Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Negotiators for Congress and the White House have tentatively settled on a $790 billion price tag on President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill and are working to narrow differences on individual elements of the bill. After unofficial talks stretching into the late evening on Tuesday, officials announced a formal meeting of negotiators for mid-afternoon in the Capitol as they try to get a bill to Obama's desk for signing by week's end.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

SanAntonioRogue

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Here we go boys and girls.


Oh, and this from farther down in the article...

In another development, Obama announced Wednesday that Caterpillar's chief executive told him the company will rehire some of the 22,000 workers it laid off last month, if the stimulus bill passes. The heavy equipment maker can be expected to benefit as highway construction funds begin to flow.


The country will be SO upset that Rethugs weren't able to completely get rid of any spending on education..... I mean, if you are a Republican, you don't need education, right?

again...thats all well and good and certianly someting to discuss another day but it has nothing to do with getting people back to work
SOON.....


so thanks for your little pool of sanctamonius lecturing....

also...who knows what sort of regs are in this for education..knowing bullshit that dems pull. this money could come with liberal strings attatched
that WE DONT EVEN KNOW ABOUT....

Trillion Dollar Price Tag: The $816-billion package will be financed by borrowing, which will result in additional interest costs of $347 billion putting the total cost of H.R. 1 to over $1 trillion.


Does Very Little to Help Protect and Create Jobs: We need to help small businesses, entrepreneurs and the self-employed survive this recession and give them incentives to expand. 70% of our jobs in America come from small businesses. Yet there are more taxpayer dollars dedicated to arts and culture, cars for federal employees, and renovating federal buildings, than to helping small businesses grow.


Wasteful Spending: $54 billion is spent on 19 programs deemed "ineffective" or "results not demonstrated" by the Office of Management and Budget.


Special Interest Wish List: $600 million for brand new "green" cars for Federal government employees; $650 million for digital TV coupons; $7.7 billion to improve federal buildings; $200 million for sod and beautification of the National Mall; $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts; and other dubious special interest projects.


Not So "Timely" After All: Even if borrowing and spending is the answer to our economic crisis, only a small fraction of the spending in the Majority's bill will take place in 2009. By the start of fiscal year 2011, roughly half of the spending from this bill will remain unspent.


Another Round of Rebate Checks: The tax provisions in this bill do not encourage risk-taking; they do not encourage investment and job creation. The bulk of the tax cuts' are simply rebate checks - $10/week for individuals and $20/week for couples. We tried rebate checks last year, and they simply don't work.


Guarantees Future Tax Hikes: The calls for new record spending would only exacerbate our exploding budget deficit, a national debt nearing $11 trillion, and well over $50 trillion of unfunded promises. By adding over $1 trillion dollars to this abysmal fiscal situation, we are guaranteeing tax increases in the near future. To hit a recovering economy with massive tax increases is a recipe for disaster.

Here we go again on education. You know what the dumbass Congress did around the same time they passed the well-intentioned but problematic PATRIOT Act? They passed the well-intentioned but problematic No Child Left Behind Act, and outgrowth of the ESEA, which has been around for an awfully long time. If anyone wants to talk about poor government managment, let's talk about education. Let's see, 1972, 1974 maybe--the IDEA, which sets up for Special Education requirements. If memory serves, the deal was that federal funding would cover 40% of costs. The reality, if memory serves, is that fed funding has never covered more than 18%. So now we have NCLB, which basically puts the emphasis on testing, testing, testing. Now no matter one's political leanings, it should be clear that one doesn't make someone more educated simply by asking them by testing them over and over and over. How about some emphasis on instruction, on learning, on _parent_ and _student_ accountability. At least Obama is talking about increasing training for teachers. That's something. And I loved his repeated lines to parents during the campaign about turning off the television. The reading problem in this country is not (solely) the fault of the education system; let's look at parents who abrogate their duties to schools, readily and quickly, then complain when schools can't raise their children up right. Go look at literacy rates in colonial America--BEFORE we had the widespread school system and when there was no standardized testing. We had PARENTS WHO WERE EDUCATED and who TAUGHT THEIR KIDS STUFF!

So now, that's somehow more difficult. Understood. But instead of simply bashing educators and the public schools, instead of insisting on accountability for teachers only, the gov't and our citizens should be working to include parents and students among the targets of who's not performing.

Okay, okay. I'm done. The education bullshit pushes my buttons. And it ain't about Dems vs Republicans. Or liberal vs. conservative. It's about what engages young people and gets them to _think_.


Man, that Joe has become such a prolific original writer, eh?

Or was that NewsMax again?

Or was that NewsMax again?

Nope, it was ripped from some insignificant congressman's website:

www.house.gov

Time to put the taters on and bring em to a boil. The Pork roast is almost done.

"some insignificant congressman's "

He is the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee. He also serves on the House Ways and Means Committee.

-The Pork roast is almost done.

Kinda funny, particularly considering that pork was less than 1 percent of the Bill even before much of it was cut.

Kinda funny, particularly considering that pork was less than 1 percent of the Bill even before much of it was cut.

#10 | Posted by Corky

Stick to your definition. I'll bet you think weiners still have 1% filler.

He is the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee. He also serves on the House Ways and Means Committee.

He's still in the minority, and probably will be for some time.

"He's still in the minority"

So to be a "significant" member of Congress, you now have to be a Democrat? Just admit you were talking out of your ass.

I guess having your picture at the top of this page means you aren't "significant."

budget.house.gov

So to be a "significant" member of Congress, you now have to be a Democrat?

Right now, yes - specifically a committee chairman would make you less insignificant (save Charlie Rangel who, in my eyes, is insignificant).

And from what I read on the website, the Budget Committee is a revolving door so I could care less where his little picture is on a pdf document.

And yes, he is still insiginificant.

You're a fucking moron if you think that the only significant members of Congress are those in the majority party. In fact, I know you don't think that, and that you've just now invented that standard to cover for the fact that you didn't know who Paul Ryan was.

I know who Paul Ryan is (you used "was" as if he were dead). He is actually an alleged up and comer with the repubs, I just like getting you worked up sometimes.

Anywho, the deal is done. Now it is time for the spin.

"Okay, okay. I'm done. The education bullshit pushes my buttons. And it ain't about Dems vs Republicans. Or liberal vs. conservative. It's about what engages young people and gets them to _think_."

Agreed and maybe what we should actually be doing is lookng to see what China, Japan and other countries are doing. In any other competition, and it is a competition, we would be closely following the training of our competitors. I think year round school might be one thing that came up. Less time for students to sit idly home playing mindless computer games, etc. more time learning. We base our educational system on a rural economy which for the most part does not even exist.

this money could come with liberal strings attatched
that WE DONT EVEN KNOW ABOUT....

#3 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-02-11 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:


Unlike the "conservative" strings that have been attached to nearly everything that passed through DC over the last 8 years?

We Won, get used to it.

I'm sure that Joe considers Eric Cantor "significant" as well, but his anti-AFSCME ad is going to allow him to dive deeper into the cesspool that is the current state of Republic Party affairs.

Go Joe, you're awfully similar to your plumbing buddy of the same moniker.

This just in.....Stimulus Bill as no money for Texas!!!!

This just in.....Stimulus Bill as no money for Texas!!!!

This just in....That's because we don't elect the kind of incandescently stupid fucks who enact economically illiterate policies that create the need for "stimulus" in the first place!!!!!!!

"That's because we don't elect the kind of incandescently stupid fucks who enact economically illiterate policies that create the need for "stimulus" in the first place!!!!!!!"

So, you don't think the economic policies of George W. Bush had anything to do with the economic crisis????
That's funny.


FLASH 7 mins ago


Key lawmakers reach deal on $789B stimulus bill

WASHINGTON Moving with lightning speed, key lawmakers announced agreement Wednesday on a $789 billion economic stimulus measure designed to create millions of jobs in a nation reeling from recession. President Barack Obama could sign the bill within days.

"The middle ground we've reached creates more jobs than the original Senate bill and costs less than the original House bill," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of the participants in an exhausting and frenzied round of bargaining.

