million will be spent to save mice is a total fabrication.”
Good. Thanks.
I guess I would do my utmost to say it wasn't true if I was her, or her staff. But since NO ONE can see the details of what is in the compromise bill we will not know until it is passed.
LOL.....A GOP staffer makes an unsubstantiated claim that an unnamed official from an unnamed federal agency....
That says it all to me!
The conference committee report is on the
House Rules Committee website.
I hope that GOP staffer (or Merc) can find that provision now and share it with the rest of us!
I cant help but laugh at all this whining from Republicans about not being able to see the bill or participate in the conference committee or offer amendments.
How soon they forget their own rules when they were in the majority.
Personally, I would like to see Pelosi be a little more accommodating with the rules in the spirit of openness and bi-partisanship, but given that her rules are no where near as restrictive as the House rules under Hastert and DeLay for six years, I dont have much empathy for the whiners.
I think I pointed out in another discussion that if Pelosi's rules were as strict as her predecessors, in which by one rule, a bill would not be considered unless it had the support of the majority of the majority party, Bush would never have gotten his last two Iraq war funding bills. A majority of Democrats never supported those bills.
The Republicans didnt whine as much in 07-08 because they knew they had the wild card in the White House who could veto any Democratic bill. Now that they lost that edge, they act, and obviously have convinced some, as if Pelosi is setting new standards of exclusion.
If only the facts supported the whining!
I cant help but laugh at all this whining from Republicans about not being able to see the bill or participate in the conference committee or offer amendments.
How soon they forget their own rules when they were in the majority.
Personally, I would like to see Pelosi be a little more accommodating with the rules in the spirit of openness and bi-partisanship, but given that her rules are no where near as restrictive as the House rules under Hastert and DeLay for six years, I dont have much empathy for the whiners.
I think I pointed out in another discussion that if Pelosi's rules were as strict as her predecessors, in which by one rule, a bill would not be considered unless it had the support of the majority of the majority party, Bush would never have gotten his last two Iraq war funding bills. A majority of Democrats never supported those bills.
The Republicans didnt whine as much in 07-08 because they knew they had the wild card in the White House who could veto any Democratic bill. Now that they lost that edge, they act, and obviously have convinced some, as if Pelosi is setting new standards of exclusion.
If only the facts supported the whining!
And this from a person who has done nothing but whine about transparency or lack of it in the Bush era. Laughable.
LOL.....A GOP staffer makes an unsubstantiated claim that an unnamed official from an unnamed federal agency....
That says it all to me!
The conference committee report is on the House Rules Committee website.
I hope that GOP staffer (or Merc) can find that provision now and share it with the rest of us!
As stated earlier. Pelosi bullshited the public and didnot post the information for a period of 48hours before the vote. Sorry my friend but for the single biggest piece of legislation that will have your childrens childrens children be in debt to the government that doesn cut it.
So it was on the internet in a non-searchable form for 12 hours. It was over 1000 pages and was distributed for review last night. Good job there Dems. Well done.
Democratic Senator Predicts None of His Colleagues 'Will Have the Chance' to Read Final Stimulus Bill Before Vote
Friday, February 13, 2009
By Ryan Byrnes and Edwin Mora
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D.-N.J.)(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted on Thursday that none of his Senate colleagues would "have the chance" to read the entire final version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before the bill comes up for a final vote in Congress.
“No, I don’t think anyone will have the chance to [read the entire bill],” Lautenberg told CNSNews.com
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478
HURRY, FELLAS, LET'S VOTE, I AM OFF TO ROME!
Fri Feb 13 2009 09:18:52 ET
Rep. John Culberson, TX claims the "stimulus" bill must be urgently voted on today -- because Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leaving at 6:00 PM for an 8 day trip to Europe!
Culberson made the charge on Houston's KSEV radio.
Pelosi is hoping to lead a delegation to Europe; there's a meeting with the Pope and an award from an Italian legislative group.
Calls to Pelosi's spokesman went unreturned.
In the rushing, Democrats have now broken their promise to have the public see the $790 billion bill for 48 hours before any vote.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted that none of his Senate colleagues would 'have the chance' to read the entire final version of the 1,071-page bill before it comes up for a final vote.
SURPRISE! Dems Break Promise: Stimulus Bill to Floor Friday
by Connie Hair (more by this author)
Posted 02/12/2009 ET
Updated 02/13/2009 ET
In a press conference Thursday, the House Republican leadership spoke candidly about being kept out of the House-Senate conference on the Obama-Pelosi-Reid so-called “economic stimulus” bill. They confirmed they had not yet seen the text of the bill as of 4 p.m.
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was unsure how many Democrats would vote with Republicans again on this bill but that he thought Republicans “may get a few” Democrats to side with them. The fact that the Demos have now broken their promise to have the public able to see the bill for 48 hours may drive more Dems into the Republican camp.
“[I] don’t know, ‘cause they haven’t seen the bill either,” Boehner said.
“The American people have a right to know what’s in this bill,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) told HUMAN EVENTS after the press conference. “Every member of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- voted to post this bill on the internet for 48 hours, 48 hours ago. We’ll see if the Democrats keep their word.”
Actually -- as of 5:15 pm, the Democrats had broken their word. The stimulus bill -- which we still haven’t seen -- will be released late tonight and will be brought up on the House floor at 9 am tomorrow.
The following statement was released by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at 4:57 p.m.:
"The House is scheduled to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow and is expected to proceed directly to consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment conference report. The conference report text will be filed this evening, giving members enough time to review the conference report before voting on it tomorrow afternoon."
Meanwhile, at an earlier presser Thursday, Pelosi -- while talking about legislation regarding school construction funds -- said it was vital to see the language of a bill before making decisions. ReadtheStimulus.org had the following quote:
“With all of this you have to see the language. You said this --- I said that --- I understood it to be this way --- you know, we wanted to see it in writing and when we did that then we were able to go forward."
"Around here language means a lot. Words weigh a ton and one person's understanding of a spoken description might vary from another's. We wanted to see it. And not only just I had to see it, I had to show it to my colleagues and my caucus. We wanted to take all the time that was necessary to make sure it was right."
Congressional members are also exchanging barbs via the popular social network Twitter. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) twittered, "Don't know when we're going to vote. Will the no votes delay vote just because they can? Speed is important. They know that."
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) twittered back, “Those in favor of speed over commonsense may just be afraid of letting the People know what they are ramming through.”
UPDATE: The Democrats finally made the bill's language available around 11 p.m. Thursday, approximately 10 hours before members meet Friday to consider the bill and 38 hours short of the time promised Americans to review the bill.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30697Merc...such is life when you are the minority party.
If you dont get an equal voice at the table, you bitch and whine, ignore your own hypocrisy from when you had the power, then spread bullshit like the above and hope it sticks.
IMO, it may play to your base but it is not a winning strategy to attract swing voters in the future.
The partisan's only hope is for Obama to be completely ineffective, it will be total Limbaugh propaganda 24-7. Party before country.
Merc and his buddies can take solace in the fact that if this doesn't work, they can tell everyone else in the bread line "I told you so."
A charming victory for the most patriotic among us. :neutral:
After reading the last 100 TheMercenary posts, obvious is that Democrats are finally doing everything right. Don Quixote is now so desperate as to even attack windmills - daily.
First the wackos spent like drunken sailors so as to destroy the American economy. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Isn't reality a bitch?
Now that stimulus money must target real problems, these same hateful Republican want to stifle all spending and create even more economic destruction using tax cuts. Anything to enrich the rich. Extremists are even attacking windmills.
Good to see that government is finally doing something right. So much hysteria posted by TheMercenary who is routinely quoting Rush Limbaugh. Hysteriacal anti-Americans love the destruction they reaped on America. Anything that might destroy their precious recession must be stopped.
Merc...such is life when you are the minority party.
If you dont get an equal voice at the table, you bitch and whine, ignore your own hypocrisy from when you had the power, then spread bullshit like the above and hope it sticks.
IMO, it may play to your base but it is not a winning strategy to attract swing voters in the future.
So you completely accept that the double standards being displayed are status quo and will be the SOP for the next 4 years or more, and that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid lied about any kind of bipartisan solutions. Thanks at least for your honesty in the matter.
So you completely accept that the double standards being displayed are status quo and will be the SOP for the next 4 years or more, and that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid lied about any kind of bipartisan solutions.
None of that is true. What is true is your posts read like Rush Limbaugh wrote them. That means little is true and the wacko extremists are in a tizzy trying to blame anyone else for creating our disastrous economy - by spending because "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". A direct quote from a wacko extremists who spend money as if is were free and expendable.
Three 747s packed nose to tail with pallets of 100 dollar bills flown into Iraq and distributed without any accounting. That is fiscal responsibility from the same Republicans who fear to spend on Americans - and then blame Obama.
No wonder wacko ring wing extremists are so hysterical. They must get us to forget who spend money on things that only create recessions and routinely subverted things that made America productive. "Mission Accomplished".
Always hype hysteria first to blame someone else for American losing jobs. A Rush Limbaugh technique right out of Hitler's playbook. Incite hate in society's least intelligent members.
Spending cut where needed and that so anger extremist Republicans. From the
Washingont Post of 13 Feb 2009:
The bill, which President Barack Obama is expected to sign into law Monday, limits bonuses of executives at all financial institutions receiving government funds to no more than a third of their total annual compensation. The bonuses must be paid in company stock that can only be redeemed once the government investment has been repaid.
Finally spending cuts are implemented where most needed.
Extremists Republicans enriched themselves and their supporters while reducing American incomes by 2%. Time to cut costs where Republicans don't want spending cuts.
After reading the last 100 TheMercenary posts, obvious is that Democrats are finally doing everything right. Don Quixote is now so desperate as to even attack windmills - daily.
First the wackos spent like drunken sailors so as to destroy the American economy. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Isn't reality a bitch?
Now that stimulus money must target real problems, these same hateful Republican want to stifle all spending and create even more economic destruction using tax cuts. Anything to enrich the rich. Extremists are even attacking windmills.
Good to see that government is finally doing something right. So much hysteria posted by TheMercenary who is routinely quoting Rush Limbaugh. Hysteriacal anti-Americans love the destruction they reaped on America. Anything that might destroy their precious recession must be stopped.
One of my favorite posts ever.
So you completely accept that the double standards being displayed are status quo and will be the SOP for the next 4 years or more, and that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid lied about any kind of bipartisan solutions. Thanks at least for your honesty in the matter.
I just want to see the GOP spanked for a few years, out of general mean-ness and misanthropy.
Could we please have a moment of silence to mourn the death of the Republic of the United States of America?
Could we please have a moment of silence to mourn the death of the Republic of the United States of America?
A little late, aren't you?
One of my favorite posts ever.
Negro, stop. :lol2: I can't even read his shit.
Spending cut where needed and that so anger extremist Republicans. From the Washingont Post of 13 Feb 2009: Finally spending cuts are implemented where most needed.
Extremists Republicans enriched themselves and their supporters while reducing American incomes by 2%. Time to cut costs where Republicans don't want spending cuts.
There are apparently a million holes in that bill.
There are apparently a million holes in that bill.
I think it was Otto von Bismarck who once remarked, "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made."
Having been on the inside myself, I would agree.
The bigger the bill, the more grit in the sausage....but in the end, the results are what counts.
Personally, I dont think this bill was big enough in terms of spending on infrastructure and other short term job creation programs.
But, we'll just have to wait and see....and keep hearing about Pelosi's mouse!
Having been on the inside myself, I would agree.
....but in the end, the results are what counts.
Personally, I dont think this bill was big enough in terms of spending on infrastructure and other short term job creation programs.
What did you do?
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.
And the less we hear about Pelosi - the better.
What did you do?
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.
And the less we hear about Pelosi - the better.
I worked in the Senate for two years (83-84) for Senator Jennings Randolph....long hours and low pay...but what a trip it was!
In the 2010 Congressional elections, the defining issue is very likely to be the success or failure of this stimulus program. I dont think the Bush card will play.
