The Stimulus

[RedskinsDave]

I am treating like the title "The Terminator" because it's so damn bad. Slowly we can all pick this piece of dung apart but I'd like to start with my own favorite, the big infux of money to the liberal groups like ACORN who got Barry elected.

The latest economic stimulus bill promises to do just that by providing a huge bailout --up to $5.2 billion in taxpayer funds -- for some of the same liberal groups that helped get Barack Obama elected.
The three relevant fiscal provisions are buried deep in the $825 billion monstrosity known as the proposed "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009."


I think after he's done paying back the people who put him on his undeserved pulpit, all we're going to have left is change.

[smoak]

Link?

[RedskinsDave]

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/27/acorns-stimulus

[akhhorus]

There's 3.3 billion of that 4 billion in the stim package for "for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes." That is to be divided among state and local governments(thats what it says in the bill). There is 750 million set aside in that provision the house version for non profits who help with housing issues(that will be divided by HUD). ACORN said that they're not applying for it(would they even be eligible for it?).

[akhhorus]

This is interesting:

Link (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0209/Cooper_Obama_staff_encouraged_defiance_of_Pelosi.h tml)

Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) -- one of the lead Blue Dogs -- made a startling admission to lefty Liberadio on Sunday, suggesting the White House quietly encouraged him to buck House leadership on the stimulus.

Cooper was one of 11 Dems to vote no -- joining every GOP House member.

"Well, I probably shouldn’t tell you this, but I actually got some quiet encouragement from the Obama folks for what I’m doing," said Cooper, one of about 55 House Democrats to sign a letter criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi for suspending normal debate and committee rules on the $819 billion package.

He went on -- and on:

"They know its a messy bill and they wanted a clean bill.

[RedskinsDave]

Oh so they're putting up crappy packages and asking their own people to shoot them down? Right.

[Ibleedburgundy]

ACORN is not "a liberal group that helped get Obama elected," they are a non-profit non-partisan group that promotes voter turnout regardless of political affiliation. The Spectators' motives are quite clear, they are under the impression that vote supression helps Republicans-a short sighted strategy at best. If Republicans want to win elections, perhaps they should adopt policies that are more popular rather than attacking nonpartisan groups that assist people in registering to vote.

[RedskinsDave]

ACORN is not "a liberal group that helped get Obama elected," they are a non-profit non-partisan group that promotes voter turnout regardless of political affiliation. The Spectators' motives are quite clear, they are under the impression that vote supression helps Republicans-a short sighted strategy at best. If Republicans want to win elections, perhaps they should adopt policies that are more popular rather than attacking nonpartisan groups that assist people in registering to vote.

If you honestly believe this, kill yourself.

[Brie Cheese]

If you honestly believe this, kill yourself.

..... .............. ........... ... ............. ..... .........

[Ibleedburgundy]

If you honestly believe this, kill yourself.

...says the guy who reads the freakin' spectator.

[csquared]

..... .............. ........... ... ............. ..... .........

Can we just ban this person please?

[Ibleedburgundy]

Can we just ban this person please?

or at least give the handle to someone who is worthy of it.

[BostonSkins]

The only plan I can think of worse than this one was the 700 billion we let Bush and Paulsen burn through. There are too many people with their hands out convinced that their little area needs money. I'm all for infrastructure spending but think that the rest of the money should be used to actually fix the banking system. I'm talking a Depression-style bank holiday where these guys have to open up their books and come clean to the government. It will become clear who can survive after that. The bond/shareholders take the losses (as it should be) and if they get wiped out only then should the gov't step in. Also, no such thing as "too big to fail". The longer we delay the inevitable, that there are several insolvent banks, the longer we delay getting around to recovery.

[akhhorus]

The only plan I can think of worse than this one was the 700 billion we let Bush and Paulsen burn through. There are too many people with their hands out convinced that their little area needs money. I'm all for infrastructure spending but think that the rest of the money should be used to actually fix the banking system.

There's a few parts that really good in the stim package: the money directly for the states/cities(which they badly need), the money for education(also badly needed and overdue), the AMT fix in the Senate version, and the money for information tech. But the rest of the package should be infrastructure spending and this housing tax credit(isaakson and Kent Conrad are pushing different versions of this).

I'm talking a Depression-style bank holiday where these guys have to open up their books and come clean to the government. It will become clear who can survive after that. The bond/shareholders take the losses (as it should be) and if they get wiped out only then should the gov't step in. Also, no such thing as "too big to fail". The longer we delay the inevitable, that there are several insolvent banks, the longer we delay getting around to recovery.

Yeah, they'll wipe out the shareholders(not like they have much equity left in those banks anyways), but they should nationalize(or the new term "preprivatize") Citi and BoA.

[RedskinsDave]

...says the guy who reads the freakin' spectator.

Actually it was one of the few places that actually wrote about the plan to give out money to groups like ACORN. If I found it on something more appetizing to you I would have posted it. Go ahead and keep acting like ACORN is some middle of the road group who is looking out for both sides though, it makes you accusing me of being blind for one side that much funnier.

[skinguy]

"MODEST" DIFFERENCES?
By Neal Boortz @ February 3, 2009 8:28 AM

Barack Obama says that we should not let "very modest differences" get in the way of the Democrats massive spending bill, otherwise known as the economic stimulus bill. It's funny that Obama would consider the differences between government spending a tax cuts "very modest." Do I really need to explain the fundamental differences between the plans the Democrats have proposed and those supported by Republicans? I didn't think so.