The bill includes help for victims of the recession in the form of unemployment benefits, food stamps, health coverage and more, as well as billions for states that face the prospect of making deep cuts in their own programs.

It also preserves Obama's signature tax cut a break for millions of lower and middle income taxpayers, including those who don't earn enough to pay income taxes.

news.yahoo.com

Crap!

- The GOP


Related:

Sports Illustrated Stimulus Raises Package

wdfn.com

For the tax pros:

Would the tax credit go into effect this year or next year? I already filed my taxes.

Reagan58-

My point was that the ranking member of the House Budget Committee should not be considered "insignificant" as far as Congressmen go. Any other nonsense you want to bring up is irrelevant.

The Republics are terrified that the economy will begin to make steps forward and that someone other than the rich will reap the benefits. That's going to make '10 & '12 elections more punishment for their past misdeeds and they see the dungeon door from where they're currently sitting.

"The Republics are terrified that the economy will begin to make steps forward and that someone other than the rich will reap the benefits."

And...as always....the rich will make money in spite of themselves....just like they did when Clinton was president. They've largely lost everything they made under Bush yet are still worrying that we might return to the prosperity of the Clinton years. The reason....blind ideology and good old boy network that makes most REpublicans feel they should just support Republicans without seriously every analysing what is in both their own and the working class's best interests.

"The bill includes help for victims of the recession in the form of unemployment benefits, food stamps, health coverage and more, as well as billions for states that face the prospect of making deep cuts in their own programs."

Stimulus! We call it Welfare in WIS.


Yeah, shit. We wouldn't want Americans sticking together and helping each other out.

Damn Commies!!

It appears the tax credit for purchasing a home has been kicked out of this version.

Joe, on the word use I'll agree with you, noone that's elected to either US House or Senate is insignificant but as was demonstrated over the last few days irrelevant is more apt a description.

We Won, get used to it.

"We Won, get used to it."

Reminds me of a liberal cry after 2000: "...we was robbed..."

Yeah, shit. We wouldn't want Americans sticking together and helping each other out.


Damn Commies!!


#32 | Posted by Corky

Hell, why not just force every working person to adopt one of the less fortunate? At least I could get some sort of payback like asking them to make me a sandwich and get me a beer...

-It appears the tax credit for purchasing a home has been kicked out of this version

Yet another victory for the GOP.


Actually, I think some conservatives who lost a lot of money because of deregulated financial products are re-thinking their disgust for "big government", considering the alternative of corporate looting.


It also preserves Obama's signature tax cut a break for millions of lower and middle income taxpayers, including those who don't earn enough to pay income taxes.

news.yahoo.com

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2009-02-11 04:18 PM


Has anyone come up with a justification for this yet that doesn't involve terms like "socialism" or "from those with to those without"?

Just wondering how you justify taking my money and giving it to someone who doesn't pay taxes.

I have no problem contributing to charities, I just don't like charities foricibly taking my money, or sending me to jail if I refuse.

I'm all for tax cuts to everyone... everyone, that is, who pays taxes...

Corky, the amendment for the tax credit was introduced by a republican in the Senate. There were two different versions - on in the house, and one in the Senate. The Senate version was a $15,000 credit (married filing jointly) that would be applied to purchases of primary residences. The House version was $7,500 for first time home purchases only. I need to research further, but I think the House version made it through.

-giving it to someone who doesn't pay taxes.

Well, they could take your money and put in Social Security, which is where the Payroll tax dollars go, if that would make you feel better.


"We Won, get used to it."


Reminds me of a liberal cry after 2000: "...we was robbed..."

#35 | Posted by Liberty at 2009-02-11 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:


Actually though never stated as elegantly or succinctly that was the Republic's answer anytime we liberals cried out "we was robbed".

Thanks, Tax.

One thing about the DR, whenever I don't know what I'm talking about, there is always someone to correct me.


Sold short 20-year treasuries yesterday. Apparently a lot of people believe that with all this borrowing, foreigners will be anxious to lend money to us for free.

We'll see.

You never told us what stocks you were buying, Cork.

Taxman,

FYI, I just had clients who bought their first home, but it was a large house with four apartments, the other three rented. I called the IRS to find out if they qualified. The guy told me his research said two different things: yes, since it was their first time, and no, because it was rental property. They kicked it upstairs and the IRS WILL allow it, to the percentage of appraisal of their unit vs. the other three. If theirs, the largest unit by far, appraises at, say, 40% of the price, they'll get purchase price X 40% X 10%.

And I got it in writing.

At least the IRS was reasonable.

"everyone, that is, who pays taxes..."

Do you consider sales, excise, gasoline, utility, payroll, or property taxes, taxes?

The country will be SO upset that Rethugs weren't able to completely get rid of any spending on education..... I mean, if you are a Republican, you don't need education, right?
#2 | POSTED BY CORKY

Where in the Constitution does it say the feds should be involved in education at all? It has historically been a state issue, and should continue to be. I guess they shoehorn it in through the commerce clause, which is tortured beyond belief anyway.

You really want education to be subject to national standards and procedures, and take away states' ability to teach their kids (or not teach them) as they see fit based on location/traditions etc of that state? Good luck with that.

#47 | Posted by somoco

The GOP Propaganda Force is strong in this one.

Do you consider sales, excise, gasoline, utility, payroll, or property taxes, taxes?

Within the boundaries of who is going to have to pay for this stimulus, no, those are not applicable taxes.


"everyone, that is, who pays taxes..."

Do you consider sales, excise, gasoline, utility, payroll, or property taxes, taxes?

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-02-11 05:05 PM | Reply |

I do consider them taxes, but not income taxes. There is a clear difference. A

nd sales/gas/etc. taxes are the same for everyone. To analogize to giving tax credits to people who don't pay income taxes, that would be like a department store giving me money because someone else bought a jacket that was taxed, and meanwhile I bought nothing. If you don't pay taxes, why would breaks apply to you? Anyone?


You never told us what stocks you were buying, Cork.

#44 | Posted by rightisright


Down here in 34102, we shit gold bricks and sell them to Ray at a huge mark-up.

So . . . nothing? Or are you too embarrassed?

Maybe it's unpatriotic not to buy stocks. Don't you have a moral obligation to support your country? To invest in your future?

Come on. Go to the doctor, have him write a prescription for a pair of testicles, pick up the phone, and call your broker. Tell him you want to buy into the prosperity that's right around the corner.

"I'm all for tax cuts to everyone... everyone, that is, who pays taxes..."

Since capital gains taxes were lowered to less than I pay on labor I sort of started rejecting all the arguments that tax credits are unfair for poor folks. I figure if a fairly low wage earner can pay 25% tax while a millionaire pays fifteen by sitting around the pool then the inequity of somenoe making 10K getting a tax credit is sort of insignificant and if the poor person will eat better then good.

"Maybe it's unpatriotic not to buy stocks."

About as unpatriotic as not playing craps.


-giving it to someone who doesn't pay taxes.

Well, they could take your money and put in Social Security, which is where the Payroll tax dollars go, if that would make you feel better.


#40 | Posted by Corky at 2009-02-11 04:58 PM

The purpose of Social Security: Securing the financial stability of society. Every citizen is part of the society.

The purpose of tax relief: Providing relief to those who pay taxes. Only taxpayers are people who pay taxes.

I don't see Social Security analogous to this situation.


lmao

I guess the comment about "The Mouth" dissing short-sellers really struck home, eh, Tighty?


Even when payroll taxes are used to finance SS instead of getting it from you?

Those people pay taxes, too.


"...sales/gas/etc. taxes are the same for everyone."

Not true. Payroll taxes are not only regressive, they're super-regressive. A couple could owe thousands in payroll taxes without owing a penny in income taxes. So consider it a return of payroll taxes.


Since capital gains taxes were lowered to less than I pay on labor I sort of started rejecting all the arguments that tax credits are unfair for poor folks. I figure if a fairly low wage earner can pay 25% tax while a millionaire pays fifteen by sitting around the pool then the inequity of somenoe making 10K getting a tax credit is sort of insignificant and if the poor person will eat better then good.