I worked in the Senate for two years (83-84) for Senator Jennings Randolph....long hours and low pay...but what a trip it was!
In the 2010 Congressional elections, the defining issue is very likely to be the success or failure of this stimulus program. I dont think the Bush card will play.
Well you must be a damm expert than!
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?
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
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.
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.
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
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.
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?:mad:
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.
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."
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/Obama-Upper-Hand-Stimulus-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. ;)
10 day vacation? What have these fuckers done to deserve a 10 day vacation?:mad:
"Vacation" means "going back to their respective states to work", usually.
Live, its Saturday Night!
[INDENT][youtube]EVLEPDG082o[/youtube][/INDENT]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVLEPDG082oResults 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
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?
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.
"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/archives/individual/2008_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...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.
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.
...
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.
Yep..I agree it is hard for you and me (with my one course 20+ years ago) or even self-proclaimed experts like Merc.
Its not that hard for those with the proper educational training and the knowledge and experience of applying widely accepted statistical procedures and anti-bias protocols.
And that's why they can report with a 95% confidence level within maximum margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points.....far greater than "sometimes right and sometimes wrong."
I dont need 100% confidence with zero margin of error to find polls useful to understand public opinion on an issue.
In slightly different polling, one only need look at the 08 election results and final pre-election polls (by
state and nationally) to see how close the pollsters were to the final results. Aggregating the major national polls predicted Obama -52.0%, McCain - 44.4 and the final results Obama- 52.9%, McCain -45.6
Can you prove them right or wrong? That is my point. With respect to polls, particularly those about opinions, is is virtually impossible to prove them right or wrong.
As far as trusting the professionals - lets see how well did the bankers or wall street guru's do last year?
Polls are fine and have, in my opinion, a very limited purpose when it comes to opinions. Most of those peoples opinions are probably based upon the local news soundbites anyway and there is so much more to what is going on with this specific situation to say that a poll can really have any credibility.
I guess we're done :)
At least until I post another poll in another discussion.
...or I find one I like and do the same.:cool:
Robinson: The inequality of equality
GEVERYL ROBINSON | Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 12:30 am
Contextual linking provided by Topix Egalitarianism: 1. A belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges 2. A social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.
During the presidential election, I kept hearing people bemoan the fact that electing Barack Obama would mean the end of our democracy because Obama and all his Obamacans were socialists who believed in the redistribution of wealth.
I have news for you. We've been dabbling in socialism for quite some time. Democrats, Republicans and all of us are to blame.
I can give you a long drawn out definition of socialism, but in a nutshell, socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly. Know some of you are wondering what's wrong with that, and I'll tell you.
It's not the government's responsibility to make sure wealth and power are distributed more evenly. Egalitarianism is a myth. No matter how you slice it, there will always be inequalities among people, and the government's and our delusion about this fact is the primary reason our country is in its current state.
For example, everyone is shocked by the high foreclosure rates and the millionswho have lost their homes due to the "evil lenders." I agree that some of the lenders were predatory. However, there were many who were under extreme pressure from the government to give loans to any and everyone just to make things "fair."
If Mr. CEO with a steady job history, great credit and large income could get a home, then in the spirit of fairness, in the spirit of egalitarianism, Mr. No Job, no money, no credit, 12 kids by 12 different women, and dentures on layaway could get a home, too.
And his home should be just as nice as Mr. CEO's because after all, giving Mr. No Job a home with lesser value wouldn't be fair.
See the problem?
True, there have been practices by lending institutions and companies that were discriminatory. Laws have been put in place to alleviate these practices. But discrimination is defined as "making a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit." If that's the case, then isn't giving people homes, credit cards, cars, jobs or anything else because they are poor, and not because they earned these things due to their own merit, discriminatory against those who earned the things they've acquired?
And what about the millions of people who knowingly accepted the "free" credit cards they received in the mail and then used the cards to their limit, all the while knowing they would never be able to make their monthly payments?
I've heard some elderly people say, "Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered," and our greed has led us straight to the slaughterhouse.
Instead of suffering from optical rectumitis (the crossing of the anal nerve with the optic nerve causing one to have a crappy outlook on life), we need to take responsibility for our actions, for our part in this mess we find ourselves in as a country.
We all played a part in our economic downfall. So instead of redistributing wealth, let's try redistributing responsibility and then collectively find solutions to reverse our downward spiral and restore our economy.
http://www.savannahnow.com/node/635671Stimulus: Hiring jolt doubtful
A multibillion-dollar provision of the new federal stimulus package, billed as a huge jobs boost for the Northwest, might not translate into lots of new jobs for years. Even without the new stimulus package, BPA was expected to start construction on new transmission lines this year, and construction of additional job-creating projects might not start for years.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008743322_bpa14m.htmlPromises, Promises
Soaring expectations collide with harsh political realities. How Barack Obama looks from Chicagoland.
Joseph Epstein
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Feb 23, 2009
On Tuesday, this past Nov. 4, I voted for John McCain for President of The United States. On Wednesday morning, I woke feeling glad that he lost. Had McCain won, a spirit of gloom would have spread over the land, a deadening feeling of "Oh, God, business as usual," part of that business being that a man tied to failed economic policies was once again at the helm and a nonwhite candidate for president still hadn't a chance. But Barack Obama was our new president. Great day in the morning; a new age in American politics is upon us.
Or is it? Like Augie March, I am an American, Chicago-born, but unlike Augie—a follower of Leon Trotsky—I have never been able to take politics with an entirely straight face. So often, I find my antipathies divided; faced with two equally outrageous candidates, a plague, I usually pronounce, on both their condominiums. The source of this is genealogical. When I was a boy, my father remarked that the aldermen of the City of Chicago, who were then paid an annual salary of $20,000, were spending as much as $250,000 to win election. "The arithmetic doesn't quite work out," he said, pausing, as if to say (though the phrase hadn't yet been invented), "You do the math."
Politicians, my rich Chicago heritage tells me, are all guilty until proven innocent. When the great Rod Blagojevich scandal broke a few months ago, I, like most Chicagoans, wasn't in the least scandalized. All I found remarkable in it was the now former governor's efficiency, in the realm of corruption, in eliminating the middleman and asking for the money himself.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/184774/output/printI think the fact that the three leading business organizations in the country support the bill as a good first step (while not perfect) is very promising.
[INDENT]
US Chamber of Commerce (95% of its members are small businesses)
National Association of Manufacturers
Business Roundtable
[/INDENT]
Many, including Obama and Congressional Democrats, agree its not a perfect bill but that the "whole is more important than the individual parts."
Republicans, on the other hand, chose to focus on the negative rather than the positive by misrepresenting a very small number of programs (pelosi's mouse project, funding for acorn, etc) they falsely suggest are contained in the bill.
Yep - something's better than nothing - thats a heck of a vote of confidence.
Yep - something's better than nothing - thats a heck of a vote of confidence.
And its not even a poll. ;)
An insightful commentary:
By Gerald F. Seib
A giant political gamble begins when President Barack Obama signs the economic stimulus plan into law Tuesday — and the fate of that gamble rests heavily on the shoulders of the man doing the signing.
Much as the success of the Reagan Revolution a generation ago depended on the resilience and credibility of the president who authored it, so too will the Obama Offensive rise or fall in voters’ eyes on the resilience and credibility of the president now putting his stamp on it.
In the 1980s, the real economy was so awful that Ronald Reagan’s supporters for almost two years looked in vain for proof that his gamble of a giant tax cut and a big increase in defense spending would work. Mr. Reagan signed his economic plan into law in August 1981, and unemployment promptly began to rise, and continued to do so for a year and a half. Three years later, it still was higher than when the Reagan plan was enacted. So nervous was his party in Congress that it decided to take back some of that Reagan tax cut a year after it was passed.
Only the personal popularity and sheer optimistic resolve of Mr. Reagan — the fabled Great Communicator — saw his party through the economic darkness and political turbulence and into the light that followed.
And thus it is today. Because the economy is so bad, gauging the success or failure of the stimulus will be hard to do for a long time. It’s likely that much of the argument on behalf of the stimulus in coming months won’t be that it has made things better, but that it has stopped things from getting even worse — a tough political argument to make.
Under those conditions, the public’s faith in the great experiment — and its political impact — will turn almost entirely on how much Mr. Obama is trusted. We are about to see whether we have the Great Communicator II.
It didn’t have to turn out this way. The politics of the economy would look vastly different if Republicans had bought into the Democrats’ economic stimulus plan, making it a joint undertaking, with political blame or credit spread more broadly and thinly as the months ahead unfold.
Instead, Republicans have stood in nearly unanimous opposition to the stimulus plan, and say they have rediscovered their voice and philosophical bearings by doing so.
White House aides, meanwhile, say Republicans have made a political mistake of historic proportions by opposing an economic rescue effort and appearing partisan in the process.
Obviously, both sides can’t be right. Just as obviously, neither side can know for sure right now. All that is certain is this: As a result of those diametrically opposed partisan calculations, the economic stimulus package now represents one of the biggest rolls of the dice of recent times.
Part of the outcome depends on whether there are glimmers of evidence that $787 billion in stimulus spending is having a real effect. The danger for the president and his party is that any such glimmers could be obscured by larger waves of bad news that Mr. Obama himself warns are still coming. In that sense, Republicans will have the easier case to make.
Part of the political equation will be determined by how effectively the two sides go about convincing the country of the virtue of their position. Already liberal groups have been pounding Republicans for standing in the way of recovery, and the Republican message machine has been in full attack mode against the stimulus package as an example of liberal ideology run amok.
Part of the political equation will be determined not by the stimulus plan at all, but by the effectiveness of that other big Obama initiative — the effort to spend more than $300 billion in remaining financial-rescue funds to stabilize the banking system and get credit flowing again.
And part of the outcome of this gamble depends on whether voters perceive Republican opposition as a principled stand against pointless spending, or an example of simple obstructionism. On that front the evidence is mixed, and Americans’ verdict may depend as much on how the two parties behave going forward as on anything in the past. For its part, the White House insists that it intends to reach out to Republicans so it isn’t seen as the cause of a breakdown in comity. “We are going to kill them with kindness,” says one senior Obama aide.
But ultimately, the partisan nature of the stimulus debate means Mr. Obama himself will do more than any statistic or maneuver to shape views of the great experiment. He starts with some significant assets. His job approval rating, despite recent rough sledding, continues in the mid-60% range, slightly above where Mr. Reagan’s was when he signed his economic package into law. The president has more credibility with voters than does Congress or either party.
But the sledding won’t be smooth. Mr. Reagan’s popularity dropped steadily through the year after his program was enacted, and his party lost 26 House seats in the next election. Have faith, Mr. Reagan asked his party and his country. Mr. Obama is about to try to make the same request, under conditions that are even more trying.
http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/02/16/obama-rolls-the-dice-with-the-economic-stimulus-package/?mod=rss_WSJBlog?mod=washwireNo matter what the government does the recession/depression will drag on until the public decides to turn it around. The biggest effect the stimulus package can have is to restore public confidence. But half the stories on the news broadcasts and in the papers contain the words, in these economic times, or in this recession.
Plus the people playing politics, whiners, and harbingers of doom like Merc, have diminished that effect.
Sure there's a lot of people out of work, but there's a fuck of a lot more people still working. Those people are scared, worried about the future, and will remain so because of the whiners, so they are holding on to their cash. Saving rates have more than doubled and spending is way down, exacerbating the pinch.
You don't have to stick your head in the sand but at least pull it out of your ass.
Plus the people playing politics, whiners, and harbingers of doom like Merc,
And Obama:
Worst is yet to come, says Obama
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/03/2480767.htmAnd Obama:
Worst is yet to come, says Obama
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/03/2480767.htm
Wow...a president being honest with the American people.
Shades of "saddam poses a direct and immediate threat to the US" (bush/cheney/rice/rumsfeld) or "mission accomplished" (bush) or "we cant wait for the mushroom cloud" (condi rice) or "saddam had ties to al queda" (cheney)
The comment was a quote in response to Bruce. Take it up with him.