Jamie Dupree has done a top notch job of combing through this Senate economic stimulus bill .. I'll give you a little taste of what he found, and you can check out his blog for a lot more details. But this, according to Democrats, constitutes economic stimulus:

$350 million to develop and maintain a "broadband inventory map" at the Department of Commerce (that's Jamie's favorite)
$1.375 billion for "Rural Water and Waste Disposal"
$1 billion for the 2010 Census
$150 million for the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee
$50 million in aid to combat Internet Crimes Against Children
$1.4 billion for water projects for Indian tribes
$10 million to inspect canals in urban areas
$2.1 billion on energy efficiency in government buildings
$600 million to buy high fuel economy vehicles for the federal government
$240 million for "Alteration of Bridges"
$55 million for Historic Preservation in Park System
$150 million for facilities at the Smithsonian
$100 million in Aging nutrition services
$400 million for screening and prevention of STD's, including HIV
$1.5 billion for "Homelessness Prevention Fund"
Keeping all of these pork barrel projects in mind .. and by the way, that doesn't even scratch the surface of what is actually in this bill .. Obama says that he would be willing to scale back some of his spending plans in order to win Republican support. He said that he would remove any proposals which were not directly aimed at job creation.

OK ... let's parse that a second. Job creation? Most of Obama's stimulus plan is "work" creation, not job creation. These temporary construction and infrastructure projects don't create jobs, they create work. When you're finished sprucing up those government offices at the Department of Agriculture that work disappears. Ditto for landscaping around the National Mall. Also - where Obama's spending plan does create jobs they're generally government jobs, not private sector jobs.

Just a few weeks ago I told you about a hearing with the chairman of the joint committee on taxation. He was there to testify on behalf of the economic stimulus package. And when he is asked how many jobs this plan is expected to create, the guy didn't have an answer. Amazing.

How do you modify the stimulus plan? Start with each of the projects above. Then move on to every project that focuses on government work instead of private sector jobs. How do you do that? Pretty easy, actually. You put more money into the hands of the private sector - businesses large to small - to create jobs. The way to do that is through tax cuts. Not phony welfare checks you call tax cuts, but actual tax cuts. Right now the corporate tax rate in the U.S. is the second highest in the industrialized world. Do you think that is how to work toward business and job growth? If you do, you're a Democrat

> http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/02/03/

[smoak]

Oh so they're putting up crappy packages and asking their own people to shoot them down? Right.

And they just happened to leak.... ??? Ugh. I must not comment further.

[dj_stouty]

I agree with Akh that half of the principals of this plan seem good. You know...the ones that really do address the problem. But half of it seems like a quick opportunity to get some democratic funding for their programs; and now isn't the time to give the Smithsonian a 150 million dollar facelift. Its a museum for God's sake. That can wait.

And while all of this is going on; in the background Wells Fargo employees are drinking Crystal champaign at the luxorious Wynn Casino in Vegas on the taxpayer's dime.

I'm all for rewards and recognition for top performers (hell, I'm a salesperson after all!)...but when your company is barely stable enough to survive that you need a government bailout you may want to consider a cheaper casino like the Luxor or Excaliber and some $10 Korbel. lol

Regardless, I'm fully behind Obama to help fix our problems and I hope he starts taking more logical and simpler approaches instead of feeding into the Washington Machine per the normal.

[akhhorus]

And while all of this is going on; in the background Wells Fargo employees are drinking Crystal champaign at the luxorious Wynn Casino in Vegas on the taxpayer's dime.

I'm all for rewards and recognition for top performers (hell, I'm a salesperson after all!)...but when your company is barely stable enough to survive that you need a government bailout you may want to consider a cheaper casino like the Luxor or Excaliber and some $10 Korbel. lol


Not to be picky, but Wells Fargo is actually in fine shape. They didn't do these subprime loans, and the aid they got from the Feds were to smooth their acquisition of Wachovia(who was a mess).

[dj_stouty]

Not to be picky, but Wells Fargo is actually in fine shape. They didn't do these subprime loans, and the aid they got from the Feds were to smooth their acquisition of Wachovia(who was a mess).

But they did take on Wachovia's mess, so there should be some accountability for the way the "new" company spends their money.

As I mentioned; the least they could do is party it up at the less-expensive Luxor instead. lol

[akhhorus]

The Senate just passed the Isakson Home credit amendment to the Stim package. Up to $15,000 in tax credits for purchasing a home.

[shally]

The Senate just passed the Isakson Home credit amendment to the Stim package. Up to $15,000 in tax credits for purchasing a home.

i feel stimulated already..lol

[fpickering]

ACORN is not "a liberal group that helped get Obama elected," they are a non-profit non-partisan group that promotes voter turnout regardless of political affiliation.

This is one of the most laughable things I have ever heard in my life. No, really, it is just about one of the most ridiculously funny things I have ever heard, ever.

Here is another one; Media Matters is also a non-partisan group that promotes fairness and accuracy in the media.

Hahahahahaha.