#53 | Posted by danni at 2009-02-11 05:21 PM

I don't think the tax system is great, and those loopholes are available for anyone to exploit (if they can figure it out). I wholeheartedly agree that taxes should be lowered for lower and middle class taxpayers.

I do NOT agree that tax relief should just be given to people who pay NO taxes. These people don't need relief - there is nothing to relieve.

Sure, they may need social welfare, but that is not tax relief. Completely different story.
I just see this as an abuse of government under the cloud of "a nice social policy idea."

This just in.....Stimulus Bill as no money for Texas!!!!
This just in....That's because we don't elect the kind of incandescently stupid fucks who enact economically illiterate policies that create the need for "stimulus" in the first place!!!!!!!
#22 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

yup! 8 billion in reserves & no state income tax. property values are holding or increasing in most areas... yea, keep your fed dollars & the attached strings. we don't need it. California can have our cut.

petro81, I wonder why they want to hold the rebate all year & give it out with a refund. why not cut their tax rate so workers immediately see a result? would they rather those $400 spent over a short period of time or spread out with a constant effect? so, with these checks you get a bump in consumer spending for what? a month? two at most? it didn't work last time (bump in May, that was it). just cut the rate for them so they can keep more of what they earn instead of it being dolled out by Big Brother.

I figure if a fairly low wage earner can pay 25% tax while a millionaire pays fifteen by sitting around the pool then the inequity of somenoe making 10K getting a tax credit is sort of insignificant and if the poor person will eat better then good.

#53 | Posted by danni
* * * *

LMAO. You do realize, right, that most of the capital gains are claimed by people making a lot less than a hundred thousand a year? By people who have sold their homes, and moving into another one?
Or that most of the dividends are received by people on fixed incomes?

Suits me fine to jack up the rates on capital gains. Capital will always go to where it's treated best, and flee where it's either taxed or inflated away. And as long as I'm in front of the wave, A-OK.

I'm lovin' all this. Obama and the Democrats are as duplicitous as ever, despite their promises to be more "transparent". But they're transparent enough for me to know exactly what to do.

"The purpose of tax relief: Providing relief to those who pay taxes."

Not too familiar with the tax code, are you? In the last 5 years of its existence, Enron got tax refunds of $381,000,000.

www.ctj.org


Not true. Payroll taxes are not only regressive, they're super-regressive. A couple could owe thousands in payroll taxes without owing a penny in income taxes. So consider it a return of payroll taxes.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-02-11 05:26 PM


I guess my point is, if you want to help poor people, then help poor people and call it wellfare.

Don't give them money and call it "tax relief" when they don't pay taxes. They don't pay taxes, thus its not relief. Its welfare. Can't see any other way around that.


Okay, I'll stop now. I can't stand thread-pirates, and I'm turning into one.
Back to the stimulus stuff...

I guess the comment about "The Mouth" dissing short-sellers really struck home, eh, Tighty?

#56 | Posted by Corky
* * * *

Kramer's been so wrong for so long about so much I'm surprised he has an audience at all. If you have CNBC on and want to see someone who actually has a clue, tune in to either Karen Finerman or Jeff Macke on Fast Money.
Oh--and ignore everyone else on there.

You're cute, though. As usual, no thoughts of your own. You just need someone in the media to tell you what to think. Can I assume you've bought some of Cramer's natural gas stocks, that lost 65% last year?

"Suits me fine to jack up the rates on capital gains. Capital will always go to where it's treated best, and flee where it's either taxed or inflated away. And as long as I'm in front of the wave, A-OK."

I am not surprised, you want to make money, which is what makes America work. Unfortunately rewarding capital gains like profits in the stock market or real estate investment didn't, investment into some factories, stores, inventions, etc. would be welcome. The initial offering of a stock should qualify for a tax break, after that it doesn't benefit anyone except the owner of the stock and should be taxed like any other income, IMHO.


You can check my zip code and then assume anything you damn well please.

Have a nice evening all.

"You do realize, right, that most of the capital gains are claimed by people making a lot less than a hundred thousand a year?"

If the top 10% control 90% of the money, how could this be?

"By people who have sold their homes, and moving into another one?"

Unless the profit is over a quarter million a person, or they have been in the house less than two years, gains from home sales are tax-free. My guess is if they're profiting more than a half-mil, their incomes are at least six figures.

"Or that most of the dividends are received by people on fixed incomes?"

I believe that's raw numbers of recipients, not actual money received. Have you got a link?

"They don't pay taxes"

Whoa...You just admitted they did, by admitting the list I posted WERE taxes. But I understand you want to limit the discussion to income taxes only, because your point falls apart otherwise.

"I guess my point is, if you want to help poor people, then help poor people and call it wellfare."

And what do you call it when we "help" the Wall Street Welfare Queens?

The initial offering of a stock should qualify for a tax break, after that it doesn't benefit anyone except the owner of the stock and should be taxed like any other income, IMHO.

#65 | Posted by danni
* * * *

Nope. If you don't think that the stock price matters after the IPO, take a good look at any company whose stock price is getting annihilated. Take Citi or Bank of America or General Motors. Their stock price is a barometer of what they might expect on the very high side in the event of a new stock issue. By buying shares, you're taking a gamble that the company will grow. Otherwise you can stick it into the bank and earn 5.5% with no risk.

The problem today is too much debt, and too little capital. Today in Congress they promise much more of the former, and much less of the latter.

Keep selling.

RR

Suze Ormon is as bad as Kramer. She makes money pedling bad advice.articles.moneycentral.msn.com

Yes Cork, I know your zip code. I grew up in 34293, and all my family is in Sarasota.

And I'll assume you're living in a house you paid $750,000 for that you wouldn't mind unloading today for less than half that. But you can't, because every other home on your street is also for sale, and you've had to sell whatever stocks you have to pay for the insurance premiums--which have more than tripled in four years, courtesy of Dennis, Ivan, and Charley--and your tax bill, which has more than doubled.

House rich, cash poor, mortgage broke. Nice beaches though.

Suze Ormon is as bad as Kramer. She makes money pedling bad advice.articles.moneycentral.m
sn.com

#71 | Posted by Ray
* * * *

Yep. About the only personal finance guy who's show is interesting is that Dave Ramsey guy. He doesn't know much about finance or investments, but he is fanatical about getting out of debt. The people who call into his show have made such a wreck of their lives it staggers the imagination. I hear him on XM when I'm traveling.

I used to think he was kind of a Cassandra, but I'm coming around. He doesn't even believe in borrowing money to go to college, which I thought was preposterous a couple of years ago, but now I'm starting to see where he's coming from.

Too much debt. Too little capital. And a new administration that promises to triple down on previous mistakes.

"If you don't think that the stock price matters after the IPO, take a good look at any company whose stock price is getting annihilated."

Exactly, there is no direct connection (or really indirect either) between stock price and the real value of the company. The real assets of Americna industry did not just lose 50% of their value but the stock did. Even for stocks that do follow the value of the company it still doesn't benefit anyone except the current stock holder when the value rises and thus capital gains tax should be at least the same as on other income. We should only give lower tax rates on income which is an investment into the economy like a new factory or business. I have nothing against the stock market or against people making money in it but they should pay the same tax rates as anyone else. To do otherwise leads to what we have now, a deteriorating industrial base because investment went into stocks instead of industrial capacity.

It doesn't work that way. The reason the stocks have collapsed is because the value of the company's assets have, which include factories and patents and R&D and all the things you think are divorced from the stock price, but aren't.

Assets minus liabilities = net worth. Same is true of you, as it is of General Motors. The reason that the book value per share of GM is a negative $16 is because their assets (factories) can't make cars people want; their liabilities (pensions, accounts payable, bonds) are rising; and nobody wants to buy their stock, even with a government guarantee. If GM stock were at $50, it's only because those previous conditions have been changed.

