Anybody have a look at how much garbage is going into this thing?

Billions going to ACORN, Saab, Global Warming, birth control for kids...like seriously, what the fuck?

Whats hilarious is how Obama is trying to pass this thing off as 'bi-partisan' when in reality all he needs are 2 Republican senators to pass this thing...

This proposed package is so big, that you could give every single person in this country $2700. Not just each household, we're talking each PERSON!

Boy do I feel sorry for people my age who get to pay for this.

Not to mention that first bailout back in September worked so well, huh?

Expanding government just isn't the answer. It has never worked in the past, it will never work in the future.

Not to mention, giving states the power to control their own emission standards...


That's kicking the auto-industry in the gut.

bye-bye private sector...

Don't worry, the cavalry (Repubs) are on the way!

And hopefully they'll get back to cutting spending now that they've racked up catrillions of dollars when they were in power.

Trouble is tax cuts didn't work either. Turns out government interventions can't always fix our troubles.

Not to mention, giving states the power to control their own emission standards...


That's kicking the auto-industry in the gut.

No, not taking it away. States have that right.

According to Obama, when the Bush tax-cuts expire, that's not the same as a tax increase.

Even though the people will see their taxes go up.

Rich people spending is what boosts the economy, all the average-income people aren't going to spend on non-essential goods. So all those people who make the boats and Hummers are going to be out of a job, because the rich will not have as much money to spend on those types of things...

According to Obama, when the Bush tax-cuts expire, that's not the same as a tax increase.

Even though the people will see their taxes go up.

Rich people spending is what boosts the economy, all the average-income people aren't going to spend on non-essential goods. So all those people who make the boats and Hummers are going to be out of a job, because the rich will not have as much money to spend on those types of things...


Yeah, but those people could get government jobs with the new tax revenue. The trouble is the government work will be inefficient in the market at providing the G&S people want.

Not to mention the rich people are the ones who start businesses, invest in businesses, and buy stock...

median-income people don't create lots of jobs, so I just don't see how focusing so much attention on the lower & middle class will stimulate anything...

those people aren't going to spend, they're going to save! saving gets us nowhere!

Not to mention the rich people are the ones who start businesses, invest in businesses, and buy stock...

median-income people don't create lots of jobs, so I just don't see how focusing so much attention on the lower & middle class will stimulate anything...

those people aren't going to spend, they're going to save! saving gets us nowhere!


Wait, the rich would save. The poor need to buy quaker oats with the money, which will create jobs at the oats factory.

Businesses start because there is a need to be met, not just for the hell of it and someone has extra cash.

Not to mention that first bailout back in September worked so well, huh?

Expanding government just isn't the answer. It has never worked in the past, it will never work in the future.

The banking system was facing total collapse. Do you understand what that would have meant??

The banking system was facing total collapse. Do you understand what that would have meant??

No. He's too young and sheltered to understand.

But, I will agree with Wil on the point that this appears to be just another one of those lobbyist-approved moneygrabs. The moment the initial bailout package was proposed, folks started lining up for their cake.

From the beginning, D.C. should have insisted we call this plan a "loan program", but they didn't, and the media-penned "bailout" tag stuck. Washington has loaned to financial institutions in the past, and have seen profit. I'm not totally against the bank loan. However, we're not seeing the benefits as quickly as I'd like.

Instead of opening their doors to new lines of credit and loans, banks are clamping down. The problem with the first set of loans was, simply, there wasn't enough regulation to them. Should have been loan shark simple -- pay us back, or we take your business! Placing the fear of God into the fat cats on high might force them to move to the beat YOU set, and not their own. That money was supposed to loosen up the purse strings, but it hasn't... yet.

According to Obama, when the Bush tax-cuts expire, that's not the same as a tax increase.

Even though the people will see their taxes go up.
Taxes have implicit and explicit temporal components and conditions all the time, and services vary as a function of time.

Like most property tax payers in Michigan, I pay a summer tax and a winter tax where the summer tax is greater than the winter tax. One could easily spin that as "I get a tax cut in the winter and a tax hike in the summer -- how dare they raise my taxes after cutting them". Of course, the tax "hike" is for services that make sense to pay more of in the summer (notably K-12 education and school years). Tax rates that make sense at one time don't necessarily make sense at another time.

Not to mention the rich people are the ones who start businesses, invest in businesses, and buy stock...
They don't teach you about institutional investors, or the typical small business owner at Walsh? How disappointing.

The banking system was facing total collapse. Do you understand what that would have meant??


Four words vinny. Hole in the ground. Best bank EVER.

What I don't understand is how Republicans think tax cuts are going to help anyone. They have all their talking heads saying when you give tax cuts that puts more money in their pockets and they can hire new people, thus stimulating the economy. But why rely on them to spend that money? I think it's pretty safe to assume they would just hoard their cash like everyone is doing right now.

So why not invest in infrastructure like Obama wants to? That immediately creates jobs for all those projects, and also creates long term jobs for the maintenance of whatever is built.

I just don't see how tax cuts help anything. Even if you gave the cut directly to the lower income people, all they'll do is pay a bill they might not have otherwise. It won't do jack shit for the person who lost their job. It creates no jobs at all.

Part of what was appealing to Obama's message was that he understood the possibility of fixing multiple problems with the same measure, or at least using the same measure to help address multiple problems at once. Using the economic stimulus to spur environmental technology growth and create jobs. Creating jobs that improved the country's infrastructure (not just roads) and equipped government facilities with green technology saving them money in the long term (that addresses 4 issues all in one move).

Cantor's mantra of "focus this thing like a lazer beam on job creation" is short sighted and won't be the kind of large scale move needed to fix this mess.

Oh, and Ledezma is terrible. "Rich people spend money". No one thinks that's true. No one. It's a well founded fact that the rich spend less of a percentage of their wealth then the poor. THAT'S WHY THEY STAY RICH. But giving people money isn't the right tact at all in the first place. My job is very secure and if you give me money right now, I'm paying off debt or socking that shit away just in case.

Consumption isn't based on the percentage of your income that you spend/save, it's the dollars & cents that you do spend...

The wealthier people spend more dollars on non-essential goods, despite being so few in numbers.

The wealthy sustain the economy when it's thriving, without them spending lavishly, the economy has 0% chance of rebounding...

Not to mention, we haven't even talked about how great Universal Health Care and how great that's going to be...

The wealthier people spend more dollars on non-essential goods, despite being so few in numbers.




That's because they have all the money. It doesn't mean they would do it at a better rate if we gave them more

The question we have to ask is, if we are going to give someone $20, would we give it to the rich or poor in hopes of the highest % of continuous return to the economy.

Or, should we take/give it at all.

Think of it in the reverse though. If you take money away from them in higher taxes, they aren't going to invest in infrastructure in their bidnesses, expand the work force, etc.

Consumption isn't based on the percentage of your income that you spend/save, it's the dollars & cents that you do spend...

The wealthier people spend more dollars on non-essential goods, despite being so few in numbers.

The wealthy sustain the economy when it's thriving, without them spending lavishly, the economy has 0% chance of rebounding...
But giving out money to the public as a "stimulus" to the economy is about how much of that money will get spent rather than saved, which has to do with both the % of one's wealth a person spends on consumer products and the amount of money the consumer products a person wants to buy actually cost. If the rich get an extra hundred dollars they aren't more likely to buy something extra because that hundred dollars doesn't really buy the things they want and they've already got the cash to buy the things they both need and desire. Where as the poor who HAVE to spend all of their money to just get by are both more likely to spend that hundred dollars and actually want things that can get bought with that hundred dollars. Thus, a stimulus to the poor gets more bang for the buck then a stimulus to the rich. Trickle-down economics doesn't work in any form. Trickle-up economics is the basis of capitalism in the technological age.

Yes, as a simple dollar amount the rich (who have all the dollars) have a higher total of dollars spent. They have all the dollars. But the reason McDonalds is a bigger company then say Porche is because everyone can buy a $1 burger but only a few people can buy a $90,000 Porche. You sell cheap products because that's what the majority of the populace can afford and will buy. Not to mention that the more cheap products you make it possible to buy, the more the "stimulus" money gets dispersed throughout the economy and the more areas are helped. It's better for the economy for 90,000 different companies to get $1 than it is for 1 company to get $90,000. That's why people are pissed that so far we've simply given a handful of banks a shit load of money and why it didn't do shit to actually help the situation other than keep those handful of banks from crumbling down on their poorly run asses.

Think of it in the reverse though. If you take money away from them in higher taxes, they aren't going to invest in infrastructure in their bidnesses, expand the work force, etc.
Were they going to do that in this economy anyway?

We gave a lot of rich instititutions money to lend, and most of what they've been doing with it is acquiring pre-existing distressed competitors' assets.

Remember, interest is at near-0% and few are borrowing or lending.

Think of it in the reverse though. If you take money away from them in higher taxes, they aren't going to invest in infrastructure in their bidnesses, expand the work force, etc.


^^This was the main point I was trying to make.

The lower and middle-class, especially in today's economy, can't do those types of things even with a stimulus package, but they benefit from those things the most when the wealthy are able to keep more of their income

how do you encourage spending from all income brackets?

I still think Fool and I are right. Giving the rich people an extra couple grand does nothing. They just put that extra money in their accounts and let it rot. I'm not saying that is wrong, they can do whatever they want (it's their money).

But if you take all that money and instead spend it on roads, bridges, new technologies...then you have job creation.


how do you encourage spending from all income brackets?

You don't. The key is not spending at all. The key is jobs IMO. I might have the money to spend on things, but with the economy in the crappy I might rather just hold onto my money because I'm not sure when I might lose my job. Giving me some extra money (tax breaks, stimulus checks, whatever) does jack shit. If I lose my job that couple grand does nothing but buy me an extra month maybe. So how does giving people some money help? It does nothing but stall their misfortunes.

Instead you create jobs with that money. If people are employed, they can spend in the economy. People who already have jobs won't be tight pockets because when they don't have a fear of losing their job they'll spend more.