[fpickering]

The only plan I can think of worse than this one was the 700 billion we let Bush and Paulsen burn through. There are too many people with their hands out convinced that their little area needs money. I'm all for infrastructure spending but think that the rest of the money should be used to actually fix the banking system. I'm talking a Depression-style bank holiday where these guys have to open up their books and come clean to the government. It will become clear who can survive after that. The bond/shareholders take the losses (as it should be) and if they get wiped out only then should the gov't step in. Also, no such thing as "too big to fail". The longer we delay the inevitable, that there are several insolvent banks, the longer we delay getting around to recovery.


I agree with this 100%. Giving money to corporations with broken business models and/or reckless management is just plain dumb. Free market capitalism dictates that these corporations fail and others step in to take their market share.

[fpickering]

There's a few parts that really good in the stim package: the money directly for the states/cities(which they badly need), the money for education(also badly needed and overdue), the AMT fix in the Senate version, and the money for information tech. But the rest of the package should be infrastructure spending and this housing tax credit(isaakson and Kent Conrad are pushing different versions of this).


Just curious, do you think that certain local and state governments who did a terrible job of managing their budgets should be bailed out by using federal tax dollars that we all pay into?
That is taxation without representation....I didn't have a chance to vote in California or New York elections, yet my tax dollars are going to bail them out of a situation that their elected officials are ultimately responsible for.

Also, what makes you think that throwing more money at Education will solve anything? This has been tried and studies have shown that student performance has not improved in line with the increases.

http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/bg2179.cfm

[akhhorus]

Just curious, do you think that certain local and state governments who did a terrible job of managing their budgets should be bailed out by using federal tax dollars that we all pay into?

If the choice is standing on philosophy just to do so and letting the recession deepen much more when the single largest employer in the United States decides to start slashing budgets or spending 80-90 billion to keep them from doing that, the latter is smart policy. But I guess such liberals as Charlie Crist, Jon Huntsman and Sarah Palin are just trying to expand government, no?

That is taxation without representation....I didn't have a chance to vote in California or New York elections, yet my tax dollars are going to bail them out of a situation that their elected officials are ultimately responsible for.


States rights died at Appomattox.

Also, what makes you think that throwing more money at Education will solve anything? This has been tried and studies have shown that student performance has not improved in line with the increases.

http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/bg2179.cfm

I like the Heritage foundation(especially their parties), but their criteria is pretty bad here: high school graduate rates and reading scores? Thats selective stat use. The majority of the education money in the stim package is to restore budget cuts from K-college and for school repairs. Those are good things.

[BurgundyNGold]

I like the Heritage foundation(especially their parties), but their criteria is pretty bad here: high school graduate rates and reading scores? Thats selective stat use. The majority of the education money in the stim package is to restore budget cuts from K-college and for school repairs. Those are good things.
I'd prefer they rework the entire secondary education system such that it actually mimics a collegiate education style. The current model is 60 years old and is getting increasingly trounced by the evolving educational systems of other industrialized nations.

[BurgundyNGold]

If the choice is standing on philosophy just to do so and letting the recession deepen much more when the single largest employer in the United States decides to start slashing budgets or spending 80-90 billion to keep them from doing that, the latter is smart policy. But I guess such liberals as Charlie Crist, Jon Huntsman and Sarah Palin are just trying to expand government, no?
I'm getting pretty goguedamned tired of rewarding futility and people who would rather make no choice than to make the hard choices. And on my dime no less.

Those state governments have plenty of money. They just have to decide what they cannot afford to spend money on. It's just that simple. Bailing them out allows them to continue to keep the dead branches on the tree and to operate inefficiently indefinitely.

[akhhorus]

I'm getting pretty goguedamned tired of rewarding futility and people who would rather make no choice than to make the hard choices. And on my dime no less.

Those state governments have plenty of money. They just have to decide what they cannot afford to spend money on. It's just that simple. Bailing them out allows them to continue to keep the dead branches on the tree and to operate inefficiently indefinitely.

So, whats the solution? Let 10 or so states declare bankrupcy, and have one of the single largest equity holding companies(CALIPERS) start liquidating just to teach everyone a lesson? In the process destroying the incumbent parties in the Governor's mansions of Ohio, California, Florida, New Jersey, Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Minnesota and about 5 other big states?

State governments are a mess and always have been. But the choice is 80-90 billion now, or a 2 couple trillion in lost revenue in the economy across the board when they gut 15% of their workforces, slash spending and raise taxes. If we've learned anything from this economic crisis, it's to stop the problem at the beginning, not at the end(like bailing out Lehman for 100 billion in September instead of 700 billion for TARP in October).

[BurgundyNGold]

So, whats the solution? Let 10 or so states declare bankrupcy, and have one of the single largest equity holding companies(CALIPERS) start liquidating just to teach everyone a lesson? In the process destroying the incumbent parties in the Governor's mansions of Ohio, California, Florida, New Jersey, Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Minnesota and about 5 other big states?