This is why bankruptcy was the only viable option to them. File a piece of paper with a judge and BOOM--suddenly the liabilities are wiped away, and you can start anew. But no. Easier to go to Washington and get Bush/Obama to kite another $30 billion in checks to keep the carcass around for another quarter or two.

And the stock keep going down anyway. I'll agree with you in one respect, though: if you buy GM and somehow manage to squeeze a point or two out of it before selling for a capital gain, you shouldn't pay a reduced capital gains tax bill. You should pay a good psychiatrist. Same goes with all the stocks of all these big investment banks, that Tax-Dodgin' Treasury Tim is keeping afloat.

"The reason that the book value per share of GM is a negative $16 is because their assets (factories) can't make cars people want; their liabilities (pensions, accounts payable, bonds) are rising; and nobody wants to buy their stock, even with a government guarantee."

That is just a rationalization. The reason is that no one wants to pay more for the stock because they don't think they can sell it for more. Stock prices are the price someone will pay for them and they may or may not have anything at all to do with the real value of a company. That is why many companies have been broken up and sold for more than the value that the original company was worth. The stock didn't accurately reflect the real value of that company.

Danni, you are referring to "goodwill" which GM has none of right now.

That is why many companies have been broken up and sold for more than the value that the original company was worth.
* * * *

Not that many. It seems to happen a lot more in the movies than in real life. Believe me, if there were a lot of money to be made by breaking up companies, it would be happening every day.

"This is why bankruptcy was the only viable option to them. File a piece of paper with a judge and BOOM--suddenly the liabilities are wiped away, and you can start anew. "

Look closely, and you'll see once again, the Union workers will have fulfilled their part of a signed contract, and the owners will have weaseled out of their part of the signed contract. Expect the pensions to be turned over to the (bankrupt) PBGC.

Interesting. And irrelevant. It probably doesn't matter--President Obama will keep funneling billions to GM in an attempt to postpone a coroner showing up and pronouncing the victim dead. So I guess we're all stuck with the lousy management, the lousy unions, the lousy contracts, and the lousy cars. How wonderful.

It's dead. Sooner we recognize it, the better. For everyone.

. . .and the owners will have weaseled out of their part of the signed contract.
* * * *

The weasel is dead too. It's not really weaseling, when all your investments evaporate. The common will go to zero, along with the preferred, along with the debt. It was the stupid owners who didn't want to own up to their own stupid investments, sitting side by side with stupid management and stupid labor union leaders, who asked the Congress to kite another $30 billion in checks.

Fortunately for them, Obama and Congress are stupid too.

"And irrelevant."

Yea...as long as you're not the guy who fulfilled his part of the contract. Pretty relevant, though, if you're only going to end up with about 40%-60% of your promised pension.

Look, I agree GM is a lousy business model, but in the real world, when two people sign a contract, the courts usually make each side adhere to the terms. And if there's a bankruptcy, assets are forfeited. It just strikes me as enormously unfair that management will get to keep their DB pension contributions and golden parachutes, while the line workers will, once again, get screwed.

"It's not really weaseling, when all your investments evaporate."

It is when you've chosen raises & bonuses over a fully funded pension plan.

For my money (no pun intended) it was a sad day when the courts decided the company owned the worker's pension plans. If you recall, that led to the age of the corporate raiders, who would buy companies with "overfunded" pensions and drain millions.

Right now management gets to keep their DB pension contributions--and their jobs besides--only because Obama and Bush agreed to raise my taxes for the rest of my life.
So it's not just the line workers getting screwed, is it? It's a bankrupt company. Between the bad management and the unaffordable union entitlements, it's over. They had a good time while it lasted, but it's all gone now. Time everyone straps on a pair and recognizes that fact, and quits trying to make the US taxpayer a party to the whole lousy show.

If you recall, that led to the age of the corporate raiders, who would buy companies with "overfunded" pensions and drain millions.

#83 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

Not for long. Because millions of companies decided that since it was a prosecutable offense to have an underfunded pension, best not to have one at all. Thus, the explosion of 401k's and defined contribution plans.

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

MORE LIES FROM THE WHITE HOUSE

"THERE ARE NO EARMARKS IN THIS BILL"

bullshit mister president

I just heard all about EARMARKS in california from this bill

lets see..NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ...somewhere around san FRANSCIKO>...
something about a wetlands project and it just happens to be in the district of a certain rep named pelosi or something like that

FUCKIN LIARS.

ah buts thats okay

maybe they can put some of the hundreds if not thousands of criminals that are about to be unleashed on california by a fuckin judge.

RIR

I listened to a economics writer...stephen moore of the wall street journal give us a little look into this The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again that seems to be a liberal mainstay.
his prediciton is that the future will go something like this.
he first asked a question that dems wont answer yet

WHERE IS ALL THiS money coming from..

he says they will borrow it which will lead to higher deficits and debt will soar leading to interest rates going beserk and then we will have to print the money then needed
and that will all equal to stagflation.
a word NEVER USED to talk about the bush administration

Now I dont know about all that, but this is an economist that works at the wall street journal.
I hope he is wrong but the liberals dont care if he is wrong or not as long as their socialist agenda is met.

I just heard all about EARMARKS in california from this bill

#86 | Posted by afkabl2

Let me guess. Did you hear it on the radio?

actually I watched in on fox as cnn is still kissing obamas ass
I pushed the previous channel button as I keep it on cnn and they were talking about the first lady on the cover of vogue

about 30 mins later I thought I would try them again and they were interviewing the editor of vogue
ABOUT The picture of the pretty first lady on thier cover.
isnt it a bigger news day than to have that on that long

and now for a little history lesson brought to you by burton fulsom who wrote the book
"new deal or raw deal"

why is this important.
ITS ABOUT TO HAPPEN AGAIN

the NRA..

nope...not that one...the National Recovery Act of 1933...
small businessess as well as large ones were expected to sign on to it
henry ford said NO....when he bid for a government contract FDR even mentioned it in a speech...but the government went with a bidder 150,000 MORE THAN fords bid...
so it cost the government that much money in THAT DAYS DOLLARS to stick to henry who didnt want government controll

and then there was a man named bert who owned a battery company
he could either charge the fees as DICTATED BY THE GOVERNMENT or he could fire people.
he chose to charge lower fees and
HE GOT THROWN IN JAIL...

thats right ..LOWER fees....
something about how the government couldnt afford him to charge less..........


some of you really older folks might remember the sign in the windows..

big letters

NRA

and a big eagle looking bird with wings spread

why is this important


"those who chose to forget history are doomed to repeat it."

"I listened to a economics writer...stephen moore of the wall street journal "

Stephen Moore is a hack of the first order...he's the WSJ putz claiming "tax cuts increase revenue" when any first-year Econ student knows you have to factor inflation when comparing different years. He's either an idiot, or he believes his readers are. Maybe both.

Are the Vegas odds regarding the success of this expenditure better than Joe Biden's?

Obama will you "stimulate" me with a brand new silver-colored Toyota Highlander with a V-6 engine and leather interior? Stick-shift will be okay. Air-conditioning would be a nice plus.

I can be bought.

ah yes

the old he's a hack so he has no right to an opinion

and when he's NOT AN OBAMAMANIC

well shit son...why is the sumbitch even alive????

and ask this

he is with the WSJ and we are here.........what does that tell you...lol

oh yeah

and a eco prof from HARVARD>..two actually
one named ferguson and the other one

oh SHIT whats his name.......Ill think of it in a moment....

they both say the same thing basically.

those harvard people...I know they are some really STOOPID people arent they

I can be bought.


#94 | Posted by CalifChris at


OHHHHHHH REAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLYYYYYYYYY


want some candy????

CChris,


How about a 332 hp Nissan 370Z with the sport package which includes 'synchro-rev'?

Now, that's change we can believe in.

hey chris

I am glad you are here since I am about to own PART OF your state...
so tell me where you live and when I come out to claim by portion of california through TEXAS HELPING to bail out california...maybe we can work out a deal/????????

"ah yes the old he's a hack so he has no right to an opinion"

He has the right to his opinion, but it must be tempered with the knowledge this guy is willing to spew ignorance if he thinks his audience will buy it.