Writing checks does nothing for long term growth.

No. He's too young and sheltered to understand.

An interesting problem is that, being such a comsumer nation, we expect the population to spend and generate flow. However, this does not mean they will buy Ford, or GM, or Catapillar. If Joe Smith decides to purchase a Toyota, then U.S. manufacturers are screwed. Unless, however, it's a Camry, which I believe is considered a domestic model (off the top of my head I cannot determine what % of the car should be from american parts and labor, but the Honda Accord follows the same pattern).

The stimulus package really should have an addendum making domestic products more desirable in both loan packages and direct sales (maybe a government rebate). That would stimulate both retail and U.S. manufacturing numbers.

The stimulus package really should have an addendum making domestic products more desirable in both loan packages and direct sales (maybe a government rebate). That would stimulate both retail and U.S. manufacturing numbers.

It could be that I'm hair splitting here but to me it's a good thing for government to pry open credit markets to keep otherwise viable and competitive companies from being sunk by the credit storm.

On the other hand, something like rebates or any other form of subsidy or price support to keep around companies that simply fail against foreign competition is a loss for the taxpayer/consumer.

I'm much more comfortable with the government stimulating through infrastructure than going around picking winners and losers on a product by product basis.

So it passed the house, with each of the 177 Republicans voting No.

But Obama is upset because now he doesn't have any GOP finger prints on this thing when it fails, so it's clearly partisan.

All I have to say is I commend the GOP house for sticking together and not compromising the party morals.

Senate votes next week. Like I said before, he could've passed this thing without 1 single GOP vote, but it's all about sharing the blame...

If this thing fails, which I think it will once it's passed, this will surely be a MASSIVE blow to Obama's presidency...

This was a big win for the Republicans.

GOP will get the House back in 2010.

^ You don't need to keep posting that. You've made your views clear.

So it passed the house, with each of the 177 Republicans voting No.

But Obama is upset because now he doesn't have any GOP finger prints on this thing when it fails, so it's clearly partisan.

All I have to say is I commend the GOP house for sticking together and not compromising the party morals.

Senate votes next week. Like I said before, he could've passed this thing without 1 single GOP vote, but it's all about sharing the blame...

If this thing fails, which I think it will once it's passed, this will surely be a MASSIVE blow to Obama's presidency...

This was a big win for the Republicans.

GOP will get the House back in 2010.

This is your hope.

By the same token, if it is indeed successful, the GOP might be dead.

Good luck going back to your consitituents when your term is up and explaining that you didn't want to help them out of this mess.

It won't be successful.

It's over 80% pork.

This isn't a stimulus.

* re-sodding the national mall
* ATV trails
* STD prevention
* no tax cuts

these aren't going to help the economy, at all

^ You don't need to keep posting that. You've made your views clear.

I only posted it once, so you don't need to pretend that you heard me say it before.

By the same token, if it is indeed successful, the GOP might be dead.


True, but that is far less likely to happen.

I only posted it once, so you don't need to pretend that you heard me say it before.

Your one and only point, ever, is that you think lib ideals are terrible and you hope they and the country fail so the GOP can rise again.

You've posted it many times.

No one is unclear on your stance.

It won't be successful.

It's over 80% pork.

This isn't a stimulus.

* re-sodding the national mall
* ATV trails
* STD prevention
* no tax cuts

these aren't going to help the economy, at all

I couldn't say whether it's %80 pork or not, haven't really seen the breakdown.

As I already told you his random projects require job creation and DO stimulate the economy much more than some tax cuts.

How can you continue to say tax cuts are the key when every other poster in this thread has shown you how they won't help like creating a job will? Do you even read other people's comments or do you just come to the political thread to post your thoughts and run?

Your one and only point, ever, is that you think lib ideals are terrible and you hope they and the country fail so the GOP can rise again.

You've posted it many times.

No one is unclear on your stance.

Then don't read them.

I can't say I've read the specifics of the proposal but here's Paul Krugman's take on tax cuts versus spending on infrastructure:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html



Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.

Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.

The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts — and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) — because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.

This suggests that public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan. But rather than accept that implication, conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general.

Nice find. Krugman owns.

If the Nobel Prize isn't enough to impress you, then there is this. (http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10620)

How can you continue to say tax cuts are the key when every other poster in this thread has shown you how they won't help like creating a job will? Do you even read other people's comments or do you just come to the political thread to post your thoughts and run?

This propsed stimulus doesn't create jobs...

I guess Wil, you'll have to elaborate on that one. Do you mean that the bill itself doesn't specify the creation of jobs or that the investment on infrastructure will not lead to the creation of jobs?

Do you believe, for example, that if the bill spends billions on improving our highway system that the extra work done on those roads won't mean that new jobs will be created to do that work?

Then don't read them.

I'd rather you stop posting them.

But if you continue, I'll just continue to point out your redundancy. Sort of like I do with Glenn on occasion.

I guess Wil, you'll have to elaborate on that one. Do you mean that the bill itself doesn't specify the creation of jobs or that the investment on infrastructure will not lead to the creation of jobs?

Do you believe, for example, that if the bill spends billions on improving our highway system that the extra work done on those roads won't mean that new jobs will be created to do that work?


Much of the money that is actually going to be spent on infrastructure projects won't be spent for years. The proposed bill states that it would take 5 years to spend 85% of the money dedicated to highway and other infrastructure projects.

All this will stimulate is more government and more debt.

Much of the money that is actually going to be spent on infrastructure projects won't be spent for years. The proposed bill states that it would take 5 years to spend 85% of the money dedicated to highway and other infrastructure projects.

All this will stimulate is more government and more debt.

But tax cuts will be spent immediately? Doubtful. Even the part that is spent immediately is just that, immediate influx. There is no long term stimulus from someone spending an extra thousand bucks one time.

But tax cuts will be spent immediately? Doubtful. Even the part that is spent immediately is just that, immediate influx. There is no long term stimulus from someone spending an extra thousand bucks one time.

That's because cutting taxes needs to go both ways. Government needs to cut its expenditure, so taxpayers can increase theirs, by spending the money on things sourced from within the US. It improves economic welfare, since people are more accurate than the government in spending money on things that they actually want.

Expanding government and putting money into things like unemployment, healthcare, global warming research amongst many other things this bill proposes are things don't create jobs.

If it did, you wouldn't have had 0 votes from Republicans. Surely one of the 177 would've gone along with it.

and it's not a 'one-time' spending flux, when you cut taxes it allows households to retain earnings each month...thus giving them more money to spend whenever, several times a year

Most people blame (in the small part government plays) Hoovers lack of spending and action of turning an American recession into the great depression.

I think government spending should be more than halved, but this is the time to increase it.

At least for conservatives the Republicans and a few conservative Dems voted no.

Nothing like a Prez from the opposing party to bring them together.

At least for conservatives the Republicans and a few conservative Dems voted no.

Nothing like a Prez from the opposing party to bring them together.

A couple of licks have been quoted as saying it was Pelosi's arrogance that caused them to pack so tightly.

Pelosi is the antithesis of BO.

And I think there is a lot of folks who don't like the spending...and their representatives got it right. I know they want the economy fixed but after the first attempt, they don't have a lot of confidence in the process.

It's all a big misunderstanding. There's communication issues with the Dems:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_disappointed_cabinet_failed

The proposed bill states that it would take 5 years to spend 85% of the money dedicated to highway and other infrastructure projects.



Honest question: Where can you find that? I've read it on a couple of conservative opinions but everything else I read on the bill (news reports, opinion, etc.) doesn't mention that. I've also tried reading parts of the bill (which turned out to have 982883 pages of text which took me 8 hours to find on the Library of Congress website) and I still couldn't find it.

It's all a big misunderstanding. There's communication issues with the Dems:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_disappointed_cabinet_failed

lol. Great find Mxy.

Honest question: Where can you find that? I've read it on a couple of conservative opinions but everything else I read on the bill (news reports, opinion, etc.) doesn't mention that. I've also tried reading parts of the bill (which turned out to have 982883 pages of text which took me 8 hours to find on the Library of Congress website) and I still couldn't find it.


I'd also like to know how it was determined that 80% of the bill is pork.

HeritageFoundation website

breaks down the entire bill

A couple of licks have been quoted as saying it was Pelosi's arrogance that caused them to pack so tightly.

That's correct. Pelosi didn't let any Republicans have any say in the bill, and it backlashed.

Obama wanted Republicans on board so he could call it bi-partisan, but Pelosi went on to say "I didn't come here to be bi-partisan"...

She got what she wanted. He (Obama) didn't.

Besides, this isn't the final draft, the Senate still has to vote on their final copy, and then they will mix & match the two into one huge bill.

The Senate will probably have some Republicans vote for it since there are a few RINO's like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

The talking heads were asking why keep any of the items the dems conceded to Republicans if none of them voted for the bill anyway. When this thing gets kicked back to the house, I would imagine that would be a real option.

If they are going to go it alone they might as well go all the way.

I agree, they don't owe anything to Republicans.

They won the right to be the overwhelming majority, they should use their power to enforce what they believe in.

I'd want the Republicans to do the same if they had the types of numbers that the Dems currently have.

Sucks for the majority of us who think that neither one is entirely correct.

There seems to be a real leadership vacuum on the republican side of congress. The democrats have Obama to say "look guys, we're not going to tell the republicans to go eat a dick. I'm going to hear them out and give them some of what they want in this bill"

Someone with an R next to his name needs to step up and lead congressional republicans to do more than simple obstruction. When you get a chunk of what you want and then deliver zero votes in support of it, that's complete fail for the leadership.

They never got a chunk of what they want.

Minority WHIP John Bohner said that when the House Republicans met with Obama, he rejected all their ideas/proposals.

And thus Pelosi shut them out of having any verbage in the bill.

Democrats need to take out some of the ridiculous spending on stuff like STD prevention in a stimulus plan and the GOP need to come up with new ideas because tax cuts aren't going to help someone with out a job.