Or maybe it was shades of "I NEVER HAD SEX WITH THAT WOMAN!" /angrylittlewillie. :lol2:
Yep..I agree it is hard for you and me (with my one course 20+ years ago) or even self-proclaimed experts like Merc.
Where did I make that statement? You say that because we disagree?
An effort at openness and accountability as the the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is implemented...as promised.
Recovery.govSo I never did say it. Thanks. Figures.
An effort at openness and accountability as the the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is implemented...as promised.
Recovery.gov
Wow - they make it sound so good,
BTW - Couldn't they get a better picture of Obama? that one sucks.
I'm gonna try to spend some time tonight and see what is really there, information-wise. I hope its not all Fluff 'n Stuff. I expect more from him.
Wow - they make it sound so good,
BTW - Couldn't they get a better picture of Obama? that one sucks.
I'm gonna try to spend some time tonight and see what is really there, information-wise. I hope its not all Fluff 'n Stuff. I expect more from him.
I expect it will be pretty fluffy until the funding for infrastructure projects and other jobs related programs on the spending side (as opposed to the tax relief side) starts hitting the streets...particularly the funds that have to go through the states to start specific projects. Recipients dont have to begin reporting how the funds are being spent until July.
The numbers of jobs by state could legitimately be described as a best case scenario....much like the CBO analysis and the total of 3+ million jobs in 18 months. Objective observers should understand that.
http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/estimated-job-effect
Story time (Tell us how the Recovery Act is affecting you) should be fun.
But its all part of the WH bully pulpit...to counter the bullshit.
The largely partisan vote was a rebuke to Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to bridge the divide between parties. In his early days in office, he wooed Republican members of Congress at the White House and on Capitol Hill, an effort that didn't produce votes last week.
While Obama pushed for bipartisanship, Republicans honed their opposition to the bill. GOP lawmakers are nearly united in their view that the measure is loaded with pork-barrel spending and will be ineffective in creating jobs. They also complain that the measure was crafted behind closed doors with no Republican input, despite promises of transparency.
House Republican Leader John Boehner, R.-Ohio, said last week that not one House member had read the bill, which came in at more than 1,000 pages.
On Tuesday, Rep. Boehner called the bill "a missed opportunity, one for which our children and grandchildren will pay a hefty price. It's a raw deal for American families."
Despite the party-line passage of the bill, President Obama painted it as a broad victory: "It is a rare thing in Washington for people with such different viewpoints to come together and support the same bill," he said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123487951033799545.html?mod=article-outset-boxFinancial gloom was everywhere Tuesday.
On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average came within sight of its lowest levels in more than a decade. Financial shares were battered. And rattled investors clamored to buy rainy-day investments like gold and Treasury debt. Markets from Hong Kong to Stockholm to London also staggered lower.
It was a global wave of selling spurred by rising worries about how banks, automakers - entire countries - would fare in a deepening recession.
At the close, the Dow was down more than 297.81 points, at 7,552.60 points, a drop of 3.79 percent. The index was just a few fractions of a point away from its lows of Nov. 20, when financial markets plummeted to their lowest point in a decade. The only Dow stock to trade consistently in positive territory on The only Dow stock to trade consistently in positive territory was Wal-Mart, which rose after reporting better-than-expected profit.
The broader Standard & Poor's 500-stock index slid 37.67 points, or 4.5 percent, to 789.17 points, unable to cling to what analysts said was an important trading threshold.
GM takes union talks down to the wire
"If we get substantially below 800 then look out below," said Marc Groz, chief investment officer at Topos, a risk-advisory firm in Greenwich, Connecticut.
The Nasdaq composite index closed 63.70 points lower, down 4.1 percent, at 1,470.66 points.
The downward spiral came as President Obama signed the $787 billion economic stimulus package and executives at General Motors and Chrysler prepared to submit major restructuring plans to the U.S. government after receiving billions in bailout money.
General Motors stock, which was more than $25 last February, was trading lower on Tuesday, at about $2.15 a share. Shares of the Ford Motor, which has not received any bailout funds, were down 5 percent.
Analysts said investors were still nervous about the U.S. Treasury Department's plans to shore up the financial system and help remove billions of dollars in troubled mortgage-related assets from the balance sheets of major banks.
"The administration is great at floating the rumors, but we need concrete plans to back that up," said Ryan Larson, head equity trader at Voyageur Asset Management. "Without any further concreted details, the market's really left to wonder. And in this environment, they wonder the worst-case scenario."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/17/business/18marketsA.phpI refuse to post for fear that my negativity will detract from all the wonderful stuff this thing is supposed to do.
I refuse to post for fear that my negativity will detract from all the wonderful things this thing is supposed to do.
I gotcher back.
This shit is asinine. I mean really, tragically STUPID. Jesus H Christ, what the HELL is that man thinking? Trashing our dollar for some badly worded, easy exploited pork barrels isn't going to help a GODDAMN thing.
Bush leaving office: Here, bankers, have some zeros.
Obama entering office: Here, everydamnbody, have some zeros.
We have many zeros. In fact, it's all we have.
Remember last year when GM said it had enough cash reserves to survive? It only needed a few $billion? Remember others here who so hated American and humanity as to buy their crap ... and recommend it? Now from satan lovers - also called MBAs -
G.M. Raises Loan Request by $12 Billion
The price tag for bailing out General Motors and Chrysler jumped by another $14 billion Tuesday, to $39 billion, with the two automakers saying they would need the additional aid from the federal government to remain solvent.
The entire market value of GM is $1.33 billion. So GM - with numerous crappy products - deserves another $10billion.
They only needed a few $billon a few months ago because the scumbags said the problem is not in GM; the problem is the economy. Yes, if you are Rick Wagoner, and MBA, and therefore still in denial. Many Cellar dwellers do not know how this man just put their jobs at risk.
What changed? Why has GM increased a few $billion into $30billion? Because GM did not declare bankruptcy and expel Wagoner. GM is still ignoring their problems - only doing enough to beg for more free government money.
GM must eliminate Saab, Saturn, Pontiac, and Hummer. Closing only two divisions will no longer be sufficient because Wagoner et al has done nothing. It will not end there. A previous prediction of two divisions is now woefully insufficient. Wagoner expects more corporate welfare. Will not address these problems. Cannot address problems when spread sheet games continue to stifle innovation - as any properly trained MBA does.
All automakers are hurting. However a patriot understands why bankruptcy eliminates problems - especially top management. 85% of all problems are where? Eliminate real problems so that companies that have been addressing the problem for seven plus years now - Ford, Toyota, Honda - will save America.
Just like in Lehman Bros. Richard Fuld remained in denial because rich executives are too important to not receive corporate welfare. Now that GM and Chrysler will get more free money, other American companies will not address a nationwide problem. That means your job is at risk or already lost.
A headline in the New York Post, to save your job, should read: "Obama to GM - drop dead". It caused 1979 Chrysler and 1981 Ford to eliminate their only problems. It caused NYC to stop playing money games on spread sheets. Therefore jobs were not lost. Instead numerous other companies began asking embarrassing questions of their top executives. Instead GM will remain so much in denial as Wagoner believes GM deserves to be saved.
85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Often threats of bankruptcy are necessary to fix such problems - not just in GM. Also in your employer.
I gotcher back.
This shit is asinine. I mean really, tragically STUPID. Jesus H Christ, what the HELL is that man thinking? Trashing our dollar for some badly worded, easy exploited pork barrels isn't going to help a GODDAMN thing.
Bush leaving office: Here, bankers, have some zeros.
Obama entering office: Here, everydamnbody, have some zeros.
We have many zeros. In fact, it's all we have.
Say it dude.
Say it dude.
75 billion more in mortgage relief, proposed by Obama today.
Sometimes this shit makes me laugh until I can't stop screaming.
And people bitch about how much Bush ran up the deficit. This guy is going for a record.
Obama Stimulus Saves Microsoft Billionaire Hundreds Of Millions
Billionaire Paul Allen is a Microsoft cofounder, the owner of the NFL's Seattle Seahawks and the owner of the NBA's Portland Trailblazers.
And, thanks to the stimulus bill President Obama signed this week, he's also about to be as much as a billion dollars richer.
Here's how:
Allen owns a majority stake in cable provider Charter Communications.
Charter Communications this month said it would reduce its debt load by $8 billion and enter Chapter 11.
Normally, partners at a firm like Charter Communications would have to pay taxes on the amount of debt forgiven in this process, which is, in a sense a one-time income windfall. Tax law calls it a "deemed distribution."
But under the new bill, companies like Charter Communications will be able to avoid paying taxes on forgiven debt until 2014. Even then, Paul will have until 2018 to pay it completely off.
Paul owns about half of Charter, so his share of the Charter Commuincations' $8 billion debt forgiveness is around $4 billion. At a tax rate of 25%, Allen could avoid paying as much as $1 billion in taxes until 2014, tax expert Robert Willens told the WSJ.
Not clear how a corporate tax benefit would be passed through to Paul's personal tax payments? A reader informs us:
"It's not a 'corporate tax' since it's a partnership rather than a corporation. The partners pay tax on their share of a partnerships income, which is why partnerships are referred to as "pass-through" entities."
For what it's worth, one of Paul's representatives told the WSJ the billionaire didn't lobby for the windfall. It just fell into his lap, lucky dog.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-stimulus-saves-microsoft-billionaire-hundreds-of-millions-phew-2009-2But its Bush's fault - don't forget that.:rolleyes:
And people bitch about how much Bush ran up the deficit. This guy is going for a record.
It's like the special olympics, and the whole fucking "government" is competing.
But its Bush's fault - don't forget that.:rolleyes:
Quit trying to hog the glory.
Bush had his own moments of stupidity. This one is all the Dems.
Where's the rescue package for Katrina and NO?
Katrina Who?
Fascinating article explains how full of it Dems were on Katrina reconstruction $$$, how they seem to have gotten over it now that their guy is in, and aren’t even squawking about no Katrina cut in the economic porkfest. The fascinating part isn’t so much the content. No big surprises there. What’s fascinating is the part at the very top that says:
Your go-to wire service for objective, just-the-facts Bush-bash, gently chiding the people whose water they’ve been carrying lo these many years. The one thing that is missing is an analyst or GOP type pointing out what flaming hypocrites the Dems have been, though there are a couple of diplomatic comments from a GOP rep turned lobbyist.
As for the AP and its own historic flaming hypocrisy, while this is a startling new direction, it hardly has the “when did you stop beating your wife” quality of the news agency’s average Bush coverage, and seems to be expressing more a sense of approval and relief at how reasonable everyone can afford to be now that you-know-who isn’t around to provoke an entirely understandable derangement.
As a side note, the article states as fact that the Republican president “bungled the initial response to the disaster” though it’s pretty well established that the initial bungling was done by Lousiana Democrats. Again, can’t have everything.
continues
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2009/02/19/katrina-who/GM must eliminate Saab, Saturn, Pontiac, and Hummer.
Saab just filed for bankruptcy, thus allowing GM to sell.
It turns out the Swedish government was not interested in a bailout plan, opting instead to send them to bankruptcy. Huh. If only the US were as capitalist a country as Sweden...
GM killed a great brand. Saabs used to be the coolest thing on the roads. Now they are bland pieces of shit. Maybe they can be resurrected.
I was just thinking the same thing yesterday. Back in the 80s, Saabs were everywhere. I haven't seen one on the road in ages. GM killed the company. Or at least made the cars so bland I don't even see them when they are driving around.
News ticker on CNN, GM stock down to $1.57, lowest in 70 years.
Classic Saab 900 design, distinctive and cool. Not a lot of old designs still look cool:
Recent GMaab 9-3, bland and neutered, nothing about it says Saab:
I just found this
graph of Saab sales over the years. They grew steadily during the 80s and peaked in 87, which is around the time I remember I started seeing them everywhere. Then they took a nosedive.
Partway though the nosedive, GM acquired a majority stake in them (1990,) and slowly started to grow the brand again in the early-mid 90s. Then about 3-4 years ago, they took a nosedive again.