"want some candy????"

Afkabibble2, I can't believe you missed the softball setup:

"I can be bought."

Can you be rented?

when it comes to a woman I can be anything they want me to be


I asked that of chris because in texas we still have most of a SIX BILLION SUPRLUS and so because we are better at keeping our money we will have to bailout states who refuse, to for one thing do something about illegals who cost the country over 300 billion a year
and if california were interested in money they would do something too

so if Im goint to bailout california, I want somethiing for my money

oh yeah

;lets see.

california....in real finacial DOO DOO

texas....SIX BILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS


and lets see

california...run by DEMOCRATS AND THE BIGGEsT RINO in the country

TEXAS>..with that surplus.....REPUBLICAN GOVERTNOR AND LEGISLATURE..

those are not coincidences

MUST GO....

look for dipshit answers tomorrow

have a great night

Reagan - "We Won, get used to it."

You didn't win anything...America just lost thus you lost.

I already understand that black and white means invisible ink to ppl around here so what's the use.

Yep...you won if your waiting in-line for a house or a car...just keep asking for handouts and I'll keep working and paying for them.

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. We're in a financial mess because people over leveraged themselves over the past 20 years so they could buy things they didn't need and couldn't afford. At the same time, over the past 20 years, the government increased its debt load while artificially keeping interest rates low.

So, the way to fix this is to double the public debt over the next four years, and hope that by doing so, the rest of us will increase our personal debt loads by going out and buying more stuff we can't afford?

So we invest in American by borrowing? HHHMMMmmmm.

So we invest in American by borrowing? HHHMMMmmmm.

#104 | Posted by aclusux

And he's about address the 2009 Federal budget.

ACLUSUX

Just so you know who's added to the national debt the most peruse this chart. Pretty clear:

www.cedarcomm.com

So much for "Deficits Don't Matter", huh?

So, the way to fix this is to double the public debt over the next four years

See post #106 and click the link.

Reagan increased the national debt 10X, Bush 2X+.

I know you hate to hear that, but it's true

National Debt from Roosevelt through George W Bush

Monkey see, monkey do mentality.

Reagan increased the national debt 10X . . .

Posted by Guess who?

* * * *

Nope. Feel free to read your own links sometimes.

-House rich, cash poor, mortgage broke. Nice beaches though.


You should write fiction. Children's stories.

Debt-free on the beach by the pier, thank you very much.

Debt free, he says.

I assume you say so, because you consider that to be advantageous somehow. Some kind of positive attribute. And if so, why do you tolerate the most spendthrift government in history? If living within one's means is good for you, why not for Washington?

Oh--I know. It's because he's a Democrat, right?

Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years

by Thom Hartmann

www.opednews.com

The True Story

You should write fiction. Children's stories.

Posted by Corky

Good thinking. I'm torn between "A Chink I think owns my house including the kitchen sink" (Dr.Suess ripoff) and a How I leaned to Supply WalMart with a Forty-Fiver.


No, because when Ben Stein and Paul Krugman agree on something, only ideological poseurs like yourself continue to disregard the obvious.

Save our manufacturing base.

Fuck the financial sector. Let these crooked assholes go bankrupt. Don't give them a fucking dime.

Fuck the financial sector. Let these crooked assholes go bankrupt. Don't give them a fucking dime.

Absolutely.

Minimizing risk via government bailouts only encourages riskier paper at higher volumes.

Unintended consequences and all that.

No, because when Ben Stein and Paul Krugman agree on something, only ideological poseurs like yourself continue to disregard the obvious.

#114 | Posted by Corky
* * * *

Neither one of them saw this coming. But now they know just what to do to fix it.

Is it possible that they're both older men who want to be bailed out of their bad investments? How about: if Paul Krugman is for it, it's automatically a stupid idea?

Have it your way. I'll keep selling. Futures down 70.

Great news. Our Govenor addressed the $600M shortfall in the 2009 budget. Use some stimulus money. The same Govenor that went to capitol hill to address Congress 2 weeks ago. Great oversight by the Federal Goverment.

The country will be SO upset that Rethugs weren't able to completely get rid of any spending on education..... I mean, if you are a Republican, you don't need education, right?

I'd be all for more money for education if my kids teachers & my local community got to decide how to spend it. Indoctrination & education are not the same thing & Washington, teacher's union, libs are interested in teaching our kids revisionist history & only what they deem is appropriate. No thanks. I'm just glad the government will oversee all of this. They are sooooooooo good with money.

And...as always....the rich will make money in spite of themselves....just like they did when Clinton was president

Neal Boortz says something I find to be both true & interesting. The rich keep doing things that makes them rich & the poor keep doing things that makes them poor, something like that. Could it be that this is true? Say it ain't so!

I think I'm falling in love with Hatebiggie. Just the right mix of sarcasm.

Dow down 161! Gobama Go!

I think I'm falling in love with Hatebiggie. Just the right mix of sarcasm.


Thank you. Intelligent men with a conservative lean are seriously hard to come by. Oddly enough, there seems to be mostly lefty men eating up the dating scene. Most conservative men are taken what with the jobs, money, stability, intellect, go figure huh? Women are often stupid but we aren't THAT stupid it seems.

#122 get's my vote for the Thursday "Moment of Clarity" award.

"Most conservative men are taken what with the jobs, money, stability, intellect, go figure huh?"

No biggie smalls. They are consumed with things like bigotry, racism, hatred and of course illegal activities. Not to mention how uneducated they are. Mating conservative men only causes lower IQ's for future generations. Do yourself a favor and get with a liberal. you might have a Doctor for a child instead of a ditch digger.

Uh huh. Whenever I see a big Obamapalooza rally, the first thing I think of is, Wow! Look at all those really intelligent people, who took the day off from making cancer vaccines to hear the president!

Keep selling!

No biggie smalls. They are consumed with things like bigotry, racism, hatred and of course illegal activities. Not to mention how uneducated they are. Mating conservative men only causes lower IQ's for future generations. Do yourself a favor and get with a liberal. you might have a Doctor for a child instead of a ditch digger.

Thanks for advice on dating men. I didn't realize you were the expert, but thanks anyway. Every liberal guy I've ever dated, (only 2, I learn fast) was a pacifict (aka pussy) professional student (aka lazy) & selfish lovers. I mean, I know you respect my rights with my body because your NOW member mom who you probably still live with told you to, but if I share it with you could you take 2 minutes and find out where the parts are? How are you going to be a doctor when your failing anatomy RIGHT NOW? Oh, & lets not forget they're elitist pigs who diminish honest work like, oh I don't know, ditch-digging, while claiming to be for the "working man" which makes them hypocrites too!

BTW: My 9 year old son is a conservative already & puts together much more coherent, thought-provoking sentences than you do & his father was an idiot of grand proportions & a lefty, what a surprise. I'm on parole for time served with lefty, wussy men so I'm raising a good one for some lucky girl down the road. Thank god he takes after me, so see, you can breed out stupidity! Thanks for the tip! Nurture over nature so to speak.

"My 9 year old son is a conservative already"

He's an immature adolescent, whattaya expect?

He's an immature adolescent, whattaya expect?

I like to think he's learning by example but the sad truth is he was called a racist one time too many in school for not supporting the ONE & decided he didn't want to throw in with people who don't respect other's opinions. I have given him dictionary definitions of Rep & Dem & told him which presidents were which helping him make an informed decision. Like I said, his daddy is a rabid lefty so he's getting that side to but not buying in much to daddy's chagrin. He can't figure out why if we work for money we HAVE to give it away to people who don't. Kids have an amazing way of sifting through the bullshit & calling things like they see them. It's refreshing. I have great hopes for him, he's a great kid.

All kidding (well, most of it, anyway) aside, good luck with your child.

not to be a dick but it seems like you don't value education do you? Most rethugs I know aren't very well educated and don't make that much money. Sure I know one well to do rethug but he is involved in construction. He isn't doing so well these days. I take every opportunity to rub that in too. As far as being a pacifist you don't know me very well then. I beating people senseless.