There were tax cuts added and project funding that was set aside to carry their favor.

I agree, they don't owe anything to Republicans.

They won the right to be the overwhelming majority, they should use their power to enforce what they believe in.

I'd want the Republicans to do the same if they had the types of numbers that the Dems currently have.
I'd want every rep/senator to do what they feel is right, not simply vote for or against it based on party lines.

Notice a few Dems voted against it while %100 of the GOP voted against it. While I disagree with those few Dems, at least they voted how they felt rather than ignore the bill and vote partisan like clearly a lot of Republicans did.

I'd want every rep/senator to do what they feel is right, not simply vote for or against it based on party lines.

Notice a few Dems voted against it while %100 of the GOP voted against it. While I disagree with those few Dems, at least they voted how they felt rather than ignore the bill and vote partisan like clearly a lot of Republicans did.

Word.

Few voted how they felt. They voted what they thought would serve them well come re-election time.

Yeah, the more I hear talk of this the more people are calling this a throw away vote since they new it would come back to them later anyway. Apparently, it was just pandering on both sides.

I'd want every rep/senator to do what they feel is right, not simply vote for or against it based on party lines.

Notice a few Dems voted against it while %100 of the GOP voted against it. While I disagree with those few Dems, at least they voted how they felt rather than ignore the bill and vote partisan like clearly a lot of Republicans did.

LMAO

Its those righteous Dems, no matter what happens, and those Damn Repubs.

Nice spin.

Some repubs voted against it when Bush supported, all Repubs voted against it now. The spending is getting out of hand.

The spending is getting out of hand.


Welcome to 1978.

LMAO

Its those righteous Dems, no matter what happens, and those Damn Repubs.

Nice spin.
It's not spin. I can understand most of them voting against it. They wouldn't be republicans if they had the same plan as Obama. However the %100 vote no leads me to believe that many of them voted with the party and not whether they felt it should pass.

It's more a statement in general. I'm sick of the party line from both sides. Do what you think is best, period. This just happens to be a glaring example of that.

It is possible that every single one of them does NOT like the spending in this bill, the programs, the time frame, etc.

I heard a Dem on the tube that wasn't happy with the bill at all.

agree to disagree but I say its quite possible in this case that they did do what they thought was best.

Do what you think is best, period.

The legislature has never worked that way. Mr independent "vote your feelings" from the great state of fantasyland will get a rude awakening the first time he wants to sponsor a bill.

The fact is the republicans were offered a great deal of compromise in that bill and they threw down the obstructionist gauntlet. It's a short-sighted, foolish thing to do that will only marginalize them over the next four years.

I've wondered about how they're supposed to vote.

Lets pick abortion. If you are anti but the peeps who voted you pro, seems like to me you should vote pro, cuz they elected you to represent them. Not a blank check to 'vote your feelings'

Abortion is prolly not a good example to use there.

There are only a few who cross lines on abortion...

Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter are pro-choice Republicans in the Senate

Harry Reid (sorta), Bob Casey, Ben Nelson are pro-life Dems in the Senate

There might be more, but those are the ones I know for sure...

http://www.wwj.com/UM-Experts--Tax-Rebates-No-Quick-Fix-For-Economy/3707583

If last year's tax rebates are any indication, one-time payments from the government are a weak economic stimulus, say economists at the University of Michigan.

"The rebates in 2008 provided low bang for the buck as an economic stimulus," said Matthew Shapiro, UM professor of economics. "Putting cash into the hands of the consumers who use it to save or pay off debt boosts their well-being, but it does not necessarily make them spend."

Using the UM/Reuters Survey of Consumers, Shapiro and colleague Joel Slemrod asked more than 2,500 Americans what they did with their 2008 federal income tax rebates, which accounted for more than two-thirds of the $152 billion Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. For the most part, those who filed taxes as single individuals received between $300 and $600, while those who filed jointly got between $600 and $1,200. In addition, parents with children under 17 received an extra $300 per child.

The UM economists found that only 20 percent of United States households mostly spent their tax rebates, while about 48 percent used their rebate mostly to pay debt and roughly 32 percent mostly saved their rebate checks.

Americans 65 and older were more likely to spend their rebates, Shapiro and Slemrod say. More than 28 percent of this age group mostly spent the money, compared to only 17 percent of Americans under 65. They found little evidence that spending is related to income, except for those earning less than $20,000 a year -- 58 percent used the rebate to pay off debt, compared with 40 percent of those with incomes above $75,000.

Shapiro and Slemrod say the overall results are similar to what they found in an earlier study of the 2001 federal income tax rebates, when about 22 percent of Americans mostly spent their rebates.

"In all, adverse shocks to housing and other wealth may have focused consumers on rebuilding their balance sheets in 2008," said Slemrod, professor of business economics at UM's Ross School of Business and director of the Office of Tax Policy Research. "Given the further decline of wealth since the rebates were implemented, the impetus to save a windfall might be even stronger now."

"Those designing the next economic stimulus package should take into account that much of a temporary tax rebate is likely not to be spent," Shapiro said. "Instead, tax changes that give a sustained boost to purchasing power of households are more likely to be effective."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601212&sid=aSW1NKhs91.w&refer=home


Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- In the fight over the stimulus plan, Republicans are demanding more tax cuts as the best way of lifting the economy fast. “We can’t borrow and spend our way to prosperity,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Well, maybe we can -- or at least begin. In a crisis, government spending has to be the first responder, with tax cuts coming up behind.

Allen Sinai, chief global economist and president of Decision Economics, a New York-based research and forecasting firm, recently ran various types of government actions through his respected macroeconomic model of the U.S. He discovered some surprising things.

First, even a very large stimulus doesn’t help the economy a lot. The negative forces are too strong -- centered on the credit collapse and the collapse in consumer spending. Government will lean against this stunning downturn but can’t make up for the massive loss of private demand.

Furthermore, the larger the budget deficit, from tax cuts and spending, the bigger the bounce in expected future inflation and long-term interest rates. That will take the edge off future growth.

Sinai forecasts a stimulus-based gain in gross domestic product of perhaps 2 percentage points in the first year and 1 point in the following year compared with where we’d be otherwise. A turn could come as early as summer. Without a significant stimulus, he’d expect the recession to last into March 2010.

More pessimistic economists expect it to last that long anyway. The ugliest months lie directly ahead.

The Best Boost

The best way to boost the economy fast, the model shows, is to increase federal spending on goods and services -- things like cars, office space, military equipment and construction. Unemployment drops quickly and GDP jumps. The second-best GDP driver is direct aid to states and cities, to keep current projects going and start new ones.

In both cases, though, the impact on economic growth tapers off after a couple of years. To keep the economy rising, the moribund private sector has to ignite.

For that, Barack Obama’s program is counting on individual tax credits. Temporary tax credits and rebates affect the economy more slowly than government spending. Consumers don’t spend the whole check at once and may use part of it to build up savings. But the money gradually helps revive private-sector demand.

Permanent tax cuts, for businesses and individuals, take effect even more slowly, Sinai’s model shows. On the plus side, they have a longer-lasting, positive impact on GDP and jobs. On the negative side, the long-term deficit grows much larger than it would with temporary cuts. There’s a similar result for a permanent increase in transfer payments such as food stamps.

Right Track

So President Obama appears to have it about right: Government spending, including state and local, for a quick fix; temporary tax reductions to help households pay down debt and, eventually, spend the money to strengthen the private sector; and no permanent tax cuts that would stick us with even worse deficits than are projected now.

Senator John McCain, an opponent of the Obama plan, raised the deficit issue last week -- although only in the context of spending, not of tax cuts. “We need to have a commitment that, after a couple of quarters of GDP growth, we will embark on a path to reduce spending to get our budget in balance,” he said.

Shades of 1937. In that year, the economy was improving and Roosevelt -- on the advice of his bankers -- turned conservative. He cut government spending, raised bank reserves and increased interest rates. It was a disaster. The U.S. plunged into a second recession.

‘Error of Optimism’

In February 1938, the economist John Maynard Keynes wrote FDR a reproving letter, saying he’d fallen into an “error of optimism.” Cleaning up insolvencies and establishing easy money was a precondition for recovery but not recovery itself, Keynes wrote. Government-aided investments, in “housing, public utilities and transport,” should have continued, he wrote, until it was clear that private demand had grown strong enough to carry the recovery up.

Currently, we’re enduring the worst recession, for depth and duration, since the 1930s and the broadest global recession since 1948. We don’t want to repeat FDR’s mistake. By embedding longer- term infrastructure programs in the stimulus package, Obama’s plan provides continuing support for GDP and jobs.

At the moment, expectations are rising that the aggressive, yearlong drop in interest rates, plus the fiscal stimulus, will produce results in 2009 rather than 2010. The weekly leading indicators compiled by the Economic Cycle Research Institute stopped falling in December and rose a bit through early January, although not by enough to call a turn in the economy, says ECRI managing director, Lakshman Achuthan.

Preparing for the Turn

“My fantasy,” Achuthan said, “is that the stimulus coincides with the natural forces that will turn the business cycle up.” Such a recovery could be strong enough to create the jobs needed to stabilize housing prices. Nothing in the data, however, predicts this yet. When the cycle does turn, Achuthan would favor investments in commodities, Treasury Inflation- Protected Securities and other inflation hedges.

Sinai expects higher corporate earnings by yearend, based on the size of the write-offs and cuts in labor costs he’s seeing now. “People in safe financial positions might think about deploying some money in stocks,” he said. “There could be a bear market rally, with some chance of starting the next bull market.”

The next challenge will be the shocking government debt and deficits that are shaping up. But first, the policy makers have to get the economy moving again.

(Jane Bryant Quinn, a leading personal finance writer and author of “Smart and Simple Financial Strategies for Busy People,” is the mother of Martha Quinn, an MTV news cutie in the 80s that a lot of guys want to fuck. The opinions expressed are her own.)

So I 'hear' this bill is losing traction. If so, the bill will not need to be tweaked, but overhauled.

It's losing traction because Obama's not going to let it go by without GOP support.