State governments are a mess and always have been. But the choice is 80-90 billion now, or a 2 couple trillion in lost revenue in the economy across the board when they gut 15% of their workforces, slash spending and raise taxes. If we've learned anything from this economic crisis, it's to stop the problem at the beginning, not at the end(like bailing out Lehman for 100 billion in September instead of 700 billion for TARP in October).
The solution? Remember, bankruptcy has to be approved by a judge. Don't let them declare bankruptcy. What are the shortfalls in the way over overall percentage of annual budget? 5%? 10%? These are not bankruptcy numbers. You'd need to start getting in the 30-40% range -- after elimination of wasteful and easy target spending -- before any sort of Federal assistance should even be considered.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of all of this gloom and doom speak. We "must" do this and we "must" do that or we'll have a depression, Armageddon, scorching herpes. Ironically, this sounds like the same alarmist speak about WMDs. Everyone knew it wasn't a good idea to invade Iraq unilaterally, but we "had to" prevent the possible spread of WMDs. Well, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice (TARP) shame on me. There will be no third time.

How about the state governments do they're effing jobs? When was the last time they cut jobs? Or spending? You're seeing Macy's do it, why shouldn't Minnesota?

[akhhorus]

The solution? Remember, bankruptcy has to be approved by a judge. Don't let them declare bankruptcy. What are the shortfalls in the way over overall percentage of annual budget? 5%? 10%? These are not bankruptcy numbers. You'd need to start getting in the 30-40% range -- after elimination of wasteful and easy target spending -- before any sort of Federal assistance should even be considered.

And if private unemployment wasn't rising, I'd agree with you. California is facing a budget shortfall of 16-40 billion(depending on who you believe) out of a 138 billion dollar budget. A number of states are in the 15+% budget shortfall zone(and not every state has revealed their problems yet for 09).

Frankly, I'm getting tired of all of this gloom and doom speak. We "must" do this and we "must" do that or we'll have a depression, Armageddon, scorching herpes. Ironically, this sounds like the same alarmist speak about WMDs. Everyone knew it wasn't a good idea to invade Iraq unilaterally, but we "had to" prevent the possible spread of WMDs. Well, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice (TARP) shame on me. There will be no third time.

The difference being that there were experts questioning the WMD evidence and TARP. There's no legitimate economist saying that the best course of action is total inaction.

How about the state governments do they're effing jobs? When was the last time they cut jobs? Or spending? You're seeing Macy's do it, why shouldn't Minnesota?

This is exactly the point. They should restructure their spending programs(no one is saying they shouldn't), but to do it now without any federal aid makes the problems worse.

[BurgundyNGold]

And if private unemployment wasn't rising, I'd agree with you. California is facing a budget shortfall of 16-40 billion(depending on who you believe) out of a 138 billion dollar budget. A number of states are in the 15+% budget shortfall zone(and not every state has revealed their problems yet for 09).
Cut first, beg second. I wouldn't give money to a guy on the street wearing a a Rolex watch and Gucci shoes. Neither should the Fed.

The difference being that there were experts questioning the WMD evidence and TARP. There's no legitimate economist saying that the best course of action is total inaction.
That's not true. There were many people dissenting. Most of CNBC was dissenting. Same with Bloomberg. Hell, 2/3 of the American people didn't want to do TARP and still don't like it. They were just drowned out by the perceived immediacy of the requirement and didn't give the same 6 month debate period that we got in the march to war in Iraq before Congress and the POTUS shoved it down our throats.

This is exactly the point. They should restructure their spending programs(no one is saying they shouldn't), but to do it now without any federal aid makes the problems worse.
Incorrect. We keep saying that giving money now solves problems. How has it? Credit is sill tight after TARP. CitiBank is jacking up interest rates for existing customers WITHOUT CAUSE after getting billions from he Fed. Now there is talk of using the additional $350B in TARP as a pool for banks to use for lending to release the pressure on lending capital. So, the banks get money from the Fed sellijg us that it will increase lending and preserve main street capital lines... which it doesn't. Now they want to use more Federal money to actually make loans that they, in turn, will make money on? WTF? This is insane. I'm done with TARP.

As for the state governments, they have a crisis. Somewhat. Yet, it is a crisis of their own making. They have let the bush grow untended for 40 years and now they have to take the clippers to it. Well, too effing bad. Do your damned jobs and stop whining. If you have budget shortfall, cut programs. Lay off redundant or worthless workers. Eliminate gaudy spending programs. Hey, nobody likes it, but that's how you respond to a crisis. If the states do this, then the can offer up bonds to cover any remaining balance and investors might actually buy them. If investors don't buy, then and only then should the Fed consider stepping in.

In any case, the Fed should not give the states money this year under any circumstances. Without giving the states time to shape up on their own, it would be sustaining a failed system for another, even more disastrous day, plain and simple.

[akhhorus]

Cut first, beg second. I wouldn't give money to a guy on the street wearing a a Rolex watch and Gucci shoes. Neither should the Fed.

But they aren't wearing a rolex and guccis. They're getting their codpieces and kidneys repossessed because they can't afford them at all.

That's not true. There were many people dissenting. Most of CNBC was dissenting. Same with Bloomberg. Hell, 2/3 of the American people didn't want to do TARP and still don't like it. They were just drowned out by the perceived immediacy of the requirement and didn't give the same 6 month debate period that we got in the march to war in Iraq before Congress and the POTUS shoved it down our throats.

I said that experts disagreed on TARP. So, why are you arguing?

Incorrect. We keep saying that giving money now solves problems. How has it? Credit is sill tight after TARP. CitiBank is jacking up interest rates for existing customers WITHOUT CAUSE after getting billions from he Fed. Now there is talk of using the additional $350B in TARP as a pool for banks to use for lending to release the pressure on lending capital. So, the banks get money from the Fed sellijg us that it will increase lending and preserve main street capital lines... which it doesn't. Now they want to use more Federal money to actually make loans that they, in turn, will make money on? WTF? This is insane. I'm done with TARP.