They are consumed with things like bigotry, racism, hatred and of course illegal activities. Not to mention how uneducated they are. Mating conservative men only causes lower IQ's for future generations. Do yourself a favor and get with a liberal. you might have a Doctor for a child instead of a ditch digger.


It is really amazing how small-minded this idiot is.
It is actually rather sad but what else do you expect from someone from Queens

He's an immature adolescent, whattaya expect?

I have one more thing to add to that. Most people are libs when they're young because their idealistic & not so well informed about the harsh realities of life. Libs never outgrow this "post-adolescent idealistic phase" much to the detriment of society. Life is tough & you have to be tougher. You have to be willing to make sacrifices & tough decisions & not everybody wins. These aren't things libs do at all much less well, kind of like children. So by that definition, my son should be a lefty. He, like most conservatives, is obviously intellectually superior & an early bloomer.

Happy to educate you! :)

Most rethugs I know aren't very well educated and don't make that much money.

I don't know about 'rethugs', but if you are referring to the right wingers, my experience is much different than yours.

I think you need to get out more, rasta. You really seem out of touch with the real world if you actually believe everything you write here.

#132 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV

Extend the hand of peace and they bite it off.
Gotta remember that about the Riiiight.
Thanks.
Lesson re-learned.
:>)

I take every opportunity to rub that in too.

I'm sure you do. That's how a jerk behaves.

Before I begin, all the page numbers I refer to are from the HR 1 EH version of the bill (thomas.loc.gov).


1. The bill's health rules will affect "every individual in the United States" (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system.


2. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions (442, 446).


3. Hospitals and doctors that are not "meaningful users" of the new system will face penalties. "Meaningful user" isn't defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose "more stringent measures of meaningful use over time" (511, 518, 540-541).


4. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system..


5. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

"not to be a dick but it seems like you don't value education do you?"

I value education plenty but you seem not to value work that you think is "beneath" you. Did it ever occur to you that the ditch digger may be going to school at night pursuing a degree & this is how he/she supports the family? The ditch digger, the dish washer, the cashier, these are the folks you lefties claim to care so much about so why diminish their contribution?

"As far as being a pacifist you don't know me very well then. I beating people senseless."

Well you certainly aren't bringing them around to your way of thinking by persuasion. You continue to sound bitter & stupid, not to be a bitch or anything.

Extend the hand of peace and they bite it off.
Gotta remember that about the Riiiight.
Thanks.
Lesson re-learned.
:>)

Extend the hand of peace & they ask for a $20.
Gotta remember that about the left.
Thanks,
Lesson re-re-learned

I value education plenty but you seem not to value work that you think is "beneath" you.
Posted by HATEBIGGOV


The reason I hate those jobs is because I had to do them once upon a time. Usually my boss was some lazy republican that thought they knew everything.

"The reason I hate those jobs is because I had to do them once upon a time. Usually my boss was some lazy republican that thought they knew everything."


Do you even know how stupid that sounds & how you prove how wrong you are in your own words? That "dumb republican" must have done something right to be able to create jobs in the first place wouldn't you think?

Usually the dumb republican knew somebody or slept with someone to get that job. They didn't create shit the company did. I got the last laugh though.


Where is the help for manufacturing? We don't want a hand out. We just want to be able to stay in business. We are all being forced out by cheap foreign labor.

I owned a machine shop in Michigan from 1990 until 2000. We specialized in making plastic injection molds.


President Clinton told us that Nafta would create more jobs in manufacturing for both the USA and Mexico. He then granted Most favored nation to China to let them get the full benifits of the WTO.


After that manufacturing nose dived. By 2000 we could not even quote jobs. Our customers told us that a $50,000.00 job could be made in China for $15,000. This was less then our raw material prices here in the good ole USA.


Today most machine shops, Mold shop, Tool & Die shops are out of business. My shop was not a union shop. Our wages were about 35% less than union shop and still could not compete.


Equipment in our shop total investment was close to $600,000.00. Our shop rate was $50.00 /hour.


The local mechanic with $3,000.00 in tools was getting $75.00 per hour.


The difference was that our jobs could be exported and car mechanics couldn't.


Tarriffs will truelly help to balance the playing field. Our founding fathers believed in maintaining the standard of living in this country. That is why tarriffs are in the constitution. WTO is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from our country to a communist country.


In my opinion, America is lost. We have been at war economically since 1995. Other countries played to win, We played to make the top 1% richer.


Today more people live in poverty than in 1995. Michigan, Ohio, California and many other manufacturing states are basically bankrupt. Our only solution is to work our way out of it. We cannot do this if all the jobs are in China.


For America to compete without tarrifs we would have to set minimum wage at 50 cents an hour, eliminate health care coverage, eliminate workers compensation laws, eliminate environmental laws.


Tarriffs will just allow us to compete again. Tarriffs will not cause another great depression. Free trade will. People cannot be consumers if they do not have jobs.

They housing crisis is cause by people lossing jobs. Fix this problem and the housing problem will solve itself.

Usually the dumb republican knew somebody or slept with someone to get that job. They didn't create shit the company did. I got the last laugh though.

So how did being an asshole get you ahead there?

"Usually the dumb republican knew somebody or slept with someone to get that job. They didn't create shit the company did. I got the last laugh though."

There is no debating with someone who is nuts. I didn't know many men slept their way to the top & of course we couldn't be talking about women because no republican business owner would even give a woman a chance at promotion what with them hating women & being sexist according to you. Which is it? You sir are a scary in your stupidity & willingness to ignore even your OWN ASSUMPTIONS to make a point on this issue.

I have no idea the political persuasion of the people who hired my supervisor but I can tell you I have had some idiot redneck female bosses that thought they were brilliant. Mind you these were people that worked at a cardboard box factory for 12 years so they could build themselves up to 14 bucks an hour and get the title of supervisor. I heard the plant closed around 2005. I hope she ended up homeless.

I hope she ended up homeless.

If so maybe some do-gooder REPUBLICAN will give her a house so she can make a do-nothing DEMOCRAT look like he "cares".

LOL! :)

Mind you these were people that worked at a cardboard box factory for 12 years so they could build themselves up to 14 bucks an hour and get the title of supervisor. I heard the plant closed around 2005. I hope she ended up homeless.

#145 | Posted by rastaninja
* * * *

Sounds like someone wouldn't sleep with you.

"Sounds like someone wouldn't sleep with you."

I seem to remember an exchange a year or two ago where "rastaninja" was outed for having a profile on a hooker review site. So, you're probably right.

P.S., the hooker was ugly.

I seem to remember an exchange a year or two ago where "rastaninja" was outed for having a profile on a hooker review site. So, you're probably right.


P.S., the hooker was ugly.

Come, come now. It's "her body" & she can sell it to the lowest bidder if she wants. Rastaninja was just doing his part to "stimulate" the economy.

The ugly hooker wouldn't either.

Are You sure it was THIS Rastaninja aka Jackass or the ORIGINAL RastaNinjja(No typo His had 2 j's in it)The one Jackass stole His handle from. That would have been Rastaninjja aka Lokisfur. Rastaninjja was Lokisfur's third handle right after Derfla5 before that was Lokisfur's

Larry

From reading the world wide press, what I keep hearing is that one of the biggest issue that needs to be resolved is the overall loss of confidence. By corporations, by consumers, especially by stock markets. Which is why I am always puzzled when I read someone recommend that nothing be done, that the collapse should be allowed to occur. Because it will "clean things out" (and if misery and social collapse come along, fine).

What I most agree with is that we need to do some real decoupling of the economy re Wall Street. The stock market was set up to help companies. It was not set up to run the economy, nor was it intended to have sufficient power to collapse an economy. Definetely not as an investment vehicle for the average person, though funds do aleviate this somewhat. After all, stock market trading is just gambling. In some cases, like short selling, taking your money to a casino and playing blackjack with it is a better investment.

I have also read that without short-selling the DOW would probably be even 1000 points higher. The downside of capitalism, greed at its peak, at work.