Saab and Volvo and maybe BMW seemed like they were in a market together. I would buy a BMW over the other two. I don't know about Saab but Volvo's have a significant reputation for expensive repairs. Not that BMW does not, just that there seems to be a lot more BMW places around to get them serviced and the other two seem a bit more obscure.
Datalyss posted this in Internet, but it really belongs in Politics so I am reposting it. I don't know how they actually measure the success or failure, or even compromise on each issue, but it is interesting either way.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/75 billion more in mortgage relief, proposed by Obama today.
Sometimes this shit makes me laugh until I can't stop screaming.
That will be coming from the $350 billion TARP funds. It is not added money. It was already approved before Bush left office. And the TARP was
supposed to be for mortgage relief to stop forclosures, instead Hank Paulson gave the first $350 billion to banks. The banks, instead of using it to help people in foreclosure by rewriting mortgages, held onto the money or used it to buy other banks. They have done nothing to help to stop the problems they created. The housing market is where this all started, so do you think we should just continue to ignore that aspect of this mess?
Obama Stimulus Saves Microsoft Billionaire Hundreds Of Millions
Billionaire Paul Allen is a Microsoft cofounder, the owner of the NFL's Seattle Seahawks and the owner of the NBA's Portland Trailblazers.
And, thanks to the stimulus bill President Obama signed this week, he's also about to be as much as a billion dollars richer.
Here's how:
Allen owns a majority stake in cable provider Charter Communications.
Charter Communications this month said it would reduce its debt load by $8 billion and enter Chapter 11.
Normally, partners at a firm like Charter Communications would have to pay taxes on the amount of debt forgiven in this process, which is, in a sense a one-time income windfall. Tax law calls it a "deemed distribution."
But under the new bill, companies like Charter Communications will be able to avoid paying taxes on forgiven debt until 2014. Even then, Paul will have until 2018 to pay it completely off.
Paul owns about half of Charter, so his share of the Charter Commuincations' $8 billion debt forgiveness is around $4 billion. At a tax rate of 25%, Allen could avoid paying as much as $1 billion in taxes until 2014, tax expert Robert Willens told the WSJ.
Not clear how a corporate tax benefit would be passed through to Paul's personal tax payments? A reader informs us:
"It's not a 'corporate tax' since it's a partnership rather than a corporation. The partners pay tax on their share of a partnerships income, which is why partnerships are referred to as "pass-through" entities."
For what it's worth, one of Paul's representatives told the WSJ the billionaire didn't lobby for the windfall. It just fell into his lap, lucky dog.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-stimulus-saves-microsoft-billionaire-hundreds-of-millions-phew-2009-2
And I'm quite sure, if this is true, that republicans wrote that part of the fucking bill. They ARE the ones who wanted all the fucking tax cuts. Obama put a lot of porky ones for rich people in there in order to appease them and get some votes. But they voted against it anyway. And he will have to take the heat for it. A very stupid move IMO.
I think, after the House dug their heals in and decided to completely vote against it, he should have just taken out everything he didn't want, and put the stuff back in he DID want that they took out for republican support. Fuck them. He will not get any support from them. That is pretty obvious.
Saab just filed for bankruptcy, thus allowing GM to sell.
It turns out the Swedish government was not interested in a bailout plan, opting instead to send them to bankruptcy. Huh. If only the US were as capitalist a country as Sweden...
GM killed a great brand. Saabs used to be the coolest thing on the roads. Now they are bland pieces of shit. Maybe they can be resurrected.
GM also killed the electric car. The company should just be sold off to the highest bidder. Why are we paying so much more than the company is even worth?
And Chrysler is a private corporation owned by wealthy hedge funds. So why the hell are we bailing them out? Shouldn't they use their own money?
Interesting article on the Fiscal Responsibility summit.
1. Conservatives are "fiscally responsible." Progressives just want to spend, spend, spend.
~snip~
Under the conservative definition of "fiscal responsibility, " we'd have never set up the GI Bill and the FHA, which between them launched the post-war middle class (and made possible the consumer culture that generated so much private profit for so many). We wouldn't have 150 years of investment in public education, which for most of the 20th century gave American business access to the smartest workers in the world; or the interstate highway system, which broadened trade and tourism; or research investment via NASA and DARPA, the defense research agency that gave us the microchip and the Internet and made a whole new world of commerce possible. There wouldn't be the consumer protection infrastructure that allowed us to accept new products with easy confidence; or building and food inspectors who guarantee that you're not taking your life in your hands when you flip on a light or sit down to dinner.
2. It's not gonna work. Everybody knows the Democrats spent us into this mess in the first place.
The only remaining "everybodys" who "know" this are the ones who are simply impervious to facts.
Ronald Reagan came into office with a national debt of less than $1 trillion. Mostly by cutting taxes on the rich, he grew that debt to $2.6 trillion. George H.W. Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge, but it wasn't enough to keep the debt from ballooning another 50 percent, to $4.2 trillion.
Bill Clinton''s aggressive budget balancing slowed the growth rate a bit: eight years later, he left office with a debt of $5.7 trillion—and a tight budget in place that, if followed, would have paid whole thing off by 2006. Unfortunately, George W. Bush had no intention of following through with Clinton's plan: on his watch, the debt nearly doubled, from $5.7 to $10.6 trillion. So, nearly 80 percent of the current debt—about which conservatives now complain—was acquired on the watch of the three most recent conservative Presidents.
3. $10.6 trillion? But I got this e-mail that says we're looking at a national debt of $56 trillion...
Wow. That's a big, scary number, all right. It's also a perfect example of one of the classic ways people lie with statistics.
This particular mathematical confection was whipped up by Wall Street billionaire and former Nixon Commerce Secretary Pete Peterson, whose Peterson Foundation is the driving force behind the effort to defund Social Security. According to this group, “As of September 30, 2008, the federal government was in a $56 trillion-plus fiscal hole based on the official financial consolidated statements of the U.S. government. This amount is equal to $483,000 per household and $184,000 per American.”
This "fact" is only true if you're willing to do a reckless amount of time traveling. The $56 trillion number is what you get if you project the entire U.S. debt a full 75 years into the future, which is how far out you have to go before you can get into numbers that big. In other words: we're not in that hole now—but we might be in 2084, if we keep going the way we're going now.
4. Whatever. It's still irresponsible to take on that much debt.
Even John McCain's economic adviser thinks this one's wrong. Here's what Mark Zandi said about the U.S. national debt on the February 1 edition of Meet The Press:
"It's 40 percent of GDP now. If the projections are right, we get to 60, maybe 70 percent of GDP, which is high, but it's manageable in our historic—in our history we've been higher, as you pointed out. And moreover, it's very consistent with other countries and their debt loads. And more—just as important, investors understand this. They know this and they're still buying our debt and interest rates are still very, very low. So we need to take this opportunity and be very aggressive and use the resources that we have at our disposal."
5. But Social Security is headed for disaster. It's out of control!
~snip~
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the Social Security trust fund will continue to run a surplus until 2019. (More conservative fund trustees put the date at 2017.) The fund’s total assets should hold out until 2046. And that's assuming that nothing changes at all.
6. Ending Social Security would be well worth it, because putting those deductions back in people's pockets would provide a big enough stimulus to get us out of this mess.
As Digby put it: "Boomers are still sitting on a vast pile of wealth that's badly needed to be put to work investing in this country. But it's shrinking dramatically and it's making people very nervous."
As [Dean] Baker writes, "if one of the purposes of the stimulus is to restore some confidence in the future, then talk of fiddling with social security and medicare is extremely counterproductive. If they want to see the baby boomers put their remaining money in the mattress or bury in the back yard instead of prudently investing it, they'd better stop talking about "entitlement reform." This is a politically savvy generation and they know what that means.
If they perceive that social security is now on the menu, after losing vast amounts in real estate and stocks, you can bet those who still have a nestegg are going to start hoarding their savings and refusing to put it back into the economy. They'd be stupid not to."
7. OK, forget I even mentioned Social Security. Besides, the real problem is Medicare.
Finally, we come down to the truth. There's no question that exponentially rising health care costs—both Medicare and private insurance—are unaffordable in the long term; and that getting ourselves back on track financially means getting serious about addressing that.
8. Next, you're going to tell me that some kind of government-sponsored health care is the answer.
Yes, we are. The Congressional Budget Office notes that health care costs were only 7 percent of the GDP in 1970—and are over double that, at 14.8 percent, now.
Much of that increase came about because in 1970, most health care providers ran on a not-for-profit basis. Hospitals were run by governments, universities, or religious-based groups; in some states, private for-profit care was actually illegal. Even insurance companies, like Blue Cross, were non-profit corporations. AdminIstrators and doctors were still paid handsomely; but there were no shareholders in the picture trying to pull profits out of other people's misfortune
9. But this Peterson guy's a billionaire Wall Streeter. Obviously, he knows something about finance...
Let's punt this one to William Greider:
Peterson, who made his fortune on Wall Street, never raised a word about the dangers of hyper leveraged finance houses gambling other people's money. He never expressed qualms about the leveraged buyout artists who were using debt finance to rip apart companies. He didn't fund an all out effort to stop Bush from raiding the Social Security surplus to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
But now he wants folks headed into retirement who have already prepaid a surplus of $2.5 trillion to cover their Social Security retirements to take a cut and to work a few years longer to cover the money squandered on bailing out banks, wars of choice abroad, and tax cuts for the few.
Basically, we're only having this conversation in the first place because a conservative ideologue was willing to pony up $1 billion of his own money to fund a "foundation" devoted to killing Social Security. Given that most politicians—both Democrat and Republican—are extremely unwilling to touch the notorious "third rail of politics," it's pretty clear that next Monday's "fiscal responsibility summit" wouldn't even be happening if Peterson wasn't bankrolling the Beltway buzz on this terrible idea.
10. OK—if killing Social Security isn't the answer, just how do you propose to get us out of this?
The idea of a White House summit on fiscal responsibility is a good one—but only if it focuses on real solutions to our real problems.
Cutting health care costs by getting all Americans into a rationally-managed system that puts delivering excellent care above delivering shareholder profits has to be a central part of any long-term economic health strategy. We're also about 15 years overdue for a complete overhaul of our military budget, too much of which is still focused on fighting the Soviet Union instead of responding to the actual challenges we're currently facing. Finally, it's time to ask the wealthy—who've profited more than anyone from the past 15 years, and yet haven't paid anywhere near their fair share—to step in a pay up for the system that enabled them to build that pile in the first place.
Robinson: The inequality of equality
GEVERYL ROBINSON | Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 12:30 am
Contextual linking provided by Topix Egalitarianism: 1. A belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges 2. A social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.
During the presidential election, I kept hearing people bemoan the fact that electing Barack Obama would mean the end of our democracy because Obama and all his Obamacans were socialists who believed in the redistribution of wealth.
I have news for you. We've been dabbling in socialism for quite some time. Democrats, Republicans and all of us are to blame.
I can give you a long drawn out definition of socialism, but in a nutshell, socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly. Know some of you are wondering what's wrong with that, and I'll tell you.
It's not the government's responsibility to make sure wealth and power are distributed more evenly. Egalitarianism is a myth. No matter how you slice it, there will always be inequalities among people, and the government's and our delusion about this fact is the primary reason our country is in its current state.
So we should allow MORE inequality to exist, because we can't get rid of all of it? And ftr, it isn't the government's responsibility to make sure wealth is distributed at the top either, but that's exactly what's been happening, FOR YEARS (please read some of David Cay Johnston's books). This country has been using socialism for the gain of corporations FOR YEARS, class warfare has been going on in favor of the richest individuals FOR YEARS, and now that some of that wealth might actually leak back down to the middle and lower classes, people who have been brainwashed into thinking we actually live in a capitalist society cry foul. How nice.
For example, everyone is shocked by the high foreclosure rates and the millions who have lost their homes due to the "evil lenders." I agree that some of the lenders were predatory. However, there were many who were under extreme pressure from the government to give loans to any and everyone just to make things "fair."