He can't risk letting just Democrats be behind this. He needs to be able to assign blame to both parties when it fails.

Ledezma's parents use that tactic when asked to account for him.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e341/Greene000/terrible-1.gif

http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e341/Greene000/terrible-1.gif

http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/

Oh, God love ya.

It's losing traction because Obama's not going to let it go by without GOP support.

He can't risk letting just Democrats be behind this. He needs to be able to assign blame to both parties when it fails.

Maybe he wants to be bipartisan? Just a thought... McCain and.. I think it was Coburn? Were on Hannity yesterday and Coburn said this bill was not Obama's fault; rather, it was the fault of the Democratic congress, which I can certainly see.

Ledezma's parents use that tactic when asked to account for him.


True.

Nice av.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362438683541945.html

Can we agree that watching our elected morons up there in DC trying to spend 'our' Trillion dollars is painfully hilarious?

I wonder if there would be any outrage to this if we hadn't spend a trillion bucks in Iraq.

^ yes

I wonder if there would be any outrage to this if we hadn't spend a trillion bucks in Iraq.


The trillion dollars (or however much) that was spent there was at least allocated for a better purpose.

The trillion dollars (or however much) that was spent there was at least allocated for a better purpose.

Chicken and egg.

If we had spent that money at home on things like homeland security and infrastructure, then this move might not have been necessary.

LOL@ a much better purpose.

Chicken and egg.

If we had spent that money at home on things like homeland security and infrastructure, then this move might not have been necessary.\

True. I'm just saying that if Bush hadn't waged his illegal war we wouldn't be in such a big penny pinching mode (which also proves your point).

LOL@ a much better purpose.
yeah, I'd much rather spend that money going after phantom WMDs and not catching Bid Laden.

Screw the families losing homes here. Who cares if bridges collapse? I don't care if we fall behind the technology curve and outsource everything. At least we got Saddam!

yeah, I'd much rather spend that money going after phantom WMDs and not catching Bid Laden.

Screw the families losing homes here. Who cares if bridges collapse? I don't care if we fall behind the technology curve and outsource everything. At least we got Saddam!


LOL

78 BILLION unaccounted for on the Bank Bailout.

Rassmussen poll shows 50% say its Somewhat or Very likely that the plan will make things worse instead of better.

I know most of y'all think the war in Iraq was uneccesary. So why didn't the Dem vote against it when they had the chance?

Bringing the Iraq war in this debate is just an attempt to cloud the issue of whether to go forward on this bill. But whatever floats your boat.

yeah, I'd much rather spend that money going after phantom WMDs and not catching Bid Laden.

Screw the families losing homes here. Who cares if bridges collapse? I don't care if we fall behind the technology curve and outsource everything. At least we got Saddam!

The problem is that the 1 TRILLION dollar bill had very little money in it to help housing...believe it or not.

I know most of y'all think the war in Iraq was uneccesary. So why didn't the Dem vote against it when they had the chance?

Bringing the Iraq war in this debate is just an attempt to cloud the issue of whether to go forward on this bill. But whatever floats your boat.

You know the answer to the first question. If not, look at your avatar.

Agree with the second part. Crying over the shitty former President isn't going to help us with the problems we have today.

Not sure on that 1st part. The Dems definately had their chance to vote no and give the finger back to Bush, but they didn't. But once things went south in Iraq and they turned tail, they were able to make it completely Bush's war...and frankly it pretty much was/is. But they didn't stand up against the war when they had their chance in the begining.

Not sure on that 1st part. The Dems definately had their chance to vote no and give the finger back to Bush, but they didn't. But once things went south in Iraq and they turned tail, they were able to make it completely Bush's war...and frankly it pretty much was/is. But they didn't stand up against the war when they had their chance in the begining.
http://onni.jkl.fi/~lauri/kuvia/not_this_shit_again.jpeg

Actually, I've just been looking for an opportunity to use that pic.

LOL nice. I was thinking the same thing when you libs brought the Iraq war into the stimulus package debate.

LOL nice. I was thinking the same thing when you libs brought the Iraq war into the stimulus package debate.


spicy

subtracting 'fucking' shows I've matured

I know most of y'all think the war in Iraq was uneccesary. So why didn't the Dem vote against it when they had the chance?

Bringing the Iraq war in this debate is just an attempt to cloud the issue of whether to go forward on this bill. But whatever floats your boat.


I don't understand how anyone could call it unnecessary.

The fact that we haven't had an outside attack on the country since 9/11 is proof that it was worthwhile.

Might be a bit 'broad' of an explanation, but it's valid.

Do you really take the country's safety for granted?

That doesn't mean the cause of no attacks is the War in Iraq. It proves nothing.

greenland hasn't fallen into the ocean yet, I guess global warming is a myth too.

You need to work on your cause and effect scenarios.

That doesn't mean the cause of no attacks is the War in Iraq. It proves nothing.

greenland hasn't fallen into the ocean yet, I guess global warming is a myth too.

You need to work on your cause and effect scenarios.


Yeah, but we were attacked already.

No country has ever fallen into the ocean, so global warming is still a myth.

A terrorist attack on the USA...that already happened.

78 BILLION unaccounted for on the Bank Bailout.

Rassmussen poll shows 50% say its Somewhat or Very likely that the plan will make things worse instead of better.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114184/Public-Support-Stimulus-Package-Unchanged.aspx

LIBS, THEY ARE

That doesn't mean the cause of no attacks is the War in Iraq. It proves nothing.

greenland hasn't fallen into the ocean yet, I guess global warming is a myth too.

You need to work on your cause and effect scenarios.


It also doesn't mean that spending a quarter of that Iraq money on homeland security instead wouldn't have been as effective.

I don't understand how anyone could call it unnecessary.

The fact that we haven't had an outside attack on the country since 9/11 is proof that it was worthwhile.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/06/madrid/index.html?source=rss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114184/Public-Support-Stimulus-Package-Unchanged.aspx

Did you see the 1st part of my post where some lady was testifying in front of some Senate committee that 78 billion is unaccounted for in the 1st bailout thing or something?

Yeah. I was just pointing at more polls on the matter, since you mentioned it.
They're all kinda 50/50-ish on the bailout.

I thought the issue was that the assets were overvalued by $78 billion. It's easy to play games with "value", especially in this economy.

Well I think its a fairly common practice to pick the poll that supports your argument. :)

Thats all I was doing.

Yeah, but we were attacked already.

No country has ever fallen into the ocean, so global warming is still a myth.

A terrorist attack on the USA...that already happened.
Wait, Saddam attacked us? Shit, I missed that one.

Come on Wil. You can't tell me that terrorists are too scared to attack us because we ousted Saddam. If they wanted to attack us again the war in Iraq has done nothing to stop that. Maybe if we had hunted down Osama...

I think Bush took other measures to keep us safe (like the wiretapping and other things), but not Iraq. Yes we've been safe (i'll give him credit for that), but that wasn't because of Iraq.

No country has ever fallen into the ocean, so global warming is still a myth.


This is comedic brilliance.

We haven't been attacked since BO announced he wished to close Guantanamo. Clearing saving the lives of thousands already. Can you imagine the carnage if he had announced he planned to keep it active?

And I just heard it articulated fairly well...and this is what I feel...that this bill will be more about Gov't expansion than anything else. And in 2 years when this is supposed to expire, it won't expire. Those programs and extra gov't workers will be the new baseline. They won't cut them out and the cost of this thing will continue.

Have lots of children cuz its going to take a lot of them to pay for this.

Have lots of children cuz its going to take a lot of them to pay for this.
Actually, having a lot of children will likely make things worse.

A huge part of China fixing its economy involves severely limiting # of children - quotas, killing the girls, etc.

Actually, having a lot of children will likely make things worse.

A huge part of China fixing its economy involves severely limiting # of children - quotas, killing the girls, etc.


WHITE CHILDREN, NOT ASIANS...DUH.

Actually, having a lot of children will likely make things worse.

A huge part of China fixing its economy involves severely limiting # of children - quotas, killing the girls, etc.

That was supposed to be a joke Mxy...however not funny

The woman with 6 kids having octuplets has been on my mind, I suppose...

I was reading the other day something about how the kids are growing up in China. Basically, since they're all only children, they get smothered with attention and tutoring and gifts, etc. Very interesting if you've read any of the studies on birth order and its effects on personality, etc.

Actually, having a lot of children will likely make things worse.

A huge part of China fixing its economy involves severely limiting # of children - quotas, killing the girls, etc.

Only if overpopulation was a problem to start with. Most of the first-world would probably benefit greatly from a baby boom.

I was reading the other day something about how the kids are growing up in China. Basically, since they're all only children, they get smothered with attention and tutoring and gifts, etc. Very interesting if you've read any of the studies on birth order and its effects on personality, etc.

I think Frontline did special on this a while back. Kids flooded with anything material they want but also the pressure of multiple generations all counting on them alone to keep the family going and live up to the highest expectations.

The Senate's version of the Stimulus passed...

Thanks in part to a few RINO's (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter).

It was going to pass anyway since McConnell said he wasn't going to filibuster, but it would've been nice to see all the Republicans oppose it like the House did.

Arlen Specter has a tough re-election to think about though in 2010, so he gave in to the peer pressure. As for Sue Collins & Snowe, well they've always been moderates, so this is nothing new.

I think now what happens is Prince Harry & Princess Pelosi compare & contrast versions and put them together to form one huge earmark filled 'stimulus bill'...

Less than 35% of Americans are on board with this thing, per Gallup.

Does anyone know off the top how much our annual budget is? I mean spending not how much we take in.

Apparently that's not important to the current President.

More money will be spent in this piece of shit than all that was spent during the entire Iraq war.

You tell me that if Bush tried to create something like this there wouldn't be a massive outcry...

^ its like the tax cuts that are in this. Its more than Bush's iirc. The press gives BO a pass while they got their pink panties in a bunch with Bush's Press Secretary about it. The hypocrisy is laughable. But I still hope BO succeeds.