I do hope that some kind of package gets passed soon, obviously with as little pork as possible. Pork is my biggest, close to my only, objection to any stimulus package. There is way too much uncertainty in world economies, not to mention world markets, caused by the delay. Give them something solid to work with and, given the resiliancy of the capitalist market, things will improve.

From reading the world wide press, what I keep hearing is that one of the biggest issue that needs to be resolved is the overall loss of confidence. By corporations, by consumers, especially by stock markets. Which is why I am always puzzled when I read someone recommend that nothing be done, that the collapse should be allowed to occur. Because it will "clean things out" (and if misery and social collapse come along, fine).

People who want to let the thing collapse (like me) feel that the market will fix itself, and all the artificial propping up will do nothing to stop it from happening aside from create a deeper hole to get out of. All of these bad assets have a value. All someone has to do is write a check and they will be theirs. But the bankers would rather bilk the taxpayer to soften their loss, rather than sell their junk for what it's actually worth. That's the rub.

"People who want to let the thing collapse (like me) feel that the market will fix itself"

Yep, but the issue I have is that an economy is supposed to work for the benefit of the people. Not that the people are supposed to suffer to allow the economy, or specifically some economic theory, do its "recovery" over some unknown period of time. I do _not_ believe that any one theory can explain a good economy, nor can the precepts of any one economic theory be the path to be followed. All of my experience has indicated that mixtures are what work best. And that if there is a problem, you solve it, or try to. You don't sit back in the faith that your favorite economic theory will take care of things for you. My personal libertarianism.

Yep, but the issue I have is that an economy is supposed to work for the benefit of the people.

So is this stimulus going to help people? Is that 13 dollars a check really going to help? The American public is already succumbing to market forces, much to the chagrin of Keynesian economists and our government. People are saving at four and a half times the rate of six months ago. They are spending less. Housing prices are overvalued and are dropping significantly.

The government insists on meddling but it cannot stop the market, no matter how much David Axelrod says that they won't be pushed around. He's in an arm wrestling match with a tsunami. Anyway you slice it, we will end up in the same place, with trillions in additional debt, or otherwise.

"So is this stimulus going to help people?"

That's the question which _must_ be answered. Saying it won't and doing nothing is not an intelligent course, in my book.

"American public is already succumbing to market forces"

Of course they are. The recession is whacking them upside the head. The issue is to restore their confidence. That doesn't happen overnight. And _saying_ it won't happen is proof of nothing.

Bukkake is right, as all we cynics are these days. And it's amusing to say that we free-market types are "doing nothing", when it is all this doing-everything which is compounding the problem. We've just tacked on $2.6 trillion in debt the taxpayers are now on the hook for, in a literal blink of an eye, in an effort to prop up all this BS.

You want something? How's this: we let the bad banks fail. We let the healthy banks take over the assets and branches of the bad ones. We declare that nobody is too big to fail, especially those enterprises which are too big to succeed. GM--gone. Citi--gone. Bank America--bye bye. And so on. If your company borrowed too much, you're not going to transfer your debt obligations to the US taxpayers for another lease on life for another quarter or two. It's over, and that's what bankruptcy courts are for.

Nobody wants tent cities or soup lines. So we ensure that jobless benefits continue to be paid, AFDC benefits are expanded, and we declare a national priority that nobody goes hungry simply because he's lost his job. And we let the chips fall where they may.

What's more, I've no objection to government borrowing, provided it's to buy long-term assets, like highways and airports and aircraft carriers and dams. Those are items that add to the long-term wealth of the country, and should be financed with long-term borrowing. I've every objection to doing so to give artists a few million, or set up a folk music museum in Vermont.

Everything Obama is doing is wrong, and merely a continuation of the last couple of years of George Bush. Keep selling.

"Keep selling."

Great advice - to whom? The people who acquired stock whenever you touted "great buying opportunity" as the market tumbled have either sold all their stock already or have run out of money. The ones who still have money are the ones who ignored you. No way are they going to buy your advice.

Advocating short-selling to the average person? I have much better advice for them - take your money to a casino and play blackjack. You stand a much better chance.

Or is this a way of telling people to help the recession get worse. Keep selling, knock the market down another thousand or multi-thousand points. So the economy tanks. So unemployment keeps rising. So social upheaval occurs. Shit, you got yours.

Saying it won't and doing nothing is not an intelligent course, in my book.

Borrowing money as a solution to the problem of borrowing money is not an intelligent course in mine.

Of course they are. The recession is whacking them upside the head. The issue is to restore their confidence. That doesn't happen overnight. And _saying_ it won't happen is proof of nothing.

You don't restore confidence by the government forcing banks to loan money to insolvent people and businesses, which is how we got here in the first place. Unless you define confidence as "the ability to continue spending frivolously without saving", in which case I don't ever think we will be back there. Dubya and BHO are willing to mortgage the next two generations to find out. However, it doesn't compute to people when you tell them you have to spend money you don't have to save yourself.

The unfortunate thing is that this economic strategy has two defenses that will always be considered legitimate in the eyes of the people that have engineered it. "We didn't spend enough...just (X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS) more would have done it" or "it would have been worse if we had done nothing".

I'll ask all the people who are for the stimulus this question: As of now, we're down from about 11400 to 8000 since the bailout (30%) + 5 trillion + 4 million jobs...and I was told it would have been worse. Where is worse? ...because I need to know when I need to come ask this same question again.

I remember asking a similar question of Republicans supporting the Iraq War. "What is winning?" I wonder what will take longer, a Republican to define winning in Iraq or a Democrat to tell me what worse is in terms of the economy?

With estimates of the cost of addressing the financial crisis exceeding $9.7 trillion, we speak with economist and University of Texas professor James Galbraith, author of The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too. Galbraith says rather than pouring billions into propping up troubled giant banks, the government should declare them insolvent.

Please sign the petition below to have the Bush/Cheney administration
investigated. Don't let the people go away without paying for their multitude
crimes.
www.BushTruthCommission.com

Thank you

Obama stimulus package is the greatest consumer rip-off and fraud in history.

Obama isn't planning as large a Wall Street giveaway as Paulson/Bush already carried out. Bush/Paulson flushed $2 trillion down the toilet, $5 trillion if you count the Iraq war. They have left Obama a staggering $7-11 trillion problem and skipped out. Now Obama/Geithner propose $790 billion more. Not that its over.

So we have a $10 trillion problem of which Fannie Freddie is going to be $200 billion. Therefore, its the Democrats fault. What a load of shit. The Republican have conspired to do to the United States what the Chicago School of Economics recommended be done to Chile, Argentina, Africa, Asia including Russia. Destroy wages, privatize everything, take the money and run.

What's with the Republican's suddenly being concerned about balancing the budget? History clearly shows that Reagan/BushI/BushII racked up 86% of our national debt. They are merely posturing for the next election, knowing the bailout is failing. What fool would take their concerns seriously?

That said, Geithner brings no new perspective compared to Paulson. Same school, same bullshit, same secret Oz bosses pulling the strings, robbing everyone blind.

I think the big issue is that economists and policy makers have learned the lessons of history, but only partially. The problem, I think, is that at the core of their views is the "Sniper view", that big companies and the wealthy class are the fulcrums of the economy.

Until around 1918 that view was correct. Until then the U.S. really had a three prong economy: a monetary economy, a barter economy and a black-market economy. And the middle and lower classes had a negligible part in the monetary economy. So, when the various recessions of the 19 th century occurred, letting the recession play itself out was a good strategy. Because the recession affected the country only partially. Except for two times that I remember. On both occasions banks started collapsing and the banking system came under sever strain and risk. One time the feds stepped in to shore up the banks, another time some super-rich guy did.

When 1918 rolled around, the middle class started blooming. More money-making jobs became available and the pay started increasing. They were, in effect, trading the barter economy for the monetary economy. Consumer spending started increasing from the very small percentage of the 1800s to at least 30%. Plus, I remember reading, a ripple of effect of maybe 20%. Lots of wealth available to be made, so it made sense to maximize it. By borrowing and by playing the stock market. The stock market became a significant player in the economy. When the 1929 crash occurred, consumers were a significant player. And the stock market became a significant player in the economy.