Personal credit yes, but its easing. The major bank lending rates have gone from levels no one thought were possible to normal. Banks are lending out money again. TARP, for all its flaws, worked.

As for the state governments, they have a crisis. Somewhat. Yet, it is a crisis of their own making. They have let the bush grow untended for 40 years and now they have to take the clippers to it. Well, too effing bad. Do your damned jobs and stop whining. If you have budget shortfall, cut programs. Lay off redundant or worthless workers. Eliminate gaudy spending programs. Hey, nobody likes it, but that's how you respond to a crisis. If the states do this, then the can offer up bonds to cover any remaining balance and investors might actually buy them. If investors don't buy, then and only then should the Fed consider stepping in.

You're just wrong here. Fiscally conservative states like SC, Texas, Florida and Georgia are having major problems. I know for a fact that SC will have a 11-17% shortfall this year. And the cause of it isn't overspending, its a downward spiral of tax revenues thanks to the general economic crisis.

In any case, the Fed should not give the states money this year under any circumstances. Without giving the states time to shape up on their own, it would be sustaining a failed system for another, even more disastrous day, plain and simple.

I'm sorry but your plan is totally unrealistic. Letting companies fail is one thing, letting banks is another, letting states fail is terrible policy that will multiple any problems. I'm glad you're not in charge of financial policy.

[BurgundyNGold]

But they aren't wearing a rolex and guccis. They're getting their codpieces and kidneys repossessed because they can't afford them at all.
My point is that they haven't cut anything. Anything. They're still wearing their Rolex watches and Gucci loafers and go home to their 5 bedroom house. Just because they have no cash in their pockets doesn't entitle them to a handout. Do the proper cutting and trimming first. Without that, why would anyone give them money? It's like giving cash to a crack addict. You know that they're not going to reform after your kindness. They'll just go off and continue business as usual until they run out of rock and then they'll be back for more money later.

I said that experts disagreed on TARP. So, why are you arguing?
I was referring to the "legitimate economists" statement. The more time that goes by without any affects of the TARP funds, the more inclined I am to believe that the markets would have sorted this out. Citi didn't need saving. Their assets would have been gobbled up by other banks in the end. People wouldn't lose their houses or their assets purchased through Citi. Only the Citi stockholders would have taken a bath... which is the penalty for picking a bad stock.

Personal credit yes, but its easing. The major bank lending rates have gone from levels no one thought were possible to normal. Banks are lending out money again. TARP, for all its flaws, worked.
The credit markets are still tight. Last year at this time, my business got 5 or 6 credit offers a week. We haven't gotten one since September. Nobody has. Things haven't gotten any better at all. And they won't until orders start coming in. And that won't happen until consumer confidence (the only figure that truly matters) goes up. Banks won't lend to people who cannot pay them back.

You're just wrong here. Fiscally conservative states like SC, Texas, Florida and Georgia are having major problems. I know for a fact that SC will have a 11-17% shortfall this year. And the cause of it isn't overspending, its a downward spiral of tax revenues thanks to the general economic crisis.
I'm not saying it's just the size of government. The lack of revenue is a huge part of it. But if you look at those state budgets, they've all grown 25% over the past 5 or so years along with the housing bubble and the Internet bubble before that. The economy has pared back. As a result, businesses have pared back. Well, guess what? Government has to pare back. If they eliminated 10% of spending, they could get the rest in a bond offering. Especially in this market.

I'm sorry but your plan is totally unrealistic. Letting companies fail is one thing, letting banks is another, letting states fail is terrible policy that will multiple any problems. I'm glad you're not in charge of financial policy.
Banks are no different than any other country. They provide products and services. If bad banks fail, good banks will come in and swoop up the pieces at pennies on the dollar. That's the reward for running your business right. Instead, we bail them out, reward them for running a crap company and effectively punish the good banks for not being idiots.

The states won't fail. They'll just have to make the hard choices. To this point, the political pain of cutting has been worse than being fiscally responsible. Well, now the pain is reversed. AS a fiscal conservative, you should be happy to see this opportunity to clean up the mess.

[akhhorus]

My point is that they haven't cut anything. Anything. They're still wearing their Rolex watches and Gucci loafers and go home to their 5 bedroom house. Just because they have no cash in their pockets doesn't entitle them to a handout. Do the proper cutting and trimming first. Without that, why would anyone give them money? It's like giving cash to a crack addict. You know that they're not going to reform after your kindness. They'll just go off and continue business as usual until they run out of rock and then they'll be back for more money later.

Thats not true at all. Crist has slashed and burned the budget in Florida(without making services worse), yet he's in deep trouble budget wise(same for a number of other governors). He shouldn't be penalized for doing the right thing, only to be screwed by an economic situation out of his control. Not every state is some liberal spending butt seck paradise lmao.

I was referring to the "legitimate economists" statement. The more time that goes by without any affects of the TARP funds, the more inclined I am to believe that the markets would have sorted this out. Citi didn't need saving. Their assets would have been gobbled up by other banks in the end. People wouldn't lose their houses or their assets purchased through Citi. Only the Citi stockholders would have taken a bath... which is the penalty for picking a bad stock.