You tell me that if Bush tried to create something like this there wouldn't be a massive outcry...


There would be, mostly because people were sick of letting HIM make these decisions.

Regime change happens.

Obama's too big to fail. I'm already convinced he's going to get two terms, even if he were to duplicate Jimmy Carter's regime word for word...

At some point, blaming Bush isn't going to be an excuse anymore.

When do you suppose that time will be, Gl'enn?

LOL 3 weeks.

You can't make this shit up.

no shit

your boy got 8 years of fucking shit up left and right and you're already lamenting 3 weeks of Obama

I've been tempted to come back here and join the discussion. the last 2 pages reminded me why I've stayed away.

Do me a favor and let me know when logic comes back to this thread Gl'enn

Note that most everything that doesn't get "stimulated" now will get proposed in the quasi-annual federal budget bill coming up in a couple months. Unlike normal appropriations bills, budget bills have "reconciliation" attached to them. Stuff MUST come to a vote without procedural crap in the way. There's two bites at the apple here, for both sides.

Mxy do you know how much we spend annually? Our budget spending number? I actually looked but couldn't even find a ballpark number.

Mxy do you know how much we spend annually? Our budget spending number? I actually looked but couldn't even find a ballpark number.

Wiki says, not including the supplemental war bills:

The President's actual budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

* $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
* $548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
* $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
* $294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
* $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
* $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
* $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
* $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
* $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
* $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
* $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
* $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
* $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
* $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
* $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
* $20.5 billion (+0.8%) - Energy
* $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

Holy fuckin shit thats a lot of fuckin money

And thanks friend

Here's a graph showing budget growth over the decades:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/budgetchartbook/images/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C1-Federal-Spending-Is-Growing.gif

As you can see, our budget is roughly 4x what it was in 1965, accounting for inflation. It's not quite as bad as that, though. It's roughly 3x if you factor for population -- budget per person. 1965 is a magic year because that's when Medicare and Medicaid were established. Combined, that's the largest chunk of the budget, which Hermy just reminded some folks again. Factor out that and you're down to 2x compared to 1965.

Lol @ spending spiking under Reagan/Bush, staying comparably steady under Clinton, then spiking again under Bush 2.

Damn facts getting in the way of Fox News again.

They don't get in the way because they are ignored entirely.

Shit, you suckered me into this thread again.

Lol @ spending spiking under Reagan/Bush, staying comparably steady under Clinton, then spiking again under Bush 2.

Damn facts getting in the way of Fox News again.

You have to understand youngster, that the Conservatives lay the groundwork for economic success. Then the Dems come in and fuck it all up with spending. < Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

I can't wait to see the national media sell to the rest of the country that the economy is 'already on the up-swing' just weeks after the bill officially passes...

That will be fucking hilarious.

It will happen. Guaranteed.

I should fucking hope it does. Half of the point of all this is to get money being spent, spent, spent. If they can't get the media to go along with that and help convince people, a big part of this fails. Regardless of the party responsible.

I can't wait to see the national media sell to the rest of the country that the economy is 'already on the up-swing' just weeks after the bill officially passes...

That will be fucking hilarious.

It will happen. Guaranteed.

Says the guy who was in here on inauguration day talking about how the stock market was down because of Obama being sworn in.

Ledezma = member
W.O.D = banned

I blame WTF.

I can't wait to see the national media sell to the rest of the country that the economy is 'already on the up-swing' just weeks after the bill officially passes...

That will be fucking hilarious.

It will happen. Guaranteed.

They're going to have to, Wil, like it or not.

IMO, the media should take partial blame for this recession. Sure, there are tons of economic factors involved, but the one wildcard is media perception. Every day you turn on the radio or TV or open your paper or log on to net, and it's nothing but horrible news. Unemployment, businesses shutting down, dire forecasts, etc.

Hell, Yahoo just placed a list of businesses that MIGHT NOT LAST PAST 2009 right on their fucking home page. Can you imagine what a list like that will do to those retailers???? Would YOU buy their stock? Would YOU purchase an expensive item from them, knowing they might not be around in several months to handle any issues with said item? If I were one of these businesses, I'd put a bullet in the head of whoever gave the go-ahead with the story. It's nothing but a fucking self-fulfilling prophecy: Say a business is on it's last leg, post it where millions of people can read it, watch people avoid the business like the plague, watch the business fold! Poor saps never had a chance.

The media has an obligation to it's audience to report on all sides of a story. If there is a glimmer of light ANYWHERE in this economy, it must be attended to. Sometimes, a glimmer of hope is all one needs, and in this case the economy needs consumer spending. As long as the media plays Scrooge, all people will do is hold on to their money for dear life.

And that is exactly what we DO NOT need right now, Wil.

If a business is allowed to succed, then it should be allowed to fail.

If a business is allowed to succed, then it should be allowed to fail.

Thats a great statement...kind of Churchill'esque, no?

If a business is allowed to succed, then it should be allowed to fail.
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20090211

I sort of agree with Wil, but I'm not quite certain he understands the gravity of his statement.

Capitalism is, in a way, the survival of the fittest. The good prosper, the weak fail. But here's the problem: the good are failing as well, and it's not due to anything on their part.

If a business, such as Circuit City, fails, while "like" stores such as Best Buy succeed, then let it fail.

If Krispy Kreme and Starbucks close hundreds of outlets because they far over-extended themselves, then so-be-it.

If the automakers are forced to file for bankruptcy and restructure, then that's what they'll have to do (worked for several airlines).

Whoops.... hold it a minute on that last one.

If the big 3 file for protection, then what about the UAW? If they close shop, then reopen in Alabama, then what about all of the unions who rely on the U.S. automakers?

Circuit City, Krispy Kreme, and Starbucks do not own hardcore lobbyists hellbent on protecting their workforce by getting into bed with the Dems and pleasuring them.

This post approved by Wilfredo Ledezma

It would be a pretty hard fall. For the most part I agree that the laws of economics should be allowed to work for themselves and weed out the inferior on their own, the role of government should be just to smooth out the bumps along the way and make sure that there is fair competition and responsible industry.

Unfortunately, that role was vastly neglected for some time and that, combined with a massive amount of artificial growth due to far too loose credit, led to the problem we're in now.

Now it's real easy to say that we should just let these businesses all fail and "survival of the fittest" and all that, and in the long run that would be very true, but by long run we're talking years and years and years, not 2 or 3. We're talking tearing down the auto plants and allowing a new form of industry to develop in its place -- could be 25 years! We're talking allow all the banks to die and allow all of their debt to go bad -- which in turn would ruin other areas of the economy and so on and so on.

It all would work eventually in theory, but the ramifications to our generation would be massive. You say you're not an autoworker, for example, why should you care? Well, when that autoworker's no longer getting paid, he's going to find some new way to make money, maybe at Target say. And that 20 year old kid who used to work at Target but got bumped because there are 30 new applicants a day and he can't slack off anymore is going to go back to college and get his engineering or accounting or whatever degree and look for a job in that field and his cheap young labor will make it harder for you to find a job there. And so on and so on.

You don't live in Michigan you say, who cares? Well, 100,000 people are going to move out of Michigan because there are no jobs anymore, and they're going to move to Chicago or LA or New York or wherever the hell there are jobs. Their massive influx into the labor market in those areas is going to make that entry level accounting job that used to pay $36k only pay $30k, and that's if you're lucky enough to get one.

This economic stimulus will not be able to fix all the problems, only hard work and having our society re-invent ourselves a bit can do that. What it hopefully will be able to do, however, is soften the fall a bit, and give everybody a chance to do whatever it is that needs to be done to get there.

Thank you Wil. Your eloquence is always appreciated.

BTW....

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3221/photowb1il7.jpg

Holy shit, is that Gay porn in the background!??? I sent that out at work!

lol. Nice.
Even though you are partially laughing at me with that.

We exist in a mixed worldwide economy. "Pure" ideologies, chestnuts from the capitalism or socialism playbooks and such, have significant scaling issues in applying to today's world. Advances in transportation, communications, and automation have changed the playing field tremendously, warping traditional models in a big way.

I've prolly heard about 5 different Dems now say that the Stimulus package should have come from BO, not Nanci, like I said earlier.

VOTE TAHOE IN 10!

No, but start listening to me damn it!

I heard something about part of the package that would make all of the taxes you pay when you buy a new car tax deductible.

That sounds like a really good idea.

Apparently the tax cuts for the 'people making less than X amount of dollars' is $13 a week.

If accurate, that's nearly $700.

Nice attempt to minimize it.

That's only $1.86 a day!

If accurate, that's nearly $700.

Nice attempt to minimize it.

That's only $1.86 a day!

That's like a penny per post for LDB.

So Pelosi and a few Dems go into hiding with the bill late yesterday (no replublicans) then they bring out the bill at 11pm last night and they vote on it today. LOL

The Dems promised 48 hours before voting. Oops!

Unbelievable

If accurate, that's nearly $700.

Nice attempt to minimize it.

That's only $1.86 a day!

$624 dollars a year...

Where'd you get 700 from?

$624 dollars a year...

Where'd you get 700 from?

You said $13/week.

There are 52 weeks in a year.

13 x 52 = $676

$676 can be "rounded" to "nearly $700".

Apparently, whomever does your homework for you at Walsh hasn't read the chapters about "rounding" or "multiplication" yet.

A68eWFAbClA

He needs a tripod.

Apparently, whomever does your homework for you at Walsh hasn't read the chapters about "rounding" or "multiplication" yet.

Ask the accountants at ENRON where "rounding" gets you.

Rounding on a sports message board is acceptable

http://www.recovery.gov/

http://www.recovery.gov/

Where its going is to expand Gov't.

yes, but at least we can track it now

It does look like a good site.

I expect both sides will be able to argue whether this bill helped, or not.

The Worlds economy will recover with or without this bill.

I doubt that the funding will end even when the economy is back on track, so 787 or whatever it is, is just the begining....and EVERY penny of the spending will be printed and added to our debt. Not good, imo.