When the crash occurred, the lessons of the past, the 19 th century, were applied. Do nothing because nothing "needs" to be done. Let the recession kill off dead wood. Unfortunetly that does not take into account the consumer effect and the middle class. So when businesses started closing and unemployment started rising, consumer spending started dropping. Debts & mortgages couldn't be repaid. People started withdrawing their savings. The middle class had no barter economy to fall back on. Everything kept snowballing and a run on banks occurred. Banks started failing and the banking system came under threat. Still no action, though, because, well, none was needed. Except it was because consumer spending, 30+% of the economy, had disappeared. And until it resumed, even if the core of the economy - big companies and the wealthy class - recovered, that part of the economy was gone.
(continued)

(continued)
Note the main issues. The banking industry and the consumers.

When this recession hit, the lessons of the past were applied as economists had learned them. The core philosophy was that you stablised the banking system and big companies. Collapse of the banking system could/would kill the economy and cause the destabilization of the country. And, after all, what was good for GM was good for the country. But the "Sniper view" had long since departed from the reality of the economy. Consumer spending now accounted for 70% of the economy. So shoring up the banking system is necessary and shoring up big businesses is nice and helpful, but 70% of the economy is still at risk and is disappearing.

And that, in my opinion, is what needs to be addressed but isn't. The actual root of the problem. Doing nothing does not address that. Unemployment will continue to rise and consumer spending will continue to drop on an ever-downward circular path. The belief remains that, take care of big companies, banks and the wealthy class and consumers will fall in line. Don't buy it at all. Very much believe that consumer confidence can only be restored by government spending as a brake on the downward spiral and a push in the recovery direction. No one, nothing else can do it. Big companies are much more inclined to seek better profits overseas. Overseas profits are collapsing because the real money, made and spent in the U.S. and Europe, is disappearing.

Insolvent banks have to be taken over by the FDIC, the shareholders wiped out, bondholders have to take a haircut, management has to be replaced and the bad assets have to be written down. Why throw public money down a rathole?

Stiglitz says: "banks are in very bad shape.... hundreds of billions of dollars has had no effect.American citizens have become majority owners in a very large number of the major banks. But they have no control. Separation of ownership and control is a disaster".

Galbraith says: "the large banks, which the Treasury is trying very hard to protect, cannot be protected, they are insolvent. The proper approach for dealing with them is for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to move in and take the proper steps for an insolvent bank".

Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan-Chase and Wells Fargo are holding two-thirds of all the toxic mortgage-backed paper. These banking Goliaths have powerful constituencies and substantial political power.

Timothy Geithner is point-man for these banksters and he is fending off nationalization. Geithner admitted so to Brian Williams when he said he intended to "keep the system in private hands". It will take many trillions to keep these dinosaurs from extinction.

It is shocking to realize that the financial crisis started 19 months ago (when two Bear Stearns hedge funds defaulted) and still, no one has any idea of what their assets are really worth. Price discovery is basic, instead fear has carried the day. Everyone in power is terrified that trillions of dollars will vaporize.

Geithner has a plan, but wants to keep the public in the dark. After all, there's no graceful way to tell people that they are about to get shafted for another $2 trillion to keep Wall Street on Dom Perignon and chocolate.

As the head of the FDIC, Sheila Bair is the regulator who should be in charge of checking capital reserves and closing banks. But, apparently, Bair has been crowded out. Geithner and his insider friends are calling the shots.
Securitization has been Wall Street's golden goose. It's a way to maximally leverage ever smaller slices of capital. As borrowing increases, asset prices rise, making the system more and more unstable. When the bubble finally bursts; tremors rush through the economy sending assets, equities and employment plunging.

40%, nearly half the credit pumped into the economy comes from securitization. The banks ARE lending, but Wall Street's credit model is broken, killing auto sales, consumer spending and foreign trade.

Credit production should never be in the hands of speculators. It's too dangerous. Banks must be strictly regulated, because the power to create credit is "more dangerous than standing armies".

Geithner will not succeed. Every attempt to save the banks will be met with greater public resistance and rage. Failed banks need to be put out of their misery and nationalized.

Excerpted from Mike Whitney @ Counterpunch

They reached an agreement? Oh thats right it's the Lib version on quite a few points:

1. Hey did you even get to read the thing? I didn't ...."yea me neither"

2. I don't really know what the hell is in there..."yea but...well I don't either"

3. I still think I'm approving this thing "of course..me too."

Ahhh such exemplary leadership, such intelligence, care for the economy and for this Country. Just makes you misty doesn't it?

This is the readers digest of Obamas promise to post on public websites for the publics' review. 5 Days turns into release in the middle of the night, vote around midday, take weekend off for job well done.

Great job Big O

So, you don't think the economic policies of George W. Bush had anything to do with the economic crisis????
That's funny.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2009-02-11 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)

DANNI THE RETARD IS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE JUST COME INTO POWER. IF YOU WANT TO READ THE RANTINGS OF A RETARD LOOK FOR A DANNI COMMENT


Speaking of retards...

Reinsurelaw wants to pretend the Republicans didn't control the WH for 100% of the last 8 years, the SEC for 100% of the last 8 years, and the Congress for 75% of the last 8 years, not to mention his belief had Republicans kept control in 2006 they would have changed stripes and suddenly embraced regulation and enforcement.

And remind us...did the Dems come to Bush & Paulson needing a bailout, or was it the other way around?

C'mon lets not side step such a serious issue.

We have a bill about to be signed and spent by leaders whom haven't even read the pen & ink changes and this is good for America? Today this just might happen.

Today
"The Nevada Democrat said as debate resumed that the Senate would likely vote on the package of spending and tax cuts later in the day"

"Just on Tuesday, the House voted unanimously to recommend that lawmakers and the public have at least 48 hours to read the legislation before a vote"

What happened in those 2 days? They went from 48 hrs to overnight? And I thought the Big O said in his campiaign he would give the American ppl 5 days to review these types of packages. What happened there?

Ahhhh...wth.....it's just under a Trill, who cares.

Reference for above www.google.com

danforth what are you the male alter ego of danni? your assumption that bush was a conservative is absurd. tell me what party is barney frank and didnt he say freddy fanny were fine and what party was it that blocked more oversight of freddy fanny ?










More on "Deficits don't matter" Cheney (and the war in Iraq). Interesting reading....

www.cbsnews.com

get ready for lib tards to blame bush for all of the ass hole moves of their boy in the white house...oh he inherited all this mess oh he cant vet correctly any of his appointments because of bush...oh something had to be done...anything!children and baby seals count on it!

Like cuntservatives have been whining about Clinton and Carter for eight years. Pathetic.

85% of the national debt was incurred by Reagan/BushI/BushII.

The last silver spooned dyslexic moron racked up half of that 85%. By the time he left foriegners had had it with us. This means, no more borrowing. So now its Obama's problem. They gave a black man the worst job in the country.

It just passed this minute.

Sorry we even needed it. Bush and the GOP screwed the country out of $6 Trillion ($9 trillion including what Iraq will end up costing us).

"your assumption that bush was a conservative is absurd."

Bullshit. He was the conservatives' darling when he cut taxes for the wealthiest. He was championed by the conservatives when he nominated right-wing justices. It was only when he fell off the popularity charts and added one epic fail after another the conservatives disowned him, pretending he was liberal all along. Sorry, not buying it.

"tell me what party is barney frank and didnt he say freddy fanny were fine and what party was it that blocked more oversight of freddy fanny?"

Frank was a minority member of a Republican-majority committee. Barely the power of a fart in a windstorm. And like I said, you wallow in the pretense had Republicans kept control in 2006, they would have altered course and suddenly turned into champions of regulation and enforcement. One needs only look to the SEC to see how interested they were in that.

"85% of the national debt was incurred by Reagan/BushI/BushII."

In other words, almost half of next year's deficit will be servicing those 3 Republican's debts.

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable