House Democrats Propose $825 Billion Stimulus Bill

[Loismustdie 0]

Do you think the 2nd 350 is going to those assets?

No, I don't, what I was saying is that I backed the original plan, which was basically creating a holding company of sorts for "bad" assets. In theory, as things turn around, bad assets attached to real estate become better and you have a small loss, possibly a gain,over time, except they didn't do that, not even close. Now, I really have no idea what to believe, or back, when it comes to these types of things, except that I don't think the people up top really have the countries best interest in mind. It makes no sense to have a huge debt problem that needs to be worked on, identify it, acknowledge it, and then draw up plans to double it.The only way out of this is to reduce spending and reduce taxes, let the people keep the money they already make, and what generally happens is, they spend it, and the wheels keep turning. I do know that I will most likely buy a house this year. Prices could/will still drop, but market timing is never the way to go. The answer to Nimues question has already been covered but I will say that I double what Guapo said about strong companies and the future, looking forward. You could just start putting funds in a vanilla stock index fund, but if you wanted to find value in individual stocks it's pretty easy right now. That being said, you will probably lose money in the short term, I have no solid predictions but if what companies are doing to prepare is any indication it's going to be a bit before any real turn around.

[Sal Paradise 57]

well hell, if we can just print up all this money with no repercussions, why don't we just give every citizen a billion dollars? that'll stimulate the hell out of the economy.

[hblask 1]

well hell, if we can just print up all this money with no repercussions, why don't we just give every citizen a billion dollars? that'll stimulate the hell out of the economy.

Shhh, there may be Democrats reading this, and they'll think you are serious.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

well hell, if we can just print up all this money with no repercussions, why don't we just give every citizen a billion dollars? that'll stimulate the hell out of the economy.

ZOMG, I'm on my way to Washington right now!

[Kenny Banya 0]

No, I don't, what I was saying is that I backed the original plan, which was basically creating a holding company of sorts for "bad" assets. In theory, as things turn around, bad assets attached to real estate become better and you have a small loss, possibly a gain,over time, except they didn't do that, not even close. Now, I really have no idea what to believe, or back, when it comes to these types of things, except that I don't think the people up top really have the countries best interest in mind. It makes no sense to have a huge debt problem that needs to be worked on, identify it, acknowledge it, and then draw up plans to double it.The only way out of this is to reduce spending and reduce taxes, let the people keep the money they already make, and what generally happens is, they spend it, and the wheels keep turning. I do know that I will most likely buy a house this year. Prices could/will still drop, but market timing is never the way to go. The answer to Nimues question has already been covered but I will say that I double what Guapo said about strong companies and the future, looking forward. You could just start putting funds in a vanilla stock index fund, but if you wanted to find value in individual stocks it's pretty easy right now. That being said, you will probably lose money in the short term, I have no solid predictions but if what companies are doing to prepare is any indication it's going to be a bit before any real turn around.

Holy crap! Last February when you and I disagreed whether or not the economy "failed" I never thought I would agree this much with yourself. In all honesty, good luck to you sir...good luck to us all!

[Nimue1995 1]

No, I don't, what I was saying is that I backed the original plan, which was basically creating a holding company of sorts for "bad" assets. In theory, as things turn around, bad assets attached to real estate become better and you have a small loss, possibly a gain,over time, except they didn't do that, not even close. Now, I really have no idea what to believe, or back, when it comes to these types of things, except that I don't think the people up top really have the countries best interest in mind. It makes no sense to have a huge debt problem that needs to be worked on, identify it, acknowledge it, and then draw up plans to double it.The only way out of this is to reduce spending and reduce taxes, let the people keep the money they already make, and what generally happens is, they spend it, and the wheels keep turning. I do know that I will most likely buy a house this year. Prices could/will still drop, but market timing is never the way to go. The answer to Nimues question has already been covered but I will say that I double what Guapo said about strong companies and the future, looking forward. You could just start putting funds in a vanilla stock index fund, but if you wanted to find value in individual stocks it's pretty easy right now. That being said, you will probably lose money in the short term, I have no solid predictions but if what companies are doing to prepare is any indication it's going to be a bit before any real turn around.

I'm not optimistic about where our country is going but I asked this because I really wish I had shopped the last recession. I might not be in that great a position now but I like to think that I'd have sold off the stuff before the economy went in the toilet. But that said, who would have thought that Washington Mutual would go down? Or any of the other biggies? In my play account I've gone for things that people will always need and always buy like food producers, drug producers discount stores, do it yourself box stores like Home Depot. And it's been doing well. So just thinking that maybe I should carry that strategy over to real life. Unfortunately my financial advisor has had a heart attack and so I don't really have anybody to bounce this stuff off of. But then I'm probably asking for free what you guys get money to provide so I won't continue here.