Now California is going to be asking Congress for $1 Trillion, pretty soon.

It does look like a good site.

I expect both sides will be able to argue whether this bill helped, or not.

The Worlds economy will recover with or without this bill.

I doubt that the funding will end even when the economy is back on track, so 787 or whatever it is, is just the begining....and EVERY penny of the spending will be printed and added to our debt. Not good, imo.

Well, let's justhttp://www.politicollectibles.com/img/obama-HOPE_156x233.gifit all works out

Except for Wil.

California was asking for money before it went through the Feds bureaucracy, from what I've heard.

And the Mayors are asking for the money before it goes through the States hands.

And the Taxpayers will get screwed cuz by the time the money gets to them, it'll be penny's on the dollar when it started.

So we pay the debt, but we're last in line. Brilliant!

Well, let's justhttp://www.politicollectibles.com/img/obama-HOPE_156x233.gifit all works out

100% behind that!

And the Dow TANKS!

^^LOL.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/cafferty.stimulus/

Apparently the dow is no longer important. Obama knows the majority of people who buy stock are the same 1% of people that he doesn't care about, anyway.

"Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

Is this 75 billion BO just enveiled in addition to the spending bill?

I believe so.

Is this 75 billion BO just enveiled in addition to the spending bill?
campaign promise met, address the foreclosure/mortgage crisis

So 200 billion to Fannie and Fredie, plus this.

Not judging it (yet) just keeping track.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/cafferty.stimulus/

I don't watch CNN but this guy just never seemed to fit over there, imo.

I guess he's kind of like Lou's lil brother or something.

But he did nail a couple of things in that article.

Apparently the dow is no longer important. Obama knows the majority of people who buy stock are the same 1% of people that he doesn't care about, anyway.

"Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

There is a major disconnect between the Dow and the "real economy." If you're going to fix the latter, you can't steer yourself by the daily ups and downs of the former.

The stock market basically a casino. Stock prices run up and down like a stampeding herd with little to no correlation with the underlying fundamentals of the companies.

^ Sometimes there is news that effects/affects the Dow. This might have been one of those times, then again 2-3 hundred pts isn't that big of a swing anymore.

campaign promise met, address the foreclosure/mortgage crisis
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

campaign promise met, address the foreclosure/mortgage crisis

Yes. And I'm sure all the peeps who were irresponsible with purchasing homes they knew they couldn't afford(prolly mostly out here in CA)are thankful to the responsible folks back east (and their kids) for bailing them out of their mortgage problem.

The Dems screwed up by not listening to the Bush admin officials that went to Capital hill to add regulations, but the Dems did nothing but call them names. Very mature. I think that was 02 or 03.

The Dems screwed up by not listening to the Bush admin officials that went to Capital hill to add regulations, but the Dems did nothing but call them names. Very mature. I think that was 02 or 03.
Try this one on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?hp

I have to sign up...I'll sign up and read later. Does it say, Bush didn't send his peeps up there to lobby for meaningful regulation?

Try this one on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?hp

See my signature:

Here you go Tahoe, I'd like to hear your thoughts after you read it.

Part 1




The Reckoning
White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire

By JO BECKER, SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and STEPHEN LABATON
The New York Times
December 21, 2008

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/21/business/21admin.600.jpg
“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

WASHINGTON — The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when President Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, “scared the hell out of everybody.”

It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Mr. Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.

The president listened as Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.

Then his Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., told him that to stave off disaster, he would have to sign off on the biggest government bailout in history.

Mr. Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.

“How,” he wondered aloud, “did we get here?”

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of homeownership, Mr. Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, “faced with the prospect of a global meltdown” with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Mr. Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Mr. Bush chose to oversee them — an old prep school buddy — pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a “rough patch.”

The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.

“There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems,” said Al Hubbard, Mr. Bush’s former chief economics adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. “Had we, we would have attacked them.”

Looking back, Keith B. Hennessey, Mr. Bush’s current chief economics adviser, says he and his colleagues did the best they could “with the information we had at the time.” But Mr. Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration did not pay more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices. And both Mr. Paulson and his predecessor, John W. Snow, say the housing push went too far.

“The Bush administration took a lot of pride that homeownership had reached historic highs,” Mr. Snow said in an interview. “But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost.”

For much of the Bush presidency, the White House was preoccupied by terrorism and war; on the economic front, its pressing concerns were cutting taxes and privatizing Social Security. The housing market was a bright spot: ever-rising home values kept the economy humming, as owners drew down on their equity to buy consumer goods and pack their children off to college.

Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals.

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”

Today, millions of Americans are facing foreclosure, homeownership rates are virtually no higher than when Mr. Bush took office, Fannie and Freddie are in a government conservatorship, and the bailout cost to taxpayers could run in the trillions.

As the economy has shed jobs — 533,000 last month alone — and his party has been punished by irate voters, the weakened president has granted his Treasury secretary extraordinary leeway in managing the crisis.

Never once, Mr. Paulson said in a recent interview, has Mr. Bush overruled him. “I’ve got a boss,” he explained, who “understands that when you’re dealing with something as unprecedented and fast-moving as this we need to have a different operating style.”

Mr. Paulson and other senior advisers to Mr. Bush say the administration has responded well to the turmoil, demonstrating flexibility under difficult circumstances. “There is not any playbook,” Mr. Paulson said.

The president declined to be interviewed for this article. But in recent weeks Mr. Bush has shared his views of how the nation came to the brink of economic disaster. He cites corporate greed and market excesses fueled by a flood of foreign cash — “Wall Street got drunk,” he has said — and the policies of past administrations. He blames Congress for failing to reform Fannie and Freddie. Last week, Fox News asked Mr. Bush if he was worried about being the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century.

“No,” Mr. Bush replied. “I will be known as somebody who saw a problem and put the chips on the table to prevent the economy from collapsing.”

But in private moments, aides say, the president is looking inward. During a recent ride aboard Marine One, the presidential helicopter, Mr. Bush sounded a reflective note.

“We absolutely wanted to increase homeownership,” Tony Fratto, his deputy press secretary, recalled him saying. “But we never wanted lenders to make bad decisions.”

A Policy Gone Awry

Darrin West could not believe it. The president of the United States was standing in his living room.

It was June 17, 2002, a day Mr. West recalls as “the highlight of my life.” Mr. Bush, in Atlanta to unveil a plan to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million, was touring Park Place South, a development of starter homes in a neighborhood once marked by blight and crime.

Mr. West had patrolled there as a police officer, and now he was the proud owner of a $130,000 town house, bought with an adjustable-rate mortgage and a $20,000 government loan as his down payment — just the sort of creative public-private financing Mr. Bush was promoting.

“Part of economic security,” Mr. Bush declared that day, “is owning your own home.”

A lot has changed since then. Mr. West, beset by personal problems, left Atlanta. Unable to sell his home for what he owed, he said, he gave it back to the bank last year. Like other communities across America, Park Place South has been hit with a foreclosure crisis affecting at least 10 percent of its 232 homes, according to Masharn Wilson, a developer who led Mr. Bush’s tour.

“I just don’t think what he envisioned was actually carried out,” she said.

Park Place South is, in microcosm, the story of a well-intentioned policy gone awry. Advocating homeownership is hardly novel; the Clinton administration did it, too. For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an “ownership society,” in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.

But for much of Mr. Bush’s tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like Mr. West.

So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for federally insured mortgages with no money down. Republican Congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as Mr. West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. “Corporate America,” he said, “has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place.”

And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Mr. Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment.

“This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight,” said L. William Seidman, who advised Republican presidents and led the savings and loan bailout in the 1990s. “To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules.”

But Mr. Bush populated the financial system’s alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.

Like Minds on Laissez-Faire

The president’s first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a “kinder, gentler” agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general’s report.

As for Mr. Bush’s banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks.

Part 2




The administration won that fight at the Supreme Court. But Roy Cooper, North Carolina’s attorney general, said, “They took 50 sheriffs off the beat at a time when lending was becoming the Wild West.”

The president did push rules aimed at forcing lenders to more clearly explain loan terms. But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary.

In the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Mr. Bush’s re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The administration did not finalize the new rules until last month.

Among the Republican Party’s top 10 donors in 2004 was Roland Arnall. He founded Ameriquest, then the nation’s largest lender in the subprime market, which focuses on less creditworthy borrowers. In July 2005, the company agreed to set aside $325 million to settle allegations in 30 states that it had preyed on borrowers with hidden fees and ballooning payments. It was an early signal that deceptive lending practices, which would later set off a wave of foreclosures, were widespread.

Andrew H. Card Jr., Mr. Bush’s former chief of staff, said White House aides discussed Ameriquest’s troubles, though not what they might portend for the economy. Mr. Bush had just nominated Mr. Arnall as his ambassador to the Netherlands, and the White House was primarily concerned with making sure he would be confirmed.

“Maybe I was asleep at the switch,” Mr. Card said in an interview.

Brian Montgomery, the Federal Housing Administration commissioner, understood the significance. His agency insures home loans, traditionally for the same low-income minority borrowers Mr. Bush wanted to help. When he arrived in June 2005, he was shocked to find those customers had been lured away by the “fool’s gold” of subprime loans. The Ameriquest settlement, he said, reinforced his concern that the industry was exploiting borrowers.

In December 2005, Mr. Montgomery drafted a memo and brought it to the White House. “I don’t think this is what the president had in mind here,” he recalled telling Ryan Streeter, then the president’s chief housing policy analyst.

It was an opportunity to address the risky subprime lending practices head on. But that was never seriously discussed. More senior aides, like Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political strategist, were wary of overly regulating an industry that, Mr. Rove said in an interview, provided “a valuable service to people who could not otherwise get credit.” While he had some concerns about the industry’s practices, he said, “it did provide an opportunity for people, a lot of whom are still in their houses today.”