If Mr. CEO with a steady job history, great credit and large income could get a home, then in the spirit of fairness, in the spirit of egalitarianism, Mr. No Job, no money, no credit, 12 kids by 12 different women, and dentures on layaway could get a home, too.
And his home should be just as nice as Mr. CEO's because after all, giving Mr. No Job a home with lesser value wouldn't be fair.
No one told those lenders to lend to people without jobs, or to give them bigger loans than they could afford, or to not check credit. There may have been pressure to make more loans to lower income people, but they did all that crap all on their own, because they KNEW they would package the loans up and sell them, and they wouldn't be the ones losing money when they failed. They KNEW they would fail, but they didn't care, because they were greedy.
Contrary to what a lot of people believe, Fannie May actually worked very well for decades, and lower income people have successfully been getting and paying for loans for a very long time
See the problem?
True, there have been practices by lending institutions and companies that were discriminatory. Laws have been put in place to alleviate these practices. But discrimination is defined as "making a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit." If that's the case, then isn't giving people homes, credit cards, cars, jobs or anything else because they are poor, and not because they earned these things due to their own merit, discriminatory against those who earned the things they've acquired?
And what about the millions of people who knowingly accepted the "free" credit cards they received in the mail and then used the cards to their limit, all the while knowing they would never be able to make their monthly payments?
My God, when the federal government exists pretty much on credit alone, and banks are bombarding people with credit card applications, many of whom should never have gotten them, and advertising is coercing people into thinking they need things they don't, and our system is actually set up to get people to spend, spend, spend, can you blame people getting out of control? (Didn't you post that link to
how stuff works on SMN Merc? Don't you remember how the government actually conspired after WWII to create an economy based on needless stuff?) Remember the 80s? Gordon Gecko in the movie Wall Street? Greed is Good! All politicians talk about is GROWING the economy. How about creating a sustainable one? Good grief.
I've heard some elderly people say, "Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered," and our greed has led us straight to the slaughterhouse.
Instead of suffering from optical rectumitis (the crossing of the anal nerve with the optic nerve causing one to have a crappy outlook on life), we need to take responsibility for our actions, for our part in this mess we find ourselves in as a country.
We all played a part in our economic downfall. So instead of redistributing wealth, let's try redistributing responsibility and then collectively find solutions to reverse our downward spiral and restore our economy.
http://www.savannahnow.com/node/635671
yes, we ALL did. But let's not blame individuals who have been brainwashed by Wall Street for decades MORE than the people who actually created the problem in the first place.
Someone should have invited the guys in charge of Iraq reconstruction to a fiscal responsibility summit.
In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US -directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff's notorious Ponzi scheme.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-fraud-bigger-than-madoff-1622987.html
Someone should have invited the guys in charge of Iraq reconstruction to a fiscal responsibility summit.
Hell, we should have let Iraqi contractors be in charge. They could have done for a fraction of the cost.
Hell, we should have let Iraqi contractors be in charge. They could have done for a fraction of the cost.
But then how would Cheney have benefited with a 3,000% increase in the value of his Halliburton stock options?
Hell, we should have let Iraqi contractors be in charge.
We did. And then enrich Halliburtion for it. We even murdered American soldiers - electrocuted in showers - by paying Halliburton to let Iraqi contractors be in charge.
And I'm quite sure, if this is true, that republicans wrote that part of the fucking bill. They ARE the ones who wanted all the fucking tax cuts. Obama put a lot of porky ones for rich people in there in order to appease them and get some votes. But they voted against it anyway. And he will have to take the heat for it. A very stupid move IMO.
I think, after the House dug their heals in and decided to completely vote against it, he should have just taken out everything he didn't want, and put the stuff back in he DID want that they took out for republican support. Fuck them. He will not get any support from them. That is pretty obvious.
Politics as usual, none of that surprises me. Obama and the Dems will still hold the bag if this fails.
We did. And then enrich Halliburtion for it. We even murdered American soldiers - electrocuted in showers - by paying Halliburton to let Iraqi contractors be in charge.
From what I've heard in the news, it wasn't Iraqi contractors who did the sloppy work. It was an American contractor. An American contractor who has changed their name and now has another contract to do work in Afghanistan. So how is it you are blaming the Iraqis?
From what I've heard in the news, it wasn't Iraqi contractors who did the sloppy work. It was an American contractor.
Iraqi contractors (or American hired Iraqis) are not being blamed and were not a solution. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Murder of American soldiers in showers is directly traceable to top management - even if the work is done by Iraqi contractors (paid by the job) or Iraqi employees (paid by the hour).
First task was call it an accident. Therefore blame does not go to the source.
And so the joke - let Iraqi contractors do the work. Iraqis could not have done it any worse. In essense, Americans got paid to let their Iraqi employees do it without training and oversight. And then we blame the Iraqis. Or call it an accident - same thing.
There has been corruption up and down the chain of command in the Iraq reconstruction program funded with US $$$. (Remember how the Iraqis would pay for their own reconstruction with oil revenue?)
The latest report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SGIR) has a list of 20 arrests, 19 indictments, 14 convictions, and more than $17 million in fines, forfeitures, recoveries, and restitutions to date.
Convictions (pdf)
Jan 09 Full Report
Just the tip of the iceberg...with more than $50 billion of US taxpayer dollars unaccounted for.
Fortunately, the Democrats were able to keep the SIGIR in place when they took control of Congress in '07.
The Republicans had voted to shut it down.
Yea, and we are still paying for it. Throw the bums into Gitmo.
A Pick to Oversee Stimulus Spending
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Obama is expected to appoint a former Secret Service agent who helped expose lobbyists’ corruption at the Interior Department to oversee spending in the $787 billion economic stimulus plan, an administration official said Sunday.
Mr. Obama is set to announce his selection of the former agent, Earl Devaney, on Monday at a meeting with governors at the White House. Mr. Devaney will serve as the chairman of the new Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board and, along with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., will coordinate oversight of stimulus spending.
Mr. Devaney, the inspector general of the Interior Department, helped turn up dealings at the department involving the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Mr. Devaney was a senior official with the Secret Service before retiring in 1991. He then worked as the chief of criminal enforcement at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Obama has said the recovery board will be an at-large body that will oversee the spending of billions of dollars allocated to help the economy. With dozens of agencies and departments involved, the president wanted an independent central group to monitor where the money was going.
I'm loving this.
A Pick to Oversee Stimulus Spending
I'm loving this.
transparency and accountability provided by a qualified appointee, rather than a political hack.
How refreshing from previous IG type picks ;)
It could just be me, but I find the bailouts quite refreshing. Its not every day your suspicions about incipient banana republicanism are proved true, after all.
For example
AIG renegotiation
The Treasury banking stress tests were fixed
White House again refuses calls to nationalize the banks, maintaining what is essentially a pretty fiction
Structural reform of the banking system is essentially nil
And these are just a few stories from the last week.
Now, that's not to say bailouts in theory are a bad idea. With the right structural reforms, proper analysis and adequate punishment for the fools in government, regulation and finance, bailouts could work. There are plenty of good bankers and financial analysts out there who did not jump on the subprime mortgage bandwagon, and have raised concerns about overreliance on credit before now.
But none of those things are happening. Its the "in practice" part of this which is the problem, as per usual. This is like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom. But then, when the bucket contributed several million in campaign related funds, and those who the money is being taken from contributed, uh, significantly less, you shouldn't really be surprised when the result is systemized looting from the former to the latter.
Throw the bums into Gitmo.
Or subject them to severe oversight and regulation. That would be even worse. After these last ten years, that would be extremely painful for them.
Iraqi contractors (or American hired Iraqis) are not being blamed and were not a solution. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Murder of American soldiers in showers is directly traceable to top management - even if the work is done by Iraqi contractors (paid by the job) or Iraqi employees (paid by the hour).
First task was call it an accident. Therefore blame does not go to the source.
And so the joke - let Iraqi contractors do the work. Iraqis could not have done it any worse. In essense, Americans got paid to let their Iraqi employees do it without training and oversight. And then we blame the Iraqis. Or call it an accident - same thing.
Iraqis might have actually done it right, if they had been
in charge.
KBR was in charge, and they claimed they were NOT required to follow US electrical safety codes. Even the DOD is losing confidence in them.
http://cellar.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=538077
The accidental deaths and close calls, which are being investigated by Congress and the Defense Department’s inspector general, raise new questions about the oversight of contractors in the war zone, where unjustified killings by security guards, shoddy reconstruction projects and fraud involving military supplies have spurred previous inquiries.
American electricians who worked for KBR, the Houston-based defense contractor that is responsible for maintaining American bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, said they repeatedly warned company managers and military officials about unsafe electrical work, which was often performed by poorly trained Iraqis and Afghans paid just a few dollars a day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/world/middleeast/04electrocute.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29065911/It could just be me, but I find the bailouts quite refreshing. Its not every day your suspicions about incipient banana republicanism are proved true, after all.
For example
AIG renegotiation
The Treasury banking stress tests were fixed
White House again refuses calls to nationalize the banks, maintaining what is essentially a pretty fiction
Structural reform of the banking system is essentially nil
And these are just a few stories from the last week.
Now, that's not to say bailouts in theory are a bad idea. With the right structural reforms, proper analysis and adequate punishment for the fools in government, regulation and finance, bailouts could work. There are plenty of good bankers and financial analysts out there who did not jump on the subprime mortgage bandwagon, and have raised concerns about overreliance on credit before now.
But none of those things are happening. Its the "in practice" part of this which is the problem, as per usual. This is like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom. But then, when the bucket contributed several million in campaign related funds, and those who the money is being taken from contributed, uh, significantly less, you shouldn't really be surprised when the result is systemized looting from the former to the latter.
I never agreed with the bank bailouts. I DO agree with the stimulus. AIG just makes me see red. I think they should just go down, along with some big banks. In fact, I think too many corporations have gotten too big. They should be broken up.
btw, what about all the info about Northern Trust today? :mad:
I never agreed with the bank bailouts. I DO agree with the stimulus. AIG just makes me see red. I think they should just go down, along with some big banks. In fact, I think too many corporations have gotten too big. They should be broken up.
A few could do with being shaken down, its true. I would tend to think that any single corporate or banking entity large enough to pose a threat to the economy should a run on them happen (like with Citigroup, for example) is probably too much power in the hands of too few. I'm not entirely sure the benfits outweight the particular costs when it comes to the investment giants, at least those who play it fast and loose with everyone's money.
But apparently such companies are "too big to fail" and we should not worry ourselves about such things. Or so I was told when I asked about the potential risk, a few years back.
btw, what about all the info about Northern Trust today? :mad:
I hadn't heard about this until you mentioned it, but Bloomberg, as per usual, has the goods:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ateteQNxUwbY&refer=us
Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. lawmakers are asking companies to repay taxpayer money spent on private jets and other perks after Northern Trust Corp., the Chicago-based custody bank that got $1.6 billion, hosted a golf tournament this month.
Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, yesterday co-signed a letter with 17 colleagues demanding that Northern Trust return money spent on the event. Senator John Kerry said he would introduce a bill banning firms getting U.S. aid from paying for conferences and parties.
“I’m sick and tired of picking up the newspaper and reading about another idiotic abuse of taxpayer money while our country is on the brink,” Kerry said in a statement yesterday. He and Frank are both Massachusetts Democrats.
Fed chief Bernanke: recession could end in '09
WASHINGTON – America's recession "probably" will end this year if the government succeeds in bolstering the banking system, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Sunday in a rare television interview.
Bernanke stressed — as he did to Congress last month — that the prospects for the recession ending this year and a recovery taking root next year hinge on a difficult task: getting banks to lend more freely again and getting the financial markets to work more normally.
"We've seen some progress in the financial markets, absolutely," Bernanke said. "But until we get that stabilized and working normally, we're not going to see recovery.
"But we do have a plan. We're working on it. And, I do think that we will get it stabilized, and we'll see the recession coming to an end probably this year."
Even if the recession, which began in December 2007, ends this year, the unemployment rate will keep climbing past the current quarter-century high of 8.1 percent, Bernanke said.