[strategy's_touch 0]

what was the sum spent informing the masses about the last stimulus program? I remember something in the low eight figures. I don't know that the FDR shenanigans can be adequately translated into terms we are familiar with. it's hard to put a dollar figure to the massively influential legislation he pushed through. I have heard the arguments about social security, but there's no getting around the fact that it's broken and basically unfixable for political reasons. makes me unhappy to think that obama is trying to be something like that. take every step necessary to prevent deflation. stop using tax money on ridiculous stuff outside of that goal until the ebb once again becomes flow.

[ajs510 122]

Ever heard of Enron? Ken Lay? Jeff Skilling?All of the people who worked for those companies are still out there. As we say in the medical field..... the cancer has metastasized.

Well, Ken Lay not so much, but I agree that we're pretty much screwed.

[hblask 1]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123215398370892313.htmlKey quote:

By 1939 Roosevelt's own Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, had realized that the New Deal economic policies had failed. "We have tried spending money," Morgenthau wrote in his diary. "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

Full article:When Barack Obama takes office on Tuesday, his first order of business will be a stimulus package estimated to be close to $1 trillion, including $300 million in tax cuts and the largest new government spending program for infrastructure since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Sages nod that replicating aspects of FDR's New Deal will help pull the country out of a recession. But the experience under FDR largely provides a cautionary tale.Mr. Obama's policy plans are driven by the conventional economic wisdom that the New Deal economic programs ended the Great Depression. Not so. In fact, thanks to New Deal policies and programs, the U.S. economy faltered for years longer than it might otherwise have done.President Roosevelt came to office much as Barack Obama will, shouldering an economic crisis that began under his predecessor. In 1933, Roosevelt's first year, unemployment hit nearly 25%, as people lost jobs and homes in towns across the country. Believing that government played a key role in restarting growth, FDR, within his first 100 days as president, created an alphabet soup of new agencies that mandated actions or controlled public spending and impacted private capital flow within the U.S. economy.The Opinion Journal WidgetDownload Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.At first, it seemed to be working. After four years of FDR's policies, joblessness declined to 14.3% -- still very high but heading in the right direction. Then things turned for worse again: By the fall of 1937, the U.S. entered a secondary depression and unemployment began to rise, reaching 19% in 1938.By 1939 Roosevelt's own Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, had realized that the New Deal economic policies had failed. "We have tried spending money," Morgenthau wrote in his diary. "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"The problem was that neither Roosevelt nor President Herbert Hoover before him grasped the essential nature of the crisis, which was not the stock-market crash, but global deflation. At the end of the roaring '20s, an overhang of intergovernmental war debt from World War I, coupled with falling commodity prices and a currency crisis, had started the decline. Weak credit structures and European banks hurt by wartime inflation worsened it. When the Austrian Creditanstalt Bank failed, it ignited a global banking crisis that slashed across the international financial system cutting down everything in its path. Deflation went into full howl.The same perils are now confronting President-elect Barack Obama, as the risk of deflation casts a long shadow over the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have been correctly focused on shoring up financial institutions to prevent a collapse of the financial system, and stave off a severe decline in the general price level. If that were to occur, the unspoken fear has been that the U.S. and global economy could go into a deflationary death spiral that would cause the collapse of the international financial system.As a short-term matter, the moves of the Fed and other central banks have been correct, but in the long term a return to growth will depend on dynamic job creation by American business -- not the U.S. government. Under a two-year plan designed to create three million to four million jobs, Mr. Obama's plan would have the federal government begin distributing funds for public-works projects carried out by the states. With government already spending 20% of GDP, federal government, not private enterprise, will become the growth industry.The effect of these policies, like FDR's, will be to lengthen the pain.Early on, Roosevelt's economic thinking was that laissez-faire competition drove prices and wages down, resulting in unemployment, which in turn collapsed demand for goods and services. To remedy this, his administration passed laws such as the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) that encouraged business to collude and raise prices without fear of antitrust prosecution. The hope was that this would allow business to raise wages.By the time NIRA was found unconstitutional a few years later, the damage had already been done. For example, the Department of the Interior complained that over two years it had received 260 bids from different steel companies that were identical to the penny and 50% higher than foreign bids. The policy had put chains on every normal free-market instinct and price feedback mechanism needed to restore economic growth. Roosevelt himself rued the decision in the late 1930s as a secondary depression was gripping the economy. "The disappearance of price competition," he said, "is one of the primary causes of the difficulties."In addition to New Deal spending programs, a series of new taxes were introduced that crushed the innovation, risk taking, and growth plans of entrepreneurs, corporations and investors. From 1930 to 1940, the top marginal income-tax rate rose to 79% from 25% while the corporate income-tax rate doubled to 24% from 12%. In addition, Roosevelt tacked on an excess profits tax and undistributed profits tax. He imposed an excise tax on dividends. Even the new Social Security payroll tax added 2%.

[akoff 0]

In addition to New Deal spending programs, a series of new taxes were introduced that crushed the innovation, risk taking, and growth plans of entrepreneurs, corporations and investors. From 1930 to 1940, the top marginal income-tax rate rose to 79% from 25% while the corporate income-tax rate doubled to 24% from 12%. In addition, Roosevelt tacked on an excess profits tax and undistributed profits tax. He imposed an excise tax on dividends. Even the new Social Security payroll tax added 2%.

I guess this would be why my grandfather hates the man. I kind of thought he was just a grumpy old man...well maybe he is but still correct on this one.He isn't to fond of our new "colored" president...LOL love old men. The can say and do just about anything. If i live to be 94 whoohoo who knows what will come out of my mouth!!

[hblask 1]

LOL love old men. The can say and do just about anything. If i live to be 94 whoohoo who knows what will come out of my mouth!!

It appears that one of the big advantages of being that age is that you can say whatever rude thing you want about young women's bodies right to their face and they will think it's cute. You can even slap some ass once in a while and get away with it.Not that there's anything you can do about it at that age, but at least you get the consolation prize.

[strategy 4]

I spoke to an old (democrat) man pre-election and he informed me that he was voting for obama with his shotgun. eesh.

[hblask 1]

http://www.bubblebox.com/play/skill/1251.htmThe Coming "Stimulus" BoondoggleThe stimulus plan currently being debated in Congress and amended by the President is no longer a matter of if, but when and in what form. An adoring media would have you believe this plan is the be-all save-all when it comes to the United States economy, but this couldn't be further from the truth.First and foremost, the stated purpose of the stimulus plan is to "create or save 3 million jobs." In his inaugural address, President Obama said that "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works..." The stimulus plan may indeed succeed at creating or saving 3 million jobs, but at a cost of $333,333 per job, my question is not whether government "works," but whether the government is more efficient than the private market in the creation of productive jobs. Evidently such questions aren't the concern of our current leaders.The goal of any stimulus plan is to put money back in the hands of the companies and people that will spend it; thus the stimulus effectively admits that tax cuts work and private interests spend money more productively than government. Both sides recognize the importance of putting money in the hands of the people; the difference in execution, however, makes all the difference.The single biggest reason that the coming stimulus plan is not a tax cut is to unabashedly allow politicians to pay back their contributors and backers while allowing them to gloss over their past mistakes. For this reason, ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and Freddie/Fannie are sure to be recipients of disproportionately large sums of money. In addition, its a safe bet that card check will be tacked on as a kickback to the unions at the cost of the country.Another reason stimulus is being pursued instead of tax cuts is to allow for redistribution of wealth under a different name. In the last stimulus package, nearly 30% of recipients had no federal tax liability. These households received a rebate on taxes they did not pay. Expect more of the same in this coming stimulus plan, as Democrats have been discussing refunding payroll taxes of low income earners. Magically, this money will not come out of either social security or medicare funds but will make its way back into low income pockets.Lastly, a stimulus package affords politicians more power. Instead of letting the people decide how to spend more money, Washington gets to decide how to spend more money, pick winners and losers, distort the free market, and hit us all with the inefficiency tax required of all government activity. Let's be honest, isn't that just more fun?The coming stimulus package will be a monument to the ineptitude of our leadership and the people who selected them. I hope free market forces succeed in spite of "help" from Washington.

[hblask 1]

http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com/2009/01...mulus-plan.htmlI find it interesting that the Democrats are already out doing pre-emptive damage control over the stimulus plan. They are saying that this massive stimulus plan will offer "no quick fix for the economy." So apparently there is nothing "stimulating" about it. All the plan has to offer is "size". And in the end America is left unsatisfied and…sore.Biden said recently, "We're off and running, but it's going to get worse before it gets better…"The idea that we can spend a trillion dollars and have nothing immediate to show for it, well that's incomprehensible… unless you're a Democrat. They are very use to spending money and getting nothing in return, like the recent $350B that nobody seems to be able to track. Notice how that bit of information has slipped to "page 16". But those ornery devils keep asking for more money.But we are told by them, that The Era of Transparency is upon us. Here is my definition of ObamaNation's transparency: Transport us blindfolded, then throw us in the dark room for a "look-see".Folks we are witnessing a master magician performing sleight of hand. They say that there will be no more pork. Yes, the Messiah is in charge, so the system has been cleansed. Right, the bowel system.The system that is in place in Washington is bigger than any one man, and this includes the Messiah. So to think that the corruption, fraud, pork, waste, excess, and so on is gone would just make you an ignoramus. But note that there is no "Committee to Study Corruption, Fraud, Pork, Waste, Excess, and so on", now is there?And in fact, lobbyists are so bold as to state openly that there will be "workarounds" to the new system. And just like the changes in the tax law every year, the lobbyist are hard at work figuring out how to milk the maximum amount of our tax dollars from our pockets and into their clients' projects. Their clients? Our Congressmen by way of their campaign contributors.[...article continued at link...]

[hblask 1]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss:

[Balloon guy 158]

Well it appears that the advisors that were hand picked by the Obama administration have interesting ideas of where they money SHOULD NOT GO!to white males construction workers, or people with skills.Robert Reiiiiiiiiisssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[El Guapo 8]

Well it appears that the advisors that were hand picked by the Obama administration have interesting ideas of where they money SHOULD NOT GO!to white males construction workers, or people with skills.Robert Reiiiiiiiiisssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I had heard this already. It was so absurd I forgot about it. I do not see how any democrat can defend that.

[strategy 4]

Well it appears that the advisors that were hand picked by the Obama administration have interesting ideas of where they money SHOULD NOT GO!to white males construction workers, or people with skills.Robert Reiiiiiiiiisssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

he responded to this in his blog. his defense is also laid out here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200901230015?f=h_latestI'm all for honesty, but let's work on the word choice there, bob.

[akoff 0]

Well it appears that the advisors that were hand picked by the Obama administration have interesting ideas of where they money SHOULD NOT GO!to white males construction workers, or people with skills.Robert Reiiiiiiiiisssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

This sad...and scarey to think this man actually has the ear of the president! He shouldn't have the ear of a Burger King manager much less the leader of the free world.Democrats....sigh.

[Mercury69 3]

Is it a bad idea because the Dems proposed it or because it's a pissload of $$$? I mean, ****, what are they thinking? That's almost 3 years of money that could go towards perpetuating the Iraq war. Seems a shame to blow it on the homeland, rather than a foreign war.And, btw, many of you "analysts" of this economic bail out don't know shit about economics. All you are doing is running around saying "Sky is falling", etc. You have a different plan? Make a proposal or stop bitching. Fckn know-it-alls.

[akoff 0]

Is it a bad idea because the Dems proposed it or because it's a pissload of $$$? I mean, ****, what are they thinking? That's almost 3 years of money that could go towards perpetuating the Iraq war. Seems a shame to blow it on the homeland, rather than a foreign war.And, btw, many of you "analysts" of this economic bail out don't know shit about economics. All you are doing is running around saying "Sky is falling", etc. You have a different plan? Make a proposal or stop bitching. Fckn know-it-alls.

1. it is a bad idea for spending a piss load of money. The sheer size and scope means it iwill wasted to all new levels. The fact that Democrats are digging a hole deeper is not a suprise to anyone is it?2. my plan would be to lower taxes and have government stay out of the freakin way. The markets will correct. Things will get better. Printing money, paying interest for years to over spend on waste programs that won't kick in for severals years until things are already correcting....is just dumb.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

How exactly does this stimulate the economy? $335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILLWed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ETDemocrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.] "Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

How exactly does this stimulate the economy? $335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILLWed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ETDemocrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.] "Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.

As a person who wants to avoid getting STD's, I'm fine with this. But you're right, attacking < .1% of the bill really gets at the heart of the issue.Also, the money still goes to people who live in the United States. It still is paying for jobs of people who, for instance, do AIDS research or whatever. So it will still go toward stimulating the economy in that sense.

[akoff 0]

How exactly does this stimulate the economy? $335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILLWed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ETDemocrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.] "Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.

this will be just one of thousands of cases of this garbage....stimulate!! 353M LOL the best part is the jackass who added it may have been looking for 3.5 or 35M and it ends up being 335m LOLour government in motion!!! "CHANGE" I tell you we are going to have "CHANGE"

[Zealous Donkey 0]

As a person who wants to avoid getting STD's, I'm fine with this. But you're right, attacking < .1% of the bill really gets at the heart of the issue.Also, the money still goes to people who live in the United States. It still is paying for jobs of people who, for instance, do AIDS research or whatever. So it will still go toward stimulating the economy in that sense.

I would like not to get lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, mouth/ esophogus cancer, the common cold, pnemonia, Influenza, Diabetes, lupis, Alzheimers, asthma, emphisema, leukemia, arteriol sclerosis, MS, ALS, CP, hypertension, ect. ect. ect...But of course your right this is only a minor abberation of this stimulas bill and I'm sure most americans will agree with you that this does indeed stimulate the economy in a way consistant with how the democrats and president have presented it to the American people.PS My spell check would quit working when I have a post where I list several diseases. Im just running bad right now.