The White House pursued a narrower plan offered by Mr. Montgomery that would have allowed the F.H.A. to loosen standards so it could lure back subprime borrowers by insuring similar, but safer, loans. It passed the House but died in the Senate, where Republican senators feared that the agency would merely be mimicking the private sector’s risky practices — a view Mr. Rove said he shared.

Looking back at the episode, Mr. Montgomery broke down in tears. While he acknowledged that the bill did not get to the root of the problem, he said he would “go to my grave believing” that at least some homeowners might have been spared foreclosure.

Today, administration officials say it is fair to ask whether Mr. Bush’s ownership push backfired. Mr. Paulson said the administration, like others before it, “over-incented housing.” Mr. Hennessey put it this way: “I would not say too much emphasis on expanding homeownership. I would say not enough early focus on easy lending practices.”

‘We Told You So’

Armando Falcon Jr. was preparing to take on a couple of giants.

A soft-spoken Texan, Mr. Falcon ran the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, a tiny government agency that oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two pillars of the American housing industry. In February 2003, he was finishing a blockbuster report that warned the pillars could crumble.

Created by Congress, Fannie and Freddie — called G.S.E.’s, for government-sponsored entities — bought trillions of dollars’ worth of mortgages to hold or sell to investors as guaranteed securities. The companies were also Washington powerhouses, stuffing lawmakers’ campaign coffers and hiring bare-knuckled lobbyists.

Mr. Falcon’s report outlined a worst-case situation in which Fannie and Freddie could default on debt, setting off “contagious illiquidity in the market” — in other words, a financial meltdown. He also raised red flags about the companies’ soaring use of derivatives, the complex financial instruments that economic experts now blame for spreading the housing collapse.

Today, the White House cites that report — and its subsequent effort to better regulate Fannie and Freddie — as evidence that it foresaw the crisis and tried to avert it. Bush officials recently wrote up a talking points memo headlined “G.S.E.’s — We Told You So.”

But the back story is more complicated. To begin with, on the day Mr. Falcon issued his report, the White House tried to fire him.

At the time, Fannie and Freddie were allies in the president’s quest to drive up homeownership rates; Franklin D. Raines, then Fannie’s chief executive, has fond memories of visiting Mr. Bush in the Oval Office and flying aboard Air Force One to a housing event. “They loved us,” he said.

So when Mr. Falcon refused to deep-six his report, Mr. Raines took his complaints to top Treasury officials and the White House. “I’m going to do what I need to do to defend my company and my position,” Mr. Raines told Mr. Falcon.

Days later, as Mr. Falcon was in New York preparing to deliver a speech about his findings, his cellphone rang. It was the White House personnel office, he said, telling him he was about to be unemployed.

His warnings were buried in the next day’s news coverage, trumped by the White House announcement that Mr. Bush would replace Mr. Falcon, a Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton, with Mark C. Brickell, a leader in the derivatives industry that Mr. Falcon’s report had flagged.

It was not until 2003, when Freddie became embroiled in an accounting scandal, that the White House took on the companies in earnest. Mr. Bush decided to quit the long-standing practice of rewarding supporters with high-paying appointments to the companies’ boards — “political plums,” in Mr. Rove’s words. He also withdrew Mr. Brickell’s nomination and threw his support behind Mr. Falcon, beginning an intense effort to give his little regulatory agency more power.

Mr. Falcon lacked explicit authority to limit the size of the companies’ mammoth investment portfolios, or tell them how much capital they needed to guard against losses. White House officials wanted that to change. They also wanted the power to put the companies into receivership, hoping that would end what Mr. Card, the former chief of staff, called “the myth of government backing,” which gave the companies a competitive edge because investors assumed the government would not let them fail.

By the spring of 2005 a deal with Congress seemed within reach, Mr. Snow, the former Treasury secretary, said in an interview.

Michael G. Oxley, an Ohio Republican and then-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, had produced what Mr. Snow viewed as “a pretty darned good bill,” a watered-down version of what the president sought. But at the urging of Mr. Card and the White House economics team, the president decided to hold out for a tougher bill in the Senate.

Mr. Card said he feared that Mr. Snow was “more interested in the deal than the result.” When the bill passed the House, the president issued a statement opposing it, effectively killing any chance of compromise. Mr. Oxley was furious.

“The problem with those guys at the White House, they had all the answers and they didn’t think they had to listen to anyone, including the Treasury secretary,” Mr. Oxley said in a recent interview. “They were driving the ideological train. He was in the caboose, and they were in the engine room.”

Mr. Card and Mr. Hennessey said they had no regrets. They are convinced, Mr. Hennessey said, that the Oxley bill would have produced “the worst of all possible outcomes,” the illusion of reform without the substance.

Still, some former White House and Treasury officials continue to debate whether Mr. Bush’s all-or-nothing approach scuttled a measure that, while imperfect, might have given an aggressive regulator enough power to keep the companies from failing.

Mr. Snow, for one, calls Mr. Oxley “a hero,” adding, “He saw the need to move. It didn’t get done. And it’s too bad, because I think if it had, I think we could well have avoided a big contributor to the current crisis.”

Unheeded Warnings

Jason Thomas had a nagging feeling.

The New Century Financial Corporation, a huge subprime lender whose mortgages were bundled into securities sold around the world, was headed for bankruptcy in March 2007. Mr. Thomas, an economic analyst for President Bush, was responsible for determining whether it was a hint of things to come.

At 29, Mr. Thomas had followed a fast-track career path that took him from a Buffalo meatpacking plant, where he worked as a statistician, to the White House. He was seen as a whiz kid, “a brilliant guy,” his former boss, Mr. Hubbard, says.

As Mr. Thomas began digging into New Century’s failure that spring, he became fixated on a particular statistic, the rent-to-own ratio.

Typically, as home prices increase, rental costs rise proportionally. But Mr. Thomas sent charts to top White House and Treasury officials showing that the monthly cost of owning far outpaced the cost to rent. To Mr. Thomas, it was a sign that housing prices were wildly inflated and bound to plunge, a condition that could set off a foreclosure crisis as conventional and subprime borrowers with little equity found they owed more than their houses were worth.

It was not the Bush team’s first warning. The previous year, Mr. Lindsey, the former chief economics adviser, returned to the White House to tell his old colleagues that housing prices were headed for a crash. But housing values are hard to evaluate, and Mr. Lindsey had a reputation as a market pessimist, said Mr. Hubbard, adding, “I thought, ‘He’s always a bear.’ ”

In retrospect, Mr. Hubbard said, Mr. Lindsey was “absolutely right,” and Mr. Thomas’s charts “should have been a signal.”

Instead, the prevailing view at the White House was that the problems in the housing market were limited to subprime borrowers unable to make their payments as their adjustable mortgages reset to higher rates. That belief was shared by Mr. Bush’s new Treasury secretary, Mr. Paulson.

Mr. Paulson, a former chairman of the Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, had been given unusual power; he had accepted the job only after the president guaranteed him that Treasury, not the White House, would have the dominant role in shaping economic policy. That shift merely continued an imbalance of power that stifled robust policy debate, several former Bush aides say.

Throughout the spring of 2007, Mr. Paulson declared that “the housing market is at or near the bottom,” with the problem “largely contained.” That position underscored nearly every action the Bush administration took in the ensuing months as it offered one limited response after another.

By that August, the problems had spread beyond New Century. Credit was tightening, amid questions about how heavily banks were invested in securities linked to mortgages. Still, Mr. Bush predicted that the turmoil would resolve itself with a “soft landing.”

The plan Mr. Bush announced on Aug. 31 reflected that belief. Called “F.H.A. Secure,” it aimed to help about 80,000 homeowners refinance their loans. Mr. Montgomery, the housing commissioner, said that he knew the modest program was not enough — the White House later expanded the agency’s rescue role — and that he would be “flying the plane and fixing it at the same time.”

That fall, Representative Rahm Emanuel, a leading Democrat, former investment banker and now the incoming chief of staff to President-elect Barack Obama, warned the White House it was not doing enough. He said he told Joshua B. Bolten, Mr. Bush’s chief of staff, and Mr. Paulson in a series of phone calls that the credit crisis would get “deep and serious” and that the only answer was big, internationally coordinated government intervention.

“You got to strangle this thing and suffocate it,” he recalled saying.

Instead, Mr. Bush developed Hope Now, a voluntary public-private partnership to help struggling homeowners refinance loans. And he worked with Congress to pass a stimulus package that sent taxpayers $150 billion in tax rebates.

In a speech to the Economic Club of New York in March 2008, he cautioned against Washington’s temptation “to say that anything short of a massive government intervention in the housing market amounts to inaction,” adding that government action could make it harder for the markets to recover.

Dominoes Start to Fall

Within days, Bear Sterns collapsed, prompting the Federal Reserve to engineer a hasty sale. Some economic experts, including Timothy F. Geithner, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank (and Mr. Obama’s choice for Treasury secretary) feared that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be the next to fall.

Mr. Bush was still leaning on Congress to revamp the tiny agency that oversaw the two companies, and had acceded to Mr. Paulson’s request for the negotiating room that he had denied Mr. Snow. Still, there was no deal.

Over the previous two years, the White House had effectively set the agency adrift. Mr. Falcon left in 2005 and was replaced by a temporary director, who was in turn replaced by James B. Lockhart, a friend of Mr. Bush from their days at Andover, and a former deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration who had once run a software company.

On Mr. Lockhart’s watch, both Freddie and Fannie had plunged into the riskiest part of the market, gobbling up more than $400 billion in subprime and other alternative mortgages. With the companies on precarious footing, Mr. Geithner had been advocating that the administration seize them or take other steps to reassure the market that the government would back their debt, according to two people with direct knowledge of his views.

In an Oval Office meeting on March 17, however, Mr. Paulson barely mentioned the idea, according to several people present. He wanted to use the troubled companies to unlock the frozen credit market by allowing Fannie and Freddie to buy more mortgage-backed securities from overburdened banks. To that end, Mr. Lockhart’s office planned to lift restraints on the companies’ huge portfolios — a decision derided by former White House and Treasury officials who had worked so hard to limit them.