A growing number of economists think the jobless rate will hit 10 percent by the end of this year.
Asked about the biggest potential dangers now, Bernanke suggested a lack of "political will" to solve the financial crisis.
He said, though, that the United States has averted the risk of plunging into a depression.
"I think we've gotten past that," he said.
It's rare for a sitting Fed chief to grant an interview, whether for broadcast or print. Bernanke said he chose to do so because it's an "extraordinary time" for the country, and it gave him a chance to speak directly to the American public. (A transcript of the interview was provided in advance of the broadcast.)
Bernanke spoke at a time of rising public anger over financial bailouts using taxpayer money. Battling the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, the government has put hundreds of billions of those dollars at risk to prop up troubled institutions and stabilize the banking system.
Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have questioned the effectiveness of the rescue efforts and have demanded more information about how taxpayers' money is being used.
Bernanke's TV interview seemed to be part of a government public relations offensive.
So we are facing a catastrophe or things will be better this year? Which is it?
“I’m sick and tired of picking up the newspaper and reading about another idiotic abuse of taxpayer money while our country is on the brink,” Kerry said in a statement yesterday.
Idiotic abuse of taxpayers money? That is what politicians are for. When business gets in on the act, what next? The government giving themselves bonuses?
He didn't say things will get better this year.
Apparently he did in the interview.
Well, the "end of the recession" might not be the return to growth, it might be the begining of full-on depression.
Surprisingly, I was a little bit comforted by his interview tonight, something I can't say about listening to Larry Summers this morning. I reeeally, reeeally hope they know they are doing. At least I learned Ben Bernanke did not grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth, and he never worked for Wall Street.
Apparently he did in the interview.
No, he said if a bunch of things happen, and they can do what they set out to accomplish, the recession will end at the end of the year.
But despite his optimism they can meet those targets in spite of Republican obstructionists, what he's actually talking about is ending the plunge into a full fledged depression.
Well then they cut the video REALLY WELL this morning. I wanted to see the whole thing myself after your posts - Thats what it looked like to me.
"....millions of jobs." President Obama
where ya been Merc?
St. Pats Rugby Tourny all week end and we hosted 3 people from the UK in our house. Gave them some big ole American hospitality, cooked a whole salmon on the grill, went to a low country boil, made a few fires in the back yard, hoisted a few cold ones, and soaked in the hot tub. :D
damn. and you didn't call? bastard. I coulda used a nice, big British bloke...
And now more failures of the bailout:
March 22, 2009
Some Rich Districts Get Richer as Aid Is Rushed to Schools
By SAM DILLON
RANDOLPH, Utah — Dale Lamborn, the superintendent of a somewhat threadbare rural school district, feels the pain of Utah’s economic crisis every day as he tinkers with his shrinking budget, struggling to avoid laying off teachers or cutting classes like welding or calculus.
Just across the border in Wyoming, a state awash in oil and gas money, James Bailey runs a wealthier district. It has a new elementary school and gives every child an Apple laptop.
But under the Obama administration’s education stimulus package, Mr. Lamborn, who needs every penny he can get, will receive hundreds of dollars less per student than will Dr. Bailey, who says he does not need the extra money.
“For us, this is just a windfall,” Dr. Bailey said.
In pouring rivers of cash into states and school districts, Washington is using a tangle of well-worn federal formulas, some of which benefit states that spend more per pupil, while others help states with large concentrations of poor students or simply channel money based on population. Combined, the formulas seem to take little account of who needs the money most.
As a result, some districts that are well off will find themselves swimming in cash, while some that are struggling may get too little to avoid cutbacks.
Still, educators are accepting the disparities without challenge. Utah, which stands to get about $400 less per student than Wyoming, says it is grateful for the money and has no complaint. There is widespread recognition that the federal money is helping to avert what could have been an educational disaster in some places.
Democrats in Congress decided to use the formulas to save time, knowing that devising new ones tailored to current conditions could require months of negotiations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/education/22schools.htmlAside/ How exactly is it that our elected representatives signed this bailout without even reading it? They are still now finding things that they had no idea were there. Gotta be done before Nancy goes on her trip...
What the fuck did they do? Oh thats right THEY DON'T KNOW EITHER Grrrrr /As you were.
Aside/ How exactly is it that our elected representatives signed this bailout without even reading it?
Same as they did with the PATRIOT Act.
Nobody had time to read it, damn near everyone voted for it.
Aside/ How exactly is it that our elected representatives signed this bailout without even reading it? They are still now finding things that they had no idea were there. Gotta be done before Nancy goes on her trip...
What the fuck did they do? Oh thats right THEY DON'T KNOW EITHER Grrrrr /As you were.
Looks like that is going to be the modus operandi of the democratic congress.
Looks like that is going to be the modus operandi of the democratic congress.
But it was okay for the republican congress to vote for the PATRIOT Act without reading it...because, apparently, the dems were mind controlling them.
What the fuck did they do? Oh thats right THEY DON'T KNOW EITHER Grrrrr /As you were.
Maybe that will be Dodd's newest excuse. :p
Same as they did with the PATRIOT Act.
Nobody had time to read it, damn near everyone voted for it.
Fear tactics. And of course, Congress has to actually
pretend like they're doing stuff for OUR benefit, instead of their own political benefit.
So what about the new housing proposal? Wall Street apparently approved, but damn, why does it seem like all the money is going to the people who need it the least?
And people keep calling these mortgages "toxic assets," and while the mortgages might be toxic, the actually properties aren't. The properties are worth something. So I really don't get it.
I think the government should have just divided the money up and given it in equal portions to every adult citizen who makes less than a million dollars a year. It might have been cheaper in the long run, and better for the economy.
And people keep calling these mortgages "toxic assets," and while the mortgages might be toxic, the actually properties aren't. The properties are worth something. So I really don't get it.
Do the math - If the mortgage amount is more than the current home value, thats is a "toxic mortgage." To compound the problem there were ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) bought by people to get into homes that, IMO, they couldn't really afford. Lets leave the "greedy lenders" out of this for a moment.
The homeowners took a gamble that they would be making more or they could refinance later or or or... before the rate on their ARM increased. Many knowingly did this. It has been done for many years, this is not something new. What changed is the home values.
To further compound the problem many homes did not increase in value, in fact, they decreased and on or around the same time the mortgage payment increased. Now you have a devalued home and an increased monthly payment.
An example of the impact:
A toxic mortgage is when there is a loan for $500,000 on a house that is currently worth only $250,000. This is generally held by an owner whose FICO score is poor (say 600 and below). Under the bailout, the government would negotiate with the current mortgage holder (BANK) and let's say buy this loan for $400,000. The bank is out $100,000 on paper but they now have $400,000 to play with.
The government then holds a $400,000 mortgage on a house worth $250,000 being paid for by an owner who still has a marginal ability to pay even the re-negotiated loan amount.
Assuming he can not or will not pay any more money, the government will either have to reduce the loan down to an amount the owner can pay or else foreclose on the house. If the government re-negotiates down to $250,000, they are (or more appropriately, WE are) out $150,000. If the government forecloses, they now own a house worth $250,000 with no one making monthly payments, plus they're out $150,000 from the initial $400,000 purchase. They must then find a buyer or else leave the home vacant until the property value increases enough for them to break even or make a profit.
Going back to the start, if the house were to increase in value to $1 million, the government would only be able to collect the loan amount of $400,000. They are not entitled to equity gains in the property (unless they owned and held it through foreclosure).
Fear tactics. And of course, Congress has to actually pretend like they're doing stuff for OUR benefit, instead of their own political benefit.
No one was fooled. It was business as usual before, just as it is now.
Do the math - If the mortgage amount is more than the current home value, thats is a "toxic mortgage." To compound the problem there were ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) bought by people to get into homes that, IMO, they couldn't really afford. Lets leave the "greedy lenders" out of this for a moment.
The homeowners took a gamble that they would be making more or they could refinance later or or or... before the rate on their ARM increased. Many knowingly did this. It has been done for many years, this is not something new. What changed is the home values.
To further compound the problem many homes did not increase in value, in fact, they decreased and on or around the same time the mortgage payment increased. Now you have a devalued home and an increased monthly payment.
An example of the impact:
I understand all of that. But really, shouldn't they have to eat that? After all, they all went along with the ride. They made the loans to those people. They knew (or should have known) what they were doing. When you take risks, the upside is profit, the downside is the opposite. Still, the houses are worth something, even if the mortgage was a bad one. They are probably worth now what they
should've been worth to begin with.
I don't want to do the math. I understand the math. Do you understand my argument, or question rather?
Honestly, if banks had just renegotiated those mortgages to begin with, this may not have happened. Really.
And... whoever heard of an appraisal person asking the seller what price they would like their house appraised at? There was all kinds of trickses going on.
Yeah, there was some (a lot of) underhanded shenanigans going on, especially in the subprime market.
But more than that, even intelligent people were making some poor choices when overwhelmed with all the legalese and "expert" opinions. Here's an article in
NewScientist about how people tend to accept what "experts" say, even when it goes against their common sense.
I don't want to do the math.
Therein lies the problem with your argument.
CURL: Stimulus oversight left up to taxpayers
So just who's tracking that $787 billion in taxpayer money that President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress are doling out? You are. Or you're supposed to be, anyway.
"We are, in essence, deputizing the entire American citizenry to help with the oversight of this program," said Rep. Brad Miller, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee on investigations and oversight.
So, too, said Earl Devaney, the ex-cop who's now chairman of the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board, charged with tracking the torrent of cash now pouring out of federal coffers.
"I'm going to have millions of citizens to help me," he said, comparing run-of-the-mill Americans to inspectors general, the high-ranking officials charged with ferreting out waste and abuse in federal agencies.
And perhaps that's just as well, given the turnout of the panel tasked with keeping track of thousands of millions of dollars. Just three of the 10 members bothered to show up for the subcommittee's second meeting, dramatically titled "Follow the Money Part II."
Mr. Devaney, though, said his board - made up of 10 IGs - has a dual mission:
"First, the board is responsible for establishing and maintaining a Web site." Oh, and second, it's supposed to "help minimize fraud, waste or mismanagement."
Oh? Oh???? and second....
"President Obama promised a level of transparency, through the Internet, Recovery.gov. ... How do you intend to provide that level of transparency, to see how - who actually got the contract to pour asphalt?"
"As I mentioned in my testimony," Mr. Devaney said, "that Web site is evolving. ... I would probably be the first to admit today the Web site doesn't give you that kind of information."
"How do you plan to verify the actual number of jobs created?"
"Sir, we haven't really received any information about that on the Web site," Mr. Devaney said.
Wow..A Washington Times editorial writer who doesnt like the process to provide ARRA transparency, including making it relatively easy for anyone to find out more about funded programs.
What A surprise.
Way to see only what you want - you're transparency is showing Dux.
Way to see only what you want - you're transparency is showing Dux.
In fact, what I saw about a week or so ago, was the full testimony of Devaney, the head of the ARRA accountability board....and not just the few sentences w/o context in the partisan editorial that you evidently find so meaningful.
But it is what you and Merc do best.....in your "gotcha" game. You two really are interchangeable.
You cut and past a partisan editorial.
You rarely, if ever offer your own opinion with your initial post/link - perhaps just a one-line snide comment.
And you never provide any context at all.
Its a bullshit way to encourage discussion and it just gets tiresome after awhile.
Carry on without me.
Carry on without me.
Gladly. :yelsick:
Edit: Actually sorry to hear you have that attitude about people who disagree with you. I have learned some stuff from your contribution, not much, but it has been measurable. You might just want to take a break and try again later.
Gladly. :yelsick:
Edit: Actually sorry to hear you have that attitude about people who disagree with you. I have learned some stuff from your contribution, not much, but it has been measurable. You might just want to take a break and try again later.
It is not at all about people who disagree with me.
I learn from undertoad and lookout....I even learn from UG.....because they post and discuss their own opinions.
It is a matter of style.