All well and good. Legitimate economists were against TARP. There are no legitimate economists who think that the solution now is to do nothing.

The credit markets are still tight. Last year at this time, my business got 5 or 6 credit offers a week. We haven't gotten one since September. Nobody has. Things haven't gotten any better at all. And they won't until orders start coming in. And that won't happen until consumer confidence (the only figure that truly matters) goes up. Banks won't lend to people who cannot pay them back.


They're lending to someone, the banks are lending out cash in large amounts now when they werent in the fall.

I'm not saying it's just the size of government. The lack of revenue is a huge part of it. But if you look at those state budgets, they've all grown 25% over the past 5 or so years along with the housing bubble and the Internet bubble before that. The economy has pared back. As a result, businesses have pared back. Well, guess what? Government has to pare back. If they eliminated 10% of spending, they could get the rest in a bond offering. Especially in this market.

And I'm not saying that the state governments don't have to cut spending, but its a cost effective solution to keeping people in work in a bad job market to give emergency cash to the state-fiscally responsible or not. Its not a good solution, but its better than the alternative and put another 1-3 million people out of work in a terrible job market.

Banks are no different than any other country. They provide products and services. If bad banks fail, good banks will come in and swoop up the pieces at pennies on the dollar. That's the reward for running your business right. Instead, we bail them out, reward them for running a crap company and effectively punish the good banks for not being idiots.

But if a bank fails, another bank will swoop in and buy it their assets. Companies get rich on what is left behind. If Georgia goes into bankrupcy, Tennessee can't swoop and buy Savannah lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

Thats not true at all. Crist has slashed and burned the budget in Florida(without making services worse), yet he's in deep trouble budget wise(same for a number of other governors). He shouldn't be penalized for doing the right thing, only to be screwed by an economic situation out of his control. Not every state is some liberal spending butt seck paradise lmao.
Deal with states on a state by state basis. First order of criteria: fiscal responsibility. What have they done/what are they doing about their budget short falls? Second order of business: loan the money on bonds that the Feds buy from the states.

All well and good. Legitimate economists were against TARP. There are no legitimate economists who think that the solution now is to do nothing.
Who said do nothing? Not doing what is being proposed is not the same thing as doing nothing.

They're lending to someone, the banks are lending out cash in large amounts now when they werent in the fall.
If you have a story on that, I'd love to read it. Last I heard (2 weeks ago) the credit markets were still tight as Jerruh Jones' forehead.

And I'm not saying that the state governments don't have to cut spending, but its a cost effective solution to keeping people in work in a bad job market to give emergency cash to the state-fiscally responsible or not. Its not a good solution, but its better than the alternative and put another 1-3 million people out of work in a terrible job market.
It is not the Fed's responsibility to keep people in a job that they shouldn't otherwise have. If anything, it's the state's responsibility first. Just throwing money (that will be debt in the hands of foreign governments, i.e. China, Japan) at a problem without taking this opportunity to make the hard choices without political ramifications is pissing away an opportunity to fix what, for many states, it a massive, 40 year old ball of band aids.

But if a bank fails, another bank will swoop in and buy it their assets. Companies get rich on what is left behind. If Georgia goes into bankrupcy, Tennessee can't swoop and buy Savannah lol.
After they have fixed their budget problems and made hard political spending choices, then you give them the money. If they refuse, then the state goes bankrupt dues to ineptitude. That's just how it goes.

And I like the idea of state's taking over other states. You can't tell me that there wouldn't be a few hoots and hollers in South Carolina if they could start taking over neighboring states, lol.

[akhhorus]

Deal with states on a state by state basis. First order of criteria: fiscal responsibility. What have they done/what are they doing about their budget short falls? Second order of business: loan the money on bonds that the Feds buy from the states.


Revocable Bloc loans is a fine idea, or guaranteeing the states' loans(which is why the states are in trouble, no one could lend them short term to cover their short falls).

Who said do nothing? Not doing what is being proposed is not the same thing as doing nothing.


Then what is your plan?

If you have a story on that, I'd love to read it. Last I heard (2 weeks ago) the credit markets were still tight as Jerruh Jones' forehead.

I don't have specific story, just the Libor/Ted. The TEd spread is under 1 right now! The short term libor rate is .45! Money is getting pushing out there.

It is not the Fed's responsibility to keep people in a job that they shouldn't otherwise have. If anything, it's the state's responsibility first. Just throwing money (that will be debt in the hands of foreign governments, i.e. China, Japan) at a problem without taking this opportunity to make the hard choices without political ramifications is pissing away an opportunity to fix what, for many states, it a massive, 40 year old ball of band aids.


You're looking at one side of it and not the real world side of it. Yes, it borrowed money(nevermind that the lending rates are super low right now), but a job saved has a double positive effect on the economy. If the choice is not lending money(but the economy goes deeper in the toilet) or borrowing money to make things better, the latter is the no-brainer.

After they have fixed their budget problems and made hard political spending choices, then you give them the money. If they refuse, then the state goes bankrupt dues to ineptitude. That's just how it goes.


Fortunately, thats not how it goes. Certainly not in a system where electorates get stabby lol. And nothing would change if you let the states go bankrupt, the new leadership would just promise to prevent that from happening again(see Newt's fall from power after he tried to get the Fed government go bankrupt as an example). The only way to fix the problem is gradualism.