But Mr. Paulson told Mr. Bush the companies would shore themselves up later by raising more capital.

“Can they?” Mr. Bush asked.

“We’re hoping so,” the Treasury secretary replied.

That turned out to be incorrect, and did not surprise Mr. Thomas, the Bush economic adviser. Throughout that spring and summer, he warned the White House and Treasury that, in the stark words of one e-mail message, “Freddie Mac is in trouble.” And Mr. Lockhart, he charged, was allowing the company to cover up its insolvency with dubious accounting maneuvers.

But Mr. Lockhart continued to offer reassurances. In a July appearance on CNBC, he declared that the companies were well managed and “worsts were not coming to worst.” An infuriated Mr. Thomas sent a fresh round of e-mail messages accusing Mr. Lockhart of “pimping for the stock prices of the undercapitalized firms he regulates.”

Mr. Lockhart defended himself, insisting in an interview that he was aware of the companies’ vulnerabilities, but did not want to rattle markets.

“A regulator,” he said, “does not air dirty laundry in public.”

Soon afterward, the companies’ stocks lost half their value in a single day, prompting Congress to quickly give Mr. Paulson the power to spend $200 billion to prop them up and to finally pass Mr. Bush’s long-sought reform bill, but it was too late. In September, the government seized control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

In an interview, Mr. Paulson said the administration had no justification to take over the companies any sooner. But Mr. Falcon disagreed: “They absolutely could have if they had thought there was a real danger.”

By Sept. 18, when Mr. Bush and his team had their fateful meeting in the Roosevelt Room after the failure of Lehman Brothers and the emergency rescue of A.I.G., Mr. Paulson was warning of an economic calamity greater than the Great Depression. Suddenly, historic government intervention seemed the only option. When Mr. Paulson spelled out what would become a $700 billion plan to rescue the nation’s banking system, the president did not hesitate.

“Is that enough?” Mr. Bush asked.

“It’s a lot,” the Treasury secretary recalled replying. “It will make a difference.” And in any event, he told Mr. Bush, “I don’t think we can get more.”

As the meeting wrapped up, a handful of aides retreated to the White House Situation Room to call Vice President Dick Cheney in Florida, where he was attending a fund-raiser. Mr. Cheney had long played a leading role in economic policy, though housing was not a primary interest, and like Mr. Bush he had a deep aversion to government intervention in the market. Nonetheless, he backed the bailout, convinced that too many Americans would suffer if Washington did nothing.

Mr. Bush typically darts out of such meetings quickly. But this time, he lingered, patting people on the back and trying to soothe his downcast staff. “During times of adversity, he bucks everybody up,” Mr. Paulson said.

It was not the end of the failures or government interventions; the administration has since stepped in to rescue Citigroup and, just last week, the Detroit automakers. With 31 days left in office, Mr. Bush says he will leave it to historians to analyze “what went right and what went wrong,” as he put it in a speech last week to the American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Bush said he was too focused on the present to do much looking back.

“It turns out,” he said, “this isn’t one of the presidencies where you ride off into the sunset, you know, kind of waving goodbye.”

Are these facts? Just watch the first 2 mins...if you don't want to watch the entire thing.

And watch Hays at about 3:45

UI80QOuNgNE

Franklin Raines..."These assets are so riskless" LOL

I'd like to hear your comments on 201 as well.

I see the article as an editorial piece. They recreated 8 years the way they want you to see them. Biz as usual for the liberal press.

Now on to the Youtube clip I posted. You can see that with our own eyes, you can hear it yourself, I wont interpret what's going on there, no writers will recreate it for you.

I don't see how splicing together pieces of video with carefully crafted captions is more reliable than an article from a respected newspaper that conducted personal interviews with Bush's former administration members admitting fault.

Both are not to be considered in a vacuum, but the implication is that all Democrats are to blame because of the comments of a few is a much weaker position that to say that the administration, specifically the stratgies of George Bush, was the/a major factor in this crisis. One is specific and one is painting with a broad brush.

I know that neither of us is going to change our minds, but take those comments for what they are worth, which may be something or nothing.

I'd say...something.

They definately took the highlights as it would be hard to post hours of the hearing, but I can gather what was going on in that hearing...captions aside. The Captions are equivalent to the aritlcle...opinion.

Just look at the quotes they (writers) picked...who knows what was said but the writers with their bias. Who knows what was taken out of context. I dont' have that problem with the video cuz I can hear what was said. But thats me.

For me to blame the Dems entirely, was wrong...I was playin some partisan bullshit there, but I do feel that the Dems were more a culprit than Bush. Look at the way the Dems defended F&F and Raines. You can tell who was siding with whom there. But Bush didn't do enough, didn't go far enough to expose the scam.

I'll back off the Dem thing and say, once again, our Gov't failed us, and we get the bill. We get to bail those thieves out in the form of a spending bill and more taxes and larger Gov't to screw up even more.

Our gov't screwed up so lets create more gov't to screw us even more.

Why do I feel this is a broken record?

http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?p=276342&highlight=raines#post276342

I remember that and your other post about who was on F&F's payroll too. Yes, there were Repubs on it, but not to the extent that the dems were/are.

Obama to mayors: I will call you out on wasted stimulus money (http://www.yahoo.com/s/1033119)

Its to bad he didnt say that to Congress

I don't understand officials saying they won't use the money. Like the Louisiana governor saying he won't use the money because he doesn't believe in the plan. First off, that money that doesn't go to his state will simply be funneled to projects in other states. Second, his citizens are still paying for it. It's not like he's opting out of everything. it doesn't make sense to me.

It's posturing. The state legislatures can bypass the governors. It's part of the stimulus package.

It'll be funny as hell to see Reps bitch against the stimulus, but simultaneously take credit for whatever jobs or improvements it creates.

It's posturing. The state legislatures can bypass the governors. It's part of the stimulus package.

It'll be funny as hell to see Reps bitch against the stimulus, but simultaneously take credit for whatever jobs or improvements it creates.

I hope it happens.

And if jobs aren't created, hearing the Dems passing the buck will be funny too.

Its to bad he didnt say that to Congress


lol

I assume all of you here pay your mortgages and what not, so regardless of what party you are, aren't you pissed that essentially the taxpayers (you and me) are going to be paying the govt for subsidizing the mortgages of people who refuse to pay them or lied on their mortgage applications.

Over 90% of homeowners pay their own mortgages, why should they be the ones who have to pick up the slack for the people who can't/won't?

This has never been a country where "your only as strong as your weakest teammate". Those people created their own problems, and if the government wants to intervene, they shouldn't bring the responsible citizens into it.

some people didn't create them. some worked at circuit city. but yes, i would love to make sure we cut off folks who just made the decision to stop payments hoping obama will help them.

I assume all of you here pay your mortgages and what not, so regardless of what party you are, aren't you pissed that essentially the taxpayers (you and me) are going to be paying the govt for subsidizing the mortgages of people who refuse to pay them or lied on their mortgage applications.

Over 90% of homeowners pay their own mortgages, why should they be the ones who have to pick up the slack for the people who can't/won't?

This has never been a country where "your only as strong as your weakest teammate". Those people created their own problems, and if the government wants to intervene, they shouldn't bring the responsible citizens into it.
As a homeowner, I have strong incentive to avoid having foreclosed homes in my neighborhood and in general, due to its effects on my property values. To use your vernacular, the "weakest teammate" in the neighborhood can drag down my worth, and that's been true for awhile.

How many of those 90% worry about making payments because they're one job loss away from not being able to keep a payment schedule? Given the unemployment trends of late, is there any reason to think that the % who can continue to make their payments doesn't slide down further?

Note that some of these people did NOT create their own problems. Some were targeted and flat-out lied to by licensed professionals in various acts of predatory loaning. Politicians on both sides failed to act until it was too late, despite mounting evidence of problems with their engines of home loanership.

Also, no individual home owner had any control over the way derivatives were used to amplify the effects of every dollar of foreclosure by 20 or 30 times.

If not for that, a rational argument could be made for the "tough love" approach of letting the chips fall where they may. Under the circumstances however, that approach is delusional.

Exxxccccceeeelllleeeennnnttt!

^ ???

Bailing these banks out is important but at some point some of these banks/etc are just going to have to go under.

Too big to fail? Or too big to save?

The US cannot go fix the worlds ills or we will go under too.

The US cannot go fix the worlds ills or we will go under too.

Sincerely,

Iraq

And lots of peeps agree with you there.

A half a million dollars for Tattoo removal.

LOL

Exxxccccceeeelllleeeennnnttt!
Big K had no interest in sponsoring the Tigers this season so they went with the backup plan.

Also, no individual home owner had any control over the way derivatives were used to amplify the effects of every dollar of foreclosure by 20 or 30 times.

If not for that, a rational argument could be made for the "tough love" approach of letting the chips fall where they may. Under the circumstances however, that approach is delusional.
Here's a summary of a report from Geithner before he because Treasury Sec:

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html


The study identifies five causes of the subprime meltdown:
-Convoluted loan products that consumers didn’t understand.
-Credit ratings that didn’t do a good job highlighting the risks contained in subprime-backed securities.
-Lack of incentives for institutional investors to do their own research (they just relied on the credit ratings).
-Predatory lending and borrowing (which I think means fraud perpetrated by borrowers).
-Significant errors in the models used by credit rating agencies to assess subprime-backed securities.

Apparently the dow is no longer important. Obama knows the majority of people who buy stock are the same 1% of people that he doesn't care about, anyway.

"Don't bite the hand that feeds you."
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220253&title=the-dow-knows-all

sQEAydTlVXE

She needs to get a thicker skin. I guess the Repubs got to her.

The bill is 40% Repubs. Who didn't know that?

The Repubs (Senate I think) put their own 389b or 402 billion package together but they couldn't even get it heard. Nanci said I'm the speaker, I write the bill.

The Repubs (Senate I think) put their own 389b or 402 billion package together but they couldn't even get it heard. Nanci said I'm the speaker, I write the bill.

tyranny