As I said, it has just gotten tiresome for me to respond to one after another after another of the partisan editorials that cherry pick the facts (in this latest case, two sentences out of two hours of testimony) that you and classic throw out repeatedly with a "gotcha" attitude as a basis for discussion....w/o even offering your own opinions.
I can read partisan editorials (on both sides) w/o coming here.
I'm done.
Carry on without me.
I'm done.
Sure.
Mr. Devaney, though, said his board - made up of 10 IGs - has a dual mission:
"First, the board is responsible for establishing and maintaining a Web site." Oh, and second, it's supposed to "help minimize fraud, waste or mismanagement."
Those are direct quotes from him - His
first priority is a website - and as an afterthought and by his own admission the second is the other which seems much more important to any relatively intelligent human.
You choose to bring up some other bullshit and avoid the point again. Thats fine, I'm used to your deflections. You learned very well from the politicians you work with/for.
Sure.
Those are direct quotes from him - His first priority is a website - and as an afterthought and by his own admission the second is the other which seems much more important to any relatively intelligent human.
... as an afterthought ? and by his own admission ? WTF are you talking about?
Why not read his
FULL opening statement (pdf) for yourself, as part of two hours of his testimony that goes into a bit more detail on the two distinct, but equally important roles of the board than you were led to believe in your partisan editorial - transparency (public website) and oversight (including meetings with federal/state officials w/oversight responsibility for the disbursement and use of the funds).
You choose to bring up some other bullshit and avoid the point again. Thats fine, I'm used to your deflections. You learned very well from the politicians you work with/for
Right...I guess it is bullshit to suggest that there might have been more to his testimony than the two quotes cherry-picked by a partisan editorial writer.
Fine with me. Your blind fealty to such partisan editorials is laughable if not ignorant.
TW may have it right....You're either just a wacko who believes whatever the wingnuts throw your way OR too fucking lazy to take the time to look beyond those spoon fed talking points before jumping on their bandwagon.
Do the math again.
You didn't read the rest of my reply, obviously.
Do the math again.
I don't want to do the math.
Therein lies the problem.
You didn't read the rest of my reply, obviously.
There was no reason to read anymore, even though I did. If you understand what the issue is then there is no issue. :shrug:
It is not at all about people who disagree with me.
I learn from undertoad and lookout....I even learn from UG.....because they post and discuss their own opinions.
It is a matter of style.
As I said, it has just gotten tiresome for me to respond to one after another after another of the partisan editorials that cherry pick the facts (in this latest case, two sentences out of two hours of testimony) that you and classic throw out repeatedly with a "gotcha" attitude as a basis for discussion....w/o even offering your own opinions.
I can read partisan editorials (on both sides) w/o coming here.
I'm done.
So be it. Your choice.
As I said, it has just gotten tiresome for me to respond to one after another after another of the partisan editorials that cherry pick the facts (in this latest case, two sentences out of two hours of testimony) that you and classic throw out repeatedly with a "gotcha" attitude as a basis for discussion....w/o even offering your own opinions.
Which is why wacko extremism works. Anybody can cherry pick a sound byte. Rush Limbaugh does it routinely AND teaches extremists how to do it. Reality requires much more work; takes longer to explain.
But then Hitler was an early master. Disparage the bourgeois and intelligencia. Once done, it becomes easy to prove Saddam has WMDs.
They continued doing it to you because that is what wacko extremist do. If even a moderate conservative, then he must be a flaming liberal. That soundbyte cheapshot proved itself.
Easy to post lies and half truths especially when others do not hold them to the required 1500 words of supporting facts, numbers, and reality.
classicman is particular good at subverting discussions with his soundbyte attacks masking as a question. Some call it 'stir the pot'. It really was, for example, outright attacks on Jill because she posted what the overwhelming majority of professionals have always said - with supporting facts and example. She posted what a political agenda fears.
Examples of cheapshots demonstrated by classicman's nefarious soundbyte attacks on Jill in
Torture memos.
Notice: soundbyte attacks prove that professionals advocate torture. That is the wacko extremist propaganda; despite reality. Professional interrogators routinely show torture does not work. But to explain truth requires 1500 words in response to each cheapshot attack. What classicman does is also how the Nazis grabbed power in 1930s Germany. And so they have successfully driven you silent? Same extremist agenda was used even in 1930s Germany.
classicman is particular good at subverting discussions with his soundbyte attacks masking as a question.
More attacks against a poster - something tw claims incorrectly that he never does and routinely ridicules others about - further examples of what a hypocrite tw is.
It really was, for example, outright attacks on Jill
Examples of cheapshots demonstrated by classicman's nefarious soundbyte attacks on Jill in Torture memos.
ORLY? Your example above is a question repeatedly asked of Redux, not Jill. Care to try again tw or would you prefer to admit that you are wrong again?
There was no reason to read anymore, even though I did. If you understand what the issue is then there is no issue. :shrug:
I understand all of that. But really, shouldn't they have to eat that? After all, they all went along with the ride. They made the loans to those people. They knew (or should have known) what they were doing. When you take risks, the upside is profit, the downside is the opposite. Still, the houses are worth something, even if the mortgage was a bad one. They are probably worth now what they should've been worth to begin with.
I don't want to do the math. I understand the math. Do you understand my argument, or question rather?
Honestly, if banks had just renegotiated those mortgages to begin with, this may not have happened. Really.
And... whoever heard of an appraisal person asking the seller what price they would like their house appraised at? There was all kinds of trickses going on.
Originally Posted by sugarpop
Do you understand my argument, or question rather?
No, apparently not. Whats the question?
Those are direct quotes from him - His first priority is a website - and as an afterthought and by his own admission the second is the other which seems much more important to any relatively intelligent human.
Look really closely at what is quoted, and what is provided by the editorial's author.
Mr. Devaney, though, said his board - made up of 10 IGs - has a dual mission:
"First, the board is responsible for establishing and maintaining a Web site." Oh, and second, it's supposed to "help minimize fraud, waste or mismanagement."
The "Oh, and second" bit is a sarcastic snipe by the editoral author. For all we know, Mr. Devaney said, "First, the board is responsible for establishing and maintaining a Web site. Once that is completed, we will have the tools in place to proceed to step two, which will help minimize fraud, waste, or mismanagement."
The Members of the Board and I view the Board as having a dual mission. First, the Board is responsible for establishing and maintaining a website, the purpose of which is not only to foster historic levels of transparency of Recovery Act funds but to do so in a user-friendly manner. Second, the Board will coordinate and conduct oversight of Recovery Act funds to help minimize fraud, waste or mismanagement. I am pleased to tell you that the Board continues to effect its mission of accountability and has recently taken several important steps to achieve its goal of unprecedented transparency of Recovery Act funds.
I stand 1/2 corrected - I still feel that the website should be a distant second.
The website should be first, if that can result in all of the info being available. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
The poorest and needy still lose out.
STIMULUS WATCH: Early road aid leaves out neediest
By MATT APUZZO and BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE –
WASHINGTON (AP) — Counties suffering the most from job losses stand to receive the least help from President Barack Obama's plan to spend billions of stimulus dollars on roads and bridges, an Associated Press analysis has found.
Although the intent of the money is to put people back to work, AP's review of more than 5,500 planned transportation projects nationwide reveals that states are planning to spend the stimulus in communities where jobless rates are already lower.
One result among many: Elk County, Pa., isn't receiving any road money despite its 13.8 percent unemployment rate. Yet the military and college community of Riley County, Kan., with its 3.4 percent unemployment, will benefit from about $56 million to build a highway, improve an intersection and restore a historic farmhouse.
Altogether, the government is set to spend 50 percent more per person in areas with the lowest unemployment than it will in communities with the highest.
The AP reviewed $18.9 billion in projects, the most complete picture available of where states plan to spend the first wave of highway money. The projects account for about half of the $38 billion set aside for states and local governments to spend on roads, bridges and infrastructure in the stimulus plan.
The very promise that Obama made, to spend money quickly and create jobs, is locking out many struggling communities needing those jobs.
The money goes to projects ready to start. But many struggling communities don't have projects waiting on a shelf. They couldn't afford the millions of dollars for preparation and plans that often is required.
"It's not fair," said Martin Schuller, the borough manager in the Elk County seat of Ridgway, who commiserates about the inequity in highway aid with colleagues in nearby towns. "It's a joke because we're not going to get it, because we don't have any projects ready to go."
The early trend seen in the AP analysis runs counter to expectations raised by Obama, that road and infrastructure money from the historic $787 billion stimulus plan would create jobs in areas most devastated by layoffs and plant closings. Transportation money, he said, would mean paychecks for "folks looking for work" and "folks who want to work."
"That's the core of my plan, putting people to work doing the work that America needs done," Obama said in a Feb. 11 speech promoting transportation spending as a way to expand employment.
Also, Congress required states to use some of the highway money for projects in economically distressed areas, but didn't impose sanctions if they didn't. States can lose money, however, if they don't spend fast enough.
The AP examined the earliest projects announced nationwide, the ones most likely to break ground and create jobs first. More projects are continually being announced, and some areas that received little or no help so far may benefit later. The Obama administration could also encourage states to change their plans.
To determine whether there was a disparity in where the money would go, the AP divided the nation's counties into four groups by unemployment levels. The analysis found that, no matter how the early money is measured, communities suffering most fare the worst:
_High-unemployment counties, those in the top quarter of jobless rates, are allotted about 16 percent of the money, compared with about 20 percent for areas least affected by joblessness.
_In low-unemployment counties nationwide, those in the bottom quarter of jobless rates, the federal government is spending about $89 a person compared with $59 a person in the worst-hit areas.
_In counties with the largest populations, the government is spending about $69 a person in areas with the lowest unemployment and $40 a person in places with the greatest job need.
The analysis also found that counties with the highest unemployment are most likely to have been passed over completely in the early spending.
Continues:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guNAb2By3sueeeMXl9bWidVIwh1wD983T6D00Holy crap. My great great great grand kids will be paying this off.
White House: Budget deficit to top $1.8 trillion, 4 times 2008's record
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-House-Budget-deficit-to-apf-15199183.html?.v=8Only if you use today's dollars :eyebrow:
Holy crap. My great great great grand kids will be paying this off.
Where were you when George Jr was creating these problems? Where were you when the 'Saddam has WMD' myths were being promoted using lies and wild speculation?
Deja Vue Nam. Those Nixon lies in 1968 and 1970 caused massive expenses and the resulting recession in the late 1970s.
Discussed previously were Kennedy tax cuts as proof that tax cuts cure economic problems. Then one who constantly first needs facts noted the Kennedy tax cuts then resulted in economic downturn many years later.
Deja vue. George Jr's welfare to the rich and corporate tax cuts. Time to pay for money games as economics now takes revenge.
Again, who kept posting these warnings more than four years ago?
Let's see. Mission Accomplished would only cost $2billion and be paid for by Iraqi oil. What was reality back then? Which kind of thinker saw a $400billion number? On 22 Mar 2004:
France did something right for once!
Due to further extremist mismanagement ("America does not do nation building"), even that number was too small. Mission Accomplished alone is $1trillion (and still bin Laden runs free).
Or from the Economist of 22 Jun 2002:
Government Debts grow
Economic distress created by George Jr's political agenda was obvious how long ago?
Those were the days you stood up for America - opposed the political agenda. Saw through extremist's myths. Economics is now taking revenge for economics stimulus created by money games. Welcome to the 'Deja Vue' lessons of Nam. So many ignored them to promote a political agenda - and the resulting debts. We knew this problem was looming how long ago?
22 Jun 2002?
22 Mar 2004?
Now we must refight an Afghanistan war all over again - because extremists said, "Americans don't do nation building". More debts directly traceable to presidental mismanagement in the early 2000s.
Economists said it. Obama also confirmed it. We will be paying for economic mismanagement for the next ten years. Amazing how a budget surplus by Clinton could turn into massive economic destruction when an MBA trained mental midget, as front man for wackos extremist, was in charge.
Only if you use today's dollars :eyebrow:
So what are you saying, today's dollars are worth less? :D
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The FBI and other U.S. agencies are working to prevent fraud and corruption related to government bailout money and the economic stimulus package, in what could be the "next wave" of cases in the financial crisis, FBI Director Robert Mueller said on Tuesday.
Mueller said in a speech to the Economic Club of New York that the FBI, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program were working to track where federal money is going.
"With billions of dollars at stake -- from the purchase of troubled assets to improvements in infrastructure, healthcare, energy and education -- even a small percentage of fraud would result in substantial taxpayer losses," Mueller said.
Mueller added: "We and our counterparts in other agencies are working to prevent what has the potential to be the next wave of cases: fraud and corruption related to the TARP funds and the stimulus package."
He also said the agency was shifting resources in New York to combat white-collar crime.
Mueller told the luncheon gathering that the agency had 1,300 securities fraud cases, including many Ponzi schemes. The FBI was investigating more than 580 corporate fraud cases, he said.
This should keep them busy for awhile.
Ain't working yet :( and neither am I :thepain:
The May Unemployment Numbers are Here, and Worse Than Predicted June 5, 2009
Posted by geoff in News.
465 comments
While I was waiting for May’s numbers to be released I did a quick Google News search on “unemployment.” Here is the first set of entries that popped up:
Pittsburgh unemployment rate falls to 6.9 percent Bizjournals.com - Unemployment in the Pittsburgh area inched down in April to 6.9 percent…
US Economy: Jobless Claims Fall, Productivity Rises Bloomberg
US jobless claims fall again, productivity rises Reuters
Jobless claims are down, but work remains scarce AP
You get the feeling that there’s a little pre-spin effort afoot? I mean, why put up an article on April’s unemployment on the day that May’s numbers come out? And while jobless claims did fall, interpreting that information without the unemployment rate is very difficult.
In any case, here is the new number for May: 9.4%, which is 0.2% higher than we had shown in the chart from a few days ago:*
Oh dear. And I’m serious – I expected the numbers to flatten out like it looked like they were going to a few days ago. This trend is terrible – the unemployment rate change was 60% higher than what was predicted, and is a larger increase than from March to April.
Maybe we’d better just keep focusing on those jobless claims.
*As always, this chart was constructed by overlaying the actual economic data on top of the chart made by Obama’s economic team to market his stimulus plan.
**Here are some other posts on the subject:
The predicted numbers for May from a few days ago, with some thoughts on why unemployment is worse than expected even without the stimulus package (and a hearty discussion in the comments on proper graphing)
A look at the stimulus package spending – how late it is, and how little thus far has been devoted to job creation (it’s basically gone to pay off states’ social services debts)
The April numbers
The original post on the subject, noting that criticisms of the stimulus package may not have been motivated by racism after all.
http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/What exactly is a "jobless claim"?
Is it where someone visits social security and says, I've just been fired?
Or is it a regular request for unemployment money by someone who has been out of work for months?
They are talking about new claims at state unemployment offices. Nothing to do with social security.
Thanks for the clarification.
So, the "good" news is, slightly fewer people lost their jobs this month than last month. Huzzah.
Down under, somehow our GDP just grew 0.4 in the second quarter, and total jobs have increased.
Our currency falling off a cliff probably helped by stimulating exports, as did the gubmint giving everyone a bucket of money and telling them to go spend it.
Australia is one of the very few countries that are almost immune to this recession.
The new unemployment claims dropped slightly, but most of those people laid off in the last five months are still unemployed. It will probably be another year or more before the economy can recover enough to start putting a significant dent in unemployment numbers.
Here is the Aussie dollar, versus the yen, for the last three years (the only rate I have ready to hand). It has done much the same against all other currencies.
[ATTACH]23711[/ATTACH]
I exchanged my yen for Aussies on Obama's inauguration day, figuring if anything was going to turn it around it would be that. That day was the third of those three very low spikes you see, the last before the recent recovery. :yelgreedy:yelgreedy:yelgreedy !
I guess that makes me one of the idle rich parasites exploiting fluctuations in exchange values without adding any real value. Oh well, peel me a grape, :D
I heard an interview this morning with Elizabeth Warren, Chair of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel. She was discussing how the legislation was specifically written "ambiguously" so that if/when the banks pay back the money we, the taxpayers have no right to the money. In fact, according to her, the administration has the right to utilize that money however they see fit. In short we may (read probably) will never actually get paid back.
Furthermore, she said that she has been requesting more information on the banks and the stress tests. She cannot perform the functions of the position which they empowered her with.
Paraphrasing... I would just like them to be more open, transparent and forthcoming with the information from the stress tests so that we (an independent body) can look at how things are and may be affected by different economic indicators..."
starting to turn
Oh dear.
Well, the good news is, the speed of the increase seems to have decreased slightly. Oh joy. May just be a statistical blip, though.
The states are balancing their budgets. Maybe that is the reason for the spike?
Well I know in my state they are balancing the budget and much of it is being laid on the sholders of those rich state employees.
*cough cough*
Like any business, the boss screws up and the employees get screwed.
yup exactly
We are mandated to balance every year unlike California which is running a deficit. I am not sure if that is the right word 'deficit' but I think for California to go bust would be scary thing.
I just found this graph of Saab sales over the years. They grew steadily during the 80s and peaked in 87, which is around the time I remember I started seeing them everywhere. Then they took a nosedive.
Partway though the nosedive, GM acquired a majority stake in them (1990,) and slowly started to grow the brand again in the early-mid 90s. Then about 3-4 years ago, they took a nosedive again.
I just read in the paper this morning that GM couldn't find a buyer for Saab, so they are shutting it down.
That's it. Saab had a nice run and produced some neat cars, but now they have gone the way of the Studebaker. Good bye Saab.
I feel sorry for all those folks who paid hansomely for those cars within the last few years. I wonder how long they will continue to fix them?
History says unemployment may peak in 2012. With less than 100 years of comprehensive data, we have insufficient information to predict how well and what will happen due to what Bernanke, et al have done. We do know the economy was on the verge of a complete meltdown. How much less damage could have been done? That is debated. We do know, without doubt, that it could have been massively worse.
We also know the debts incurred to avoid a complete economic catastrophe will appear many years later. A disastrous home mortgage fiasco has yet to be addressed. We do know American fiscal irresponsibility over most of the last ten year will result in economic harm years from now. Economics takes revenge on those who use money games (ie tax cuts, corporate welfare, tariffs).
Large parts of America must be sold to pay our debts. Unfortunately irresponsible parties (ie General Motors) would rather destroy existing organizations rather than admit how little those organizations are now worth (ie Saab, Oldsmobile, Opel, Saturn, Pontiac, Vauxhall, etc).
Spread sheet games from years previously mean job losses or sale of America to others. We don't have much left to mortgage having even converted a government surplus into massive debts (with nothing to show for it). These are the lessons even from Nam. One need only learn why George Sr was so smart as to have the world - not America - pay for Desert Storm. Lessons from history. Now we will learn if a different tack from Bernanke, et al will work better.
Obvious was a crashing housing industry based in money games. Same reasoning says we have yet to see the eventual unemployment numbers. Worse are the number of American jobs that must be filled by immigrants - due to a shortage of technically educated American and a government that has subverted science for political purposes. Things have yet to get worse. The only question is how much. Mild or severe?
GM couldn't find a buyer for Saab, so they are shutting it down.
But wait! There's a last minute deal. GM just reached a deal with exotic car maker Spyker and the Swedish government to unload Saab. Saab's not dead yet, and being owned by an exotic car maker may give it a much needed boost.
Bumpity bump... not sure yet how to take this. Its probably bunk, but ...
Pelosi: Without Obama's Stimulus, Unemployment Would Now Be 15%
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said at her press briefing Thursday that if the stimulus had not been enacted the unemployment rate would now be 15 percent.
"I think it’s really important to know that President Obama was a job creator from day one," Pelosi said at her Thursday briefing. "Now, was the ditch that we were in so deep that when you’re talking to people and they still don’t have a job, that that’s any consolation to them? No.
“But I’ll tell you this,” said Pelosi, “if President Obama and the House congressional Democrats had not acted, we would be at 15 percent unemployment. Again, no consolation to those without a job, but an important point to make."
A report published by the CBO in August estimated that in the fourth quarter of 2011, the stimulus signed by President Obama in 2009 would have the impact of reducing the national unemployment rate between 0.3 points to 1.1 points from what it otherwise would have been. The report also said that although CBO initially estimated that the stimulus would cost $787 billion, CBO had subsequently increased its estimated cost to $825 billion.
According to the CBO report, 600,000 to 2 million people have jobs as of now that were "created or retained" because of the $825 billion stimulus. If the maximum number of 2 million is accepted, that works out to a cost of $412,500 per job. If the minimum number of 600,000 is accepted, that works out to a cost of $1,375,000 per job.
Help me out here people. What am I missing?
Maybe it was this ...
LinkYour link led me to something called the "Wonk Blog." When I tried to click on its content, the site wouldn't let me do anything. Maybe you have to subscribe?
That CBO report came out in 2010, so its sort of old news. Although I don't see why it would lie since the CBO is non partisan.
Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, is running for re-election. I'd take the word of any politician running for office with a gazillion grains of salt.
Wonkblog is the Washington Post editorial page.
The link takes you to an article that goes over 9 different assessments of the stimulus and its benefits.
OK, I tried it tonight, and now it works. This morning I either had gremlins in my computer or quite possibly my brain.
That's a lot of info there and I just glanced through it. The author says 6 out of 9 studies show that the stimulus was effective. But he also notes that economists seem to have some quarrels with each other over which economic model to use or something.
Off topic but this finding interested me
Aid to low-income people and infrastructure spending showed very positive impacts.
So, why does Congress want to throw low income Americans out to be food for the wolves again?
Anyhow. I didn't see anything that explained the incredible money to job ratio that you highlighted in your post. But I didn't read all nine studies - maybe buried away somewhere in one of them?
Say an average American made $40,000/year. At those costs, you could just directly give an unemployed worker that sum for anywhere from 10 - 34 years. :eek:
But if you looked at it like each worker has been placed in a $40,000/year job that s/he is going to keep for 20 years, get periodic pay increases, and pay taxes on - well then the numbers might make more sense.
I'm not much help, am I? :confused:
UT or tw needs to give you a reply.
no the original post based that jobs created # off the total amount of the stimulus when only part of it was for job creation. Thats what I got from the second link anyway.
It's like the "$16 muffins".
zactly ... I think.
Shouldn't this be a relatively easy figure to guesstimate?
Bumpity bump... not sure yet how to take this. Its probably bunk, but ...
Help me out here people. What am I missing?
Not bunk. The supposed Obama-Pelosi-Reid "Stimulus" was a boondoggled failure.
That report was false.
Of course. That was my point.
Twelve executives at the firms received roughly $35.4 million in total salary and bonuses in 2009 and 2010. Fannie CEO Michael J. Williams received about $9.3 million for the two years. Freddie CEO Edward Haldeman Jr. was paid $7.8 million for that stretch.
The government rescued Washington-based Fannie and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie three years ago after they nearly folded because of big losses on risky mortgages they purchased. Taxpayers have spent about $170 billion to rescue the two firms, the most expensive bailout of the 2008 financial crisis.
The government estimates the bailout could reach up to $220 billion through 2014.
"These lavish compensation packages and bonuses are unfair, unreasonable and unjust to the taxpayers whose assistance is the only thing keeping Fannie and Freddie afloat," said Rep. Spencer Bachus, chairman of the House committee.
Then ....
Congress is seeking to end the practice of paying million-dollar bonuses to executives at government-controlled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The House Financial Services Committee approved legislation Tuesday that would suspend tens of millions in Fannie and Freddie executive compensation packages, stop future bonuses and align their salaries with other federal employees who make much less. The vote was 52-4, with strong support from both parties.
So glad this shit was stopped. How long will it take the senate to bring this to the floor?
:vomit:
So glad this shit was stopped. How long will it take the senate to bring this to the floor?
Never.
![graph]("http://www.saabhistory.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/saab_sales_specs1.jpg"){kind=link}