And I like the idea of state's taking over other states. You can't tell me that there wouldn't be a few hoots and hollers in South Carolina if they could start taking over neighboring states, lol.

Don't ruin my 2020 SC Senate campaign slogan please.

[fpickering]

If the choice is standing on philosophy just to do so and letting the recession deepen much more when the single largest employer in the United States decides to start slashing budgets or spending 80-90 billion to keep them from doing that, the latter is smart policy. But I guess such liberals as Charlie Crist, Jon Huntsman and Sarah Palin are just trying to expand government, no?


How is giving more money to state and local government officials who did a terrible job with their budgets in the first place going to help?

This is an absolute asinine line of thinking. How about corporate tax cuts to promote job creation? How about working with the lending institutions so that people cab get reduced mortgage interest rates to slow down the rate of foreclosures?




I like the Heritage foundation(especially their parties), but their criteria is pretty bad here: high school graduate rates and reading scores? Thats selective stat use. The majority of the education money in the stim package is to restore budget cuts from K-college and for school repairs. Those are good things.

Which stat would you prefer that they use? Education in the Country is no where near where it should be and no amount of money is going to get it there. It is the system that is broken, mostly due to the a very liberal teachers union who seem more inclined to push a political and social agenda than to teach our children.

[akhhorus]

How is giving more money to state and local government officials who did a terrible job with their budgets in the first place going to help?


I've explained this in responses to BnG, I'm not going to repeat myself.

This is an absolute asinine line of thinking. How about corporate tax cuts to promote job creation? How about working with the lending institutions so that people cab get reduced mortgage interest rates to slow down the rate of foreclosures?

I believe I said that they should include corporate tax cuts(balanced by closing tax loopholes) in another thread. So, I guess my "asinine line of thinking" is exactly what you support? I agree on mortgage cramdowns, but surprised you are, thats direct interference with the market.

Which stat would you prefer that they use? Education in the Country is no where near where it should be and no amount of money is going to get it there. It is the system that is broken, mostly due to the a very liberal teachers union who seem more inclined to push a political and social agenda than to teach our children.

The system is broken because of bad standards. Schools only care about standardized tests and have no clue if they're prepping their students for college. I'd like to see the percentage that goes to college, and the percentage that graduates from college. Using graduate rates and only reading scores will tell you nothing. As for how to fix education in this country: the DOD runs a great education system for cheaper than the federal/state authorities do. If I was President, I'd put DODE(the DOD education system) in charge of every public school in the country(and the union teachers love the DODE system also).

[BurgundyNGold]

Then what is your plan?
For the states, I already said my plan.

I don't have specific story, just the Libor/Ted. The TEd spread is under 1 right now! The short term libor rate is .45! Money is getting pushing out there.
Money is being whored at record rates. Short term treasuries are beig offered at 0% and 0.25%. they're doing everything they can to get liquid out in loans and capital into the markets. That doesn't mean that there are any/many takers, lol.

You're looking at one side of it and not the real world side of it. Yes, it borrowed money(nevermind that the lending rates are super low right now), but a job saved has a double positive effect on the economy. If the choice is not lending money(but the economy goes deeper in the toilet) or borrowing money to make things better, the latter is the no-brainer.
No, I guess I don't live in the real world and I don't have to deal with this crap every day personally and professionally. :rolleyes:

Propping up banks was short sighted. It created a market where losers like Citi looks better to people because it's backed by the Fed while great banks like Bank of Hawaii -- who took no Fed cash -- look bad and are getting their stock pounded just the same. Propping up states is just as bad. Fiscally responsible states are the exception, not the rule. The Fed should demand they cut, trim and reform as part of getting money.

Fortunately, thats not how it goes. Certainly not in a system where electorates get stabby lol. And nothing would change if you let the states go bankrupt, the new leadership would just promise to prevent that from happening again(see Newt's fall from power after he tried to get the Fed government go bankrupt as an example). The only way to fix the problem is gradualism.
There is no precedent to say that nothing will happen or that letting states go under would be a bad thing, long term. Besides, they won't -- I repeat -- THEY WILL NOT go under. It will just mean that the state level elected officials who have had these financial problems pushed off on them for decades will have to take out the mop and the bucket, roll up their sleeves and get down to 40 years worth of cleaning. They have to do it at some point, why not now?

And the Newt example is not apples to apples. He wasn't letting the Fed go bankrupt, he was just locking down the Fed to a supplemental CR, which mandated minimum spending levels -- after an initial CR which kept spending at previous FY levels. Personally, I didn't notice any difference in Fed operations and quality of service (and I was a Fed contractor at the time) during the "shutdown". Newt had the right idea but the wrong marketing plan, lol. He made his stand, got out heart-stringed in the media and got his hat handed to him as a result.

Don't ruin my 2020 SC Senate campaign slogan please.
You can't outrun the pictures, my friend, LMAO.

[fpickering]

I've explained this in responses to BnG, I'm not going to repeat myself.


Thank God.

No matter what you say or how you say it, the fact remains that asking all Americans to bail out certain states and cities because they did a crappy job of managing their budgets goes against the principles that this nation was founded upon. It is taxation without representation and there is no way of disputing that.
Hey, I have a novel idea... maybe California should stop supporting illegal aliens and eliminate other wasteful spending projects. Maybe that would get them under budget!



I believe I said that they should include corporate tax cuts(balanced by closing tax loopholes) in another thread. So, I guess my "asinine line of thinking" is exactly what you support? I agree on mortgage cramdowns, but surprised you are, thats direct interference with the market.


Sorry, I really do want to read every one of your posts but I have not had the time.
Your asinine way of thinking is exactly what has perpetuated this crisis; Reward the jerks with taxpayer money who have exhibited that they cannot make good monetary and business decisions. It is a very disturbing trend and one that will have devastating effects on the overall condition of our Nation.
Both parties have royally screwed the next generation and it is sad. Some common sense would have been just what the doctor ordered here.

[Fathead]

Thank God.

It is taxation without representation and there is no way of disputing that.








Do you understand the 16th amendment?

[shally]

Do you understand the 16th amendment?

no one does...lol.. it is one of those mysteries that you accept on faith, like why bumblebees are actually able to fly..

[Fathead]

no one does...lol.. it is one of those mysteries that you accept on faith, like why bumblebees are actually able to fly..

While that might be true, its pretty emphatic in saying the Congress can spend that money without worrying about who paid it where.

[akhhorus]

For the states, I already said my plan.


Money is being whored at record rates. Short term treasuries are beig offered at 0% and 0.25%. they're doing everything they can to get liquid out in loans and capital into the markets. That doesn't mean that there are any/many takers, lol.


Thats because institutional funds are parking their cash in treasuries until they see a place to invest. Banks are clearly lending out money again. If they didn't the fundamental numbers would be much different.

No, I guess I don't live in the real world and I don't have to deal with this crap every day personally and professionally. :rolleyes:

I didn't say you didn't.

Propping up banks was short sighted. It created a market where losers like Citi looks better to people because it's backed by the Fed while great banks like Bank of Hawaii -- who took no Fed cash -- look bad and are getting their stock pounded just the same.

So, do that or nationalize every bad bank. Those were the options. Nationalizing might have some upsides, but wiping out the shareholders then wasn't a great idea.

Propping up states is just as bad. Fiscally responsible states are the exception, not the rule. The Fed should demand they cut, trim and reform as part of getting money.

Except that fiscally responsible states need the help despite doing the right thing because revenue is tailspinning. States like California have to redo their spending, but they also deserve some help so that they don't have to put a million more people in the unemployed numbers.

There is no precedent to say that nothing will happen or that letting states go under would be a bad thing, long term. Besides, they won't -- I repeat -- THEY WILL NOT go under. It will just mean that the state level elected officials who have had these financial problems pushed off on them for decades will have to take out the mop and the bucket, roll up their sleeves and get down to 40 years worth of cleaning. They have to do it at some point, why not now?


For the 4th time: every fiscally responsible states need help badly. Mark Sanford might be boring, but he's done a great job as a fiscal manager. Why should they get screwed if you want fiscal accountability?

And the Newt example is not apples to apples. He wasn't letting the Fed go bankrupt, he was just locking down the Fed to a supplemental CR, which mandated minimum spending levels -- after an initial CR which kept spending at previous FY levels. Personally, I didn't notice any difference in Fed operations and quality of service (and I was a Fed contractor at the time) during the "shutdown". Newt had the right idea but the wrong marketing plan, lol. He made his stand, got out heart-stringed in the media and got his hat handed to him as a result.


Newt forced a showdown with Bubba thinking that he could force major entitlement reforms by letting the Fed effectively go bankrupt. He was counting on Bubba blinking or giving up since the debt payments would go unpaid and then he could dictate terms. What he didn't know was that Reich and Rubin saw it coming a year ahead of time and starting husbanding cash to make the first debt payment during Newt's crisis. The public was SO against that shutdown that its a cautionary tale for any politician who wants "to teach the government" a lesson to cut spending. You can only do it the way the new breed conservatives are: gradually.

You can't outrun the pictures, my friend, LMAO.

If that facebook group won't stop me, nothing will lol

Thank God.

No matter what you say or how you say it, the fact remains that asking all Americans to bail out certain states and cities because they did a crappy job of managing their budgets goes against the principles that this nation was founded upon. It is taxation without representation and there is no way of disputing that.

The 16th amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Your representation is your federal representatives(congressman, Senators).

Hey, I have a novel idea... maybe California should stop supporting illegal aliens and eliminate other wasteful spending projects. Maybe that would get them under budget!


Sorry, I really do want to read every one of your posts but I have not had the time.
Your asinine way of thinking is exactly what has perpetuated this crisis; Reward the jerks with taxpayer money who have exhibited that they cannot make good monetary and business decisions. It is a very disturbing trend and one that will have devastating effects on the overall condition of our Nation.

What perpetuated this crisis was a total lack of oversight in the banks, not "rewarding people with tax payer money who can't make good monetary/business decisions." I don't think you know what you're talking about if you think that rewarding people with tax payer money caused this problem.

Both parties have royally screwed the next generation and it is sad. Some common sense would have been just what the doctor ordered here.

The common sense would have been to save Lehman brother for 100 billion and stopped this problem at the source(because that would have prevented AIG, Merrill Lynch, Citi and other places from going under). Then re-regulating the banks so they couldn't over-leverage themselves again.